Thread: These New Drones Are Like Nothing The World Has Ever Seen

These New Drones Are Like Nothing The World Has Ever Seen

Walter Hickey

Jun. 6, 2012, 7:02 PM

Even with drones already dominating the skies, neutralizing adversaries and covertly collecting data, new research is still underway on the generation of pilotless planes to come.

And the United States isn't the only country interested in developing long-range and lethal drone technology.

See the pictures >

Groups of European and Asian nations — allies and former adversaries alike — are busy investing in next-generation unmanned aerial vehicles of their own.

These UAVs — some in development, some testing, and some already in service — are part of a global competition to gain aerial superiority.

But right now, only a handful of companies are working seriously on this next wave of drones. Some are researching independently, some are working for a single nation, others are working for a dozen.

Here's the top tier of next-gen drone tech.

Northrop Grumman X-47B


Northrop Grumman Courtesy Photo

The strike fighter was developed by Northrop Grumman as part of a research contract awarded in 2007. Look for these in use for the Navy, which hopes to use them as carrier-based drones. Tests for that begin in 2013.

National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In development, used by Navy for testing
Cruise Speed: around 420 mph, (Mach 0.55)
Wingspan: 62 ft
Range: At least 2,400 miles


Boeing Phantom Ray


Boeing Courtesy Photo

The project was hatched in 2007, and was carried out in utmost secrecy. The drone's development was funded internally, without funding from the government of military. The Boeing Phantom Ray, which precedes the development of the Phantom Eye, is Boeing's planned ground strike and surveillance drone.

National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In development, maiden flight April 27, 2011
Cruise Speed: 614 mph (Mach 0.
Wingspan: 50 ft
Range: 1500 miles

General Atomics Predator C Avenger


General Atomics Courtesy Photo

This drone is incredible. The Predator line of drones currently in constant use in Afghanistan and Iraq were the first ever weaponized UAVs. This model follows up with a reduced heat signature and speed boosts. It boasts an upgraded "quick response armed reconnaissance capability" from its predecessors.

National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: Deployed. Maiden flight April 4, 2009
Max Speed: 460 mph
Wingspan: 66 ft
Range: 20 hours


BAE Systems Taranis


Fun Fact: the Taranis is pictured here in an Anechoic chamber, a room which cancels out sound or electromagnetic waves. It's used for calibration, testing, and measurements.

BAE Systems Courtesy Photo

BAE Systems, a major supplier of aircraft to the Royal Air Force, began development of their drone after being allocated funds from the British Ministry of Defense. The project also involves General Electric and Rolls Royce, and the aircraft is named after the Celtic god of thunder.

National Origin: United Kingdom
Intended Customers: United Kingdom
Status: Ground tests complete, Flight trials upcoming
Cruising Speed: Unknown
Wingspan: 30 ft.
Range: Expected intercontinental


Dassault nEUROn


Replica nEUROn
Eurocopter Tigre / Wikimedia

The name refers to intended buyers of the planned drone, the European community. Flight tests were planned for last year but were delayed to late 2012. Pictured here is a replica of the aircraft, as the project is being closely protected by manufacturer Dassault.

National Origin: France
Intended Customers: Euro-zone nations, especially France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Greece.
Status: Maiden flight planned for 2012
Cruising Speed: Undetermined, Top speed 0.8 Mach
Wingspan: 41 ft
Range: Unknown


EADS Cassidian Barracuda


Cassidian (EADS) Courtesy Photo

The Barracuda is a project of German and Spain to develop a ground-attack drone. The test model, despite a successful maiden voyage, crashed into the Atlantic is late 2006. Germany initiated the program with Spain after abstaining from involvement in the nEUROn project for fiscal reasons.

National Origin: Germany and Spain
Intended Customers: Euro-zone nations, especially Germany and Spain, possibly Italy and Sweden.
Status: Maiden flight April 2006. Remains in development.
Cruising Speed: Uncertain, Top Speed 0.85 mach
Wingspan: 24 ft
Range: Unknown


Mikoyan Skat


Pycckue / Wikimedia Commons

Made by Mikoyan — formerly MiG — the Skat was developed as one of two concept drones for the Russian government. Skat means "manta ray" in Russian, and the aircraft would be used against enemy air defenses and as an attack drone. Development was discontinued recently.

