A lot of people will do stupid things just hoping for "likes" and "subs" on social media. People have crashed their own planes (and died), for gosh sakes. Of course they would fly drones in places that are not legal. So why hasn't the video surfaced online? They may have realized the legal peril they would be in if they shared the video, or they are waiting for a statute of limitations to run. (We see the latter with street racing videos, sometimes.)
@@lightningxx -- Shhhh. If they think there is one, let them wait it out and post their video. Then they can enter the "found out" portion of their stupid stunt.
@@gendaminoru3195 EXACTLY!! These INANE laws only affect LEGAL US citizens. Not ILLEGALS who are spies for other countries who have the drones and resources for spying on this range and probably many other places. This is all being ALLOWED TO HAPPEN by the DEM regime and diaper joe. Completely helping China to end up destroying the USA.
Every modern aircraft in the sky is constantly sending and receiving radio signals. The goal of the adversary is to figure out which signal or frequency aligns with which activity. They would like to know, for instance, what signal aligns with a deployment of a particular weapon system. If they can ‘hear’ it as well as observe it often enough, they will know with some certainty what to expect the next time they detect the signal. The drones could very well be friendly. As much as an enemy might like to know, we would also like to know what our signal signature looks like under a myriad of conditions and what we might do to better conceal or disguise it.
Obviously whoever is doing it isn't retarded sending a $500 10 foot drone which $70 million F16 fails to detect or destroy it. Seems the military is testing their own jets capabilities of these situations (would they seriously risk their own pilots? i bet so) or some foreign national testing US F16s and gathering capabilities. Anyone who knows about flight control understands that it requires zero communication or radio signals given off, they simply fly it "autonomously", which also includes no GPS or any radio signal needed. GPS signals seems to be irrelevant since it is basically receiving that info and I highly doubt that they way they designed space GPS systems to keeps a log who-is-what-and-where-is-that.
Don't like it, then change the laws. The USA allows foreign nationals and companies to buy land. And I find it funny how Americans complain about Chinese owned land when the USA literally has military bases surrounding China LOL>
So they say that they actually hit one of the drones with the "rear canopy" of an F-16. They didn't tell us anything about the wreckage of that drone...🤔
@@lutomson3496 you should watch the video since it shows multi rotor drones not winged drones . Not to mention the average hobbyist of rc airplanes don't have 10ft wingspans planes . Sure they make them common not even slightly .
@flpiercer I have and have had several RC models with wingspans well over 10ft. I currently have one that has a 13 ft. wingspan. You can see it on my RU-vid channel. look for FLAMINGO UAV MK2
That high, in that place, more likely a domestic agency testing something the military pilots weren't cleared to know about. Chinese would just use a Satellite, like the US does over China and Russia.
@@nattybumpo7156 Unlikely, but only because the pilots that have reported it as "a drone" would be trained to tell the difference between wings and balloons :)
@@nattybumpo7156 The description of it being a winged drone, not the quadcopter style that most people would think, is mentioned in the reports from the pilots who saw it. Wings, means, not Balloon.
Same thing that happened in Vietnam, a bullet costing a few cents bringing down a half-million dollar UH-1 near an LZ. Nothing really wild about it. Or the fact that a free bird (no pun intended, Skynyrd) can bring down a $100 million jet like a B-1 bomber, which one in fact did on September 28, 1987, killing 6 crew members.
Luckily birds don't fly at the same altitudes that passenger planes cruise at. As a kid I just assumed planes would shred them and move on with their day. I fly fpv as well. Have 13 quads built with like 5 in perpetual rebuild. I guess I just never saw them as anti aircraft equipment baha.@@feralfpv3768
Drones like this would have to have radio control from somewhere nearby. By tracking the drone, the Airforce should be able to listen in and get at least a general idea where the operator is, and or they could jam the drone to bring it down to inspect it.
The Air Force ought to use these drones as an opportunity to practice taking down drones, as they are becoming increasingly used in modern warfare. That way, the air force is not out the cost of a drone, and the drone owner really can’t squawk about it, because it was restricted air space and they’d get in trouble just for admitting that it was their drone.
@@HoundDogMech he never even said it had to be a missile (or “missle”, but I tried to type that wrong 3-4 times due to autocorrect…not sure how you did that).
@@libertyforall5764 10 foot wingspan, probably less than 60 mph targeted by an F-16 with a stall speed of 200 knots. That'd be a pretty incredible shot to pull off.
They want Irresponsible drone operators gone. They don't care about those who use common sense, follow regulations and stay away from areas they don't belong.
@@thecourier2018 And uh. What regulation is that? The regulation YOU want? Flying over airports, helipads, or bases is obvious. But what the anti drone nutters want is more bans. They are similar to anti gun people. Don't know shit about the topic but push their agenda
More likely, somone in a three letter agency was testing hardware no-one is supposed to know about, and the fighter jet pilots stumbled in to the test.
Why should they be concerned with a 10 ft. drone when in 2023 they let *_a Chinese SPY balloon fly across the ENTIER U.S for 5 days._* The US tracked the Chinese spy balloon for 5 days before shooting it down over the Atlantic near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It flew at an altitude of 60,000 feet. The balloon was around 200 feet tall and it's payload was a bout the size of two or three school buses, it was powered by 48 solar panels.
They better be concerned because it's undetectable, imagine driving a $70 million Ferrari at 1,000 MPH blindfolded and all of a sudden smashed into a brick wall, thats the same thing when a drone is struck by a F16.
Something like 25,000 military age male Chinese nationals have entered the us via the southern border since the start of the year, so 12k a month, while Chinese shell companies have been buying up land surrounding and adjacent to us military installations, to the tune of literally millions of square acres. Yeah this is all by design, there is absolutely operational foreign militaries within our borders.
