Police UAV's in America

[rangegal]

You can now be monitored from the sky!
Thats right, our loving police departments feel it's necessary to use small unmanned aircraft or "drones" to keep an eye on you without your knowledge.

Now not only can they tap your phones, read your email, and watch your google searches without a warrant, but they can also WATCH you with live aerial video!

God bless the patriot act!

In Houston, Texas:
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14659066/detail.html
In Los Angeles, California:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5051142.stm

Just thought I should warn you guys. Grab your shotgun.

[Kaydon]

I saw this on the news this evening before supper.

It was dubbed "the test they didn't want you to see" Now, why wouldn't they want us to a see a device that would put criminals behind bars? :rolleyes:

If I see it, I'm shooting it down with a deer slug. :cool:

With technology being as advanced as it is today I can only see this being used for evil.

Perhaps there would be a way for someone to tap into it's signal and re-direct it's path... straight back at the pigs :) :D

[rangegal]

Just don't let it see you before you shoot it down...

That would be cool if you could tap into its signal. What would be even better would be to take control of it, scramble its camera and tracking capabilities (so they pigs can't see where its being taken to) and fly it to your house so you can modify it and use it for your own purposes.:cool:

[Aristocles]

Perhaps there would be a way for someone to tap into it's signal and re-direct it's path... straight back at the pigs :) :D

"Kentucky redneck seizes control of drone and is now using it to buzz the local PD" ;)

Seriously, if people saw those in the sky around here, half would swear they were alien invaders and the other half would make it look like duck season, in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Strange but sadly expected stuff...

[Kaydon]

That's right, I'm just a guitar pickin', moonshine sippin', bacca juice spittin' country boy from the woods. They wouldn't watch lil ole me :) or would they.. Ha. But, seriously, that's me.

Rangegal has a good idea with scrambling it's signal and then landing it to study, but just for safety reasons I wouldn't land it at my home. Nearby field, or something. Be sure to disable any sort of GPS tracker, EMP pulse or something, but would have to NOT destroy the electronics. Be a tough thing to pull off.

Aristocles, as retarded as it sounds, you're probably right with the alien thing. I read somewhere that %85 of the U.S. population believes in UFOs, and some %60 of the world believe in little green men now.

I, on the other hand, would pretend duck season opened early :D Winchester just came out with a new 3 1/2" slug that's accurate up to 150 yards and has an effective range of 200 yards, you just have to compensate for drop and such, and know the trajectory. I wonder what it would do to a UAV? Mwhaha..

I wonder what they would charge someone with if they shot down their UAV..

[Rbick]

We used the UAVs a lot at my old job, and I spend time watching what they can do first hand. We used them for surrvailence and AARs (after action reviews). They use infared and usually hover around 9,000 feet. Good luck reaching that with your slug. You'll need more like a SAM to take it down. Not to mention they are nearly impossible to detect, because you can't hear them and most people don't have radar in thier home.

The ones we used could even have hellfire missiles or 7.62x51mm guns on them. There are smaller versions, but they still hover well over the reach of small arms or detection by the naked eye.

The detail and amount they can zoom in is really astounding. We actually had some people trying to hide in brush. That didn't pose a problem for the UAV 1 1/2 miles up, and each person could easily be seen. They got lit up with 105mm howitzers :D

The fact that the pigs now have this capability (not the 105s) is pretty scary. Think you get some privacy in your own home? Nope, 'cause not only can they watch your internet and listen to your phone, but now they can watch you for 1 1/2 miles up! YIPpE! So who is gonna fire the first shot? :confused:

[Kaydon]

Predator, eh?

A CheyTac could get the range, but be hard to hit it.

I doubt the police UAV is as advanced as a Predator.

It'll just be another Waco as far as who takes the shot.

[Aristocles]

... hover around 9,000 feet. Good luck reaching that with your slug. You'll need more like a SAM to take it down. The ones we used could even have hellfire missiles or 7.62x51mm guns on them.

7.62x51 NATO and 9,000 feet? What do they shoot at up there? Birds or other drones/aircraft? :D;)

The Houston article states that it was hovering at 1,500 feet.

[Kaydon]

7.62x51 NATO and 9,000 feet? What do they shoot at up there? Birds or other drones/aircraft? :D;)

The Houston article states that it was hovering at 1,500 feet.

