backtop


Print 136 comment(s) - last by simian pete.. on Dec 13 at 1:11 PM


  (Source: ABC News)
The authenticity of the images has not yet been verified

Whether the U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone was shot down, brought down by enemy interference, or simply crashed due to a malfunction shouldn’t be the most pressing issue anymore with the U.S. Military. The bigger problem is that the Iran is now showing off on state TV what it says is the downed drone, fully intact.
 
The drone was downed after it "[infiltrated] our country's airspace for spying missions," stated Amir Ali Hajizadeh of the Revolutionary Guard's Aerospace Forces. "This kind of plane has been designed to evade radar systems and from the view point of technology it is amongst the most recent types of advanced aircraft used by the U.S.," Hajizadeh added.
 
According to images from ABC News, the RQ-170 Sentinel appears to be fully intact (or at least placed back together after crash landing). This is likely to be a huge concern for the U.S. and represents an even larger technology/security breach than the "stealth helicopter" wreckage recovered during the Bin Laden raid.
 
Iran's state-run FARS News Agency goes on to brag about what a big blow this represents to the U.S. government:
 
Among the United States' main concerns is that Iran could use an intact aircraft to examine the vulnerabilities in stealth technology and take countermeasures with its air defense systems… The drone was programmed to destroy such data in the event of a malfunction, but it failed to do so. The blow has been so heavy that the US officials do not still want to accept that Iran brought down the plane by a cyberattack. Instead, explanations have focused on potential technical failures.
 
According to ABC News, the drone was operating a secret mission for the CIA before it "malfunctioned".

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, FARS News Agency



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hacked?
By edge929 on 12/8/2011 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 5
Does Iran really have the capability to 1) detect this UAV and 2) hack into it? I just find that really hard to believe. As always, Iran seems to be exaggerating every detail about this.




RE: Hacked?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/8/2011 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
As always, Iran seems to be exaggerating every detail about this.


Did you expect any less? ;)


RE: Hacked?
By Cypherdude1 on 12/8/2011 10:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does Iran really have the capability to 1) detect this UAV and 2) hack into it? I just find that really hard to believe. As always, Iran seems to be exaggerating every detail about this.
It doesn't matter how the Iranians got it. The fact is, Iran now has the most advanced UAV the USA makes and it's intact! It appears from the video that the RQ-170 Stealth drone has technology similar to the B-2 bomber. The shape is the same. That means the coating and composition of the drone probably has top secret materials.

Of course, after the Iranians and the Chinese analyze the materials, they won't be top secret much longer, to them at least. The lose of the RQ-170 Stealth drone is almost as bad as when Stalin was able to use his spies such as the Cohens:
http://tinyurl.com/the-cohens

to stealth atomic secrets from Los Alamos during WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_L...


RE: Hacked?
By dragonbif on 12/9/2011 12:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Have any of you looked at it? They would have had to hack it and land it safely somewhere because it looks like it is in perfect condition. If they did have it on display we could just go in a blow it up.


RE: Hacked?
By MGSsancho on 12/9/2011 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
maybe they just killed it or something or knocked out its power. how many of us (even good drivers) could reliably take control of a farrari enzo at speed on a track and safely get it around to the pits with out spinning out or flying off the track? maybe they just disabled all communications and found a signal to glide to a flat spot. might explain the covering of the bottom and landing gear. either war they have the propulsion system and computer system intact.


RE: Hacked?
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
maybe they just disabled all communications and found a signal to glide to a flat spot. might explain the covering of the bottom and landing gear.


So, maybe they could let everyone see some belly landing damage (or at least scratches) on the bottom? Not showing the underside, only adds to the suspicion of deception.

Even if you've flown other R/C aircraft, could you suddenly take halfway decent control of one, whose flight characteristics you aren't familiar with, if its operator suddenly handed off the controller to you?

'Maybe' we should apply Occam's Razor here. The onus is on them to prove they even have something. Anyone could build a mock-up with the degree of detail seen here, and that requires fewer assumptions than the possibility that they had the knowledge to take over the controls, and bring it to a safe landing...


RE: Hacked?
By hughlle on 12/10/2011 8:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
With enough training, hey, some folk grabbed hold of some real planes and did as they intended to do :D


RE: Hacked?
By invidious on 12/13/2011 10:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The onus is on them to prove they even have something
Except they dont care about proving anything to us. They care about finding our secrets to use against us and sell to our rivals. It doesnt matter how they got it, it doesnt matter what state it is in, it has at least some secrets that they can steal.

If we dont want them to learn those secrets we need to intervine otherwise the prudent assumption is that the secrets will be loose.


RE: Hacked?
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 1:35:45 PM , Rating: 3
It seems people either don't give Iran enough credit or they give them too much.

So they can make nuclear arms but they can't hack a computer?


RE: Hacked?
By borismkv on 12/8/2011 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 4
Or they give the US government's contractor-centric Defense research too much credit. I recall reading at some point that the US was using unencrypted signalling to control UAVs at one point. If they still were there's not a whole lot that needs to be done to hack one of these out of the sky.


RE: Hacked?
By wiz220 on 12/8/2011 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 4
I remember that, as I recall it was the image transmission only that was un-encrypted. The word at the time was that they were not vulnerable to having the actual flight controls taken over.


RE: Hacked?
By borismkv on 12/8/2011 3:57:35 PM , Rating: 4
Well, having worked in governmental IT security, it's not taking a huge leap (in my mind, at least) to say that there were a number of vulnerabilities that were left in because taking them out would have hurt some poor General's precious ego.


RE: Hacked?
By Ringold on 12/8/2011 1:49:23 PM , Rating: 4
People have been making nuclear weapons since the 40s. Detecting and hacking in to this sort of system takes a different sort of sophistication. Not necessarily more, but different.


