Still-Unidentified Flying Drones Harassed Multiple US Navy Destroyers in 2019 (thedrive.com)
- Reference: 0144880538
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/04/10/2335247/still-unidentified-flying-drones-harassed-multiple-us-navy-destroyers-in-2019
- Source link: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroyers-were-swarmed-by-mysterious-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights
> 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, [2]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 " [3]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."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~alaskana98
[2] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroyers-were-swarmed-by-mysterious-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights
[3] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40071/navys-top-officer-says-mysterious-drones-that-swarmed-destroyers-remain-unidentified
What donâ(TM)t they just shoot it down? (Score:5, Insightful)
And retrieve the drone.
Re: (Score:3)
Their rules of engagement probably don't cover this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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:3)
> Not the sort of environment where you open up with a Phalanx CIWS.
Or an Aegis RIM-66 Standard.
[1]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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Re:What don't they just shoot it down? (Score:1)
They should. And despite [1]this comment [slashdot.org] I'd think that the commander of any Navy vessel would have discretion to decide to shoot one of those drones down if he judged them to be a security breach and/or a direct danger to the ship. At the very least, as you say, shoot one down and retrieve it and have intelligence analyze it to try to determine it's origin.
I'd say that perhaps commanders have received secret orders to 'play dumb' about the drones because they're U.S. military, except if it were 'secret tests
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18653818&cid=61260216
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Directional EMP?
Don't think that would be legal (Score:2)
"100 miles from Los Angeles" probably means around [1]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 [2]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.
[1] https://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/18740.shtml
[2] http://www.scisland.org/schedules/safetyZoneUse/days/11.html
16 knots is not fast (Score:1)
For the land lubbers that's only 18 miles/hr (30 km/hr). Drone racers are typically travelling at 120 miles/hr (193 km/hr). And these would have been larger drones with extended range so could no doubt travel faster.
It's people playing with toys (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
It could be someone's experiments. After all what better to test against.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
If it's civilians or a civilian company and they get caught, it'll go very, very badly for them.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Obsolete (Score:3)
This is why the US ships of today are all obsolete against the China of tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is why the US ships of today are all obsolete against the China of tomorrow.
And vice versa.
Oh, brother (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Oh, brother (Score:4, Funny)
I know, right? They're obviously from Earth. Just not *this* Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not somebody else. Of course, it is of interest if constructional qualities of the drone do suggest its specific build.
What a fail report this is... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people using the term "woke" are rightwing nut jobs who object to something but have no valid reasons for objecting.
The U.S. Military operates close to and within the U.S. inside of a web of rules and law. Blasting drones out of the sky and risking an errant shell hitting something innocent is not what U.S. Military wants to start doing. Sooner or later they'll have a solution, but it won't be Rambo solution you wish to see. Stop watching TV. . . bad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Being surveyed. You can't allow deploying surveillance equipment within certain range from the classified unit, can you?
Re: What a fail report this is... (Score:2)
Capturing one would be great, so would tracing their origin. There should be a speed boat or sub or other that launched and presumably retrieved. The military might know more but can not say.
Re: (Score:2)
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:5, Insightful)
how civilians in Afghanistan feel.
Well I expect the navy will start taking these mor (Score:2)
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.
They better figure out counter strategies (Score:1)
...because drones keep getting cheaper and better. The problem will otherwise get worse.
One has to wonder... (Score:2)
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 te
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Questions nobody has asked (Score:1)
Why can't we see the photos?
There's likely to be numerous photos or video taken over many nights and likely to have a few illuminated pre ship blackout mode as well as night vision, and potentially radar cross references (even if they illustrate nothing).
If photos aren't being shown for security reasons this implies the drones are a domestic secret, why hide photos of enemy technology from the public that could be used to identify appearance of the tech elsewhere in future?
Also note there is no refe
Re: Questions nobody has asked (Score:2)
Good question. The photos and video at this link were supposedly taken by the US Navy around the same time frame but not necessarily at the same location. The authenticity on these are a bit murky but nonetheless is interesting: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQsmTKYpnoI&feature=youtu.be
Re: (Score:2)
The specific video link you provided has some reasonable non-alien explanation behind it though. A triangular aperture on the night-vision camera setup, possibly meant to improve focus, results in a triangular [1]bokeh [wikipedia.org] if the object is still out of focus.
The flashing frequency corresponds to the brighter 1.5 second anti-collision strobe and dimmer 1.25 second wingtip strobe of standard airplane navigation lights.
Full explanation: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g256IPFoqMg
failures (Score:1)
- They do not know whether the drowns are foreign or domestic, friend or foe
- They do not open fire
- They still claim a threat
- They do not change this policy for the future
- All the high tech aboard was unused and thus wasted
No Such Agency (Score:2)
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.
In other news (Score:1)
In other news, U.S. Navy now stocking up on shotguns.
Re: (Score:2)
yeh because shotguns really have a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [1]drones [popularmechanics.com]
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/how-to/a16756/how-to-shoot-down-a-drone/
Re: (Score:1)
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
You dont need armour if you are small enuff and fast enuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people use bird shot to shoot birds.
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to detect the incoming projectiles and perform extreme evasive maneuvers that would otherwise also drain battery more strenuously. There are probably better solutions but just using shotguns is decent at first and I don't necessary know of any immediate issue with it. I am not even sure if bird shot fired directly upward is really much of a threat to people under it, unlike other ammos which have more aerodynamics.
Bolas rounds entangle rotors (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking something more like 00 buckshot.
Re: (Score:2)
> You did notice the article said a drone was hovering over the helicopter landing pad. That sounds like shotgun range.
"Above" does not necessarily mean "near".
A geosynchronous satellite hovers over a single spot on the Earth's surface, but it would take quite a shotgun to bring it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Americans. This guy says we cannot shoot down satellites with shotguns... Lets prove him wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case you put the shotgun on another drone. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> 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.