Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Claims To Have Shot Down US Drone ( RQ10 )  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4052 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 17033 times:

Iran claims to have shot down US drone ( RQ10 )

Iran's armed forces have shot down an unmanned US spy plane that violated its eastern borders, military sources say.

Iranian media reports said the drone - identified as a type RQ10 - suffered minimal damage and was now in the hands of the armed forces.

The military response to the airspace violation "will not be limited to Iran's borders any more", one unnamed source told Iran's al-Alam TV.


Read more here in English:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16024605

In Norwegian:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10032031

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 17060 times:

Damn, you beat me to it.

So anyone any idea what this new "RQ10" is then? :P


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2449 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 17044 times:

Behold, the "Parrot" conquers the skies!

http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/RQ-10_Parrot



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineB17GUNNER24 From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 17000 times:

@bthebest

You can buy a RQ10 for a few hundred pound and it has 2 cameras but of corse this is a civilian version called the parrot ar drone http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/uk/ which is basicly the same as the real thing but is more of a toy than a hardcore piece of survailence kit =)



The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 16956 times:

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Reply 3):
more of a toy than a hardcore piece of survailence kit

And I doubt the USAF uses it or it would survive being 'shot down' with minimal damage.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2196 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16650 times:

I call BS. They shot it down and it had "minimal damage"? How'd they pull that off? I'm thinking they managed to get some friends to get some wreckage of a drone (or blew one themselves) from somewhere and are playing this off, in the hopes of creating a distraction. Now that talk of an attack on Iran is heating up more and more, they must be getting nervous.

User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16319 times:

Reuters says it was an RQ-170. Much more likely.

User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16107 times:

German media speak about a RQ-170 and the US confirm the loss of a drone.


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16071 times:

Originally reported as RQ10, now as an RQ-170 Sentinel.

Apparently ISAF confirmed it had lost communication/control of the drone last week over Afghanistan. Some reports say that Iranian forces may have hacked the UAV.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15931 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 8):
Originally reported as RQ10, now as an RQ-170 Sentinel.

If true. Not good at all. The RQ-170 is a Dark Recon Drone. High altitude if I'm not mistaken.

Operator "Lost Control?" Uplink?, airframe/engine failure? If it was jammed the Russians were involved.

Only going to get tougher to fly these Drones without jamming.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1876 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder why the Iranians felt the need to publicise this. I understand the quest for propaganda....but personally I think that if I happened to down a drone from an adversary I would keep it quiet, no need to let them know you can down their drones.........

User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7744 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15395 times:

You assume that the USA did not know it was shot down.

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15323 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 9):
If true. Not good at all. The RQ-170 is a Dark Recon Drone. High altitude if I'm not mistaken.

Operator "Lost Control?" Uplink?, airframe/engine failure? If it was jammed the Russians were involved.

Only going to get tougher to fly these Drones without jamming.   

Medium altitude (wing aspect ratio not optimal for high altitude: think WB-57, U-2, RQ-4)

I'd be surprised if Russia was involved. Hizbulla (Iran's proxy in Lebanon) has been making news lately about using a similar technique with an Israeli drone, recovering one recently. If these storeis are true, there are also rumors that the drone was intentinally landed in Lebanon as a trojan horse, recovered by Hizbulla, brought back to base, and responsible or that huge arms depot explosion a few weeks back when it finally went "pop". Iran could maybe have been using a similar technique, or maybe they had nothing to do with the downing at all.

USAF had an RQ-9 that went out of contact and headed towards Iran a few years ago, but an F-15E shot it down. Earlier than that an MQ-1 in Iraq was headed uncontrolled towards the Iranian border but an F-16 downed it too.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15317 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 12):
USAF had an RQ-9 that went out of contact and headed towards Iran a few years ago, but an F-15E shot it down. Earlier than that an MQ-1 in Iraq was headed uncontrolled towards the Iranian border but an F-16 downed it too.

I thought these drones, especially the higher-tech ones, had self-destruct mechanisms on them? It would be dumb to put classified equipment in an unmanned vehicle and then send it over hostile territory with no way of ensuring some of the sensitive gear or even the majority of the airframe would be neutralized if contact is lost.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15198 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 13):
I thought these drones, especially the higher-tech ones, had self-destruct mechanisms on them?

Here's an interesting article. Claims operators can basically wipe all software and data remotely.
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviat...go-wild-air-force-shoots-them-down
Now, if contact is lost, how would you use self destruct? Seems dangerous to ground crews, though QF-4s do carry old AIM-9 warheads for this purpose.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15164 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14):
Now, if contact is lost, how would you use self destruct? Seems dangerous to ground crews, though QF-4s do carry old AIM-9 warheads for this purpose.

And the QF-16 was just tested with the same thing at Eglin AF.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15012 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 16):
And the QF-16 was just tested with the same thing at Eglin AF.

I know... I started the topic on here about it!

I wasn't counting it though since none are actually flying yet, just as there are no QF-86/100/102/106s flying now.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14):
Now, if contact is lost, how would you use self destruct?

My first guess would be the drone could have a certain amount of autonomy built-in. If it loses contact with its operator it could go into a "parking" mode (flying a predetermined pattern) waiting for contact to be reestablished. After a period of time (just a few minutes) it could autonomously wipe any recorded data and fry any sensitive electronics, and then self-destruct. If it loses contact with its operator AND becomes unstable in flight, or maintains contact but just becomes unstable and can't regain wings-level (indicative of taking hostile fire) then that scenario could also trigger self-destruct.

Having a self-destruct mechanism doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous for ground crews. As you pointed out, these drones can already carry armament, some of which have far more destructive power than would be needed to obliterate the drone.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 14948 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 18):
Having a self-destruct mechanism doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous for ground crews. As you pointed out, these drones can already carry armament, some of which have far more destructive power than would be needed to obliterate the drone.

That is very true, however all armament functions are "man-in-the-loop", whereas the self-destruct would be (basically) autonomous use of explosives. It may be perfectly reliable, it just makes me uneasy from a safety standpoint. AFAIK no US drone has a self-destruct function as of now.

The other functions are already used in drones (flying a set pattern) and we've even seen a loss due to a bad "fly home" command after lost contact: A drone in Congo supporting a UN mission tried to fly home, however the home base wasn't reset from the factory default, so it tried to make it back to Ireland IIRC.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14907 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 19):
That is very true, however all armament functions are "man-in-the-loop", whereas the self-destruct would be (basically) autonomous use of explosives.