RE: Hacked?
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 2:42:17 PM , Rating: 1
True, but barriers to entry to the hacking world are lower than producing nuclear arms as you can tell be watching the news.

So even though the tech has been around for decades I think the Iranians would be able to catch up easier as far as IT goes. I mean we haven't levied sanctions on them for owning computers or anything lol.

Plus who is to say that they didn't simply buy something from Russia or China that could take this down.

Of course I don't know the details of this story, but I just think it is strange that the US gov't seems to think they are diabolical geniuses at the same time they are too stupid to do this.


RE: Hacked?
By Ringold on 12/8/2011 5:53:58 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I think we have embargo's in place limiting their purchase of high-end computer hardware that could be used in supercomputers/HPC.

And you're right, the barrier to entry is lower, but I imagine the security used in the command and control of drones is a world of sophistication beyond what Iran can deal with. Maybe someone with more knowledge can fill us in?


RE: Hacked?
By Orac4prez on 12/8/2011 7:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
When the Soviet Union went down, they "lost" a lot of brilliant people. Some went to North Korea, while others went to India and Pakistan and others to the West. It is quite probable that given the comparably easy travel between Russia and Iran that a lot of know how passed from the former USSR to Iran. There are many smart Iranians too. The USSR detonated the largest nuclear bomb ever and has now produced a lot of theater nuclear bombs all designed using computers having less power than the CPU in your current mobile phones. Innovative thinking is the cornerstone of this. Computers are only good for quantifying an idea and optimising it - not creating them. Believe me there are Iranian biochemist/molecular biologists who are developing weaponisable biologics (of all types) and the justification is that the US is spreading them already (eg Ug99)

Iranians will parade this as proof that the west is illegally violating international law. In the future, if something happens either in Iran or the US events like these will be used to support whatever action they want to justify themselves. Its about public relations and changing public perceptions. Just like the US manipulating opinion in the middle east for the "Arab Spring"


RE: Hacked?
By nafhan on 12/8/2011 2:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So they can make nuclear arms but they can't hack a computer?
This doesn't really mean anything. There's literally no limit on how difficult "Hacking" a system could (potentially) be. The difficulty is going to depend largely on the desired results of the "hacking" and the sophistication of the system being hacked.

As an aside, the public documentation for creating nuclear devices is a little better than the information available regarding stealth drone control systems.


RE: Hacked?
By sigmatau on 12/8/2011 5:07:54 PM , Rating: 1
Nuclear arms? Iran had to hire Russia to design and build its reactor which isn't even new technology. You know we had nuclear reactors over 50 years ago but no UAVs or anyting resembling current computers?


RE: Hacked?
By AssBall on 12/8/2011 6:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind the Ultra high frequency encrypted signaling, software modeled aerodynamics and composites materials science, and radar absorptive surfaces. Those were all made 60 years ago too... wait a minute!


RE: Hacked?
By BZDTemp on 12/10/2011 5:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well - the US had to hire Nazi's to fly to the moon :-)

Sure Iran is not #1 in tech but they are certainly not a nation of goat herders either - and they was a civilization long before the USA was even founded.

No country in the world is #1 in anything and what really takes you forward is combining internal knowledge with what the rest of the world works out. Iran is pretty isolated so they can only do that in limited ways but the country is not an island.

Anyway why are so many picking in Iran. In many ways Israel is worse and they get, mostly, support when they also should be pressured to clean up their act.


RE: Hacked?
By PorreKaj on 12/9/2011 4:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Iran has the second-largest online army. After Stuxnet they recruited hackers/crackers enmass.


RE: Hacked?
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they are exaggerating but I bet it is the real thing. They zoomed into the grille (which only people in the know will recognize) plus manipulated a few other surfaces. It is only a matter of time before we know the truth (or they deny it).

This is a huge blow to our stealth program. It is only a matter of time before it is passed around to the highest bidder so the enemy can figure out how to build systems to detect it (and our other techs). Thankfully, it is one thing to be able to defeat the RAM, but it is another to be able to develop radar to classify the contact after it detects it due to the shape and reactions of the signal. Still, it might at least give them a bigger blip to work with.


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2011 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a huge blow to our stealth program. It is only a matter of time before it is passed around to the highest bidder so the enemy can figure out how to build systems to detect it (and our other techs).


Is it? I was under the impression that there's nothing magical anymore about stealth technology. And that any first world nation can develop something like this without stealing it from us. Stealth is simply shape+RAM for the most part. Nothing all that complex anymore.

Something like this in Iran's hands is like handing a newborn baby an iPod. What are they gonna do with it exactly? What enemy would be interested in learning about something that isn't even a secret anymore? And developing a radar system to exclusively detect an unarmed drone seems extravagant to me, seeing as how these can defeat any radar simply by flying low enough.

This whole thing reminds me too much of the Cold War.


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 3:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the materials "painted" on the craft to help make it stealth was the big deal. Like the coating on the helio used in the Osama raid.


RE: Hacked?
By sigmatau on 12/8/2011 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
The paint helps, but the shape counts way more.


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 5:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Which I understand. What I'm getting at is....the shape can be recreated easier in comparison to the paint. I suspect many already know how to create stealthy angles and shapes. The paint/materials is another story.


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2011 6:10:09 PM , Rating: 1
It's probably the same type of paint/coating that was developed back in the 70's for the SR-71. Which I believe is the same concept used in the F-22's coating. Improved no doubt, but nothing all that special.


