US Stealth UAV RQ-170 downed in IRAN

[gambit]

US asks Iran to return captured drone

This sounds like a burglar trying to break in at night returning in the morning asking for his crowbar back!

the best analogy i read on this news item .... good one.

That is a wrong analogy, let alone a terrible one.

The US have been flying these reconnaissance flights out of Iraq and Afghanistan that for the currently knowledge HAS NOT violated Iranian airspace. It does not matter if the the drone is 100 km or 1 meter from the Iranian border, Iranian airspace was not violated. Being PASSIVELY nosy is not a violation of any international norms, codified or unspoken.

1- If you guys genuinely believed that Iran 'hacked' into the American UAV system in Nevada or infected said system with a virus DESIGNED to divert one drone to Iran, then it is Iran who is the thief.

2- If Iran committed a wide area wide bandwidth high powered EM transmission DESIGNED to interfere with the normal operations of any EM dependent device, and even though the consequential actions of those devices cannot be anticipated by any party, the fact that Iran DELIBERATELY committed such an act meant Iran created an environmental condition intended to produce unpredictable consequences of which one or more of those consequences would be favorable to Iran. This make Iran no less a thief than option 1.

Either way, the US is perfectly within rights to ask for the return of our property and Iran should comply.

 

[Sina]

... international norms ...

An American talking about INTERNATIONAL NORMS.

 

[IranZamin]

Lm a o

 

[Safriz]

actually.....gambit has a point...

but at the moment iran is the one triumphant and shouting it out loud for everybody to know.

 

[Arian]

Either way, the US is perfectly within rights to ask for the return of our property and Iran should comply.

From being a military analyst you wanna turn into a professional comedian? good start for that

 

[gambit]

From being a military analyst you wanna turn into a professional comedian? good start for that

Heck...The real laugh here is that the US is supposedly the thief when everyone is adamant that Iran had an active role in how to take possession of a US property through illegal means.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

actually.....gambit has a point...

More like 2.

but at the moment iran is the one triumphant and shouting it out loud for everybody to know.

Then why are we the thief? What did we stole? Iran is saying their technologists 'did it' and everyone here believe it. So why is the US the thief?

 

[ILYA]

Heck...The real laugh here is that the US is supposedly the thief when everyone is adamant that Iran had an active role in how to take possession of a US property through illegal means.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------


More like 2.


Then why are we the thief? What did we stole? Iran is saying their technologists 'did it' and everyone here believe it. So why is the US the thief?

When you supposing some scenario , you should clearly defining your idea for believing it , I do not think the drone was completely losing its control from beginning , at least us military did not mentioned it , they said "they loosed control of his drone during flying somehow "
ok what they are doing near to Iran ?what was the mission?specially when it is clarified that the CIA was owned this drone.
who can believe that CIA was doing legally mission near Iran? Some U.S. experts expressed skepticism that Iran would be capable of such hacking (if they can it is not meaning oparatin it , they can just doing some problem in control or denying for self destruction and so on) . But others said Iran's capacity to counter drones may have been bolstered by Russia's decision, announced in October, to sell Tehran an advanced truck-mounted electronic intelligence system.
In the matter of fact , they equipped this stealth drone with very high technological spying instruments for finding something which they can not find them from normal way , besides this situation only happened when Iran can find this drone in sky of Iran , it is no matter in this situation Iran can hack and ordered it for landing or can cause some ESM method , If anyone spying Iran , Iran can do anything , because it is war situation, in this case you or your Employers can say Iran stole our spying drone , but it was Iran HONOR that they can do this against their enemy , OK if US do not says like this word when he soled، it could be wondered, besides USA did many worst crime regarding Iran , so take it easy

 

[Mosamania]

The Obama Administration is calling Iran to give it the drone back. What a humiliating thing to do all I can say is Iran.

 

[RickInSd]

Why is a UAV unable to avoid companion air traffic? Because the thing has no 'situational awareness' as pilots say. So if such a drone lost its link, assuming all other conditions are valid for it to act autonomously to save itself, it would either return to base or FIND the nearest 'safe harbor' and land. If there are competing air traffic, it would be oblivious to them. Its flight would force other aircrafts to divert themselves, despite the possibility that they may have priority and/or right-of-way. So understandably, the FAA does not like unmanned drones flying around.

The reason I joined today, but not my first day of reading the forums. I am active at World Affairs Board and we are having a similar discussion.

Anyways from a source on WAB, they are unnamed, yet many credible posters that are both active and retired, is that components failed on the drone. You can see the thread for your self, however I will refrain from posting any links of any sites as I am new here and unaware of the rules for now.


