US Stealth UAV RQ-170 downed in IRAN

[lt.fridz]

Because when it comes to man-made devices, fail-to-operate-as-intended often came from device malfunctions than from human causes, and when the human is at fault, the evidences are aplenty. I take it you do not have an engineering background or work with machines much?

Actually I do have some engineering background, but unfortunatly I do lack your arrogance. Failing to implement proper security in systems is human caused failure in my opinion. If other people exploit that failure to achieve their goals, then ... what can I say ... they have outsmarted you.

I am not saying it is easy to implement unbreakable security (or even possible) but it is still human failure.

No, if you look at the facts objectively, there are genuine coincidences and there are false ones, and in this case we do not have enough evidences to support the latter. The fact that people jump so quickly upon the human based causes tell me more about their personal biases than to their objectivity.

To me, this sounds like a desparate emotion to attribute US failure to bad luck rather than your adversaries ingenuity. If you are so unlucky then perhaps the universe is fundamentally against you!

If you want to mess with FPGA programming, here is a good start...

FPGA programming step by step

I have no wish to do so as I have all the flying machinery I need. However I am sure that a capable resourceful organization can figure it out, especially if, as you suggest, the information is lying around somewhere on the internet.

This is not NAND FLASH where the OS can do the job for you in data manipulation. I do not mess with FPGA but I know people in robotics who does. This is not something you can do over-the-air (OTA) or at best you should not do OTA even if possible. But am willing to be corrected about this. Just show me a credible source.

I think you misunderstood me, I never suggested this was done over the air. Surely there is some way to program the safe harbors that you mentioned AT THE BASE. This is probably part of some procedures that are done with grounded drones. As I pointed out previously I think it is quite unlikely that the control link to the would be taken over, although I imagine some jamming must have occured.

 

[gambit]

haha
I've managed to shut him up

from now on, everytime you post garbage, I will just keep asking the same question until you admit that you're a troll and an idiot.

"how did our armed forces found a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy"

The only thing you have done is showed what a fool you really are. Your 'question', if it can be considered that, is simply stupid. What I explained about programmed airfield locations obviously went whooooossshed over your head.

 

[gambit]

Actually I do have some engineering background, but unfortunatly I do lack your arrogance.

If I do have it, I learned it from Europeans during my years over 'there'.

Failing to implement proper security in systems is human caused failure in my opinion. If other people exploit that failure to achieve their goals, then ... what can I say ... they have outsmarted you.

Never disputed that. But this is a far cry from a technical exploitation.

I am not saying it is easy to implement unbreakable security (or even possible) but it is still human failure.

Then this is a different issue. So far the Iranians and their supporters have been touting the technical exploitation route, which IF you do have any technical background and IF you have any shred of intellectual honesty, you must admit such a feat is remote. Not impossible. Just remotely probable.

To me, this sounds like a desparate emotion to attribute US failure to bad luck rather than your adversaries ingenuity. If you are so unlucky then perhaps the universe is fundamentally against you!

So the default position for any engineer is to assume other people are the cause of his equipment's failures instead of his own faults? And you call me arrogance...

I have no wish to do so as I have all the flying machinery I need. However I am sure that a capable resourceful organization can figure it out, especially if, as you suggest, the information is lying around somewhere on the internet.

Then it would be best if you would stop jumping to conclusions like others have.

I think you misunderstood me, I never suggested this was done over the air. Surely there is some way to program the safe harbors that you mentioned AT THE BASE. This is probably part of some procedures that are done with grounded drones. As I pointed out previously I think it is quite unlikely that the control link to the would be taken over, although I imagine some jamming must have occured.

Jamming would qualify as lost of contact. For the drone, it is irrelevant if the source of interference is Mother Nature or man. So even if the Iranians successfully 'jammed' the drone's link, at best we can credit the Iranians with creating an interference, hardly astoundingly technical an exploitation as an OTA crack of a triple-DES encrypted real time data link of an airborne aircraft. But hey...Everyone over 'there' needs an intellectual lollipop occasionally.

