The recent attack on Abu Dhabi, carried out by drones equipped with explosives, signifies a dramatic shift in Iran's strategic offensive strategy. We have reached the apex of the overall drone strategy, on which our adversaries have been focused since Desert Storm in 1991. With drone technology sufficiently advanced to carry weapons and explosives, drones are now capable of deployment on land and sea throughout the world.
The last time the United States successfully employed a large mechanized, armored force was during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. We have gained relatively little knowledge since that campaign against Saddam Hussein. After that conflict, every nation learned an important lesson and our adversaries began to alter their strategies: Instead of engaging a military force's most powerful strengths on just any battlefield, a military instead should seek out its enemy's vulnerabilities and exploit them with weapons and tactics against which the adversary cannot defend itself.
It has become clear that the advanced capabilities of drones, the U.S. failure in Afghanistan, and our military and political disaster in Iraq are all examples of how our adversaries' tactics and strategies are evolving while the United States appears to remain stuck in the Cold War's post-World War II organization, purchases and methodologies. Our opponents have gained valuable experience from each battle; on the other hand, America has refused to confront the reasons that we seem to be incapable of winning wars - and, more importantly, why we lack the strategy and capacity to prevent wars in the first place.
This month's drone attack is a good example of this phenomenon. It seems unlikely at this juncture that the U.S. Navy has the capability to track drones, especially small ones flying at low altitude. Tracking drones across land or water would necessitate the presence of a U.S. unit on land or at sea. However, while certain commercial marine radars may be able to identify the drones, Navy ships are not yet equipped with small, high frequency "boat" radars, which may detect the drones.
Since 9/11, the Navy and the CIA apparently have overlooked capabilities - both our own and those of our adversaries - at the low end of the technological spectrum. This is one of the problems with the way we have developed our defense systems.
Consider the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen's Aden harbor. Three individuals in a small fiberglass boat launched a two-minute attack that sunk a $1 billion, state-of-the-art guided-missile warship and killed 17 soldiers. A billion-dollar asset was brought back to the United States repair port like a fish on a boat deck, lying on the back of a big barge. The repairs conducted on the boat took months to complete, and the amount of money expended for towing the barge out and back was likely unimaginably high. For weeks, images of one of our most advanced missile boats being destroyed by three jihadis in a single-engine fishing boat appeared in Middle Eastern newspapers.
If the United States cannot capably track drones, it is worth mentioning an ominous, yet completely feasible scenario: Bad actors could float up the Potomac River, stop for gas in Old Town Alexandria, and then, later, launch their drones on Washington in the pitch black of a moonless night, causing havoc in the United States. This is an unavoidable consequence of readily available drones. Someone can simply strap a five-pound high-explosive charge on a drone and have the potential to cause significant damage in our nation's capital. It would practically be a "name your target" affair. Law enforcement would search for hours to determine where and what caused the attack, yet it is possible that the watercraft would have traveled deep into the Chesapeake Bay, past Oregon Inlet, and into the Atlantic before sunrise.
In essence, we are unprepared because we have insufficient or nonexistent knowledge about the plans and intentions of our opponents. Before another terrible attack happens on U.S. soil, both our military and law enforcement must invest in technology and systems to track new and emerging threats. [b][b] I happen to agree with the author, it does not appear we're prepared to deal with this threat. Hopefully the Defense Dept has some genius's working on a way to block signals/detect these small weapons.[/b][/b]
Silence, nothing but crickets. Ya know, when drones first made their appearance, I stated this would eventually end up being weaponized. Caught some flack over that on this forum. Guess what, it happened.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-21-2022).]
[b][b] I happen to agree with the author, it does not appear we're prepared to deal with this threat. Hopefully the Defense Dept has some genius's working on a way to block signals/detect these small weapons.[/b][/b]
Rams
There are a few counter-drone systems out there. Gun nets, water jets, and even trained falcons. They're trained to pick up on the sound of twin / triple / quad fans and zero-in on it... except the hawk, I don't know how they train the hawks, but whatever.
