Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Powell, Teaching Fellow in Strategic and Air Power Studies, University of Portsmouth

An increasing number of drones have been spotted around Denmark’s airports in recent weeks. The most recent incidents around Aalborg and Billund airport caused considerable disruption followed as scheduled flights were prevented from landing or taking off.

These incidents follow several others, including at Copenhagen Airport. This is similar to the disruption that was experienced around London Gatwick airport in 2023, again causing widespread disruption.

In addition to drones being spotted around civilian airports, there have also been sightings around military airbases where the Danish F-16 and F-35 combat aircraft are based.

A civilian drone flights have been banned for a week in advance of a European Union summit in Copenhagen on October 1.

Given the widespread disruption that has been caused, questions are now being raised about what can be done to either suppress or destroy drones and prevent future attacks. There is also a risk to civilian aircraft from mid-air collisions with the drones and the potential for civilian deaths and injuries.

Read more:
Zelensky says a destructive drone arms race looms – but dystopia isn’t inevitable

The Danish government has claimed that these most recent drone flights have been conducted by someone trying to spread fear among the Danish population. There have also been claims that they are part of wider Russian hybrid operations, which aims to disrupt Danish defence.

Suspicions of increased Russian activity has been fostered by an increasing number of incursions by drones into several other nations’ airspace This is something that has been strenuously denied by the Kremlin.

Lasers, bullets and missiles

Ukrainian forces have used fishing nets to try to catch Russian drones deployed against their positions. Some drones have even been engineered to fire nets in a bid to snag other drones.

Another way of reducing or removing this relatively new threat is to directly shoot down the drones that are around the airspace of airports and airbases. This could potentially be done with combat aircraft, but also with high-powered lasers. But this is not as straightforward as it sounds.

One of the biggest challenges in taking this action is that it usually requires new legislation to be passed by national parliaments. Even with emergency legislation this can take time, meaning that it is not the immediate response to the threat that is clearly necessary. Similar legislation to that being considered by the Danish parliament was passed in the UK in 2018.

But once legislation has been passed the challenges do not end. Given the relatively small size of the drones causing the disruption, they can often be very difficult to target through traditional military means. Even if drones can be targeted, an additional risk is then posed – when a drone is shot out of the sky, there is little control over its trajectory as it falls to earth.

Once destroyed, it could easily land on airport infrastructure, on civilian property or in a worst-case scenario on people, causing injury or death.

Decisions whether to target drones causing this disruption must therefore be taken after a great deal of thought and consideration,. But other methods are available and new technologies are being developed that may provide more effective solutions in the future.

Jamming technology

Instead of using so-called kinetic methods to physically destroy drones that are posing this problem, the use of jamming technology could be used to disrupt the communications link between the drone and the operator. As with kinetic attack, this response poses the challenge of what happens to the drone itself once the signal has been jammed and it falls out of the sky.

There are, however, several advantages to this approach. The first and most important advantage is that jamming can work for relatively long distances. This, disincentivises further attacks as, in theory at least, any drone being flown cannot get within sufficient range to cause the level of disruption that has been seen in Denmark.

In addition to this, the lack of physical destruction from kinetic engagement means that, in theory at least, the drone can be recovered and information about its operation and whether it is a civilian or military asset can be discovered.

But using jamming technology to prevent drones from flying around civilian airports and military airbases has its own drawbacks. Jamming technology, as it is currently exists, cannot be targeted against individual aircraft. This means that any other aircraft within the vicinity of the airport or airbase where jamming technology is being used is also vulnerable to disruption. Due to this, closure of airspace would still be required to remove the threat of the drone, but this should be for a vastly reduced amount of time than is currently required.

There are, however, potential future technologies that might be incorporated into the defence of civilian airports and military airspaces. One such technology is currently being developed by the Royal Navy and has been named DragonFire. This uses the power of a long-range laser to physically destroy a drone in the sky from distances of up to three miles.

A further technology that is being developed by the British army, is jamming technology that can be directed on to targets with greater precision than is currently available outside of the British military.

These new technologies will take time to be widely used in civilian applications. So the sort of disruption we’ve been seeing lately will probably continue in the near future.

