7 ms·
Harassment of Navy Destroyers by Drone Swarms Off CA Went on for Weeks
- zepto 5y agoSeems pretty likely that these drones are operated by another branch of the US armed forces.
- TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
- erik_landerholm 5y agoBased on what?
- nyokodo 5y ago> Based on what? Not the OP, but it’s far easier for a US military or civilian agency to be conducting drone tests in the vicinity of the US than anyone else. Plus the US govt has a history of warning about adversaries wielding covert weapons while they are already using them, e.g. Stuxnet was already destroying Iranian centrifuges while Obama was warning of cyber warfare.
- zepto 5y agoThese reasons, plus there is little to be gained by an adversary revealing capabilities so closely. One possibility is that this is intended to reveal to the Chinese that the US has drones capable of intercepting naval vessels, in order to dampen adventurism in the South China Sea. By doing it this way, they avoid the risk of a drone being captured and the capability being properly evaluated. This would create maximum uncertainty. It also reduces the justification for posturing and overt escalation.
- mwattsun 5y agoMy first reaction was the it was DOD skunks works running penetration testing in the field, probably to see how a ship and it's crew responds to an unusual surprise attack of this kind. Better to do it yourself rather than an adversary. The worst that could happen is some drones get destroyed. I wonder how the crew and the ship's tech handled it?
- Maursault 5y agoYour notion is so utterly ridiculous I don't know where to begin. How can anyone be so naive? What is quite obvious beyond all doubt is that it is the very same branch and sections operating these swarms right from the very ships that are allegedly being harassed. They've gotten so good at defeating drone swarms that they want the enemy to believe that they are confounded, and in the language of counter-intelligence, they are daring anyone to bring it on. You are sleeping. You do not want to believe. But do not doubt that the US Navy has some serious game, far beyond The Art of War and facile feints within feints.
- perl4ever 5y ago>They've gotten so good at defeating drone swarms that they want the enemy to believe that they are confounded, and in the language of counter-intelligence, they are daring anyone to bring it on In that case, no need for actual drones, just plant the stories for disinformation purposes. I'd like to see someone prove any of it is real.
- zepto 5y agoYes, it could also be an operation by another unit within the navy.
- pleb_nz 5y agoI can't tell if this is meant in jest....
- aaron695 5y ago
- jaytaylor 5y agoYesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610069 (11 points, 6 comments)
- rasz 5y ago>A briefing slide depicts several pictures of a "seemingly triangular" shape recorded by the Russell ah, the famous triangular ufo aka NVD aperture artefact exposing extreme incompetence in the navy
- iszomer 5y agoBokeh effect as described and tested by Mick West, right?
- nyokodo 5y ago> exposing extreme incompetence in the navy When did the navy make a big deal about the shape? I thought it was Jeremy Corbell.
- iszomer 5y agoI'm sure many people fell for the optical illusion being sensationalized as well. IIRC, the Breaking Points podcast -bought- into the narrative trickery when they interviewed him.
- iJohnDoe 5y agoPretty amazing if you think about. The operators would have to be pretty brazen to operate along the Southern California coast for any length of time, let alone follow Navy Destroyers. Do consumer drones still require line of sight? I don’t mean pre-programmed routes. Could operators sit in a car or house and operate the drones with zero concern of being caught?
- perl4ever 5y agoSeems like the only sensible way to set up a big attack. Spend an indefinite amount of time desensitizing the targets. I get downvoted every time I point this out, but this is why banning things makes sense, even if only the law abiding obey. If something is banned, and somebody is doing it anyway, you know they are a "bad guy" (by definition, not morally) which is really valuable.
- solidsnack9000 5y agoA good argument for universal curfew, &c. It's an approach that is hard to take far enough without taking it too far.
- perl4ever 5y agoI don't see the connection between something having utility for authorities and it having utility for you, me, or society. Are you able to consider the perspective of others who don't share your goals or values, temporarily and without giving up your own point of view?
- solidsnack9000 5y agoJust banning things to see who doesn't follow the ban and arrest them -- does that have utility for authorities or for you, me, and society?
- Rebelgecko 5y agoThe line of sight thing is an FAA regulatory requirement, I don't think it was ever a technical one. However if these guys are out past the Channel Islands it's definitely beyond the range of a consumer level drone.