There could be ways around that issue, such as having the self-destruct capability disarmed when the drone is below a certain altitude. That would indicate the craft is near to landing. It could be an automatic feature or one that is part of the pre-landing checklist procedures at the command center.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 19):
AFAIK no US drone has a self-destruct function as of now.

That being the case, all of this discussion we are having is moot (but nonetheless fun to speculate). I'm sure the geniuses who design, build, and deploy these machines already gave consideration to this issue and, for whatever reason, decided the cons outweigh the pros. Hopefully they considered the fact that these machines would come down in hostile territory on occasion, and have planned for that eventuality.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 19):
A drone in Congo supporting a UN mission tried to fly home, however the home base wasn't reset from the factory default, so it tried to make it back to Ireland IIRC.

That is rich.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 14716 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 20):
That is rich.

But apparently true!
http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/01/16/...to-make-it-home-from-africa-fails/



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29812 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14630 times:

I double we are hearing what really happened from either the Iranians or the US. In fact the Iranians have claimed to have shot down three other drones and not a single piece of wreakage has ever been shown on their TV. The Soviets made the most of their shootdown of Gary Powers and publicaly displayed the wreckage, so why not now.

But I will say that if this is because a weaknees in the datalink system for fllight controls it does make a serious arguement for maintaining a manned survelience aircraft.

I double we will see SR-71's being reclaimed from museums anytime soon though.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14422 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 16):
I know... I started the topic on here about it!

Doh! I remember the thread but forgot who started it.. sorry!  
Quoting L-188 (Reply 21):
I double we will see SR-71's being reclaimed from museums anytime soon though.

If there were an aviation Genie granting my wishes we would!

When you hit 't' for doubt is it hittng 'l' and 'e'? Two doubles sir!  



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here you go... the mad mullahs displaying the spoils... Iranian TV releases footage of the downed drone

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16098562


User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1251 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14026 times:

Impressive.
I do hope that they will share the spoils, so to say.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14393 times:

I guess that is a very impressive mock-up which they built in the mean time while showing pictures of the Dassault Neuron. Is it me or does that look like unpainted composite?

If this is supposed to be a high altitude UAV, I would suspect a grey colour...


User currently offlinewannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14392 times:

Given the shape it appears to be in, there is no way this was either shot down or landed "out of control". There doesn't seem to be a scratch on it. Either Iran (with possible help from the Russians or China) hacked into the controls and landed it themselves, or we did just deliver a Trojan Drone into their hands.

User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14846 times:

Haha. No way this thing is the real deal:

http://i1.nyt.com/images/2011/12/09/...dleeast/09iran/09iran-hpMedium.jpg

I think they consulted the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade people on that one!


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14814 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 25):

I guess that is a very impressive mock-up which they built in the mean time while showing pictures of the Dassault Neuron. Is it me or does that look like unpainted composite?

For a mockup they do show a lot of close-ups to the different panels and parts of the plane in some pictures. At this point, I'm starting to think its the real deal.

And the tarp underneath is probably to conceal all the damage the plane might have received.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14774 times:

Makes you wonder why "they" (Iran w/ Russian and Chinese help) aren't bringing down the rest of other UAV's currently flying in their airspace?   


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlineWingsFan From India, joined Oct 2009, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14754 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 28):
At this point, I'm starting to think its the real deal.

US officials are now confirming that this is true.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...s-downed-us-drone/?test=latestnews


I still can't fathom how Iranians managed to get it intact. It can't be a crash. If it was just a lost signal issue, the drone should have automatically (at least tried) returned to home base.

   


WingsFan

[Edited 2011-12-08 13:55:38]

User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14675 times:

Quoting WingsFan (Reply 30):
still can't fathom how Iranians managed to get it intact. It can't a crash. If it was just lost signal issue, the drone should have automatically (at least tried) returned to home base.

IMO, it was taken over via uplink, and most likely was carrying some type of unknown Bug that allowed it to be commandeered. I don't think the images are a Mock Up. It's paint fits the mission. Most likely grey on the bottom.

If it was brought down controlled it was the Russians. The Chinese are not involved. Russia and Iran are going to team up to counter China, and China knows it. If it were landed in Pakistan, I would say China. But they can't do it.

This was bound to happen. That is why we still have manned recon. It's just much more expensive, and too fast to shoot.

Time to move to the next level.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14600 times:

so, how long until iran sells it to china?

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 33, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14542 times:

Quoting WingsFan (Reply 30):

I still can't fathom how Iranians managed to get it intact. It can't be a crash. If it was just a lost signal issue, the drone should have automatically (at least tried) returned to home base.

That drone didn't crash, no way.

Quoting glideslope (Reply 31):

IMO, it was taken over via uplink, and most likely was carrying some type of unknown Bug that allowed it to be commandeered. I don't think the images are a Mock Up. It's paint fits the mission. Most likely grey on the bottom.

If it was brought down controlled it was the Russians. The Chinese are not involved. Russia and Iran are going to team up to counter China, and China knows it. If it were landed in Pakistan, I would say China. But they can't do it.

There really aren't that many ways that they could have brought the plane down in that condition. Shooting it down is the least likely possibility. A more likely scenario is that the virus that was infecting US Military drones last month wasn't just an accident. And, someone had to be helping the Iranians take control of the drone to make it land in a controlled fashion.

There's a good chance we got lazy and didn't think anyone could hack our drones. Just like the Germans didn't think their Enigma code could be deciphered in WW2.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinewannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14462 times:

What's scary is that, if they can actually hack the reconnaissance versions, what's to prevent them from hacking the armed versions and turning them against us. Or perhaps even worse, using them to fly over another country to attack their installations, and have us take the blame? This allows for a whole new level of mayhem.

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 35, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14468 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 25):
Is it me or does that look like unpainted composite?

Doesn't even look like composite. It's too shiny. I watched the video on CNN and the camera lights were shimmering off the thing. Flying out in sunlight or even moonlight would make that thing visibly glint, even at the altitude it normally flies at.

Quoting wannabe (Reply 26):
Given the shape it appears to be in, there is no way this was either shot down or landed "out of control".

  

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 33):
That drone didn't crash, no way.

  

CNN quoted someone saying if it was in a flat spin it would remain relatively intact. Well, that is true in the sense that you could tell it was an aircraft and know what part was what, but it would still be pretty banged up.

I'm calling B.S. on this. At least as it's reported. To me, what appears in the video is either a propaganda mock-up or, if it is the real McCoy, then it was landed intact. Hopefully, it's the former but if it's the latter then someone's head at DoD/CIA should roll, and then we can safely assume that Russia and/or China just got a technological coup and Iran got a handsome pay-off.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14454 times:

Quoting wannabe (Reply 34):
What's scary is that, if they can actually hack the reconnaissance versions, what's to prevent them from hacking the armed versions and turning them against us.

