Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Transportation

Still-Unidentified Flying Drones Harassed Multiple US Navy Destroyers in 2019 (thedrive.com) 207

Posted by EditorDavid from the fighting-foos dept.
Slashdot reader alaskana98 shared this report from The Drive: In July of 2019, a truly bizarre series of events unfolded around California's Channel Islands. Over a number of days, groups of unidentified aircraft, which the U.S. Navy simply refers to as 'drones' or 'UAVs,' pursued that service's vessels, prompting a high-level investigation. During the evening encounters, as many as six aircraft were reported swarming around the ships at once.

The drones were described as flying for prolonged periods in low-visibility conditions, and performing brazen maneuvers over the Navy warships near a sensitive military training range less than 100 miles off Los Angeles. The ensuing investigation included elements of the Navy, Coast Guard, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
One drone on the first night even "managed to match the destroyer's speed with the craft moving at 16 knots in order to maintain a hovering position over the ship's helicopter landing pad... By this point, the encounter had lasted over 90 minutes — significantly longer than what commercially available drones can typically sustain... If the drones were not operated by the American military, these incidents represent a highly significant security breach."

In a follow-up, they report that America's chief of naval operations was asked Monday if the Navy had positively identified any of the aircraft involved, and responded "No, we have not. I am aware of those sightings and as it's been reported there have been other sightings by aviators in the air and by other ships not only of the United States, but other nations — and of course other elements within the U.S. joint force."

The chief of naval operations was also asked if there was any suspicion that the drones were "extraterrestrial." He replied, "No, I can't speak to that — I have no indications at all of that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Still-Unidentified Flying Drones Harassed Multiple US Navy Destroyers in 2019 More

Still-Unidentified Flying Drones Harassed Multiple US Navy Destroyers in 2019

Comments Filter:
  • In other news, U.S. Navy now stocking up on shotguns.
    • yeh because shotguns really have a chance.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BenBoy ( 615230 )
        I can't see why you'd think that idea implausible. Drones can't hoist much armor and still spend a lot of time in the air Physics is why bird bones are hollow, and why birdshot works, both on birds and drones [popularmechanics.com]

      • yeh because shotguns really have a chance.

        They do, with bird shot or a special round the US military developed that is sort of like a bolas and entangles the drone's rotors.

        • If you knew even a little bit about shotguns, you'd know the maximum range of a 12 gauge would be 70-80 yards.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            If you knew even a little bit about shotguns, you'd know the maximum range of a 12 gauge would be 70-80 yards.

            I'd say your estimate is a bit too long, more like 50 yards with birdshot. You did notice the article said a drone was hovering over the helicopter landing pad. That sounds like shotgun range.

          • Well, in that case you put the shotgun on another drone. ;)
            • yeh brilliant, that will be stable and given the bullet to dead taliban rate in afghan of 250k bullets that sounds effective.

              • the bullet to dead taliban rate in afghan of 250k bullets

                That's a fair few warning shots, to be sure.

                But I think you posted your comment in the wrong thread. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're discussing here.

    • Hah - it's funny you mention shooting things as one of the log entries states "Man Mark 87 Stations". This could be referring to the "Mark 87 Electro-Optical Director that is a component of the massive infrared and optical turret known as the Mk20 Electro-Optical Sighting System (EOSS) located above the bridge. This system was originally meant to help direct the ship's 5-inch gun, but also provides surveillance and tracking over long distances." I dunno, sounds like they were itching, at least at one point

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      In other news, U.S. Navy now stocking up on shotguns.

      Actually long barreled hunting shotguns are being evaluated by the military for anti-drone use.

      They are also looking at special ammo that will entangle rotors.

  • What donâ(TM)t they just shoot it down? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keto kris ( 5763762 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @12:54AM (#61260138)
    And retrieve the drone.
    • Their rules of engagement probably don't cover this situation.
      • If that is the case, those rules need to be changed quickly, but I would be surprised if the navy wasn't allowed to destroy unmanned objects that were approaching their ships. Even small drones could represent a serious hazard if they were properly armed. I would hope by now that the US armed forces had deployed technology to destroy single drones and drone swarms. I understand being hesitant to shoot down some idiot in a Cessna, but drones too small to be manned should be targets.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dow ( 7718 )

          Even if they do have the technology to easily target and destroy a drone, do you really want to demonstrate its capability or do you want its abilities kept secret? It is very useful for the enemy to know at what range their drones can be shot down, and at what range they can be targeted and detected. If they know this, they can also use it to build a better drone for using specifically against known anti-drone systems, and develop operational routines that keep their drones from being intercepted.