 

[Abii]

The only thing you have done is showed what a fool you really are. Your 'question', if it can be considered that, is simply stupid. What I explained about programmed airfield locations obviously went whooooossshed over your head.

how did our armed forces found a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy

 

[Abii]

See post 397 and pay attention to the 'airfields' bit, Iranian punk.

how did our armed forces find a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy

Edit: looks like you can't answer it.
still sticking with your retarded story about the drone running out of gas?
lmao

 

[Cyrus the Great]

Lets analyze the facts of the matter:

1. The Iranians claim to have downed a US Stealth UAV RQ-170 with minimal damage.

2. NATO has acknowledged that one of their drone is missing, last seen near the Iranian border.

3. US Military Sources say to the media that they believe Iran has the missing drone.

There are a lot of interesting questions here:

Do the Iranians have the drone in a condition that allows them to reverse engineer it? Or did it crash in Iran so nothing spectacular can be gained by examination of the wreck?

Do the Iranians have the capability to take control of US drones? Did they develop this capability themselves or acquire it from a third nation eager to test it? Or did they manage to down it using conventional methods? Or did it just crash due to some malfunction?

Lets suppose for a moment that the drone was shot down using conventional methods or malfunctioned and crashed inside Iran. It would make much sense for Iran to announce to the world that they had the ability to take over US drones! If US took this seriously (and it would be prudent for them to do that) then this would cause them much headache. They would have to spend a lot of effort to inspect all their drones and their control systems for suspected malware. They would probably temporary down all their fleet pending such an inspection (I would be surprised to learn that they have some drones operating for at least few days after the announcement). They would then need to factor in the compromise of technology and even adjust their tactics to some level. Perhaps they are aware of some vulnerabilities of stealth technology that will come apparent to persons that have the oppertunity to reverse engineer an almost intact drone.

Lets now suppose on the other hand that Iran did actually down the drone using some take-over method. They have the drone in prime condition and can look at it all they want. It would not really make sense for them to advertize this fact to the world, would it? It would be very easy for them to just say that they vaporized a spy plane that invaded their airspace and warn that other planes would receive the same fate. They could then, in secret start to reverse engineer what they have and gain further tech from it.
They could also keep their capability of taking over drones a closely guarded secret. It is entirely likely that this capability would come in handy some day and then the element of surprise will be most welcome.

Based on this, and the lack of any visual evidence, I think it is more likely that they are bluffing, that they do not have the capability to take over drones. And further more it is more likely than not that they just have a crater with some bits of drone in it. Lack of pictures supports this theory.

Then again, if they had this capability and wanted to test it, and wanted to hide this fact from the US, perhaps it would make sense for them to behave in this way. Whether the Iranians have the drone or not and whether they have the downing capability or not, I think the best action for Iran is to produce no pictures of the crash. This will drive the US intelligence people (gambit?) nuts until they get confirmation on the capability (or the lack thereof) by some other means.

This is starting to sound like a poker game and Iran is probably playing their cards the best way they can. I Wish I had the oppertunity to look at their cards over their shoulder

Bottom line is, we are not going to see any pictures of the downed plane any time soon. This would not in Iran's interest regardless of whether they have it or not. Why do I say that?

I. If they have the drone (almost) intact it would be in their interest to have US believe they are bluffing.

II. If they don't have the drone, or just wrecked pieces of it, it would be in their interest to have the US believe otherwise.

Of course the comments by the US military sources saying that yes, they believe that Iran has the drone must have some purpose. I guess they are trying to get Iran to produce some photos so they can now for certain. The uncertainity is probably much worse for them than actually knowing which it is.

Releasing pictures at this point by Iran would be stupid, and I don't think that the Iranian military is run by stupid people.

1-the part I made it bold is very simple analysis(only technical part). Iran considers many factors that affect their decision regarding military news release.

2-I do agree with you that Iran should not release any photo very soon.

 

[gambit]

how did our armed forces find a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy

Edit: looks like you can't answer it.
still sticking with your retarded story about the drone running out of gas?
lmao

See post 397 and pay attention to the 'airfields' bit. But since you proved to be rather slow in CPU aspect, I will string you out a bit: Airfields are generally manned. Now see if you can go on from there, Iranian punk.

