https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-dro ... 42411.html

American drone lost in Black Sea found near main Russian base in Crimea

william wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-drone-lost-black-sea-133142411.html

American drone lost in Black Sea found near main Russian base in Crimea

Should have said geolocated. "Found" made me think the Russian got their hands on it already.

And damn. If I was the Russian, I'd be frustrated too if the drone was feeding data to the Ukrainian.

bt

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Looks like we'd have to ask the Turk's, Bulgarians or Romanians to recover it? Would the Dutch firm SMIT Salvage risk it?

Would the Russian's interfere?

Send SMIT, and have a Dutch “Zeven Provincien”-class frigate tag along. It will make mince meat of anything Russia can throw at it. In multiple international exercises it has proven to be among the best in aerial defence including shooting down ballistic missiles.

But Russia won’t risk provoking NATO by attacking a NATO warship.

william wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-drone-lost-black-sea-133142411.html

American drone lost in Black Sea found near main Russian base in Crimea

That article's title is horrendous, but I see it comes from Ukraine so they probably don't have a good idea of how much Sevastopol is known internationally, putting "near main Russian base" instead. Still, it wasn't found, a youtuber deduced its airborne position when it was hit from the video. It is probably many miles away from there...

Aesma wrote:

"Borders of the special operation area" aka not borders.

ReverseFlow wrote:

And now the pilots are getting state awards for:

“preventing the violation of the borders of the special operation area by the American MQ-9 Reaper drone”.

(currently on the Guardian news ticker)

My question is, the US developed these drones for intelligence gathering, have to assume that the intention was that it was less risky to humans to deploy them in high risk area's of the world versus manned a/c, so who is the genius that decided that they did not need a self-destruct capability to protect the technology? I can see those that have satellite capability doing data dumps to avoid keeping much if any data onboard, but there is sufficient high tech onboard to warrant a self-destruct capability.
Based on what we are hearing, they deliberately crashed the drone, so unless it can hit some massive terminal dive speed, there should be sufficient material available to Russia to possibly advance their drone tech by a few leaps.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Aesma wrote:

"Borders of the special operation area" aka not borders.

ReverseFlow wrote:

And now the pilots are getting state awards for:

“preventing the violation of the borders of the special operation area by the American MQ-9 Reaper drone”.

(currently on the Guardian news ticker)

Unsure why this needs to be a cartoon, the video is clear enough evidence that the propeller attacked the fighter jet, one can clearly see the pilot dumping fuel to warn the remote drone operator that they were attacking a Russian a/c operating in international air space, imagine the furor if the pilot had fired warning shots as was done in the past.
Note the crosshairs in the video, obviously, the drone was targeting the a/c most likely with some laser or some new western heat ray or whatever.....

I heard somewhere they could erase the software remotely.

Aesma wrote:

I heard somewhere they could erase the software remotely.

If they can do that hopefully the a/c will stay airborne long enough to complete, but still, cameras and other electronics onboard should also be of value to "enemies".
Unfortunately, we may never know how much info Iran for example gained from their inspection.

Aesma wrote:

I heard somewhere they could erase the software remotely.

The most important tech on the drone would be the encryption software and the encryption key. Data collected may also be locally stored on flash memory. Those can quickly be erased remotely or through protocol.

The computer chips themselves are powerful but typically not as powerful as the latest consumer chips. This is because it takes months/years to ruggedize and test these chips. So by the time they get on board they are pretty much old tech.

The sensors and optics are highly prized indeed. But the reason they are so good is not necessary because of the design (China may already stolen the design) but the manufacturing process that allow for the design to be achieved. Russia or China can get the camera, but if they do not have the specialize facilities to make them, then it is not of much use.

Still, having the enemy get a hold of such harware is not ideal. You can see why the US is reluctant to let Ukraine have the non-exportable M-1 tanks.

bt

The manufacturing issue is also true for the chips.

About the M1's secret armor, just having one's hands on it allows to know how it's made and conceive and even test various weapons able to defeat it.

Aesma wrote:

I heard somewhere they could erase the software remotely.

The operators were able to glide for a while enabling the wiping of the encryption keys and all other Mission Critical software. Once the command is received it’s a very quick process.

Since this was a MQ-9B SkyGuardian and not an MQ-9 Reaper I’d be a little concerned over the loss of the Intel Gathering Antennas. I’m not up to date on the SkyGuardian, however, we have be testing Antennas that transmit data via laser. Unlikely any were on it, but it’s an area where we have quite a lead over our adversaries.

glideslope wrote:

The operators were able to glide for a while enabling the wiping of the encryption keys and all other Mission Critical software. Once the command is received it’s a very quick process.

And system architecture worth designing would aslo have a built in fail safe (with back-up battery) to wipe sensitive information if communication is lost an there is no chance of making it back to base.

As for self destruction pyrotechnics, such devices are not preferred as the chance of them self destruct prematurely is not worth the cost/weight penalty. The cost comes from having to constantly maintain them to prevent them from un-intensionaly activate.

Many years ago, before flash memory, we had to store memory on large hard drives. To wipe the memory we could not use a large magnet because the drive was encased in a ruggedized shielded housing. Erasing all the files would take too long.

So to destroy the disk, a colleague had design a specially modified large nail gun with a captured bolt to physically destroy the drive. Regular gun with bullets risk ricochet on a moving vehicle. He had to design a fixture to secure the drive so that the nail gun would strike at the right place on the drive to break all the disks in one shot.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

As for self destruction pyrotechnics, such devices are not preferred as the chance of them self destruct prematurely is not worth the cost/weight penalty. The cost comes from having to constantly maintain them to prevent them from un-intensionaly activate.

Many years ago, before flash memory, we had to store memory on large hard drives. To wipe the memory we could not use a large magnet because the drive was encased in a ruggedized shielded housing. Erasing all the files would take too long.

So to destroy the disk, a colleague had design a specially modified large nail gun with a captured bolt to physically destroy the drive. Regular gun with bullets risk ricochet on a moving vehicle. He had to design a fixture to secure the drive so that the nail gun would strike at the right place on the drive to break all the disks in one shot.

bt

Where there is a will, there is a way, how effective would fire be, the options to at least severely damage the hardware starts with the finished product - drone - then work down. Designers often times get carried away by their brilliance.

Not the first time SU-27's have tried this technique on a drone;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKyrK0uDiQA

Why not shooting down the drone with the gun or a missile?

Because then you can't call it an accident or a misunderstanding or whatever.

But of course with the chaos that is Russian government some high end people said out loud that basically "yeah we brought it down, so what ?" giving away the plot...

Interesring that Forte (RQ-4) is now flying over Romania and not over the Black Sea as it used to.
A temporary precaution or perhaps a more permanent thing so Moscovy jet pilots can't get more medals?

FORTE10 from Catania https://fr24.com/FORTE10/2fe3df55

ReverseFlow wrote:

Interesring that Forte (RQ-4) is now flying over Romania and not over the Black Sea as it used to.
A temporary precaution or perhaps a more permanent thing so Moscovy jet pilots can't get more medals?

FORTE10 from Catania https://fr24.com/FORTE10/2fe3df55

I was wondering what happened to it.

I hope it's a temporary thing. I am curious on what they will do once Ukraine lay seige to Crimea.

bt