Revert to reply #29!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14329 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 29):
Makes you wonder why "they" (Iran w/ Russian and Chinese help) aren't bringing down the rest of other UAV's currently flying in their airspace?

Why would they tip their hand?

I think the real problem here is that IF it was hijacked that means that secure comms were penetrated.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14333 times:

I'm still doubtful this is an RQ-170.

*the size is too small. RQ-170 is reported to have a 26m wingspan. This thing in Iran has one 1/3 that size
*why hide the underside? Who cares if it is scuffed. Methinks the Iranians couldn't fabricate fake landing gear.
*the panel lines cited above, when inspected, look exceptionally crude. I have interns that could cut better with a muffler cutter.
*all "details" on the aircraft are publicly viewable on a multitude of photos, including the outboard speedbrakes.

My hypothesis: New fun body segment of bondo and styrofoam, hooked to a couple of IL-76 outboard wing segments.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14329 times:

LMAO! It's so funny reading the American deniers posts. Come on boys, our military got PWND, just like we PWND the Iranian centrifuges with the Subnext virus, thus blowing up the nuclear test lab. You win some, you lose some. Iran won this one, and the US needs to eat crow.

I'm sorry but if Mexico was flying drones over US airspace regularly, and/or they killed 24 American soldiers on US soil as the US did to Pakistan last week, the US would be mobilizing for war. Both the US's actions in Iran and Pakistan are tantamount to declarations of war. Drones are a great tool, but they do start to blur the line on acceptable uses of force.

Flying aircraft unauthorized over another country's airspace is reasonable provocation of war. The US would never fly their drones 150 miles into Chinese airspace, now would they? Why not?



[Edited 2011-12-08 17:41:24]

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14307 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 37):
Why would they tip their hand?

I think the real problem here is that IF it was hijacked that means that secure comms were penetrated.

Maybe I should have used a smile face?? Iran is full of shit! Plain and simple... They don't have the capability to keep their own A/C in the air reliably... Never mind take control of sophisticated UAV from the west.

The answer is almost always as simple as it appears. There was a equipment / software glitch that caused the lose. Any other Conspiracy theory is sad until proved otherwise... Just saying  

MoltenRock, your Hatred for all things USA is clearly noted. If you ever have anything nice to say? It might improve the dialog on this site...  yes 

[Edited 2011-12-08 17:55:39]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 39):
Flying aircraft unauthorized over another country's airspace is reasonable provocation of war. The US would never fly their drones 150 miles into Chinese airspace, now would they? Why not?

Sure we have. We also had Taiwan fly U-2s over mainland china.

The inlet screen for the engine (reported to be the TF-34 of the S-3/A-10- and still too small) puzzles me. From internet photos the landing gear doors are clearly straight lined rectangles- no effort was made to do the diamond/chevron/serrated edges for stealth. So why the intake screen when you'd still have the RCS of a barn door?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 14274 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 33):
There's a good chance we got lazy and didn't think anyone could hack our drones. Just like the Germans didn't think their Enigma code could be deciphered in WW2.

Not just lazy, but arrogant. IMO, probing has been going on for at least a year. Must be people on the inside.

The Enigma Deciphering is a very good analogy.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinedvautier From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 48 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14019 times:

This is what I can see happened. The drone was inside Iran doing recon. It was suddenly given an acceptable “land” command. It did not have time to react and was placed in “safe” mode first. It did not lose it’s tether or get jammed as suggested by so many other people because the automatic programming looks for this condition and then would immediately instruct the drone to go dark and return home and land - period. The drone doesn’t need any signal to do this stuff.

Somebody designed some cool software to:

1) Detect current security protocols in use with this specific drone.
2) Send a new set of instructions that mimicked the handler that did not appear to be exogenous.
3) Send an immediate “land” command.
4) Instruct it to go “dark”

If the drone was still “hot” when it landed (sending a signal) we could have bombed it in a matter of minutes and then “disavowed any knowledge”.

When those drones are jammed they know exactly what to do. I suspect that many drones have been jammed by Iran but they simply go dark and go home. This was one that didn’t get away.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13626 times:

Quoting tu204 (Reply 24):
I do hope that they will share the spoils, so to say.

And that's the problem. Iran is surely shopping this thing around and will allow Russia and China access - in return for billions in military hardware, most likely.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...s-downed-us-drone/?test=latestnews

Quote:
With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News.

Among the options the U.S. considered were sending in a special-ops team to retrieve the drone; sending in a team to blow up the aircraft; and launching an airstrike to destroy it.

That drone should have been targeted for destruction the moment contact was lost. It is inexcusable that it was allowed to remain intact.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1251 posts, RR: 17
Reply 45, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13628 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
And that's the problem. Iran is surely shopping this thing around and will allow Russia and China access - in return for billions in military hardware, most likely.

In my opinion, Iran does not have the technology to do what it did. I am sure it would have been the other way around actually.
More like: we ask Iran if we can send in a couple "civilians" with some technology, we bring the drone down, study it and let Iran brag about bringing it down for their propaganda machine.
Ofcourse if Iran brought it down themselves they could go on a shopping spree, but I think most of us on this forum realise than Iran has neither the technology nor the expertise to pull something like this off.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13222 times:

Quoting tu204 (Reply 45):
In my opinion, Iran does not have the technology to do what it did. I am sure it would have been the other way around actually.
More like: we ask Iran if we can send in a couple "civilians" with some technology, we bring the drone down, study it and let Iran brag about bringing it down for their propaganda machine.
Ofcourse if Iran brought it down themselves they could go on a shopping spree, but I think most of us on this forum realise than Iran has neither the technology nor the expertise to pull something like this off.

Agree completely. Your largest gain will be in the engine/propulsion arena. I doubt there is much in the drone you don't have on a Thumbdrive.

But little Turbofans you could gain from reversing. You're large Turbofans are, well, let's just say they are not an export item.

I'll bet the Heavily Modified GE TF-34 is already in the Motherland. This is the only item that concerns me.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13093 times:

Good post, but I was curious:

Quoting dvautier (Reply 43):
This is what I can see happened. The drone was inside Iran doing recon.

We all agree on that point, or they wouldn't have the drone  
Quoting dvautier (Reply 43):
It was suddenly given an acceptable “land” command.

Who would have sent that command? Would we ever do that to our own drone over a country we were performing covert surveillance on?

