Iran fails to intercept Predator UAV

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
On 12 March, an IRIAF F-4 Phantom attempted to intercept a US MQ-1 Predator flying in international airspace. Once again the intercept failed, this time because the F-4 was warned off by escorting aircraft flying with the Predator.

The intercepting F-4s came within 16 miles of the Predator when they received the warning to back off. It's unclear if the escorts were from F/A-18s from CVW-9 off the USS John Stennis, or if there are more F-22s flying in the area. The F-22s that were flying from Abu Dhabi have returned home, and there were no other official announcements of F-22 deployments to the region.

The only thing with having an escort for the Predators is that it makes them that much more visible if the escort is anything BUT an F-22. The Predator isn't stealthy to begin with, but having a pair of F/A-18s flying in formation with it, is going to make it stand out that much more than normal.


According to a statement by Pentagon Press Secretary George Little, on Mar. 12, an IRIAF (Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force) combat plane attempted to intercept a U.S. MQ-1 drone flying in international airspace.

As happened on Nov. 1, 2012, when two Sukhoi Su-25 attack planes operated by the Pasdaran (informal name of the IRGC – the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) attempted to shoot down an American MQ-1 flying a routine surveillance flight in international airspace some 16 miles off Iran, the interception of the unmanned aircraft failed.

Interestingly, the last close encounter was unsuccessful because the fighter jets scrambled to intercept the unarmed U.S. drone were discouraged from accomplishing the mission: at least one of the two F-4 Phantom jets came to about 16 miles from the UAV but broke off pursuit after they were broadcast a warning message by two American planes escorting the Predator.

theaviationist.com...




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


S&F. Love this thread Zap ( mind if I call you Zap?). If you could believe the retoric I hear on this site most of the time. You would think that Iran would in no way have to shoot one down. I have read to many poster's that seem to believe that Iran can override the flightcontrol's anytime they want.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Well I guess they figured out how to keep the unmanned crafts from being shot down.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I guess if they are spotting them unescorted them ramping up the RCS with a couple of fighters doesn't really matter much!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It's a matter of degree. Where they might be able to sneak one through unescorted, with escorts they're guaranteeing that they will be spotted. I would assume that the escorts are only for missions in International Airspace.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Be my guest.


Yeah, if you listen to so many posts on here, the IRIAF will be bringing down UAVs in droves any day now, without even breaking a sweat. But this makes twice that a UAV in International Airspace has had an intercept attempt on it, and both ended well for the UAV.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


You have proof it wasn't?



Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, stated the largely intact airframe ruled out the possibility of an engine or navigational malfunction: "Either this was a cyber/electronic warfare attack system that brought the system down or it was a glitch in the command-and-control system."


A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV, followed up by a GPS spoofing attack that fed the UAV false GPS data to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its home base in Afghanistan. In an interview for Nova, U.S. retired Lt. General David Deptula also said "There was a problem with the aircraft and it landed in an area it wasn't supposed to land".


Stephen Trimble from Flight Global assumes UAV guidance could be targeted by 1L222 Avtobaza radar jamming and deception system supplied to Iran by Russia.

Link.

Dan Goure: Dan Gouré is the Vice President of the Lexington Institute, a thinktank based in Arlington, Virginia, and an analyst on national security and military issues for NBC. He has worked as an Adjunct Professor in the National Defense University's Homeland Security program under the SNSEE since 2003. He is a member of the Department of Homeland Security's advisory board.

I think I will go with that guy over you. I'm not saying this is correct, I'm just saying that I don't know and jamming a GPS signal is relatively easy and Inertial Navigation is the primary tool used by the RQ-170 but it needs correction by input from some other type of navigation system every now and then.

So if they jammed the GPS making the RQ-170 land in an area close to them, they took it down.

I find it funny and a waste, that the UAV's need plane escorts now. Weren't they meant to be remotely piloted so the pilots wouldn't be in danger?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The fact is they're likely not trying to hide it. Send it in with escorts and you know that it won't be shot at. But then again, why not just strap cameras to the fighters to get a look around.