          • Even if they do have the technology to easily target and destroy a drone, do you really want to demonstrate its capability or do you want its abilities kept secret?

            Depending on the size of the drone, the technology you're talking about is called a SAM (Surface to Air Missile). We've been using them for longer than most of us have been alive.

            While it's a safe bet that the SAMs currently in use can fly faster and farther than Jane's say they can, if the drones were within 50km or so of the ship, shooting th

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      And retrieve the drone.

      They are near commercial traffic. They were asking nearby cruise liners and cargo ships if the drone originated from them. Not the sort of environment where you open up with a Phalanx CIWS. Maybe after they bring a few hunting shotguns aboard.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Archtech ( 159117 )

        Not the sort of environment where you open up with a Phalanx CIWS.

        Or an Aegis RIM-66 Standard.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Although maybe the US Navy is more respectful of civilian lives near the coast of California than it is in the Persian Gulf.

        • Re:What donâ(TM)t they just shoot it down? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @09:50AM (#61260786)

          Not the sort of environment where you open up with a Phalanx CIWS.

          Or an Aegis RIM-66 Standard.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Although maybe the US Navy is more respectful of civilian lives near the coast of California than it is in the Persian Gulf.

          Or maybe California isn't chanting "death to America" while attacking commercial shipping, having the Highway Patrol fire at the ship's helicopter, and flights out of LAX don't ignore 10 radio messages from the USN. Creating an environment where a tragic accident becomes more likely.

    • With what? A shotgun? It could be 1000ft away and a shotgun does nothing at that range. A sniper rifle? Good luck hitting a target that can move in three axis.

      • Directional EMP?

        • How about just HERF? You don't need a whole EMP to take down a drone. Just scramble its brains with that funky high-frequency radio noise shit that turns poorly designed electronics into unwitting multi-band radio receivers. Man-portability isn't practical, but we're talking about ships. How do they not have some kind of drone defense yet?

          Or then there's always just jamming likely frequencies [droneshield.com], although that is even less likely to work on a high quality drone

        • Imaginary weapon.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        With what? A shotgun? It could be 1000ft away and a shotgun does nothing at that range.

        The article mentions hovering over the helicopter deck. That suggests a shotgun's effective range.

      • > With what? A shotgun? It could be 1000ft away and a shotgun does nothing at that range. A sniper rifle? Good luck hitting a target that can move in three axis.

        Navy ships (some) have anti-aircraft railgun arrays on board. They can fire a grid of projectiles at a target with computerized targeting and rapid repeating.

        It's something like a a 40x40 grid of 1cm-round projectiles, but don't quote me on the numbers. If the drones are getting as close as the helipad, they're in range. Biggest risk is the dro

    • "100 miles from Los Angeles" probably means around San Clemente Island [noaa.gov]. It's about 70 miles from Los Angeles and the Navy regularly conducts operations and live fire exercises around and behind it. The waters in the cordoned off area to the west of the island (out towards Tanner Bank) would be about 100 miles from Los Angeles. They announce closures [scisland.org] on their website, and chase off civilian boats which get too close. It's not to keep thing secret, but to avoid accidentally hitting them with a live round.

    • > What donÃ(TM)t they just } ©®} Ã;;Ã} ®©

      There. Fixed that for you.

  • It's people playing with toys (Score:4, Funny)

    by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @12:55AM (#61260144)

    Hey Bill, we just got some of those new barely-legal-for-civilian-use drones at work and we're allowed to play with them until they need them in two weeks. What do you think we should do with them?

    OK, we've been hovering over sunbathing chicks all afternoon and the power is only down 20%, what else could we do?

    Hand me another beer and the controls...

    • It could be someone's experiments. After all what better to test against.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edis ( 266347 )

        If you purposefully hover steady over the armed forces, it is very purposeful experiment. Shooting down seems as a first resort, except when it is over the water, would you certainly get it.

    • I know its par for the course that nobody reads the story. The drones stayed in flight much longer than any commercial drones are capable of.

