FIRST ON CNN: Iran confronts U.S. drone over Persian Gulf

[gambit]

I still do not understand why an MQ1, a predator, was sent for reconnaissance? Any opinion?

The Pred is a recon platform. In the early days of American military UAVs, missiles were not considered. They were strictly for observation. Then Hellfire missiles where installed because we recognized the need for prompt response when an opportunity is available.

 

[rohailmalhi]

All you did was copied/pasted a news article. What is your point here? I already made mine, which is that UAVs do not usually fly with escorts, and yet now there is one. This is about testing Iranian response and the grade for the Iranian Air Force is: F.

So did I . I made that comment for this piece of article . I did copy paste for u as you were previously unable to read this article.

They did fire warning flares and that mean they were accompanying the UAV .That was the point i made. Hope u get it now.

 

[gambit]

So did I . I made that comment for this piece of article . I did copy paste for u as you were previously unable to read this article.

They did fire warning flares and that mean they were accompanying the UAV .That was the point i made. Hope u get it now.

The article said: 'The Pentagon said earlier today that the U.S. fired a flare to warn the Iranian jet, but amended that statement.'

To 'amend' means to change, meaning the US aircrafts did not fired any flares. Instead, it looked like the US pilots gave the Iranian a verbal warning.

But no matter what, UAVs usually do not fly with escorts. But in this case, this one UAV did flew with escorts. You mocked that situation without asking why and that made you look foolish.

 

[rohailmalhi]

The article said: 'The Pentagon said earlier today that the U.S. fired a flare to warn the Iranian jet, but amended that statement.'

To 'amend' means to change, meaning the US aircrafts did not fired any flares. Instead, it looked like the US pilots gave the Iranian a verbal warning.

But no matter what, UAVs usually do not fly with escorts. But in this case, this one UAV did flew with escorts. You mocked that situation without asking why and that made you look foolish.

One way or the other , that damn UAV was escorted by fighters .Doesnt it.

I am not mocking the situation it is what it is ..........

and take a chill pill old man .......

 

[Sam1980]

You are getting into the ridiculous here.

Ridiculous?! I'm just giving my opinion from an engineering perspective!

The F-22 is not designed to be an AWACS or a recon platform, even though it can perform some limited functions of those specific platforms. The -22 is designed to be an air superiority platform.

You didn't read my post carefully, I never said F-22 could replace E-3 Sentry or a UAV nor did I say F-22 has camera, processors, or software capable of such task, I said F-22 can function as a mini-AWACS, and carry more equipment than an typical UAV (which wouldn't make difference in this case), therefore with some modifications it can even perform reconnaissance missions faster and more efficient than a UAV. Of course it will be more costly, and also endangers pilot's life, I already pointed all these in my earlier post.

A UAV is designed specifically to be a long duration first and long range second recon/observation platform. The avionics link you gave does not contain cameras and the high quality high capability camera you cited will certainly require its own containment system, of which the -22's internal volume does not accommodate.

I'm not saying lets get rid of UAVs, all I'm saying is that with slight modifications (around $4.4mn incl camera, software upgrade and sensors) F-22 can outperform any high-tech spy drone. This is to counter your earlier argument in which you stated that: fighters can't carry out role of a UAV as good.

Not really, no special containment system is really needed. High speed cameras have already been miniaturized F-22 nose should have sufficient space for a small camera on its exterior, but F-22 "Integrated Processor" needs a serious upgrade to be able to keep up with tasks of image processing and object detection especially at high speeds, if speed wasn't the issue which it is in this case, there wasn't any need for any important upgrades beside the aircraft processor, a cloud sever could be utilized to do the processing, but this will cause series of problems such as data encryption/decryption (military protocol) and a huge bandwidth, such a task could require hundreds of mbps of consistent speed which would be very difficult to achieve (remember cloud sever does all the processing, this is if the old processor is not upgraded), but overall processor replacement is a more viable option since F-22 processor is already old and doing so will also remove the need for unnecessary communication with the server and therefore reduces chances of detection.

So if I am going to design a dedicated long duration high altitude recon/observatio platform, why should I pay more money for high speed cameras when because of the lower airspeed I can use less expensive equipment and still can get the same results?

Because as you claimed: There is less chance (nearly %40 less chance) for an F-22 to be detected. (Of course I admit it, I wouldn't do that either, but it provides better results) at the moment, autonomous tasks that can be performed by drones are very limited: auto-pilot, limited target detection, and they're dependant on pilots for recon missions. Of course what I'm suggesting can be performed on UAVs as well (actually cloud sever is more feasible in this case), but the whole point was to point out that fighters can do the same tasks better, with less effort from the pilot.

