Gatwick airport closed by drone attack

There's a test video earlier in the thread of a small "toy" class drone hitting a Mooney wing. It causes serious damage to the spar. The scale isn't so different for an industrial drone (big clonking things) hitting a loaded 737 wing. A drone could quite easily finish that off, especially if it makes it into the tank.

Yes I've seen it before, and I've seen plenty of other footage to show what an aircraft goes through. Spars can be damaged and still allow the craft to fly and land. If it makes it to the tank what??? There are multiple spars and ribs and even false spars for moving structures like the flaps and ailerons, so one spar or even a couple being destroyed doesn't mean the plane is incapable of landing. Considering the type of drones we're talking about have a low altitude as well, that'd mean the primary strike would occur at or shortly after take off, or Vmax, which then means that the aircraft would most likely have time to do a turn back and land. If the plane we're to strike at V1 then the plane would easily be able to abort since that is the speed it does it at. If it makes it to the tank what??? There are tons of pumps, tanks and even a APU system when things go wrong, so what tank are you suggesting there is a centerline, a left and right main wing and surge tanks. My issue with all this is that people are seemingly suggesting that a craft typically built with a factory of safety of 1.5-2 is incredibly delicate.

There are over a hundred sightings and a report from the police that they used the Drone Dome system on one. But go sit with @Dotini at the Brave New Truth table if you like.

Never said they didn't see anything I said that it was yet to be proof positive a drone was what was seen. So why you'd like to go on this smart alec trek is beyond me. Considering there really isn't a need for that, NYT has even said that there is still plenty of uncertainty about it all. Maybe you have this reports from the people who submitted them? I've looked for them to some extent and haven't found them. It's also strange that no images or video of them have been seen. I also haven't found any image of the downed drone that supposedly was found wrecked. Again if you have this stuff by all means I feel it should be posted since it's related to the thread.

I know, I've spent 8 years studying and following them. It's mah job.

Good for you I've spent the last 5 year learning and practicing it myself, glad we're on the same page.
 
Yes I've seen it before, and I've seen plenty of other footage to show what an aircraft goes through. Spars can be damaged and still allow the craft to fly and land. If it makes it to the tank what???

Then there's the potential for the fuel to spill. I'm well aware that there are other tanks but it isn't reasonable to suggest that there's time (or necessarily even capacity) to xfeed them.

There are multiple spars and ribs and even false spars for moving structures like the flaps and ailerons, so one spar or even a couple being destroyed doesn't mean the plane is incapable of landing.

You're right, it doesn't mean that. It potentially means that that the envelope is severely diminished which inevitably incurs a risk. An avoidable risk.

Considering the type of drones we're talking about have a low altitude as well, that'd mean the primary strike would occur at or shortly after take off, or Vmax, which then means that the aircraft would most likely have time to do a turn back and land.

The takeoff can't be rejected so there's no other option.

If the plane we're to strike at V1 then the plane would easily be able to abort since that is the speed it does it at.

Not if V1 has been called - that's the no-reject point. It would take some very quick thinking (and likely a control-critical situation) for the captain to reject at that point - it's inevitably going to be an aircraft crash in definition.

My issue with all this is that people are seemingly suggesting that a craft typically built with a factory of safety of 1.5-2 is incredibly delicate.

Not really, but planes loaded with fuel and passengers are at the edge of the operational envelope. That's why most pax jets can't land as soon as they've taken off.

It's not really on-off like that. Planes can survive a lot of damage and still land or even complete a takeoff.

getasset.aspx

It did however make a hole in the fuselage, fortunately the effects weren't as severe as a fan-blade separation incident on another SouthWest flight which led to a passenger being sucked out of the cabin.
 
Last edited:
It did however make a hole in the fuselage, fortunately the effects weren't as severe as a fan-blade separation incident on another SouthWest flight which led to a passenger being sucked out of the cabin.

Well, they didn't actually get sucked out of the cabin. I guess they got sucked in that direction, but they didn't make it out. Died anyway, of a heart attack. But that's kindof a cool point. Engine explodes, hole in the fuselage, one casualty... heart attack. Doesn't sound super delicate to me.

Edit:

Granted that event happened at a favorable time during flight. Cruising altitude has with it a lot of potential energy stored up in the form of velocity and altitude. Losing both engines to an explosion should not result in the loss of the plane when you have that much energy to tap, if emergency procedures are followed that is. Takeoff is much more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Then there's the potential for the fuel to spill. I'm well aware that there are other tanks but it isn't reasonable to suggest that there's time (or necessarily even capacity) to xfeed them.

