US spy drone 'tricked' into Iran landing by GPS spoofing

[Thorough Pro]

The "one" that every American including you were denying? Off course it wasn't easy, had it been that easy they would have done it earlier. Why only one? becoz after that one incident you stopped flying them over Iran.

GPS spoofing is old news. Bottom line is that if it is so easy to 'hack' a US drone, then why only one so far?

 

[iajj]

The "one" that every American including you were denying? Off course it wasn't easy, had it been that easy they would have done it earlier. Why only one? becoz after that one incident you stopped flying them over Iran.

exactly: we should ask anglo-americans and jews and their viet running dogs - if what iranians did was a fluke, why didn't they fly more missions afterwards? only that viemese running dog who always cleans his white masters' butth*les with diligence and passion would pose the question backward.

 

[Rig Vedic]

It would be interesting to know how the drone was captured.

Military GPS signals are encrypted so not possible to spoof.

One possibility - the GPS may have been jammed and the drone may be programmed to attempt a landing when it runs out of fuel. If I recall correctly the drone was somewhat damaged when it tried to land.

 

[Malik Usman]

But the question is this drone also has cameras...........and from base they control them and see the live flying paths..........if it has changed its root what the operation team was doing in base....coz control was in their hand......it was not auto pilot flying without any control...

 

[Hack-Hook]

It would be interesting to know how the drone was captured.

Military GPS signals are encrypted so not possible to spoof.

One possibility - the GPS may have been jammed and the drone may be programmed to attempt a landing when it runs out of fuel. If I recall correctly the drone was somewhat damaged when it tried to land.

well that is more in support of spoofing , the drone thought its where its base is and tried to land there and well , that was not an airfield but a desert just a small sand mound is enough to disturb the plane balance and result in those damages to the wing.
also consider the logical programing for the drone is to abandon the mission and go back to the base if it's low on fuel , well maybe except when told otherwise by the operator. but its highly illogical to program such drone to land in enemy territory if ran out of fuel instead of diving and destroying the drone.

But the question is this drone also has cameras...........and from base they control them and see the live flying paths..........if it has changed its root what the operation team was doing in base....coz control was in their hand......it was not auto pilot flying without any control...

well you can jam all the signals specially satellites , if you knew which satellite the drone use you can target powerful signals toward that satellite that make it impossible for that sat to operate.

 

[gambit]

It would be interesting to know how the drone was captured.

Through 'Iranian physics'.

Military GPS signals are encrypted so not possible to spoof.

True. Most people here do not understand the difference between jamming and spoofing. Until now.

One possibility - the GPS may have been jammed and the drone may be programmed to attempt a landing when it runs out of fuel. If I recall correctly the drone was somewhat damaged when it tried to land.

The drone's topside bumps are antenna housings and because of their locations -- topside -- they are shielded from most (not all) of any attempt to jam.

If we are to be generous and say that Iran know the drone's general air location/direction, then the power to overwhelm the drone's topside antenna at 30-40k ft altitude would have to be something sufficiently powerful like an airborne jamming pod and constant lest any gap allow a reconnection between aircraft and remote operator. But let us be that generous.

So what happens next when the aircraft detect a loss of connection? It depends on the programming sophistication.

The most primitive would be to continue on current heading/altitude until fuel is exhausted. This is premised on the hope that distance will take the aircraft out of the jamming radius and will allow a reconnection. But it would also incur the risk that the aircraft would be so far out that no reconnection would be possible.

The next option would be to orbit at a constant altitude and hope the jamming signals would stop. Fuel exhaustion is still a possibility before a reconnection.

The next option would be to land. Whether the ground below is 'hostile' or 'friendly' is a matter of opinion. For the aircraft, it is simply a destination.

The next option would be the 'return-to-base' (RTB) capability. This require a much more sophisticated avionics package that would include an unassisted/uncorrelated guidance system, aka the inertial navigation system (INS), coupled to the flight controls system (FLCS). The system would redirect the aircraft to its ingress heading, meaning the direction from which it came from, and hope that INS drift is not too great during the RTB flight. INS drift is a serious problem over distance. That is why the INS is assisted/correlated by an external source such as the GPS or astronav (star sighting). The RTB capability is casually referred to as the 'homing pigeon' feature by the UAV community.

