Iran missile strike successful ,Israel failed to detect missile's warhead separation
- Thread starter SOHEIL
- Start date
drmeson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,002
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You are proving yourself to be biggest troll here ! ... you have an e-ego too. Trolls with ego are the funniest ones.
You called the IRGC seizure of US marine boats by GPS spoofing "a fairy tale coming out of Iran" and now when presented with multiple NON IRANIAN articles where not one but many many are speculating the same thing, all of them become journalistic pieces to you ? ...right... did you even know that IRGC seized US marines or it came to you as a surprise that you decided to call it a fairy tale coming out of iran ?
Your lack of knowledge on these incidents is funny, you are claiming it as some sort of official Iranian verdict. Let me inform you something here. There is no official Iranian account on how the RQ-170 was actually brought down in details. Most we know are from documentaries made by media outlets and speculations. This spoofing jamming theory which is widely famous on internet communities was presented by CSM, they claimed that they have interviewed an on duty IRGC engineer who was working on the data retrieval. This theory was given more strength after American Defence secretary himself said that Iran can disrupt US drones surveillance. I would take his words more seriously than a guy sitting on an internet forum. So there exists no official Iranian details on how it was done. I personally believe that a Kremlin supplied ELINT system (IL222) was used for spoofing. Later in 2014, same unit was speculated to have brought down a US MQ-5 by Russian forces over Crimea by same spoofing of GPS. These games have been played before too by IRGC. Kinda unrelated, but Iranian agents in Iraq in late 2000s were found to be cheaply downloading unencrypted video feeds from US drones operating in Iraq.
And please prove me that American surveillance over Iran is being done by Drones and don't give me those "journalistic pieces" you know. Provide us with concrete evidence!
and yes we can rejoice in these victories. Atleast, we have them unlike "few around" who get pounded by US drones on daily basis ...
Thats very impressive indeed.
I suppose the CEP of Zolfaghar can be confirmed in range of 30-50 m at its maximum range.
Last edited:
yavar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
CEP is much less that . just wait till google earth upload latest images then it be comes clear . the CEP is below 10-M or 5-M
Last edited:
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
There are better, more regularly updated sources than google earth. Planetlabs, terraserver etc.
SOHEIL
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 15,796
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Time will make things clear...
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Newsflash: anybody who knows me in person and/or is following my posts in this community, will confirm that I am not a troll. They tend to take me very seriously due to my rationality, ability to dig important bits of information and my disdain for conspiracy theories. You don't know this because my activity in the 'Iranian Defense Forum' is minimum and I have better things to do in life instead of wasting my time in various discussions.
Trolls are known to unnecessarily drag conversations because they do not pay heed to relevant counter-arguments (and address) them appropriately and the debate eventually looses its value. And when they say that 'I will not take you seriously' - it becomes all the more amusing. You may not be a troll but the pattern of your argument is similar. Anyways, I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt by clarifying my position once again:
I am waiting for a [reasonable and coherent] dissection of this [reasonable and coherent] debunking of Iranian accounts of jamming (and spoofing) an RQ-170 drone: https://www.jasadvisors.com/iran-hijacked-us-rq-170-sentinel-drone-with-gps-hack-not-likely/
I am not interested in those journalist pieces that you are throwing at me in your responses again and again because they do offer a rebuttal to the 'expert assessment' I have shared with you. In-fact, this 'expert assessment' addresses sensational claims in those journalist pieces on technical merits.
Do you understand the basics of debate or shall I teach you? Please stop reacting like a kid and pay attention to my arguments.
Thank you for your valuable feedback.
Now pay attention - journalists all over the world are more or less on the same page - concerned with ratings and masala type accounts. You think I have been living in a cave all these years? Research is my job - my emotional friend. I am very good at separating 'constructive information' from layers upon layers of fiction and disinformation on the web because researchers fully understand the importance of citation and establishing credibility on top of that. Good pieces of journalism emerge from time-to-time but they are relatively short in supply in this era of [dis]information and conspiracy theories. Even 'noble piece prize' winners are susceptible to promoting conspiracy theories because they want to stay relevant in the business and ratings help them towards this end.
Yes, I am fully aware of the capture of those American marines and here are the findings of the investigation (the non-masala type): http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=95458
Conclusion drawn from the investigation:
Conclusions of the investigation centered on poor leadership and disregarded risk management and mission planning standards by those directly involved in planning the riverine boat missions.
Examples of media-based coverage of findings of this investigation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/iran-navy-capture-investigation-report/index.html
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ip-led-to-iran-capturing-us-sailors-navy.html
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...navy-riverine-boats-iran-2016jun30-story.html
You can access the actual report here: https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/document-summary-u-s-navy-investigation-farsi-island-incident
Now, of-course, some 'journalists' have attempted to promote masala accounts of this incident as well with disclaimers like "The Story You Aren't Being Told...." for ratings and I roll my eyes when I come across such pieces. They somehow remind me of those Hollywood movies with disclaimers like: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-real-story-of-apollo-17-and-why-we-never-went-ba-1670503448
Illuminati stuff is even better...oh wait.