Again no one said fuel wouldn't spill, what was said is that there are several tanks, to further that there are several pumps, thus fuel can be redirected as needed. Also fuel loss on a recent take off and then go around or return to airport would still be very plausible, and since you don't land with your TOW or MTOW anyways, dumped fuel would be happening on return.

[/quote]You're right, it doesn't mean that. It potentially means that that the envelope is severely diminished which inevitably incurs a risk. An avoidable risk.[/quote]

I'm not saying it should be a necessary risk, I never supported or showed support of taking off if a known threat exists. My point is purely educated those who have this idea a plane has some limited survival risk as if it's some origami crane. My point is if a plane were damaged on take off without a known drone, object, whatever being in the take off or path of climb. So based on that, the plane would still have time to return if need be.

The takeoff can't be rejected so there's no other option.

Yes it can V1 is the no-go speed, V2 is the take off and Vmax is the speed for necessary rate of climb. Thus there is a point takeoff can be rejected or can't. I specified this clearly in my post you just quoted.


Not if V1 has been called - that's the no-reject point. It would take some very quick thinking (and likely a control-critical situation) for the captain to reject at that point - it's inevitably going to be an aircraft crash in definition.

Read above, unless all I've taught is wrong (highly doubt it) then the take off can be aborted. There is clear indicators on a runway to signify were V1 and V2 should be had, and even references on distance based on plane they should happen. Also V1 abort doesn't always mean crash not sure who or where you were told this.

Not really, but planes loaded with fuel and passengers are at the edge of the operational envelope. That's why most pax jets can't land as soon as they've taken off.

Says who? This is dependent on the airliner and the flight and time and other factors. Also I've already said why most pax jets can't land as they've taken off and that's because they are loaded with a ton of fuel weight, and thus they dump before landing.
 
Yes it can V1 is the no-go speed, V2 is the take off and Vmax is the speed for necessary rate of climb. Thus there is a point takeoff can be rejected or can't. I specified this clearly in my post you just quoted.

Read above, unless all I've taught is wrong (highly doubt it) then the take off can be aborted. There is clear indicators on a runway to signify were V1 and V2 should be had, and even references on distance based on plane they should happen. Also V1 abort doesn't always mean crash not sure who or where you were told this.

I've never ever ever seen V1 or V2 marked on a runway - they're part of your pre-flight and you only use runway markers for general distance reference. Admittedly the biggest runway I've ever personally lifted a plane from was EGNJ, and that was in a Cessna with a remarkably good view of ground level. In a modern passenger jet V1 and V2 are calculated in the FMC once the fuel/pax/cargo refs are in. At V1 the take-off should not be rejected - up until that you're in position for a stop rather than for flight. At V1 you transition to flight position. I thought we went over all this earlier in the thread, or was that with Eran?

My point is purely educated those who have this idea a plane has some limited survival risk as if it's some origami crane. My point is if a plane were damaged on take off without a known drone, object, whatever being in the take off or path of climb. So based on that, the plane would still have time to return if need be.

Most often that would very likely be the case - I don't think anyone's suggesting that a plane would automatically collapse into a flaming ball of wire and aluminium. It's the unknowns that are unknown, as the pilots' unions are often pointing out when they discuss the dangers of drones. It's a hugely risk-averse industry, it has to be. Engine failures have brought ETOPS-rated jets down near airports when the circumstances aligned badly, the more damage-related failures you incur the greater the risk of the ultimate disaster.
 
I've never ever ever seen V1 or V2 marked on a runway - they're part of your pre-flight and you only use runway markers for general distance reference. Admittedly the biggest runway I've ever personally lifted a plane from was EGNJ, and that was in a Cessna with a remarkably good view of ground level. In a modern passenger jet V1 and V2 are calculated in the FMC once the fuel/pax/cargo refs are in. At V1 the take-off should not be rejected - up until that you're in position for a stop rather than for flight. At V1 you transition to flight position. I thought we went over all this earlier in the thread, or was that with Eran?

Yes I know this, but there are also general distances marked on runways, I never said there was a V1 and V2 marked on the runway if that is what you inferred from my post, I apologize but that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Probably with eran you had that talk, but I'm well aware of the transition since V2 is the full on go as you and I have both said. At this point this has little to do with our ideals on why we think a strike on an aircraft would be as detrimental or not to its safe return.


Most often that would very likely be the case - I don't think anyone's suggesting that a plane would automatically collapse into a flaming ball of wire and aluminium. It's the unknowns that are unknown, as the pilots' unions are often pointing out when they discuss the dangers of drones. It's a hugely risk-averse industry, it has to be. Engine failures have brought ETOPS-rated jets down near airports when the circumstances aligned badly, the more damage-related failures you incur the greater the risk of the ultimate disaster.

