Drone aircraft downed in Iran

[Boberro]

The only more sophisticated thing in Iran is the sophisticatedly hot weather, nothing more.

 

In more sophisticated way I meant more advanced (I read they claim to use electronic interference).

Edited December 6, 2011 by Boberro
gramma error

[eagledeer]

Still, makes you wonder. Remember, insurgents in Iraq successfully hacked the Predator feeds.

[mvsgas]

UAV crash? That never happens:smartass:

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/indexFY11.html

Except for 12 time in fiscal year 11

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/indexFY10.html

8 in 2010

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/

and one in 2012 ( fiscal year starts in October)

Edited December 6, 2011 by mvsgas

[GGTharos]

They didn't hack anything. Those feeds were in the clear. That's like claiming that you 'hacked the police radios' because you have a scanner.

 

Still, makes you wonder. Remember, insurgents in Iraq successfully hacked the Predator feeds.

[Pyroflash]

In that case I am a super hacker because I listen to the radio in my car.

[Pilotasso]

whaaaat? She ain't pretty at all :huh:

 

Wow. This is pretty over-stated, I believe.

 

Also Pilotasso I really hope you're joking. :megalol:

 

You need to get out more, dude.

 

LOL they changed the report. It was Megyn kelly before. :lol:

 

 

And with that temper it would only last one week anyway. Hell of a week though. :D

[topol-m]

^^ Oh that's quite an upgrade :thumbup:

[Jona33]

In that case I am a super hacker because I listen to the radio in my car.

 

 

:D

[Mustang]

Possible cause of the RQ-170 takedown?

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/avtobaza-irans-weapon-in-rq-17.html

[Pilotasso]

The weirdest part is that these things have alternate flight plans in case of losing contact. They wouldnt just fall out of the sky due to interference. Something else was at play here.

[GGTharos]

The bloody thing suffered a malfunction. That's all there is to it :)

[tflash]

So, we already have the right photo of Megyn Kelly, but still no photo of the captured RQ-170. :D

 

The latter is strange: if you have such a prize, I would guess you brag about it?

[Moa]

Usually it is hard to interfere with the signal of a satellite controlled device, unless you are near the sending station. I'm not an expert, but I remember reading this somewhere. This is what the Israelis did when they commandeered the Syrian missile batteries during their raid on the Syrian nuclear research site ("Operation Orchard").

 

What can be done instead is to blanket jam the carrier frequency used by the control signal. This is a brute force, but effective, way of blocking remote control of a device.

 

If remote control was blocked there should have been autonomous guidance systems that caused the drone to RTB.

 

Several years ago in Iraq it was made public that the video feeds for the first generation of US UAVS were not encrypted. This was made on the assumption that no enemies would be smart enough to intercept them (!?), plus encryption uses extra (precious) comms bandwidth. The insurgents using some cheap satellite TV gear and smarts were able to see what the American commanders were seeing (there are some very clever Iraqis). Hopefully that was rectified on this ship, although you never know, the same hubris could apply.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Moa

[Pilotasso]

So, we already have the right photo of Megyn Kelly, but still no photo of the captured RQ-170. :D

 

The latter is strange: if you have such a prize, I would guess you brag about it?

 

I think shes a cylon :rolleyes:

[Vekkinho]

This reporter switch really made me laugh here!!!

[PlainSight]

If you think that this is the very edge of what Lockheed can come up with, you very wrong. Their black projects are at lest 30-50 years ahead of what it's put on the field.

[HiJack]

I think shes a cylon :rolleyes:

:megalol: Nice those cylons.....

[Pilotasso]

 

See the resemblance? :eek:

 

I almost frakenized an enemy agent! :D

[aaron886]

The latter is strange: if you have such a prize, I would guess you brag about it?

 

Megyn Kelly? Yeah, hell yeah! :D

 

Tom Clancy shit...

 

Nice analysis Moa. I had never heard about the intercepted UAV streams!

[104th_Cobra]

You need to get out more, dude.

And be sure to ask if they are married, before. It save us a lot of problems! :chair:

[eagledeer]

Interesting 'haywire' incident:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-09/when-drones-go-wild-air-force-shoots-them-down

 

And the plane that took care of it:

http://www.warisboring.com/2009/10/23/axeghanistan-09-chopper-bombing-drone-killer/

 

 

U.S. Drone That Went Down in Iran Was High-Tech Intel Tool

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/us-drone-that-went-down-in-iran-was-hightech-intel-tool-officials-say/249562/

Edited December 7, 2011 by eagledeer

[RIPTIDE]

 

See the resemblance? :eek:

 

I almost frakenized an enemy agent! :D

Tricia Helfer is vastly better than Ms "Fair and Balanced" on the left.

The thing is, I already saw the original reported in the link (Megyn) not the guy, and my comment still stands then. Her hair was different than above, all straggled a bit and she still had that loud mouth, wide eyed thing going on with her vacant stare reading every syllable off the Autocue. It probably tells her when to breath.

Edited December 7, 2011 by RIPTIDE

[RIPTIDE]

Usually it is hard to interfere with the signal of a satellite controlled device, unless you are near the sending station. I'm not an expert, but I remember reading this somewhere. This is what the Israelis did when they commandeered the Syrian missile batteries during their raid on the Syrian nuclear research site ("Operation Orchard").

 

What can be done instead is to blanket jam the carrier frequency used by the control signal. This is a brute force, but effective, way of blocking remote control of a device.

 

If remote control was blocked there should have been autonomous guidance systems that caused the drone to RTB.

 

Several years ago in Iraq it was made public that the video feeds for the first generation of US UAVS were not encrypted. This was made on the assumption that no enemies would be smart enough to intercept them (!?), plus encryption uses extra (precious) comms bandwidth. The insurgents using some cheap satellite TV gear and smarts were able to see what the American commanders were seeing (there are some very clever Iraqis). Hopefully that was rectified on this ship, although you never know, the same hubris could apply.

Moa. Any idea what power levels these UAV's work at in their respective frequency? Just wondering because, GPS signals are low power, partly because of the fact that they're distributed over a huge footprint from a long distance away (ie. weak) and are relatively easy to jam because of this.

[eagledeer]

P.S. China may not need to reverse engineer after all:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/picture-chinas-wind-blade-uav.html

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Usually it is hard to interfere with the signal of a satellite controlled device, unless you are near the sending station. I'm not an expert, but I remember reading this somewhere.

Well, GPS satellite is some 15 000 miles above the Earth and its transmission power is just few kilowatts. I doubt that it takes much of power to jam that kind of a signal. Although I would assume that these aircraft mainly rely on Inertial navigation.

 

I don't know where the Flight Control signals come from? For this kind of drones, I doubt that it is coming through satellites.