Quoting dvautier (Reply 43):
It did not have time to react and was placed in “safe” mode first.

I'm confused why the software would receive a land command then be parked in safe mode almost immediately where we couldn't communicate with the drone?

I'll pose the question to a friend of mine that works on more tactical drones and see what he says, but I'm not sure he'll even share a fraction of what he thought happened.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I find it hard to believe that the Iranians have a capability that our good neighbours to the West don't. All said and done, they're (the Pakis) pretty smart, so either they aren't somehow "permitted" to jam the American drones operating within their country, or like stated above, it's quid pro quo help from abroad that's helped the Iraninans bring it down in pretty much one piece.

User currently offlineairplaneaddict From United States of America, joined May 2010, 12 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12420 times:

In my opinion the drone provably had a communication hardware failure. This probably caused kept its current heading or went into a holding pattern and eventually ran out of fuel. I doubt the only thing technology that will be really usable is the smaller jet engines but then again you can buy hobby engines like jet cats with out any export control. I seriously doubt Iran had the ability to even track it let alone hack into it.

User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1928 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12395 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 38):
*the size is too small. RQ-170 is reported to have a 26m wingspan. This thing in Iran has one 1/3 that size

According to the Wikipedia page RQ-170.29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...ntinel#Specifications_.28RQ-170.29 the wingspan is 43 feet, or 13 meters.

During my last US roadtrip I think I've seen an RQ-170 live at Victorville, just before I was asked to leave by security staff. However, this one was grey, not this primer-colored plane, but it wasn't as big as your 26 meters.

I'm sceptical as well, but I think the Iranians have a real one in their possession. How they managed to do that is another story.

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12173 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 15):
And the QF-16 was just tested with the same thing at Eglin AF.

Well it was over a year ago...


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12181 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 31):

This was bound to happen. That is why we still have manned recon. It's just much more expensive, and too fast to shoot.

Do you actually know the cost to develop the software, communications and build the actual drone also operate it, I'm sure we are already in the realm where it is more expensive to bring to market and operate drones than to compensate families for the loss of a loved one, not to be morbid but they have limits on compensation while development programs spread across multiple companies in multiple states employing thousands and contributing to the general economy are very difficult to keep on budget and get penalties passed to prevent overruns.
Personally, I think its a continuation of the technocrats taking over when they believe that a satellite evesdropping on conversations from thousands of miles in space is much more effective that having spies on the ground, and no, I don't think that at the time it was because of concern for the lives of the spies, after all, the number of troops sent into battle since satellites started taking over is in the thousands.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12079 times:

A site containing a good analysis of the images available of the RQ-170, so far.

http://aviationintel.com/?p=4322

http://aviationintel.com/?p=4476


User currently offlinewannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11808 times:

Consider this scenario. The US, using newer than RQ10 technology, uncovers Iranian facilities manufacturing nuclear capable weapons. Now comes the question, what do you do about it? If you bomb it, you run into two issues. The first is both the Iranian and international furor over this action. The second issue is how do you validate that you have information without giving up your sources? So you do this.

You produce a one-off RQ10 which has none of the specialized stealth technology, and also contains backdated camera, electronics and radio technology. It looks like an RQ10, but the likeness is less than skin deep. But it also has one well hidden option. Inside the backdated guts are well hidden location transmitters. You then fly this bird over Iranian airspace and allow it to land softly after taking enemy fire. Let them think they shot this down. There is no way the Iranians don't immediately boast about this. They parade it all over the press. You show very little response to this, and let the furor die down. And then, in a few days /week / months, you execute the attack and produce the information you say you got from the drone you shot down to justify it. What you don't say is that you really got the information from a unit more advanced that the RQ10 which no one knows about. And when you hit the nuclear site, you also hit the research site where the fake drown was taken to, based upon the information you received from the hidden locators...or you at least use the your secret surveillance capacity to keep an eye on it.

Just a thought.


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11783 times:

Quoting wannabe (Reply 54):
Consider this scenario.

None of the scenarios I've heard so far made much sense to me, but I like your version the best.   And if that's not how it went down, maybe it should have been.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11684 times:

wow something else made by lockheed martin that is defective what a superise.

User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7744 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11642 times:

Another option is that you let them have an RQ10, but strip all the best stuff, then Iran, russia and China all think that the RQ10 is not much good.

Alternatively, it could be that the computer was defective, (it does happen).


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11645 times:

Quoting wannabe (Reply 54):

LMAO! That would make a great movie plot! However, in the real world Occum's Razor applies. Far less glamourous I know.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3423 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11603 times:

Quoting wannabe (Reply 54):
Consider this scenario. The US, using newer than RQ10 technology, uncovers Iranian facilities manufacturing nuclear capable weapons. Now comes the question, what do you do about it? If you bomb it, you run into two issues. The first is both the Iranian and international furor over this action. The second issue is how do you validate that you have information without giving up your sources? So you do this.

more likely is someone's buddy got the no-bid contract and they made this thing in thier garage..... And thats why it looks so crude, someone was getting paid millions to bubba up some fiberglass around a jet engine.

certainly seems far more likely in todays procurment enviroment than someone made up a convoluted but still sane plan out of todays intelligence organizations.


User currently offlinekatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this, yet:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-10/u...omputer-virus-drones-uavs?_s=PM:US

It cyber warfare it doesn't take billions of dollars and thousands of people to be very effective. A small group of highly sophisticated computer "wizards" can have a huge impact.

This is pure speculation, but what if the Iranians somehow managed to plant a key logging "virus" and used this information to gather information about drone control procedures. They also can receive the encrypted commands that are being sent from satellites to analyze encryption methods. They don't need to have the entire protocol, but they may have the general idea, and used a trial-and-error approach until they finally got lucky. I bet that America has given them ample opportunities to test this approach again and again, with several daily overflights. It might have been the 1000th attempt, and finally they got it "right enough" to command the drone to perform an immediate landing.

In 1960 the U2 was supposed to be "untouchable" - until the Soviets shot it down.

I bet that the US military knows pretty well what has happened. The best indication will be to watch future drone operations. If the US keeps flying the drones, then it was a 1-in-a-billion malfunction (equipment failure) and the technology has not been compromised. But if the US suspends or scales down the drone flights then the Iranians scored a big one.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 61, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11225 times:

Obama calls on Iran to give back downed US drone - Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama said that the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back. "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said during a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-ir...ack-downed-us-drone-180734188.html

He is asking the country that the drone was spying on to give it back?

 Wow!

