The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: santahog on February 07, 2013, 11:16:42 PM
-
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/how-to-kill-a-drone-since-drones-can-kill-americans-americans-can-kill-drones-heres-how-2556926.html
How To Kill A Drone: Since Drones Can Kill Americans, Americans Can Kill Drones, Here’s How
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 16:02
(Before It's News)
Since Barack Obama recently took it upon himself to label himself 'dictator' with free will to kill Americans with drones, isn't it time that Americans learn how to fight back and kill drones? Where there is a will, there is a way! This excellent article informs Americans who are completely disgusted with the 'Police State' our once free nation has become on how to kill UAV's. If UAV's are going to be used to kill Americans, Americans need to learn how to fight back. Our GOD given right to defend our own lives is a much higher power than either Barack Obama or the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution or the US Pentagon and their killing machines. These monsters DESERVE to be grounded. Here's how to do it!
The UAVs have two alternative systems for communication.
Line of sight radio :
In the military C-Band 500 - 1000 MHz that can be jammed with simple spark-gap radio
Satellite communication :
In the Ku-Band between 10.95 - 14.5 GHz, and the satellite can be jammed.
The Uplink-Band to the satellite is 13.75 - 14.5 GHz
The Downlink-Band from the satellite is 10.95 - 12.75 GHz
And you should jam the Uplink frequencies with a jammer directed at the satellite.
**********
More at link..
Now if we could just pick up one of those old Air Traffic Controller trucks and some 20 year old Commo Sattelite Equipment, we could at least have some fun with em.. ;D
-
As a Nationally Certified Marine Electrician and National Marine Electronics Assoc. Grad. two things to know regarding this.
Frequencies for comm. and control are divided into 6 categories: (simplified)
Civilian/Marine (CB's VHF SSB walkie talkies, Direct Connect...)
LE Agencies (In car, handheld 2 way)
Aircraft (Commercial/Private)
Military (the 800lb. Gorilla of the freq. spectrum)
HAM/Shortwave (low freq. small segment)
Weather (NWS, NOAA),..
Jamming a UAV (military will be harder), with a GHZ, LOS (spike) or SAT can be tracked to the EXACT location of the source. The military monitors their freq.'s like a hawk, and all have an ID tracer upon said freq. Without that 9 digit number assigned to every LE/Military app. will send the black SUV's. (I know, I had them visit me at a marina in NC)
I found out first hand with a marine 24kw FURUNO Radar on a 65' Viking Sportfish. The older ones had a mic and mag(netron) generating extremely high freq. The old ones used to be able to be "tweaked", as Furuno sold radars to civilian and military/Coast Guard folks that were identical but preset at the factory for application. I was adjusting the freq. TX to better acquire targets. (Sea Grass, Birds, etc,..) and exceeded bandwith for civilian app's. (BAD IDEA).
Get above 166.15 MHZ, and you get into the red zone that raises red flags in every military, DHS, security installation, and believe me they monitor it. Any non-ID freq. from an unauthorized source will be picked up and located on THEIR scopes and radars.
They don't like us lowly civilians playing with HZ.......but it can be done, but tap a satellite and you better cover your IP through proxies or you'll face FEDERAL charges.
It was explained to me by a FED with no sense of humor, that "f" ing with HZ's is a bad idea.
I'd just shoot it down.... ::)
-
I'd just shoot it down.... ::)
Didn't Biden say you could shoot down a plane with an AR?
-
Went to High School with a guy who shot down a private plane with a .22LR rifle. One shot.
-
Didn't Biden say you could shoot down a plane with an AR?
The Rev. Jessie Jackson said semi-auto firearms could shoot down aircraft and blow up railroads... :P
-
The Rev. Jessie Jackson said semi-auto firearms could shoot down aircraft and blow up railroads... :P
He also said he was a faithful husband, an honest man and an upstanding citizen. Lying little SOB...
He did tell the truth once. He didn't know the mic was hot and said he wanted to cut off BHO's testicles ;D
-
Pretty sure Moochelle has them in a lock box somewhere.
-
Maybe hanging from her rearview mirror like a pair of fuzzy dice.
-
Anti's talk about how helpless civilians would be against tanks to.
