a thought on the spy drone issue

[Korriken]

Ok so we all know Iran has a US spy drone.

What I don't get is this: Who was the genius who didn't think to put in some sort of self destruct device in the drones in case they lose contact with the person controlling them and is unable to reestablish contact?

I've been reading up on the drone and apparently it's programmed to circle in the skies while it tries to establish contact with the controller. what I'm wondering is, "even if it did run out of fuel and hit the ground, why wasn't it destroyed by the impact?"

You would figure remote controlled sophisticated military equipment would have the devices in place to ensure it doesn't fall into enemy hands, things like explosives on board with a device to detect a loss of signal, or to self destruct when it runs out of fuel to avoid having it fall into enemy hands, like it has.

Also, it would seem that the government knew it crashed, and where it crashed. why not send something to destroy the drone and not let it fall into enemy hands? or retrieve it? Some want to whine about it being "an act of war" but I say, "Who cares? flying the drone into their territory can already be considered an act of war!"

If they did hijack control of the drone, then it makes me wonder if the channel is encrypted. If they're flying drones using unencrypted methods, then that's just plain stupid... and given the stupid things I've seen those considered incredibly smart do... I would not doubt it.

[bcdemon]

I think it's awesome that Obama is begging for the drone back. Doesn't say anything about violating a sovereign nations airspace with a spy plane, just "gimme ma drone".

As long as I can buy a scaled down RQ-170 from some Chinese manufacturer for my kid this Xmas I don't care. Because you know Iran will be sharing this with China.

[Korriken]

At 12/13/11 08:41 AM, bcdemon wrote: I think it's awesome that Obama is begging for the drone back. Doesn't say anything about violating a sovereign nations airspace with a spy plane, just "gimme ma drone".

"I wasn't done playing with my remote control RC plane! give it back!"

As long as I can buy a scaled down RQ-170 from some Chinese manufacturer for my kid this Xmas I don't care. Because you know Iran will be sharing this with China.

Don't forget Russia too.

on the bright side, they didn't get their hands on one of our predator drones.

[Proteas]

At 12/13/11 08:21 AM, Korriken wrote: What I don't get is this: Who was the genius who didn't think to put in some sort of self destruct device in the drones in case they lose contact with the person controlling them and is unable to reestablish contact?

Maybe somebody from NASA is working for the defense department, now. It sounds about par for the course with their brand of idiocy.

I've been reading up on the drone and apparently it's programmed to circle in the skies while it tries to establish contact with the controller. what I'm wondering is, "even if it did run out of fuel and hit the ground, why wasn't it destroyed by the impact?"

From what I understand, it was destroyed on impact (or at least severely damaged), but the Iranians apparently have access to the secret technology of the South... duct tape, bondo, and rust-oleum... and "fixed" it up for television news crews.

Also, it would seem that the government knew it crashed, and where it crashed. why not send something to destroy the drone and not let it fall into enemy hands? or retrieve it?

Because that would make way to much sense?

[djack]

At 12/13/11 08:21 AM, Korriken wrote: Ok so we all know Iran has a US spy drone.

What I don't get is this: Who was the genius who didn't think to put in some sort of self destruct device in the drones in case they lose contact with the person controlling them and is unable to reestablish contact?

Because explosives and detonators have weight. Drones are designed to be lightweight and fast so that they can fly high and avoid the enemy. There's also very little worry about anyone reverse engineering the drone as the only nations that can are also too economically tied to the U.S. to be dumb enough to try using it against us.

I've been reading up on the drone and apparently it's programmed to circle in the skies while it tries to establish contact with the controller. what I'm wondering is, "even if it did run out of fuel and hit the ground, why wasn't it destroyed by the impact?"

Without knowing how high it fell from and the angle at which it fell I can't say for sure but the best bet is that it somewhat glided down rather than a straight drop which would drastically change the amount of force on the drone. Russia and China will still probably have to fill in some missing pieces but the general idea of the tech will still be there.

Also, it would seem that the government knew it crashed, and where it crashed. why not send something to destroy the drone and not let it fall into enemy hands? or retrieve it? Some want to whine about it being "an act of war" but I say, "Who cares? flying the drone into their territory can already be considered an act of war!"

An unmanned and unarmed drone is not an act of war but a missile or soldiers sent to destroy the drone would be an act of war and the government is too chicken to risk a war with Iran right now.

If they did hijack control of the drone, then it makes me wonder if the channel is encrypted. If they're flying drones using unencrypted methods, then that's just plain stupid... and given the stupid things I've seen those considered incredibly smart do... I would not doubt it.

Once again, I'm not entirely sure but I believe the encryption is kept to a minimum so that there is no delay between the drone and the controller. This is also less of a concern as drones are mostly used to monitor nations that normally wouldn't be able to take the drone down like this. Iran has probably been planning this for a while and waiting for the opportunity to catch a drone. They'll wait until they've gotten an apology and probably the "compensation" they're demanding for capturing the drone before handing it over to whoever helped them take it down in the first place.