... they flood the spectrum with heavy, heavy output that totally jams the drone so it loses GPS and goes into standby mode (which is either usually to hover, or a slow descent).
My personal opinion... we need to properly configure one of these, a C-RAM or a SeaWiz.
The crackheads around here use drones to scope out potential targets. They can park a ways away, and literally go window to window looking in houses while they sit in their car.
I've always thought that it shouldn't be too difficult to scan for the signals they send back to the operator and do something with that info. I've wondered about building an "attack" drone that would just take down another drone by homing in on the radio signal. Sadly, I'm not smart in that area.
Recently it's been reported in a number of news sources that the Mexican drug cartels are using civilian drones to both bomb rival cartels and civilian targets.
Well, same place you have been the last two decades. And if you'd care to research a bit, you'll find that I've said it before that drones have been, are and will continue to be a threat. The whole point is, countering these things doesn't appear to be a priority and it should be. The author of that article is correct.
I wouldn't give too much credit to the author of that article.
quote
I happen to agree with the author, it does not appear we're prepared to deal with this threat. Hopefully the Defense Dept has some genius's working on a way to block signals/detect these small weapons
quote
Three individuals in a small fiberglass boat launched a two-minute attack that sunk a $1 billion, state-of-the-art guided-missile warship and killed 17 soldiers.
The USS Cole was NOT sunk. The author doesn't have a friggin clue what he is talking about. Phalanx (what Todd called 'seawiz') can already shoot down small drones. 'Seawiz is an out of sequence designated acronym of Close in Weapons System. As early as the late '70s, Phalanx radar software on the Spruance Class destrpyer I was on had to be PREVENTED from acquiring (or filtering out) seagulls as threat targets
The land based version is called C-RAM. Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar
quote
On Monday, two small drones packed with explosives were shot down approaching Baghdad airport. An official speaking for the U.S.-led coalition forces told the Associated Press that a C-RAM defense system shot down the two “suicide drones” as they approached a base which houses U.S. military advisors.
On Tuesday, two more drones carried out an attack on the Ain al-Asad airbase to the west of Baghdad but were shot down before reaching it. It was not revealed how they were stopped, but a leaked video showed a drone being brought down by the same type of C-RAM system used in the Baghdad incident.
(I think there was an old thread about it here at PFF several years ago.)
Is it true? That, is beyond my paygrade. What IS known is that there are an unknown number of anti-missile batteries in close proximity to Washington DC. https://cryptome.org/eyebal...mx1-anti-missile.htm
(MSN btw, is NOT a very good news source)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-22-2022).]
“One of the local residents on the beach where we were flying from supplied us with the sausages – I think they were from Aldi. The woman cooked them up for us and we attached them with string.”
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-22-2022).]
“One of the local residents on the beach where we were flying from supplied us with the sausages – I think they were from Aldi. The woman cooked them up for us and we attached them with string.”
“One of the local residents on the beach where we were flying from supplied us with the sausages – I think they were from Aldi. The woman cooked them up for us and we attached them with string.”
I have come to despise The Guardian.
quote
An erosion of democratic norms. An escalating climate emergency. Corrosive racial inequality. A crackdown on the right to vote. Rampant pay inequality. America is in the fight of its life. You’ve read 57 articles in the last year, making you one of our top readers globally.
For 10 years, the Guardian US has brought an international lens with a focus on justice to its coverage of America. Globally, more than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support the Guardian financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.
Of 1.5 million readers, me reading 57 articles in 365 days makes me one of their top readers? What kind of math is that? Everyone else just read 1 or 2 articles?
Of 1.5 million readers, me reading 57 articles in 365 days makes me one of their top readers? What kind of math is that? Everyone else just read 1 or 2 articles?
Now you know the ONE that I read...and that was only because it was a "redirect" from another website.