National Origin: Russia
Intended Customers: Russia
Status: Discontinued. Work on Russian drone project to be continued by Sukhoi Holding.
Cruising Speed: N/A, Top Speed was 500 mph
Wingspan: 37 ft
Range: N/A


Lockheed Martin RQ-170


Sam_Churchill / Flickr

Details on this one are sparse, mostly because the RQ-170 was developed by Lockheed Martin for covert use. A significant setback occurred with the capture of one in-service RQ-170 by Iran. The Air Force, which uses the RQ-170 already for surveillance purposes, has contracted Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs to make the drones.

National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In service with U.S. Air Force. One allegedly crash landed, and is in Iranian possession
Top Speed: Information unavailable
Wingspan: around 39 ft
Range: Information Unavailable

Drones aren't going away any time soon


U.S. Air Force

Now Click Here For The Coolest Military Gear From Skunk Works, Phantom Works And DARPA >>


http://www.businessinsider.com/check...es-2012-6?op=1

Where Is the Outrage?

by Andrew P. Napolitano
Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: The Secret Kill List

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government's use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if – had drones existed at the time – King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don't believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the "recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function" in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons."

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or "military commander" for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any "incidentally acquired information" can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What's next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama's Secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information ... and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution..." Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word "balancing."

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That's why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that's why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government's powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and as inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else's liberties. Hence the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word "balancing" when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God's image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones – some as small as golf balls – to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don't know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father's generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.
Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Reprinted with the author's permission.
June 7, 2012

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Copyright © 2012 Andrew P. Napolitano

Where Is the Outrage? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Is there a drone in your neighbourhood? Rise of spy planes exposed after FAA is forced to reveal 63 launch sites across U.S.

• Unmanned spy planes are being launched from locations in 20 states and owners include the military and universities
  

By Julian Gavaghan

PUBLISHED: 05:15 EST, 24 April 2012 | UPDATED: 07:39 EST, 24 April 2012
Comments (103)


There are at least 63 active drone sites around the U.S, federal authorities have been forced to reveal following a landmark Freedom of Information lawsuit.


The unmanned planes – some of which may have been designed to kill terror suspects – are being launched from locations in 20 states.
Most of the active drones are deployed from military installations, enforcement agencies and border patrol teams, according to the Federal Aviation Authority.



Exposed: Location of sites where licences have been granted for the use of drones within the U.S. There are 63 active sites based in 20 states. Red flags show active sites and blue show those locations where licences have expired since 2006

But, astonishingly, 19 universities and colleges are also registered as owners of what are officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles.
It is thought that many of institutions, which include Cornell, the University of Colorado, Georgia Tech, and Eastern Gateway Community College, are developing drone technology.


More...

• Death from above: Video of drones fitted with machine guns that could transform the battlefields of the future
• Strong border controls and a lack of jobs prompt mass emigration of illegal Mexicans from the U.S.

There are also 21 mainstream manufactures, such as General Atomics, who are registered to use drones domestically.
As well as active locations, the FAA also revealed 16 sites where licences to use spy planes have expired and four where authorisations have been disapproved, such as Otter Tail County, Minnesota.

Unusual: The University of Connecticut - one of 19 educational institutions to own spy planes - is the drone site closest to New York City. The North East is the region with the highest concentration



Concentration: The Beltway around Washington DC has the highest concentration of urban and suburban drone sites, including the U.S. Marine Corp base as Quantico Station, Virginia

The authority revealed the information after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Its website hosts an interactive map that allows the user to zoom in to the area around where they live to see if any sites are nearby.
However, the FAA is yet to reveal what kinds of drones might be based at any of these locations.
The agency says it will release this data later.
Most of the drones are likely to be small craft, such as the Draganflyer X8, which can carry a payload of only 2.2lb.
Police, border patrols and environmental agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), could use for them effectively.
While few would object to vast open areas being monitored for wildfires, there are fears of privacy violations if drones are used to spy over cities.