"Can we please have our toy airplane back? We promise not to fly it into your backyard again!"

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 62, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11133 times:

Quoting katekebo (Reply 60):
what if the Iranians somehow managed to plant a key logging "virus" and used this information to gather information about drone control procedures. They also can receive the encrypted commands that are being sent from satellites to analyze encryption methods.

The Iranians would not have done it, but the Chinese certainly could have. But regardless of who did it, there would be far more value in keeping the catch under wraps and letting the U.S. think it was obliterated in a crash in the desert than parading it about for all the world to see. Doing so will only ensure the U.S. changes its procedures and develops safeguards so that it doesn't happen again. It would be akin to the U.S. having told the world that it had broken the Japanese code before the start of WW2. It would have been a great propaganda headline, but in the end it would only have proved detrimental.

I'm still saying the craft in the photos was a fake. Not saying the U.S. didn't lose spy plane, just that the one the Iranians are showing off ain't it.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 11101 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 62):
there would be far more value in keeping the catch under wraps and letting the U.S. think it was obliterated in a crash in the desert than parading it about for all the world to see.

From one of the linked articles above:

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News.

So, if the article is to be believed the US knew the drone was on the ground in Iran and likely in one piece.

It was mentioned above that when a drone loses contact with the ground it goes into a safe mode. I mentioned this to a friend of mine who flies drones. One contact is lost the UAV would enter its autonomous lost-link procedure:
1) Loiter
2) Eventually land in a predetermined area

We lost a Predator in 2005 on the US border with Mexico. When command switched from one pilot to another they inadvertently cut fuel to the engines. The pilot at the time thought it had entered that lost link mode. So, I'm open to another possibility, that anything from a concurrent system failure to a loss of communication to a problem with the lost link system may have caused it to go down.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 64, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 11086 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 63):
the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone.

If that drone is the real deal, it does not appear to be the latest generation drone. It has a "fence" covering the intake a la F-117. I would guess there are other aspects of it that also are not latest gen, so it certainly wouldn't appear to be worth going to war over.

Also, I'm still waiting to read somewhere (here or in the media) why the surface coating on the device is not the standard issue LO color and instead reflects light like a whore-house mirror.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 65, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10730 times:

Are the poor US government not getting their way? Cry me a freaking river. The US was spying, end of discussion. Their spy plane went down, I say finders keepers. I would not give it back either, at least not intact.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 66, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10588 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 65):
Are the poor US government not getting their way? Cry me a freaking river. The US was spying, end of discussion. Their spy plane went down, I say finders keepers. I would not give it back either, at least not intact.

I think it's just a formality to lay claim to the equipment, especially in the event it or any part of it ends up outside of Iran. If it is the real drone, I don't think anyone expects Iran to roll over and give it back.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinedvautier From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 48 posts, RR: 3
Reply 67, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10225 times:

They’ve probably got the real drone hidden somewhere safe. They did have time to make a rough replica and paint it weird like that. I don’t believe there is any way they would show the real thing. But they do have our drone and it’s intact and all the software is there because it was able to land using it’s own software.

User currently offlinewannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 68, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 65):
Are the poor US government not getting their way? Cry me a freaking river. The US was spying, end of discussion. Their spy plane went down, I say finders keepers. I would not give it back either, at least not intact.

No problem Madame C. We will stop asking. And when the nukes start arriving in your neighborhood via Iranian airmail, you can depend on those Patriot missiles that the country of San Marino is so famous for developing and manufacturing to knock them out of the sky before they arrive. Give me a break. Given those who are currently in control in Iran, EVERYONE should be spying on them.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 69, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10191 times:

According to the news organizations the RQ-170 was designed to do several things if communications was lost by its controllers.

1. Self destruct!

2. Return to its launch site!

3. Land automatically!

Number 1. and 2. can be ruled out but 3. is a definite possibility.

Because the Iranian's have that curtain blocking off any view of the lower surface, it seem likely that the RQ-170 landed automatically, but the land area was not a prepared surface and the landing gear and lower surface have been extensively damaged.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10060 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 55):
None of the scenarios I've heard so far made much sense to me, but I like your version the best. And if that's not how it went down, maybe it should have been.
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 57):
Alternatively, it could be that the computer was defective, (it does happen).

Additionally, has anyone thought to call Uncle Bill, not Clinton, the other one, it could very well have been the BSD which we windows users encounter on a not too infrequent basis  

Now we are hearing new speculation that what is being shown is a fake or mock up. Think we need additional time and sources.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10032 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 70):
windows users

Those things are not running XP or 7. Not even XP embedded. And I doubt even Windows CE, which is the real-time OS version of Windows. I bet they're running a custom brew of QNX or similar.

Quoting katekebo (Reply 60):
They also can receive the encrypted commands that are being sent from satellites to analyze encryption methods.

Nearly impossible - known ciphertext doesn't give you much in breaking encryption  . Even known plaintext is damn near impossible - and I'll bet they're using AES-128 or better for encryption.

Quoting katekebo (Reply 60):
They don't need to have the entire protocol, but they may have the general idea, and used a trial-and-error approach until they finally got lucky.

Sorry, no dice again.

--

A couple of guys did some research a while ago (last year, if I remember correctly) where some side-channel attacks on AES might be possible. This required a compromised host in order to make this work, and can possibly give near real-time decryption for AES-128. Seeing as it is known that the drones (or their control systems on the ground) may have viruses, this might be a possibility: if those control systems sending the encrypted communications are compromised, real-time decryption of commands might be possible. That doesn't, however, necessarily mean a command can be issued to the drone, unless it is truly real-time and then a replay attack can be done on the drone, although with altered commands such as "land" instead of "loiter" or "turn left", etc. Analyzing commands over a long period of time with the above-mentioned decryption capability would probably give you the ability to analyze, on the packet level, the commands issued to land and maneuver.

Is that something Iran could do? I doubt it.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 72, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10035 times:

Quoting wannabe (Reply 68):
when the nukes start arriving in your neighborhood via Iranian airmail

You must be watching too much TV.

It might still be several years until such a thing can happen.. if ever.

In the mean time it could be other nukes from those countries who have them: Israel, the US of A, Pakistan, India, Russia or China. I doubt France or the UK would detonate nuclear devices on their own people.

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinedvautier From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 48 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9716 times:

Drones like this can fly all by themselves and have redundant means of navigation. If something unexpected happens such as an attempt to take over control the drown goes dark and flies back home. It does not depend on gps or even the special military gps. It can use topography to get home and that is the main way it works since topography can’t be easily fooled.

