Iran Army gains capability to intercept, redirect enemy missiles

[LeGenD]

US f it up ... Iran has a replica of a ideal steath design ... lol gift from Uncle Sam ...

Iran has got a decent gift but these drones have limited stealth capabilities.

Only Boeing X45 drone is believed to be a true stealth design. And Northman X47 is its closest rival.

 

[Rod of God]

US f it up ... Iran has a replica of a ideal steath design ... lol gift from Uncle Sam ...

Iran can't refine gasoline, how they going to build an RQ-170 ?

 

[gambit]

A good article about vulnerability by an elite US fighter pilot and fighter designer (one of the fighter mafia): The F-22 Program: Fact Versus Fiction


Stealth is so much hyped and is basically a propaganda now. No stealth design is stealth to all frequencies. Specially it is difficult to keep stealth in lower frequency radars with good computational power to process feedback. With cheap computation around and low frequency radars easy to make the so called stealth does not exist. And yeah, it does not matter to locate a stealth aircraft to within centimeters, just locating it to within a mile is enough for fighters to be scrambled to intercept it or a SAM with terminal optical guidance to be launched at it. And even this can be done by using passive radars.

By the way the record of stealth is unimpressive. It got shot down in Serbia and has only been used in run down nations with no air defense like Iraq. A capable nation can counter stealth easily by just investing in R&D. Hell, F-22 has killed more pilots training on it than a Toyota. It basically suffocates its pilot to death. Just google it and see. Most of the time it is grounded and then when it flies the pilot has to be careful not to be killed by its plane.

Your source is a joke of a 'criticism'. Basically, it created an impossible set of standards. But hey, they do not meant to target those of us who have relevant technical experience but gullible fools like yourself.

 

[Hack-Hook]

@ JEskandari

You are trying to spin this debate in another direction with excuses you brought up this time. You asked me to give some basic details about differences in hardware of X47-B and other drones and I did that for you. Every point of mine is not about granting autonomous capabilities to the drone. And I do no feel to get in to technicalities of every aspect of these drones.

I will try one last time to explain you my point.

Consider the example of a realistic game here. Artifical Intelligence plays a vital role in realistic simulation of physical environment of any realistic game, which is made possible through combination of smart programming and advanced hardware rendering capabilities. Now a realistic game will obviously have some criteria to run it, like all other applications. This criteria will be its 'hardware requirements'. The game will run optimally if its criteria is met. Otherwise, the game will either; (1) not work; (2) run badly; or (3) run with limitations.

This is the logic that you need to understand.

Now apply this logic to the drone;

Drone is hardware. Its operating system is its software. Both should complement each other or meet the criteria of each other. And the phenomenon of Artifical Intelligence extends to both hardware and software.

Understand?

OR

You can continue to live in your FANTASY world where software does all the tricks.

do you understand that all your example of the hardware difference were due to difference of operation roles not difference in the minimum requirement for the AI and Autonomy . and no all of our discussion was related to Autonomy not the ability to do attack . and what you show me were a advertisement brochure from Northerop and two CGI animation . nothing related to our discussion that show any difference in the capabilities of Autopilot hardware that is used in these several plane. and for gods sake the three engine you mentioned are from 40 year ago in fact the one inside X47-b is from 1972 the one inside RQ-170 is from late 60s and the one inside RQ-4 is from let say mid 90 as you see the engine inside RQ-170 and X47-b is the same generation and the one inside RQ-4 is the more advanced one . so you yet to show me some evidence that hardware inside X47-b has anything to do with autonomy .

and about the program well let say that is the graphic details and eye candies that cripple weak systems in 95% of the cases not the logic core behind them .

Now read this;

F-22 Raptor Team Web Site: Technology - Stealth Capabilities

Specially this:

Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems

do you knew the signature is different on different wavelengths ? guess why suddenly WW2 old VHF RADARs become so popular that everybody is investing for R&D on them . also for every new system that they produce they also add an EO as bonus on it.

