Why are people so afraid of drones being used for terrorist attacks

File: b29-rc-big-website-735x413.jpg (48KB, 735x413px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 735x413px

This would be a bit excessive though

>>34340811
Because large scale RC models are exceedingly expensive and are difficult to fly.
Hex copters are not.

>>34340811
It doesn't have to cause a lot of damage to cause a lot of terror.

File: 1493359665257.jpg (68KB, 988x1024px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 988x1024px

>>34340818
>you will never carpet bomb the local Japanese culture festival with your fleet of miniature B-29s

>>34340811
>Why are people so afraid of drones being used for terrorist attacks in the future?
ISIS are already using modified commercial drones and they're actually pretty effective. It's not unfeasible that they'd use them for terror attacks in western cities. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

>>34340900
> exceedingly expensive
DIY makes things exponentially less expensive.

> difficult to fly
Mostly to do with normal RC planes having an exceedingly high power to weight ratio + absurd manoeuvrability making them extremely finicky/snappy.

When it's designed with smaller engines it's quite easy to fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpuhDhk8WrY

>Hex copters are not.
If you want to have a decent payload, hexcopters are more expensive.

4 lbs hexcopters are already over 1000 dollars. Batteries are no joke
RC planes of similar weight are much cheaper and can go faster/have more payload.


Besides the B-29 was mostly a joke, it isn't hard to DIY an airframe and look up a decent easy to build airfoil.

But maybe ISIS is too incompetent to use anything but store bought drones...

>>34340910
Then again, this guy is probably right.
If terror is the major goal the increased payload capacity of a plane is a rather minor issue.

Although a coordinated bombardment with styrofoam+petrol of some music festival should cause a tremendous amount of long term terror.

>>34340921
It's a sad world we live in pepe.

>>34340811
Fixed wing aircraft require a fair amount of space for takeoff, sure you can find a quiet back road or a park to use but it both increases your chances of being noticed, and reduces your choice of target location. Rotary wing craft naturally can launch from pretty near anywhere, so you'd have a lot more choices in target and launch locations.

>>34340925
The usage we're seeing in the middle east, most notably as you say by IS is great for getting accurate indirect fire on short-medium range targets when you lack sophisticated traditional arty/mortars or air support, and/or the target is masked from such fire by terrain, but it's pretty poor at inflicting significant casualties or damage (bar the one video I can recall where they manage to drop the round right through the top hatch of a BMP or something similar that was loaded with ammo). Most of the stuff they're using you're going to be lucky to get over a half dozen kills or seriously wounded dropping into a crowd, for a similar cost (or none at all given the relative ease to steal one) you could get far better effects in terms of a general terror attack with the sort of truck runs we've already seen being repeated.

Drones would work well for hitting politicians or showpiece cultural events themselves rather than just the people outside, but there's probably limited room for such attacks before security for large scale events starts to include blankiet jamming on RC control frequencies as standard.

>>34341012
>Fixed wing aircraft require a fair amount of space for takeoff
Which can be mitigated by catapulting the aircraft.

>Rotary wing craft launch locations
Yes.

But
>choices in target
The greater range of fixed wing aircraft should help flexibility a lot.

As long as the radio equipment is decent.

>>34340811
Quadcopters are easy to fly. Actual fixed wing aircraft are exponentially harder to fly and maneuver. The UAS platforms most militaries use are no less complicated than manned aircrafts and have checklists just as long. They need to be to have any sort of precision.

>>34340921
>Dressed in my authentic kimono custom made by gentle nippon
>Carrying cold steel katana and appreciating amazing culture and delicious food
>A bit winded from walking from the food court to the body pillow display I sit down and gesture to a friend to bring me another mt. dew
>In the distance a roar, a gargle
>Like if a long asleep beast was waking up
>A few dots in the sky, six or seven
>The roar grows in intensity, the shapes are bigger
>HOLY FUCK PLANES
>My autistic friend drops to a fetal position and starts imitating a raid siren
>His spastic noises merge with the screaming crowd and the now louder than life roaring
>Bunch of miniature B-29 open their bellies
>Loads of tabasco drop over the crowd
>Skin burns, eyes water, people coughing
>My quick instincts of respecting the bushido code make me dive over a young girl in cat tail and ears to protect her
>Hear her bones crunch under the weight of my bravery
>I'm passing out due to the pain in my eyes and nostrils
>Through the tears I see a young man in a military uniform walk over
>He'll recognise me as a fellow warrior and allow me to die with honor
>"American-san I see your bravery and while I don't agree with your means you have won this battle."
>He towers over me, he's gonna help me up
>He takes out his willy and takes a leak over me
>"Weaboo fag"
>At least the pee washes away the tobasco.

>>34340811
>What's currently stopping terrorists from using a B-29 RC model fitted with some high lift high aspect ratio wings and use it as a bomb carrier?

Because the terrorists don't have the level of autism needed to build, service and run a large scale RC fixed wing plane. It's a very technical hobby.

Also money, it's a very expensive hobby for most people with well paying jobs.

Where do you anons come from with these ridiculously half baked ideas? Is this something for you to do between watching anime and waiting for the hot pockets to finish?

File: queen_bee_500[1].jpg (45KB, 500x336px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x336px

>>34340811
>Why would drones be used when you could also use RC aircraft?
Drones are just RC aircraft with autopilot (although even then they've been calling RC planes drones since before WW2); the things you're thinking of are specifically called multirotors (or quadcopter / hexacopter / tricopter / etc).