RE: Hacked?
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 3:32:32 PM , Rating: 1
Well yeah, anyone can develop it--but seeing it is golden, given the weapon delivery sacrifices an aircraft must make to remain stealthy. It makes them worth far less than conventional aircraft if they can be seen--for far more money.

If you fly low you gotta worry about MANPADs (shoulder mounted rockets) and small arms fire. There's a reason the U-2 flys at 70,000 feet.

I liked the Cold War. It was quite a fascinating time. :) The only difference here is we could wipe out Iran whenever we want and they can't stop us, so there's no MAD. They've got nothing to lose.


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2011 3:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's a reason the U-2 flys at 70,000 feet.


Except even the U-2 was shot down :P

quote:
I liked the Cold War. It was quite a fascinating time. :)


Me too! In fact I just read a great book about Cold War submarine spying. Check out Blind Man's Bluff (ISBN 0-06-103004-X) if you're so inclined. Kind of old, but really interesting. Found it at the good old thrift store. Quite a read for $0.50! :)

This whole thing just reminded me of us and the USSR. Where one side would screw up and the other side would make a big show of it, but both sides privately knew the score and that this was just part of the "game".


RE: Hacked?
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
I remember reading Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" back when I was in Elementary School when it came out--that book there brings back memories of that novel. :) They did some crazy stuff with subs back then. But yeah, it's all part of the "game," which a lot of younger people might be slow to pick up on, especially if they weren't alive during the Cold War or were too young to pay attention to it at the time.


RE: Hacked?
By derricker on 12/8/2011 11:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only difference here is we could wipe out Iran whenever we want and they can't stop us, so there's no MAD. They've got nothing to lose.


You've no idea what MAD is, do you?


RE: Hacked?
By WinstonSmith on 12/8/2011 4:57:35 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articl...

Excerpt:

A number of features suggest that the RQ-170 is a moderately stealthy design, without the DarkStar’s or Northrop Grumman X-47B’s extreme emphasis on low radar cross section (RCS). The leading edges do not appear to be sharp—normally considered essential for avoiding strong RCS glints—and it appears that the main landing gear door’s front and rear edges are squared off rather than being notched or aligned with the wing edges.

In addition, the exhaust is not shielded by the wing, and the wing is curved rather than angular. That suggests the Sentinel has been designed to avoid the use of highly sensitive technologies. As a single-engine UAV, vehicle losses are a statistical certainty. Ultra-stealthy UAVs—such as the never-completed Lockheed-Boeing Quartz for which DarkStar was originally a demonstrator—were criticized on the grounds they were “pearls too precious to wear”—because their use would be too restricted by the risk of compromising technology in the event of a loss.

The medium-gray color , similar to the Reaper’s, is a clue to performance. At extreme altitudes (above 60,000 ft.), very dark tones provide the best concealment even in daylight because there is little lighting behind the vehicle while it is illuminated by light scattered from moisture and particles in the air below it. The RQ-170 is therefore a mid-altitude platform, unlikely to operate much above 50,000 ft. This altitude also would have simplified the use of an off-the-shelf engine. General Electric has been working on a classified variant of its TF34 engine that appears to fit the thrust range of the RQ-170.


RE: Hacked?
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 5:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Great read, thanks! :)


RE: Hacked?
By arazok on 12/9/2011 10:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
I always understood that angular designs were obsolete. In the 80's they didn't have the computing power to calculate the radar reflections accurately enough, so they had to create highly angular designs. Today, they can create curved stealth designs, which fly better, and the radar absorbing coatings take care of the rest.

Is this incorrect?


RE: Hacked?
By nolisi on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By wiz220 on 12/8/2011 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I also seem to remember Obama making a speach on the death of Bin Laden while pictures of the control room as well as countless stories told of the Navy Seals unit which performed the operation.


Am I missing something here or did you fail to provide the point of that sentence?


RE: Hacked?
By nolisi on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By DT_Reader on 12/8/2011 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't get your point. US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden. Where's the exaggeration?


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/2011 2:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
They said he had porn? LOL


RE: Hacked?
By wiz220 on 12/8/2011 3:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I don't see the exaggeration, it was just a fact that Obama stated during a speech letting the public know it had been done. It wasn't a photo op on the carrier that Osama's body was taken to, it was a simple speech at the White House.


RE: Hacked?
By derricker on 12/9/2011 1:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
a simple speech followed by a media parade, likewise this was just a simple video of the downed aircraft, followed by a media parade.

it's all the eye of the beholder, and while sitting there in your couch enjoying your mcmeals you can't possibly perceive how the entire world perceives the US, it is not that different of how you perceive iran.


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By Skywalker123 on 12/9/2011 1:28:40 AM , Rating: 1
Ah yes, the Demon Iran, the country where we overthrew their democratically elected President and replaced him with a puppet. The country where we shot down one of their civilian airliners and refused to issue an apology. The country we supported Hussein to invade, and the country we are now using covert terrorist operations to try and stop their nuclear development Is that the one?


RE: Hacked?
By tamalero on 12/9/2011 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 1
Stop making sense, he will need 30 hours of Gilmore Girls and More of Two and a half men brainwashing to remove your opinion about global views.

also the whole "aaah yes.."
instantly reminded me of the Turian Advisor in Mass Effect 2.
"Aaah yes.. reapers.."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Oc-pstqpc


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 2:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
THe same ole tripe about the Mission Accomplish. Re-read the speech,Bush was talking about the mission of bring down Saddam's government. Which was true, that mission was accomplished. In no way was Bush talking about the overall war being mission accomplished.


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 3
I"m setting the record straight regardless who it is. It could have been Obama making the speech and I would do the same to straighten out the record. The truth is the truth! Not sure how I was over reacting?