 

[Sergi]

@gambit :
1. US UAV and escorts were flying in international Air space
2. So was Iranian F-4s

What are the rules of engagement in international airspace ???
How much close a non friendly non offensive plane can come ???
Like If a plane is just tailing UAV in international air space without any intent of attacking it.

 

[Sam1980]

[MENTION=15642]
What are the rules of engagement in international airspace ???
How much close a non friendly non offensive plane can come ???
Like If a plane is just tailing UAV in international air space without any intent of attacking it.

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook.aspx

 

[gambit]

@gambit :
1. US UAV and escorts were flying in international Air space
2. So was Iranian F-4s

What are the rules of engagement in international airspace ???
How much close a non friendly non offensive plane can come ???
Like If a plane is just tailing UAV in international air space without any intent of attacking it.

In a nutshell...

If both non-friendly aircrafts are in international air space, and if both ID-ed each other as belonging to their respective country, any actions that results in a loss for one side can be legitimately construed as an act of war by the victim.

In this situation, as long as the American aircraft remains in international air space, the Iranians have no right to interfere with its flight. The Iranian F-4 can get as close as he like but other than that, there is nothing legal he can do.

 

[gambit]

Ridiculous?! I'm just giving my opinion from an engineering perspective!

And am saying your post was ridiculous based on nearly 19 yrs in aviation, 10 of which active duty USAF on F-111 and F-16.

You didn't read my post carefully, I never said F-22 could replace E-3 Sentry or a UAV nor did I say F-22 has camera, processors, or software capable of such task, I said F-22 can function as a mini-AWACS, and carry more equipment than an typical UAV (which wouldn't make difference in this case), therefore with some modifications it can even perform reconnaissance missions faster and more efficient than a UAV. Of course it will be more costly, and also endangers pilot's life, I already pointed all these in my earlier post.

I'm not saying lets get rid of UAVs, all I'm saying is that with slight modifications (around $4.4mn incl camera, software upgrade and sensors) F-22 can outperform any high-tech spy drone. This is to counter your earlier argument in which you stated that: fighters can't carry out role of a UAV as good.

$4.4 mil, eh? Quite a precise figure considering you do not know one whit about the F-22 or perhaps even a Cessna 152, upon which where I got my license when I was a teenager back in the late 1970s.

Not really, no special containment system is really needed. High speed cameras have already been miniaturized F-22 nose should have sufficient space for a small camera on its exterior,...

Stop it right there...

If you want any ideas on how much work is involved in turning an active duty front line fighter into something else it was not designed to be, take a look at the RF-4 series...

RF-4

...a lengthened nose designed for reconnaissance applications.

...reconnaissance SLAR antenna faired into the lower fuselage sides.

...infrared reconnaissance system was fitted in the fuselage just behind the SLAR.

If anything, the US effectively redesigned the F-4 platform damn near into a new aircraft.

So for you to tell me that modifying an F-22 to the exact tune of $4.4 mils means you are pulling crap out of your we-know-what, to put it politely. No offense.

You clearly do not have any aviation experience. An aircraft is essentially the best example of compromise we have. In aviation, weight is a penalty so the goal is to exploit as much empty space as possible. I have seen the innards of the forward avionics bays of:

- F-111
- F-15
- F-16
- F-4
- F-22

And I have hands-on experience with the top 4 while have friends who are on the fifth. How about you?

It is so tight in any fighter class aircraft that in order to turn a fighter into a tactical flash and dash recon platform, we had to return a bunch of them back to the manufacturer to make serious structural changes to the original design.

Here is what the F-15 forward avionics bays look like...

And the F-15 is among the larger if not the largest of the fighter size class.

So for you to tell me, let alone the reading public of this open forum, that it will take only $4.4 mils to modify an F-22 into a tactical recon is the height of arrogance. No offense meant.

So yes, I stand by my earlier statement that a deployed fighter is an inferior recon/observation platform than a dedicated UAV.

 

[Sam1980]

And am saying your post was ridiculous based on nearly 19 yrs in aviation, 10 of which active duty USAF on F-111 and F-16.

Yeah... apparently you have been away for a quite some time. You need to keep up with the technology. No offence.

