Iran Army gains capability to intercept, redirect enemy missiles

[Oldman1]

Saying a lot of this BS is their deterrence. Taking control of missiles and redirecting them to the target of their choosing...

 

[SOHEIL]

Hi Trolls !
it doesn't matter what you think ... We are powerful

 

[Hack-Hook]

Don't be silly !
With claims like these persians are only loosing any sense of credibility.

Iran can do nothing about the cruise missile, which will be the primary instrument used by USA.
Cruise missile does not depend on radars, GPS etc.

well in fact cruise missiles relay on all of those things .

 

[GODLAX]

People do not know what they are talking about. These people go on what they think can happen, and not what actually happens.

The various "Jamming" of GPS that you point to is based on huge signal noise sources and a great deal of power and do not "confuse" the system as you seem to think (ie:false readings) but simply overwhelm the GPS signal itself. Such jammers are easily located and destroyed IF you're actually shooting already. Unfortunatly it is not so cut and dried when there isn't an actual "shooting-war" going on. (Your example of North Korea) Point of fact most "GPS" guidance systems can NOT recieve GPS signals in any direction EXCEPT from "above" them so the ONLY way to "interfer" with a GPS signal is either to push out enough noise and power to overwhelm the signal (which paints a huge target on yourself and gets one killed rapidly) or to have a weaker, more directed "source" with the SAME frequency and input protocals as the original signal source somewhere "in-between" the GPS satillite and the reciever.

To which you provide the answer of the "enemy" putting up satellite(s) to do just that...

Which shows you don't understand how GPS works, or the difficulty of doing such a thing. GPS satellites are in Low Earth Orbit and there are hundreds of them. Now, while I don't have the exact numbers a simple check tells me that CIVILAN GPS systems, for example a hand held or car unit uses at least THREE GPS satellite signals in coordination to find it's location. A MILITARY system would use many more than that. Now in order to "spoof" a UAV or UCAV, (let alone a GPS guided bomb) you would have to intercept and over-ride each and EVERY one of those signals (satellites) with one of your own. So you now have to launch a complete GPS satellite network simply to try and interfere with "my" GPS network, but worse yet I don't need to have anything BUT a signal and a known orbit if I have ANY type of INS system and/or I "know" where I started, and where I'm going to guide me to the general area of the target!

And you have to have enough satellites in orbit for me to have multiple signals (all with the proper protocol, wave-length, and pulse train, etc) over my entire flight time. And they HAVE to come in at the proper "angle" to the reciever so you can't simply put a big satellite into GEO because it won't "move" the proper way a LEO satellite will!

Vulnerability of UAVs and remotely GPS guided weapons

 

[GODLAX]

I do not post on this board often, but when I see asinine posts with people have little or no understanding on a certain topic and is misled I try my best to correct them. Case and point, Iran can not do what some people in this thread are giving them credit for.

 

[LeGenD]

According to you Iran shouldnt say anything, in that case they wouldnt have deterrence. How about middle ground, say few things/ keep few others as secret? Thats what Iran is doing.

Yes and No. Yes because silence creates an environment of uncertainty. But then there are other methods to collect information.

Even minor hints of sensitive matters are sufficient to give potential enemies reasonable initiative to reconsider their options and adopt remedial and precautionary measures.

Therefore, no definite answer. However, I would still advocate silence over press releases. Point is that while military professionals of the potential enemies will be doing their homework; all nations can take notice of latest Iranian military related developments, whether they are involved or not involved in spying activities over Iran. Many of these nations are friendly with USA and Israel. Therefore, more nations - more ideas - more clandestine support. Get the point?

I never said they did. What problems do you have with "Whether advanced US missiles can or cannot be tricked, by Iran or somebody else, is anyone's guess. What history teaches us, for any weapon tech. countermeasures appears."?

Actually I already mentioned how ancient flares could misdirect missiles from their targets. Dont you think over past half of century better countermeasures could have been invented against more advanced guidance? What was sci-fi in '50s, few things arent anymore

I have no problem with Iranian developments. However, point is validation of bold claims. While we can speculate, military professional already know the truth. We just need them to shed some light in this regard and a few have answered, even if briefly.