My boy??? Excuse me?? And he, alone, broke the country, really??? That statement alone means you have no clue and don't live in reality. The blame lies with alot of people. I know it makes people feel better to have a scapegoat. Especially one of those mean, evil Republicans! We all know Democrats are saints and do no wrong!


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 3:42:19 PM , Rating: 1
HAHAHAH thanks for the laugh!


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/2011 4:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I really want to get into it with you, a well known right wing hack that cant see straight, but... Let's see, 2 wars (one that had nothing to do with the attacks) and a tax break at the same time bringing a near balanced budget into a record deficit would be the worst of it. The last 2 years of his term he sat by and did nothing while the economy collapsed around him leaving Obama to start with the worst economic disaster since the 1930's (NOT that Obama is good either). The very fact that Obama was even elected is because the whole country was tired of Bush and all the retardation he caused. Yes, Obama, is Bush's fault -FACT.

Carter sucked, alot like Obama... and Nixon was more pubic and professionalshame than anything that effected policy... Nothing from any of the 3 in the same league as Bush.

Also, Noocyooler, hispanically speaking, and misunderestimated, made the US look like we elected a freegin HS dropout... twice. Oh, his legacy will be a grand one alright LOL


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/8/2011 5:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
They weren't elected? Maybe not as president, but they are or were elected officals. Right? Or am I imagining Kerry being a Senator and Gore a former Senator and Vice President.

One can't stand there and say Bush did this and didn't do that. Then turn around and say he didn't act alone. And yet want to pin everything on one guy.

It's clear you hate the guy, no matter what. Which is good to see that the narrative painted of Bush is still alive and well.


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/8/2011 5:51:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I think he was an aweful president, so clearly I must be listening to some sort of "narrative" LOL.


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/9/2011 10:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
No the narrative is....he's dumber than dumb, everything currently was Bushs fault, etc...


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hacked?
By 3DoubleD on 12/8/2011 6:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to spoil it for you, but Hawaii is no more part of North America than it is of Asia. Since Hawaii was formed out of volcanic eruptions, you can't quiet classify it as either. However, as Hawaii is part of an island group in Polynesia, which largely lies off the coast of Asia, it isn't a terrible crime that he said what he said. It still wasn't right, Hawaii isn't part of any continent, but if it had to be designated to one I wouldn't say North America.

Also, the US owns many territories outside of North America, mostly islands. Hawaii just happens to be the only one officially called a state.


RE: Hacked?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hacked?
By ShieTar on 12/9/2011 4:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
Stands to reason that his family managed to buy him a nice GPA before they bought him a position as a corporate manager and later on as a president, doesn't it?

Here is what former german Chancelor Gerhard Schroeder had to say about Bush in his Memoires:

"We noticed that the intellectual reach of the president of the most important nation at the time was exceptionally low. For this reason, it was difficult to communicate with him. He had no idea what was happening in the world. He was so fixated on being a Texan. I think he knew every longhorn in Texas."


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/9/2011 7:26:48 AM , Rating: 1
"We noticed that the intellectual reach of the president of the most important nation at the time was exceptionally low. For this reason, it was difficult to communicate with him. He had no idea what was happening in the world. He was so fixated on being a Texan"

That reminds me of a funny story Vincente Fox, ex prez of Mexico told about Bush. Bush had visited him on his Ranch in Mexico. Knowing he is a Texan and a rancher, Fox invited him to go horseback riding to tour the property. The SS was against it, but Bush went ahead and did it. Fox said he was inexperienced and very uncomfortable on a horse. It clearly wasnt his thing. A year or so later, Fox visited the Bush ranch in Texas. Bush returned the favor by touring the ranch in a pickup truck. From that point on, he always referred to Bush as "The windshield cowboy" LOL.


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/9/2011 10:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
Believe what you want. I bet if he was a dumb, dumb he wouldn't have flown a fighter jet. Dumb, dumbs don't get a chance to fly those.

People love to hate on Texans. Regardless if it's true or not. How do we know what the Chancelor said is true?

Maybe a little guliable on your part.


RE: Hacked?
By retrospooty on 12/9/2011 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with Texas. Most people like Texas. You only have paid even slight attention from 2000 to 2008 to draw the conclusion that he did a lousy job. Bush's approval ratings were lower than Nixon's during Watergate. Even republicans rated him low. you cant get in the low 30's approval rating without many of your own party frowning on the job you are doing.


RE: Hacked?
By KoS on 12/9/2011 1:23:06 PM , Rating: 1
You don't get out much? For example talk to people out of the NE or the academic eltie. I promise you most do not like Texans, no matter what. And my Texas comment was in regard to the German guys quote.

And why were his ratings low? Every night on the news, Bush was hammered, rightly and wrongly. Why did Republicans rate him low? In my opinion, because he worked too much with the other side, founding of the TSA, prescribition drug program, and a few others.

Btw, how are those approvals numbers generated? Those can be messed with, just like poll results. Approval numbers mean jack shit on how someone is "really" doing in their job. Look at Obama's, his numbers are low, but there are people thinking he is the greatest president ever. Really? How does that jive?

In the end, Bush wasn't the best, nor was he the worst. I bet the same would be said about you or me if we were president, lousy or good at the job!


RE: Hacked?
By Ringold on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By Paj on 12/9/2011 8:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, your economy's in great shape!


RE: Hacked?
By ender707 on 12/8/2011 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
If teenagers in the U.S. can hack in to all sorts of "secure" systems, why would Iran not be able to pull together some resources to make it happen?


RE: Hacked?
By wiz220 on 12/8/2011 2:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it seems like there are only 2 likely scenarios that would allow them to even know that the drone was in the area and ready to be hacked:

1) They have a spy inside the military/CIA that alerted them that the drone would be overhead and vulnerable to hacking. Or they have complete access to our command and control systems that let them see that the drone was operating nearby.