I find it incredible that the Iranians got this bird. The number one defensive goal of our military was to protect our investment so we use the best technique which is topography, not gps. We are so good at designing these things. How did they get it? That is the big question. It was not by jamming gps or breaking the tether or fooling the bird. It was some other way.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 74, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9524 times:

Quoting dvautier (Reply 73):
I find it incredible that the Iranians got this bird.

Iranians are not as stupid as some think they are.
Here's the newest story. First comes US spy drones next comes US spy satellites.

Report: Iran 'blinded' CIA spy satellite

European intelligence source claims Iran stuns West by 'aiming a laser burst quite accurately' at US satellite in never before reported incident. US official: If Russians provided Iran with sophisticated jamming equipment it means a lot else is at risk too

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162770,00.html

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9488 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 65):
Are the poor US government not getting their way? Cry me a freaking river. The US was spying, end of discussion. Their spy plane went down, I say finders keepers. I would not give it back either, at least not intact.

Spying is not necessarily a bad thing. As both the US & the Soviet Union discovered during the cold war, it is a good & ultimately peaceful endeavour to know what the other guys strategic intentions are.

The US spying on Irans nuclear facilities is a good way for Iran to prove its intentions are peaceful. Disrupting a surveillance drone, on the other hand, is an excellent way to telegraph ones hostile intentions.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 69):
2. Return to its launch site!

3. Land automatically!

One of the possibilities I've read about recently indicated that iran may simply have jammed the communications link , putting the drone in lost comms mode, then spoofed the GPS to make the drone think it was returning to base when it was actually landing in Iran. A decidedly low tech approach.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9478 times:

Quoting dvautier (Reply 73):
It can use topography to get home and that is the main way it works since topography can’t be easily fooled.

Using topography to navigate would require the drone to emit, not a good thing stealth wise. It could navigate optically tracking either stars or topography I suppose, not exactly an all weather, or day and night solution.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 77, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 9149 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 69):
Because the Iranian's have that curtain blocking off any view of the lower surface, it seem likely that the RQ-170 landed automatically, but the land area was not a prepared surface and the landing gear and lower surface have been extensively damaged.

I think the reason they have the lower surface blocked off is because that is where all the sensors are located. I don't think they could show it unless the bird was the real McCoy. And if it was, and they did show the underside, or at least leave it exposed, then it would provide definitive proof to the U.S. as to how the drone came down, and whether or not the Iranians' claims that they brought it down intact were valid or not. Given that I think the drone in the photos is fake, it's all the more reason for the Iranians to cover it off...they can't replicate the sensors or other equipment, in particular the landing gear set-up, on the fake article.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7744 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 9087 times:

Why would they need to replicate it?.

The USA knows what the underside looks like, but no one else does. Or at least no one is going to say what it looks like.

My understanding to date is that the US Government acknowledge that they have lost a drone.

Whilst there was some doubt about size and materials, it seems probable that this is the real deal.

Clearly the USAF/CIA will know more than anyone will say here.

If this is the real thing, then some rapid re design of the controls are going to be needed. In the meantime, it might be best to pull the UAV's back and use satellites.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 79, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 9002 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 78):
Why would they need to replicate it?.

Because a drone definitely went down in Iran, and most likely was obliterated when it did. However, it would appear the U.S. doesn't know how or why (at least not initially) and the Iranians are able in the meantime to turn the downed drone into a propaganda event. Don't forget: this isn't the first time the U.S. lost one over Iran, and in the past the Iranians didn't show anything for it even though they claimed that had brought it down. Being that this might be a more sophisticated copy they are more inclined to milk it for all they can, while they can.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7744 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8972 times:

Regardless of what image of the underside is shown, 99% of the world will not KNOW if it is the real thing.

The only people who will know are the US Government, and they will be very coy. Anything they DO say will be scrutanised for clues.

If they say "It's a fake" and Iran says "it's genuine" and little more, in the end it comes down to who do you believe.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 81, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8823 times:

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Reply 3):
You can buy a RQ10 for a few hundred pound and it has 2 cameras but of corse this is a civilian version called the parrot ar drone http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/uk/ which is basicly the same as the real thing but is more of a toy than a hardcore piece of survailence kit =)

I was listening to a program on the radio earlier about drones.

It was amazing to me none of the experts would talk about the 'asymetric warfare' aspect of drones.

Meaning a terrorist and/or rogue nation creates dozens of dead-nuts simple drones with enough payload to carry high explosives or a dirty bomb and flys them into sensitive targets.

We have a guy on trial here in the Boston area for trying to do such a thing, and unfortunately I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Or step up to a general aviation aircraft flying low and slow on a one-way mission.

Bad actor comes into the country with necessary command/control equipment, rents or steals a GA aircraft, installs the gear, fires and forgets. The necessary gear could be developed in countless parts of this world of ours. We're talking about a GPS, a few actuators, a single board computer and a few bits of software. Could easily be developed using simulators, then a few test flights with a human there to monitor the systems and override when necessary. It's look no different than anyone else doing a few touch-and-goes and a bit of XC.

The military has done similar things with target drones for decades now, and current technology makes it easier today then it was in the past.

The show did talk about how law enforcement is all hot and bothered to get drone technology.

IMHO we're in the very early days of this stuff. I can only imagine what will be possible in 5/10/20 years time. The genie is out of the bottle.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 33):
There's a good chance we got lazy and didn't think anyone could hack our drones.

I wouldn't say a good chance, but there already was the case with the earlier drones sending unencrypted video that would tell the opposition a lot about what the drones were up to, so it isn't out of the question.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 40):
They don't have the capability to keep their own A/C in the air reliably... Never mind take control of sophisticated UAV from the west.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 40):
The answer is almost always as simple as it appears. There was a equipment / software glitch that caused the lose. Any other Conspiracy theory is sad until proved otherwise...

My bet is on espionage.

All it takes is one weak link some where along the chain from design, development, manufacturing, testing, and/or field ops, and the software and/or documentation is in the hands of the bad actors, and once they have that, IMHO they are certain to find vulnerabilities.

Think about how Ames, Walker, and the guy at Los Alamos, etc, and how long they got away with it.

Think about how many we probably will never know about.

Just one weak link.

One Bradley Manning.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 45):
In my opinion, Iran does not have the technology to do what it did. I am sure it would have been the other way around actually.

One thing Iran has is the motivation, and another is plenty of cash. If it took cooperation from other nations, or espionage, or use of criminal organizations, I'm sure they would have zero qualms about doing it.

Also they have had plenty of time to gather and analyze SIGINT since these things have been flying around for quite a while now.