No, no one did, but it did seem to have inference and there is enough of a general ideal it seems to the public, that a plane will fall right out of the sky if anything were to break or damage it in any varying degree. We've seen fan blade implosion/failure that has caused damage, all engines lost, the entire roof skin of the fuselage lost, broken windows from bird strikes, ice damage and on and on happen. Yet these planes still were able to land and bring passengers safely home. That's the point, sure damage can cause disaster, but the point in relation to this topic should be a strike to the craft close to the airport. Thus relatively allowing for safe return. Many of these other issues discussed to prove airworthiness have been places outside said "safe" distance.

I agreed with you even in the last post, that a plane shouldn't take off if a risk or threat is known, again my view is strictly from that of the unknown or unseen. In that if a plane had taken off and there was something that it struck with in airport grounds/vicinity.
 
New developments, but still no photos or videos:

- Two derelict drones found near the airport have been ruled out of the investigation.
- Some of the drone sightings may have been of police drones.
- The British army, who was deployed to Gatwick to respond to the drone reports last week, used unidentified military technology to help airport authorities with the situation.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...htings-may-have-been-of-police-drones-2018-12

https://www.wetalkuav.com/israeli-technology-end-gawick-drone-chaos/
 
For the record, two articles from the NY Times, one from a mil-tech perspective, and one other.

1 Broken Drone, No Video, 2 Suspects Released: Gatwick Episode Doesn’t Add Up

Passengers at Gatwick Airport after flights resumed on Friday. Investigators looking into reports of drone incursions are relying on 67 eyewitness accounts from the public, passengers, police officers and airport staff members. CreditJack Taylor/Getty Images
Image
merlin_148378083_488e9a18-c658-4744-a6e4-c0880e260627-articleLarge.jpg

Passengers at Gatwick Airport after flights resumed on Friday. Investigators looking into reports of drone incursions are relying on 67 eyewitness accounts from the public, passengers, police officers and airport staff members.CreditCreditJack Taylor/Getty Images



By Ceylan Yeginsu

  • Dec. 24, 2018
LONDON — The tally so far: Britain’s second-busiest airport stalled for 36 hours. About 1,000 flights diverted or canceled. Around 140,000 passengers inconvenienced at the height of holiday travels.

That was last week, when British officials said that drones had been spotted flying near Gatwick Airport, south of London, and shut it down.

The score since then? One broken drone recovered, and a British couple detained and then released over the weekend without being charged.

If the investigators seem flummoxed, they are.

The fact that Gatwick is one of the most heavily surveilled strips of land in England, combined with an absence of video of any drone, left the lead investigator, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley, questioning whether drones were in fact involved at all.

Subscribe to The Times


But no one has ventured to say: If not drones, what?

On Monday, the Sussex police, somewhat defensively, released another statement reiterating that the sightings remained at the forefront of their investigation — and listing nearly all of them.

“We can unequivocally state that there have been numerous illegal drone sightings at the airport over three days from 19 to 21 December,” Sussex Police Deputy Chief Constable Jo Shiner said.

“There were numerous reports clustered around 37 occasions where a drone or drones were seen,” she added, “and I am keen for those responsible to be brought to justice.”


Last week, officials insisted that the drones had appeared to be a “deliberate act to endanger the airfield and aircraft,” though they did not appear to be linked to terrorism.

Gatwick Airport shut down abruptly on Wednesday after the first supposed drone sighting was reported around 9 p.m., with new drone sightings popping up every time officials prepared to resume operations. The airport, which was closed for more than 36 hours, reopened on Friday.

A half-hour after the initial sighting, six people — including five police officers — reported seeing a drone with white and red lights within 15 minutes of one another, the Sussex police said in its statement on Monday.

The next morning, Dec. 21, at around 1:15 a.m., six people — three airport workers and three police officers — also reported seeing a drone within 30 minutes of one another.

Later that day, another six people reported drone sightings, including a pilot, whose account was corroborated by another airport staff member.

The episode is being investigated under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

A former Scotland Yard detective, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the news media about the investigation, said the situation was alarming from a counterterrorism perspective.

a report in The Times of London that claimed Al Qaeda was resurgent and plotting new attacks on airliners and airports that involve drones, the former detective said the Gatwick episode made Britain look unprepared and vulnerable, and could provoke criminals to carry out copycat attacks.

He also said he did not understand how there could be over 60 witness statements but no video to back up the claims, especially in the age of smartphones.

Aviation experts said the episode should act as a warning that there is an urgent need to impose adequate tracking and identification of drones.

“It’s simply not enough to have a rule in place that you can’t fly a drone within 1 kilometer of an airport, higher than 400 feet, beyond visual line of sight or over people,” said Kenneth Quinn, the Global Aviation Chair at the Baker McKenzie law firm.