2)They were actually able to detect the drone via radar therefore knowing it was nearby and ready to be hacked.

Neither of these scenarios seem very likely to me.


RE: Hacked?
By nolisi on 12/8/2011 2:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
The unlikelihood of either scenario you present does not mean they didn't happen. It is also a possibility that the drone was spotted visually by some means.

Another possiblity: if I were Iran, and I were super paranoid of espionage by stealth plane- or if I just wanted the technology, I would litter my border with ground operatives visually scanning the sky along with regular patrols.


RE: Hacked?
By DT_Reader on 12/8/2011 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 1
Another possibility: The CIA lost control of the drone, it crossed the border into Iran, ran out of fuel and glided to a landing. Sometime later, the Iranians found it just laying there, intact. Occam's razor.


RE: Hacked?
By Dr of crap on 12/8/2011 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, and those three hikers thought it might be nice to take a walk by the Iranian border!


RE: Hacked?
By ppardee on 12/8/2011 6:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
That explanation is fine if you've never flown an aircraft. An uncontrolled (and unpowered) plane is not going to glide gently to the ground undamaged. It takes constant correction and control to keep your pitch and roll within safe ranges. If either is off in any direction, you crash rather quickly. It is possible that there were electric on-board autopilot controls that allowed it to glide to a graceful landing, but seems like an odd thing to put on a vehicle you don't want to survive if you lose control of it.


RE: Hacked?
By Ringold on 12/8/2011 7:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the sorts of aircraft most people would fly should have positive stability. If you're constantly sawing away at the stick, you're doing it all wrong. Light touches only, trim the rest away. Should be able, in calm weather, to get a plane stabilized in a condition and take your hands off and it should continue on unaided, be it in a set accent, descent, or straight and level. Plus or minus some other minor forces, like the left-hand turning tendencies of prop planes, etc. All utility category aircraft, I think, are supposed to be able to self-recover from spins, etc. It's actually kinda hard to induce a spin in some well-designed planes.

But that's a different sort of aircraft, possibly no such inherent stability. I'd guess it did glide down, but expected perhaps some failed self-destruct system to stop it at some point. If it came down in sand or a nice soft field it could've easily sustained no damage at all.


RE: Hacked?
By NicodemusMM on 12/8/2011 11:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would imagine that flying an aircraft at the stick and flying a UAV from miles away are completely different... not to mention that some recent aircraft designs are close to unpilotable without the aid of computer systems. My point is that it makes sense that the on-board systems would maintain a smooth flight path without input from the ground. Otherwise the controller on the ground would have a hard time keeping it in the air when you combine the shape of this aircraft and the latency involved in long-range remote flight.

Another explanation is that the craft may have been carrying through the last command it received... a slow gradual descent.


RE: Hacked?
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 10:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
'Controlled flight into terrain' (that's what they call it) still can be safely expected to result in a mess...


RE: Hacked?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/9/2011 6:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]1) They have a spy inside the military/CIA that alerted them that the drone would be overhead and vulnerable to hacking. Or they have complete access to our command and control systems that let them see that the drone was operating nearby.[/quote]

My Battlefield 2 experience tell me that, 90% of people can spot and shoot down a UAV with rifles 3 miles away.


RE: Hacked?
By AssBall on 12/8/2011 3:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well in the U.S. you give your teenagers a spartphone and a state of the art laptop, and send them away to school. In Iran you give them a Koran and a goat and beat them brutally if they try to think for themselves.


RE: Hacked?
By Dr of crap on 12/8/2011 3:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the laugh!


RE: Hacked?
By ppardee on 12/8/2011 6:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
Yep... And that's whats wrong with the youth in this country. They're getting phones when they should be getting goats... and beatings.

Mainly the beatings...


RE: Hacked?
By AssBall on 12/8/2011 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 1
Kid's don't need the beatings half as much as the parents do.... just sayin'.


RE: Hacked?
By DrApop on 12/8/2011 2:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does Iran really have the capability to 1) detect this UAV and 2) hack into it? I just find that really hard to believe. As always, Iran seems to be exaggerating every detail about this.


Let's not forget that Al-Qaeda were eavesdropping on our drones while sitting in their caves....probably using an atari 800xl computer. I doubt Iran had much trouble doing the same.

Thanks goes to Lockheed Martin for their stellar flight control crypto. US contractors at their best.


RE: Hacked?
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 10:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Passively watching a (stupidly) unencrypted video transmission is one thing. Actively taking control of its source? Not so simple...


RE: Hacked?
By Ushio01 on 12/8/2011 3:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
How do you make a radio frequency stealth?


RE: Hacked?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/8/2011 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Make it channel hop at a retardedly fast rate.


RE: Hacked?
By name99 on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hacked?
By Solandri on 12/8/2011 4:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unlike the US government claiming it wasn't shot down?
Just how many lies do you have to hear from the US military before you see the pattern?

Does that drone look like it was shot down to you? In this case at least, it appears the US military spoke the truth, and that it wasn't shot down as Iran initially claimed. (If they even claimed that - it could easily have been a translation error.)

They did acknowledge one of their drones was missing. And their refusal to verify its whereabouts and status we now know coincides with the time they were trying to decide whether to leave it, bomb it, or try to recover it. It makes no sense to tip your hand and to publicly acknowledge that you know exactly where it is if plans to bomb it or recover it are still on the table. I see no evidence of lying with intent to cover up.


RE: Hacked?
By cyberguyz on 12/9/2011 7:50:38 AM , Rating: 3
Are you American?