Matthew Powell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How can Europe fight back against incursions by drone aircraft? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-europe-fight-back-against-incursions-by-drone-aircraft-266256

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Beuret, Lecturer in Management and Ecological Sustainability, University of Essex

The rolling mills are still working, but the furnaces are long cold. Of the 4,000 people previously employed at the steel mill in Port Talbot, Wales, only half still work there. Despite union protests and local rallies, one year ago on September 30 2024, the plant’s last coal-burning blast furnace was shut down.

This ended more than a century of steelmaking in the UK’s biggest plant – one of the largest in Europe. The owner, Tata Steel, blamed high energy prices and competition from cheaper Chinese steel, claiming ongoing losses of around £1 million a day. It warned the plant would close entirely unless the UK government stepped in to help replace its ageing furnaces with lower-emissions electric arc furnaces.

Steel manufacture contributes around 7% of global climate emissions, and Port Talbot alone accounted for 1.5% of the UK total. Faced with the choice between the closure of the mill and supporting its transition to greener production, the government committed £500 million to this transition.

Tata Steel then announced 2,800 job losses – around one in ten jobs in the town of 35,000. Up to 9,500 more could be lost in the supply chain and broader sector.

This is not how successive governments have sold the transition to a net zero economy. Both Labour and the Conservatives promised net zero would create skilled, well-paid work that would not only make up for losses elsewhere, but generate economic growth and lower bills.

Some data suggests they were right: the UK’s net zero sector is growing far faster than the rest of the economy at 10% per year, and already supports close to 700,000 jobs.

However, polling shows only about one in five voters think the energy transition will create jobs in their area, while only one in three think the transition will have a positive impact on jobs anywhere in the UK.

So why does no one believe the politicians? And where are the jobs?

A series of betrayals

Partly this is about geography. Old centres of industry like Port Talbot are struggling to retain jobs, while net zero businesses tend to be far more dispersed nationally, with many in London and the south-east. As the transition progresses, industrial towns will feel even more abandoned.

The jobs themselves are also different. Many new net zero jobs are in installation, waste processing and other services, often for small businesses and with worse working conditions than those that predominate in heavy industry.

Even within heavy industry, low-carbon technologies tend to mean fewer jobs, as greener versions generally employ fewer workers. Electric furnaces need less labour than coal-burning furnaces, for instance. Facilities tend to be more automated, and supply chains are shorter.

And where there could be a pipeline from fossil fuel jobs to renewable industries, as in Scotland, most workers say there is far too little support from government and industry for them to make this change.

Political fallout

Reform has been quick to seize on the closure of Port Talbot, with its leader Nigel Farage declaring he’d open the furnaces again, despite this being physically impossible.

Reform more generally has declared net zero to be an expensive farce, one that costs jobs and drives up energy bills. Across a swathe of local councils where Reform has overall control, it has promised to cancelled net zero policies and renewable energy projects.

Though critics suggest Reform’s promises threaten billions in investment and upwards of 1 million jobs, the party’s claims are finding a welcome home among workers in industry, with unions warning that their members are increasingly drawn to Reform as they desert Labour.

The steel industry isn’t the only one undergoing job losses. From oil and gas facilities to fertiliser and car plants, heavy industry is shedding jobs under pressure from high energy costs, competition, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the transition continues, these losses are likely to mount.

The household budget myth

It is not just the “jobs gap” that generates the sense of betrayal among workers. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the myth that the UK government’s finances work in the same way as a household budget, thus justifying one of the most dramatic programs of government austerity seen among the world’s wealthier countries, has become a well-established common-sense framework.

And this mindset associated with austerity has also come to haunt the UK’s net zero transition.

Surveys repeatedly list local decline as among the main reasons why people are turning away from the major parties and towards Reform. And when the UK government hands hundreds of millions to companies like Nissan or Tata Steel, only for them to cut hundreds of jobs, this feeds a sense that money is flowing to corporations, not communities.

Reform has capitalised on this by contrasting supposed subsidies for solar farms with the closure of vital services in those same towns and regions. When combined with the steady flow of commentaries in the right-wing media declaring net zero a burden on the taxpayer and a waste of scarce government resources, the narrative that net zero is a “con”, taking money and jobs from the British public to give to big business, seems more credible.

The bitter irony here is that not only do most people in the UK, including most Reform supporters, still back taking action on climate change, but that climate change will hit deprived areas hardest. Yet without visible local benefits, warnings about future risks won’t cut through.