“You have to be able to enforce these rules and prevent violations,’’ he added. ‘‘This can’t be done without knowing where it is, and who is flying it.”

The Sussex police insisted on Monday that the release of the initial suspects was “not back to square one” on the investigation and that progress was being made on the case.

Gatwick Airport announced that it was offering a reward of 50,000 pounds, about $63,000, for information that would lead to “the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the criminal act that disrupted flights.” An additional £10,000 is being offered by the charity CrimeStoppers.

Chief Tingley said the police were pursuing a number of lines of inquiry and people of interest. Government ministers are expected to hold a conference call on Monday to discuss developments in the investigation
And at least for now, the planes are flying.


Gatwick Airport Drone: Lots of Second-Guessing, but Not Many Answers

Passengers waiting at Gatwick Airport after flights resumed last Friday. The shutdown of the London airport for almost a day and a half showed how easily the global aviation network can be brought to a halt.CreditJack Taylor/Getty Images
merlin_148377936_1ed14380-48c0-4a93-9b1b-29630f820864-articleLarge.jpg

Image
merlin_148377936_1ed14380-48c0-4a93-9b1b-29630f820864-articleLarge.jpg

Passengers waiting at Gatwick Airport after flights resumed last Friday. The shutdown of the London airport for almost a day and a half showed how easily the global aviation network can be brought to a halt.CreditCreditJack Taylor/Getty Images


By Richard Pérez-Peña

  • Dec. 27, 2018
  • LONDON — More than a week after somebody (or somebodies) with a drone (or drones) shut down a major airport and ruined the travel plans of tens of thousands of people, the British police had little to offer on Thursday except warnings about how little they had to offer.

“You won’t find a police service in the world, I think, who is sitting complacently thinking, ‘Well, we could always deal with a drone,’ ” Cressida Dick, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, told BBC 4 radio. “You won’t find it. It’s a difficult challenge.”

The shutdown of Gatwick Airport for almost a day and a half last week showed how easily the sophisticated global aviation network can be crippled by someone with even limited resources, how vulnerable the system is to mischief — or worse — and how hard it can be to find the culprits. The police have no one in custody in the case, they have suggested that they are still unsure of a motive and they are not certain how many drones were involved.

Some members of Parliament called this week for the Metropolitan Police to take over the investigation from the Sussex Police. The Metropolitan force, which primarily polices London, handles antiterrorism cases nationwide, but officials have not concluded that the Gatwick episode was an act of terrorism — nor that it was not.

arrested a couple last week, then released and publicly exonerated them. At one point, the lead investigator questioned whether, despite dozens of sightings, there had been any drone incursions at all; officials were then quick to insist that there had been.

The Metropolitan Police have “sent lots and lots of resources” to aid the police in Sussex, the county that contains Gatwick, Ms. Dick said, rejecting the notion of taking over the case, which she said “would cause a hiatus in the investigation.”

Whoever takes the lead, she said, the case has served as a cautionary tale.

“I think the whole country and certainly the government will have watched what’s gone on and said we need to up our game here,” she said. “We need to work even more closely with the private companies; we need to work even more closely with the military; we need to try to be able to prevent the criminal use of drones for whatever motivation near our airports.”

Despite the vulnerability, the French construction firm Vinci announced on Thursday that it had agreed to buy a majority stake in Gatwick for 2.9 billion pounds, or about $3.67 billion; it was not clear if last week’s events had affected the price.

Gatwick, the second-busiest airport in Britain and the eighth-busiest in Europe, handled 45 million passengers in 2017, despite being able to use just one runway at a time.

This year, the Conservative-led British government banned the use of drones within a kilometer, or three-fifths of a mile, of an airport. But experts have called for a five-kilometer exclusion zone, and some opposition politicians have accused the government of not taking the problem seriously until the Gatwick debacle.

A 2016 report on terrorism preparedness by Toby Harris, a Labour Party member of the House of Lords, cited “the potential for drones — either accidentally or with malicious intent — to disrupt flights,” and said the government should “explore technological options to improve the capacity to restrict drone use or disable them.” After the Gatwick shutdown, Lord Harris said the government had ignored his and other warnings.

Corporations and government officials have proposed a range of ways to defend airports, including deploying devices that would jam drones’ navigation signals, tangling them with nets fired from cannons, or simply having snipers shoot them down. A Dutch firm has even trained eagles to catch drones, though the police have said the type of device that caused havoc at Gatwick appeared to be considerably bigger and more robust than the off-the-shelf version.