 

[LeGenD]

do you understand that all your example of the hardware difference were due to difference of operation roles not difference in the minimum requirement for the AI and Autonomy . and no all of our discussion was related to Autonomy not the ability to do attack . and what you show me were a advertisement brochure from Northerop and two CGI animation . nothing related to our discussion that show any difference in the capabilities of Autopilot hardware that is used in these several plane.

Your assertion is that RQ-170 can do what X47-B can do with upgraded software. Prove it.

and for gods sake the three engine you mentioned are from 40 year ago in fact the one inside X47-b is from 1972 the one inside RQ-170 is from late 60s and the one inside RQ-4 is from let say mid 90 as you see the engine inside RQ-170 and X47-b is the same generation and the one inside RQ-4 is the more advanced one .

And? Why different engines?

so you yet to show me some evidence that hardware inside X47-b has anything to do with autonomy .

I feel like I am arguing with a FOOL here.

What is autonomy?

Autonomy is commonly defined as the ability to make decisions without human intervention. To that end, the goal of autonomy is to teach machines to be "smart" and act more like humans.

X47-B raises the bar in this regard in comparison to other drones such as RQ-170 and RQ-4.

I have already provided you reasonable hint which you FAILED to grasp:

According to Kellenberger, "the capacity to discriminate" in warfare is a requirement of international humanitarian law. In the case of advanced drones, that capacity will "depend entirely on the quality and variety of sensors and programming" employed as opposed to individuals, Kellenberger says. The ICRC is addressing the issue as it relates to the Geneva Conventions. Drones now account for 7,500 aircraft in the military and one-third of all military aircraft today, the L.A. Times reported Thursday. Drone platforms represent potential cost and combat benefits. There is currently no plan to allow the X-47B to autonomously make decisions about killing enemy combatants. But that may change. In the Air Force's report (PDF), the Air Force states that "authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions."

X47-B have greater variety of onboard sensors in comparison to RQ-170 and RQ-4 drones, as pointed out by me earlier:

Sensors onboard in X47-B: EO / IR / SAR / ISAR / GMTI / MMTI / ESM (Source: Northrop Grumman)

In comparison, sensors onboard in RQ-4 Global Hawk: EO / IR / SAR (Source: Northrop Grumman)

In comparison, sensors onboard in RQ-170 Sentinel: EO / IR / SAR (Source: Airforce Technology)

Your silly argument is that these sensors have nothing to do with autonomous capabilities. Do you work in Northman? Do you know that how these technologies are being put to use?

Now what is a Robot?

Robots are physical agents that perform tasks by manipulating the physical world. They are equipped with sensors to perceive their environment and effectors to assert physical forces on it.

do you knew the signature is different on different wavelengths ? guess why suddenly WW2 old VHF RADARs become so popular that everybody is investing for R&D on them . also for every new system that they produce they also add an EO as bonus on it.

And you assume that F-22 designers do not know this?

To apply the complex system of paints and coatings necessary to meet the F-22's stringent radar cross section (RCS) requirements takes not only state-of-the-art equipment and hands-on technicians, but also a wide-ranging support system. A new type of paint, or topcoat, increases the F-22 Raptor's stealthiness by reducing its vulnerability to infrared threats. To meet F-22 requirements, Boeing developed the topcoat to protect the aircraft against a broad range of wavelengths. The new paint replaces conventional topcoats, performing all the required environmentally protective functions while also reducing the aircraft's vulnerability to detection.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Your assertion is that RQ-170 can do what X47-B can do with upgraded software. Prove it.


And? Why different engines?


I feel like I am arguing with a FOOL here.

What is autonomy?

Autonomy is commonly defined as the ability to make decisions without human intervention. To that end, the goal of autonomy is to teach machines to be "smart" and act more like humans.

X47-B raises the bar in this regard in comparison to other drones such as RQ-170 and RQ-4.

