Drone crash unmasks U.S. spying effort in Iran

EagleAye · Dec 10, 2011

lpast said:
How do you know its just one ? ...Ill tell you this, its hard for me to believe that we know what china spends on defense. I find it hard to believe what your saying...when the country has had nuclear capability for decades...and we dont know how many warheads they have...I do know they have missles that can hit the US...

Don't get too worked up over this. We know it's only one because carriers are hard to hide. You can only work on them at very large, developed ports. Work on a carrier at one is extremely obvious. So yeah, it's only one, and a Russian cast-off to boot.

Carrier ops are very difficult and very dangerous. It takes decades to get it right. The US has a long history of carrier ops so our teething pains are past us. China's headaches are about to begin. Check out this article:
WHAT SOVIET NAVAL HISTORY CAN TELL US ABOUT CHINA’S NEW CARRIER | PROSPECT

Here's a couple quotes from it:

“The basic issue here is that the learning curve at the initial stages of carrier operation is extremely steep. Not only is it difficult and expensive to build a working aircraft carrier, but if you don’t already have a fleet of working aircraft carriers, you don’t have pilots and flight crews who can reliably operate it. And if you don’t have pilots and flight crews, you don’t have experienced people who can train new pilots and flight crews. What’s more, the United States got to go through this bootstrapping phase decades ago when ships and planes were simpler. Then we had a solid foundation of human capital to go through the process of building more advanced hardware. But if you want militarily useful equipment for the 21st century, your human capital gap is much bigger than any that we ever faced.”

The Admiral Kuznetsov had the misfortune to be launched in 1985 and commissioned in 1991, just as the Soviet Union was collapsing. While the Admiral Kuznetzov entered service in the Russian Navy, the only other Admiral Kuznetsov-class ship built, the Varyag, was not completed and sat unfinished in Ukraine for a decade before being sold to the Chinese. While the ex-Varyag has been extensively refitted by the PLAN, it still inherits the deficiencies of the Admiral Kuznetsov-class, and entirely lacks the power projection capabilities of modern US carriers Given these deficiencies and the PLAN’s lack of experience operating aircraft carriers, it is unlikely that the ex-Varyag will ever be used operationally. It’s much more likely that it will be used exclusively as for training purposes, which despite its limitations is an achievement sure to be heavily leveraged for domestic consumption within China.

Rest easy. China's carrier is more trouble for them than it is for us. Honestly, if this carrier is such a huge threat, why did Russia sell it to them?

cpwill · Dec 10, 2011

Proud South Korean said:
Just one aircraft carrier, one small, outdated, aircraft carrier that will probably completed with a full crew in at least a decade.
Who is that expert anyways?
The US spends more on its defense budget than the next 20 or so highest defense-spending nations combined.
Calm down and stop listening to idiots prattling on talking points.

bonds are a much deadlier weapon in the hands of the Chinese than an aircraft carrier. that, and our own stupidity. we may decide to yield the field.

Helix · Dec 10, 2011

justabubba said:
anybody see an aircraft which appeared to have crashed?
the one i saw was intact

i find it incredible that the drone apparently did not self destruct. this is either a major malfunction or a massive oversight.

rhinefire · Dec 10, 2011

All nations have been spying on each other even be Mata Hari. Take a look at a web site that shows how many satellites are orbiting the earth, it will amaze you! But then we have cameras everywhere here from the latreen, the lunchroom, school buses, the intersections and every corner of every business in the world. You can buy spy equipment in Toys R Us, Radio Shack so don't complain because YOU ARE BEING WATCHED.

LaughAtTheWorld · Dec 10, 2011

lpast said:
How do you know its just one ? ...Ill tell you this, its hard for me to believe that we know what china spends on defense. I find it hard to believe what your saying...when the country has had nuclear capability for decades...and we dont know how many warheads they have...I do know they have missles that can hit the US...

They have about 400 nukes, compared to Russia's 12000 and the US's 5113. In addition, even if Chinese nukes are launched, the Aegis and such anti-ICBM systems will destroy at least half of them
China revealed only one aircraft carrier being built (one very small, outdated one), and it would be impossible to hide another aicraft carrier.
Stop following talking points.