The British military, which has tested potential anti-drone systems for use in war zones, should advise the police on protecting aviation, Mark Francois, a former defense minister, told The Times of London. But it is “clearly impractical for the army to defend every major airport,” he said.

Drone sightings first forced Gatwick to halt takeoffs and landings on the evening of Dec. 20. The airport resumed flights on the morning of Dec. 22, but suspended them again for a time that evening.

In all, more than 1,000 flights were canceled or diverted, delaying or canceling the travel of more than 140,000 passengers, including many who spent two nights at the airport.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/world/europe/gatwick-airport-drone.html






Authorities at Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom only got only a brief respite from small unmanned aerial systems disrupting services, despite the deployment of U.K. military forces with sophisticated counter-drone equipment. Less than two and a half hours after re-opening the main runway this afternoon, new sightings of remotely piloted vehicles shut down the airport's operations again. Thankfully for holiday travelers, this latest disruption was much shorter.

ROGUE DRONES HAVE PARALYZED U.K.'S GATWICK AIRPORT FOR MORE THAN 20 HOURS (UPDATE)By Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE
NO, ASSASSINATION BY DRONE ISN'T A NEW CONCEPT, I HAVE BEEN WARNING OF IT FOR YEARSBy Tyler RogowayPosted in THE WAR ZONE
USAF SAYS INSURGENT DRONES ARE WATCHING ONE OF ITS BASES IN AFGHANISTAN '24/7'By Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE
ISIS DRONE DROPPING BOMBLET ON ABRAMS TANK IS A SIGN OF WHAT’S TO COMEBy Tyler RogowayPosted in THE WAR ZONE
U.S. AIR FORCE BUYING SPECIAL DRONE-SNAGGING SHOTGUN SHELLSBy Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

Reports that Gatwick was in the midst of a "ground stop" first began to emerge at around 5:20 PM local time. Plane spotters using only fight tracking software had noticed inbound planes in longer than usual holding patterns and subsequently were able to see them begin diverting to other airports. Gatwick had only resumed flight operations at 3:00 PM after drones first brought everything to a halt on Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2018.

"We have currently suspended airfield operations as a precaution due to a suspected drone sighting," a spokesperson for the airport subsequently told Sky News. Small drones can present a significant safety hazard to air traffic, we at The War Zone explained in our piece on the initial drone incident yesterday, which had shut down operations for more than 20 hours causing major disruptions.


By around 6:30 PM, Gatwick had once again reopened. "The military measures we have in place at the airport have provided us with reassurance necessary to re-open our airfield," Airport authorities said in an official post on Twitter.

At present, the perpetrator or perpetrators still remain at large, though they face jail time under U.K. law, which bans flying drones within just over half a mile of an airport perimeter. Sussex Police, which had deployed officers armed with conventional firearms to the scene, had reached out to the U.K. military on Dec. 20, 2018, who, in turn, deployed personnel to assist in countering the rogue unmanned aerial systems.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense declined to say what support it had provided, but pictures have emerged showing uniformed individuals manning what appeared to be the Israeli defense contractor Rafael's Drone Dome defense system. The United Kingdom announced it had purchased Drone Dome in August 2018. Military and law enforcement groups around the world have been investing significant resources in an attempt to begin countering the threat of small, remotely-piloted vehicles on and off the battlefield.

image

AP
Counter-drone systems in place at Gatwick on Dec. 21, 2018.

Drone Dome features a number of compact, active-electronically scanned array radars to detect and track drones in over a highly localized area. This information then cues a separate, traversable system that features a radio-frequency jammer to scramble the control link between the unmanned aerial system and its operator and an imaging system for visual identification of the target. A solid-state laser that can burn a hole through small drones is also now an option for the system.

Depending on the exact model of drone in question, a disruption of the remotely-piloted aircraft's link with the control unit on the ground could lead it to fall out of the sky or attempt to return to its point of origin. You can read more about the growing number of different counter-drone systems available, and their limitations, here and here.


Other drone-detection systems have also been deployed to Gatwick Airport, including this mysterious system, which looks like something akin to an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter's mast-mounted high-frequency radar installed on a vehicle with a telescoping mast. Something like this would be well suited for detecting small drones even in an urban area.

Needless to say, this is yet another major disruption for Gatwick, the United Kingdom's second busiest airport, on a Friday that will be a long Christmas weekend for many people. Over 100,000 travelers were already reportedly impacted by the hours-long closure yesterday, causing significant economic damage.