I have already provided you reasonable hint which you FAILED to grasp:

According to Kellenberger, "the capacity to discriminate" in warfare is a requirement of international humanitarian law. In the case of advanced drones, that capacity will "depend entirely on the quality and variety of sensors and programming" employed as opposed to individuals, Kellenberger says. The ICRC is addressing the issue as it relates to the Geneva Conventions. Drones now account for 7,500 aircraft in the military and one-third of all military aircraft today, the L.A. Times reported Thursday. Drone platforms represent potential cost and combat benefits. There is currently no plan to allow the X-47B to autonomously make decisions about killing enemy combatants. But that may change. In the Air Force's report (PDF), the Air Force states that "authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions."

X47-B have greater variety of onboard sensors in comparison to RQ-170 and RQ-4 drones, as pointed out by me earlier:



Your silly argument is that these sensors have nothing to do with autonomous capabilities. Do you work in Northman? Do you know that how these technologies are being put to use?

Now what is a Robot?

Robots are physical agents that perform tasks by manipulating the physical world. They are equipped with sensors to perceive their environment and effectors to assert physical forces on it.


And you assume that F-22 designers do not know this?

To apply the complex system of paints and coatings necessary to meet the F-22's stringent radar cross section (RCS) requirements takes not only state-of-the-art equipment and hands-on technicians, but also a wide-ranging support system. A new type of paint, or topcoat, increases the F-22 Raptor's stealthiness by reducing its vulnerability to infrared threats. To meet F-22 requirements, Boeing developed the topcoat to protect the aircraft against a broad range of wavelengths. The new paint replaces conventional topcoats, performing all the required environmentally protective functions while also reducing the aircraft's vulnerability to detection.

well I don't knew how they used those sensors as far as I'm concerned they can be offline , but that don't change the fact that those sensors have nothing to do with the autonomy as they are not designed for navigation , they are there to sense threats and detect enemy targets , its like you say the sensors on RQ-170 that allow it to detect trace amount of radioactive particles and chemical agents from tens of kilometer away are there to help it navigate and gain autonomy .

about why 3 different engine ,are you for real ? its the link of the engines that are used for airplanes ,different companies decided to use different engines on different planes ,are you going to ask why they did that in last 100 year ?
List of aircraft engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and what I am to get from a pure academic discussion about the autonomy in future weapons

X47-B raises the bar in this regard in comparison to other drones such as RQ-170 and RQ-4.

I have already provided you reasonable hint which you FAILED to grasp:

According to Kellenberger, "the capacity to discriminate" in warfare is a requirement of international humanitarian law. In the case of advanced drones, that capacity will "depend entirely on the quality and variety of sensors and programming" employed as opposed to individuals, Kellenberger says. The ICRC is addressing the issue as it relates to the Geneva Conventions. Drones now account for 7,500 aircraft in the military and one-third of all military aircraft today, the L.A. Times reported Thursday. Drone platforms represent potential cost and combat benefits. There is currently no plan to allow the X-47B to autonomously make decisions about killing enemy combatants. But that may change. In the Air Force's report (PDF), the Air Force states that "authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions."

what this show more than anything else is that X-47b has no autonomy and where in it comes that Sentinel , Predator and Reaper don't have the necessary hardware . for example for refueling X-47b is going to use a combination of GPS and Electro-optic to do the job , well all the other mentioned drones have those equipment and again it was a combination of those two that allowed it to land on the carrier not ESM and MMTI


well about proving ,what I'm to prove that these planes are not Autonomous ? well you who claim they are you must prove and the fact that RQ-170 can do all its operation while the operator left the station and went with the rest of the gang to theme park , and the fact that if it loose the contact with the operator it can trace back its way to the origin airport and land there without any input or if they cant do that it try to find another suitable airport to land there isn't enough for you it have the same capabilities as X47-b on this matter. the only thing that X47-b did was to align itself with another plane and you are claiming its hardware is superior to all the other drones , well let me tell you its just a software that is get information from the E) sensors and GPS on the plane and use it to order the aviation to do a Maneuver . if you look at the yearly robotic competition around the world you see they always do the same thing with far less robust hardware than what you can find on predator ,its just gathering the data (all drones do that ) processing it (depend on the software inside the drone) and act as it (if the drone have the capabilities to do the work with operator on control then it have the capabilities to do that without the operator if the drone is equipped with an auto pilot)

by the way don't you think you would be more credible if you stick to the discussion instead of starting to insult the one who you are discussing the matter with ?