To give you a tip: There's something much more fearful and dangerous than nukes. It's Chemical and Biological weapons. Nuclear effects are shorter-lived than chemical weapons, and they can spread across entire continents.
The reason why they're so underdeveloped compared to nukes is that the countries actually respect the mutual agreement not to have them. If they were developed as much as nukes, it would make the Cold War look like a snowball fight

LaughAtTheWorld · Dec 10, 2011

rhinefire said:
All nations have been spying on each other even be Mata Hari. Take a look at a web site that shows how many satellites are orbiting the earth, it will amaze you! But then we have cameras everywhere here from the latreen, the lunchroom, school buses, the intersections and every corner of every business in the world. You can buy spy equipment in Toys R Us, Radio Shack so don't complain because YOU ARE BEING WATCHED.

Yeah, I always said that we realized Orwell's dream

solletica · Dec 11, 2011

EagleAye said:
Well yeah. We'd be stupid if we weren't spying on them.

There is no "we". We aren't doing anything to Iran. The correct statement is that the us military is attempting to spy on Iran w/its (pathetic) drone planes.

Please don't lump all the American people (i. e. using the term "we") with the silly, childish, retarded actions of the govt.

Jetboogieman · Dec 11, 2011

Am I the only one who thinks this is a little far fetched?

There's no real confirmation on how this thing actually ended up in Iranian hands.

The two competing stories are that it was shot down, or it malfunctioned and crashed.

Now either way you look at the pictures of this thing does it not strike you as a little odd it appears to have no damage whatsoever? Not even a scratch, some burn marks... nothing?

And then you're telling me they decided to mount the damn thing on an Anti-American pedestal that looks like it was designed by Kindergarten kids?

Something doesn't add up here.

solletica · Dec 11, 2011

The most likely explanation for this is that Iran did not capture any drone, but merely displayed a life-size replica of one. Several reasons for this

1) Military drones are designed to self-destruct when losing contact w/its controller. Although it's theoretically possible the self-destruct mechanism malfunctioned, it's too unlikely to be plausible.

2) Hacking a drone is impossible. The Iranians would have to have the control software's protocol and encryption scheme and the associated encryption key pairs. Even the best spying efforts by the Iranians couldn't have managed that.

3) Because of the above 2 reasons, it would make more sense for Iran to simply shoot the drone out of the sky, since the "stealth" on the drone can be very easily defeated, even w/homemade technology.

solletica · Dec 11, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little far fetched?

There's no real confirmation on how this thing actually ended up in Iranian hands.

The two competing stories are that it was shot down, or it malfunctioned and crashed.

Now either way you look at the pictures of this thing does it not strike you as a little odd it appears to have no damage whatsoever? Not even a scratch, some burn marks... nothing?

And then you're telling me they decided to mount the damn thing on an Anti-American pedestal that looks like it was designed by Kindergarten kids?

Something doesn't add up here.

Referring to the us govt as "kindergarten kids" is an insult to kindergarteners everywhere.

Lord Tammerlain · Dec 11, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little far fetched?

There's no real confirmation on how this thing actually ended up in Iranian hands.

The two competing stories are that it was shot down, or it malfunctioned and crashed.

Now either way you look at the pictures of this thing does it not strike you as a little odd it appears to have no damage whatsoever? Not even a scratch, some burn marks... nothing?

And then you're telling me they decided to mount the damn thing on an Anti-American pedestal that looks like it was designed by Kindergarten kids?

Something doesn't add up here.

Iran is suspected of having been able to override the control system for the UAV. The landing by inexperienced Iranian pilots and possibly the ground it landed on most likely damaged the bottom of the drone and the landing gear.

If I recall correctly the base in the US where the pilots are located had a computer virus issue a few months ago, and that could be how the Irans gained the ability to bring the thing down.

Addition

The Iranians are believed to have received jammers from Russia which could have been used to block the signal from the US pilots, allowing for the Iranians to override the drone controls

Jetboogieman · Dec 11, 2011

solletica said:
Referring to the us govt as "kindergarten kids" is an insult to kindergarteners everywhere.