One year on from the Port Talbot closure, I believe it’s vital that the net zero transition comes to mean something more than broken promises and betrayed communities. Reform’s anti-net zero rhetoric is no panacea. Yet without a program to ensure a just transition, we risk this becoming hostage to such reactions – a transition to nowhere that anyone wants to go.

Nicholas Beuret does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Port Talbot, one year on: steelworks closure shows why public is losing trust in net zero – https://theconversation.com/port-talbot-one-year-on-steelworks-closure-shows-why-public-is-losing-trust-in-net-zero-265906

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kathrin Maurer, Professor , Department of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, University of Southern Denmark

Red and blue lights blink in the Danish sky. Is it a plane, a satellite, or a drone hovering overhead? Over the past few weeks, more and more Danes have been scanning the skies for mysterious flying objects, caught between curiosity and unease as sightings across the country spark fresh concern.

Drones have been sighted over airports and military bases all over Denmark. Air traffic has been delayed, politicians have gathered for crisis meetings, and Nato has been called on to act.

We speak about drones in our coffee breaks, exchanging newly acquired expert knowledge about flight heights and battery power. We talk to our children about “hybrid warfare”. And many of us walk around with a strange and eerie feeling that something in the sky is watching us.

Although Russia’s role in the recent drone incidents remains unconfirmed, the sightings come against a backdrop of escalating tensions between the two countries, and just after Copenhagen announced it would acquire long-range precision weapons, drawing sharp threats from Moscow. Indeed, analysts have suggested the drone flyovers may form part of a wider Russian strategy to sow fear, test Nato’s defences, and erode Danish support for Ukraine.

Read more:
Zelensky says a destructive drone arms race looms – but dystopia isn’t inevitable

That monstrous stare

As a professor of culture and technology, my research focuses on surveillance, drones and how we talk about war. In this sense, surveillance from above is a tale as old as time. Think of that godly “eye in the sky”, mentioned by the Old Egyptians and in the Bible. That celestial all-seeing entity with superhuman powers to decide whether you should live or die, much like the drone itself.

This connection is not only highlighted in popular culture, such as in the title of the 2015 film Eye in the Sky about military drone strikes, but also by the military industry itself.

There is, for example, a US military drone, Gorgon Stare, named after a monstrous figure from Greek mythology, most famously represented by the three sisters Stheno, Euryale and Medusa. The latter is known for turning anyone who looks at her into stone. The Gorgon Stare is equipped with many cameras and armed with Hellfire missiles.

But it’s not only the assumed drone’s power of hypervision that gives us the creeps. It’s also precisely its opposite feature: its invisibility. Although we might see some dots and shadows in the sky, the drone pilot stays invisible. Who steers this Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)? Who controls it – or does it even control itself? It is deeply rooted in our human instincts that when we feel observed by an invisible force, we feel alarm and our nervous system enters defence mode.

In this context, another Greek myth comes to mind: Gyges. The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the shepherd Gyges, who discovered a magical ring that could make him invisible. Armed with this new power, Gyges became king and ruler over the country. Drones operate in a similar way to Gyges’s strategy, as their pilots also remain hidden in the shadows.

Threatening sky

Humans tend to thrive on eye contact. But drones are not about seeing each other. When it comes to fighting, there is no duel anymore. Drones do not announce themselves. They disregard international treaties, break laws of war, and fly under the radar.

The drone flyovers in Denmark expose our vulnerabilities and erode the sanctity of our airspace. Many have been left wondering if we are prepared for this new type of warfare. Nevertheless, within all this hype about drones, we have to remember that aerial reconnaissance has been around for centuries. Think of kites, hot air balloons and spy planes.

It’s also important to point out that new technologies frequently spark public unease. The first cars were met with great anxiety and fear. Electricity was seen as something supernatural. These examples do not aim to normalise the high levels of drone activity we’ve seen over Denmark, or the feelings of fear and uncertainty these aerial vehicles have induced.

But by looking at how new technologies have been viewed historically, it opens up space for critical and nuanced dialogue about their societal implications and how we navigate their presence in our everyday lives.

The history of surveillance from above shows us that human unease with aerial reconnaissance is nothing new. But in today’s climate of geopolitical tension, drones are more than symbols of technological change – they are markers of the fragile balance between visibility, power, and trust. And right now, that balance feels more precarious than ever.

This article was commissioned with Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership between it and The Conversation.