>What's currently stopping terrorists from using a B-29 RC model fitted with some high lift high aspect ratio wings and use it as a bomb carrier?
Nothing, and they're already doing that in Syria, etc. Fixed wing drones just aren't great for bombing though unless they're 'suicide' drones (also known as loitering munitions).
If you intend to reuse the aircraft, you have to try and work out a bomb's dropped trajectory based on aircraft vector, bomb weight and drag, cross-winds, etc which is difficult to work out and unreliable, or you have to have guided bombs, which is too expensive for your average terrorist or insurgent if they're meant to drop many of them (because each bomb has a drone's worth of electronics).
Multirotors are being used as bombers / grenade droppers because all ISIS has to do is set the camera to point 90 degrees down, move the drone around so that the target is in the middle of their screen and then drop the grenade, which if the wind is minimal, falls right on target.

>>34341153
>Hear her bones crunch under the weight of my bravery

I'm absolutely in shambles.

>>34341120
>The greater range of fixed wing aircraft should help flexibility a lot.
Flight range would probably be irrelevant in most if not all notional attacks using either type of craft, you're going to be looking at losing line of sight between operator and aircraft far sooner than you run out of batteries. If it can fly for 2 or 3 minutes that should be more than enough to make a short flight and either drop a payload or kamikaze into the target.

Sure if a group of /k/ommandos were planning this attack we could be talking about flight plans controlled from a decent rooftop designed to give maximum coverage over a huge potential urban target area, with a considerable distance between launch and target areas, but since the primary threat likely comes from durkas I wouldn't bother thinking about anything more complex than flying 1-2 blocks at most between takeoff and target.

>>34341218
> it's a very expensive hobby for most people with well paying jobs
Because those people also spend a lot more than needed.

Between a multi rotor with a specific payload, a plane with equal payload and similar range is cheaper.
>>34341302
> If it can fly for 2 or 3 minutes that should be more than enough to make a short flight and either drop a payload or kamikaze into the target.

http://www.instructables.com/id/High-LIft-Capacity-Payload-Carrying-RC-Plane/

Then this stupid thing from instructables would already be more than enough and 1.2kg payload is enough for kamikaze shit.

And you could probably get some chink from alibaba to mass produce most of those parts.
Probably from shitty carbon too (probably not as good as hobby grade balsa but it should work).

It's much cheaper than any quadcopter that can carry 1kg.


>durkas
So basically it comes down to them not being smart enough and only being able to do shit with storebought quadcopters

File: 1491409348479.png (328KB, 456x1023px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 456x1023px

>>34340921
Fugg
Why even live

>>34341367
>So basically it comes down to them not being smart enough and only being able to do shit with storebought quadcopters
Pretty much, the sort of people likely to do this shit are not also likely to be those willing to put the same degree of effort as even a very casual hobbyist into the background of it. If it needs much more than charging the batteries and clipping a few parts together after taking it out of the box it's probably too much effort already, a full hand-build as you linked is way too much work/complexity.

File: A Job Well Done.png (542KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 640x428px

>>34341184
>her bones crunch under the weight of my bravery

File: 1493868338436.jpg (136KB, 702x960px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 702x960px

>>34340811
Any useful links on this topic?

>>34341184
We need a continuation of the conflict with scaled down aircraft carrier with a dozen of miniature zeros ready to revenge bomb Pearl Harbor.

>>34341367
yes, but with a fixed wing, they'd have to account for ballistic arc of dropped munitions.
since that's kind of a bitch, it's far, far easier to deal with the drawbacks of a drone to have the ability to either drop shit straight down and not worry about it, or just kamikaze the fucking thing.

also, a drone will generally be smaller, which is beneficial for urban environments, or if you're really an asshole, getting it through doors/windows.

>>34341680
Damn

>>34341680
in theory, would it be possible for them to fuck up that abrams if they dropped it right over the TCs hatch?
I know the roof armor is resistant to cluster bombs but I don't see why you couldn't at least try for a HEP effect with this.

>>34341626
>or just kamikaze the fucking thing.
Just like you can with a fixed wing

> getting it through doors/windows

Does that even happen?

>>34341762
>you couldn't at least try for a HEP effect with this

>Time/effort/understanding

They only started cobbling these drones together in a last ditch, desperate effort. I highly doubt they could affect the Abrams.

File: 1486634834953.png (45KB, 358x338px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 358x338px

>>34340811
Isis literally has videos of where they drop grenades and munitions on our forces with drones.

Bunch of goat fuckers that need to die but god damn if every video they make isnt 60fps and 4k

File: UMBRELLA3-M.jpg (58KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x414px

>>34341762
You see how that thing wobbles as it drops? They'd have to be pretty lucky to hit the hatch. And if it becomes a thing, it wouldn't be too difficult to add a chicken wire canopy over the cupola to bounce projectiles off.

File: tumblr_oq0o0qJaUy1rji3x6o1_1280.jpg (13KB, 140x185px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 140x185px

>>34341846
for sure, it would be a real pain in the dick to make that hit. but if they did, is the tank fucked? they don't even have to hurt the crew, if they can kill the optics that thing's toast.
>mfw they have to redesign the M1A2SEPV3 to include turret-top protection

>>34341867
>if they can kill the optics that thing's toast.

What all of the optics in one go? Not a chance, it's not BF4 anon. The drones are a dumb idea.