Iran shoots down US drone

[Kanastrous]

The Iranians can -say- what they like, but it's pretty unbelievable.

The more I think about a self-destruct, the more puzzling its apparent absence becomes. I mean, they fitted the old D-21 UAVs with self-destruct systems, and the state of the art has only advanced, since then.

[VarrusTheEthical]

The Iranians can -say- what they like, but it's pretty unbelievable.

The more I think about a self-destruct, the more puzzling its apparent absence becomes. I mean, they fitted the old D-21 UAVs with self-destruct systems, and the state of the art has only advanced, since then.

To be fair, when it comes to aircraft, I suspect gravity makes for a pretty good self-destruct system.

[Sea Skimmer]

Gravity doesn't make a good self destruct at all. Nothing really does without packing the plane with a whole lot of incendiary material like thermite. In all reality its unreasonable to expect more then a self destruct on a specific piece of crypto gear, or say a flight control computer. A bomb that just blows up the plane will leave the enemy will all the pieces which very much can be put back together; bombs are bad at destroying objects as opposed to fragmenting them (look at the Oklahoma City bombing, 5000lb of explosives didn't destroy serial numbers on the truck axle UNDER the center of the blast). You need intensive fire to totally destroy stuff and that's not just a safety issue, the required charges are just going to eat up a lot of weight and volume.

As for the Iranian pictures, dubious in the extreme. The thing crashes total intact without a single scratch on it, and then they display it on top of a polished wood floor in a gym? Yeah that makes sense with a plane that would weigh thousands of pounds... If they want to prove they actually have it intact they'll need to do better then that, like open up some of the access panels or say show the bottom. The only way for it to be that intact and spik and span would be if they had hijacked control of it and landed it... except then why not display it on its landing gear in an aircraft hanger? I'll go with the prepared parade float explanation unless then Iranians produce something convincing.

[Sarevok]

But the US does admit to losing a drone. So what happened really ? The Iranians recovered it but are showing off a replica instead ?

[Todeswind]

Are there any photos of this thing other than what the Iranian government has put out? It seems sort of like a ploy to force the US to offer up proof of a fake.

[Winston Blake]

As for the Iranian pictures, dubious in the extreme. The thing crashes total intact without a single scratch on it, and then they display it on top of a polished wood floor in a gym? Yeah that makes sense with a plane that would weigh thousands of pounds... If they want to prove they actually have it intact they'll need to do better then that, like open up some of the access panels or say show the bottom. The only way for it to be that intact and spik and span would be if they had hijacked control of it and landed it... except then why not display it on its landing gear in an aircraft hanger? I'll go with the prepared parade float explanation unless then Iranians produce something convincing.

The CNN video linked to earlier says that their 'expert' said that if it went down in a flat spin, then the belly would be trashed but the rest could be intact. So whether it came down by itself, or was brought down by Iranian atomic-radiation-enhanced super-hackers, that would account for it not being displayed on its landing gear. (I imagine flying wings tend toward flat spins for obvious reasons).

Also from that video: further muddying the waters is that 'U.S. officials' said they had satellite imagery of the crashed drone and that it should be a 'pile of rubble'. Of course, this could just be more wheels-within-wheels BS.

Also, at 0:35 in this video, a Castro lookalike actually does pop open a hatch (or spoiler or airbrake or who-the-hell-knows):

[Broomstick]

I'd guess it's a spoiler, myself, but it's quick and yeah, who the hell knows?

My thoughts, keeping in mind I'm not a military aerospace person and my knowledge of the this business overall isn't any better than yours:

- It's not unusual for civilian UAV's (that is, "radio control aircraft") to look relatively intact after a crash but have busted up landing gear and severe internal damage. I see no inherent reason the same can't happen to military UAV's. If it belly flopped (flat spin or whatever) the underneath part might be fucked up but the top and exterior shell relatively intact.

- If they hacked the software and took over the drone I could imagine a scenario where they flew it to a landing spot, then fucked up the landing gear during the landing. Similar result: the top part looks fine, undercarriage is fucked. Note that we can't see the landing gear/belly in the released photos.

