You know what would be a neat trick?
Wire a small area to perform a wide spectrum jam on all signals. Thereby breaking contact the UAV has with base and activating its automatic return command.
BUT, instead of letting it triangulate its position from the GPS sats, find a way to spoof the GPS sats so that the aircraft believes it is somewhere entirely different from its actual location. Basically trick the autopilot into landing at your base because it thinks it is somewhere else.
I wonder what fail safes are place to prevent GPS spoofing. I assume there are plenty, as I can't be the first person to have thought of this.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33635419]You know what would be a neat trick?
Wire a small area to perform a wide spectrum jam on all signals. Thereby breaking contact the UAV has with base and activating its automatic return command.
BUT, instead of letting it triangulate its position from the GPS sats, find a way to spoof the GPS sats so that the aircraft believes it is somewhere entirely different from its actual location. Basically trick the autopilot into landing at your base because it thinks it is somewhere else.
I wonder what fail safes are place to prevent GPS spoofing. I assume there are plenty, as I can't be the first person to have thought of this.[/QUOTE]
well, the aircraft will still have its inertial navigation system, and if that sort of thing is feasible and was predicted, it would probably be able to check for sudden changes in its gps position vs INS measurements
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it might also have the capability to find its position by finding known landmarks (either optically or with a radar) and check them against an onboard map. if something like that was used in combination with the INS it'd probably be able to tell that GPS positioning has been messed up.
Talking about the GPS system. My friend told me that the GPS systems stops to function once you are above a certain height and at a certain velocity, because then it suspects you for being an enemy ballistic missile.
:tinfoil:
[QUOTE=Swebonny;33635575]Talking about the GPS system. My friend told me that the GPS systems stops to function once you are above a certain height and at a certain velocity, because then it suspects you for being an enemy ballistic missile.
:tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
gps works by the receiver getting time and orbit information from the satellites, it doesn't send anything back :x
the satellites pretty much just act like beacons that can be seen by anyone
I can't believe that hacking and 'tricked into hacking' are more plausable theories to Facepunch than maybe, you, there was something wrong with the drone? Maybe an electrical component failed?
But no, Iran hacked it because we wanted them to because it was old technology and we wanted to test their defenses and let them boast to the world!!! :v:
The guy in the video basically said that the intercepted the commands or some shit and brought it down.
Which means that a lot of you underestimated what they were capable of doing. Particularly BDA.
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;33635348]of course they lost contact with it but how could they possibly shoot it down and have it turn up completely unscathed as it looks?[/QUOTE]
No, they lost it. Not lost contact with it. Iran were like "We have an American drone" then the US was like "Oh yeah, we lost one in Iran, our bad". Read the original post before you start arguing, they supposedly hacked it and landed it safely without damage.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33629526]Exactly. Auto-return systems can be made for civilian owned remote craft, its not new tech at all.
If I had to guess (engage conspiracy theorist drives), I'd say they gave it to the Iranians. Gave being a general term here meaning "Ooops, looks like they're haxoring my drone. Oh noes" and didn't give any real resistance. I'll wager its a cheap drone with obvious flaws that is being advertised as "really fucking awesome" in order to see if the Iranians would take the bait, down US property, and then brag about it saying "We can take on the US, What the fuck now?".
This is most certainly NOT the most advanced thing the US has to offer in terms of UAV capabilities, there is no way that they'd show it off. No, this is tech from a decade ago at least.
(Conspiracy theorist drive shutdown confirmed, all systems green)[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the USA is doing nothing because sending that drone into Iran was[I] fucking illegal[/I].
Stop this bullshit about, 'we wanted them 2 hav it lamo'.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33635714]I'm pretty sure the USA is doing nothing because sending that drone into Iran was[I] fucking illegal[/I].
Stop this bullshit about, 'we wanted them 2 hav it lamo'.[/QUOTE]
I love you
There is no logical reason for the US to be wasting military tech like that. Even if it is apparently worthless.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33635635]The guy in the video basically said that the intercepted the commands or some shit and brought it down.
