Iran displays captured UAV

[rotarycrazy 4]

This shows you how stupid drone warfare is in a semi well defended airspace

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdaSJxXAREM

[MigBuster 2,884]

Iran shows film of captured US drone

 

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16098562

[rotarycrazy 4]

This is a lesson, drone warfare is great on non defended airspace, if your enemy has a semi defended airspace you are going to losse drones

[JediMaster 451]

If they really did gain control of it remotely, or at a minimum cause it lose contact with base, they really need to boost the comsec on that thing.

[JediMaster 451]

The comments are hilarious.

[busdriver 35]

This is a lesson, drone warfare is great on non defended airspace, if your enemy has a semi defended airspace you are going to lose drones

I question your air combat acumen. Iran may indeed have the latest and greatest counter-drone measures. Or perhaps some queertron in the drone's circuits caused it to go tits up and it simply crashed, with the Iranians surprised as sh*t at their good fortune. But to assert that drones are somehow ineffective in high threat environments based upon this loss is simply uniformed. If you are so inclined (to learn more on this topic) you might read William Wagner's suberb book about drones during the vietnam war titled Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones.

 

What would you be saying if Iran was parading a captured US pilot around for the media? Iran may have the talent to reverse engineer or exploit the captured technology, but they don't have a human being to try to exploit. Iran is seen as a budding nuclear threat, sending a UAV to gather imagery is vary smart IMO.

[busdriver 35]

If they really did gain control of it remotely, or at a minimum cause it lose contact with base, they really need to boost the comsec on that thing.

My money is on some internal glitch, and perhaps some backup algorithm (perhaps after running out of gas sprial down and perform a soft field forced landing) was the cause. Hacking the datalink would be an amazing feat. Interesting none the less.

[busdriver 35]

sending a UAV to gather imagery is vary smart IMO."

Ack! I think it's very smart.

[+hgbn 91]

Or maybe its just a model.. I think it looks like it isn't damaged at all..

[rotarycrazy 4]

I question your air combat acumen. Iran may indeed have the latest and greatest counter-drone measures. Or perhaps some queertron in the drone's circuits caused it to go tits up and it simply crashed, with the Iranians surprised as sh*t at their good fortune. But to assert that drones are somehow ineffective in high threat environments based upon this loss is simply uniformed. If you are so inclined (to learn more on this topic) you might read William Wagner's suberb book about drones during the vietnam war titled Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones.

 

What would you be saying if Iran was parading a captured US pilot around for the media? Iran may have the talent to reverse engineer or exploit the captured technology, but they don't have a human being to try to exploit. Iran is seen as a budding nuclear threat, sending a UAV to gather imagery is vary smart IMO.

 

I guess time will tell whos right

 

I dont question the idea of recon drones, but today they do a lot more

 

remember this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked

Edited December 8, 2011 by rotarycrazy

[rotarycrazy 4]

Intresting:

 

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

[Silverbolt 104]

Brilliant! if they really captured by cyber means, what they can do on another forces communications networks.

 

or it could be a bait of US to see how would them capture a drone.

 

in the fog of war it could be anything anyway.

[busdriver 35]

I dont question the idea of recon drones, but today they do a lot more

So what was your point? UAVs crash. The US Air Force UAVs using pilots that graduated from UPT have had more crashes than US Army UAVs that use an autoland feature.

remember this:insurgents intercept UAV video feed

Indeed...unencrypted video feed was hacked. Personally, I would be reluctant to extrapolate passive interception with the ability to override control of a low observable, high-altitude UAV. If you linked to a report of insurgents taking command of a Predator or Reaper and employing their weapons against US forces, then I'd think you'd be on to something.

 

Here's my point. For you to suggest that using UAVs in high threat environments is not smart, clearly IMO misses the entire rationale of having UAVs.

[+SkateZilla 49]

yeah.... alot of "eff USAs"

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

How do we know that RQ-170 is not just sitting lying dormant gathering intel......Muhahaha! F**K Iran, their army wears "trucker caps"!

 

 

[+Typhoid 231]

So what was your point? UAVs crash. The US Air Force UAVs using pilots that graduated from UPT have had more crashes than US Army UAVs that use an autoland feature.