Jetboogieman said:
And then you're telling me they decided to mount the damn thing on an Anti-American pedestal that looks like it was designed by Kindergarten kids?

Umm.... I was reffering to the thing they had the drone mounted on...

Reading.

It's your friend.

Tashah · Dec 11, 2011

I'm a bit surprised that the drone was apparently not equipped with redundant mechanical/electronic self-destruct safeguards.

EagleAye · Dec 11, 2011

solletica said:
The most likely explanation for this is that Iran did not capture any drone, but merely displayed a life-size replica of one.

On this I would agree with you.

solletica said:
3) Because of the above 2 reasons, it would make more sense for Iran to simply shoot the drone out of the sky, since the "stealth" on the drone can be very easily defeated, even w/homemade technology.

Exactly where did you get this info? By what process is the stealth defeated by "homemade technology?"

EagleAye · Dec 11, 2011

Folks, PLEASE have a look at this... I've mentioned this several times and I'm amazed no one else notices.

The thick coating of Bondo (plastic filler used in auto body repair) demonstrates very clearly that the Iranian drone is either poor mockup or a damaged real drone. So this proves it was not brought down "intact." It was NOT taken over by Iran. If anything it crashed when it (automatic systems) couldn't find a suitable landing place.

Stealth relies heavily on smooth surfaces to redirect radar waves from the radar receiver. Little bumps and jags significantly increase the radar cross-section. The example that Iran is displaying would never be allowed to leave the base. It's in terrible shape. Also, the goofy (and unnecessary) pedestal the jetboogieman noticed is also in indicator of damaged undersides. Please review the comparison of images below. Comments and highlights in red by me.

RoccoR · Dec 11, 2011

EagleAye, Tashah, Lord Tammerlain, et al,

Don't fret, everyone noticed. It was the subject of a Pentagon Media Briefing.

Q: Acknowledging that this video only just came out and that you're probably still looking at it, can you give us at least an initial assessment as to whether or not the aircraft in the video is legitimately -- could be a Sentinel or not? And if so, can you give us any idea about whether or not you agree it could have landed somehow -- or somewhat intact?

CAPT. KIRBY: No. (Chuckles.) No, we're just not -- we've -- certainly we've had a chance to look at the images, and there are folks looking at them. But we're not going to comment beyond that.

Q: But --

Q: Do you -- do you believe the Iranians have the drone?

CAPT. KIRBY: Just -- we're not going to comment about this particular topic.

Q: But you did put out a statement last week saying you'd lost a drone, and you thought this might be it.

MR. LITTLE: We said, you know, all week that, you know, we did have a UAV go missing. But you know, when it comes to sensitive reconnaissance missions, we call them sensitive for a reason. So we're not going to add to what we said over the weekend.

Q: But don't you think you at least owe the public at least a general assessment as to whether we should reject out of hand that this is -- you know, that this is -- this could be one of these aircraft, if it's -- looks like a mock-up or a model or -- shouldn't there be at least some truth-telling here that would at least put some reality to the claims?

MR. LITTLE: I don't have anything to add to what John said.

And that is that we're not going to comment one way or the other at this -- at this stage.

Q: But to be clear on that, you're not -- you can't call this a fake; that you can't say categorically what the Iranians have put out is a fake.

MR. LITTLE: I'm not commenting at all.

EagleAye said:
Folks, PLEASE have a look at this... I've mentioned this several times and I'm amazed no one else notices.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of comments the Iranians made that are confusing, involving the word "simulation."

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior parliamentarian underlined Tehran's advanced technological capabilities and possibilities, and said the Iranian Armed Forces intend to simulate the design and reproduce the US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft that they downed in Eastern Iran last week.

We don't understand exactly what they meant by that.

It is possible that the Iranians are attempting to shield how damaged the UAV is. They want to put on a very good display for a media event and maybe make America nervous about the fact that the RQ-170 was recovered fully intack.

Tashah said:
I'm a bit surprised that the drone was apparently not equipped with redundant mechanical/electronic self-destruct safeguards.

