[lend000]

It's pretty undeniable that something significant is going on and has been for quite some time. What is now called drones might have been called UFO's or airships in a previous decade.

And you see the same old characters saying "certainly this is a covert project from another branch/country." That argument seems quite nebulous and plausible if you watch a lot of Marvel movies, but if you know the defense industry, and consider how long that argument has been used (since the Foo fighters of WW2), it falls apart. The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while), and really anything making a lot of money these days commercially is well ahead of the defense counterpart (small drones, rockets, etc.) Look to the pay rates for engineers working on TS projects and you can see why. The talent has been going to SV since the early 90's. The other countries with significantly smaller budgets? I doubt we'll find anyone from a contender country that can speak to the efficiency of their research on HN, but projecting from the much better funded and more advanced US and the efficiency of bureaucracies in general, it seems unlikely there's anything from China or Russia that can sneak up on us so easily, let alone do maneuvers described in some other incidents going back 70+ years.

[baybal2]

> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36085/troubling-drone-...

Looks like an unashemed intimidation operation, given that there is nowhere in Guam a civilian can bring a car sized quadcopter, and island's tiny population.

It pretty much screams of somebody trying to say "we can fly our foo-drones over your missile battereys, and ship any time"

Of all countries, there is only one on record with car sized, gas powered quadcopters.

[brutusborn]

Which country?

[baybal2]

Guess the country

https://dronemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gas-Powe...

And the secon possible is the Unihawk family from Efy Tech

https://www.efy-tech.com/en/file/upload/2019/06/11/156040236...

[kamaal]

It seems far fetched to imagine any country would intimidate a power like US flying their easily recognisable drones. Just the risk of an accident causing a crash into the ship, and igniting a bigger conflict is sufficient enough for any country to not attempt such a thing. There are better ways to test your tech than doing something like this to a super power.

Also not sure how they were confident enough to deduce it was a drone. Clearly it was like 1000-1500 feet above them in dark.

We just chose to call a UFO a UAV. That's what I learned from the article.

Or.

May be it was just a test. They wanted to see how people would handle a situation like that.

[baybal2]

> It seems far fetched to imagine any country would intimidate a power like US flying their easily recognisable drones

"intimidate a power like US" is what China, and Russia are doing with monthly regularity around the world with zero pushback.

The only time ever USA gave a direct response was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham and even that was made more out of fear than a deliberate pushback, despite it sending kremlin into weeks long stupor.

[brabel]

Not to defend China or Russia, but you seem to think the USA is completely innocent and does not constantly intimidate anyone it thinks is not an ally (sometimes it does it even allies). Guam is actually a great example. Why do you think the USA keeps a military base on such an isolated location, really far from its shores? In fact, the USA has literal guns pointed at the head of every country in the world[1]. Saying that someone is intimidating the USA without pushbacks is laughable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...

[girvo]

The Chinese CH-4 perhaps? Not sure.

[simiones]

Those are quite a few assumptions you're making to conclude "aliens" (which seems to be your implication).

First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation. While the article does mention a few details in this direction (the speed and flight time, the number of drones), they only suggest that this would be a problem for consumer-level drones, not something that would be difficult for a military or commercial drone.

You're also conflating these reports with unspecified other reports going back 70 years to try to paint a more mysterious picture. This does not follow in any way.

[lend000]

> You're also conflating these reports with unspecified other reports going back 70 years to try to paint a more mysterious picture. This does not follow in any way.

There isn't enough info on this incident to make a meaningful conclusion, or to rule out that it is a group of sophisticated CalTech students launching their drone swarming research project from a research vessel with no idea the consequences of what they're doing. But there's a pattern of these incidents, and some (such as the incident in the same area with the Tic-Tac described by Commandor Fravor) don't have such an easy out.

> First and most of all, you're assuming that this is a high-tech, difficult to mount operation.

I think you overestimate how far consumer drones can fly or underestimate the radar capabilities of destroyers. The fact that a launch source was not identified is significant, whether we assume it came from domestic researchers or a hostile submarine in a US military training area outside of major civilian/military centers.

[happyconcepts]

They are called loitering munitions. By comparison, consumer gear is nowhere near to their capabilities. And I understand they fly autonomously better than a Tesla (sorry Elon).

I'm surprised there was no message left behind, in a bottle, saying "Thanks for all the selfies."

[WentFullRetard]

Sorry, but when you dropped "The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while)" you lost all credibility. This is just completely inaccurate. Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind? Furthermore, I'd take a closer examination on who is funding the academics and reaping the benefits of the research. What an armchair comment.

[blaser-waffle]

Aye, there are a lot -- a LOT -- of well paid IT types around DC. Lots with clearances, and fancy pedigrees.

Isn't an accident NoVA, Southern MD, and the greater DC area are tech hubs.

Entirely a separate discussion from if the US DoD can handle drone swarms. They've spent the last 2 decades occupying two middle eastern countries and have been hemorrhaging money away in the process. That money could have gone towards civilian needs, but even if it didn't and the $$$ stayed with the military, the opportunity cost of going hard on counter-insurgency as a national strategy for 20 years is now clear.

[ddalex]

Wow. Not only DoD have drone swarms, they have been at the forefront of research, invented the concept of drone swarms, and have been testing them for at least 15 years. Search for DoD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030

[lend000]

> This is just completely inaccurate. What an armchair comment

I assume you are actually fully in the armchair, and have no idea what you're talking about.

> Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind?

So your enemy doesn't know what you have. Same as it has always been? In areas where the private sector cannot profit outside selling to the military (e.g. missiles/radar), then obviously the government is ahead because nobody else is really working on them. But perhaps you've watched too many sci-fi movies. We don't have a SHIELD with flying aircraft carriers.