$4.4 mil, eh? Quite a precise figure considering you do not know one whit about the F-22 or perhaps even a Cessna 152, upon which where I got my license when I was a teenager back in the late 1970s.

$4.4mn for upgrades per unit. Nearly $3.2mn goes to the camera, remaining will go to the software upgrade and sensors. Since CIP is already being modernized I didn't include it.

The F-22 Raptor: Program & Events

If you want any ideas on how much work is involved in turning an active duty front line fighter into something else it was not designed to be, take a look at the RF-4 series...

You can't compare that artifact with F-22, F-22 was designed for extensibility of its internal components, as a matter of fact F-22 was designed to be extensible in terms of internal module upgrades. For example: F-22 CIP was designed to be upgradeable just recently F-22 CIPs were to be upgraded so it will have the processing power equivalent to 2 Cray supercomputers.

So for you to tell me that modifying an F-22 to the exact tune of $4.4 mils means you are pulling crap out of your we-know-what, to put it politely. No offense.

No major upgrade is needed. (They're already spending $7bn on major modernization which provides the necessary infrastructure for this plan) Please go to the link I provided.

You clearly do not have any aviation experience. An aircraft is essentially the best example of compromise we have. In aviation, weight is a penalty so the goal is to exploit as much empty space as possible. I have seen the innards of the forward avionics bays of:

- F-111
- F-15
- F-16
- F-4
- F-22

And I have hands-on experience with the top 4 while have friends who are on the fifth. How about you?

Are you telling me that F-22 nose doesn't have space to contain a camera size of 300x300 box of tissue?!
No... my area is electronics, not aircraft electronics however, but I know what I'm talking about.

It is so tight in any fighter class aircraft that in order to turn a fighter into a tactical flash and dash recon platform, we had to return a bunch of them back to the manufacturer to make serious structural changes to the original design.

This is not the case with newer generation fighters. As long as aircraft aerodynamics is not messed with.

And the F-15 is among the larger if not the largest of the fighter size class.

I appreciate the info, I really do, but I'm talking about F-22 here.

So for you to tell me, let alone the reading public of this open forum, that it will take only $4.4 mils to modify an F-22 into a tactical recon is the height of arrogance. No offense meant.

None taken, I already pointed out, they are doing a very major modernization specifically on F-22 electronics so the aircraft already have the necessary infrastructure for this upgrade.

So yes, I stand by my earlier statement that a deployed fighter is an inferior recon/observation platform than a dedicated UAV.

Well, I guess we'll never know, because they don't plan to do that anyway.

 

[gambit]

Yeah... apparently you have been away for a quite some time. You need to keep up with the technology. No offence.

Meaningless. No offense.

$4.4mn for upgrades per unit. Nearly $3.2mn goes to the camera, remaining will go to the software upgrade and sensors. Since CIP is already being modernized I didn't include it.

Right...So in effect, you are pulling this out of your we-know-what.

You can't compare that artifact with F-22, F-22 was designed for extensibility of its internal components, as a matter of fact F-22 was designed to be extensible in terms of internal module upgrades. For example: F-22 CIP was designed to be upgradeable just recently F-22 CIPs were to be upgraded so it will have the processing power equivalent to 2 Cray supercomputers.

Now we can definitely say you have no aviation experience.

A fighter can be hardware upgraded in regards to avionics only if the newer LRUs will be SMALLER compare to its predecessors. So simply saying that the F-22's avionics is modular is misleading. If the newer mods give it more capabilities but the LRUs still retains the same size, then there will no room for your cameras to turn it into a recon platform. Which part of limited volume do you not understand?

Are you telling me that F-22 nose doesn't have space to contain a camera size of 300x300 box of tissue?!
No... my area is electronics, not aircraft electronics however, but I know what I'm talking about.

No, you do not know what you are talking about. Further, the -22's low radar observability heavily depends on its outer shaping. To modify that external shape to allow a recon camera may compromise its RCS to above an unacceptable level.

It is not a 'nose', if you want to get precise about it. It is the forward fuselage section that contains the radome, cockpit, and avionics bays. I do know how much is crammed into those bays and the F-15's image is illustrative of that.

This is not the case with newer generation fighters. As long as aircraft aerodynamics is not messed with.

Even if we grant this allowance this is not a modification to be done at the flightline level.

There are three main levels of aircraft maintenance:

- Organizational or flightline
- Phase
- Depot

If an aircraft's issue can be repaired by opening access panels and the problem corrected, as in within one shift, then it is an organizational level maintenance. This is the bulk of aviation work, from civilian to military.