Florida: Mostly police and Sheriff departments are registered to use drones in the state


Watch out Canada! Border agents are registered to use drone in North Dakota, just a few hundred miles from Winnipeg, Manitoba


Remote: The University of Alaska's drones are the most distant from any major urban centres. They are, however, the closest to Russia


Hotspot: Texas has one of the highest number of drone sites


West Coast: There are comparatively few drone sites in California and Western states

Other drones – likely to be operated only by the armed forces – might include the MQ-9 Reaper and the MQ-1 Predator, which was used to kill American Al Qaeda boss Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last September.
The FAA released two lists of public and private entities that have applied for authorisations to fly drones domestically.
Certificates of Authorizations (COAs), issued to public entities like police departments, are active in 42 locations, expired in 16 and disapproved in four.
Special Airworthiness Certificates (SACs), issued to private drone manufacturers, are active in 21 locations and not active in 17.
Among the other unanswered questions, however, are is exactly how many drones each registered user owns.


Killer: Some of the drones owned by the military might be the MQ-9 Reaper, which has been used to target terrorists overseas



Watching you: Most of the drones are likely to be small craft, such as the Draganflyer X8, which can carry a payload of only 2.2lb. Police, border patrols and environmental agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), could use for them effectively

The FAA has confirmed that there were about 300 active COAs and that the agency has issued about 700-750 authorizations since the program began in 2006.
But this information does not reveal how many are owned, for example, by Miami Dade Police Department.
While the use of drones in the U.S. is little known, American operations overseas have been well documented.
As well as high-profile terrorists, campaigners claim hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in the border regions of Pakistan, where they are most active.


SO WHICH PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE REGISTERED OWNERS OF DRONES? FULL LIST REVEALED HERE


U.S. Air Force Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Arlington Police Department Mississippi State University
U.S. Army U.S. Navy
City of Herington, Kansas New Mexico Tech
City of North Little Rock, AR Police Department Ogden Police Department

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Ohio University
DHS (Department of Homeland Security) / CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Orange County Sheriff's Office
DHS (Department of Homeland Security) / Science and Technology Polk County Sheriff's Office
DOE (Department of Energy) - Idaho National Laboratory Seattle Police Dept
Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Texas A&M University Corpus Christi
Department of the Interior - National Business Center/Aviation Management Directorate Texas A&M University - TEES
Eastern Gateway Community College University of Alaska Fairbanks
Texas State University University of Colorado
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) University of Connecticut
Gadsden Police Department

Georgia Tech Research Institute University of Florida
Kansas State University University of North Dakota

USMC (United States Marine Corps)
Mesa County Sheriff's Office
Miami-Dade Police Department Utah State University
Middle Tennessee State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
New Mexico State University Physical Sciences Laboratory (NMSU-PSL) Washington State Department of Transportation
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)





Read more:

• FAA Releases Lists of Drone Certificates¿Many Questions Left Unanswered

Is there a drone in your neighbourhood? Rise of killer spy planes exposed after FAA is forced to reveal 63 launch sites across U.S. | Mail Online

Patrick Cockburn: America is deluded by its drone-warfare propaganda

World View: The use of unmanned aircraft to assassinate its enemies is guaranteed to backfire on Washington

Patrick Cockburn
Sunday 10 June 2012



As the US and its allies ponder what to do about Syria, one suggestion advanced by the protagonists of armed intervention is to use unmanned drones to attack Syrian government targets. The proposal is a measure of the extraordinary success of the White House, CIA and Defense Department in selling the drone as a wonder weapon despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The attraction of the drone for President Obama and his administration five months before the presidential election is self-evident. The revelation that he personally selected targets from the top ranks of al-Qa'ida for assassination by remote control shows the President as tough and unrelenting in destroying America's enemies. The programme is popular at home because the cost appears not to be large and, most importantly, there are no American casualties. The media uncritically buys into claims of the weapon's effectiveness, conveniently diverting voters' attention from the US army's failure to defeat puny opponents in two vastly expensive campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Republicans cried foul, alleging that the administration is selectively leaking highly classified secrets to portray Obama as a man of decision untroubled by liberal qualms in his defence of his country. The White House expressed itself deeply shocked by such a claim of political opportunism, and last week the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, appointed two lawyers to track down the leakers, though without giving them special powers to do so.