1,500 isn't that high for a high powered rifle :)

[Mr Science]

Yes, I can imagine larger caliber cartridges reaching those heights Kaydon, but good luck hitting it (not to mention detecting it, as mentioned earlier). With hitting long range targets, you have plenty of factors to consider when hitting a target in front, such as wind speed, temperature, gravity, etc. If you aim high enough, these factors will be greatly magnified (gravity and wind), and don't forget you will probably be aiming above the ground at a moving target on top of it, assuming it is above you. I do not mean to be pessimistic, only realistic, when I say I can not think of too many effective AND efficient ways to take these down. Your best bet is to find where they are taking off and/or landing from.

[Aristocles]

Kaydon: I totally agree. If one could see it, it's certainly possible one could hit it.

I was referencing the 9,000 feet and 7.62x51 NATO round.

But hell yes, exempli gratia .300 Win Mag will kill easily at 1,500 feet, for sure.

[LibertyOrDeath]

If it ever gets to the point where the pigs are firing missiles at people from UAVs, then hopefully they'll need a whole lot of them to deal with the number of citizens who will be taking over police stations, shooting at anyone wearing a badge, etc. I don't expect the majority of the American sheeple to manfully rise up against their enslavers, but if things get bad enough, perhaps a sufficient number will -- especially if something like another Waco sets the snowball in motion.

In the meantime, these UAVs are yet another tool of the Republicratic surveillance state in which the pigs are worshipped and given whatever license and funding they need to control potentially unruly serfs. Anything the military has today, the pigs will have tomorrow as long as it's well-suited for peon control.

On the plus side, apart from running around openly with rifles or growing lots of pot, there doesn't seem to be much that a UAV can observe that's obviously illegal. And I don't see how a few UAVs can cover a whole lot of territory very thoroughly unless the operators know exactly what they're looking for.

Still, it's always worthwhile to think about possible countermeasures. You're not going to shoot these things down like clay pigeons, but I wonder if they could be detected by sweeping/scanning the sky with some kind of long-distance microphone?

[Kaydon]

It wouldn't be an easy task to shoot one of these out of the sky, but it's possible.

If you could get up into a tall building, rather than firing over your head at the sky, you'd have a much better chance at hitting it. Someone with access to a cnc machine could definitely make something to do the job ;)

I agree though, unless you're operating a militia training camp or growing massive amounts of drugs you would probably be in the safe-zone.

[Rbick]

7.62x51 NATO and 9,000 feet? What do they shoot at up there? Birds or other drones/aircraft

They had them installed for gun runs at lower altitudes. They usually had "chain" guns (nomenclature M134 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M134_minigun)), firing at around 4,000-6,000 rounds per minute :eek: But yes, when we were watching objectives, they were generally at 7 to 9 thousand ft above ground level unless the mission specified differently. The size of the craft usually used over seas was about the size of an ultralite plane, if not bigger, making them quite large. As I mentioned earlier, there are much smaller units for shorter distance purposes, which is what I would assume LE would be using in the states.

These do not have the range or weapon capabilities as their larger brothers, nor can they fly at such high altitudes. But they still posses the same imaging technology as the larger models, which is what really counts here. I'm guessing these were the ones you read about in the article being discussed here, which would make sense.

Getting up on a taller building would probably work fairly well against the smaller models if you wanted to shoot one down. Only problem being that it leaves you rather exposed while you're up there firing away at a little remote control airplane thats almost impossible to see.

[deathbymyhand9]

As a theoretical if I say saw one over my house would my Barrett M107 be effective it shoots a .50 BMG round (50 caliber). I reload myself and I have made exploding rounds accurate up to a mile and a half on a correctly proportioned human mannequin target.

Once again theoretical I also have multiple high powered hybrid jet propulsion systems for use in rockets. They are powered with nitrous oxide and various solid fuels and posses and amazing range. Where would be a good place to start for a targeting system? Some sort of tracking system or a proximity fuse? And of course a reasonable payload would be inserted.

[rangegal]

Most people have already seen this:
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

I hear it's just a scam to get people to donate or something, but he's got a cool idea.

I read an article in Popular Science (it might have been Mechanics) about how to make a tiny robot that follows a pink ball around wherever you roll it. Sounds like a simple tracking system to me :).
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/computerselec/f0f1d4d03cb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

And then theres Parallax, which also might be a good place to start.
http://parallax.com/

[Joxer]

Snip from http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/police-to-deplo.html
MSM source in link.

