Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[jagraphics]

Sorry to contradict you. There still exist such laser weapons, even if they are not in common use but they are working on it. The biggest problem seems to get enough energy to make a practicable distance for the laser burn and of course to make the weapon movible. The American airforce succeeded in trials to shoot a (flying) rocket which broke apart and exploded...

You didn't contradict me! You said:-
Sorry to contradict you. There still exist such laser weapons, even if they are not in common use but they are working on it. The biggest problem seems to get enough energy to make a practicable distance for the laser burn and of course to make the weapon movible. The American airforce succeeded in trials to shoot a (flying) rocket which broke apart and exploded...

1 They are "working in it" Yes it is nothing like ready. I have seen demonstations of Lazer weapons several times over the last few decades. They are like Nuclear Fusion always "just a couple of years away"....

2 This ""problem seems to get enough energy to make a practicable distance" says it does not have the range. Short range single shot is practicable. Long range multiple shot is still "just a couple of years away" Across an airfield is long range.

3 This "American airforce succeeded in trials to shoot a (flying) rocket" says on a military range with a large device of a known and predictable trajectory.

Try a SMALL target moving erratically and unpredictable over a populated area full of aircraft. Very differrent prospect.

Especially as one of the big problems around airports is idiots using low power lazer pointers on aircraft "for fun" these can blind pilots. Any lazer capable of hitting a drone to incapacitate it will be dangerous to pilots for many miles more. You you are going to empty all the aircraft fromthe stack and approach and air lance for 10-20 miles from the airfield?

This is why no one is sensibley suggesting using any form of military anti-aircraft firearms as most Airports in question are in populated civilian areas.

 

[sar104]

Sorry to contradict you. There still exist such laser weapons, even if they are not in common use but they are working on it. The biggest problem seems to get enough energy to make a practicable distance for the laser burn and of course to make the weapon mobile. The American airforce succeeded in trials to shoot a/some (flying) rocket/s which broke apart and exploded...

That's true, but you are now talking about prototype, proof-of-principle devices. One unit is currently in testing with the Navy and two more are on order for $75M each, but nothing has been manufactured and made available to civil authorities. And they would be extremely hazardous to use in busy airspace.

 

[jagraphics]

That's true, but you are now talking about prototype, proof-of-principle devices. One unit is currently in testing with the Navy and two more are on order for $75M each, but nothing has been manufactured and made available to civil authorities. And they would be extremely hazardous to use in busy airspace.

That's great! I am going to need 10 per airport (Airports are BIG places). So that is $750M per airport.... What are the rules of engagement? What about colatteral damage if I miss the drone and hit a 747 in the holding stack 2 miles away

AS sar104says these are all still proof of concept and at the moment a heavy Machine gun is equally as effective and a fraction the cost. However like the lazer it is equally impractical.

 

[JanB]

That's true, but you are now talking about prototype, proof-of-principle devices. One unit is currently in testing with the Navy and two more are on order for $75M each, but nothing has been manufactured and made available to civil authorities. And they would be extremely hazardous to use in busy airspace.

I am really happy that civil authorities don't get those toys...
My contradiction was only because of the use of the Hollywood imagination for something quite real.

 

[sar104]

I am really happy that civil authorities don't get those toys...
My contradiction was only because of the use of the Hollywood imagination for something quite real.

Fair comment.

 

[jagraphics]

I am really happy that civil authorities don't get those toys...
My contradiction was only because of the use of the Hollywood imagination for something quite real.

Not at all. The Proof of Concept models are just that and nowhere near what you were suggesting. IT is like saying we have the technology to do a manned flight to saturn and build a base on it.... Well in theory we do have the compnants but in practice it is not possible. Much the same as deploying lazer weapons at airports to shoot at drones.
We can not build a laser device to do what you suggest (yet) .

 

[JanB]

That's great! I am going to need 10 per airport (Airports are BIG places). So that is $750M per airport.... What are the rules of engagement? What about colatteral damage if I miss the drone and hit a 747 in the holding stack 2 miles away

AS sar104says these are all still proof of concept and at the moment a heavy Machine gun is equally as effective and a fraction the cost. However like the lazer it is equally impractical.

