US Stealth UAV RQ-170 downed in IRAN

[amalakas]

If it was brought down, then most likely it was saturated with a wide area wide bandwidth high power 'everyone be damned' signal. Not by firearms of any type.

No not firearms... I wouldn't bet $5 on that..

A tech friend of mine suggested that the russian ELINT system (allegedly in iran's arsenal) could potentially jam the radio altimeter and INS/GPS trancievers on board with appropriate signals to make the drone think it is somewhere else in 3D space.

 

[500]

Israeli "Hermes 450" UAVs were flying over Russia controlled Abkhazia for a long time and Russians could not jam them. Russian were forced to call MiG-29 to shoot them down.

 

[gambit]

No not firearms... I wouldn't bet $5 on that..

A tech friend of mine suggested that the russian ELINT system (allegedly in iran's arsenal) could potentially jam the radio altimeter and INS/GPS trancievers on board with appropriate signals to make the drone think it is somewhere else in 3D space.

The INS is essentially an internal 'guessing' device while the GPS is the external correlative device. The two works together to keep the aircraft on track. GPS jammers can be built with Radio Shack components. When I was living in Orlando, the things I built and could have built with stuff from this store => Skycraft Parts & Surplus, Inc. <= would make my basement look like a B-movie 'mad scientist' hideout.

Anyway, if the external correlative GPS signals are lost, the INS should have been able to guide the drone either to RTB or to remain on the Afghan side. Radio altimeter are independent of air data computations and am confident that the drone is equipped with both. So speculations are fine and fun to make, there are still too many technically relevant details missing.

 

[helia]

With all these guiding systems it was deep in iran territory, so it violated iran and they can treat it the way they prefer

Your assumption that it was in afghanistan border and iran brought it to her country isnt true. Imagine how US would respond to such act of aggression from iran! Obama knows it to and thats why he asks iran to send it back and not order or demand anything

 

[ILYA]

We can fly in Afghanistan while looking across the border into Iran. Do you actually do any basic research at all? Or are you perfectly content to let others tell you what to think?

Panetta Says Drone Campaign Over Iran Will Continue | Fox News

Along does not equal to 'over'.

When asked if he would continue those missions as they have been conducted out of Afghanistan, he responded with one word: "Absolutely.

 

[amalakas]

The INS is essentially an internal 'guessing' device while the GPS is the external correlative device. The two works together to keep the aircraft on track. GPS jammers can be built with Radio Shack components. When I was living in Orlando, the things I built and could have built with stuff from this store => Skycraft Parts & Surplus, Inc. <= would make my basement look like a B-movie 'mad scientist' hideout.

Anyway, if the external correlative GPS signals are lost, the INS should have been able to guide the drone either to RTB or to remain on the Afghan side. Radio altimeter are independent of air data computations and am confident that the drone is equipped with both. So speculations are fine and fun to make, there are still too many technically relevant details missing.

true, i am just not sure what it would do with conflicting sub-system readings... I have seen commercial systems behaving unexpectedly when receiving conflicting inputs..

 

[gambit]

When asked if he would continue those missions as they have been conducted out of Afghanistan, he responded with one word: "Absolutely.

The words 'out of' does not mean leaving Afghanistan. It means 'from'. If we fly out of 'the Med' we would say the same thing, but that does not mean we entered anyone's airspace once airborne. This is a linguistic issue so do not strain the context.

 

[scorpi786]

Gambit where are you getting this idea from that Iran lured the drone from AFG to IRN airspace?

If this was the case don't you think the US govt would have a bit more to say then they just have?

 

[Project 627]

Kfir is F-16 mod with delta wing and canards:

When I said Kfir this is what i was talking about.

IAI Kfir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can clearly see that first mod of MiG-23PD had also similar tail and wing design.

Later Mig-23 designs were swing wing.

117 is AL-31 mod. New parts means modified parts.

What part of new parts don't you understand.

Both are AL-31 mods, very similar to each other.

First you say that the PAK FA uses exactly the same engine as the Su-27 now your saying that the PAK FA uses upgraded engine after I showed you that you were wrong. Its pretty obvious that you don't know anything about the PAK FA program.

Tomcat has much wider than Su-27 and Pakfa.

But all three of them have wieldy spaced engines.

Pakfa's prototype is obviously derived from Su-27.

No it isn't, PAK FA share's some similarities with Su-27, but it ends there and like I said before PAK FA design is not even final and subject to change so the PAK FA of 2011 might not even look like the PAK FA of 2016. So all your rants on how PAK FA "can't do this, or looks like this X aircraft" is pointless.

 

[500]

When I said Kfir this is what i was talking about.

IAI Kfir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Later Mig-23 designs were swing wing.