Phase level maintenance is where the aircraft is stripped of major outer coverings and major components inspected, serviced or reconditioned, and/or changed based upon certain criteria such as simple flight hours, for example. Things like Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) are installed.

MIL-PRF-38804, Preparation of Time Compliance Technical Orders « Document Center's Standards Forum

The first thing people need to know is the definition of Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO). The answer can be found in TO 00-5-15, “Air Force Time Compliance Technical Order Process.”

There are levels of TCTO such as emergency or simple annual. An emergency TCTO can ground an entire fleet immediately.

Anyway...Phase level maintenance is a months long process. For air forces that buys from other countries, phase level maintenance is the most extensive they can perform.

Depot level maintenance is where the aircraft is literally stripped of everything, down to the clamps that holds the wire bundles together. Depot is where major modifications are done and to convert an aircraft from one platform to another is a major tasking. Air forces that buys their aircrafts must send their aircrafts back to country of origin for depot maintenance.

For example...

http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/

...when the plane went in for Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM)...

You do not even know these levels of maintenance exists and you want to talk about modifying an F-22?

I appreciate the info, I really do, but I'm talking about F-22 here.

Then show us what you know of it...

None taken, I already pointed out, they are doing a very major modernization specifically on F-22 electronics so the aircraft already have the necessary infrastructure for this upgrade.

If you have no details on these mods, then what make you so certain that there are space available for your speculative cameras?

Well, I guess we'll never know, because they don't plan to do that anyway.

Then what is the point of your participation in this useless exercise?

 

[Penguin]

And the F-15 is among the larger if not the largest of the fighter size class.

Su/27 etc are larger.

 

[Sam1980]

Right...So in effect, you are pulling this out of your we-know-what.

No... actually I was being quite generous it would cost less than $4.4mn per unit, in feasibility study we ought to do that. I listed down main things that are needed below:

1- TFPS Camera $250,000 (per unit)
Trillion-frame-per-second video - MIT News Office
2- Additional modules + integration $2.2mn (per unit) (IR sensors, etc...) This of course depends on the vendor, whether its Honeywell (!) or Raytheon!
3- Additionally you would need a software developer to develop the application and make it compatible with the F-22 "brain" this shouldn't cost more than $22mn for the whole fleet.

Now we can definitely say you have no aviation experience.

You know we also have people who think like you do here as well, just because someone doesn't have experience doesn't make their argument invalid! Please ask one of your friends who is an avionics engineer, ask him this question: "Do you think idea of integrated recon module in an upgraded radar is feasible or not?" Considering the U.S. airforce is modernizing radars of its fleet frequently!

No, you do not know what you are talking about. Further, the -22's low radar observability heavily depends on its outer shaping. To modify that external shape to allow a recon camera may compromise its RCS to above an unacceptable level.

I had use of composite materials in mind...

It is not a 'nose', if you want to get precise about it. It is the forward fuselage section that contains the radome, cockpit, and avionics bays. I do know how much is crammed into those bays and the F-15's image is illustrative of that.

Predator, already implemented this idea camera assembly is already in the front section and it manages to take high resolution and precise images. By the look of what you shown me in the earlier picture it could contain it, but that was an F-15 radar?

Even if we grant this allowance this is not a modification to be done at the flightline level.

You're right! But I never said it was!

If an aircraft's issue can be repaired by opening access panels and the problem corrected, as in within one shift, then it is an organizational level maintenance. This is the bulk of aviation work, from civilian to military.

You certainly need manufacturer full cooperation if you're to implement this.

If you have no details on these mods, then what make you so certain that there are space available for your speculative cameras?

Its only a single camera, integrated with additional modules, all in a small box. Well, I'm not blind for example this APG63 v3 radar can contain the module by the look of it. But I'm not sure if the computer could be as powerful as the new F-22 CIP! (its not!)

Then what is the point of your participation in this useless exercise?

We are discussing! That's what people do on forums! If I had the best idea in the world would I have enough power to make them implement my idea? This is just for the sake of discussion of course!

 

[gambit]

No... actually I was being quite generous it would cost less than $4.4mn per unit, in feasibility study we ought to do that. I listed down main things that are needed below:

1- TFPS Camera $250,000 (per unit)
Trillion-frame-per-second video - MIT News Office
2- Additional modules + integration $2.2mn (per unit) (IR sensors, etc...) This of course depends on the vendor, whether its Honeywell (!) or Raytheon!
3- Additionally you would need a software developer to develop the application and make it compatible with the F-22 "brain" this shouldn't cost more than $22mn for the whole fleet.