Almost unquestioned in all this is the utility of the drone strikes and whether they really are the wonder weapon they are claimed to be. After all, air forces have been over-selling precision bombing as a way of winning wars on the cheap since Lord Trenchard ran the RAF in the 1920s. Politicians of all nations have been attracted by new war-winning armaments or commando-type organisations. Examples include Churchill in the Second World War and President Kennedy, who favoured the Green Beret special units and helicopter-borne forces in Vietnam. The media has traditionally gobbled up and publicised tales of magically effective arms or the derring-do of elite detachments, often ignoring their lack of long-term military success.

The most striking but understated feature of the drone strikes in the North-west Frontier districts of Pakistan is that they could not take place without the co-operation of the Pakistani army and its all-powerful military intelligence branch, the ISI. Some government co-operation is essential in Yemen, too, though less so than in Pakistan because of the weakness of the Yemeni state.

The problem is that high-precision weapons still need ground-based intelligence to identify targets. In Pakistan, the ISI says privately that its agents provide the details without which the drones would not know whom to pursue and eliminate. The difficulty for those guiding the drones from command posts far away has not changed much since "precision bombing" in the Second World War or the far more accurate missile strikes in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Large, immovable facilities or power stations are easy to identify; individuals are not. In 2003, President Bush brought forward the start of the bombing and missile strikes because US intelligence believed it knew the exact location of Saddam Hussein in south Baghdad. This was destroyed by missiles, but research after the war showed that Saddam had never been near the place.

Up-to-the minute intelligence about who is in what house, and when they are there, requires a network of local agents who can communicate their information immediately. It is very unlikely that the ISI would allow the CIA to have this sort of network in Pakistan. The crucial information that enabled the US to find and identify Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad reportedly came from the ISI itself.

Of course, an assassination target might be stupid enough to give away his or her position by using a mobile, satellite phone or some other form of electronic communication. But few insurgent groups today are likely to give away their position so easily.

The result of reliance on the ISI is that it is Pakistani military intelligence officers, and not President Obama or his security and military staff, who really determine what sort of person is killed by the unmanned drones. This is in keeping with Pakistan's cynical but successful approach to dealing with the US since 9/11. This is to be, at one and the same time, its best ally and worst enemy.

It means allowing the US to kill or capture members of al-Qa'ida in Pakistan, successes that have important electoral benefits for any administration in Washington. At times, Pakistan may look to the US to eliminate a troublesome member of the Pakistan Taliban such as its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who over-reached himself in the eyes of the Pakistan authorities and was killed by a drone strike in 2009. Over the years, the White House or the CIA has been able to claim successes, such as the elimination of the second in command of al-Qa'ida or the killing of most top al-Qa'ida commanders, as if Bin Laden's old organisation were the same size as the Pentagon.

What we have not seen is the effective use of US drones against the Afghan Taliban and its allies, who rely on their safe havens in Pakistan. It is here that the Afghan Taliban's leadership is based, and its ability to retreat into Pakistan has ensured the US military failure in Afghanistan, just as it ensured the Soviet Union's inability to wipe out the insurgents fighting its forces in the 1980s. The lack of good US intelligence on the Afghan Taliban leadership is striking. How else would a shopkeeper from Quetta be able to extract a large sum of money and pose as a Taliban leader in peace negotiations in Kabul?

Unmanned droned strikes are all about American domestic politics rather than about the countries where they are used. They cater to illusions of power, giving Americans a sense that their technical prowess is unparalleled, despite the Pentagon's inability to counter improvised explosive devices, which are no more than old-fashioned mines laid in or beside roads. The drones have even been presented as being more humanitarian than other forms of warfare, simply by claiming that any dead males of military age killed in a strike must have been enemy combatants.

The downside to these exaggerated successes is that the White House and the US security agencies believe more of their own propaganda than is good for them. Ramshackle insurgent movements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are not like regular armies, in which the elimination of officers or senior cadres might be a crippling blow to the organisation. Just as important, in the long term, assassination campaigns do not win wars, and they create as many enemies as they destroy.

Patrick Cockburn: America is deluded by its drone-warfare propaganda - Commentators - Opinion - The Independent

Related: New 2' Long Laser-Guided Missile To Be On Drones In 2 Months

Researchers Show DHS How Hackers Can Redirect Drones With GPS





By Susanne Posel

theintelhub.com

July 5, 2012

Researchers at the University of Texas demonstrated to officials at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) how drones could be hacked into through their navigation systems.

