Iran fails to intercept Predator UAV

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Except, and here's the interesting part, the RQ-170 is a "cheap" throwaway UAV. That's why there were only 20 of them bought. There are a couple of interesting new projects coming online that are going to take over the mission. The RQ-170 is a filler program until they are ready to go, and operational.




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I understand that and am confused as well.

Why isn't the US government clearing up the confusion then? Is it maybe not an RQ-170? Something different that the government doesn't want people to know about? Or is it like you say, and Iran did capture it, after it crash landed? If that is the case, why doesn't the US government clear it up so as not to make Iran look like it can control this huge expense? Why keep us in the dark? Something doesn't add up.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


The only case I can think of , was what happen offLlibya in the early 80's. the result was two splashed MIG's.

Hence this song


edit on 14-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The assumption was that they were going to interfere with it! The F4s were told to turn around or be fired upon. Why can't the F4s overfly the Drone? They are just there flying around until they fire on the Drone, then the US can shoot them down. What we had was the US enforcing an illegal no fly zone around one of their drones.

I do not want to argue the point, perhaps I just have a different view.

P



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Because one of the leading theories with some of my other sources is that when they started playing with the software, they got something else along with it. Something that led to a few "accidents" in their nuclear program, and the gov't doesn't want to let on that it was there. It might even be something that hasn't been found yet, so they don't want to give out any hints.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Come on Zaph thats hardly a match....
Poor old worn out F4 gets within 16 miles of drone and F18 or raptor escort and breaks off....duh
Thosde Irani Pilots have brains to go with the balls it takes to operate beligerantly against the forces arrayed against them...
They remind me of a new little nation in 1776....taking on the world bully.
(only in passing mate)
The idea of escorted drones must be some more saber rattling by the west....
Looky looky nyah nyah.....we can see you with our drone...nyah nyah.....
what intelligence could they possibly derive that a spy bird would not be able to provide night or day...?
Just more in your face bully tactics



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 




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 off drones.

Clear up what you mean for me...I'm old.




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.

Different drones. Predator vs. Sentinel. Maybe they did attempt but the US military actually learned something!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


It's not an illegal no fly zone. All aircraft, regardless of whether they are manned or unmanned, are guaranteed freedom of movement through international airspace. As long as a military aircraft doesn't enter another country's airspace, or do something to "harm" said country, it's allowed to do what it wants.

If you were flying a military aircraft (or hell, even a civilian one) near a country known to be less than friendly to you (and keep in mind plenty of US aircraft fly THROUGH Iranian airspace every year), and two known military aircraft from said nation, do you seriously think that they would just fly up and say "hi"? If you have escorts in the area, you warn them off under the free flight agreement.

What if it was an E-3 with a crew of 14+ on board? Or an RC-135? Do you wait for them to fire then? If either of those are fired on by just about anything, they're dead. There goes the aircraft, and more importantly the crew.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Except it's not clear they WERE escorting the Predator. If they were F/A-18s, they might have been flying in the area and were sent in to oversee the Predator. Or they might have been launched when the F-4s were detected by either AWACS or an Aegis in the area heading towards the Predator. Carriers operating in the area keep alert fighters on a very short leash on deck.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Are you implying that a country that has nuclear power capabilities would download a virus (flame or stuxnet I'm guessing you are talking about) from a drone, and then upload the contents on their computer that would be hooked up to their nuclear facilities? The US/Israel have had much easier time just hacking in. It is cheaper than losing a drone everytime you want to release a virus.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by stirling
 


Except it's not clear they WERE escorting the Predator. If they were F/A-18s, they might have been flying in the area and were sent in to oversee the Predator. Or they might have been launched when the F-4s were detected by either AWACS or an Aegis in the area heading towards the Predator. Carriers operating in the area keep alert fighters on a very short leash on deck.


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.

From your link, bold is mine.

Clearly, following last year’s close encounter the Pentagon has decided to escort the drones involved in intelligence gathering missions with fighter jets (either F-18 Hornets with the CVW 9 embarked on the USS John C. Stennis whose Carrier Strike Group is currently in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility or F-22 Raptors like those deployed to the UAE).
edit on 14-3-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


No, I'm saying that it was uploaded with the software, as part of the software, in case something happened. Sort of a "target of opportunity" kind of deal. "Hey, we're flying this UAV over Iran. A hack might be detected installing this trojan horse, so let's add it to the UAV software."

It might also be that the UAV software was downloaded on a system that was separate from the usual networks, that they couldn't get to. It's thought that Stuxnet was uploaded into the Iranian systems from a CD that one of the Iranian scientists or engineers had. This way it's kind of a backup. If they detect your primary intrusion, then you have a secondary intrusion going on. Then once it's on this new network, it slowly spreads itself to other networks.
edit on 3/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


But like I said, were they escorting it the entire flight, or were they scrambled to escort it after the F-4s were detected? What I should have said is that it wasn't clear they were escorting it the entire time. It's not clear whether this was a last minute thing, or if it was planned with an escort.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 







What is a drone going to discover that everyone doesn't know? Can it see through rock to the enrichment facilities?


Here you go.




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.


That means they get better and real time data from drones. (you do know what real-time means?)




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.


Your reply was this.




Different drones. Predator vs. Sentinel. Maybe they did attempt but the US military actually learned something



So I guess by your reply, you are saying that Iran can no longer take control of our drones. If not.........




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



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 

First of all, bringing Kryptonite isn't fair...you leave me no choice but to alert the mods..





Here you go.

Missing link?



That means they get better and real time data from drones. (you do know what real-time means?)

Yes I do, but what I am failing to see is why you brought it up and how it pertains to the discussion. (that's what I meant by explain it to me).



So I guess by your reply, you are saying that Iran can no longer take control of our drones. If not.........

Maybe just the RQ-170's, I don't really know though, just like I stated before.



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

Did we get word from them saying they were attempting to shoot the drones down? Or is that what the government is telling you they were doing? Remember, they have to demonize Iran every chance they get so that they get the 'Merica F yah crowd chanting for blood on the streets.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
Did we get word from them saying they were attempting to shoot the drones down? Or is that what the government is telling you they were doing? Remember, they have to demonize Iran every chance they get so that they get the 'Merica F yah crowd chanting for blood on the streets.


Based on past history that is most likely what was going to happen. They attempted to at least once in recent months and failed. I doubt they were just flying out to say hi to the Predator.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Your right, sorry. Here stand behind this lead wall it should help.





posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by superman2012
 


Because one of the leading theories with some of my other sources is that when they started playing with the software, they got something else along with it. Something that led to a few "accidents" in their nuclear program, and the gov't doesn't want to let on that it was there. It might even be something that hasn't been found yet, so they don't want to give out any hints.


That's frickin brilliant if true! A new version of Trojan Horse. That makes the best sense out of any the one's I've heard...

And on topic, I'm curious how you immediately suspect escorts for a drone? My fist thought was they got locked by a naval vessel in the Strait and they thought it best to abandon pursuit.

ETA: Never mind...I've read source a little closer. Although it still makes no sense why a drone would be escorted...
edit on 15/3/2013 by xquietonex because: Comprehension fail



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by xquietonex
 


I'm thinking that they were F-18s on the carrier, in an Alert 5 or Alert 10 status, and when either the E-2 or E-3 picked up the F-4 launch and them heading towards the Predator they scrambled them to protect it.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're likely right, although it begs the question why you would scramble to protect a drone in the first place...
I could see squawking a warning from air or sea, but do you really order an intercept and risk 'unintended consequences'?

I dunno, just seems a bit fishy...unless you guys really re trying to provoke Iran, I guess.





top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join