Advice for anti-R/C aircraft ammo [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Advice for anti-R/C aircraft ammo


Daniel Ramsey
02-24-2003, 16:12
I need some advice for off the shelf or load your own ammo for taking out small R/C model aircraft that should be at 1000'AGL or less, have wingspan under 15' usually 6-10' of fabric or foam core wings. Also any ideas about making directional microwave jammers say with a small parabolic dish and a microwave oven transmitter, heck if it CAN work its an idea just in case we get a bunch of terrorists launching giant scale model R/C aircraft as flying bio buzz bombs.

I honestly do not think these terrorists will be able to smuggle in the large UAV's we are seeing on the news, more along something like this:



http://www.desertaircraft.com/toc00/leroux1.jpg

I was wondering also if I were to put up a couple hundred hydrogen filled balloons around my property at various heights might cause a colllsion of these UAV's or maybe get just some free roasted raven?;f

Maybe using an old sattellite dish with a dozen hi-voltage coils arcing all at once would be an effective radio jammer? it would at the very east disrupt my nosy neighbors TV:cool:

Hank Hill
02-24-2003, 23:01
Use a 12 gage magnum load with 7 1/2 shot. You should be able to nail them.

mhambi
02-24-2003, 23:10
pneumatic potato gun.

Navy joe
02-24-2003, 23:55
.308 Win with Nosler Ballistic tips. Shoot anyone holding something with a large antenna. :D

Hank Hill
02-25-2003, 00:04
Another thought, how about an EMP?

02-25-2003, 00:10
Everybody has heard of homing pigeons right?

Well, how about kamikaze pigeons, with giga-watt lasers mounted on their heads? Better yet, only ill tempered pigeons need apply.

The Navy does it with dolphins (so say the liberals and PETA).

Backcountry

02-25-2003, 06:01
does Wasilla, Alaska expect a wave of these things, or just some wild singles ? ;Q

02-25-2003, 08:49
Sharks with frikkin' laser beams.

WhiskeyMike1032
02-25-2003, 10:53
Way too high for a shotgun...rifles won't bring ‘em down unless you hit something vital. Plus, I don't know about you, but I'm not too good at hit'n something the size of a baseball (aprox. size of engine or receiver) that's moving 200 mph at 700 feet straight up. You could go with a RF jammer of some type. The receiver is set to steer the thing into the ground if the radio control unit goes out. Just don't jam it's signal while it's pointed at your house. The other option is to build your own kamikaze RC plane. Set her up with a spark plug in the fuel cell and a wire one of the accessory switches on your radio to detonate it. Get yourself within a few feet of the enemy and set that sucker off. Half a cup of nitro fuel will make a big boom if ya know what I mean.

;) WM

David_G17
02-25-2003, 12:35
how about just calling up 911, and waiting for the F-16?

think about it:
shooting it down with rifle/shotgun = pretty hard to do.
shooting it down with well trained fighter pilot in one of the best fighter jets in the world = almost too easy.

Hank Hill
02-25-2003, 17:51
Originally posted by David_G17
how about just calling up 911, and waiting for the F-16?

think about it:
shooting it down with rifle/shotgun = pretty hard to do.
shooting it down with well trained fighter pilot in one of the best fighter jets in the world = almost too easy. First of all, I thought he was talking about large R/C aircraft that were flying substantially BELOW 1,000 feet. Go low enough and a shotgun will take it out.

As for the F-16, it wouldn't work. The pilot couldn't use missiles, as they would never aquire the target, much less hold lock through the intercept. As for using guns, the R/C aircraft would be flying well below the stall speed of an F-16. The fighter pilot would be forced to use guns on a very small target that would be past him in an instant. The collateral damage from the F-16's guns would be substantial.

If you are really worried about this, and it is an aircraft using off the shelf R/C gear, then the easiest thing to do is build a jammer for the limited number of frequencies available for that equipment.

This idea, however, is not as crazy as it sounds. I saw the following story on http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities

Monday, February 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month.

"UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said.

In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq's newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits, and the test was left out of Iraq's arms declaration.

Officials tell Fox that there is solid intelligence that Iraq has tested many different types of sprayers on these drones to disperse chemical and biological weapons.

President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said.

Even though it has been mentioned a few times by administration officials, the issue of UAVs and their capabilities has been largely overlooked.

But some experts say that even if the UAVs do get assembled for use in the United States, the chances that they could cause widespread damage are low.

"These technologies are not terribly well proven," F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force Secretary, told Fox News, referring to vehicles that can be used to disperse harmful agents.

Peters said in order to go undetected in the air, the UAVs would have to be small -- and therefore would not be able to carry too much of a harmful substance, and they would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties.

But because many large metropolitan areas such as Washington have air traffic watchers keeping an eye out for any nearby planes that have not filed a flight plan, the UAVs likely would not succeed in a large-city attack.

It's the smaller cities and towns that would be more vulnerable.
"It's not clear air traffic would actually see this aircraft," Peters said, adding that if the vehicles flew low enough to evade radar detection, "they would be basically invisible."

As to what the government could do to protect Americans from any threat UAVs may pose, Peters said: "I don't think there's much to be done besides the steps we're already taking to deal with chemical and biological threats."

But some experts say the threat is very real and should be taken seriously.

"This isn't brain surgery," Air National Guard Chief Paul Weaver told Fox News in reference to how easy it would be to assemble a UAV. "The key is getting it into the country."

Not too long after Sept. 11, there was a report made public about Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network being trained to conduct air raids through air vehicles outfitted with spray tanks. Some terror network members had looked into the possibility of training on the aerial UAVs. This was the catalyst for investigations into U.S. flight schools.

"If they could organize something like Sept. 11," Weaver said, "this would be very doable."

larry_minn
02-25-2003, 23:17
Watch FIrestorm in the desert by Dillion. It is for sale in the Blue Press They are using automatic weapons with tracers TRYING to shoot down RC type aircraft with little effect.
We are talking a large group with mounted quad .50 mini guns and shoulder fired as well as true assult pistols.