SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The CBP's (Customs and Border Patrol) drone squadron has been a tightly-held secret. Documents have been pried loose by FOIA lawsuits, but it's pretty clear the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and the CBP would rather not discuss its flying surveillance technology. Not that the CBP drones are strictly for patrolling our nation's borders. They've been spotted far inland, being used by law enforcement agencies taking advantage of the CBP's drone lending library.
Finally, more details on the CBP's drones have made their way into the public domain, thanks to an Office of the Inspector General report. [https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391066/oig-15-17-dec14.pdf (pdf link)] The information contained in this document points to two seeming contradictions, albeit the sort of contradictions often found in government agencies that run long on Congressional support but short on effective oversight.
They're expensive: "We estimate that, in fiscal year 2013, it cost at least $62.5 million to operate the program, or about $12,255 per hour."
And they're worthless: Given the cost of the Unmanned Aircraft System program and its unproven effectiveness, CBP should reconsider its plan to expand the program. The $443 million that CBP plans to spend on program expansion could be put to better use by investing in alternatives, such as manned aircraft and ground surveillance assets.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday January 09 2015, @08:37PM
Um...how do you spend that much running a drone? I can rent a STOL aircraft for 1/10 of that, or a private jet for less than 1/3 of the price [pentastaraviation.com]. Drones are supposed to be cheaper than aircraft.
Anyone wanna bet that the person in charge of the drone program has an interest in the company providing the drones?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday January 09 2015, @09:12PM
General Atomics is privately owned, so there's no stock interest at least. Unless there's some other sort of kickback/cronyism/lobbying going on...
To me, a bigger question is why the MQ-9 instead of the cheaper MQ-1? The MQ-9 (Predator-B) has six ordnance hardpoints, and is significantly larger and heavier than the MQ-1, which only has two. What the heck does CBP need with hardpoints at all? Both even have similar sensor and loiter capability. Almost seems like they got hoodwinked by a clever sales department.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 09 2015, @09:38PM
I suspect they aren't using the hard points at all, or maybe for fuel.
Also is is known that these are really operated by CBP? Early on, these were run out of Creech Airforce base, with a CBP officer there for communications with field officers. I don't know if that changed.
Because these were essentially un-armed, they served as training flight time for Airforce drone pilots prior to assigning them to Afghanistan based drones.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday January 09 2015, @11:27PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 09 2015, @09:38PM
Not necessarily. Following the right election results, these hardpoints could have provided a superior deterrent against illegal immigration and drug runs...
One parameter I read (not in TFS) is that the drones were focused on only a few hundred miles of high-traffic border in a couple states, when they'd have more overall impact being seen all along the border. That's why you pay the extra dollars, for the expanded coverage where it is hard to man on the ground.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 09 2015, @09:42PM
Following the right election results, these hardpoints could have provided a superior deterrent against illegal immigration and drug runs...
Um, no. You made that up.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 09 2015, @09:53PM
Of course I made it up.
But it's not far-fetched: there are many people in the US who openly, repeatedly and forcefully advocate shooting anybody or anything that seems to illegally cross the Southern Border.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday January 09 2015, @11:30PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 10 2015, @01:16AM
On the other hand, a hard point on a wing probably doesn't cost anything more, and it might actually cost more to order one without the hardpoints, because that would require a design change.
Sort of like the tiedowns on the side of a pick-up truck. If they come stock, the dealer isn't going to give you a discount for having them taken off.
I bet if DHS is already ordering these for the Air Force, its probably a mountain of paperwork to get a special order version. You'd probably be the better judge of that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Saturday January 10 2015, @01:36AM
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Friday January 09 2015, @09:53PM
Wouldn't it be nice if some of all that (tax) money would instead find its way back to the People and improve their lives in a tangible way... (like, say, investments in natural monopolies)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:59PM
As I read the summary, it's the *program* that costs $12k per hour. How many drones, operators, maintenance crew, and middle-managers do you suppose that covers?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday January 09 2015, @09:01PM
the problem with these drones is that they can only operate for a short period of time before they need refueling. the reason obviously being that they have to move in order to stay aloft which seems counter to the task of standing guard. a more logical approach seems like lots of stationary blimps that can stay airborne for weeks. when you spot someone and want to follow them, then you use a drone and not the large kind, a minimalistic version.
why is this so hard for them to figure out?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10 2015, @08:05AM
How could I funnel taxpayer money to my buddy's company that way?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @09:22PM
For what it is worth, they are Customs and Border Protection, not Patrol.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday January 09 2015, @09:38PM
The plan is to funnel money into private security contractors' pockets. And if they were effective, people might decide we don't need to spend so much money on them.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 09 2015, @10:38PM
DHS Watchdog Says Border Patrol's Drones Are Expensive, Useless.
And your headline is stupid, dumbass!
C'mon, it's 2015, this is the internet, and you don't have to pay per byte or fit your headline into a specific length, so how about using the word "and" for the purpose it was invented for?
Capitalising Everything Word Has Had Its Day, Too.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 09 2015, @11:03PM
Imagine that. DHS has ASSumed dozens of duties, including anally probing airline passengers, that are not properly their duties at all. But, DHS refuses to do their proper duty of SECURING THE SOUTHERN BORDER! And, here they are, denigrating the one subordinate agency that actually does attempt to secure the border.
How many people still believe that DHS has America's interests at heart?
No one really knows what the real mission of DHS is, it is most certainly NOT to make American citizens more secure.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 10 2015, @06:33AM
The mission of the DHS is to violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties, it seems. I'd much rather be less secure than allow them to go about doing this, even assuming their actions make us more secure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Saturday January 10 2015, @03:23PM
> The $443 million that CBP plans to spend on program expansion...
Okay, bad enough we're having border security hardware lent to domestic law enforcement agencies for a variety of questionable purposes, but it's being lent out while the program is apparently underfunded?! I'm thinking it's about time politicians came clean that domestic surveillance is an integral part of the program's purpose.