Known as “spoofing”, a false signal through the Global Positioning System (GPS) could be used to “trick” the drones into going onto a new course.

Thousands of drones will be released into US skies by the federal government, law enforcement and university research purposes.

Todd Humphreys, assistant professor for the Cockrell School of Engineering believes that GPS satellites, which are not encrypted for civilian use, are a weak spot in the surveillance scheme.

Humphreys stated: “The dirty fact is it’s an open signal, and easily hacked.”

Humphreys suggests that the GPS needs to be fortified with “electronic watermarks” that would cause signals to be difficult to falsify.

This change would cost millions of dollars, however Humphreys asserts that the encryption of GPS signals is essential to protecting government’s use of drones in US air space.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) established 6 national drone test sites where the unmanned planes could fly through civilian air space.
President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act in February of this year, demanding that the FAA “integrate operation of drones” into National Airspace by 2015.

“The navigations systems of these drones have a variety of sensors,” explains Humphreys, “ . . . but at the very bottom is a GPS unit — and most of these drones that will be used in the civilian airspace have a civilian GPS unit which is wide open and vulnerable to this kind of attack. So if you can commander the GPS unit, then you can basically spoon feed false navigation information to the navigation center of these drones.”

Michael Friel, spokesperson for DHS Customs and Border Protection unit commented that hacking through GPS does not affect the security of drones.
The Obama administration has admitted they are using drones in a CIA target killing program, while the CIA has refused to either confirm or deny its existence in lawsuits from the ACLU.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has confirmed that domestic drones are being flown in US air space by the federal government. An estimated 60 public and private organizations have been granted certificates of authorization (COAs) from the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to fly drones for undisclosed purposes. The largest flyer of drones is universities funded by grants by the federal government.
This forces the FAA to “write rules . . . on how it will license police, fire department and other public safety agencies eager to fly lightweight drones at low altitudes.”

Humphreys asserts: “I’m a big proponent of bringing in drones to the national airspace. They are going to come and we might as well expect it.

The question is, how can we bring them in reliably? And right now the dangers of bringing them in, before addressing this problem, is that someone on the ground could hack the drones and turn them into their own device, making them go to a different place or along a different path.

So it could cause loss of life, it could cause collisions. But I hope that we can address the problem long before that happens.”

Vanguard , using drones for urban warfare, has been “touting the weaponized ShadowHawk to police departments in Ohio and Illinois, according to emails published online by the hackers collective AntiSec.”

AntiSec is a reformation of LuzSec which is a CIA front for an anonymous community of hackers that justify the US government’s need for continued surveillance of users on the internet.

These “hacktivists” are actually US government agents pretending to be independent persons in a nameless, faceless hacking group hell-bent on cyber-attacking government agencies.

The mainstream media is proposing that since researchers working with Humphreys could hack into the drone’s GPS system and redirect its course, then Iran could do so as well.

The Iranian government’s downing of a CIA drone last December was done so using “spoofing”. Humphreys simply proved that a military drone could be hacked; however a civilian drone’s ability to be hijacked is still speculative.

The use of military drone is not limited to the unmanned aerial craft we are used to seeing. In fact, according to research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) drones can be as small as a mosquito .

Greg Parker, aerospace engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, explains: “We’re looking at how you hide in plain sight” for the purpose of carrying out espionage or kill missions.

Obama and his assassination czar, John Brennan, have created a secret kill list that they are using drones attacks or raids, establishing a new procedure for both military and CIA targets.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. We are an alternative news source dedicated to exposing the real truth behind the news that the mainstream media does not want you to know. Please follow us on our Facebook page.
Researchers Show DHS How Hackers Can Redirect Drones With GPS :

See Also:
Research Team Hacks Surveillance Drone With Less than $1,000 in Equipment

July 3, 2012

Last week, a team University of Texas researchers, led by professor Todd Humphreys, managed to hack a surveillance drone before the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, successfully “spoofing” the UAV’s GPS system with just about $1,000 is off-the-shelf hardware.
Read the rest of the story at:
Research Team Hacks Surveillance Drone With Less than $1,000 in Equipment :