      • Okay, but what if those drones were refitted with hydrogen fuel cells [ballard.com]?

        And what does "commercial" mean anyway? Something I can buy off a shelf, or something I can order off the internets?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        90 minutes isn't special. You can find any number of videos on YouTube with random hobbyists doing flights much longer than that.

  • Obsolete (Score:3)

    by AlexHilbertRyan ( 7255798 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @01:04AM (#61260158)
    This is why the US ships of today are all obsolete against the China of tomorrow.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by edis ( 266347 )

      This is why the US ships of today are all obsolete against the China of tomorrow.

      And vice versa.

  • "The chief of naval operations was also asked if there was any suspicion that the drones were "extraterrestrial."

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have found the idiot in the room.

  • There are so many unanswered questions.

    If a drone matches speed with a vessel then it is not moving... why wasn't it captured / shot / had electronic counter measures fired at it / checked for communications emissions.

    It isn't an act of war to collect a drone hovering over your vessel.

    The best question a journo can come up with - is it extraterrestrial? If you can't do anything else, become a journo.

    • It is called rules of engagement, and I expect the rules of engagement do not cover this situation. The military can't just start shooting their weapons because they feel like it. The US is not at war with anyone, so what is their justification for firing at another vessel?

      • > The US is not at war with anyone,

        Wow. Really? Since when?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by paiute ( 550198 )

          > The US is not at war with anyone,

          Wow. Really? Since when?

          Since 1945

        • The US is engaged in a variety of regional conflicts at this time. Mostly centered around the middle east and Afghanistan. Have there been any reports of a country declaring war against the US? or reports that people should be on the look out against ISIS cells in the US?

    • What counter measures do you suggest? Can the military jam GPS signals while in commercial space? I'm pretty sure whoever designs these drones has already thought of that. What the hell is "electronic counter measure fired at it" even mean? You think EMP weapons are real? The drone could be following the ship but still moving in random patterns, they have three axis control...

  • Now they know (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @01:57AM (#61260214)

    how civilians in Afghanistan feel.

  • Once one of these drones lands on one of their ships and blows itself up. The russians have been using disposable drones in their war with the ukrainians to good effect: fly drones into ammo dumps and other static targets. Attacking a navy ship is just a step up. I expect you want to try to hit the bridge or any of the comms gear for greatest effect.

    • The russians have been using disposable drones in their war with the ukrainians to good effect

      The USA has been using disposable drones "to good effect" since the 1960s [wikipedia.org].

      • Let me clarify that slightly: A tomahawk missile costs almost 2 million dollars a shot (1.87 million).

        The Russian Orlan-10 costs a tenth that, has a 16 hour endurance and has a variety of other tricks, like laser designation for artillery.

        And while it has been confirmed that the russians used drones to destroy ukrainian ammo dumps with thermite grenades, it isn't known what kind of drone that was. It was noted that the ammo dump was 60 miles behind the front lines, so either the drone was launched by

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Yes. Technology has improved to the point where it's fairly easy to improvise cheap cruise missiles that might be effective against certain soft targets.

          State armed forces have pretty much always been vulnerable to cheap and dangerous guerrilla tactics. That's why guerrillas use them.

  • ...because drones keep getting cheaper and better. The problem will otherwise get worse.

  • One has to wonder... (Score:3)

    by alaskana98 ( 1509139 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @03:10AM (#61260302)
    My personal take on all this? These drones are possible emerging tech being tested by the US Military *on* the US Military - I mean, what better way to test your tech than to test it on the best military force in the world. Now, in the article they did tackle this notion to some degree - that these drones were also some component of the US military - but it was shown that no drone testing by known entities was taking place in the affected areas at that time. But then again, if this was some super covert testing by some US entity, it most likely would not have been reported to branches such as the Navy, etc. Food for thought.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Maybe you could get your personal take checked. The military is unlikely to buzz their own ship and then issue a press release complaining about it.

      • Maybe you could get your personal take checked. The military is unlikely to buzz their own ship and then issue a press release complaining about it.

        Unless the goal is to advertise that we now have stealth drones that can trivially come out of nowhere, surround ships, and threaten them autonomously, and they're good enough that they work on our ships so what chance does anyone else have? There are lies, damned lies, and press releases.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )

          Maybe you could get your personal take checked. The military is unlikely to buzz their own ship and then issue a press release complaining about it.