The RQ-170 does have the RTB capability. But assuming that the one shown by Iran is THE ONE that we lost, then it is more reasonable to have an educated guess that the drone experienced a deeper software failure than from jamming. What we do not know is how long into the mission did the drone lost its remote connection. Long enough and it is possible that the drone exhausted its fuel in RTB because the human operator would not allow his charge to fly too long to have no fuel margin for the return home flight. It lost connection deep into the mission, decided to orbit for a while to give reconnection a chance, then decided to RTB and crashed because of no fuel.

But this explanation deny Iran the glory of deliberate capture and relegate possession to mere luck. Hence the spectacular assertions of 'hacking' to 'shoot down'.

 

[lem34]

You can argue what you want but the bottom line is that Americans did not want this and Iranians did. So it is a victory for Iranians no matter what spin Vietnamese or Americans on here put on it

 

[Hack-Hook]

Through 'Iranian physics'.


True. Most people here do not understand the difference between jamming and spoofing. Until now.


The drone's topside bumps are antenna housings and because of their locations -- topside -- they are shielded from most (not all) of any attempt to jam.

If we are to be generous and say that Iran know the drone's general air location/direction, then the power to overwhelm the drone's topside antenna at 30-40k ft altitude would have to be something sufficiently powerful like an airborne jamming pod and constant lest any gap allow a reconnection between aircraft and remote operator. But let us be that generous.

So what happens next when the aircraft detect a loss of connection? It depends on the programming sophistication.

The most primitive would be to continue on current heading/altitude until fuel is exhausted. This is premised on the hope that distance will take the aircraft out of the jamming radius and will allow a reconnection. But it would also incur the risk that the aircraft would be so far out that no reconnection would be possible.

The next option would be to orbit at a constant altitude and hope the jamming signals would stop. Fuel exhaustion is still a possibility before a reconnection.

The next option would be to land. Whether the ground below is 'hostile' or 'friendly' is a matter of opinion. For the aircraft, it is simply a destination.

The next option would be the 'return-to-base' (RTB) capability. This require a much more sophisticated avionics package that would include an unassisted/uncorrelated guidance system, aka the inertial navigation system (INS), coupled to the flight controls system (FLCS). The system would redirect the aircraft to its ingress heading, meaning the direction from which it came from, and hope that INS drift is not too great during the RTB flight. INS drift is a serious problem over distance. That is why the INS is assisted/correlated by an external source such as the GPS or astronav (star sighting). The RTB capability is casually referred to as the 'homing pigeon' feature by the UAV community.

The RQ-170 does have the RTB capability. But assuming that the one shown by Iran is THE ONE that we lost, then it is more reasonable to have an educated guess that the drone experienced a deeper software failure than from jamming. What we do not know is how long into the mission did the drone lost its remote connection. Long enough and it is possible that the drone exhausted its fuel in RTB because the human operator would not allow his charge to fly too long to have no fuel margin for the return home flight. It lost connection deep into the mission, decided to orbit for a while to give reconnection a chance, then decided to RTB and crashed because of no fuel.

But this explanation deny Iran the glory of deliberate capture and relegate possession to mere luck. Hence the spectacular assertions of 'hacking' to 'shoot down'.

and yes an inherent unstable design like RQ-170 which need its computer operation just not to start rotate around its axis and fall like stone can crash land without any fuel and any power from the altitude of 15km and stay intact . must be one hell of American technology from area-51.

why not go with the most logical explanation , that plan landed on its power in middle of the desert . and then try to argue on why it decided to land there.

 

[gambit]

and yes an inherent unstable design like RQ-170 which need its computer operation just not to start rotate around its axis and fall like stone can crash land without any fuel and any power from the altitude of 15km and stay intact . must be one hell of American technology from area-51.