An attempt by police in Texas to hold a secret test of spy drones was foiled by a local TV station, which tracked the unmanned aerial vehicles, forcing law enforcement officials to disclose some of their plans.

[Gerbil]

Someone with some avionics experience could build a UAV of their own, arm it, and send it up to shoot the police craft down. An aircraft hobbyist friend who I discussed the idea with seemed to think that it was plausable- after all, you'd only be making an extra large R/C airplane. You'd have to boost the signal, and add a camera.

Firing systems would be the hardest part, depending on what you wanted to add. Firearms are heavy and difficult to control, yet the chance of actually hitting an airborne target with a homemade, unguided air-air missile are pretty small.
I suppose you could create a radio-guided or even self-guiding missile, but if you're going to do that then why not just ground launch? Having said that, an airborne weapons platform does provide greater anonymity.

It'd certainly be an interesting project, although somewhat unadvisable if you llive within 20 miles of other humans. If I get the time, I might do some basic experiments with tracking devices.

This isn't as far fetched as it sounds, even Hezbollah managed to do it:

wikipedia article with links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirsad_1

site with some articles and videos on homemade UAVs with autopilots (small models but you'd only have to scale them up):
http://diydrones.ning.com/

Once again theoretical I also have multiple high powered hybrid jet propulsion systems for use in rockets. They are powered with nitrous oxide and various solid fuels and posses and amazing range. Where would be a good place to start for a targeting system? Some sort of tracking system or a proximity fuse? And of course a reasonable payload would be inserted.

Generally speaking, a commercial rocket system isn't going to be very useful for ground launch. Of course, this depends on the cruise altitude of the drone and the actual power of the rocket (if you have some figures, they'd be helpful).
A google search will find you some designs for engines tested and capable of reaching 15,000 feet (if I remember rightly). I doubt that a UAV is going to be anywhere near that height, but you'd still want more power to compensate for the weight of the payload or warhead. This might be a good situation to utilise a multi-stage system.

Unfortunately though, a working tracking system is going to be very hard to make. For a start, you'd need to design very accurate and reliable steering for the rocket itself, and this alone would take a fair amount of time and expense.

The onboard computer would be relatively cheap, depending on what you wanted to add. It might be preferable to, instead of loading tracking hardware onto each missile, have one ground station tracking the target and controlling the position of the interceptor. That way you'd completely cut the costs by using the same equipment each time, not to mention freeing up weight onboard.

Actually, this brings me back to the original UAV idea. If you had a tracking station on your aircraft, you could use lower-powered hardware; find the target visually then switch to a 'master' autopilot that directed the interceptor rockets at whatever you want destroyed. Lower-spec hardware means more savings. Having an airborne platform would also mean that you could use less powerful rocket engines, again saving money.

In the end though, you might as well just build an AA gun as partly discussed. It might not have the same evil genius thrill, but it'd be cheap and effective.

[megalomania]

Just rig the remote controlled craft to detonate after ramming, or getting near the UAV. I know the people who fly those hobby aircraft treat them better than their children, but you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, or in this case breaking a few planes :)

Eventually someone will come up with open source optical tracking software enabling a missile to home in on an object using video cameras or ground based laser illumination. Imagine that, an inexpensive laser that tracks a moving object and a rocket that follows the light. Not too far fetched considering the technology already exists.

[Joxer]

Some RC aircraft are rather small and cheaply built. With the micro-miniature video cams available today (that weren't available when I flew RC) ramming another aircraft shouldn't be a problem. The price of the transmitter is a problem though.

http://www.wirelessvideocameras.net/c=zxR77dFtKsrcjNAuwa2es8NmC/category/001_rc_airborne_video_downlinks/ shows a 3 mile transmitter is $750.00


IMO the problems are in finding the target in the first place, and the range and cost of the video transmitter.

Another option is somewhat similar to "combat" flying some RC pilots were into. A streamer was flown behind the plane, and the opponent tried to cut it, thereby getting a "kill".

Drag a sturdier streamer thru the drones prop might work.

[Jacks Complete]

You don't need a really high powered transmitter, just a tracking antenna and line of sight for your high gain transmitter aerial. That sorts that end out!