I always find it hilarious when an American assumes that because someone is NOT American they are incapable of feats such as this.

I would assume that Iran does indeed have both the capability and smarts to both detect and hack into these systems. It doesn't require a nuclear arsenal to develop these skills after all. Just some brains. Being Islamic rather than Christian doesn't automatically make anyone stupid.


RE: Hacked?
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 10:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
And yet deception is still an easier tool in any country or religion's arsenal...

A variety of close-ups and camera angles would make this more credible than the undamaged 'turkey on a plate' being shown.


RE: Hacked?
By trisct on 12/9/2011 11:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
Definitely hacked. If not by Iranians, then by the small army of Chinese hackers that will shortly arrive to assist them. Even if you think Iran doesn't have a well-developed hacker army, nobody can deny that China is pre-eminent in that area.


RE: Hacked?
By moenkopi on 12/9/2011 10:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like china is making a formal declaration of war with the United States, eh?


This Could be a Mock Up
By mitchebk on 12/8/2011 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
The repainting, missing US insignia, and lack of any damage point to a fake--a very, very good fake.




RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/8/2011 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing at first, but...

I was reading some of the commentary on other sites about the lack of damage, and some are reporting that the aircraft is designed to glide back to earth if it loses communications with the controller.

Anyone else have any info on this?


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By tng on 12/8/2011 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
I had read in an industry journal that in case of loss of communication with control that they are programed with a set of safe coordinates that they will return to, for just this reason.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By sviola on 12/8/2011 1:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
But shouldn't it flight back to its point of origin or at least auto-destroy? I don't think a good project would be: if communication is lost then land anywhere, even if it is enemy territory.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By ender707 on 12/8/2011 1:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
I stated this in an earlier article, but yes, even cheap remote control airplane equipment has the capability to use a GPS module to "Return to home" if signal is lost. Certainly, our unmanned military aircraft must have similar tech in place.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By Ringold on 12/8/2011 1:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on the terrain, off-field landings can still be extremely rough, especially if it happened to be gear-up. There should be all sorts of scratches to the bottom in that case. I'd think perhaps some leading-edge damage as well, just scrapes from shrubs and whatnot. Just from the pictures here at DT (I havent looked around), it appears pristine.

But maybe it did make a very fortunate landing in soft sand in a desert or whatever.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By mac2j on 12/8/2011 2:25:56 PM , Rating: 1
The best evidence that it is a fake is that we haven't blown it up. Obama is as bleeding heart as it gets but we have to assume if they were parading around a real stealth drone we'd have to blow it up before China buys it.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By Solandri on 12/8/2011 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Such plans were considered and rejected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702047...

Speculation is that while it is a stealth drone, that it isn't packed with the latest anti-radar technology precisely because it's a drone which you could easily lose control of.

Also from the news reports I've been reading allege that it's part of an extensive CIA reconnaissance and monitoring campaign using drones based in Afghanistan to fly over Iran. I'm not sure what they'd be spying on though. Tehran is more easily reached from the Caspian Sea, and Iran's nuclear plant from the Persian Gulf (i.e. Saudi Arabia).


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By moenkopi on 12/9/2011 10:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, what i've heard was that if the craft losses radio control, it has a designated flight plan back to a save base.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By nolisi on 12/8/2011 1:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The repainting, missing US insignia, and lack of any damage


Although it is likely that the existence of this model is well known, why would the US put an insignia on it? It provides plausible deniability if the US chooses to exercise it.

As far as repainting, there may be several reasons for it: 1) it becomes easily identifiable: their own pilots don't try to shoot it down if they do see it (and not showing on radar) 2) the fact that they repainted it shows that they do have it in custody in some kind of workeable form 3) it may have become damaged during captured, and they may not have had a similar paint to replace it with. I'm certain after getting samples of the stealth material on the external shell, they wanted to get it in as functional of a physical form as possible to test any techology it has in flight.

The US so far has admitted that it's missing something... so why would Iran all of a sudden bring this up? I've suggested reasonable assertions as to why they might have done the things that you say point it to being a fake. Why would Iran stage this? What tangible benefit do they get by spending resources showcasing a fake?


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By Obujuwami on 12/8/2011 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
Well, Iran is currently under attack from many countries diplomatically for its enriching of uranium and attempts to make itself a Nuclear power. I think showing this off is a way for them to get some kind of a chip with the US to back off of the proposed sanctions in the UN. That is the obvious power play, though I am sure there are others at hand here which we know nothing about.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By testerguy on 12/9/2011 2:27:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why would Iran stage this? What tangible benefit do they get by spending resources showcasing a fake?


Um, for exactly the same reasons that they would showcase this full stop.

Whether fake or not, Iran had a choice whether to showcase it or not. They chose to showcase it, which means THEY believe that there is a tangible benefit to the rest of the world believing that they have a US drone.

The same reasons apply equally whether it's real or fake.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 10:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What tangible benefit do they get by spending resources showcasing a fake?


First, ask anyone who does movie sets and props how much 'resources' it would take to create just what the video and stills show. Hardware store stuff.

Benefit? Uncertainty. A very cheap way of making the US sweat. No risk to them, they know we aren't going to risk real military resources to retrieve/destroy something we're not even sure they have...or get into a real war, if we were sure.

They may well have some props people who are having a good laugh right now...


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By drycrust3 on 12/8/2011 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
missing US insignia

If the Iranians were going to make a fake "US spy plane that we shot down" to show to the world, logically the first thing painted onto it would be United States Air Force insignia.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By testerguy on 12/9/2011 2:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the Iranians were going to make a fake "US spy plane that we shot down" to show to the world, logically the first thing painted onto it would be United States Air Force insignia.