We will continue to update this story as more information becomes available.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ened-gatwick-airport-to-a-grinding-halt-again


Questions Surround Mysterious ‘Drone’ Sightings at UK Airport


Brett TingleyDecember 28, 2018
  • Travelers in the UK encountered one of the worst holiday occurrences imaginable last week: a completely closed airport just days before Christmas. All flights in and out of Gatwick Airport in southeast England were halted on December 20 and again on December 22 due to what was initially described as “mysterious drones” flying dangerously nearby.
Multiple unidentified small aircraft were seen in the skies above the airport, and they seemed to reappear each time the airport attempted to open. While dangerous drone activity near airports is nothing new, the investigation following these incidents has only led to more questions which make me suspect something stranger may be in the skies over England.


plane-and-drone-570x380.jpg

While drone sightings at airports are increasing dramatically, there are too many loose ends in this case to write it off as another errant civilian-level drone.

The UK Ministry of Defence immediately began searching for the aircraft after the airport closures, bringing in specialized equipment to help defend the airport and identify what the drones may be. Soon after, Sussex Police issued a statementclaiming the drones witnesses described seemed to be “of an industrial specification.” In other words, these aren’t some kid accidentally losing control of a $30 quadcopter – these drones appeared to be large, sophisticated aircraft.

On December 23, Sussex Police arrested a couple they believed were related to the drone sightings, but those individuals were shortly after released and exonerated, leaving no other suspects to be found. Perhaps most curiously of all, the lead investigator on the case then publicly questionedwhether there has been any drone incursions into the airport’s airspace at all. If they weren’t drones, then what exactly was seen in the skies near Gatwick Airport?

drone-1-570x380.jpg

Or, what type of unknown drone might these objects have been?

While it might be easy to write this off as a case of amateur drone operators flying unintentionally near an airport – and it very well may be – there have been several other curious cases of unidentified flying objects in the skies over the UK lately. The Royal Air Force scrambled fighters just a few weeks ago to intercept an unidentified aircraft above eastern England, and multiple pilots reported strange objects in the skies over Ireland just a few months back. Could they be related to this airport closure?

Whether they are or not, this incident highlights the growing security threat drones pose. Gatwick Airport’s chief executive Chris Woodroofe called the incident an “unprecedented issue,” adding that “this isn’t a Gatwick Airport issue. It’s not even a UK issue. It’s an international issue.” Anti-drone systems have become a chief priority for both civilian and military airports, and even government installations and buildings aren’t safefrom the inexpensive, tiny aircraft. How can we keep the skies safe from these minuscule nuisances?

Depositphotos_95878112_m-2015-640x554.jpg

Maybe it’s best we all just start shooting indiscriminately at anything flying overhead.

More importantly, what exactly happened in England this week? With no answers to go on, it makes me think something fishier than just a few wayward quadcopters was responsible for this airport closure.
 
And now the same fate has befallen Heathrow. I know what people said last time I posted; about rules and regulations, having far more factors to consider regarding infrastructure. I acknowledged them in my own post. But I'm still coming back to this:

Britain spends billions on defence and defence contracts

Around £36,000,000,000 per year increasing to £39,000,000 over 2019/20, to be more specific. £36 billion and there's nothing that can be done to prevent a Fisher Price helicoper (deliberate facetiousness) from bringing some of the world's busiest and most important airports to a standstill. I find it hard to believe that no money has been spent on research into anti-drone technology or an anti-drone team. Drones have been in reasonably common, commerically-available hands for about 8-10 years now. There was always going to be a threat from them and they're going to remain one until whatever it is is invented that surpasses drone technology.

To me, I find it absolutely incredulous that the country can do nothing about drones and has done nothing in spite of a titanic defence budget which would include massive resources into detection technology and satellite identification. Either that or we have crossed the technological event horizon and we've now created technology that seriously damages our own way of life. We've collectively played ourselves good and proper.
 
Can't wait for the review.

Indeed. To an extent I think the high compensation is more a function of negative media briefings about the couple (and their subsequent vilification in the press) than the sometimes-it-happens nature of the wrong people being identified in an inquiry. The arrest warrants seem inept enough given the couple's alibis, but the resultant fallout must have been horrific for them.
 
Below is a report published yesterday by Forbes and other mainstream publications. At something close to 100 miles out at sea, 3 potentially nuclear armed US Navy destroyers were buzzed, circled and hovered directly over by unidentified drones. The drones harrassed the destroyers over a period of days or more. This was 2019. "The incident is immediately reminiscent of the multiple incursions of drones over U.S. nuclear facilities we reported last year. Some 24 sites suffered 57 drone incursions from 2014-to 2019. In one of the more dramatic incidents in September 2019, “five or six” drones flew over the Palo Verde nuclear power plant for around ninety minutes."