Shows they aren't to bright since the Afghans kicked hell out of Russian tanks and the Syrians are doing OK.
Get a tank in tight quarters, city, thick woods, use rifle fire to drive off the infantry support and tanks are helpless.
-
-
See what happened when it got stopped ?
And that was open highway.
-
One of the tightest spirals of spin I've seen on a thread in a while. ;D
From jamming drones to shooting them down to shooting planes to blowing up railroads to a guest appearance of the right Rev. Jesse Jackson to adultery to BHO's nutz to fuzzy dice to fighting tanks to stolen and stalled tanks........ in just over a page.
I don't know if that can be beat.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Tanks have been fairly vulnerable with out infantry support....and infantry is vulnerable to conventional weapons.
A can of spray paint can 'blind' a tank and the crew will need to stay buttoned up or die.
But they still have to breathe and I don't think they carry 'bottled air' so they are also susceptible to lot of 'common household chemicals'.
Don't know if they have been improved in recent years, but enough charcoal lighter fluid, or similar, could make things rather warm inside.
They don't like deep water, mud, steep hills, dense trees or rocks in the barrel.
-
Afghans used to get them stopped, then pile brush around them and set it on fire .
-
I have "heard" that you can get one to a screeching halt with a molatov cocktail to the intake manifold located at the rear. The key is to get close enough without becoming a "crunchy".
-
Might be able to do that to a russian T-72 tank,Bur a M-1 Abrams is a different animal.
-
Might be able to do that to a russian T-72 tank,Bur a M-1 Abrams is a different animal.
No vehicle built by anyone survives having flaming fuel pour over it's wiring .
-
If you bomb a tank with Molotov cocktails it burns up all the available oxygen and the crew dies. That's what I've heard anyway.
-
Not to sure that would work with an NBC capable system
-
I have read accounts of Abrams tanks being hit and burning for a while and the crew surviving,will have to see if I can find them.
-
The Abrams is, or was if others have duplicated it, the "Next" generation of tanks.
When it was introduced it was so far ahead of the field it made others armored vehicles obsolete.
It's ability to target and hit opponents while moving at speed over rough terrain rewrote the book on tank tactics.
It used infrared for it's night vision capabilities as opposed to enhancement of ambient light which most, if not all, of the competition used. Infrared has some drawbacks but it's big advantage is you had working night vision no matter how dark the environment became....heavy forest cover on an overcast night, for instance.
Stories from the first Gulf War where 4 or so Abrams would shred a dozen enemy tanks that had to stop still to be able to make a hit.
Don't know if the competition has caught up, but I expect it still has much of it's edge.
-
How well insulated is the Abrams from electrical charge? The tracks probably are, but how about the body?
-
Couple of links on the Abrams.
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/64535-m1a1-abrams-survivability/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00002SA30/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
-
How well insulated is the Abrams from electrical charge? The tracks probably are, but how about the body?
If it's designed to be survivable in a nuclear environment, don't you think it's shielded from anything you could throw at it? Since the outer armor is ceramic, it doesn't conduct electricity through it anyway.
-
No matter what type of armored vehicle is being discussed, you don't have to kill the crew, or destroy the vehicle.
If you attack it's mobility, (tracks or engine ) it becomes a very expensive bunker, if you attack it's weapons it becomes no more dangerous than a cement truck.
Take out those 2 systems and it is nothing but a place for the crew to hide till the bad noises stop.
-
The Abrams is, or was if others have duplicated it, the "Next" generation of tanks.
When it was introduced it was so far ahead of the field it made others armored vehicles obsolete.
It's ability to target and hit opponents while moving at speed over rough terrain rewrote the book on tank tactics.
It used infrared for it's night vision capabilities as opposed to enhancement of ambient light which most, if not all, of the competition used. Infrared has some drawbacks but it's big advantage is you had working night vision no matter how dark the environment became....heavy forest cover on an overcast night, for instance.
Stories from the first Gulf War where 4 or so Abrams would shred a dozen enemy tanks that had to stop still to be able to make a hit.
Don't know if the competition has caught up, but I expect it still has much of it's edge.