It would be very odd if the air force hasn’t realized this how the real world is.. such “unidentified” objects are going to be intruding all theaters (including homeland) especially during war times.
Amazing that pilots, cooking along at 600+ MPH, can even seen them - drones are generally limited to an average of 40-50 mph, and have the RCS of a tarantula.
So you can’t see the ground because it’s static compare to the reference of the pilot? Yes you don’t get much time to see but it depends on where the prospective is. Side views no problem. Straight on is the issue. So you seeing a drone a bit away is possible. Especially top down views.
what makes you think F16 training is done at slow speeds? Its rated at 1,500 MPH but have a minimum speed of 130 MPH. Advanced drones could go up to 100 MPH+
@@sto2779 I can't see mine from the ground once I'm above a couple hundred feet, and it only goes around 40 MPH. It's pretty difficult to pick out full size aircraft from the air, unless they are very close, and unless you know where to look both in azimuth and elevation, and even then you have to concentrate. What suggests to you that spotting one from an F-16 at normal cruise speed and altitude is practical, given all the other things that command a pilot's attention, and considering that he doesn't know there's one around to look for to begin with?
@@PiDsPagePrototypes 😂exactly. This isn't an R&D range like WSMR, its basically just an upscaled civilian shooting range. Nothing is being used that isn't already out there, besides a bunch of pilots that are honing their skills.
If all the person wanted to know was what they are doing or dropping they wouldn’t want to place the drone in a way that could draw attention to themselves.
1:29 lol. That's ERAU for you... imagine wearing a flight suit to fly drones. I know because I went there in 2005-2007. It was a huge waste of my time and money.
wondering how much of this is theory and conjecture..lots of drone pilots fly out there looking for old caves, settlements etc they are all over youtube and 400 ft is the max they are supposed to be up...i fly drones but not there
We keep talking about high speed drone, jet etc, have we thought about slow moving object that can be used for spying? how can we detect them? are our borders safely guarded from these stealthy crawly inching forward to our country?
Probably the cartels 3d mapping it to find the best delivery routes, and its easier to watch for and gather detailed intel on border security and patrols from the sky once you know they'll be in the area given the battery life or fuel limitations of drones.
With freedom comes responsibility. Use some responsibility or get no freedom. There's a reason why questionnaires on things like job applications ask if your civil rights were restored after an arrest. Those who fail to use responsibility quickly rack up criminal records.
What a good way to put a bad image on drones. I know darn well this ain't true! I've flown my drone for 10 years and you can't take that away from me. Stupid propaganda.
All F-16 B, D and F aircraft have two seats, i.e. a forward and rear cockpit, two-seater, with a forward and rear canopy over each cockpit. Technical, yeah, it's a single-piece canopy but to denote locations they still use forward/aft (rear) locations on canopy. So, the strike description immediately told me it was a two-seat variant. Also, for the record, the QF-16 is the drone version of the F-16 and is a no-seater as it is an unmanned aircraft.
The batteries don't last that long unless your highly experienced making gas engine craft or like they said something with a significant wingspan for a choking battery. Most off the shelf radio systems are also only good for a couple miles as well.
Most drones do not easily go 10000 feet high. Consumer and enterprise drones are mostly limited by the manufacturer. To get around that limitation somebody would have to hack the software. Custom built drones don't have those limitations but they are liminated by battery life so if somebody were able to get that high it wouldn't last for very long before the thing ran out of gas and fell back down. A drone that had the ability to climb to 10000 feet and stay there would not be "most drones", it would be a very rare much more sophisticated and expensive drone.
That area is a significant drug corridor for the cartel. They have flown manned crafts before. They have the resources to have unmanned drones now., especially since the weed business is dead for them. They don’t need to carry as much weight for the bang of the dollar. They get way more money for grams of fentanyl than they ever did for pounds of weed.
There is a hint to be found in the fact you show a multirotor in a video clip, then start talking about a wingspan. Do you see any wings on the multirotor? What kind of trash reporting is this? It is obvious the USAF guys are seeing a large fixed wing, and that may be a POV flown R/C model, not a "drone" at all. At a 4 meter wingspan, if that is built light, it may be autonomous, and launched many many kms from the sighting. With all that Chinese owned land right around that local, I would guess there is your answer, but keep trying to blame some 4x4 enthusiast with a hobby drone, all the while ignoring the obvious. lol, trash reporting at it's finest
Some of this is clearly BS - independent tests have shown the majority of consumer grade drones are Nowhere Near As Solid As A Bird. In fact, many of the drone-vs-aircraft parts test have been shown to be unreliable, as the drones had to be beefed up just to survive the process that launched them at the test articles. Even if the usual quadcopter style drone was sucked in to a jet engine, it would cause less damage than a goose or eagle could do. "Hitting the rear of the canopy of an F-16",... riiiiight, so the F-16 was flying backwards for that to happen?? At the altitude and size described later in the video, the most likely truth is, a US agency testing hardware the fighter pilots were unaware of, followed by a university aeronautics test program, a drug cartel shipment drone, or a civilian with Wing or Jet style RPV and really good FPV systems. Another country is the least likely to be true, but the most likely to be suggested by the propaganda depts of the mainstream media.
@@notanymore9471 Note I said "less damage", and when compared to a bird, it is less damage. For the moment, it's still only hypothetical damage as there's no evidence of it ever having happened, where bird damage happens routinely.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes what does that even mean? A drone or a bird will both destroy a jet engine. You should just be quiet as you obviously are not qualified to speak on the subject. Go play with your drones instead.