Mar 24, 2021,09:56am EST
Mystery Drones Kept Buzzing U.S. Destroyers During Exercises Off California

David Hambling

Contributor
Aerospace & Defense
I'm a South London-based technology journalist, consultant and author

New details have emerged of how mysterious drones harassed U.S. warships off California on multiple occasions in 2019. The Navy has yet to determine where the drones came from, who was operating them, or why they buzzed around a group of U.S. destroyers.

The incidents were first reported by documentary filmmaker Dave Beaty, with new details obtained by news website The Drive using Freedom of Information Act requests to get the ships' logs of the encounters.

The vessels involved were the destroyers USS Kidd, USS Rafael Peralta and USS John Finn. They were engaged in a training exercise in a military area about a hundred miles off Los Angeles in low visibility. This location tells us something immediately: these were not hobbyist quadcopters that happened to see some cool ships and flew over for a look, but something far more deliberate.

At 10 pm on July 14th, lookouts on the USS Kidd spotted two drones, which they describe in the log as 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles' or UAVs without providing details. Ten minutes later USS Rafael Peralta and USS John Finn made their own sightings. During this period, the ships were carrying out a form of radio silence with minimal communication, a common practice during exercises to make the ships difficult for electronic eavesdroppers to spot.

The ships logs note that the drones followed the Kidd, and at one point matched its speed and bearing, with one drone hovering above the helicopter pad. The encounter lasted some ninety minutes, much longer than the endurance of small drones which typically have a flights endurance of half an hour.

The drones departed, and despite the destroyer’s impressive array of sensors, which include radar, thermal imaging, electro-optical systems which can see in the dark and devices which can detect and locate radio transmitters, they were not able to determine where they went.

A similar even occurred on the following night starting at p pm. On this occasion the warships contacted the nearby cruise liner Carnival Imagination, which confirmed that the drones were not theirs, also that they could see five or six drones flying around the Navy vessels. This time the encounter lasted three hours, with the USS Rafael Peralta identifying four drones shadowing them at one point.

Similar incidents occurred on the 25th and 30th of July; here may have been others, but these were the only ones turned up by The Drive’s FoIA trawl.

A formal investigation followed, involving the Navy, Coast Guard, FBI and other agencies. Investigators contacted the operators of several commercial ships in the area, as these were seen as the most likely source for the drones, but drew a blank.

Many suspected that the drones must have originated from another unit in the US Navy. The Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) based in San Diego, which is responsible for drone operations, said that the drones were not theirs. They may have come from another element of the military, but whoever it was is not coming forward.

The incident is immediately reminiscent of the multiple incursions of drones over U.S. nuclear facilities we reported last year. Some 24 sites suffered 57 drone incursions from 2014-to 2019. In one of the more dramatic incidents in September 2019, “five or six” drones flew over the Palo Verde nuclear power plant for around ninety minutes.

etc.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidh...ing-exercises-off-california/?sh=47d2be8c2960


Multiple Destroyers Were Swarmed By Mysterious 'Drones' Off California Over Numerous Nights
The disturbing series of events during the summer of 2019 resulted in an investigation that made its way to the highest echelons of the Navy.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights
 
Last edited:
Sounds like ideal Phalanx target practise. Missed opportunity if you ask me.
According to the report, all the officers were on the bridge taking pictures. At one point, the aiming systems controlling the ship's weapons were activated and manned.
 
Last edited:
At one point, the aiming systems controlling the ship's weapons were activated and manned.

I suppose we're not seeing reports of when similar things happen to other navies. I'd say they're happening, submarines deploying wave-level observation drones is a very credible possibility. The sub doesn't even have to stick around, if your drones are disposable then they just need to send interesting bursts to a satellite. The question for the observed is when do they open fire and show how good they'd be at defeating drones in a combat situation?
 
I suppose we're not seeing reports of when similar things happen to other navies. I'd say they're happening, submarines deploying wave-level observation drones is a very credible possibility. The sub doesn't even have to stick around, if your drones are disposable then they just need to send interesting bursts to a satellite. The question for the observed is when do they open fire and show how good they'd be at defeating drones in a combat situation?
I'd say they're not opening fire because they can't be sure the targets are not friendlies - maybe classified operations of another service branch testing their protocols and messing with their heads. If the pitiful efforts of the Saudis to defend their oilfields against Iranian drones is anything to go by, then I'd say the solution to defeating them in a combat situation is not at hand. According to the reports, the US Navy has a drone defense system in place. But I guess its just stays in place.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like ideal Phalanx target practise. Missed opportunity if you ask me.
According to the report, all the officers were on the bridge taking pictures. At one point, the aiming systems controlling the ship's weapons were activated and manned.
I suppose we're not seeing reports of when similar things happen to other navies. I'd say they're happening, submarines deploying wave-level observation drones is a very credible possibility. The sub doesn't even have to stick around, if your drones are disposable then they just need to send interesting bursts to a satellite. The question for the observed is when do they open fire and show how good they'd be at defeating drones in a combat situation?
Speaking of subs, I think this sounds like it was a training exercise. I think the most likely culprit might be our own submarines which were taking part of the exercise on a different team to test these systems and their responses. I assume all of this was debriefed after the exercises.
 