(COMMENT)

I would not be surprised if the UAV is in itty-bitty pieces, not suitable for display. Stealth design is not known for its glide characteristics. If it fell from any serious altitude, there would not be much left.

Lord Tammerlain said:
Addition

The Iranians are believed to have received jammers from Russia which could have been used to block the signal from the US pilots, allowing for the Iranians to override the drone controls

(COMMENT)

I would not put too much faith in this rumor. Soviet Jammers, relative to this technology, are notoriously bad. We have used GPS Guided munitions to destroy jammers designed to protect against GPS guided munitions. Secondly, most US UAVs are programmed to auto-return if they lose the control link. This has been standard for quite some time.

No, there is something else in play here that has not been disclosed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Lord Tammerlain · Dec 11, 2011

RoccoR said:
I would not put too much faith in this rumor. Soviet Jammers, relative to this technology, are notoriously bad. We have used GPS Guided munitions to destroy jammers designed to protect against GPS guided munitions. Secondly, most US UAVs are programmed to auto-return if they lose the control link. This has been standard for quite some time.

No, there is something else in play here that has not been disclosed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) system | Defense Update

1L222 operates over the Ku and X bands (8-18 GHz frequency range)and its effective range is 150 km. It covers 360 degrees hemisphere, monitoring up to 60 targets simultaneously.

Some reports are hinting about the role the Avtobaza system had in the alleged downing of U.S. stealth drone by the Iranian electronic warfare and air defense units early December.

The story that I have heard is that the Iranians jammed the link then provided thier own to fool the drone. No idea if it is true or not, but that the drone is intact is obviously not true.

Tashah · Dec 11, 2011

RoccoR said:
Secondly, most US UAVs are programmed to auto-return if they lose the control link. This has been standard for quite some time.

Roger that. We lost the uplink with a drone once. It auto-returned to base three hours later.

RoccoR said:
No, there is something else in play here that has not been disclosed.

I agree. Something here is just not... quite right.

EagleAye · Dec 11, 2011

Thanks, folks. I was starting to wonder with people saying, "Oh it does look intact!" NOT!

I just found this about the Russian jammers and ELINT systems that Iran is using:
Warsaw Pact / Russian Emitter Locating Systems / ELINT Systems
Here's a snippet (my bold):
VLO = Very Low Observable, DTOA = Differential Time-of-Arrival

The widely propagated public claims that DTOA Emitter Locating Systems are 'passive anti-stealth radars' is difficult to fathom. All DTOA ELS systems are most effective at detecting and tracking omnidirectional emitters. For the DTOA ELS to function, at least three of the widely spaced antenna/receiver systems must detect the very same emission from the target. This is why the Warsaw Pact's Ramona/Tamara family of DTOA systems was used primarily to track IFF, SSR, VOR/DME, Tacan, JTIDS/Link-16 and other omni emission sources from NATO aircraft. A narrow and low sidelobe pencil beam emission from an X/Ku-band radar is even under the most favourable geometrical conditions not going to concurrently illuminate three or more DTOA ELS stations, spaced tens of miles apart, so the DTOA system cannot perform its geolocating function. With low gain antennas needed to properly cover the required angular extent, the notion that DTOA systems can lock on to and track sidelobes from X/Ku-band AESAs is simply not supportable from a basic radio physics perspective. The only possible scenario in which such a DTOA ELS could track a VLO aircraft is where the aircraft is transmitting via an omni antenna JTIDS/Link-16 terminal while penetrating hostile airspace. This is so unlikely that it cannot be considered seriously.

RoccoR · Dec 11, 2011

Lord Tammerlain, et al,

While nothing is impossible, it is highly improbable.

Lord Tammerlain said:
... ... ...
The story that I have heard is that the Iranians jammed the link then provided thier own to fool the drone. No idea if it is true or not, but that the drone is intact is obviously not true.

(COMMENT)

For this to be true, or even plausible, the Iranians would have to overcome three important factors; all of which are worth the loss if it discloses these capabilities.