For the other end, most of the UAVs have a propeller. This makes them easy to see with radar or lidar. It also ensures that if you drop a net on them, they will stall and fall. Using explosives or whatever is just asking to get shot. Using a net made of Kevlar strands or high strength fishing line isn't nearly as likely to get you shot as a terrorist.

The moment between deploying the net and letting it go will be the hardest part, as the extra drag is likely to stall your own craft if you get it wrong. The plus side to this is that even a jet powered UAV would suffer from limitations to the control surfaces and the increased and un-even drag, making it nearly impossible to keep airbourne.

As regards EMP to disable the electronics but let you fly it, I think someone doesn't quite get it. EMP takes out all the electronics, and the plane falls like a brick without the GPS tracker working either. EMP fails to kill anything, and it simply carries on as normal. The odds of selectively killing one system is zero!

[Joxer]

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/qbranch/darkstar.php shows the stealth of the Darkstar UAV

And from http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KziQ70Zci0MJ:www.cfse.ch/cfse/pdf/CFS_newsletter_2_07.pdf+uAV+stealth+properties&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

there's

NEURON differs from conventional aircrafts essentially bythe absence of real time human intervention during the flightmission and by its special aerodynamic design. To achievestealth properties, NEURON has neither a vertical tail norhorizontal stabilizers and much resembles a flying wing.

IMO kocking them down is easy, next to finding them in the first place.
Finding them is the problem.

When I first started flying RC, I had to rig an airbrake, because I had to crash a PT-40 that glided too far on a deadstick and headed toward some people. Something similar, but ono a larger scale, could be rigged to release something to snag a prop, once a way to find the UAVs is realized. That way a net would not have to be dragged behind the "interceptor".

Either that, or just ram the MF'er.

[Kaydon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_UAVs

Many different designs for these things.

[Alexires]

I was just thinking that. Instead of using a single net, why not use something like a bigger party popper that blows out some nylon/kevlar thread. That would fuck up their prop, and overcome the drag issues as well as allowing multiple shots.

Instead of going all high tech. with EMP's (flux pumped) and whatever, if you can take over the UAV, then just land it in the back of a moving van. Faraday cage blocks all signals in and out, and allows you to be far away from where they last detected it. If you break it *shrug* who cares? You have more than you did before, and you can always salvage/fix it. After the feds lose a few of those, they will start having problems with budget. Yeah, it will piss them off, but better than trying to flux pump it out of the sky, or SAM it.

Perhaps it might be possible (speaking of high tech) to hook some kind of microwave generator to your own plane. Instead of trying to physically harm it, fry the electronics, wings, anything with a microwave. A highly collimated beam of microwaves would fuck up either electronics. We don't need to cook with it, so who cares if it only runs for 0.1s, as long as it does it's job...

[Positron]

I know a person that is heavily involved in the quickly-developing UAV business. He says that if you ever see one of these things flying around for purposes of law enforcement, to immediately notify the FAA.

Snip taken from http://www.jpdo.gov/newsArticle.asp?ID=25
Currently, the legal use of UAVs in the civil airspace requires FAA approval through a one-year "certificate of authorization" for a particular plane in a specific area. Permission to use UAVs is reviewed by the FAA on a case-by-case basis. However, work is already underway to create procedures and standards for UAVs.

Apparently, this is a great way to nail organizations that are using these illegally, as it's almost guaranteed that they have not taken the effort to do as this article describes.

Damn piggies think they can do anything.

An acquaintance of mine other than the aforementioned person, has recently seen one of these fuckers (a UAV) making passes up and down an Eastern-U.S. highway. It was clocking speeders, and not too far down the road, a little shitcluster of piggies were having a heyday flying it around.

I imagine that at the low altitude that it was flying, that it...and the cops...could probably read a book in the seat next to you. Don't know about you all, but that pisses me off.

I will see if I can get more information as to the best way to notify the FAA.

EDIT, Added the following:

Are these things electric powered? Do they burn gas? I ask, because many easily-constructed amateur rocket designs can lick up into the realm of 10,000ft +. It would be quite easy (well, at least for those with electronics experience) to retrofit a heat-seeking guidance system to one of these. Fill the top of the body (underneath the IR camera in the nosecone) with ETN...with AP in front of it!!

Would a solution, not that be??? ; )

Just don't get caught doing it...you'll get your ass handed to you, and it won't be on a silver platter.