 

[LeGenD]

and about the program well let say that is the graphic details and eye candies that cripple weak systems in 95% of the cases not the logic core behind them .

You forgot the processing part. Oh wait! In your system, software does the processing too? Right?

well I don't knew how they used those sensors as far as I'm concerned they can be offline , but that don't change the fact that those sensors have nothing to do with the autonomy as they are not designed for navigation , they are there to sense threats and detect enemy targets , its like you say the sensors on RQ-170 that allow it to detect trace amount of radioactive particles and chemical agents from tens of kilometer away are there to help it navigate and gain autonomy .

What did I tell you about autonomy?

And what did I tell you about robotics?

If you cannot understand the role of sensors in these matters then why are you wasting my time with your baseless responses?

about why 3 different engine ,are you for real ? its the link of the engines that are used for airplanes ,different companies decided to use different engines on different planes ,are you going to ask why they did that in last 100 year ?
List of aircraft engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the logic behind using different engines?

and what I am to get from a pure academic discussion about the autonomy in future weapons

You will not learn anything. Instead, you will waste my time. I am sorry but this is what I have found out after debating with you.

what this show more than anything else is that X-47b has no autonomy and where in it comes that Sentinel , Predator and Reaper don't have the necessary hardware . for example for refueling X-47b is going to use a combination of GPS and Electro-optic to do the job , well all the other mentioned drones have those equipment and again it was a combination of those two that allowed it to land on the carrier not ESM and MMTI

Good luck! I am done with you in this regard. Once you make RQ-170 match X47-B in every aspect with just software upgrade, PM me.

well about proving ,what I'm to prove that these planes are not Autonomous ? well you who claim they are you must prove and the fact that RQ-170 can do all its operation while the operator left the station and went with the rest of the gang to theme park , and the fact that if it loose the contact with the operator it can trace back its way to the origin airport and land there without any input or if they cant do that it try to find another suitable airport to land there isn't enough for you it have the same capabilities as X47-b on this matter. the only thing that X47-b did was to align itself with another plane and you are claiming its hardware is superior to all the other drones , well let me tell you its just a software that is get information from the E) sensors and GPS on the plane and use it to order the aviation to do a Maneuver . if you look at the yearly robotic competition around the world you see they always do the same thing with far less robust hardware than what you can find on predator ,its just gathering the data (all drones do that ) processing it (depend on the software inside the drone) and act as it (if the drone have the capabilities to do the work with operator on control then it have the capabilities to do that without the operator if the drone is equipped with an auto pilot)

First do some digging in to the role of sensors in autonomy and robotics, then get back to me.

by the way don't you think you would be more credible if you stick to the discussion instead of starting to insult the one who you are discussing the matter with ?

Their is a proverb for this:

"When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are."

This is the kind of situation that I find myself in.

 

[gambit]

do you knew the signature is different on different wavelengths ?

Yes, I do. I used to teach this stuff.

guess why suddenly WW2 old VHF RADARs become so popular that everybody is investing for R&D on them . also for every new system that they produce they also add an EO as bonus on it.

It is suddenly popular because it is (wrongly) perceived to the the 'anti-stealth' weapon. It is not.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It is suddenly popular because it is (wrongly) perceived to the the 'anti-stealth' weapon. It is not.

well why you say wrongly , you want to say a stealth aircraft can't be detected by these RADARs or you want to say they are not efficient and cannot show the exact location of the Aircraft ?

 

[gambit]

well why you say wrongly , you want to say a stealth aircraft can't be detected by these RADARs or you want to say they are not efficient and cannot show the exact location of the Aircraft ?

