South Korea captures cutting edge DPRK surveillance drones - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jitterz;44462150]Is it funny that it is painted like the sky or am I just ignorant?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/7X8LO.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.combatreform.org/KILLERBEES4Image59.jpg[/IMG] I think sky camouflage is better than no camouflage, I think what's more funny is that they're using a Canon camera as the main surveillance device.

I'm pretty sure that if North Korea ever went in to full launch mode, that at least half of their missiles or more would end up falling on themselves.

how do you capture a drone? i'm picturing something like giant butterfly nets

[QUOTE=Eltro102;44462538]how do you capture a drone? i'm picturing something like giant butterfly nets[/QUOTE] It crashed and they picked it up off the ground. Just like how Iran captured one of the US' drones.

The big concern is that if one of these is able to snap photo's of SK's presidential office then they could easily fill one with explosives and send it INTO the presidents office.

[QUOTE=SirDavid255;44462141]I think at home I could make a superior surveillance drone. In fact I've got a Canon camera right beside me.. Hmm.. :v:[/QUOTE] Thing is, just because it's comically simple and basic doesn't mean it doesn't do its job. Except the ones they captured, they were terrible drones that bring shame upon their nation. But in all seriousness it's actually not a completely terrible design. It's low-cost, easy to maintain, it's super tiny so radar signatures are a non-issue, and it does what it is made to do. I do have doubts of them putting explosive payloads on them though, unless they make bigger versions. Those little plane engines couldn't carry anything more damaging than a hand grenade or two.

[QUOTE=download;44457862]Well damn. Before I opened this thread I was going to make a joke about NK's drones being RC planes with cameras tapped to them but then I clicked on the thread and found that's exactly what it was.[/QUOTE] To be fair, US army has a class of drones just like this, tho, and actively use them. It's nothing an army should be ashamed of. You don't need to throw a million at an RC plane when a $300 RC plane can do the job just as well. The only noteworthy thing is that Koreans actually couldn't keep them flying and crashed them.

[QUOTE=Jitterz;44462150]Is it funny that it is painted like the sky or am I just ignorant?[/QUOTE] [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Spitfire.planform.arp.jpg[/t] lots of battle of britain-era aircraft had their undersides painted sky blue - it might make little difference but every little helps i guess they continued this in africa but they dropped it in favour of grey in europe because i guess they realised it's never sunny in england and normandy

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44462860][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Spitfire.planform.arp.jpg[/t] lots of battle of britain-era aircraft had their undersides painted sky blue - it might make little difference but every little helps i guess they continued this in africa but they dropped it in favour of grey in europe because i guess they realised it's never sunny in england and normandy[/QUOTE] A more common practice these days is countershading. Painting the underside bright and the topside darker, to compensate for how the shadow will be on the underside of the plane at most times. Sharks also have this.

[QUOTE=Midas22;44458840]I bet that engine is really damn noisy and the antenna looks like its come from a wireless card for a PC[/QUOTE] Well, to be fair most RC stuff runs on the 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz bands now

that engines exhaust pressure line isn't even hooked up, how was it running? also it's funny as fuck how they use [I]20 year old[/I] engines.

I think Kim probably made these "drones" himself.

[QUOTE=viperfan7;44464475]Well, to be fair most RC stuff runs on the 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz bands now[/QUOTE] For long range you would use a lower frequency such as 433mhz for control and 900mhz or 1.2ghz for video feed. with the right antenna setup you can easily go miles.

Even though North Korea's an absolute shithole of a country, I love their technology. Remember when they tried to modernize using tablets running a highly outdated version of Android?

This is all part of their 50 year plot to fool the world into believing they're technologically incapable of anything, while secretly building an army of robots that will conquer the Earth in the name of glorious Best Korea.

Ill intent aside I have to be impressed by the NK engineers managing to build and operate this considering what they have to work with.

The camera had photos of the presidential palace on it. It flew around the fucking presidential palace, and the South Korean AA and radars didn't even see the thing. If it were armed then the North Koreans could have caused serious shit. This little plane is not a joke [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597273/South-Korea-finds-hundreds-images-presidential-palace-disputed-islands-crashed-North-Korean-drones.html[/url]

Compared to what other nations have this seems extremely crude, but looking at the pictures from the link above, i'd say it did its job really well had it not crashed.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44468261]The camera had photos of the presidential palace on it. It flew around the fucking presidential palace, and the South Korean AA and radars didn't even see the thing. If it were armed then the North Koreans could have caused serious shit. This little plane is not a joke [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597273/South-Korea-finds-hundreds-images-presidential-palace-disputed-islands-crashed-North-Korean-drones.html[/URL][/QUOTE] Can radar even pick up something that small and classify it reliably? Surely there is so much stuff flying around (birds, planes, waste etc) that something that small would be hard to classify.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44468261]The camera had photos of the presidential palace on it. It flew around the fucking presidential palace, and the South Korean AA and radars didn't even see the thing. If it were armed then the North Koreans could have caused serious shit. This little plane is not a joke[/quote] It also begs the question of what else they've buzzed. Good chance this isn't the first ones over. also, a relevant section that OP left out: [quote]While the capture of the two surveillance drones appears to offer a rare glimpse into the North’s technology, analysts stress they do not necessarily represent the best unmanned aerial vehicles the North can field.[/quote] For all we know this is an obsolescent model.

it is a nice looking plane, i'd like to have one. wonder who nk stole the design from, so i can buy one of their planes.

[QUOTE=Jsm;44470194]Can radar even pick up something that small and classify it reliably? Surely there is so much stuff flying around (birds, planes, waste etc) that something that small would be hard to classify.[/QUOTE] It's really flat and "flying wing"-like, so that's probably why radars didn't pick it up

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44462723]Thing is, just because it's comically simple and basic doesn't mean it doesn't do its job. Except the ones they captured, they were terrible drones that bring shame upon their nation. But in all seriousness it's actually not a completely terrible design. It's low-cost, easy to maintain, it's super tiny so radar signatures are a non-issue, and it does what it is made to do. I do have doubts of them putting explosive payloads on them though, unless they make bigger versions. Those little plane engines couldn't carry anything more damaging than a hand grenade or two.[/QUOTE] problem is with those cameras, at least mine I know for sure I can't move quickly and take a picture at the same time, even with a fast shutter speed like 1/400. Because lighting and ISO are problems because they are constantly changing depending on the time of day. It's extremely unreliable of a device for air shots on locations. [QUOTE]Thing is, just because it's comically simple and basic doesn't mean it doesn't do its job. Except the ones they captured, they were terrible drones that bring shame upon their nation.[/QUOTE] If the ones they already captured had Canon cameras in them, I would imagine what they're testing or mainly building these air drones on are those cameras considering it's the main recording device inside. Meaning if they stick to this design all of their drones they will all be "terrible drones that bring shame upon their nation." Late: Well it seems their drone actually caught something. Wow.