Iranian RQ-170?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vovin

The RQ-170 is good for its mission. No UAV is perfect, just as no stealth is invisible.

I know. I was just pointing out the dubious accuracy of the statement which I quoted.

a reply to: Vovin

The RQ-170 came out at a time when there was a need to fill. It IS a couple generations behind what came behind, and what it was filling in for. It was cheap, and was able to be fielded quickly. It was never meant as a top of the line system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks...I thought I had to type out a long response for that. Lol

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vovin

The RQ-170 came out at a time when there was a need to fill. It IS a couple generations behind what came behind, and what it was filling in for. It was cheap, and was able to be fielded quickly. It was never meant as a top of the line system.

Yes, that's correct.

But it's not relevant to what the guy said. He was trying to make some unoriginal statement along the lines of "oh what we see is always gonna be twenty years behind what the invincible US fleet flies", so I pointed out that the RQ-170 was, in fact, what the USA was flying at the time when it was shot down (for it had to be flying to be shot down).

How could it be "2 generations behind what the US was actually flying" when the US was actually flying it? It's an illogical statement and doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Vovin

Of course it can. There are still aircraft flying that are a generation or two behind other aircraft in the inventory. Hell the B-52 first flew in the fifties, and will be around another 20-30 years. It's AT LEAST two generations behind the other bombers, but still pulls duty.

The aircraft that the Sentinel covered for were in testing when it was brought down. Two generations old doesn't mean useless or retired. It's still damn good at the mission.

I just read the article - I think that reverse egineering means something different to Iran.

Stressed parts mainly:

Look we can make all the pieces of metal the same shape - see they look the same and its mostly nearly the same material which is heat treated the sameish...
Look, all this carbon composite, we can make it the same shape, its probably the same material layed the same way with the same glue and cured at the right heat...
Joints and rivets are pretty much in the same place...

Flight Controls:

Yes we have wire up the "20" control surfaces to the computer that runs 1000 lines of code per second and understand every bit of it. Of course all the servos and motors are reverse engineered....

Software:

Only 5 million lines of code running in ruggedised computers with specialist parts that are not available outside the US and its allies unless you want low quality copies...

Anything else....

a reply to: SirDrinksalot

That's why I tend to think the "copy" they showed the world is more of a static mock-up and not a flight worthy article. The Iranian gov. seam to like to do this in front of the cameras. The F313 was a perfect example.
I'm not saying the Iranians couldn't make an exact flight worthy example but I think it would take them more time to accomplish on there own than the 2 1/2 years they've had the real deal.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Engine failure I'm not sure it comes down intact. Flying wing designs tend to not glide very well most of the time.

It wasn't really intact.. in either case it would be a very hard landing to say the least. I fly UAVs for a living and I understand what goes into spoofing and it would be extremely hard to spoof that UAV. To suggest that they may have taken it over is extremely unlikely too.

Mil GPS has checks that can tell if there is a stronger signal than satellites (spoofing) with other anti-spoofing checks, plus the pilot would have visual confirmation though cameras he is not where he should be. Once the pilot discovers that his GPS is spoofed all he would need to do is fly a heading visually or DR until he is out of range of the signal. Where spoofing would work best is on landing where the plane might be spoofed into thinking it is in the wrong spot and suddenly veer off and crash. Personally, it would take me no more than a minute or two with zero warnings to determine if I was spoofed, just saying.

This gets even more troublesome in trying to take over an encrypted communication system, much less having the software/hardware to fly the thing without a prototype to work with. This is why there is only few a possibilities... Bad weather, engine failure, electrical system failure, anything else and the plane could fly home all by itself if need be.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vovin

The RQ-170 came out at a time when there was a need to fill. It IS a couple generations behind what came behind, and what it was filling in for. It was cheap, and was able to be fielded quickly. It was never meant as a top of the line system.

True, it is tactical, a throw away if need be. There is nothing on that plane other than the cameras that isn't 30 year old technology.

originally posted by: SirDrinksalot
I just read the article - I think that reverse egineering means something different to Iran.

Stressed parts mainly:

Look we can make all the pieces of metal the same shape - see they look the same and its mostly nearly the same material which is heat treated the sameish...
Look, all this carbon composite, we can make it the same shape, its probably the same material layed the same way with the same glue and cured at the right heat...
Joints and rivets are pretty much in the same place...

Flight Controls:

Yes we have wire up the "20" control surfaces to the computer that runs 1000 lines of code per second and understand every bit of it. Of course all the servos and motors are reverse engineered....

