[jstanley]

There must have been some motive for whoever did this. AFAIK, no environmental or terrorist groups have claimed responsibility.

Is it possible that this has been done by someone within the police or intelligence community in order to create a pretext for pushing through drone licensing laws?

[CydeWeys]

Could just be some immature troublemaker, like people who shine lasers at planes. There doesn't need to be some real motive.

[ngngngng]

Not an expert, but this really seems like something a teenager that recently acquired a drone and was showing off to his friends would do.

[jmull]

Is it possible? Maybe.

But it could also just be some random asshole. There are a lot of random assholes all over the place.

[goodcanadian]

I believe it is more likely to be a foreign nation proving a capability. They've just shown that with a team of a dozen people or so and some moderately sophisticated drones, they could shut down every major airport in the country more or less indefinitely.

[knorker]

I doubt it. That would be like burning a zero-day exploit. I think the airports have been absolutely asleep at the wheel because OF COURSE this was a risk. OF COURSE I would have set up TDoA equipment and had a company with anti-drone tech on speed dial (at the very least) if I were responsible for an airport bigger than a hobbyist field.

I bet you could get cover for Gatwick with TDoA equipment for less than $10k easy, say another $10k to have it installed.

Hell, you could probably get some amateur radio people to install it for free, but paying $10k is more CYA.

Anyway, my point is that now they sure as hell will prepare, so next time (well... give it a year for them to get their thumbs out of their asses) it will not work as well.

[goodcanadian]

I see your point. However, if they were some kind of activists, we would have heard their manifesto by now. If they were simply trouble makers, I would have expected them to get bored (and maybe scared) a lot sooner. The list of reasonable candidates is a bit short. I wouldn't put it past the Russians (for example, I don't mean to point fingers) to cause trouble just for the sake of causing trouble. Also, even if this particular tactic becomes harder in the future, it shows just how pitiful the response has been. Whoever it was tested us, and we failed.

[ryacko]

I haven’t even seen video of the drones, I think that would be released before the government provides free advertising.

[user5994461]

No company in their right mind would sell anything like that for less than $10k. Try £100+ as a starting price for one unit. It's aerospace and defense equipment and the airport is losing a truckload of money.

One of the article was giving a £16M figure for a 6 pack of the Israel Dome system.

[knorker]

I'll admit to not knowing what CAA rules a receive-only system would need, but this is not knowledge that is that specialized.

I'm saying the hardware is yes about $10k for sufficient coverage, COTS, and maybe you're right that a proven company would charge 100k and up. But you could hire someone competent for $300k/y to just implement it, and then deploy everywhere. (300k would get you someone competent enough)

But yes of course with aerospace certification needed it's... bad

[user5994461]

I don't think that is receive only, there is an active radar. The iron drone system seems catered to detect mortar/missile/UAV rather than consumer drones so it's certainly overkill and could be done for less.

Drones and UAV can cost more than $10k in hardware alone. I'm not familiar enough with the sensors and the technology on the detection side but wouldn't assume that anything comes cheap.

There are no product selling in the $10k price range. You will need to go through procurement with numerous sales meeting and demonstrations to make a sale, which automatically push the price to $100k and above.

It's low volume, meaning few units to recoup the development costs. Let's keep in mind that it takes a lot more than a guy in a year to develop a product.

[knorker]

> I don't think that is receive only, there is an active radar

I said TDoA, not radar.

> I'm not familiar enough with the sensors and the technology on the detection side but wouldn't assume that anything comes cheap

I'm not assuming.

[toyg]

The airports and pilots actually raised the problem with the UK government for years, to the point where in 2017 a law was passed that forbids to fly drones in the vicinity of airports and other sensitive areas. Aviation activism is similarly the reason for newer drones shipping with geolocking capabilities enabled by default. The problem is that the mainstream political scene saw these changes as resolutive (which they are not, as we’ve just seen) and just dropped the subject. This goes double for the UK, where Brexit has basically frozen any political and governmental activity that is not absolutely essential.

[malka]

It could have been done for the sake of lulz

[1337biz]

Is there already word from the land of lulz? I bet they are celebrating the situation no matter if there is any relation.

[voltagex_]

https://twitter.com/GlytchTech/status/1076715652843487232?s=...

[kiliantics]

Didn't the drone disappear to recharge/replace batteries and return multiple times? I thought this meant it must be intentional and not accidental.

Though, the accidental explanation is arguably more ominous/terrifying. It reminds of the episode "Autofac" from the "Electric Dreams" series.

[voltagex_]

Hah, that's the first time I've heard "disappeared/reappeared". It's plausable, but are there multiple witnesses/reliable video?