Which means that a lot of you underestimated what they were capable of doing. Particularly BDA.[/QUOTE]
BDA later agreed that it was plausible, just pretty unlikely.
And even more unlikely that the Republic did that without any russian or Chinese help
[QUOTE=Swebonny;33635575]Talking about the GPS system. My friend told me that the GPS systems stops to function once you are above a certain height and at a certain velocity, because then it suspects you for being an enemy ballistic missile.
:tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
This is true, its a requirement the US government has placed on anyone making GPS receivers. Its not the GPS system itself stopping it from working, its built into the receiver.
[QUOTE=Flicker;33635731]I love you
There is no logical reason for the US to be wasting military tech like that. Even if it is apparently worthless.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
And any salvaged technology that comes from someone with $3,000,000,000,000/annum military budget should be kept because it WILL be useful.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33636000]Exactly.
And any salvaged technology that comes from someone with $3,000,000,000,000/annum military budget should be kept because it WILL be useful.[/QUOTE]
except when, you know, maintence costs more than the worlf fo tthe thing
I highly doubt it is a piece of junk would warrant an introduction in 2007, its existence exposed in 2009, and only last year confirmed by the US air force. Most modern weapons are well known by the public when they finally come into service.
I like how many of you guys have apparently never seen any aircraft crash to think they all must burst into fucking flames and shrapnel just like in the movies. I'm not seeing anything that would rule out the damn thing just hitting the ground due to a malfunction, but then again, I actually understand physics.
Everybody who wants to talk about what a crash would [I]really[/I] have looked like read [URL="http://www.me.mtu.edu/~mavable/Book/Chap3.pdf"]this[/URL] to get an idea of how materials deform, then the wikipedia article to get a gauge of weight and cross-sectional area of the drone, then read [URL="https://tonetcarlo.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/death-by-ignorance/"]this[/URL] on stalling and pilot-less stall recovery, [URL="http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Fauvel/e_pourquoi.htm"]this[/URL] on how flying wings typically stall, watch [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm3x5i2uKxk"]this[/URL] for an example of a simple stall recovery in a fixed wing to get an idea of how "porpoising" works, and then come back and tell me a post- failure altitude, velocity, and angle of attack on impact with the ground and equations for deformation of aluminum and other speculated chassis materials assuming an impact with whatever type of turf you want (sand, mud, density is up to you.)
I'm not even saying a crash is what likely happened because I don't give two shits about how the military loses an RC toy, but if you think it couldn't have coasted down rather easily by virtue of design you've been done a disservice by your education system.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33636102]Most modern weapons are well known by the public when they finally come into service.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that we've had stuff like the Reaper flying for half a decade before it was formally introduced.
All these people talking about self destructing on impact and stuff reminds me of Ur-Quan tech from SC2.
We had a U2 shot down over the Soviet Union, we had a stealth fighter shot down by the Serbs, and we crashed a helicopter into a transport plane in Iran- all blunders by our military/intelligence people. So yeah, of course this could be a simple case of us losing a drone on our own, without any interference from the Iranians.
That video, if it turns out to be fake, would prove that. If they really brought it down in such good condition, they will eventually show it to a third party with credibility and that third party will confirm it. If they never show it off and prove it, we'll know it's because it was fake and the real drone is destroyed somewhere.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33636143]
I'm not even saying a crash is what likely happened because I don't give two shits about how the military loses an RC toy, but if you think it couldn't have coasted down rather easily by virtue of design you've been done a disservice by your education system.[/QUOTE]
wow do you even understand how planes work??
I've thrown a brick in my backyard and i'm pretty sure it has similar aerodynamics
do you honestly expect us to believe that planes are built in a way that makes flying easier?
crazy
Is Obama secretly giving aid to the Iranians? More at 9.