Maybe the U.S. is trying to see how they react, try and provoke them a little.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Because the way they claim to have spoofed it, it thought it was at home, and landed on an airstrip when it didn't. A number of quiet reports have all stated that there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft. It crash landed in the desert, where the Iranians were able to recover it. The damage is consistent with a crash landing, and the aircraft that was displayed by the Iranians as the recovered RQ-170 has a number of very big oddities (such as no wheel wells, no landing gear door, etc.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yep, read about the other one in , (What was it?), Jan? I'm sure there are plenty of failed attempts to bring down both manned and unmanned drones that we haven't heard about.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


On 5 December 2011, U.S. military sources confirmed that the remains of an RQ-170 had been captured by Iranian forces. However, media reports indicated that various U.S. officials declined to confirm whether or not the drone in the video released by Iranian state television was authentic. On 8 December 2011, a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Washington Post that the U.S. cannot be certain the drone shown was real because the U.S. does not have access to it, but also stated that "We have no indication that it was brought down by hostile fire." A second senior U.S. military official said that a major question is how the drone could have remained "virtually intact," given the high altitude from which it is said to have crashed. U.S. Navy Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, told a news conference on 8 December 2011 that Pentagon analysts were examining the video. Both Kirby and fellow spokesman George Little would not comment further on whether the U.S. military believed the drone was the one missing, both did say that the missing drone had not been recovered. However, later that day, CBS reported that the US officials have confirmed in private the authenticity of the drone shown by the Iranians.

From my same link.

Various experts interviewed by CNN stated that the drone looked real and noted a lack of damage that a firefight would have inflicted. They posited that system failure such as a "flat spin" or "falling leaf departure" would have resulted in damage to the belly of the aircraft but little damage to other components.


On 7 February 2013, Iran released a video footage from the RQ-170 stealth plane showing it coming for landing in Kandahar base. Commander of the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said in December that all the data on the downed drone were “fully decoded.”

Edit: The video was never proven or dis proven to my knowledge.
edit on 14-3-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Just some musings. As usual thanks for the thread!

Pilotless aircraft needing two F/A 18s for escort


Warning off the F4s at 16 miles range. WTF it is international airspace! The F4s have evry right to be flying around in that airspace. Just the usual double standards. We can spy on you but you better not spy on us.

I could just imagine an Iranian spy plane getting close to a US battle group in international airspace. I hate double standards.

I am wondering if the 'Jamming' of satellite systems isn't as simple as using an F4 to block the signals by flying close to and above the drone.

Sanctions and continued spying missions are a clear and present danger to the Iranian people that are an act of war in themselves but the Iranians are just supposed to take it.

Blowback will be a bitch one day.

Did I mention that I hate double standards!

P



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Then why aren't more drones coming down? If they had that ability, there wouldn't ever be any U.S drones flying over Iran.Why didn't Iran just do it this time?

If you like I can link a couple artical's that say your guy is wrong. But what would it matter, I 'm sure you could then send a couple more back at me, claiming the opposite.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


How many do they need? What is a drone going to discover that everyone doesn't know? Can it see through rock to the enrichment facilities? I think Iran having one is enough for them to have the tech and/or sell it to China, Russia, whomever they want. They have it, the US says they have it, and I believe there is an article or two about China/Russia offering to buy it much like they did with the Osama Helicopter. I would be pissed if my government spent that much on toys only to give them away to the "enemy".



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Serious question.

If Iran hadn't heeded the warning and just kept flying (as it was international space) would the US shoot at them? Wouldn't that be an act of war?

PS-still laughing that an unmanned vehicle needs 2 planes to go with it!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Of course they would, that's what they were likely looking for.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


First give me a link that shows that a military spy satilitte is in geosynchronous orbit, so they can get the same 24 hr real time data. That they can get from the drones.

Second, tell me why if they have the technology to bring down any drone. Why would they risk a pilot and a plane, not once but twice in the last three months. In the ATTEMPT to bring down two drones.
edit on 14-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Nobody is saying they DIDN'T capture an RQ-170. There is plenty of evidence that they did. What is in dispute is the method of capture, and if the one that was displayed was the real one or not.

Here is what I'm talking about:

RQ-170 in Afghanistan:



Notice the huge door on the side of the nose gear, and the main landing gear doors that hang down while it's taxiing.

RQ-170 in Iran:



Look at the nose gear. There's nowhere for it to retract to, and no door to cover it up when it does retract. There are no main landing gear wells, or main landing gear doors. Where are the wheels supposed to go? That's what I'm talking about.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


It's not a double standard. The F-4s have a right to be there, but they don't have the right to interfere with flight of an aircraft that remains in international airspace. Just as the Russian's fly in international airspace, and we escort them until they leave the area. It's the same with a battlegroup. They have every right to overfly it, and we have every right to escort them until they leave the area.

All we did was ensure that our aircraft operating legally in international airspace wasn't interfered with. Every country has that right, and it's guaranteed under treaty.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


They would intercept the F-4s, and if they didn't make a threatening move, neither would the US aircraft. They would try to avoid any kind of shots, and steer them away from the Predator, and ensure the Predator had a clear flight area.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join