Sensational journalism is the name of the game now - it started with 9/11 (as I vividly recall) and people continue to fall for masala accounts because they attract traffic. Do you know how media outlets and personnel raise funds? Typical pattern of argument in masala accounts is to give it a [mysterious] caption and then proceed to fill in all the dirty details.
Problem # 1 - Truth is often BORING.
---
Coming back to the main argument:-
Yes, Iran [has] GPS-jamming assets in its inventory as a defensive measure. I am sure that a large number of states have fielded such assets (Pakistan included) because it is not top-secret stuff. However, effectiveness of such assets is [overblown] in media circles as pointed out in this 'expert assessment' recently: https://www.jasadvisors.com/iran-hijacked-us-rq-170-sentinel-drone-with-gps-hack-not-likely/
The 'expert assessment' in question here actually commenced with this observation:
Multiple Christian Science Monitor reports have the media abuzz with reports that one of our RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drones was “hijacked” and caused to land in Iran.
Emphasis mine. The relevant American expert has in-fact taken note of all the masala accounts in the media about that incident and he proceeded to offer his rebuttal in point-by-point manner below:
I find this incredibly unlikely.
1). The sole primary source seems to be the “Iranian engineer” that granted CSM an “exclusive interview.” I find this much more likely to be propaganda than reality. If the Iranians really had this capability, they’d be keeping it secret, not doing interviews.
Here: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Mid...-Iran-hijacked-US-drone-says-Iranian-engineer
Emphasis mine. The expert is pointing out the obvious that why Iranian engineers are disclosing sensitive information in interviews? They should be silent about it. However, all that noise on media suggests that it is propaganda for the gullible.
Below are some bold claims of that engineer:
"The GPS navigation is the weakest point," the Iranian engineer told the Monitor, giving the most detailed description yet published of Iran's "electronic ambush" of the highly classified US drone. "By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."
The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.
The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.
Emphasis mine. That Iranian engineer conveniently forgot that somebody will go through his claims and refute them - and it came eventually:
2). The scenario as painted by the “Iranian engineer” is that they jammed the control channel causing the drone to resort to some fail-safe procedures. It is entirely plausible that a drone would resort to some pre-programmed behavior if the control channel was lost, and simply jamming (not spoofing, altering, or compromising) the control channel is also quite possible. However, knowing in advance exactly what the drone would do when the control channel became unavailable and precisely which course it would attempt to fly (because the GPS would have to be spoofed accordingly) is not likely.
3). GPS spoofing has been considered for years and the concept has been proven. On the ground. In a controlled lab environment. Spoofing a stationary receiver to believe it was located at a different stationary position. And even this is incredibly complex. However, spoofing a moving target is orders of magnitude more difficult as it requires multiple successful “stationary spoofs” per second while not losing lock, confusing, or alerting the target receiver to anomalies. Spoofing a moving aircraft at 30, 40, or 50,000+ feet traveling at 300, 400, 0r 500+ MPH is several more orders of magnitude difficult. It is unlikely that ground-based antennas (even highly directional ones) could do the trick; the spoofing equipment would need to be airborne flying near the drone. GPS is all about very precise timing; minor timing variations result in miles of error. So the “chase plane” would need to hold a fixed differential position to within inches of a moving aircraft.
4). The military uses a very different GPS system than the one on your dashboard in your car. The military GPS signals are encrypted and authenticated. An attacker is theoretically not able to generate valid military GPS signals; all he could do is to capture and replay existing signals and adjust the transmission timing. Which is extremely difficult to get right given that the satellite relative positions are constantly changing even if the target is stationary; a moving target is even more complex.
Recall that the “bird’s home base” was almost certainly a distant US military base; so engineering a GPS replay attack could not have been informed by the actual “correct” signals as that would have required Iran to fly an airplane to a US military base, enter the landing pattern, and come within inches of landing, noting the military GPS signals the whole way. I’m not thinking this is terribly likely. Slightly more likely is somehow stealing these signals from an authorized aircraft doing the same, but given that airspace around US bases is pretty tightly controlled (to say the least) I’m doubtful. I’m not even sure extended replay attacks like are possible with military GPS due to the time offset.