- Since there are now devices readily available on the civilian market such that if the control signal to your toy UAV is interrupted the UAV will attempt to land itself I can only conclude the military likewise has such technology. In which case, the Iranians might have jammed the signal and, as programmed, the thing tried to land itself.

- Or something else could have fucked up the control signal and it attempted to land itself, with the Iranians deciding to claim a shoot-down or whatever.

Do any of the above apply? Damned if I know. I'm just pointing out there are plausible explanations for the Iranians acquiring a drone in relatively intact condition.

[Sarevok]

@Broomstick

The RQ-170 likely weighs far more than Cessanas you yourself have flown. It has a bigger wingspan than a WW2 heavy bomber. I don't think such a big thing would be as intact as the specimen shown by Iran.

Hacking it is very unlikely. The RQ-170s existence was only recently confirmed and no actual photographs of it has been released. If Iranians are telling the truth it's our first look at a RQ-170...

Something happened to that UAV and nobody involved is telling the complete story. That is the only thing that seems true at the moment.

[Kanastrous]

If Iranians are telling the truth it's our first look at a RQ-170...

Unless one counts all of the images floating around on the internet, for the last however many months, or years.

[Sarevok]

Are the pictures on the internet real or CGI renderings ?

Edit:

My bad. I forgot "the beast of Kandahar" was photographed already. It's just that no official photos have been released.

[Broomstick]

The RQ-170 likely weighs far more than Cessanas you yourself have flown. It has a bigger wingspan than a WW2 heavy bomber. I don't think such a big thing would be as intact as the specimen shown by Iran.

Size of a wingspan alone doesn't determine weight. Depending on what it's made of and how much of it is hollow on the inside there is a considerable range of possible weights.

That said, if it has sufficient on-board capability to self-land weight would not be as relevant as possible ground obstacles in landing.

Like I said, they were possible scenarios. I have no idea if any of them are true.

Hacking it is very unlikely.

True. Is jamming more likely?

Something happened to that UAV and nobody involved is telling the complete story. That is the only thing that seems true at the moment.

Agreed.

[Marko Dash]

The RQ-170 likely weighs far more than Cessanas you yourself have flown. It has a bigger wingspan than a WW2 heavy bomber. I don't think such a big thing would be as intact as the specimen shown by Iran.

Size of a wingspan alone doesn't determine weight. Depending on what it's made of and how much of it is hollow on the inside there is a considerable range of possible weights.

That said, if it has sufficient on-board capability to self-land weight would not be as relevant as possible ground obstacles in landing.

Like I said, they were possible scenarios. I have no idea if any of them are true.

Hacking it is very unlikely.

True. Is jamming more likely?

Something happened to that UAV and nobody involved is telling the complete story. That is the only thing that seems true at the moment.

Agreed.

it's still a 10,000lb aircraft. it's crash tolerances are probably similar to the B-2, and we all saw how well the B-2 shattered itself on take-off when the flight computer screwed up. unless there was a controlled decent it should have scattered itself across the landscape even in a low speed crash.

[Sea Skimmer]

it's still a 10,000lb aircraft. it's crash tolerances are probably similar to the B-2, and we all saw how well the B-2 shattered itself on take-off when the flight computer screwed up. unless there was a controlled decent it should have scattered itself across the landscape even in a low speed crash.

A case exists in which an F-106 crashed in a flat spin from something like 30,000 feet after the pilot lost control and ejected... and landed so intact the engine was still running and was recovered from the field it landed in and was flown again. Nothing is certain with a crash. That's why I remain skeptical, but don't rule it out as being the real deal. Iran can easily prove its real , and we'll just have to wait and see if they do or not.

Edit here we go, easy to find the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber

[weemadando]

On the crazy idea front: physical capture. If they had been capable of tracking it and jamming it, then they could have tested its response to jamming a few times to see where it goes when it reverts to failsafe programming.

Then, when they want to grab it, they set up in a location to intercept it, hit the jamming and then use the world's biggest butterfly net hanging out the back of a cargo plane to grab it mid-air.

Completely insane theory ends. But it would explain the relative lack of damage while not having the drone fully subverted.