I meant Lavi of course. As you can see mods can change wings intakes etc.

First you say that the PAK FA uses exactly the same engine as the Su-27 now your saying that the PAK FA uses upgraded engine after I showed you that you were wrong. Its pretty obvious that you don't know anything about the PAK FA program.

I did not say exactly. Difference between F100-PW-100 and F100-PW-229 is bigger.

No it isn't, PAK FA share's some similarities with Su-27, but it ends there and like I said before PAK FA design is not even final and subject to change so the PAK FA of 2011 might not even look like the PAK FA of 2016. So all your rants on how PAK FA "can't do this, or looks like this X aircraft" is pointless.

F-22, F-35, J-20 look completelly different from all previous US, Chinese jets. Pak-fa has many similarities with previous jety of same company. Thats why it lacks S-duct, unlike all new planes.

 

[gambit]

Gambit where are you getting this idea from that Iran lured the drone from AFG to IRN airspace?

If this was the case don't you think the US govt would have a bit more to say then they just have?

I did not use the word 'lured'. If Iranian technologists managed to 'hacked' or planted a virus into the UAV operations center in Nevada to steal one drone -- any drone -- then this would make Iran a skilled cyber adversary and a thief, but this would not qualify as enticement.

If Iran managed to interfere with the drone's flight operations with the intention of confusing it and hoping that in said confusion the drone would enter Iranian airspace, this still would not qualify as enticement or 'lure' but merely creating an environmental condition that favors Iran, and this still would make Iran a thief.

If the US deliberately trespass Iranian airspace with the drone and something went wrong, be it because of Iranian efforts or drone system malfunctions, and Iran recovered the drone, this make Iran the legitimate victim.

 

[Project 627]

I did not say exactly. Difference between F100-PW-100 and F100-PW-229 is bigger.

When the Type 30 engine is ready for the PAK FA around 2015, the differernt between that and the 117 will be even bigger.

F-22, F-35, J-20 look completelly different from all previous US, Chinese jets. Pak-fa has many similarities with previous jety

Please can you list those many similarities, like how I listed the differences.

of same company

Again no relevance to the discussion.

Thats why it lacks S-duct, unlike all new planes.

Because Sukhoi decided too go with a different design solution, you seem to have to think that their is only one way to reduce the RCS of the engine fan.

 

[scorpi786]

I did not use the word 'lured'. If Iranian technologists managed to 'hacked' or planted a virus into the UAV operations center in Nevada to steal one drone -- any drone -- then this would make Iran a skilled cyber adversary and a thief, but this would not qualify as enticement.

If Iran managed to interfere with the drone's flight operations with the intention of confusing it and hoping that in said confusion the drone would enter Iranian airspace, this still would not qualify as enticement or 'lure' but merely creating an environmental condition that favors Iran, and this still would make Iran a thief.

If the US deliberately trespass Iranian airspace with the drone and something went wrong, be it because of Iranian efforts or drone system malfunctions, and Iran recovered the drone, this make Iran the legitimate victim.

So we have 3 assumptions but tbh we don't really know which one is correct. So why you going with one over the other?

Here are facts:

1) Drone was on the ground in Iran
2) America has asked for it back

If it was due to hostile Iranian action and not US negligence im sure more harsher words or actions would have been taken by the yanks.

So i'm betting that either a) the US fucked up i.e were over Iranian airspace or b) It was accidental

 

[gambit]

So we have 3 assumptions but tbh we don't really know which one is correct. So why you going with one over the other/

Because some just happened to be more plausible than others.

Here are facts:

1) Drone was on the ground in Iran
2) America has asked for it back

If it was due to hostile Iranian action and not US negligence im sure more harsher words or actions would have been taken by the yanks.

So i'm betting that either a) the US fucked up i.e were over Iranian airspace or b) It was accidental

Did you really say anything different? No. You want to laugh at US with our equipment? Go right ahead. But here are the top options:

- The US violated Iranian airspace. This make Iran the legitimate victim.

- The US did not violate Iranian airspace. In this case, Iran could be either a thief or an unintended recipient of the drone.

Try to think objectively.

 

[scorpi786]

Because some just happened to be more plausible than others.


Did you really say anything different? No. You want to laugh at US with our equipment? Go right ahead. But here are the top options:

- The US violated Iranian airspace. This make Iran the legitimate victim.

- The US did not violate Iranian airspace. In this case, Iran could be either a thief or an unintended recipient of the drone.

Try to think objectively.

Right so it's more plausible for the Iranians to hack and gain control of a US drone in order to steal it then it is for A) an american op gone down hill B) a simple accident

And where did I laugh at the americans?

And your accusing me of not thinking objectively when your acting like a big girl?