 

[Abii]

See post 397 and pay attention to the 'airfields' bit. But since you proved to be rather slow in CPU aspect, I will string you out a bit: Airfields are generally manned. Now see if you can go on from there, Iranian punk.

wtf you talking about? answer the question

how did our armed forces find a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy

 

[gambit]

wtf you talking about? answer the question

how did our armed forces find a random stealth drone in some random mountain, hours after it crashed if the drone simply went of course and landed in Iran, without Iranians being responsible for anything.

explain that to me Vietnamese boy

Obviously the goal here is to simply drown a more credible explanation than the crap that you have been spewing out. So here it is again: See post 397 and pay attention to the 'airfields' bit. And if airfields are usually manned, assuming the drone did land, then of course the Iranian military would find it quickly enough, after it terrified the local troops a while, of course.

 

[Cyrus the Great]

I don't understand why you guys are chest thumping for not getting it shot down.

The real price will be it's fuel efficient engine, that only Americans have mastered over the years.That is why it can fly for days and not hours.Making a copy of it is more plausible.

I think it is very much possible that what the Iranians are saying to be correct about capturing the drone in good condition.Because Pentagon officials have initially said that they lost the link with the drone so it is very much possible it run out of fuel and descend to the ground crash landed but with out fuel in its belly it only dis integrate but not get burnt.

In my opinion it is really a big blow to Pentagon.

what is you reasons to accept what pentagon official say but Iran official said?

 

[Abii]

Obviously the goal here is to simply drown a more credible explanation than the crap that you have been spewing out. So here it is again: See post 397 and pay attention to the 'airfields' bit. And if airfields are usually manned, assuming the drone did land, then of course the Iranian military would find it quickly enough, after it terrified the local troops a while, of course.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

you hear that everyone? the drone landed in an Iranian airfield (why not eh?) and it also did it for no reason other than just because.
gambit, you're a grade A imbecile

 

[Safriz]

wow...i see things overheating here.

 

[gambit]

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

you hear that everyone? the drone landed in an Iranian airfield (why not eh?) and it also did it for no reason other than just because.
gambit, you're a grade A imbecile

Sure as the sky is blue more believable than Photochop Master Iran is capable of cracking a triple-DES encrypted real time two-way data link of an airborne aircraft.

 

[Cyrus the Great]

Here is something that is considerably more reasonable and palatable than what we have seen so far in these mostly baseless speculations...

Lost UAV likely malfunctioned, analysts say - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

The highlighted paragraphs give valuable insights on how these things are designed and operated.

Let us take the lower highlighted paragraph first...


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.

But if the operating theater is someplace where there would be no or scant air traffic, would this matter? Of course not, but the programming for this possibility would not change. What is there to change? If there is no or few competing air traffic, what do we care about their priorities or 'right-of-way'?

So why did this RQ-170 failed to RTB and instead possibly landed in an Iranian airfield, generously assuming such a successful landing occurred? Fuel consideration is a good start. We do not know how long has this particular drone been airborne. We do not know if it had a full fuel load because may be the mission for that day does not require an all-day loiter affair, so why fill it up to the brim? If low fuel is a consideration, then it would appropriate for this drone to search for the nearest 'safe harbor' to land, regardless of its RTB programming. And if this is true, that mean we know more about Iranian airfields than thought.

---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------


Cell phones are equipped with NAND FLASH memory type for ease of data manipulation. I work for a major FLASH manufacturer.

all big lie.
1-why should they let drone fly over Iran or even Afganitan with lack of fuel? is not it stupid managing for a ADVANCED military to fly drone with lack of fuel?
2-why they should fly a done with self direct landing to NEAREST and SAFE airbron while it is flying over enemy's land?

But I understand you. you have a really bad time and it is hard to admit for you about this BIG loss

 

[Abii]

I can't believe Vietnam is sticking to his story.

he should be banned for dumbing down the forum. An stealth secret drone lands in an Iranian airfield for no reason what so ever. And he's sticking to it. How ******* dumb do you have to be to say such a thing?

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

all big lie.
1-why should they let drone fly over Iran or even Afganitan with lack of fuel? is not it stupid managing for a ADVANCED military to fly drone with lack of fuel?
2-why they should fly a done with self direct landing to NEAREST and SAFE airbron while it is flying over enemy's land?

But I understand you. you have a really bad time and it is hard to admit for you about this BIG loss

dadash, he's saying that the drone landed in an Iranian airfield without Iranians knowing anything about it (what????????)
This is his story. don't try to debate him. He's an imbecile