          Unless the goal is to advertise that we now have stealth drones that can trivially come out of nowhere, surround ships, and threaten them autonomously, and they're good enough that they work on our ships so what chance does anyone else have? There are lies, damned lies, and press releases.

          We would just come out and say it in that case. You act like we've never shown off a weapons system before.

    • "...I mean, what better way to test your tech than to test it on the best military force in the world."

      I mean, what better way to test your tech than to test it on the BIGGEST military force in the world.

      Fixed that for you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        "...I mean, what better way to test your tech than to test it on the best military force in the world."

        I mean, what better way to test your tech than to test it on the BIGGEST military force in the world.

        Fixed that for you.

        That's not true. The US doesn't have the biggest military by number of soldiers, number of planes or number of ships. It does have the most expensive military. And it has the ability to consistently achieve 5:1 or 10:1 kill ratios, which means if you go one on one with them you will lose badly. All time the US air force has a 12:1 kill ratio. Means for every US plane that is shot down, there are 12 enemy planes that are shot down. Similar ratios for ground forces, tank combat and naval encounters. Th

      • You didn't fix shit. The US has both the biggest and the best by far. It's not even a contest. It would be pretty fucking shameful and weird if we didn't considering the obscene amounts of money we spend on it.
  • Obviously, those were secret drones, so they are not allowed to say anything useful about it. It doesn't mean that people with clearance don't know either. The ship captain obviously knew, else the machines would have been shot down. Simple as that.
  • The military needs a drone of their own that is fast and they can send up to ensnare or tangle other drones in midair.
  • Sounds like a great time to turn the CIWS loose on them for, you know, um, calibration.
  • If the drone was painted black it would have been shot down in seconds.
  • The two likeliest explanations are aliens or sailers with drones... which seems the favourite?

  • I'm certain it's SPAWAR, an R&D unit of US Nav (Score:3)

    by BobC ( 101861 ) on Sunday April 11, 2021 @03:23PM (#61261386)

    Oh, this sounds so familiar.

    SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, recently renamed to NAVWARSYSCOM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Information_Warfare_Systems_Command) are pioneering developers of autonomous vehicles and systems, and have been for several decades. They are, in fact, pioneers of many key technologies, techniques and components, including things like ROS (the Robot Operating System). Their work spans many domains, including land, sea, air, space, communications, data analysis and more.

    They essentially are a one-stop shop in this area, though they also participate in a large number of collaborations. I have been involved in a couple such collaborations.

    Why would you want a swarm of unarmed drones, and how would you test it?

    One possible reason (unrelated to any work I've done): Many cruise missiles use radar and optical cameras to identify and target their prey. The processing systems need a library of accurate target models. Drones can take scans and video that may be post-processed using photogrammetry to generate highly detailed 3D models. These models can be so accurate as to enable a surprising amount of reverse-engineering.

    Beyond this, it is also important to understand how well a particular target can maneuver to avoid incoming cruise missiles, another job drones can do by closely monitoring ships during warfare training and exercises.

    What could make my hypothesis likely? The simple fact that the presence of the drones did not trigger the launch of Navy helicopters or fighters to investigate. I am almost certain that, at most, only the ship's Commanding Officer knew of the drones. Independent of which, and such requests were likely blocked to let the drones do their thing, and see what the ship would do in response.

    So, just another fun day for SPAWAR. Uh, I mean "NAVWARSYSCOM".

    Why should you believe me? I'm also a US Navy veteran, and I served aboard ships that were involved in testing new technologies including satellite communications, radar and self-defense systems, both aboard the ship I was on, and as a ship monitoring such exercises. Even when such an exercise was not at all hidden, the folks conducting it often inserted unexpected and unplanned activities.

    That's what this whole thing feels like.

  • I like how Google decided to show me a huge ad for a quasi-military drone in this article:

    payloads up to 4 kg (9 lb) in weight. The aircraft has customized payload integration with quickly swappable nose concept. Penguin C Mk2 has the endurance of up to 25 hours and the radio link range of 120+ km. The aircraft MTOW is 24.9 kg (54.9 lb) in Group 2 configuration and 28 kg (61.7 lb) in Group 3 configuration.

    For military grade equipment see Penguin C Mk2 MIL

    https://uavfactory.com/en/peng... [uavfactory.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Close