I have that fanatic on ignore, so no idea what he is spreading.

Unwise decision. Learn from anybody, be it enemy or friend.

Why change the subject? Dont you know US can lie or mislead when it suits their goals?

It does. However, USA also have reputation to back its claims with substance. Of course, USA learns from others too.

So multiple official "its no big deal" statements from Air Force Space Command mentioned in your posted article isnt face-saving?

If you think RQ170 is mediocre in general, I have bridges to sell to you, Big Ben will be a bonus

This is the comment:

The technology on the craft is low tech, except the cameras and radar. No way they’d leave the same leading edge tech in it like the B-2 has. There is (was) a very secret tech in the leading edge of the B-2, it’s electro magnetic and creates a wake in front of itself to smooth the air, makes the craft more silent as it passes through the air, and maximizes fuel efficiency. That’s why the edge is rounded, and not angled, it doesn’t have the same tech. Some believe that’s captured UFO tech, it’s not.

Actually X47-B is barely newer than RQ170, their operational goals are different (i.e. bomber vs reconnaissance), therefore they arent directly comparable and carry different equipment.

That said, you have no clue what exactly either RQ170 or X47-B has, therefore your assumption is just that - assumption. It would be very ironic if lets say Iran gets hands on X47-B, you probably would say again - its just mediocre drone, no big deal

X47-B is fully autonomous like the drones witnessed in Terminator movies. This drone does not depends upon human operators to make its decisions like most drones. And after the incident of RQ-170, it will be foolish to assume that US have not taken precautionary measures. X47-B is likely to be a different ball-game.

 

[Rod of God]

Hi Trolls !
it doesn't matter what you think ... We are powerful

If you have to say it, you're not .

 

[LeGenD]

X47-B !?

OK ! but why RQ-170 was secret ?

Experimental purposes?

 

[BATMAN]

I have respect for the nation, their culture and sovereignty, but I'm fed up with hearing them doing something brilliant every other day.

I will not reject all of their claims... some thing is surely cooking in Iran.

 

[Hack-Hook]

X47-B is fully autonomous like the drones witnessed in Terminator movies. This drone does not depends upon human operators to make its decisions like most drones. And after the incident of RQ-170, it will be foolish to assume that US have not taken precautionary measures. X47-B is likely to be a different ball-game.

the difference between autonomous and not autonomous is just in software and programing
and as a matter of fact X47-b is not autonomous in the manner you think it is . it is autonomous as it don't need an operator tell it how do a refueling by the way it's the story of the plane

he two X-47B demonstrators are planned to have a three-year test program at Edwards AFB and NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, culminating in sea trials in 2013.[12][11] The aircraft will be used to demonstrate carrier launches and recoveries, as well as autonomous inflight refueling with a probe and drogue. The X-47B has a maximum unrefueled range of over 2,000 miles (3,200 km), and an endurance of more than six hours.[13] In November 2011, the Navy announced that aerial refuelling equipment and software would be added to one of the prototype aircraft in 2014.[14] In 2012, Northrop Grumman tested a wearable remote control system, designed to allow ground crews to guide the X-47B into precise carrier landings.[15]

this plane even won't finish its test till 2014 and is not autonomous as you think

 

[gambit]

X47-B is fully autonomous like the drones witnessed in Terminator movies. This drone does not depends upon human operators to make its decisions like most drones. And after the incident of RQ-170, it will be foolish to assume that US have not taken precautionary measures. X47-B is likely to be a different ball-game.

The X-47 is not because of what happened with the single RQ loss. Autonomy does not equate to complete lack of control. Autonomy is like auto-pilot, but with more sophistication on decision making within programmed criteria. Human operators are 'in the loop' at all times. I have friends in Nellis, where they fly these drones over Afghanistan, and work with a Reserve USAF Lt. who is directly involve with UAVs, I will not say in what capacity other than in my specialty of avionics, and everyone laughs at the idea that somehow a triple DES encrypted link can be 'hacked' in real time by Iran. The codes for the autonomous operations of these UAVs are not Windows based, can anyone get that clue?

the difference between autonomous and not autonomous is just in software and programing
and as a matter of fact X47-b is not autonomous in the manner you think it is . it is autonomous as it don't need an operator tell it how do a refueling by the way it's the story of the plane


this plane even won't finish its test till 2014 and is not autonomous as you think

Please stop. You are making a fool out of yourself.