 

Indeed...unencrypted video feed was hacked. Personally, I would be reluctant to extrapolate passive interception with the ability to override control of a low observable, high-altitude UAV. If you linked to a report of insurgents taking command of a Predator or Reaper and employing their weapons against US forces, then I'd think you'd be on to something.

 

Here's my point. For you to suggest that using UAVs in high threat environments is not smart, clearly IMO misses the entire rationale of having UAVs.

 

It is entirely the rationale. However, it is also clear that UAV's are vulnerable in a high threat environment, including an ECM/hacking environment.

 

What is interesting is that these are supposed to have an auto-destruct which also failed/was hacked.

 

I think this is the alert that, as I have previously stated on a number of forums, net-enabled capabilities and remotely piloted/controlled vehicles rely on comm links which are themselves an added vulnerability which has to be taken into account. It is clear that here, with a high-value UAV, it wasn't.

 

Not good. Time for a re-assessment of how we employ these kinds of assets.

[BOSOXRULE2323 0]

These drones donot just get shot down, it had to much stealth material. It either crashed, wanted to crash, or the US wanted it to get shot down. If it was a stealth drone it was not shot down.

[+Stary 2,428]

because stealth equals to invulnerable? Some here just can't get over piece of electronic being shoot down...

[+Spectre8750 167]

I don't believe they have one, this is part of preps to have a reason to go to war with Iran. If that paper machet mockup is real

i'll vote for Obama next election.

[busdriver 35]

However, it is also clear that UAV's are vulnerable in a high threat environment, including an ECM/hacking environment.

When I first saw a picture of an RQ-170 I concluded, "Hey that's a low observable UAV designed to operate in high threat environments ." The Iranians first claimed they shotdown a drone. Now they claimed they hacked its control link. To my untrained eyeball, they've shown they have an RQ-170, one without a whole bunch of battle damage. I certainly don't know the cause of this loss. I'll go out on a limb and say none of us KNOW the cause.

I think this is the alert that, as I have previously stated on a number of forums, net-enabled capabilities and remotely piloted/controlled vehicles rely on comm links which are themselves an added vulnerability which has to be taken into account.

I would be surprised if an asset designed to operate in a high threat environment did not have an autonomous capability (autopilot, preprogrammed profiles) impervious to MIJI (meaconing, intrusion, jamming, interference).

It is clear that here, with a high-value UAV, it wasn't.

I can see where folks would make that assertion, but it's not at all clear to me that is the logical conclusion.

[+ST0RM 145]

Looks fake. More plastic/vac form-ish. I saw the guy pull up on a spoiler, but am not 100% convinced.

[MigBuster 2,884]

The lack of damage suggests it either landed itself, or was landed by the Iranians, or Iran just built a big model.

 

Can speculate forever but really cant rule out Iran using the EM spectrum to bring this down.

 

Maybe complacency - flying the same routes (seems familiar) - flying lower and lower because there is no threat.........maybe some bloke watches it fly over his house every day.............

[BOSOXRULE2323 0]

because stealth equals to invulnerable? Some here just can't get over piece of electronic being shoot down...

 

 

Really because when you pay millions of dollers and probaly have the best of the best drone pilots on these they dont just fall out of the sky or get shot down over a mid 80's air defense system!

[exhausted 55]

Is it cheaper and easier to train hackers or a complex air defense network, including SAMS, AAA, and interceptors?

 

Me thinks this was hacked. I said It was yesterday on a whim, but it's not too far fetched to have something slip away from us like that.

 

1999: F-117 shot down

2002: UAV shot down by MiG-25

2009: Insurgents use cheap video messaging program ($60 I think) to watch live feed of what the Americans were trying to kill next.

2011: Iran uses computer technology, with probable assistance with Chinese hackers, to jam all traffic feeds to the drone, replace it with theirs, and giggle as they land it in their backyard.

 

What's not to believe about that? Truth is stranger then fiction. Stealth is not an exclusive anymore. Kill the Ayatollas, and every cleric, Middle Eastern, American, EVERYWHERE, just leave the people! Take care of it and liberate us all.

Edited December 9, 2011 by exhausted

[MAKO69 186]

Don't these god damn things have a self destruct system?