What's new

Iran missile strike successful ,Israel failed to detect missile's warhead separation

Show me an operator who can land a big drone such rq-170 in middle of desert without damaging it.

Even C-130 needs an almost flat surface for landing on desert...

We didn't have enough time to find or prepare somewhere for landing... We had to brought it down as soon as possible and shut all the systems off ...

Some people in this thread don't know what they are talking about...

Which comes from lack of knowledge about realities on the ground...

Actually it doesn't matter what people think about this or what exactly happened... We have RQ-170 in our hands and access to very sophisticated technologies on the drone !
 
.
Not a big deal with autonomous landing. My university did this during a student project once or twice.

Either case. 101 on error handling for UAV near or inside hostile territory is -> nose dive and crash land. It is definitely not "try to land safely so that the enemy can retrieve" and then "probably" give it back because our "president will ask them nicely".
If the intent is to capture the drone largely intact in order to study its design and retrieve sensitive data, crash-landing doesn't makes sense.

This logic of yours doesn't hold water! Just because you are the architecture of a system doesn't mean that you have considered all the loopholes. If that would have been the case then no system could ever be attacked since "the ones built it are aware of all the threats". That is indeed something only a fool would assume.
I think I worded my point poorly.

What are the responsibilities of intelligence services like CIA and NSA? They include espionage and to uncover potential threats to technologies in use for military-related purposes from enemy states and report back so that relevant companies get to work to develop relevant countermeasures.

Check following sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB104863606076925200

https://www.novatel.com/assets/Documents/Papers/gajt-white-paper.pdf (PDF file)

http://mil-embedded.com/articles/securing-military-gps-spoofing-jamming-vulnerabilities/

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gps_anti-jam/

Americans were fully aware of GPS jamming threats years before RQ-170 incident. If they had not implemented safeguards against GPS jamming in RQ-170 then they have paid the price for it in Iran. However, scores of experts are not convinced.

Malfunction theory cannot be ruled out.

I think internet is a good example to what you are saying. American invented it and now themselves are one of the victims of it being hacked all the time
Try to hack portals/networks of American armed branches such as USSTRATCOM, CIA, NSA and Link 16 and let me know.

There is difference between military networks and civilian networks in use. Basics below:


GPS for military purposes is different from GPS for civilian purposes. Basics below:

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-...y-GPS-data-and-civilians-in-terms-of-accuracy
 
Last edited:
.
Russia Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Iran IRGC missiles strike against terrorists in Dayr al-Zawr Syria on 18/7/2017

 
.
If the intent is to capture the drone largely intact in order to study its design and retrieve sensitive data, crash-landing doesn't makes sense.

Sina was talking about autonomous operation. So if the drone itself detected that it could not return to base, it would crash itself so the enemy could not study it.

Malfunction theory

You seem to be avoiding me... I already discussed why this would not be likely in post #136.

GPS for military purposes is different from GPS for civilian purposes. Basics below:

Doesn't mean an RQ-170's GPS can't be compromised.
 
.
Sina was talking about autonomous operation. So if the drone itself detected that it could not return to base, it would crash itself so the enemy could not study it.

Exactly! However, to clarify, I should have written just crash and not "crash landing".
 
. .

Attachments

  • upload_2017-7-17_12-22-7.png
    upload_2017-7-17_12-22-7.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 57
. . .
Back
Top Bottom