[UnderAGreySky]

Um, what if it just lost power? Propulsion, of course. Engine seizes or fuel leaks, aircraft can't fly forward any more. Primary FCS loop can keep the aircraft stable and level no command for it to turn. Loses altitude and once it's below certain parameters (minimum alt, distance off course) switches to a "glide" profile. Gear is ripped off on landing or never descends, causing damage to underbelly but keeping everything intact.

Why is that not feasible?

[weemadando]

Um, what if it just lost power? Propulsion, of course. Engine seizes or fuel leaks, aircraft can't fly forward any more. Primary FCS loop can keep the aircraft stable and level no command for it to turn. Loses altitude and once it's below certain parameters (minimum alt, distance off course) switches to a "glide" profile. Gear is ripped off on landing or never descends, causing damage to underbelly but keeping everything intact.

Why is that not feasible?

It's entirely feasible in theory, but I doubt that the programming would have been up to scratch for dead stick landing a drone automatically.

[Beowulf]

Code exists for a drone to automatically land on a runway (the Army uses it for their Predators). However, it's likely that even if there isn't a self-destruct device onboard the aircraft (makes servicing it more tricky), there's still a self-destruct capability, that can automatically occur when it runs out of fuel (nose over into dive, see confetti on the ground when it hits). I'm leaning towards fake built from photogrammetry. Reason for hiding the landing gear: much more detailed in external construction, making it easier to see mistakes compared to the real thing by those knowledgable.

[UnderAGreySky]

Beowulf, hasn't the US confirmed that a drone was lost? Or is your theory that the Iranians do have a wreckage in hand but it's in many pieces, so what we're seeing is a mock-up?

weemadando, it did not need to land, it's a flying wing design so it remained stable all the way to the ground while all the FCS could do was keep it straight and level.

[weemadando]

Beowulf, hasn't the US confirmed that a drone was lost? Or is your theory that the Iranians do have a wreckage in hand but it's in many pieces, so what we're seeing is a mock-up?

weemadando, it did not need to land, it's a flying wing design so it remained stable all the way to the ground while all the FCS could do was keep it straight and level.

Maybe someone with more professional aeronautics knowledge can correct me, but aren't flying wings inherently unstable platforms?

[Beowulf]

That is exactly my theory. They've got wreckage, and so they know it's been lost, and they either constructed a mockup then, or had one previously done. Flying wings are fairly unstable in yaw, and so are prone to wandering a bit in heading, and also to flat spins. They're usually fairly stable in pitch and roll, though that depends on the specifics of the airframe.

[weemadando]

So, devil's advocate for a moment. Iran has managed to duplicate ground control systems for drones and figured out how to hack the datalink. What are the immediate consequences?

[Korto]

Usual suspects scream the world's doomed. Life goes on.

[Mr Bean]

So, devil's advocate for a moment. Iran has managed to duplicate ground control systems for drones and figured out how to hack the datalink. What are the immediate consequences?

Iran gets a good deal of cash from Russia, China and anyone else they want to sell the hardware and tech details to to. Drone controls get better in several countries unfriendly to us which will kick off all sorts of increase defense spending since when it comes down to it drones are an attractive bit of military hardware regardless of which country you are or your security situation. For border and internal security if nothing else. So we(The US) spend more money coming up with totally different and more secure ground control systems and we ground our existing fleet for upgrades to their communication equipment.

[weemadando]

Is there any blog or news source that covers drone ops?

Because a sudden drop in operating tempo could point towards an actual breach rather than bad luck.

[Mr Bean]

Is there any blog or news source that covers drone ops?

Because a sudden drop in operating tempo could point towards an actual breach rather than bad luck.

Not as such both because of the number of drones operating and the different outfits that are operating drones. For example if I showed you a picture of a drone in take-off from basra air base could you tell me if it's a CIA Drone, an Airforce Drone, a Navy Drone, a Marine drone or one of the "government" drones which means either an experimental civilian model or another CIA version. Making matters worse is the fact that there are last I checked seven different drone types in use. The loss of a RQ-170 might mean the stopping of flights of that type of aircraft but Predators and Reapers don't use identical control schemes so they can keep flying. We are not yet at the standardization stage of anything in drone building so losing one type of drone does not affect the other kinds yet.