Do you why there are things like 'cost overrun'? Because of overly optimistic projections by people overly eager to prove themselves. They ended up getting themselves and their companies in deep financial, political, and reputation problems.

You know we also have people who think like you do here as well, just because someone doesn't have experience doesn't make their argument invalid! Please ask one of your friends who is an avionics engineer, ask him this question: "Do you think idea of integrated recon module in an upgraded radar is feasible or not?" Considering the U.S. airforce is modernizing radars of its fleet frequently!

I do not need to ask anyone about this. It is technically feasible but whether it will be implemented or not is a matter of finance and tactical needs. From reading you, I get the impression that you are one of those who thinks that just because it can be done, it MUST be done. All other considerations be damned. You think that having no experience is actually a good thing because you fell hard for that overly romantic cliche 'think outside the box' kind of nonsense. Then when things go wrong, and things will go wrong, it will be others' blood and lives on the line, not yours.

I had use of composite materials in mind...

Another misconception. Composites are more for weight savings than for RCS control.

There are three levels of composites...

- Atomic (water)
- Molecular (carbon fiber, metallic alloys, proteins)
- Gross (concrete and plywood)

We moved away from the F-117 methods of angular faceting and high composite methods of RCS control. The F-22 relies mostly on shaping and far less on absorbers, which are concentrated mainly on leading edges.

I posted plenty enough about this subject here. Look them up.

Predator, already implemented this idea camera assembly is already in the front section and it manages to take high resolution and precise images. By the look of what you shown me in the earlier picture it could contain it, but that was an F-15 radar?

You did not recognize that was an F-15?

You're right! But I never said it was!

But does that mean you know? Please do not try that tactic with me.

You certainly need manufacturer full cooperation if you're to implement this.

Then this tossed your overly optimistic cost projections out the window.

Its only a single camera, integrated with additional modules, all in a small box. Well, I'm not blind for example this APG63 v3 radar can contain the module by the look of it. But I'm not sure if the computer could be as powerful as the new F-22 CIP! (its not!)

Theoretically, few things are impossible. But my arguments rests on the here and now. When the question was about using a 'fighter' to do the job of a dedicated recon platform, the answer is appropriately 'No'. The 'fighter' have already been built. Its components designed with dedicated purposes and appropriate functions to the aircraft's mission.

We are discussing! That's what people do on forums! If I had the best idea in the world would I have enough power to make them implement my idea? This is just for the sake of discussion of course!

Then what make you so confident I am wrong and you are right? You have no experience and knowledge to temper your enthusiasm.

 

[Sam1980]

Another misconception. Composites are more for weight savings than for RCS control.

I disagree, this is a relatively old paper written by an Iranian researcher at the University of California.

IEEE Xplore - RCS reduction in planar, cylindrical, and spherical structures by composite coatings using genetic a...

I don't think if you can access the full content, but here is the abstract:

Radar cross section (RCS) reduction of a target using multilayered radar absorbing materials (RAM) has been an important consideration in radar systems. The properties of the RAM depend on the frequency and for wide-band absorption, a proper composite selection of these materials is necessary. This paper focuses on the design of a wide-band multilayered RAM coating for planar, cylindrical, and spherical conducting structures such that the RCS is reduced considerably. The method is based on the genetic algorithm (GA) optimization technique integrated with the modal solution of Maxwell's equations in a multilayered geometry. It is shown that by a proper design of materials and their thickness, the RCS is reduced significantly in a wide frequency bandwidth. Additionally, it is observed that the application of an optimized coating for planar structure can reduce the RCS of a cylindrical or spherical structure efficiently.

You did not recognize that was an F-15?

I think I said I did. Because our discussion was about F-22 I was a bit confused when you brought F-15 into discussion.

But does that mean you know? Please do not try that tactic with me.

Yes I knew it, that organization structure is not solely dedicated to aircraft maintenance, all engineering disciplines follow similar approach.

Then what make you so confident I am wrong and you are right? You have no experience and knowledge to temper your enthusiasm.

I'm going to come over there in 4 months, to do my Master's (By research) there, let's say its in a relevant field. Apparently university saw me knowledgeable enough (considering I published 4 papers with IEEE and 1 with Scopus) to provide me with grant and allow me entry to such sensitive course, particularly under current warlike situation between our countries.