It’s not like these drones would uncover much more than can already be seen by satellites. Probably much more valuable letting them be, studying their physical characteristics, flight behavior, and RF use. Also easier to track down the source - they’ve got to land at some point.
Military radar is set up to track big things. Small things close to the ground get lost in the clutter. The only way to track these drones is to follow them with other drones. And they're small enough and cheap enough to be disposable, so they don't need to return to a handler.
It's unwise to underestimate how dangerous these things are. One small explosive drone in the air intake of a B-2 or an F-35 is enough to cripple, perhaps destroy the plane.
They clearly aren’t attacking anything (with explosives or otherwise); there is clearly no immediate danger to personnel or equipment. Rather than irrationally panicking, the wise move is to seize the opportunity to observe, collect data, and learn. There are far more ways to do so than using conventional radar or other drones. If the intent of the operator(s) is actually malicious, it was pretty unwise to essentially show your cards like this.
> Rather than irrationally panicking, the wise move is to seize the opportunity to observe, collect data, and learn
Unwanted incursions into your military bases should prompt fear. That fear, in turn, should drive a response that includes better deterrence, detection and neutralisation.
> Rather than irrationally panicking, the wise move is to seize the opportunity to observe, collect data, and learn
Unless you does this purely passively, you'll also be giving up information on your detection methods.
> If the intent of the operator(s) is actually malicious, it was pretty unwise to essentially show your cards like this
Look at the radar cross section of modern military aircraft. An F35 returns pretty much the same energy as a small commercial drone. These are trackable.
These US bases should be closed, I don't care they are for mutual training between both countries or other such excuses. The UK should be as hostile to US made weapons and NATO in general as much as the French.
14 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] threadIt's unwise to underestimate how dangerous these things are. One small explosive drone in the air intake of a B-2 or an F-35 is enough to cripple, perhaps destroy the plane.
Unwanted incursions into your military bases should prompt fear. That fear, in turn, should drive a response that includes better deterrence, detection and neutralisation.
> Rather than irrationally panicking, the wise move is to seize the opportunity to observe, collect data, and learn
Unless you does this purely passively, you'll also be giving up information on your detection methods.
> If the intent of the operator(s) is actually malicious, it was pretty unwise to essentially show your cards like this
It's telling them to stop.
No, it shouldn’t. Military should respond based on doctrine, thought, and analysis not fear.
Bases are designed to obscure things from radar that may be visible from ground level deep within the base.