In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible. However, you consistently ignore the TACTICAL utility factor. The word 'tactical' mean situation dependent, it is about immediacy, and how useful is the information produced. The HF/VHF/UHF band systems have limited tactical utility because the system is inherently large which limited its mobility which limited to ground stations which reduced its line-of-sight distance. How much of that 'which limited' do you need? So while you can cite theories all you want, for those of us who have to deal real world tactical situations, whenever we see how the Russians claim their long wavelengths systems can defeat 'stealth', we go back to our beers and toast their claims. Too bad it did not worked very well in Yugoslavia.

 

[The SC]

AI or Artificial Intelligence, will stay artificial for ever, since no one can mimic the perfection of nature, which is a limited perfection in itself.
So how perfect are American weapons is relative to their brains limits., and those limits are not the summum of human intelligence. So everything is possible from other nations, namely Iran and maybe Pakistan and china, let alone Russia.

 

[LeGenD]

AI or Artificial Intelligence, will stay artificial for ever, since no one can mimic the perfection of nature, which is a limited perfection in itself.
So how perfect are American weapons is relative to their brains limits., and those limits are not the summum of human intelligence. So everything is possible from other nations, namely Iran and maybe Pakistan and china, let alone Russia.

Their are endless possibilities with supercomputers. Applications like Stuxnet are also eye-openers. I believe that depictions in Terminator movies are not far fetched. First 'true' cyborg is expected in 2030 from USA. However, some people are not comfortable with the idea of machines making the life and death decisions. This is certainly creepy prospect.

Of course! USA is not the only nation blessed with talent. However, US R&D structure is very strong and well-funded. This is what makes the real difference.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Their are endless possibilities with supercomputers. Applications like Stuxnet are also eye-openers.

Stuxnet didn't have much of AI, it merely exploited zero-day vulnerabilities.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible. However, you consistently ignore the TACTICAL utility factor. The word 'tactical' mean situation dependent, it is about immediacy, and how useful is the information produced. The HF/VHF/UHF band systems have limited tactical utility because the system is inherently large which limited its mobility which limited to ground stations which reduced its line-of-sight distance. How much of that 'which limited' do you need? So while you can cite theories all you want, for those of us who have to deal real world tactical situations, whenever we see how the Russians claim their long wavelengths systems can defeat 'stealth', we go back to our beers and toast their claims. Too bad it did not worked very well in Yugoslavia.

well in Serbia they managed to shoot down one stealth plane

by the way if the concerns is line of sight , don't they usually claim something like 300 km for low altitude object , 600 for air born target and 1200km for space targets such as ballistic missiles in the big radars ? and about Iran own VHF radar didn't they claimed something like a 3d-VHF RADAR with 500km of range .
if the mobility is your concerns then isn't for example this Cold War era Radar looks mobile enough to you

its the radar that the loss of F-117 in Serbia is attributed to it .

 

[gambit]

well in Serbia they managed to shoot down one stealth plane

by the way if the concerns is line of sight , don't they usually claim something like 300 km for low altitude object , 600 for air born target and 1200km for space targets such as ballistic missiles in the big radars ? and about Iran own VHF radar didn't they claimed something like a 3d-VHF RADAR with 500km of range .
if the mobility is your concerns then isn't for example this Cold War era Radar looks mobile enough to you

its the radar that the loss of F-117 in Serbia is attributed to it .

Just because it is on a truck, that does not mean it is mobile. Look carefully at the antenna assembly and see how many lines required to secure it to the ground. How long do you think it would take to disassemble such an array compare to its companion, which is the tracking radar.

As for that single F-117 loss, it is still amazing to us who have relevant experience that despite the publicly available amount of information, people like you are still that gullible. The F-117 flew 850 sorties over Yugoslavia. That does not mean there were 850 F-117s but the same aircrafts flew over and over. Does one loss out of 850 sounds like a good air defense combat record to you? NATO flew about 38 THOUSANDS sorties. Subtract the F-117 sorties and we have about 37 THOUSANDS 'non-stealth' sorties. We lost one F-16. Does one loss out of 37 THOUSANDS sounds like a good air defense combat record to you?