Kathrin Maurer receives funding from DFF research grant project 2 “Drone Imaginaries and Communities” 2019-2022

– ref. The eye in the sky: what Denmark’s drone sightings tell us about power and fear down the years – https://theconversation.com/the-eye-in-the-sky-what-denmarks-drone-sightings-tell-us-about-power-and-fear-down-the-years-266296

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Klara Widrig, Postdoctoral research fellow, Smithsonian Institution

Aside from being a delight to watch, flight in birds is regarded by many cultures as a symbol of freedom, and a source of inspiration for humans to build our own flying machines. This makes those birds that have given up flight for a land-based way of life seem all the more intriguing.

In our new study of a 56 million-year-old fossil bird, my colleagues and I show that the distant ancestors of ostriches and other large flightless birds once flew great distances.

Many flightless birds belong to Palaeognathae, a taxonomic group containing ostriches, rheas, emus, cassowaries and kiwi, as well as the tinamous of Central and South America.

Unlike their large flightless relatives, tinamous can fly – but not very far. Spending most of their lives on the ground, they tend to fly only if startled by a predator. If you have ever been on a walk and startled a grouse or pheasant, this type of flight, known scientifically as burst flight, will be familiar to you.

Because they are flightless (or can’t fly far), the fact that palaeognaths are found on many different continents – South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand – has been difficult for scientists to explain.

When the theory of plate tectonics became widely accepted in the 1960s, an answer seemed within reach. All of the continents were once united as the supercontinent Pangea, which slowly broke apart during the time of the dinosaurs, starting to split around 200 million years ago. Scientists wondered whether different populations of flightless palaeognaths could have just drifted apart from each other along with the continents they lived on.

However, this once-popular theory has since been discredited for two reasons. One is that the flying tinamous are genetically closer to some flightless palaeognaths than they are to others. This means that ostriches, rheas, emus, cassowaries and kiwi did not share a flightless common ancestor. Instead, in a remarkable case of parallel evolution, they all became flightless separately from each other.

The second reason is that genetic research shows palaeognath lineages started to separate many millions of years after Pangea broke up – far too late for the continental drift theory to be true.

This means palaeognaths had to have made it to South America, Africa,
Australia and New Zealand under their own power. Only able to fly in short bursts, a tinamou doesn’t stand a chance of flying across an ocean – but what about palaeognaths from the distant past? Could the ancestors of today’s palaeognaths have made these long journeys?

The collections of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC include an almost perfectly preserved sternum, or breastbone, belonging to an ancient palaeognath called Lithornis promiscuus that lived 56 million years ago. It was a fairly large bird, about the size of a grey heron.

Other researchers had determined that the sternum is a key piece of the skeleton for determining the flight style of a bird, so this fossil was our best chance to determine what this ancient bird was capable of.

Using a technique called geometric morphometrics, we compared the shape of the Lithornis sternum to those of over 150 living bird species. Our results show that Lithornis was not a burst flier like today’s tinamous. Instead, its sternum is most similar in shape to birds that fly huge distances, such as egrets and herons. This means means that, unlike their living relatives, Lithornis and other ancient palaeognaths would have been capable world travellers, able to establish new populations on different continents.

Why did these birds become flightless over and over again?

No matter how beautiful or inspiring we think flying is, it is also hard. If a bird species finds itself in a situation where it can get all of its food on the ground and doesn’t need to fly to escape predators, it will probably evolve towards being flightless.

Nowadays, these conditions are only met on islands, with the dodo being perhaps the most famous example. The dodo was a flightless bird that roamed Mauritius until it became extinct in the 1600s.

Dodos had no natural predators until humans arrived in the late 1500s (bringing with them other animals including rats). This meant dodos had not evolved a fear response, and there are records of them happily approaching humans.

Back when Lithornis and its relatives were alive, the world was very different. Just a few million years before, the dinosaurs had gone extinct. With no major predators around, birds were safe on the ground on continents as well as islands. And with a specialised bill tip organ as well as a keen sense of smell, Lithornis was well suited for probing for food in the soil, so it had no need to fly up into the trees to feed.

Therefore, ancient palaeognaths were set on a course towards flightlessness or low flight capacity wherever they went around the world. New mammalian predators evolved slowly, over millions of years, giving these flightless birds plenty of time to evolve new ways to escape and defend themselves.

After these long-distance flying ancestors went extinct, we were left with a puzzling distribution of these birds that could only be explained by the fossil record.

Klara Widrig received funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust.