I think if it was only to protect airports from drones it could be more easely done than to develop the lasers as a defense against rockets. And even more, I would think that with the technic we own today, they could build those lasers with variable intensity so that when really missing a shot nothing would happen. Beside that, even today it is possible to aime a flying object with a qickly changing traject - the problem of the arms today is that the ammunition is too slow. For this it works only on non or slow (relative) changing trajects.

 

[sar104]

Not at all. The Proof of Concept models are just that and nowhere near what you were suggesting. IT is like saying we have the technology to do a manned flight to saturn and build a base on it.... Well in theory we do have the compnants but in practice it is not possible. Much the same as deploying lazer weapons at airports to shoot at drones.
We can not build a laser device to do what you suggest (yet) .

That's not quite correct. The current system under test does exactly that:

Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia

 

[JDawg]

That's not quite correct. The current system under test does exactly that:

Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia

Cool

"The Navy has released video of the LaWS on deployment disabling a ScanEagle UAV, detonating a rocket propelled grenade, and burning out the engine of a rigid hull inflatable boat. Officials said it is working beyond expectations. "

 

[M_thoroughbred]

At this point it doesn’t matter assuming what it was or wasn’t. How can it fly that high or how was the weather for that day. And if it was a drone hoping for the people to get caught. This incident caused a shutdown of an airport which will cause for stricter laws. Fear is how you governed people

 

[LINXXL]

Begs the question, if I saw a drone while on the approach, how would I pass that information? Wait, wait, it'll come to me, I'll report it. Just like I'd report windshear, icing, picking up an ELT, etc. Two different crews (Southwest and United) reported it.

If you read the article:
"Correction: The headline of this story has been updated to reflect that drones were reported near the airport. CNN has not confirmed an actual sighting of a drone in the area.

 

[sar104]

If you read the article:
"Correction: The headline of this story has been updated to reflect that drones were reported near the airport. CNN has not confirmed an actual sighting of a drone in the area.

The correction was over the location of the sighting, not whether it occurred. Pilots on two flights reported sightings.

Bloomberg

 

[LINXXL]

The correction was over the location of the sighting, not whether it occurred. Pilots on two flights reported sightings.

Bloomberg

The correction was over the location of the sighting, not whether it occurred. Pilots on two flights reported sightings.

Bloomberg

Regardless of the location , It is still reported and not confirmed. Same as pilots reported seeing a UFO.

 

[sar104]

Regardless of the location , It is still reported and not confirmed. Same as pilots reported seeing a UFO.

No - you stated "CNN has not confirmed an actual sighting of a drone in the area". A sighting is a sighting - and two crews stated that they had sighted a UAV. What do you think "confirms" a sighting?

 

[Bob in Savannah]

Wow. What a useless thread.

 

[JanB]

Wow. What a useless thread.

Wat dem ihnen sin ul is dem anneren sin nachtigal
And that means in a free translation: You may love a hot conversation about cars, others like the conversation about the sighting of some drones...

 

[v8juice]

A Mavic Pro with modded firmware will easily climb 5,400 ft up, loiter long enough to take a few pics and a short video then safely return to its launch point.
Easy peasy.

 

[sar104]

A Mavic Pro with modded firmware will easily climb 5,400 ft up, loiter long enough to take a few pics and a short video then safely return to its launch point.
Easy peasy.

That's consistent with #70.

 

[M_thoroughbred]

This thread is pointless

 

[JanB]

This thread is pointless

As you wish: ...................... (take as much as you want)

Only to make clear my point of view: Your and some others attitude is like in the politics showing that only your opinion is the right one. I find this discussion quite interesting because the development of it shows some interesting facettes.
It is free to you not to participate in this discussion, you only have to close your browser but showing your desinterest and write it down as an universally valid opinion is the behavior of a small minded individual only accepting his own thoughts.