Now that is funny. The RQ-170's design is inherently unstable. This is a clear case of using words and phrases with nary a clue of what they mean just to appear knowledgeable.

The flying wing is not inherently unstable. It is difficult to maintain directional control in the yaw axis, but that does not mean it is unstable.

why not go with the most logical explanation , that plan landed on its power in middle of the desert . and then try to argue on why it decided to land there.

This really make no sense. You provided no explanation whatsoever, logical or otherwise. I know you are trying very hard to give Iran some credits but it is not working. Not as long as I am around.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Now that is funny. The RQ-170's design is inherently unstable. This is a clear case of using words and phrases with nary a clue of what they mean just to appear knowledgeable.

The flying wing is not inherently unstable. It is difficult to maintain directional control in the yaw axis, but that does not mean it is unstable.


This really make no sense. You provided no explanation whatsoever, logical or otherwise. I know you are trying very hard to give Iran some credits but it is not working. Not as long as I am around.

it seems that somebody has no clue about what he say , by the way to show you how stable a flying wing is let just remind you that B-2 need three separate computer to do the calculation just for being able to stay in the sky and being able to fly where it need.

A clean flying wing is theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient (lowest drag) design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft. It also offers high structural efficiency for a given wing depth, leading to light weight and high fuel efficiency.

Because it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces or the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. Moreover, solutions may produce a final design that is still too unsafe for certain uses, such as commercial aviation.

Flying wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well you want or don't want give credit to Iran is of no consequence but please don't discredit American by saying they don't knew anything about how to protect their military secrets by programing a drone that carry military secrets to land in enemy territory

 

[gambit]

it seems that somebody has no clue about what he say , by the way to show you how stable a flying wing is let just remind you that B-2 need three separate computer to do the calculation just for being able to stay in the sky and being able to fly where it need.

The YB-49 did not have computers to fly. Sorry, but with my four years on the F-111 and five on the F-16, I do know what I am talking about much more than you do on this subject.

well you want or don't want give credit to Iran is of no consequence but please don't discredit American by saying they don't knew anything about how to protect their military secrets by programing a drone that carry military secrets to land in enemy territory

Post 51 is far more revealing on how drones operate than any speculations you can come up with.

 

[poseidon]

^^

If you are the "professional" then tell us how it landed in Iran in one piece and that Iranian got it so fast.
use facts to support your comments as well, we don't need to read some random things without proof.

 

[gambit]

^^

If you are the "professional" then tell us how it landed in Iran in one piece and that Iranian got it so fast.
use facts to support your comments as well, we don't need to read some random things without proof.

First of all, you should have logical doubts that the thing Iran displayed is actually THE ONE that we lost.

Second, logic dictates that our admission of loss does not automatically imply that we acknowledge the METHODS that Iran claimed to have used.

I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp. So if you want proof, demand that Iran allows credible third party access to that thing they displayed. Components have serial numbers, date of manufacture, and origin of manufacture, no? Let journalists, not necessarily engineers, look at them and allow them to publish what they see.

 

[poseidon]

what a stupid comment.
the USA official have said it was the same drone, yet you doubt it?
even the president came out and asked for it back.

seriously it is people like you that make world think we americans are stupid.
why would Iran publish things about the drone so you can be happy? they consider the drone a strategic gain and they will not let others get the secret. journalist could be spies as far Iran is concerned.

I asked you for proof and the only things you say is that we should doubt the video footage was real because you say so, even though real american official have said it is real. how did Iran even make a duplicate of it so fast anyway if your are right?

 

[SOHEIL]

First of all, you should have logical doubts that the thing Iran displayed is actually THE ONE that we lost.

Second, logic dictates that our admission of loss does not automatically imply that we acknowledge the METHODS that Iran claimed to have used.

I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp. So if you want proof, demand that Iran allows credible third party access to that thing they displayed. Components have serial numbers, date of manufacture, and origin of manufacture, no? Let journalists, not necessarily engineers, look at them and allow them to publish what they see.

I love american trolls