IMHO Iran has the necessary motivation and the necessary ingredients to pull this off. Add to that a bit of "luck" and/or bad procedures on the USAF side, and voila.

Quoting katekebo (Reply 60):
This is pure speculation, but what if the Iranians somehow managed to plant a key logging "virus" and used this information to gather information about drone control procedures. They also can receive the encrypted commands that are being sent from satellites to analyze encryption methods. They don't need to have the entire protocol, but they may have the general idea, and used a trial-and-error approach until they finally got lucky.

I wonder if the US had SIGINT assets in use that could have captured any emissions made from Iran. I guess we'll never know.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 72):

You must be watching too much TV.

It might still be several years until such a thing can happen.. if ever.

See above.

A basic drone with a dirty bomb (think nuclear waste, biological warfare, etc) is possible today with off-the-shelf parts.

And you thought people with mobile phones to their ears pissed you off!

[Edited 2011-12-20 10:50:48]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8696 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8756 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
Meaning a terrorist and/or rogue nation creates dozens of dead-nuts simple drones with enough payload to carry high explosives or a dirty bomb and flys them into sensitive targets.

Agreed. Drone strategy gets deep quickly. If we invent this, we should prepare to defend a lot of things against a lot of hostile drones. Right now Americans sleep well because no drones are in our skies. Our drone operators stay with family in comfort. A future parity is a much more hellish existence for our enemies but also for ourselves. If we have no soldiers, then really civilianhood is meaningless as well.


User currently offlineAsianDude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8709 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 75):
Spying is not necessarily a bad thing. As both the US & the Soviet Union discovered during the cold war, it is a good & ultimately peaceful endeavour to know what the other guys strategic intentions are.

The US spying on Irans nuclear facilities is a good way for Iran to prove its intentions are peaceful. Disrupting a surveillance drone, on the other hand, is an excellent way to telegraph ones hostile intentions.

I'm assuming then you would find the same to be true if all of a sudden Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or Pakistani drones were found flying over US airspace outside of Skunkworks, Area 51, Los Alamos, Langley, Quantico, Pentagon, White House, et al... correct? After all, if the USA is only planning missions of "peace" then the US has nothing to hide from spying drone eyes of China, Iran, N. Korea, and/or Pakistan, no?


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 83):
I'm assuming then you would find the same to be true if all of a sudden Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or Pakistani drones were found flying over US airspace outside of Skunkworks, Area 51, Los Alamos, Langley, Quantico, Pentagon, White House, et al... correct? After all, if the USA is only planning missions of "peace" then the US has nothing to hide from spying drone eyes of China, Iran, N. Korea, and/or Pakistan, no?

Since none of those countries has the capability to launch such a drone operation, except perhaps China, let's make it simple. These countries could become signatories to the Open Skies treaty. They'd have access to all the data already collected in the US by Russians, former Soviet countries and the other signatories.. they'd only need to provide a suitably modified aircraft & voila, they're in business...

Of course they'd also need to open their airspace to other countries recon aircraft which I suspect would dampen their enthusiasm a bit....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 85, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8653 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
One thing Iran has is the motivation, and another is plenty of cash.

The first part of that statement is true. Doubtful the second part is. (Don't assume an oil exporter has lots of cash lying around when they have a burgeoning population and need to import everything else, including refined petroleum products such as gasoline.)

But to the other comments in your post, if the Iranians did bring the drone down then someone in DoD and/or CIA needs to be taken to the woodshed out back.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 86, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8479 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 85):
The first part of that statement is true. Doubtful the second part is.

If they have the cash for breeder reactors, countless cyclotrons, the deep underground bunkers to house them, etc, I think they have the cash needed to obtain what they need.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAsianDude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 84):
Since none of those countries has the capability to launch such a drone operation, except perhaps China, let's make it simple. These countries could become signatories to the Open Skies treaty. They'd have access to all the data already collected in the US by Russians, former Soviet countries and the other signatories.. they'd only need to provide a suitably modified aircraft & voila, they're in business...

Of course they'd also need to open their airspace to other countries recon aircraft which I suspect would dampen their enthusiasm a bit....

WTH are you going on about? The USA doesn't have "open skies" with anyone regarding recon aircraft. Quite the opposite in fact. If a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean "recon aircraft" flew into US airspace it would be shot down immediately, and in fact would be considered by the American people as an act of war, as that is exactly what it is.... an act of war. "Open skies" doesn't mean any aircraft other than preapproved passenger airliners (essentially Boeing and Airbus airframes) can fly into, over, or near to US airspace. And even then, any aircraft flying over the USA or near it, the USA government and its TSA cronies demand passenger lists, along with other information regardless of any privacy laws in those airlines countries.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 88, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
If they have the cash for breeder reactors, countless cyclotrons, the deep underground bunkers to house them, etc, I think they have the cash needed to obtain what they need.

Then it's not necessarily the cash that they have, which is probably limited, but the will to use it for things that don't benefit their citizens (a la N. Korea). I stand corrected since if there's a will, there's a way.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 87):
The USA doesn't have "open skies" with anyone regarding recon aircraft.

Hate to break it to ya, but USA does have such a treaty. No need for drones to do recon on the US....
Actually proposed way back in the 50s by the Eisenhower administration... Russia said no... Russian & US satellites took over and, in effect, "Open Skies" went into effect for those two countries though it wasn't formalized until 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/openski1.html


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rick Ingham


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Denis Urban


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Augustas Didzgalvis


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Callaghan


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stanislav Bazhenov


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vladimir Galkin



[Edited 2011-12-23 16:52:09]

... US Air Force refuels and services the lavs on a Russian aircraft doing recon in the US...
http://www.mcconnell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123270668

... Our Russian friends have a new aircraft to do recon over the US and other countries...
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111214/170244446.html


[Edited 2011-12-23 17:06:05]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAsianDude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7880 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 89):
Hate to break it to ya, but USA does have such a treaty. No need for drones to do recon on the US....

Dude, stop trying to dig yourself into an ever bigger hole! The USA does not, will not, and has not, allowed military recon flights from overflying its airspace be they from Iran, the UK, China, or anyone else. If an Iranian/North Korean/Mexican drone crashed in downtown Manhattan, you can bet the USA would be declaring war on Iran/North Korea/Mexico, and you know it! Civil aviation vs. military aviation overflying a country are two, wholly, different animals and you know it.

Here's the thing, my friend. American citizens will soon be faced with some new challenges, whereas drones from 2nd world / 3rd world countries are overflying their airspace, and/or crashing into their land holdings, and thus creating political fallout.

