Reply With Quote
Good point. We've had the technology to go after radar/radar jammers since the 60's at least...
Isolation is the key, IMO. If you're actually looking for who's jamming the signal, you should be able to tell (since they're emitting). So you can just send a few planes to knock it out.
And I think that's where the solution is going to come from. Create some jamming detectors to establish the reliability of the input signals.
Good point. We've had the technology to go after radar/radar jammers since the 60's at least...
If your Iran you don't have your radar jammers working all the time....you set up a trap and when a drone wonders into it, you jam the jammers and jam the drone...jammers gone by the time the planes get there...and so is your drone...
That's why I'm saying isolation is key... but CC was asking about battlefield maneuvers... which would indicate a strong presence.
I also think the US was aware of what happened... They probably didn't think that whatever information was in the plane was sensitive enough to warrant a destruction strike and potentially trigger hostilities.
I'm hearing the Iranians did take control. What seems most likely to me is they didn't actually overpower the comms, but instead had an insider spy who could have programmed an alternate landing site is comms went down, and jammed the signal. That would prevent any self detention scenarios.
I was under the impression that of something went wrong with communications, the drones are preprogrammed to return to specific locations. I heard of one that was in Iraq, and crashed on it's way back to Arizona, because the programming wasn't updated. Still, it may not apply to all drones.Yup yup.Changing all that crypto is bound to be a pain in the arse. I'm not familar with the ability of a drone to auto-pilot and land, but if they did hack in and take this down, there's a slight possibility that they gleaned a password due to social engineering/keylogging. Again, I might be overestimating their abilities.
Did you just skip reading the last 20 or so posts?
Sounds like baloney to me. These things don't have the autonomy to fly transatlantic, AFAIK. They're small planes, and don't seemingly have aerial refueling capabilities.
Was reading up on this last night....turns out that when the planes lose communication with their satellite signal they will just hover in circles until that signal is reestablished, if that signal is never reestablished they will erase all their data and hover to the ground...also rumors in the aviation circles is that Iran already has as many as 4 US drones and 3 Israeli drones
Just another sign of how important communication is becoming to the military. I'm glad I get to be part of the revolution, as it were, even if I'm not the one designing all the geeky gadgets.
Does stating my opinion need to be reflective on agreeing or disagreeing with previous posts?
You accuse me of not reading the last 20 or so? fair enough. I will accuse of of poor comprehension, or not reading mine.
You're a ing hypocrite.I was under the impression that of something went wrong with communications, the drones are preprogrammed to return to specific locations. I heard of one that was in Iraq, and crashed on it's way back to Arizona, because the programming wasn't updated. Still, it may not apply to all drones.
Just because I forgot to say the drone was originally based out of AZ shouldn't matter.
No, you contradicting the statements of an actual Iranian engineer that explained how they were able to control the plane makes you look really dumb.
That's all.
Perhaps you shouldn't leave those little details out. They actually make a whole lot of a difference.
I see... Can't think for yourself...
You think drones were originally based in Iraq or someplace else in the Middle East for returning too? I suppose our Armour and other units are originally based there too.
Maybe you should stop blaming me for the fact you continually jump to conclusions, then attempt to make someone else look bad. It just makes you look even worse when you blame others for your mistakes.
And just when does one know to believe others and when not to, or is everything you read on the internet true?
I prefer not to make stuff up if there's credible information...
You should try it sometime...
Makes one wonder how he would reconcile an opposing point of view from an "actual American engineer," or, even, another "actual Iranian engineer."
I believe the simpler plausible possibility. If they actually made it believe Iraq was it's designated emergency landing, then it would be easier to have an inside man plant such instructions in the service area before it was launched. The story could be to try to keep their spy safe.
Do you understand how complicated it would be to recreate a usable GPS signal?
the stuff i just made up is credible -- because I believe it!
From the article posted:
In 2003, a “Vulnerability Assessment Team” at Los Alamos National Laboratory published research explaining how weak GPS signals were easily overwhelmed with a stronger local signal.
Makes one wonder why do you post, tbh...
How complicated? Because I happen to know. And it's not complicated at all.
Heck, posted a paper on this very same thread on how it's done.
Probably something else you skipped over and is making you look like a re .
LOL...
Tell me master baiter. Just how does one triangulate a signal in terrain that reflects signals and is effectively white noise, so time differential cannot be detected either.
LOL...
Not complicated? To replicate a minimum four GPS signals?
It takes three signals to determine a 2D coordinate, and 4 signals to determine 3D coordinates.
I didn't see anything linked that explained how it was done, just that it was. My God. For a programmer to create a program to mimic four signals, and change the lag between them at the nanosecond or faster level as the aircraft position changes as not to confuse the control circuits.
I don't think you understand what is involved.
Are you dumb, blind or both? Post #45 in this thread.
Includes math and applicability to both civilian and military GPS systems.
The signals don't have to come from different places. They're simply separate data streams. It's 'easy' because you can do the testing and debugging in pretty much any area and against off-the-shelf devices.
Have a read, then come back talking out of your ass again.
You don't triangulate. You use trilateration using a moving object.
You're way behind in all this stuff. Catch up and then we can discuss it.
Remember this?
Turns out the drone was real..
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...uction-captureIran has given Russia a copy of a US spy drone as proof that its elite forces have reverse-engineered and mass produced the American unmanned aerial vehicle they claim to have captured a year ago.
Iranian media reported yesterday that the copy of the ScanEagle drone was provided to Russia on the sidelines of a meeting in Tehran between Farzad Esmayeeli, the air defence commander of Khatam al-Anbia, the Revolutionary Guards' military and industrial base, and Viktor Bondarev, head of the Russian air force.
In December 2012, a guards' commander said his forces had got their hands on a ScanEagle, promising Tehran would mass produce it. The US authorities denied those claims at the time, saying all its drones were fully accounted for.
"The drone built by the Islamic republic's Revolutionary Guards is a symbol of the technical capabilities of the Islamic Iran and today we presented a real model of it as a gift to Russian air force … and the Russian people," Esmayeeli said after meeting with Bondarev, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
In fact, the US was gonna launce a covert strike to try and recover the drone..
Fallen U.S. Drone Nearly Led to Covert Strike in Iran
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...ke-iran/45857/
New reports on the CIA drone lost in Iran last week reveal the scope of the stealth plane's mission and just how far the U.S. was willing to go to recover it. The Associated Press reports on Wednesday that despite U.S. military statements Monday suggesting the drone was lost while flying a mission in western Afghanistan, Iranian officials say the RQ-170 drone was detected about 140 miles from the border of Afghanistan, deep inside the country's air space. U.S. officials, speaking on background, confirmed the RQ-170 drone had been spying on Iran for years but did not indicate the extent to which it penetrated Iranian air space. They did say the U.S. air base in Shindad, Afghanistan, was designed to launch "surveillance missions and even special operations missions into Iran if deemed necessary."
In a sign of how badly the U.S. wanted the stealth drone back, The Wall Street Journal reports that it contemplated three different operations to recover the fallen drone. One plan involved sending commandos in Afghanistan assisted by U.S. agents in Iran to track down and recover the drone. "Another option would have had a team sneak in to blow up the remaining pieces of the drone," reports the Journal. "A third option would have been to destroy the wreckage with an airstrike."
In the end, officials decided not to carry out the mission for two reasons: a) they feared the strike could be considered an "act of war" and b) it crashed in such a remote area of Iran that officials hoped it wouldn't be found "therefore, leaving the remains where they were could be the safest option."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