[Rbick]

I like your idea for a home made SAM. I don't think its a question if we could do it, its a question of whether someone can afford it. And then be comfortable with the fact they just blew their home made heat seaking equipment to hell along with the UAV.

Perhaps a laser guidance system could be in order? Paint the target with an infared laser and have a targeting system that follows the laser. Thats what our FOs used in Iraq with JDAMs. I figure a laser following system would be less expensive (maybe, I'll have to research) than a heat seaking assembly.

As for the the FAA; its funny how the bureaucracy of the government bites itself in the ass sometimes. The fact the piggies have to comply with FAA BS paperwork and regulations is rather amusing :D

[tmp]

If the pork is using these as airborne eyes, do you think it's possible to
damage the CCD with a high power laser ? I know that you shouldn't aim a
camcorder at the sun for this very reason. Even if you can't inflict damage,
it may be possible to blind it temporarily.

[jrrdw]

If the pork is using these as airborne eyes, do you think it's possible to
damage the CCD with a high power laser ? I know that you shouldn't aim a
camcorder at the sun for this very reason. Even if you can't inflict damage,
it may be possible to blind it temporarily.


I don't think so, these aircraft work off of a radio frequency that is or has it's own band. My glider has to be on a FM narrow band, AM bands are no longer allowed in the USA for the public to use.

You could probably blind the camera and keep it from taking a picture with a strong laser. My cousin lays utility pipe and has a strong laser. Shoots a 1 inch diameter red dot for 500 feet, uses it to stay on grade. It mite blind the camera as long as you can aim it rite at the lens.

[Positron]

As for the the FAA; its funny how the bureaucracy of the government bites itself in the ass sometimes. The fact the piggies have to comply with FAA BS paperwork and regulations is rather amusing

Haha, yep. Funny as hell, even if it's happening at the expense of the taxpayers.

To the person with the laser idea; Yes, it would probably work. One carefully-aimed pulse from a big YAG laser would surely do hell on a CCD.

...Or it would burn a hole in the damn thing, depending on just how big the laser is. With the one a friend of mine has,,,I think I'd be worried about what it was going to hit when it fell :D

If nothing else, just keep the UAV "painted" with a continuous medium-power, visible-light laser. A nice 5 watt green DPSS laser would probably do the trick. I'd shoot the beam straight out of the laser, and into a fiber. The other end of the fiber would terminate into a handheld "pistol", with some simple optics inside that would make the beam spread out a little with distance. This would make it quite easy to keep the beam on the UAV until it went away :cool:

Indeed, there are many options. As previously stated (Rbick) it's just a matter of how far someone is willing to go with it.

On the off-chance that someone does something, make sure to put it on YouTube.

[Goblin$]

Lol who cares about fancy toy planes... Google Earth is the problem. People would be able to take down the low flying UAV's, but the big ole satellites are the problem. Google Earth Pro http://earth.google.com/earth_pro.html In just a few clicks, you can import site plans, property lists or client sites (that seems quasi legal to me) and share the view with your client or colleague. You can even export high-quality images to documents or the web. Read client as police and a searcher sitting at a desk sending the info to the police driving around via laptop. Thats really bad, I'm sure they could easily highlight the fastest route to apprehend the criminal in a nice yellow.

[Rbick]

No, controlling a sattelite is too cumbersome and time consuming. The piggies don't have them anyway. Google earth is cool, but doesn't offer live coverage (at least not that I know of), and the low flying UAVs are real time, easy to control, and have incredible image quality. There really isn't anything that can replace what a UAV can do. Believe me, I've seen them in action :)

Plus if the piggies or the feds want to find you quickly, they usually have a nice GPS unit in their car. I have a really nice GPS unit (500$) and I have gotten around rediculous traffic or found a normally hard to find place quickly. Its all of these things put together with UAVs that make it a real challenege for us.

Actually, you guys might find this interesting (http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u6/pudgedog69/DSC00049.jpg). I hooked my GPS via USB to my laptop and installed garmins new tracking program. As you can see, the computer displays my location live on a map, and has the ability to look up addresses and locations. I like using it for road trips :cool:. I think this is similar to what LE uses...

[megalomania]

I read a hilarious story a couple years ago about building new properties in Italy. Apparently the Italian government has so much bureaucracy that if you want to build a new home or structure that it can take years and years to get the proper permits. They don't have the man power to drive around every street looking for illegal construction, so they use satellite imagery and UAV's to patrol from the skies.