Software:

Only 5 million lines of code running in ruggedised computers with specialist parts that are not available outside the US and its allies unless you want low quality copies...

Anything else....

And there it sits in a hangar...

They can't even copy and fly the simple off-the-self parts higher-end UAVs. If they can we need pictures..

If they are writing their own code than it is not a copy, but its own new UAV that may look like one of ours. Even in that case there is no pictures of a test flight, and this is because it is either CGI or a mockup with nothing inside.

When we look at their typical rhetoric they make a lot of crazy claims and so would this not be any different? They show a pattern when it comes to false claims and this fits perfectly in that pattern.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Are all RQ170's remotely piloted or are some of them totally autonomous? Can an autonomous system be spoofed since it may not recognize that it was being spoofed or are all them encrypted?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
I'd certainly believe China could duplicate the Sentinel before Iran could. Not that Iranians are somehow inferior... They absolutely are not and have one of the better educated societies around. They do have some issues with lack of specific things from sanctions and access to Western resources. It's a Western aircraft they're trying to reproduce, so that means everything in this case.

China, on the other hand, probably had blueprints for the Sentinel by the time the first one took off from a US runway.

Keep in Mind China also looked at the stealth helicopter wreckage in Abottabad Pakistan when one was shot down during the Bin Laden Raid .. I'd say they already know a thing or two about Stealth and its especially worse if they cna figure out the kind of RCS reducing paint which was used

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Xtrozero

Are all RQ170's remotely piloted or are some of them totally autonomous? Can an autonomous system be spoofed since it may not recognize that it was being spoofed or are all them encrypted?

All are remotely piloted unless uplink comms is lost then it flies a predetermine logic, typically towards home. So what would need to happen is they would need to jam the comms then spoof the GPS in a way the plane can not detect and then constantly change the lat/long so that the UAV flies to where it thinks it should be, but it is where they want it to be.

In this case they would constantly update the location faking out the UAV until it ran out of gas. They are not going to land it or ever have control over it in anyway shape or form other than jamming comms and spoofing the UAV's location to keep it in their country until it runs out of gas. So in either case of jamming/spoofing or the engine just failed I lean heavily on the engine just failed.

a reply to: maddy21

Even then they are getting old tech. The stealth helicopter was supposedly based on older F117 gen tech (flat planes, older RAM's) and the F117 they had access to would have been as well.
The new stuff (current gen. RAM) is supposed to be way better.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It came down intact, and they cut it apart to transport it. There was some damage to the underside, but it was almost completely intact.

Shortly afterwards it was admitted that the GPS was the weak point. The Sentinel was rushed into service because its brother was delayed in development.

From what I've heard the -170 is semi autonomous on a mission.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xtrozero

It came down intact, and they cut it apart to transport it. There was some damage to the underside, but it was almost completely intact.

Shortly afterwards it was admitted that the GPS was the weak point. The Sentinel was rushed into service because its brother was delayed in development.

From what I've heard the -170 is semi autonomous on a mission.

To cut it up to transport seems kind of weird don't you think when they would need just a flat bed to transport it in one piece. They are all semi autonomous under normal operations with the ability for the pilot to go from just directing it to actually controlling it. As I said it would be extremely hard to spoof without warnings or at least the pilot seeing something weird and then going basically manual navigation.

One area we have not even talked about is how did they know where it was? Spoofing/Jamming is directional event and so they would need to know where it was to position their antennas on it and keep on it, not an easy task.

Who knows maybe they got lucky, but I can tell you that we have one platform with close to a million flight hours with zero spoofing incidences, but there is always the first.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Xeven

China probably built the circuits in the original lol.

I was starting to consider that when it hit me.... You know? You're probably 100% correct. They likely did.

Heck of a way to run a military, isn't it? (facepalm)

Didnt the NSA have a problem last year of buying computer parts on bulk from china and founding out a lot of those parts had little unwanted extras coded in ?

If the US military are buying parts off china too that could be err dangrous.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How about a mobile jamming platform. Fly a plane with EW gear on it, within visual range of the drone and over power it's com links? Wasn't it downed during the daytime?

a reply to: Sammamishman

All it takes is a bad piece of RAM, loose bolts poking up, etc. It has happened before.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Xtrozero

How about a mobile jamming platform. Fly a plane with EW gear on it, within visual range of the drone and over power it's com links? Wasn't it downed during the daytime?

Maybe but that is a big needle in the hay stack, but they would need to not only disable the comm links but also spoof the GPS. You jam it and it just flies home or until it is unjammed.