 

[LeGenD]

the difference between autonomous and not autonomous is just in software and programing

I disagree with this.

and as a matter of fact X47-b is not autonomous in the manner you think it is . it is autonomous as it don't need an operator tell it how do a refueling by the way it's the story of the plane


this plane even won't finish its test till 2014 and is not autonomous as you think

Here; Robot warplane passes midair-refueling test - Technology & science - Innovation - msnbc.com

It can take off and land on carriers — and now it can gas up on its own to keep flying

Of course, the drone is currently in prototype stage and lot more improvements may occur by 2014.

But this drone is the first one to have Terminator like capabilities, as per my knowledge.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I disagree with this.


Here; Robot warplane passes midair-refueling test - Technology & science - Innovation - msnbc.com



Of course, the drone is currently in prototype stage and lot more improvements may occur by 2014.

But this drone is the first one to have Terminator like capabilities, as per my knowledge.

well can you tell me you think what made an airplane autonomous

and also landing and take off and refueling is nowhere terminator like capabilities . if the plane by itself decided it's time to go on patrol and then start the engine and fly to the operation area and in mid of its patrol say to itself let go patrol another area and then say that car look suspicious and fire a missile toward it then it will be terminator like capabilities . Autonomous mean having sort of artificial intelligence not doing some routine protocol when you are told to do them without the help.


by the way if you read the article they just tested the software and no actual refueling happened . you knew there is one small technical problem for doing a real refueling test right now , well as a matter of fact right now non of the two prototype X47-b have the necessary equipment for mid-flight refueling installed on them.so the actual refueling test is scheduled for 2014.

by the way I don't know how similar this X47-b is to X47-A but if it use the same approach as X47-A then the exhaust of the engine of this plane have no stealth feature .

T

Please stop. You are making a fool out of yourself.

Can you enlighten me on the matter, Pleeeeeeaaaaase.

 

[The SC]

I think the U.S. should, in the interest of fostering good relations with Iran, help them develop this new, magical system. We should supply the test missiles... maybe launch a half dozen or so at Teheran so that the Iranians can 'deflect and re-route' them so that they can 'tweek' their new, magical system.




Some nations... O.K. 'nation' can fly up to a satellite, grab it and put it in the back of their space craft and take it home with them. And they've been able to do this for about thirty years, now. AMAZING !!!

If "nation" could do that than why it monkeyed China?
We are not talking ScFi here, so please make a realistic contribution, and do not make 'nation" a laughing thing for other nations.

A SCUD is a 'modern ballistic missile' ? HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!




How come Iran is knee-deep in oil but they can't even refine enough to supply themselves with gasoline ?

The new Iranian Missiles are modern designs, some based on the Scuds, some are totally home made with the most recent tech.


They do, read recent news about it.



But now how come the US is knee-deep in knowledge and it can not supply itself with one educated person, just idiots?

 

[The SC]

Don't be silly !
With claims like these persians are only loosing any sense of credibility.

Iran can do nothing about the cruise missile, which will be the primary instrument used by USA.
Cruise missile does not depend on radars, GPS etc.

OK, no one wants to be silly, but SA should intercept these cruise missiles if it doesn't want to get badly hurt afterward.
So, stop being silly, because no one in the middle east is willing to sacrifice his country for Americans sitting comfortably in their homes 10 000 km away while bragging mouths like yours are defending them.

I do not post on this board often, but when I see asinine posts with people have little or no understanding on a certain topic and is misled I try my best to correct them. Case and point, Iran can not do what some people in this thread are giving them credit for.

Please try to correct your English first and educate yourself on these matters before posting again, I'll give you let's say a100 years. Would that be enough?
If not please let us know, we will give you more.

If you have to say it, you're not .

The same goes for you, or doesn't it?

Experimental purposes?

Do you mean the US experiment with low tech or the most advanced?