This is not true at all. They may have intelligence which indicates that the insignia is not on the drone planes, intelligence which other countries may share, so to 'paint' one on would remove any credibility for their claim.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By WinstonSmith on 12/8/2011 5:16:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, it could be an Iranian test article for radar and/or IR cross section measurements:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/3942...

The landing gear they are very obviously trying to hide in their video and photos would not be modeled for such a test article and, as a result, couldn't be shown because the gear simply wouldn't be there.

And the color is all wrong unless a modified prototype was being operationally test flown in primer colors which I doubt. The wing attachment joint taping is also extremely sloppy although the positive dihedral (upward slope) of the wings could have been changed to the zero or negative dihedral of the vehicle shown if there was a flat spiral crash landing on its belly. That would flex and mess up the apparent tape at the wing attachments. In that case, the bottom of the craft might be being hidden to hide the crash damage and bolster the bologna story that the Iranians took control of the vehicle.

Anyway, I won't buy this as real until I see the turbine engine and internal electronics.


RE: This Could be a Mock Up
By niaaa on 12/9/2011 11:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
I thought I was the only to see that the wings are not straight..the symmetry of the whole thing is odd.

It looks like a model, kindof like the F35's that you can see accross the world.

The color seems weird indeed, I have no idea what the standard color for drones is, but even if the light brown makes a decent desert camo, in that logic the belly should be light blue.


I think...
By ThatNewGuy on 12/8/2011 2:30:33 PM , Rating: 3
We now have an excuse to lose some cruise missiles over Iran.




RE: I think...
By damonlynch on 12/9/2011 1:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, you mean like when your government killed all 290 civilian passengers aboard Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988?

Or maybe you mean the 1953 coup d'etat in which your government in partnership with the British government overthrew Iran's first democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced him with a murderous dictator?

"We live in a world of guided missiles and misguided men." - Dr. M. L. King


RE: I think...
By testerguy on 12/9/2011 2:37:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oh, you mean like when your government killed all 290 civilian passengers aboard Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988? Or maybe you mean the 1953 coup d'etat in which your government in partnership with the British government overthrew Iran's first democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced him with a murderous dictator? "We live in a world of guided missiles and misguided men." - Dr. M. L. King


What are you talking about? The Air Flight incident was settled in court - with compensation being paid to the families. It was a military mistake, there are thousands of examples of similar military mistakes in the form of friendly fire all over the world.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was not a murderous dictator either, so your final quote is ironically apt for yourself.


RE: I think...
By Skywalker123 on 12/9/2011 3:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
And why were our destroyers in Iranian territorial waters to start with?


RE: I think...
By Paj on 12/9/2011 8:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
Pahlavis lack of effectiveness directly contributed to the Revolution.


RE: I think...
By damonlynch on 12/9/2011 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Pahlavi not a murderous dictator? Trying telling that to the families of those tortured and murdered by SAVAK. Or perhaps in your eyes, the torture and murder of a dictator's political opponents is just something that happens from time to time. Perhaps you'd even go so far as to characterize torture and politically motivated murder and innocent mistakes, devoid of any kind of malevolent intentionality.


RE: I think...
By testerguy on 12/11/2011 7:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pahlavi not a murderous dictator? Trying telling that to the families of those tortured and murdered by SAVAK


SAVAK mainly acted as an intelligent agency, very much like every modern country has. Prisoners who were seen as a threat to the security of the country were sometimes tortured, and there are claims that murders were carried out on such people, again very much like what happens behind closed doors in almost every country - yet would you describe Obama as a murderous dictator? Your completely made up, self-comments such as:
quote:
Perhaps you'd even go so far as to characterize torture and politically motivated murder and innocent mistakes, devoid of any kind of malevolent intentionality.
are completely pointless. I could just as easily say 'perhaps you'd even go so far as to say that 1 + 1 is 4'. But that would be stupid, you see, because you didn't say anything of the sort. Learn from that.

Clearly martial law in general isn't an ideal situation and people can be killed, but there is a big difference between that and being a) a dictator (which I'll come to next) and b) murderous - given that every country in the world has governments with blood on their hands - the word would become meaningless.

Now, as for being a dictator, he gave women the right to vote, and he did hold regular elections - for which there were two parties. It's a far cry from modern understanding of 'dictator' - and indeed it is a far cry from the current regime. What's more, even if you do believe he was a dictator (and it's nothing more than that, opinion) - that doesn't necessarily mean that he was intended by the US and UK to behave in that way, or acted that way initially.

Pretty fast and loose with your words, aren't you.


Stupid Question?
By FDisk City on 12/8/2011 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't these have a self-destruct mechanism built in?

Something along the lines of it loses communication long enough during mid-flight it detonates. Or some type of remote self-destruct.




RE: Stupid Question?
By ie5x on 12/9/2011 2:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
Shshsh..... the timer is still counting down... It'll blow up at the right moment.


No backup?
By Movieman420 on 12/8/2011 3:32:27 PM , Rating: 3
So there is no fail-safe backup in place to destroy the data or detonate the plane even? Something that critical should have triple redundancy like maned military planes have. No excuse.




RE: No backup?
By ShieTar on 12/9/2011 5:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
If it had a self-destruct mechanism, you probably would have heard of that going off accidentally and killing some maintenance personel by now.

And let's be honest, the data is rather useless to the enemy. The recorded data just they know anyways (it's their country), there is no actual war at this time (so there are no short-term potential targets given away), and the control software is useless without the hardware.

Also, why worry either way? The iranian military budget doesn't have any room to finance something as sophisticated as a stealth-drone. Subtract the salaries from their budget and you are left with about 1 billion $. That is barely enough to maintain and operate the aircrafts that the US have sold them 40 years ago.