To simultaneously jam the US control link and establish a hostile control link substitution is a very neat trick. You have to somehow distinguish the bandit control link in such a manner that it is immune to the jamming waveform. But then, it would not be identical to the UAV receiver.
Like any Intrusion Detection System, embedded in the control signal is a security code (supervisory line) that maintains the channel lock and open telemetry. If this is broken, the default condition is to ignore the all signals. In addition to recreating all the flight control signals and ISR instrument package commands, the hostile substitution must match the NSA Type 1 encryption and insert a new supervisory link. Even UAVs that use DES and AES encryption schemes, are computer programmable and would take longer to break then the exposure time of the mission.
Finally, long range UAVs (almost anything that is over the horizon capable) relies on satellite telemetry. The antenna array is pointed up, not down, very directional. In order to jam "and" substitute (simultaneously), the Iranians need an intercept platform that is between the UAV and the satellite. And that would be very dangerous and could require a flight path over territory outside Iranian control. All such platforms are highly susceptible to Anti-Radiation Missile interdiction. They are quite noisy (big footprint) and can be seen by everyone for thousands of miles due to the altitude they must maintain to be effectively between the UAV and the Satellite.

(OCCUM's RASOR)

It would be much more likely that the UAV suffered a mechanical failure than falling prey to remote control interception.

Most respectfully,
R

Frolicking Dinosaurs · Dec 18, 2011

An Iranian engineer says a team of specialists from his country hacked into a GPS navigator of the RQ-170 stealth drone and forced it to land inside the country.

The unnamed engineer told The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday that serious weaknesses in the drone's navigation systems allowed Iranians to spoof the GPS signals it received, fooling the drone into thinking it was landing at an American airfield in Afghanistan.

“The GPS navigation is the weakest point. The spoofing technique that the Iranians used - which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data - made the drone land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications from the US control center,” he stated.

The Iranian engineer highlighted that Iran's takedown of the most advanced US stealth drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, did not occur overnight.

Rather, Iranian experts have been studying drones since 2007, and especially since 2009, which is when the RQ-170 was first deployed in Afghanistan, he noted.

Iranians have in recent years managed to reverse engineer the systems of two unmanned aerial vehicles that they earlier downed in the country, and figured out their vulnerabilities.

On December 4, Iran downed with minimum damage the US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft which was flying over the eastern city of Kashmar, some 225km (140 miles) from the Afghan border.

The capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone by Iranian Army's electronic warfare unit occurred as the advanced US-built reconnaissance was on its very first mission over Iran. Its seizure at the moment means that Iranians were alerted in advance about the precise moment of its secret arrival.

PressTV - Iran hacked GPS, hunted US drone

This is Iran's statement on how they brought down the drone from the English version of their state news agency.

coolwalker · Dec 19, 2011

Good, watch the creeps. Who cares what they think, they are off-the-chart insane.

RoccoR · Dec 19, 2011

Frolicking Dinosaurs, et al,

This gets better and better.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
PressTV - Iran hacked GPS, hunted US drone

“The GPS navigation is the weakest point. The spoofing technique that the Iranians used - which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data - made the drone land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications from the US control center,” he stated.

Click to expand...

This is Iran's statement on how they brought down the drone from the English version of their state news agency.

(COMMENT)

Yeh, this is a really neat trick. If they can do this, we need to hire them. The RQ-170 is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). It has eyes and a pilot that can see what is happening. The pilot has a flight plan and a map. Even if the Iranians could overcome the GPS, the pilot could still see heads-up display data and navigate into allied airspace (dead reckoning). It would be very difficult to fool a pilot into landing halfway through the mission plan. They can (theoretically) interfere with the GPS, but they can't stop the clock. I find it hard to believe that they could do this without fighting the pilot for manual control (without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications from the US control center).

But, anything is possible. I don't think this evolving Iranian story is very credible - at least not yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

Drone crash unmasks U.S. spying effort in Iran

EagleAye

cpwill

Helix

rhinefire

LaughAtTheWorld

Custom User Title

LaughAtTheWorld

Custom User Title

solletica

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

solletica

solletica

Lord Tammerlain

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Tashah

EagleAye

EagleAye

RoccoR

Lord Tammerlain

Tashah

EagleAye

RoccoR

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience

coolwalker

RoccoR