– ref. The ancestors of ostriches and emus were long-distance fliers – here’s how we worked this out – https://theconversation.com/the-ancestors-of-ostriches-and-emus-were-long-distance-fliers-heres-how-we-worked-this-out-266081

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marwan Izzeldin, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University

The £2.2 billion plan for a second runway at London’s Gatwick airport has divided opinion over environmental concerns and its ability to kickstart the economic growth the UK so badly needs. Critics have said that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental harms unavoidable.

These concerns – including from leading economists – are an important part of the debate. But they don’t tell the whole story. Looking at Gatwick’s northern runway proposal in particular, the evidence suggests that expansion can improve safety, reduce waste and deliver real benefits to travellers and the local community. As long as it is managed responsibly, of course.

Gatwick is Europe’s busiest single-runway airport, handling more than 43 million passengers a year and around 260,000 aircraft movements on just one operational runway.

This creates bottlenecks – during peak hours, aircraft go into “holding stacks” (vertical formations of planes that circle until it’s their turn to land). A typical Boeing 737 burns 2.5 to three tonnes of jet fuel per hour, so just 15 minutes of unnecessary holding adds nearly a tonne of CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere.

With an average of 3.24 minutes lost per flight into Gatwick in holding stacks and to other inefficiencies, the waste is significant, both environmentally and economically. Economists call this a “congestion externality”. That is, costs imposed on society with no corresponding benefit. Adding runway capacity directly reduces these inefficiencies.

Critics argue that more flights automatically mean more emissions. Yet the data show that efficiency matters too. Absorbing delays at cruise altitude rather than in low-level holding stacks has been shown to cut waste significantly.

At Gatwick, an arrival management scheme introduced in 2019 was expected to save more than 26,000 minutes of holding per year. If realised, this would translate into around 1,200 tonnes of fuel and 3,800 tonnes of CO₂ avoided annually.

Pairing those measures with the northern runway – which reduces stacking – compounds the savings. In welfare terms, this is a clear case of lowering emissions intensity per movement (a more useful measure than a company’s overall emissions). It should ensure that growth is not just about more traffic but also cleaner, more efficient traffic.

The case for consumers

There are also important consumer benefits. Gatwick competes heavily in the leisure and short-haul market, where families are most sensitive to price. By expanding to two runways, airlines will be able to schedule more services at peak times, bringing down fares.

Research shows that a scarcity of slots adds a premium to air fares. At Europe’s busiest airports – which include Gatwick – it’s estimated that by 2035 congestion will add €10.42 (£9.10) on average to each ticket.

Expansion also supports local and national economies. Gatwick forecasts that the northern runway project could create 14,000 jobs and contribute nearly £1 billion a year to the regional economy.

These jobs span construction, airport operations, tourism and supply chains, directly benefiting communities in the south-east of England. It’s what economists call a distributional gain – the benefits are spread broadly through employment and regional growth, rather than to a narrow group.

Of course, the costs – noise, air quality and climate – cannot be ignored and will have to be managed. Expansion plans retain the strict 11pm-6am night flight quota, implement quieter continuous descent operations (a technique that allows planes to descend more smoothly, creating less noise), and aim to encourage more travellers to arrive at the airport by rail.

Around 44% of Gatwick passengers already arrive by train, and it has more direct train connections than any other European airport.

With timetable integration and new fare types, Gatwick aims to push the percentage of passengers arriving and leaving by rail well above 50%. This would cut road traffic emissions. It is an attempt to ensure that those who generate environmental costs (airlines and airports) also bear responsibility for reducing them.

The real test is not whether Gatwick grows, but how it grows. With verifiable baselines – such as average stack minutes per arrival, go-around rates (where pilots abandon a landing attempt and circle back), and CO₂ per movement – expansion can be monitored and airport bosses held to account.

If the promised gains are delivered, the net effect could include safer skies, lower emissions intensity, cheaper fares, more jobs and stronger regional growth. Welfare economics teaches us that policy should maximise the wellbeing of the many, not preserve the convenience of a few. By that measure, Gatwick’s northern runway expansion could well be a welfare-enhancing choice.

Marwan Izzeldin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A second runway at Gatwick airport could improve efficiency and bring down fares – an economist’s view – https://theconversation.com/a-second-runway-at-gatwick-airport-could-improve-efficiency-and-bring-down-fares-an-economists-view-265995