Iran fails to intercept Predator UAV

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by amkia
 


And why would I listen to Iran?




posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Dont know if this was posted as i didnt read the whole thread just skimmed it as Zap is always an interesting read, but it looks alot to me that Iran has hired a new fiberglass guy to make some fake looking planes flying vehicles etc.
If you look at the drone and even the new plane they revealed last month some pretty sloppy work. I could make better in my garage with an old boat lol. No wonder they are not detected by radar they probably dont fly lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

I wonder why the Russian never seem to make a stink when any NATO (mostly US or Canadian) fighter aircraft come significantly closer than 16 km to them...military flights and some non-military flights?

Are they more secure in their understanding of international law, .


Years of talks and agreements during the Cold War resulted in signed treaties to avoid and limit misunderstanding and incidents. 1972 saw the agreements signed and they have remained current to this day.

'UNITED STATES/RUSSIAN FEDERATION INCIDENTS AT SEA AND DANGEROUS MILITARY ACTIVITIES AGREEMENTS'

www.fas.org...


As a consequence of the rapid growth of Soviet maritime power during the 1960s, hazardous incidents at sea and in the air became a regular part of the Cold War. Eventually, both Washington and Moscow came to recognize the importance of an agreement limiting this perilous set of interactions, resulting in the Incidents at Sea Agreement that was signed in May 1972. The set of rules and procedures agreed upon helped to calm tensions in subsequent crises and provides ample lessons for placing reasonable limits on other tense maritime rivalries.


www.tandfonline.com...
edit on 17/3/2013 by tommyjo because: Malformed link corrected



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The warning was probably not issued until the RWR's on either the drone or the escorting fighters detected a radar lock on the drone by the Iranian Phantoms..Had the Phantoms done an intercept nose cold, then they probably would have just been watched, and left alone if they were just having a look, but had they fired on the drone with heaters or guns then the US fighters would have engaged..Just my 2 cents...



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Both can be true at the same time. The Iranians did spoof the GPS and attempt to land it by deception, but was not totally successful. A small error could result in the damage.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The behind the scenes comments I've heard and heard about all agree there was a problem with the aircraft before it went down. It's entirely possible that a self destruct was actually removed sometime in the last few years.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The behind the scenes comments I've heard and heard about all agree there was a problem with the aircraft before it went down.


True, but that problem might not have been spontaneous. I would not be surprised if the Iranians had external assistance, and also I would not be surprised that some of the behind-the-scenes-comments are counterintelligence operations designed to confuse information flow to the External Assistors.


It's entirely possible that a self destruct was actually removed sometime in the last few years.


Not surprising, such a capability might be dangerous to operational crew.
edit on 20-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


It's possible they were, but at least two of them (not mine) apparently had a history of giving very reliable information that they probably shouldn't have, and could have gotten into trouble for (nothing of the black sort damnit, but confirmations of other sources). With the number, and the reliability of sources involved, I think that they were on the up and up.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
 


It's possible they were, but at least two of them (not mine) apparently had a history of giving very reliable information that they probably shouldn't have, and could have gotten into trouble for (nothing of the black sort damnit, but confirmations of other sources). With the number, and the reliability of sources involved, I think that they were on the up and up.


I doubt they are attempting to dissemble knowingly. Of course they only know what they are told as well.

My experience is that it is actually quite infrequent for US government officials to lie outright, but misdirection and exploiting unspoken assumptions is common.

E.g.: XYZ: "We caught a drone". US: "U.S. Navy denies flying any drones in the area in question and all assets are accounted for." (Both are could be true, because the drone was operated by a private contractor on behalf of CIA.)

RQ-170 crashes. Iranians: "We brought it down." US: "It experienced mechanical failure."

Potential truth: Russian or Chinese EW experts working for Iran attempted to GPS spoof and insert commands. It was not fully successful and resulted in engine/aerodynamic control system failure. It wasn't total uncontrolled flight into terrain because it didn't end up in 10,000 pieces.

Note what has not been claimed officially: "U.S. has determined that Iranian actions played no role in the descent and crash landing of the lost RQ-170."



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


For my own reasons, I really have my doubts about the RQ-170, and as to why the US hasn't said that. I believe they have with other UAVs, quite a few that have been kept quiet, or had barely a mention anywhere (there have been at least four or five that have gone missing in the Iran area). If my and others theories are right the gov't would want to keep it quiet about how the RQ-170 went down, and allowing Iran to think that it brought it down plays right into that reason. There are some interesting oddities about the Sentinel going down, and shortly thereafter.
edit on 3/20/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
On Sept 17, Gen Mark Welsh confirmed that the aircraft escorting the Predator were a pair of F-22s. According to the official report, one of the Raptor pilots went under both F-4s, undetected, examined their weapons load and came up on their left wing, where he radioed a warning to them. According to General Welsh, the Iranian pilots didn't know he was there until they saw him off their wing.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 
If Iran is really that good with taking over the drones systems, shouldn't our pilots be concerned that they might go all 9-11 on them and take control of the drone and run it into one of the escorts? I mean there are so many stories out there about how they have figured those UAV's out so they can't rule that possibility out can they?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by evc1shop
 


They're not hacking the UAV itself, they're spoofing the GPS signals and making it think it's not where it is. That doesn't matter with the Predator though, because the Predator is flown from a base station 100% of the flight, unlike the Sentinel.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
I hear you on the GPS neediness of the UAV and I know exactly what you mean. I was actually being a little sarcastic there but don't know which green bug emoticon represents that so left it out.

I do, however, have some family and friends who pretty much think you can just hack in and steer it like an R/C plane.

----
On a more inquisitive note, you stated that the Predator is 100% flown from a base. What happens when the control signal is jammed? I am assuming that jamming a signal to it may be difficult but is possible.
Does the Predator resort to a mode where it has a fallback plan and awaits connection again?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Here is my take on it.The UAV they "took down" was a virus Trojan horse.It's purpose was served when they hacked into it.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by evc1shop
 


Hacking into a UAV and flying it is extremely difficult. Everything on it, but the GPS (at least until recently) has military grade encryption, and is secured.

As for the Predator, yes, it goes into a failsafe mode until communications are restored. Usually the aircraft is taken off by a local unit, then control is turned over to the unit at Creech, or another base, then the local unit lands it again at the end of the mission.
edit on 9/19/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Zaphod58
Two hypotheticals for anyone to answer.

1. An obvious military aircraft is flying 70-100 miles off your coast, in obvious international airspace. It had been there a few days, but never entered your airspace. Is it ok to interfere with it?


No.


2. At least one, possibly multiple military aircraft flying along probing your defenses, eavesdropping on radio communications, getting radar frequencies, monitoring responses (including deliberately provoking responses). All this takes place in international airspace. Again, ok for this to happen?


Yes, but you should get compensation for the fuel expended on the intercept.

It seems sleazy but increased knowledge of capabilities by both sides may result in hostilities less often.
edit on 24-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join