Ouch!
By bubbastrangelove on 12/8/2011 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 1
There's a couple four-star generals in the Pentagon is wishing they didn't wake up this morning. The people chewing their ass out are gonna make Gunnery Sergent Hartman look like Mary Poppins,




RE: Ouch!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/8/2011 1:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
"What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?"


RE: Ouch!
By ClownPuncher on 12/8/2011 2:51:42 PM , Rating: 1
Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o' shit, Private Pyle, or did you have to work on it?


Remarkably Good Condition
By DougF on 12/8/2011 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
For something that was "shot down"...




RE: Remarkably Good Condition
By bigdawg1988 on 12/8/2011 3:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the exact same thing! Unless they actually did hack into it and made it land.

But, when the heck did we start painting our airplanes BEIGE?!? I think it's a fake, the real one crashed and they put together a model version.


HIT by EMP
By SpaceJumper on 12/8/2011 9:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
This drone most likely got hit by a low altitude EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse). Not all electronics will be fried. The EMP causes the on-board computer to shutdown by the on board EMP detector. The black out time is enough to down this drone. The backup electronics glided the drone to the ground without much damage.
The Iranians should show the internal electronics of the drone to the world.




RE: HIT by EMP
By niaaa on 12/9/2011 11:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
yeah anti air EMP weapons are common nowadays...lmao


CNN says its likely a fake
By polishvendetta on 12/8/2011 2:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not one for believing everything the govenment says however CNN has an excerpt from a millitary official. They said they detected the crash, and located the crashsite with spy satalites noting the drone was damaged beyond repair. The pictures and video were likely of a mock up or model to be displayed in a parade or some other public setting, pointing to the red white and blue banners all over the pedistal and hanger it was in.

Also ive heard reports that the computer system and data collection system does have a self destruct ability when it looses comunication that erases all mission information. the iranian's have said that self destruct failed.

the ability to shoot down, cyber attack, have in position a working stealth drone, or any number of claims regarding this coming from a government who has had the inability to provide proof of shooting down other drones makes me very suspecious of all of this.

CNN Article
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/08/world/meast/iran-dro...




few thoughts
By UppityMatt on 12/8/2011 9:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
it would be nice to see a photo without all of the stuff blocking the bottom. I doubt Iran just happened to have a replica of our stealth drone waiting for an off chance we might loose control of one over there country. I really hope its not real but I just have this sinking feeling they actually got one intact and it won't be long till China has it....who says that China didn't bring it down also...part of me might be putting too much into it but there hacking attacks have increased beyond what anyone can say is good. I wish we would have just sent a small bomb to ensure it was destroyed and dealt with the aftermath.




WOW
By atlmann10 on 12/9/2011 12:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
To be a aeronautical vehicle that has crashed it seems very, very spotless to have ever even been up in the air, much less to have crashed in any way. We also do not seem to be hearing anything about it really other than the fact it happened. So do you think this was all put out there by Iran to gain some positive regards for it's government from the citizens, and also to turn them against the capitalist sinning american way of life. For one thing a military grade spy vehicle that can not be imploded or otherwise compromised.




Summer Wars
By ct760ster on 12/9/2011 12:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
If anyone who read this have watched this movie in the last scene the satellite crash landing was fooled by modified GPS data, I wonder if that was in this case also, so the drone have landed in enemy territory thinking it was its home base. ??




Hacked?
By knowfuture on 12/9/2011 12:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
So the Iranians have discovered our stealth technology. Let's wait till they breach the hull and discover the 10kton warhead we stealthily hid inside this trojan horse drone set to detonate at the very instant they look inside and they will have discovered our nuclear technology too! And we could blame it on a failed Iranian nuclear test. Ahh too bad our military strategists did not think of that before I did.




Intact?
By delphinus100 on 12/9/2011 9:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
No crash damage. No holes from ground-based weaponry or SAM impacts/explosions. No view of the underside of the sucker allowed.

Superglue works wonders, huh?

Compare it to the remains of the U-2 the Soviets took down in 1960:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/u2/u2...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w49jw2dV_xk/S5jygbRvauI/...

The Iranians brought down the drone with a tractor beam, right?

Maybe they really have something, maybe not. But that ain't it...




Hacked Drone
By simian pete on 12/13/2011 1:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be that hard to hack that drone. All the Iranians had to do was 1) Jam the remote pilots radio signals and 2) Send a substitute signal to the drone . That would require intercepting the radio signals and observing the behavior of the drone. Doesn't seem that hard, just time consuming ....

Anyhow, the USA needs to start developing advanced technology much more rapidly. Presently, it takes to long to develop a weapons system in the USA. Other countries (like Iran) are rapidly developing their technology.

Look how long it is taking to develop the F-35 !! In the future fighter aircraft will be developed in a matter of months, not decades. While the US will be flying 5th generation aircraft for the next 30 years, other countries will have 6th and 7th generation aircraft. The object of the game is rapid accelerated technological development -- using new methods and techniques !




Obama Did it
By Obama_Rules on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Obama Did it
By MechanicalTechie on 12/8/2011 6:06:12 PM , Rating: 1
Sometimes its better to just say nothing... than to confirm to everyone that your a moron.


RE: Obama Did it
By OCNewbie on 12/8/2011 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm... wondering if pointing out the irony is even necessary...


RE: Obama Did it
By Seven on 12/8/2011 11:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
The drones been in that area for how long? 3-4 years? Yeah, Iran knew it and eventually it had to happen. They brought it down. This is a precise piece of engineering and they probably knew the actual location, so why not send a F-22 to destroy the drone? Once again, big fail.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki