Drone aircraft downed in Iran

[Boberro]

I am sure others will help them willingly for good amount of money of course.

[sobek]

I am sure others will help them willingly for good amount of money of course.

 

Yeah, i wonder why that drone is still in Iran.

[primus_TR]

The question is whether they even have the know how to harvest the full technological potential.

 

If they have the know-how and means to secure that drone intact, I'm guessing they can find a way to harvest whatever technology is used to develop it.

[sobek]

means to secure that drone intact

 

You mean like, hands? Yeah, who has those kind of things. :D

 

But seriously, what level of technology is the microchip manufacturing at in Iran?

 

I kinda tend to not believe the Iranians when they say they hacked that drone. If they could do it, the chinese would be doing it on a daily basis.

Edited December 13, 2011 by sobek

[primus_TR]

The kind of hands that can snatch a high-tec UAV from 30,000 feet in one piece, under the nose of the world's top intelligence agency ;)

 

But don't take my word for it, just ask a friend who is into R/C flying what happens when the transciever fouls up on you in midflight :doh:

[primus_TR]

If they could do it, the chinese would be doing it on a daily basis.

 

Wait until US chooses to send one into Chinese airspace ;)

[GGTharos]

You're comparing an RC transciever that is typically not even coded to a secure, encrypted command link?

 

So I guess your apples taste like oranges? ;)

 

Drones can't get taken over unless there's a major fail in the encryption or they're given the keys and appropriate radios. Neither is likelier than the engine simply quitting.

 

The kind of hands that can snatch a high-tec UAV from 30,000 feet in one piece, under the nose of the world's top intelligence agency ;)

 

But don't take my word for it, just ask a friend who is into R/C flying what happens when the transciever fouls up on you in midflight :doh:

[sobek]

The kind of hands that can snatch a high-tec UAV from 30,000 feet in one piece, under the nose of the world's top intelligence agency ;)

 

Well if they were able to hack it, why did they crash land it in the desert? Why not just land it on an airbase? The one piece statement seems rather untenable when you look at how the right wing was epoxied to the main body. ;)

[primus_TR]

You're comparing an RC transciever that is typically not even coded to a secure, encrypted command link?

 

So I guess your apples taste like oranges? ;)

 

Drones can't get taken over unless there's a major fail in the encryption or they're given the keys and appropriate radios. Neither is likelier than the engine simply quitting.

 

 

RC example was to demonstrate that it is unreasonable to assume that an oversized RC can land itself after radio failure (unless it is designed to do so, which cannot be the case here). It is not a comparison of a 100 buck transciever to encrypted satellite link. I think you misunderstood what I said.

 

 

Your assumptions re infallible encryption, no possibility to hack etc. aside, here is the fact: the Iranians snatched the UAV intact.

 

How?

 

I don't know. I know however that the UAV didn't land itself after losing the command link :) Unless of course, the designers deliberately incorporated in it the capability to land itself intact into enemy hands, instead of fitting it with a self destruction mechanism :doh:

 

How about using your apparently vast knowledge of these technologies to explain how the Iranians have the drone intact? And I'd appreciate if you can offer another explanation than that the drone landed itself after losing comm link :doh:

[primus_TR]

Well if they were able to hack it, why did they crash land it in the desert? Why not just land it on an airbase? The one piece statement seems rather untenable when you look at how the right wing was epoxied to the main body. ;)

 

 

That drone fits the description of intact just fine :)

[sobek]

That drone fits the description of intact just fine :)

 

If something has to be epoxied back together (in a sloppy way), it does not fit the description of having been snatched in one piece, turn the words as you want. ;) I doubt that epoxy seam would even hold it together in the air. There's a lot of other bumps in the airframe that don't really support the claim of a soft landing.

[sobek]

How about using your apparently vast knowledge of these technologies to explain how the Iranians have the drone intact? And I'd appreciate if you can offer another explanation than that the drone landed itself after losing comm link :doh:

What other reasonable explanation is there? A trimmed airframe with positive stability will remain in a trimmed state when the engine flames out and glide to the ground at a more or less constant glide angle.

[primus_TR]

If something has to be epoxied back together (in a sloppy way), it does not fit the description of having been snatched in one piece, turn the words as you want. ;) I doubt that epoxy seam would even hold it together in the air. There's a lot of other bumps in the airframe that don't really support the claim of a soft landing.

 

In my opinion, having lost comm link it should have crashed and shattered to a million pieces ;) Actually, it is in greater shape than how some of my poor RC aircraft turned out after my hopeful attempts at landing them :D

 

Anyhow, if you buy it that the UAV lost comms, then somehow managed to land itself in that mountainous region, fine. Well, I don't. And I'm looking forward to eventually finding out - hopefully - what actually happened :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

RC example was to demonstrate that it is unreasonable to assume that an oversized RC can land itself after radio failure (unless it is designed to do so, which cannot be the case here). It is not a comparison of a 100 buck transciever to encrypted satellite link. I think you misunderstood what I said.

 

What is unreasonable for you to assume is that it cannot land itself - all the UAVs can. In fact, TO/Landing is pretty much all automated, as is any sort of navigation and flying.

 

Your assumptions re infallible encryption, no possibility to hack etc. aside, here is the fact: the Iranians snatched the UAV intact.

They didn't snatch anything. It came down and they picked it up.

 

I don't know. I know however that the UAV didn't land itself after losing the command link :) Unless of course, the designers deliberately incorporated in it the capability to land itself intact into enemy hands, instead of fitting it with a self destruction mechanism :doh:

As I said - the engine quitting is a simple enough issue to understand. I don't see any UAVs being fitted with self destruct mechanisms as standard fare. It is dangerous to the handlers as well after all - there may be self-destruct mechanisms for the electronics, but that isn't something we'd know about. Besides which, under what conditions should such mechanisms be triggered?

 

How about using your apparently vast knowledge of these technologies to explain how the Iranians have the drone intact? And I'd appreciate if you can offer another explanation than that the drone landed itself after losing comm link :doh:

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear enough so I'll repeat what I wrote before, but see if I can put it in a more understandable format:

 

- Engine quits. Autopilot is programmed to maintain a certain AoA etc (ie no permitting the aircraft to stall) and ends up belly-landing the aircraft.

 

- Some of the avionics quit, same result as above.

 

- UAV stalls, enters a spin, pancakes into the ground. It has been shown that such a crash can leave a UAV in quite recognizeable shape (although I don't think that appears to be what happened here - there should be more damage)

 

- Your R/C experience has zero bearing on UAVs. UAVs are flown by on-board avionics pretty much throughout the entire mission, including TO/Landing (and, incidentally, with something like Ardupilot you could reaonably have your R/C do the same thing)

Edited December 13, 2011 by GGTharos

[topol-m]

here is the fact: the Iranians snatched the UAV intact.

 

 

 

They didn't snatch anything. It came down and they picked it up.

 

You both sound like you've been there and saw what happened in person. It would be safe to assume that what really happened won't be made public with supporting evidence so we can only guess what could have been the real scenario without stating it like a fact.

[RIPTIDE]

The question is whether they even have the know how to harvest the full technological potential.

Maybe they'll have a "quantum leap" in their understanding. << I know you love this.

 

Srsly, you don't look a gift horse in the face. That drone will be chopped up into pieces and its relevant bits will be passed around Asia like a purdy cousin in West Virginia. My bet is China will add it to its growing warehouse of acquired IP. Before you know it, that J-20 will have the same paint. If it hasn't already.

[Groove]

They hacked the drone with chinese help:

 

[topol-m]

buahaha :laugh: :doh: +1

[primus_TR]

 

- Engine quits. Autopilot is programmed to maintain a certain AoA etc (ie no permitting the aircraft to stall) and ends up belly-landing the aircraft.

 

- Some of the avionics quit, same result as above.

 

- UAV stalls, enters a spin, pancakes into the ground. It has been shown that such a crash can leave a UAV in quite recognizeable shape (although I don't think that appears to be what happened here - there should be more damage)

 

 

 

I don't think whoever designed that UAV was an idiot who'd incorporate above functionality in a top secret piece of military hardware, so that it can land undamaged in hostile territory in the event of a malfunction so that the enemy can get a hold of it. :doh:

 

 

@Topol,

 

I did not make any assumption. My comments are based on the single fact available to us commoners: Iranians "acquired" a top tech US UAV intact.

 

I'm just questioning theories here about "how" that happened.:)

[Boberro]

Hmm self destruction could have solved drama around... is it even used in case of capture?

[GGTharos]

That UAV is designed to fly itself = the pilot's job, auto or human, is to fly first. That's really all there is to it - the avionics are designed to keep it in the air. If you're implying that it should have had some sort of nose-diving suicide switch implemented, maybe, but then again perhaps it was expected that the crew would crash the drone if they detected such an anomaly - ie. that option may not have been automated (and may not exist at all). Engines are supposed to be fairly reliable, especially the TF-34's, if that's what was used, so the engine quitting could have been very unexpected, and that itself could have caused a loss of power to the remote linkage. All of this is speculation of course, but rather likelier than Iran taking over anything.

 

I don't think whoever designed that UAV was an idiot who'd incorporate above functionality in a top secret piece of military hardware, so that it can land undamaged in hostile territory in the event of a malfunction so that the enemy can get a hold of it. :doh:

[Vekkinho]

That UAV is designed to fly itself = the pilot's job, auto or human, is to fly first. That's really all there is to it - the avionics are designed to keep it in the air. If you're implying that it should have had some sort of nose-diving suicide switch implemented, maybe, but then again perhaps it was expected that the crew would crash the drone if they detected such an anomaly - ie. that option may not have been automated (and may not exist at all). Engines are supposed to be fairly reliable, especially the TF-34's, if that's what was used, so the engine quitting could have been very unexpected, and that itself could have caused a loss of power to the remote linkage. All of this is speculation of course, but rather likelier than Iran taking over anything.

 

On the other hand, if anyone of the crew had any control they would probably nose dive and crash it somewhere remote so noone except CIA (or who ever owns it) knows of its crash site...

 

It's fishy, and we'll probably never know the true reason of it. Perhaps just some internal affairs within UAV pilots...:joystick:

 

Guy obviousely wanted to deflect but forgot the board the UAV.

[diveplane]

Hmm self destruction could have solved drama around... is it even used in case of capture?

 

i agree they should have had a built in self destruct ..

[diveplane]

another us drone has came down.

 

full story below

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-drone-goes-down-raising-speculation-about-drone-virus-from-sept/

[mikoyan]

What it is astonishing is the good condition of the machine; it looks like it crash landed at a very low decent rate; The engine malfunction makes cense. But loss of control by electronic jamming also makes cense; maybe it lost signal and kept flying until it ran out of fuel and crash landed. I remember that one day I forgot to turn on the switch on the receiver of my rc aircraft; my instructor launched the model and instead of crashing it went away on a circular pattern with an ending point right were we where standing :megalol: the airplane hit a bystander at 45 degrees nose down and was intact after the crash; I though it was going to be total loss.:thumbup: maybe that happened to that giant remote controlled airplane.

 

it went like this:

* e stands for: Two stroke .049 russian norvel engine sound, no exhaust, yes; 30% nitro)

 

eeeeeeeee e e e e e e e (far away barely visible) e e e e (noise from the engine starts to increase at a high rate! ) E E E EE EEEEEE (people on the field hit the silk!)WAMG! (uncontrolled kamikaze attack on a bystander)