Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tehran claims capture of US spy drone in Iranian airspace

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Wow, you must be proud of that wit




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
For every drone they capture just means that one of our fly boys isn't... So they got a drone - cheers! We will still send dozens everyday to monitor you. So... 2 drones out of how many months, out of how many sorties? Not a bad track record imo.

The drone wasn't Navy - more likely Spooks. They still spy on countries you know...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I seem to remember reading something about the Iranians having Keshe tech. and the ability to to simply take control of all communications in a given area. Maybe there is something to this?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Lonewulph


Interesting we aren't trying to be stealthy about it at all...



Yes.

What's most likely is, that in an effort to give Tehran a false sense of security about the shortcomings of US surveillance technology, it was, in fact, an intentional breach.


In the words of John Travolta, 'Broken Arrow':

"Yeah, ain't it cool.."



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by KaiserSoze
 


They lost an RQ-170, but Iran didn't bring it down. It had a mechanical failure, and it crash landed in Iranian territory. Lockheed operated it, not the USAF, and they didn't have the usual self protection software (self destruct) onboard the aircraft.


The 'rumor' was they disabled it with a focused EMP antenna, did you find any truth behind that claim?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


This is the first I've heard that one. All my sources say normal mechanical failure.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well it shouldn't have been in their airspace I suppose. If it is their airspace then they have right to take it out of the sky.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


This is the first I've heard that one. All my sources say normal mechanical failure.


Well maybe not an EMP pulse as I thought I remembered, but more like....it got hacked.
Here's one example:

phys.org...


Iran’s story about the electronic ambush of America’s sophisticated drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, is that their experts used their technology savvy to trick the drone into landing where the drone thought was its actual base in Afghanistan but instead they made it land in Iran. They used reverse engineering techniques that they had developed after exploring less sophisticated American drones captured or shot down in recent years. They were able to figure how to exploit a navigational weakness in the drone’s system. "The GPS navigation is the weakest point," the Iranian engineer told the newspaper. Read more at: phys.org...


I've just always felt it a little 'suspicious' that an uav would look so intact after a mechanical malfunction, were it should have nose dived, or at the very least a partial crash, causing obvious damage. It would have had to of been perfectly trimmed for landing, and being inherently unstable without constant computer input, who trimmed it?

One step further, incurring a mechanical failure at altitude, if the remote pilot had any control at all, I don't believe they would have opted to land it, but instead to crash it in hopes of destroying as much as possible.


Just another theory.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


A flying wing has a tendency to come down more gently than a normal tube design would. If they had spoofed the GPS and made it think that it was where it was supposed to land, I would have expected no damage at all. There was damage consistent with a rough landing, not a nice smooth landing like they claimed it made. If there was a loss of comms then it would most likely have flown until it ran out of fuel and then came down. One of the more interesting quotes I've read was that if Lockheed hadn't been flying it, it would have had self destruct equipment installed, and would have been in small pieces, not intact.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The ScanEagle is a small class UAV that is catapult launched and recovered by flying into a cable and hooking a wingtip. There's nothing really stealthy about it, except that it's small. It's almost like a missile body with a long wingspan for long loiter times.

www.boeing.com...


The one in the picture is years old..loss in the sea at least 1 1/2 years ago. That happens, flying around open waters and the engine cuts and it goes down. With the oxidation it looks like it was in the water a good time and must have made its way to Iran.

This UAV has no landing system and so it would break up if they landed it and that is why it must have ditched in open waters. The winglet is broken and that would also be typical of ditching.

All the electronics would be totally gone and they didn't show the camera which would also be totally destroyed by the salt waters.

So the truth is there has not been any lost or any flying in Iran..I can tell you it is really fun watching Iran with all their propaganda and how totally off it all is. It is almost goofy it is so far off from the truth.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
I seem to remember reading something about the Iranians having Keshe tech. and the ability to to simply take control of all communications in a given area. Maybe there is something to this?


They can't....

What they can do is effect the GPS and send a false signal through a GPS simulator to the UAV. They can lead the UAV with that false signal and maybe run it out of gas, but this would need for the pilot to not notice and take it over and fly it by some other means. It can happen, it is hard to do, and it needs to fake out the pilot…all in all not really doable either, but it is possible.

They can jam quite easily but all UAVs have built in homing logic so may be jamming and then GPS spoofing might be their best bet.


That was not what happen in this case with this UAV though.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Apparently newer drones use encrypted signals, which make it much harder to hack the drone navigation system, but why wasn't this implemented in the first place?


I could go into detail, but I don't think you understand how GPS works. All GPS signals L1 are not encrypted and there are technical reasons for this. What this means is any signal that the GPS reads is assumed as real. Military GPS uses L1 too but also have L2 -L5 bands that we call P(Y) and these can detect false signals making it impossible to fake L1. What they can do though is jam P(Y) and then spoof L1 and the military GPS will not know it is a false signal.

This is an extremely hard thing to do though, but maybe within Iran’s abilities.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


A flying wing has a tendency to come down more gently than a normal tube design would. If they had spoofed the GPS and made it think that it was where it was supposed to land, I would have expected no damage at all. There was damage consistent with a rough landing, not a nice smooth landing like they claimed it made. If there was a loss of comms then it would most likely have flown until it ran out of fuel and then came down. One of the more interesting quotes I've read was that if Lockheed hadn't been flying it, it would have had self destruct equipment installed, and would have been in small pieces, not intact.


Guess what happens when a single engine UAV as a failed engine and it is some where in Iran....rough landing is correct. It did have a lot of damage that was covered up.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


A flying wing has a tendency to come down more gently than a normal tube design would.

Zaph, I had always read this about flying wings without vertical stabs:


Because it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces or the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. Moreover, solutions may produce a final design that is still too unsafe for certain uses, such as commercial aviation.
For any aircraft to fly without constant correction it must have directional stability in yaw.
Flying wings lack the long fuselage which provides a convenient attachment point for an efficient vertical stabilizer or fin.


Without constant computer correction, (under power) the short fuselage lacking stabs for yaw control made it impossible to achieve best glide rate to stay above min airspeed, (without power).
This was Northrop's dilemma before we finally achieved the B2. Did I miss something?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


The RQ that came down, came down under power. The UAVs have a built in routine where if it loses comms, it flies around under its own power until they recover comms. But in this case, it was under power when it came down, which kept it nice and stable.

But a flying wing design CAN be made stable. Several of Jack Northrops designs were dreams to fly, including his N-1M that he flew all the time. The big issue with the YB-49 was stability during a bomb run.
edit on 12/6/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Roger that





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join