The funny part is, Italian builders just lay out roofing shingles on the ground after they demolish a building, or on open land. From the sky the tiles look just like rooftops, so the watchers don't notice a thing. There are entire neighborhoods thriving with new construction, but without fedgov permits, with shingles placed all over the place.

The Italian government in this situation has become so bloated and inefficient, to the point of being worthless, that it forced the good hardworking citizens to completely circumvent the stupidity of fedgov law and enforcement.

A dimes worth of defense beats a dollars worth of offense, or so the saying goes in the defense industry. Necessity is also the mother of all invention. No matter how much money the fedgov pours into their little gadgets and toys, someone somewhere will come up with a way to completely baffle the coppers and lawthugs with a simple, cheap, and all too effective countermeasure. Nothing beats boots on the ground, and a UAV is no substitute for effective law enforcement. There is probably some Chinese toy being designed right now that will have the unintended consequence of jamming UAV control frequencies and directing it into the path of the nearest cell tower.

[Alexires]

On the laser idea, I've seen 200mW lasers for sale on the net for less than $150USD. I'm sure that would brighten up their ideas.

Good thing about these piggies flying up and down a highway is that it is probably straight (or nearly). If that is so, it wouldn't be hard to paint the UAV with a 200mW green laser and have a simple computer program work out the next few seconds flight path for the UAV, then fire off a rocket at it. Problem would be keeping the rocket accurate.

Most model rockets I have seen aren't that reliable to hit a target even a few metres wide. That could be a problem, and if the UAV is flying around, they might be able to follow the vapour trail, which would suck.

Shooting it out of the sky would be a better bet IMHO as opposed to firing rockets at it, but trust me, I understand how difficult just "shooting it out of the sky" might be.

You know, this seems all too fucking hard. There has got to be a better way, Occam's Razor, if you will. I'm sure if NBK were around, he would have told us we are all idiots and presented a simple idea that solves the problem.

Hmm. How about the controller? Instead of targeting something a few thousand feet in the sky why not get the controller. Incidentally, I've seen GPS blockers on the Internet for ~$100USD as well as cell phone blockers for $50.

The piggies are limited by the same things we are (they aren't fucking magical). They either need to use the mobile phone network, GPS, or some kind of EM signal. The first two can be blocked, and the 3rd one might be able to be jammed as well.

Now, I'm not to experienced with programming, or electronics, but logic says to me, if the UAV can see you, you are within range of the signal. A program tracks the UAV, and listens for incoming radio signals that match the movements of the UAV. When a particular radio band has been identified, this can then be blocked.

Yes or no, from those more knowledgeable than I?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

These guys built a rocket that they needed to contact the FAA prior to testing! Building a smaller one would still be no light investment if guidance, altimeter, and lift-level equations need to be worked out.,,, But once you do so....you can continue to do so. I was involved in two rocket clubs for a long while. It was a lot of fun and most all those guys are still building. I had to travel to go to the meetings so I basically drifted away but I still keep up with it.....(Damn fun stuff.)

[wst50]

On the laser idea, I've seen 200mW lasers for sale on the net for less than $150USD. I'm sure that would brighten up their ideas.

Good thing about these piggies flying up and down a highway is that it is probably straight (or nearly). If that is so, it wouldn't be hard to paint the UAV with a 200mW green laser and have a simple computer program work out the next few seconds flight path for the UAV, then fire off a rocket at it.

A DVD Burner laser is amply powerful for painting and also damaging weak components (CCD sensors, in this example). If you used a good telescopic sight you could identify at least one of the cameras on the UAV. It wouldn't take a lot of power to fill the operators screen witha blur of light, glare from the laser.

And if you can make a system that will track a UAV and fire a rocket accurately, it'd be childs play to get the computer to keep the laser on the UAV camera long enough to destroy the CCD.

At least, that's how it works in theory. I'm (hopefully) making a laser-pointer jammer (well, it should hurt whoever's trying to blind me with their pointer anyway) from a DVD laser soon, so I'll see how it does at burning electronic components/objects from a distance.

[sdjsdj]

EM noise, and lots of it. If the operator can be made to lose control of the thing, not only is it no longer watching but you've gained a very neat toy.:)