[Arrow101]

I'm guessing that explosives were not placed into the drone due to the possible risk that would pose to American crews handling the plane. Read yesterday that the President was presented with three options concerning the lost drone. He could blow it up by airplanes dropping guided bombs, GPS guided missiles or special forces could try to retrieve the drone. (I think those where the 3 choices he had) All were turned down out of fears of offending Iran. The President thought it might be seen as too aggressive, and war provoking.

Did see that another American military drone has mysteriously crashed today. This time on the island of Seychelles.

"U.S. Drone Crashes in Seychelles, Air Force Investigating"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/
13/us-drone-crashes-in-seychelles/

Ironically, also read today that Seychelles offered China the chance to open a Navy base on her territory. Some have feared the Chinese are involved in wanting to see details on the drone in Iran's possession. Don't know if there is a connection, kind of doubt there is, but thought it interesting.

"Seychelles Offers China A Naval Base"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/w rm/2011/12/13/seychelles-offers-china-a-
naval-base/

[Proteas]

At 12/13/11 01:28 PM, djack wrote: Because explosives and detonators have weight.

This is the U.S. Military we're talking about, the most well funded military in the world. Don't you think it's odd that they didn't have a few fingers of Semtex rigged to explode and destroy the most sensitive parts of that drone if something like this happened?

[adrshepard]

At 12/13/11 01:28 PM, djack wrote:

...This is also less of a concern as drones are mostly used to monitor nations that normally wouldn't be able to take the drone down like this. Iran has probably been planning this for a while and waiting for the opportunity to catch a drone.

I doubt it. If they had brought it down electronically, they would have boasted about that rather than say that they "shot" it down. The drone probably just malfunctioned and glided down like you said. If it's flying at 50,000 feet, there isn't anything like small arms fire that could coax it to make a soft landing; it would just blow up if hit by a missile or flak.

At 12/13/11 02:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

This is the U.S. Military we're talking about, the most well funded military in the world. Don't you think it's odd that they didn't have a few fingers of Semtex rigged to explode and destroy the most sensitive parts of that drone if something like this happened?

If it malfunctioned in some way in the field and you were sent to fix it, would you go up to it knowing that it could explode violently without warning?

[Camarohusky]

At 12/13/11 02:59 PM, Proteas wrote: This is the U.S. Military we're talking about, the most well funded military in the world. Don't you think it's odd that they didn't have a few fingers of Semtex rigged to explode and destroy the most sensitive parts of that drone if something like this happened?

With power comes superiority. With superiority comes arrogance. With arrogance comes complacency.

Chances are the military had the option and cheaped out because they thought a country would never get a hold of one intact, and if they could, we'd get there first...

[Proteas]

At 12/13/11 03:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: If it malfunctioned in some way in the field and you were sent to fix it, would you go up to it knowing that it could explode violently without warning?

Yeah, because this is the military we're talking about, not the frier at McDonalds. You don't GET the option to say "no" because something is inherently dangerous, it's you're job.

But that's beside the point when you consider that "in the field" for these things is typically over hostile territory where the military doesn't typically tread for political reasons. That being said, if they aren't going to send a manned team into the area, they aren't going to send a mechanic, either, and some plastic explosives would be quite handy.

Or, failing that, something akin to the little battery jump off unit I keep in the trunk of my car; it gives a big surge and my battery is jump-started, but in this case, it gives a big surge and fries every bit of circuitry onboard. But then I guess you'd be afraid of getting shocked, hm?

[Camarohusky]

At 12/13/11 05:16 PM, Proteas wrote: Or, failing that, something akin to the little battery jump off unit I keep in the trunk of my car; it gives a big surge and my battery is jump-started, but in this case, it gives a big surge and fries every bit of circuitry onboard. But then I guess you'd be afraid of getting shocked, hm?

One possibility: It already had that and that already happened. If that happened the skin would remain fairly intact, but the curcuits and such would be completely useless.

[Iron-Hampster]

shouldn't be illegally spying on other sovereign countries in the first place. Okay so what if the drone had an explosive rigged to it? The following hazards occur: one, the device is remote detonated which would be a catch twenty two since they lost contact with the drone any ways, or two, the explosive is automatic, which would make the drone very dangerous for people handling it and has the possibility that it lands in a city around people before going boom. If the latter were true, you would provoke a war.

I don't see why everyone is worried about Iran anyway, I'm sure their leader knows damn well that if he hands it off to terrorists, there is nothing stopping the terrorists in question to use the weapon against him or his allies. (remember that all those terrorist groups have agendas of their own)

[Camarohusky]

At 12/13/11 08:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I don't see why everyone is worried about Iran anyway, I'm sure their leader knows damn well that if he hands it off to terrorists, there is nothing stopping the terrorists in question to use the weapon against him or his allies. (remember that all those terrorist groups have agendas of their own)

Nobody is worried about terrorists here. Terrorism is all about the cheap and flashy. A few nuts with a gun scattered around schools would be 1,000,000,000 times mroe effective than a weaponless drone for the goals of terrorism.

The worry is that China or Russia will get a hold of US military technology.

[LordJaric]

At 12/13/11 08:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: shouldn't be illegally spying on other sovereign countries in the first place.

Considering that everyone spies on everyone else, I would have to say that it isn't.

[Halberd]

At 12/13/11 09:07 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 12/13/11 08:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: shouldn't be illegally spying on other sovereign countries in the first place.

Considering that everyone spies on everyone else, I would have to say that it isn't.

I think I remember hearing somewhere awhile back about Israel having spies in New Zealand lol.

[Iron-Hampster]

i just realized the irony to all this, America sends a drone to collect information about Iran that Iran doesn't want to share, and then it breaks so that Iran gets information from the Americans that America doesn't want to share!

you have to see the satirical value of this.

[orangebomb]

At 12/13/11 08:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I don't see why everyone is worried about Iran anyway, I'm sure their leader knows damn well that if he hands it off to terrorists, there is nothing stopping the terrorists in question to use the weapon against him or his allies. (remember that all those terrorist groups have agendas of their own)

I highly doubt that terrorists would know what to do with a drone like that, considering their limited technological prowess and lack of serious resources beyond guns and makeshift bombs. Now if they, hypothetically, get their hands on a F-22 Raptor or an Abrams tank, then that would be a serious problem. But that's a different discussion for another day.

Russia and China on the other hand, would kill to get the schematics of the drone {if they haven't already.} and make their own, albeit in a much lower quality than our own. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me at the least if Iran starts to develop one of their own, although I have serious doubts about pulling something like that off, you never know what psycho in the Iranian military department could think of with technology like that.

[Ranger2]

At 12/13/11 08:21 AM, Korriken wrote: Ok so we all know Iran has a US spy drone.

What I don't get is this: Who was the genius who didn't think to put in some sort of self destruct device in the drones in case they lose contact with the person controlling them and is unable to reestablish contact?

Drones normally do have a self-destruct sequence on them; maybe in this case it malfunctioned.
However, you also have to consider that Iran is lying. They claimed that they down the drone less than a week ago. And now they're claiming that they've reverse-engineered it so that they can create another? Nobody can do that in a week.

[Iron-Hampster]

I wonder where the conspiracy theorists are, no one is considering that we are GIVING it to them intentionally? they must be on break.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 12/13/11 08:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/13/11 08:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

The worry is that China or Russia will get a hold of US military technology.

Do we really consider the Russians and Chinese to be so technologically backwards? I know the U.S. military is the most sophisticated in the world, but to believe that Russia or China are incapable of creating even a lesser drone doesn't quite sound right.

Of course I could always be talking out of my ass and indeed overestimating the intelligence of other powers.

[bcdemon]

My Theory:

If I were to fly a spy plane into a sovereign nations airspace for the purpose of spying, I would not want explosives on board. Sure you don't want your enemy to acquire your technology. But imagine this RQ loses radio control with home base, and crash lands somewhere you really don't want it to, say a military base or even worse, in a residential part of a city where the spin on the accidental crash could start a war.
How would the USA look if the pics coming out of Iran were a hospital for sick children with an RQ-170 sticking out of the side of it?

On a side note, another drone, an MQ-9 went down yesterday in Seychelles.

[morefngdbs]

It looks pretty good in this photo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e ast-16154743
Although You gotta wonder about why the landing area is completely covered ?
secret wheels ?
damage ?

Hard to say why or whats going on about the masking around the base of the craft, here's a video
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e ast-16098562

[joker77336]

I didnt read the whole thread, but did anyone consider that maybe the US military let them shoot it down? Maybe were secretly gathering information about them by letting them do this? It's just hard to believe that we would just let them have a predator drone lol, if I was president I'd freakin get it back :P lol @ obama

[Korriken]

At 12/24/11 08:57 PM, joker77336 wrote: I didnt read the whole thread, but did anyone consider that maybe the US military let them shoot it down? Maybe were secretly gathering information about them by letting them do this? It's just hard to believe that we would just let them have a predator drone lol, if I was president I'd freakin get it back :P lol @ obama

it wasn't a predator drone. get your facts right before opening your pie hole.

One thing did come to mind recently. Think it might be possible that Iran made a FAKE drone? you can find pictures of drones all over the internet, not to mention the government seems to enjoy announcing when something like a drone going missing. Iran might have built a passable look alike and paraded it around KNOWING they are full of shit. Given the things they've pulled in the past, I wouldn't too much doubt it.

[TheMason]

A few thoughts:

* The RQ-170 is most likely akin to the RQ-4: unpiloted. The mission profilers in the USAF/CIA program what route they want the aircraft to fly and it is capable to start-up, taxi, take-off, fly and land itself. Mission profilers monitor the mission and are capable of diverting the aircraft to other coordinates and making other changes to its mission.

This is important because if there is no person flying it...then you don't have to worry about realtime data lag by encrypting a SATCOM signal.

* Most of the sensitive things about this aircraft would be internal...not external. China, Russia and other interested countries have most likely is fairly knowledgable on how to make an aircraft "stealthy". It's the avionics and sensor-electronics that they want. Most likely the best they can get are circuit boards, etc. In the case of a crash the system should "zeroize" and all the encryption codes are permanently erased.