When I was a senior in HS, we spent a couple of days visiting the USMC Logistics Base in Albany, GA (about 30 miles from me) seeing all the things they did at the base. One of the jobs there was repairing and testing sighting system and 2-plane stabilization system on the Abrams. They had one parked on a steep dirt mound outside the building we were in. As we were leaving the building I asked the Sgt that gave the lecture what that was for. He said to test them, they ran it through a set number of "in-motion" trials over rough terrain and then parked it on the incline with a target locked in. Then they left it for 24 hours and it had to stay targeted within a specified set of parameters to pass.
-
The M-1s couldn't see in fog. I'm guessing they figured something out for the A1s but that was it's Achilles heel..
If you can throw something into the back of a jet turbine, maybe you can toss something in the exhaust of a tank, but I kinda doubt it. Walking behind one of those leaves a memory and some red skin, and a mark if it's in sand.. One darn near blew my Deuce over one time in the Motor Pool.. :P
-
The problem you mention with "seeing" in fog is because of the IR system.
IR "see's" temperature, in fog it see's a wall of what ever the water temperature is, snow will also blind it as will burning rubber or plastic that gives off lots of heated particulate matter.
Also, Airborne IR systems are blinded by evergreens , it will read the temperature of the boughs but can not see through them.
-
The problem you mention with "seeing" in fog is because of the IR system.
IR "see's" temperature, in fog it see's a wall of what ever the water temperature is, snow will also blind it as will burning rubber or plastic that gives off lots of heated particulate matter.
Also, Airborne IR systems are blinded by evergreens , it will read the temperature of the boughs but can not see through them.
Exactly.
Solution would be to augment the existing IR with Ambient Light Amplification.
There might still be blind spots, but both methods would be available.
Perhaps this has been done.
-
Exactly.
Solution would be to augment the existing IR with Ambient Light Amplification.
There might still be blind spots, but both methods would be available.
Perhaps this has been done.
Actually, the appropriate thing to do in the context of this thread would be to stock up on old tires and plant lot's of spruce tree's around you house or retreat .
-
I've not been up close to an Abrams. I expect they have some type of viewing device to the outside like other vehicles that can "button up". Periscopes or maybe cameras?
In any case, a paint ball gun with enough range might be useful.
-
I've not been up close to an Abrams. I expect they have some type of viewing device to the outside like other vehicles that can "button up". Periscopes or maybe cameras?
In any case, a paint ball gun with enough range might be useful.
Snipers are trained to shoot for the sensors on tanks and APC's. Make the think deaf dumb and blind and they simply become a mobile bunker.
-
Revealed: al-Qaeda's 22 tips for dodging drones
Al-Qaeda's list of 22 tips for dodging drone attacks - including at least one believed to originate with Osama bin Laden - has been found hidden inside a manila envelope in a building abandoned by Islamists in Mali.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9886637/Revealed-al-Qaedas-22-tips-for-dodging-drones.html
Even terrorist scumbags have their uses. ;D
-
You call them terrorists.
I call them smart fighters with history on their side .
Lenin formalized the idea in one of his writings, saying that it was the only method by which a small weak force could have any practical chance against a large strong force.
But the idea was applied at least as early as Roman times when Judah Maccabee and a few Zealot's tied up Roman forces in Judea for years.
American Indians used similar tactics to slow white expansion for 2 centuries
Then of course there was Vietnam.
Should I point out that before the Afghans used these tactics on us for 10 years they kicked the Soviets azzes with the same tactics, after having kicked England's azz.
Sun Tzu summed it up best when he said "Avoid your foes strength and attack his weakness".
-
"5 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting
dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole."
Would that be a sump-pump with a 30' 30 Meter stick of copper aimed at the drone?
Like JC said, its about time that al Qeda was good for something.
-
"5 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting
dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole."
Would that be a sump-pump with a 30' 30 Meter stick of copper aimed at the drone?
Like JC said, its about time that al Qeda was good for something.
another way of looking at it is that in Afghanistan at least, they have been fighting our war for us.
Why did the Govt send troops over there ?
Originally it was to avenge 9-11, I got no problem with that.
But why have the troops been kept there and increased by Obama ?
To establish an acceptable Govt.
Acceptable to who ?
The Afghan people who have been perfectly happy with a weak central Govt for centuries ?
Or acceptable to the UN and the "Global economy" and to hell with what the people want ?