There are a huge number of drone builders now coming online, including very sophisticated builders from Canada, China, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, et al....

[Edited 2011-12-25 00:03:07]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 90):
The USA does not, will not, and has not, allowed military recon flights from overflying its airspace be they from Iran, the UK, China, or anyone else.

Wrong. Treaty on Open Skies allows for unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. These flights are for mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. If the Russians want to overfly Area 51 and take pictures with their Open Skies aircraft, they are allowed to.


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 90):
The USA does not, will not, and has not, allowed military recon flights from overflying its airspace be they from Iran, the UK, China, or anyone else.

I guess all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't matter...

Russian (and other former Soviet block countries) military recon aircraft have been over flying the US, UK, and NATO countries for some years now. In turn US military recon aircraft have been overflying the former Soviet block countries. If Iran, or anyone else, wants to be a signatory to the treaty they could easily do so and at far less cost than developing a drone that could overfly the US. Hell - if I read the treaty correctly they could even request that the US provide the aircraft for the flight.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAsianDude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (2 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 92):
I guess all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't matter...

Give me a break! You're trying to claim that Iran needs to only sign the "open skies treaty" and they could readily and openly overfly US airspace which an utter lie. Firstly, this treaty is only between NATO and (current/former) Warsaw Pact countries. China, North Korea, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Iran, India, Australia, New Zealand, and over 100 other countries do not belong to this cold-war relic. Claiming it to be anything but is fraudulent at best, and downright dishonest!

This treaty allows only other fellow members to overfly their territory, using only pre-approved aircraft, using only pre-approved sensor equipment, on only pre-approved dates, times, and flight patterns. "Open skies" is a joke term in this case even amongst those who are members. As your own link states, Russia only overflew the USA in 2005 (a normal year) using 2 flights.

My point stands! There is no way on god's green Earth the USA is going to allow any international power be they China, North Korea, Iran, or other to freely overfly the USA. The USA's drone program which is a fact of life nearly daily, overflying Iran and Pakistan is an act of war! Piss and moan all you want about the appropriateness of said flights, but wear the other shoe for one minute when arguing that the USA has a right to fly drones (not even approved under that farce "Open Skies Treaty"), planes, and military excursion teams into sovereign countries. This is not different than the supposedly "covert" war the US carried on in Laos during the Vietnam War. Hey, if the American people want to ignore acts of war against other countries, fine they can be sheep.

[Edited 2011-12-26 17:02:51]

User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (2 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 7502 times:

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 93):
As your own link states, Russia only overflew the USA
Quoting AsianDude (Reply 93):
There is no way on god's green Earth the USA is going to allow any international power be they China, North Korea, Iran, or other to freely overfly the USA

So which is it?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Conitnuing with the above arguments...

Plainly, there's a world of a difference between overflights under Open Skies treaties and what the US does in Iran.

But IMO the latter is completely necessary. There are hostile countries and regimes with opaque programs, of which the civilised world needs to know more of. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Not "fair", not "legal", I agree, but required in the greater good.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

Quoting india1 (Reply 95):
But IMO the latter is completely necessary. There are hostile countries and regimes with opaque programs, of which the civilised world needs to know more of. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Not "fair", not "legal", I agree, but required in the greater good.

  

My point in regard to Open Skies is that Iran could simply open it's peaceful nuclear program to inspection and allay all mistrust in that regard.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6951 posts, RR: 76
Reply 97, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7029 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 31):
If it was brought down controlled it was the Russians.

Why not the chinese?

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 33):
A more likely scenario is that the virus that was infecting US Military drones last month wasn't just an accident. And, someone had to be helping the Iranians take control of the drone to make it land in a controlled fashion.

Looking at some details of the pictures at http://aviationintel.com/?p=4322 does not make it likely that it was a "controlled landing", but "controlled fashion" is probably the word to use. Comms/Conts failure induced Flatspin or hacked into is possible... but it's quite a remote chance.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 75):
One of the possibilities I've read about recently indicated that iran may simply have jammed the communications link , putting the drone in lost comms mode, then spoofed the GPS to make the drone think it was returning to base when it was actually landing in Iran. A decidedly low tech approach.

The GPS can be jammed or killed using quite simple methods, spoofing it however, is extremely difficult. Besides, when the aircraft loses GPS, it just goes to inertial-based navigation.

These drones possibly have a few channels of communication... L, C, Ku bands... and then VHF datalink... although by the looks of it, L band is used for beyond the horizon comms (no Ku-band stuff by the looks of it).

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 71):
This required a compromised host in order to make this work, and can possibly give near real-time decryption for AES-128.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 71):
Analyzing commands over a long period of time with the above-mentioned decryption capability would probably give you the ability to analyze, on the packet level, the commands issued to land and maneuver.

Is that something Iran could do? I doubt it.

AES-128 decryption & packet level analysis? Oh I wouldn't be surprised at all if they can...

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 90):
Dude, stop trying to dig yourself into an ever bigger hole!

Mirror mirror on the wall.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 97):
AES-128 decryption & packet level analysis? Oh I wouldn't be surprised at all if they can...

I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. gov't and select others could, but sign me up on the "surprised" list if Iran is able to. The packet level analysis is simple (although protections could be put in place to prevent simple replay attacks), but real-time AES-128 decryption is quite a feat.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Iran Claims To Have Shot Down US Drone ( RQ10 )
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran Shoots Down US UAV Over Nuclear Plan posted Wed Jul 20 2011 11:59:39 by bjornstrom
US Copter Shot Down 3/21 posted Sun Mar 21 2004 22:39:19 by Spacepope
Nato Helicopter Shot Down In Afganistan posted Sat Aug 6 2011 05:20:23 by oykie
Aircrew Shot Down In Libya, Legal Status posted Mon Jun 6 2011 10:27:39 by Bennett123
Canadians May Have Found Sunken US Wwii Plane posted Fri Aug 7 2009 07:33:34 by Fanofjets
F-4d Pilot Meets Mig Pilot He Shot Down. posted Sun May 10 2009 14:09:45 by Venus6971
Usaf Shoot Down Iranian Drone Aircraft Over Iraq posted Thu Mar 12 2009 18:38:01 by StasisLAX
Russia "shoots Down Georgian Drone" (video) posted Mon Apr 21 2008 12:57:12 by Kukkudrill
Question About F-18 Shot Down In Iraq posted Mon Jan 22 2007 02:28:39 by ZBBYLW
Where's Nasa Planning To Bring Orion Down? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 02:01:14 by RC135U

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format