I think this is highly unlikely as a training exercise. No unit would pull something like this without the complete cooperation of the command of the unit upon whom the exercise is being performed. The rank and file will be kept in the dark to test their training, but never the command. Command has to know what’s going on in order to prevent unintended escalation, hostilities, loss of life or equipment to friendly fire, etc. I performed training exercises like this when I was in the Air Force. The entire Air Base went on lockdown when someone didn’t follow their script and the SPs suddenly believed there was a real intruder on base.
 
Speaking of subs, I think this sounds like it was a training exercise. I think the most likely culprit might be our own submarines which were taking part of the exercise on a different team to test these systems and their responses. I assume all of this was debriefed after the exercises.
What little we know about this series of incidents seems to come from FOIA requests, which are are a very desperate, slow and frustrating way to learn anything. As always, national security plays a heavy role in what we could and should know about. This may be best for us peons. Hear no evil, see no evil.
 
Last edited:
The US Navy's top officer says the drones that swarmed destroyers in a series of bizarre events off Southern California in 2019 remain unexplained, according to a report from The War Zone, featured below:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...s-that-swarmed-destroyers-remain-unidentified

At a roundtable with reporters today, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday, the U.S. Navy's top officer, was asked about a series of bizarre incidents that took place in July 2019 and involved what only have been described as 'drones' swarming American destroyers off the coast of Southern California. The War Zone was the first to report in detail on this series of mysterious events after the incident was originally uncovered by filmmaker Dave Beaty.

Asked by Jeff Schogol of Task & Purpose if the Navy had positively identified any of the aircraft involved, Gilday responded by saying:

“No, we have not. I am aware of those sightings and as it’s been reported there have been other sightings by aviators in the air and by other ships not only of the United States, but other nations – and of course other elements within the U.S. joint force.”


“Those findings have been collected and they still are being analyzed," Gilday added. "I don’t have anything new to report, Jeff, on what those findings have revealed thus far. But I will tell you we do have a well-established process in place across the joint force to collect that data and to get it to a separate repository for analysis.”

At the time of writing, it is unclear if Admiral Gilday was referring to the Department of Defense’s Navy-led Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force(UAPTF), created last August to examine “incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace.” A Senate-requested report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is expected later this year. Representatives from the UAPTF could not be reached for comment.

A preliminary response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiries indicates that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) possesses documents about the incident and that they are intermingled with records from several other agencies. This would make sense as the UAPTF was established within ONI, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Schogol also asked if there was any suspicion that the aircraft described as drones were “extraterrestrial.” Gilday responded, “No, I can’t speak to that - I have no indications at all of that.”

The War Zone has reached out to the Navy, Coast Guard, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for further details regarding the drones flying near Navy destroyers in 2019. Members of the intelligence and armed services committees in both the Senate and the House were asked for comment, as well. While at least some elected officials indicated they were aware of the issue, none were able to make a statement at this time regarding the encounters off the coast of Southern California two years ago.

We will continue to update our readers with new information on this strange series of events as soon as we get it.

Contact the editor: Tyler@thedrive.com
 
I'm confused, isn't this the incident in the video you put in the other thread just now? We seem to have several places for drones/uaps/aliens/mysteries. I'm old and I can't keep up.
 
I'm confused, isn't this the incident in the video you put in the other thread just now? We seem to have several places for drones/uaps/aliens/mysteries. I'm old and I can't keep up.
The destroyer drone swarm is being reported as drones, both by those directly involved and by most of the press. They are quite possibly operated from Chinese submarines, as you have noted. But their origin is officially not identified.

I created the UAP thread because UAP are not at all necessarily related to aliens. There are many better explanations. It is my belief that UAP and aliens are completely unrelated. But there is a commonality between UAP, aliens and drone swarms - they are all officially unidentified. We can talk about them in the way that makes us most comfortable in dealing with the mystery and the potential threat. There is less stigma attached to UAP than aliens, and much less stigma attached to speaking about drones.

The drone swarm of the THAAD missile installation on Guam is almost certainly Chinese in origin, IMHO. Probably also the Channel Islands destroyer swarm. Conflict is certainly looming with China.

Meanwhile, the author(s) of the Gatwick drone attack appear to remain unidentified. At the time of the attack, was nuclear material located within or passing through the property or general area of Gatwick?
 
Last edited:
Back