One thing I can't help but notice is the skirting around the bottom half of the UAV, which is where the only truly important aspect of the craft is housed; the payload. Since they seem to be taking special care not to show the bottom half of the craft, I'd assume that it made a crash landing, damaging the landing gear and possibly destroying the optics system. The craft itself is peanuts compared to those cameras; if those were destroyed in the crash then they might as well have shot down a paper plane.
[QUOTE=wewt!;33628225]Didn't BDA say they have some kind of parachute thingy[/QUOTE]
The small platforms have parachutes designed to flip the drone on its back, to absorb the brunt of the impact and (hopefully) protect the payload. However, the optical systems are extremely sensitive, and even under a controlled crash like that, they're usually irreparably damaged. The RQ-170 is a rather large platform, so it seems unlikely that it is equipped with a parachute.
Given the overall condition of the aircraft, it looks like it made a crash landing. This could be due to any number of reasons, the most likely of which would be mechanical failure. Other possibilities include a damaged or improperly set altimeter (which would cause the drone to think it was at a much higher altitude than it actually was, resulting in it flying straight into the ground), link-loss and on-board programming failure, fuel supply issues, and any number of operator errors. Seeing as how there is minimal damage to the body of the aircraft, it now seems unlikely that it was shot down. Hacking's a possibility I can't discount, but I would still place my money on any of the above scenarios before that, as those are the single most common reasons for losing a UAS, whereas hacking would require to specialized hardware, software, and an intricate knowledge of our UAVs that Iran has shown no signs of possessing.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33636143]
Except for the fact that we've had stuff like the Reaper flying for half a decade before it was formally introduced.[/QUOTE]
Uh, it is not to hard to find articles on the reaper, or sources that date back to 2001-2003 (the first prototype flew in 2001) well before their introduction in 2007. The RQ-170 was introduced a full 3 years before the US air force confirmed its existence and 2 years before the public caught on.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33635419]You know what would be a neat trick?
Wire a small area to perform a wide spectrum jam on all signals. Thereby breaking contact the UAV has with base and activating its automatic return command.
BUT, instead of letting it triangulate its position from the GPS sats, find a way to spoof the GPS sats so that the aircraft believes it is somewhere entirely different from its actual location. Basically trick the autopilot into landing at your base because it thinks it is somewhere else.
I wonder what fail safes are place to prevent GPS spoofing. I assume there are plenty, as I can't be the first person to have thought of this.[/QUOTE]
I believe that UAS's are designed to loiter in the event of link-loss [I]and[/I] programming/GPS failure, but I'm really not too sure on that. Once you start throwing this many variables in, it's pretty hard to say! While I think it more likely that the UAS suffered a mechanical failure or an operator error, electronic warfare is definitely not out of the question. If it were proved that Iran had actually hacked or electronically disabled the craft, I guess it wouldn't be too terribly surprising. I'd have to wonder where they got their hands on the hardware and the training, but I'm sure they've got their resources.
Sadly, unless Iran releases more information and quality imagery of the UAV, there's going to be a ton of speculation.
I'm still inclined to believe it may be Iran capitalising on the loss of a drone, and mocking one up as quickly as possible to give the US some bad press. God knows they need something to hit back with, they're not doing very well in the global spotlight at the moment. :v:
US built a fake drone 4 iran to get because iranian are dum because they cant hack rly :downs:
Whatever happened to the drone, I still think the US needs to answer as to why they can violate sovereignty with little to no repercussions.
[QUOTE=TheHypnotoad;33639585]Whatever happened to the drone, I still think the US needs to answer as to why they can violate sovereignty with little to no repercussions.[/QUOTE]
But Iran's drone is an obvious fake, they just heard that America had lost a drone and made one out of Styrofoam. America did nothing wrong.
America is dominate
[QUOTE=TheHypnotoad;33639585]Whatever happened to the drone, I still think the US needs to answer as to why they can violate sovereignty with little to no repercussions.[/QUOTE]
The US doesn't need to give a fuck because it doesn't answer to anyone. If it's media calls you bad, then you're bad and any violation of your sovereignty is going to go largely unnoticed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