Now, I have bold the above of which interest me, with regards to "safe harbor". I would draw, that its quite a distinction between INS programmable guidance of returning to base, but it's quite another of completely autonomous landing at a Iranian Air Base. I am unaware of the sensors on the aircraft, and which is highly classified, and unless you have a source or are you in the know all of that is complete speculation. If we are discussing the probability, then it's probable that it does have some sort of landing mechanism involved if it's unable to return to base such as a glide slope. However, it would need some sort of terrain mapping as it wouldn't run into a mountain and seek out the flattest ground. In which case, if it's programmed with an Inertial navigation system (INS) then why didn't it return? And why did it land elsewhere? Those are questions to ask, probably sensors picked up and the fuel was to low, hence landing in Iran. However landing at an Iranian base, I do not see that as probable. It would neither be programmed in INS to land there nor would it be AI in the drone its self. The programing of the drone I would think would be limited to landing only on flat ground not an air base as it wouldn't be programmed.

Anyhow, from a source on another board, its possible components failed.

 

[lt.fridz]

...
Anyhow, from a source on another board, its possible components failed.

I am not sure that "components failed" is a very accurate explanation, if you don't include an explanation of why the component failed.

Usually, failure has some root cause (other than "**** happens"), was it improperly designed or built? Was it used in circumstances it was not designed for?

Of course, if the drone was "hacked", this could be called a failure in the part of the drone that was "hacked". A component that is susceptible to outside exploitation could certainly be designed or configured differently to avoid that. In that case you could probably say that the component failed in the role it was expected to fulfill.

 

[poseidon]

Obama needs to get out of office right now...

 

[RickInSd]

I am not sure that "components failed" is a very accurate explanation, if you don't include an explanation of why the component failed.

Usually, failure has some root cause (other than "**** happens"), was it improperly designed or built? Was it used in circumstances it was not designed for?

Of course, if the drone was "hacked", this could be called a failure in the part of the drone that was "hacked". A component that is susceptible to outside exploitation could certainly be designed or configured differently to avoid that. In that case you could probably say that the component failed in the role it was expected to fulfill.

More specifically, the CPU. And you are correct, as there are still many variables as to the cause. Again, I am just referring to a post on World Affairs Board by an Admin that they made on behalf of a member. If you are familiar there are many respected members on that board a few active and a few retired. But again, it's all speculation. So all the details I am not privy just that a respected member on that board shared that information with an administrator for them to post. And again, many of the members (I have been registered since 2005) are very knowledgeable and as mention are members of the Armed Forces both active and retired.

Again, I will refrain from posting links as I am unfamiliar with the rules.

But again, all this is speculation for now. But if components did fail, you are correct, many variables as what caused it. But Components can fail. Yet they are designed with these war applications requirements.

 

[longbrained]

Analysis:

 

[longbrained]

Dick Cheney and Obama on RQ-170 in Iran:

 

[scorpi786]

That is a wrong analogy, let alone a terrible one.

The US have been flying these reconnaissance flights out of Iraq and Afghanistan that for the currently knowledge HAS NOT violated Iranian airspace. It does not matter if the the drone is 100 km or 1 meter from the Iranian border, Iranian airspace was not violated. Being PASSIVELY nosy is not a violation of any international norms, codified or unspoken.

1- If you guys genuinely believed that Iran 'hacked' into the American UAV system in Nevada or infected said system with a virus DESIGNED to divert one drone to Iran, then it is Iran who is the thief.

2- If Iran committed a wide area wide bandwidth high powered EM transmission DESIGNED to interfere with the normal operations of any EM dependent device, and even though the consequential actions of those devices cannot be anticipated by any party, the fact that Iran DELIBERATELY committed such an act meant Iran created an environmental condition intended to produce unpredictable consequences of which one or more of those consequences would be favorable to Iran. This make Iran no less a thief than option 1.

Either way, the US is perfectly within rights to ask for the return of our property and Iran should comply.

Nonsense, the spy drone was in Iran so the airspace was violated. If it accidently landed there then yes America has some right to ask for it back but Iran also has the right to investigate there claim and see if it really was accidental or deliberate. Secondly if it was accidental then that meansit could have been an danger to Iranian public and the Iranians have again every right to intervenewith it's flight plan.



America has put sanctions on Iran and it is well known that they have bad relations with the Iranians, there have been numerous blasts in Iran that look like the work of foreign intelligence agencies. Iran's neighbours have both been toppled by American governments.

So America is basically Iran's adversary and you expect them to give it back just like that.

At least be honest and acknowledge that America fucked up and that the best they can hope for is to say it was a accident and then hope the Iranians return it.

Demanding it like it some kind of right is the typical American bully attitude that the rest of the world is sick of.