However, following that thread, Iran would have to replay military GPS signals for precisely the entire path to be flown from the point of hijack to landing. Without error. Under the theory that the drone was operating solely on GPS navigation, if they messed-up the spoofed location even a bit, the drone would correct to the intended path continuously, changing the path it was actually flying unpredictably. Most aviation navigation systems (autopilots) try to “bracket” the intended flight path, setting an intercept course at 30-45 degrees and turning on course anticipating the point of interception. Ask any pilot, bracketing an intended flight path is an inexact science largely due to wind conditions and highly driven by feedback (apply controls, observe the effect, and repeat). Any imprecision in the spoofed or captured/replayed GPS signals would cause erratic and unpredictable consequences due to this feedback loop.
5). It is extremely unlikely that the drone would depend entirely on a single navigation system and have zero crosschecking or “sanity checking.” Remember, these are military avionics systems; these are the guys that invented triple and quadruple-redundant systems! I expect a drone would have multiple navigation systems including military and civilian GPS, multiple inertial guidance systems (like commercial aircraft), a magnetic compass, perhaps a pitot tube (for determining airspeed), and dead reckoning sanity checks. When one system isn’t making sense, the software crosschecks with the others and takes the most likely position. As a private pilot, I can tell you that comparing and crosschecking multiple systems is a fundamental part of aviation.
6). GPS vulnerabilities are well known to the military. To think that the latest drone – designed to fly over hostile terrain – doesn’t have countermeasures is just plain silly.
7). While nothing is impossible, even if we believe the narrative, this is the sort of thing that never works on the first try. Or the second. Or the third. My fellow engineers understand this point. To believe that all of the above was perfectly executed on the first try and resulted in a near-perfect landing (save a few scratches on the underbelly) is highly implausible. If this were the 18th RQ-170 we’ve lost mysteriously over Iran, that would be different. Landing an aircraft is a game of inches; being off even a bit results in a fireball, not a few scratches.
If Iran actually has a real drone (that we didn’t “intend” for them to have), I think the most likely scenario is some sort of system failure. Or it’s some sort of Trojan Horse. Iran, seeking to look smart to their own people and the rest of the world, constructed this plausible story after the fact.
In-fact, the aforementioned expert assessment is not the only piece at hand. Experts have generally warned about Iranian claims in regards to downing an RQ-170 drone with GPS jamming (and subsequent spoofing) techniques:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milit...e-beast-US-experts-cautious-about-bold-claims
https://www.wired.com/2011/12/did-iran-capture-a-u-s-stealth-drone-intact/
Problem # 2 - You are not paying attention and rather deflecting my argument with pointless links and such. All of the above had to be spelled out to you openly? Because you are too lazy to check the 'expert assessment' in question and debunk it with appropriate piece of evidences or you don't have much knowledge of these matters.
And now you claim that Iranian accounts are not official?
Trust me! I want to take Iranian defenses seriously but not the fairytales that often accompany them on the web.
----
My personal stance in all this is that Iranian accounts have loopholes - very straightforward, simple and respectful (I did not assert that Iran does not have GPS jamming capabilities). My point of contention is to the effectiveness of such measures against American military assets as purported in sensational media sources. I assume that this drone malfunctioned during its mission and Iran got lucky irrespective of GPS jamming in the picture (or not) but Iranian sources credited GPS jamming activity for this gain. Shit happens at times.
----
By the way - reports are emerging that Americans have addressed potential vulnerabilities in their drones since the RQ-170 incident as a precautionary measure: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/05/unmanned-cyber-warfare.html
You don't even know how Americans conduct surveillance operations? Very good.
Unlike Iranian loudmouths, Americans tend to be silent about their surveillance operations. Unless somebody wants to spill the beans like that idiot Edward Snowden who had to flee his country and cannot go back due to safety concerns.
You can assume that stealthy drones are not monitoring activity in Iran as we speak, if it makes you feel comfortable at home.
I won't deny the possibility.Wait...Iran has this superaweseomesauceflyingsaucer ability to track even F-22 Raptors in real-time and seize their controls mid-flight. Americans don't stand the chance.
Very funny.
Last edited:
I believe that Americans are dying to know how Iranians brought down their RQ-170, because they want to fix their system vulnerability. That's why they are working on net so hard to find out where the hole is.
And believe me what you hear on net or media is not the real action that Iranian have taken to bring down this RQ-170.
And believe me what you hear on net or media is not the real action that Iranian have taken to bring down this RQ-170.
SOHEIL
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 15,796
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
@LeGenD how does a stealth UAV with a service ceiling of 50,000 ft (and let's be honest it was flying at something like that level, certainly thousands and thousands of feet) just glide gracefully to the ground and sustain only very minor (almost un- noticeable) fuselage damage (and probably some broken gear if deployed)? Bearing in mind that flying wings are notoriously difficult to keep in the air and need constant FBW input just to keep them from going out of control.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
@AmirPatriot
Bro, I am not interested in this discussion anymore. Experience wasn't constructive - didn't felt welcome.
Bro, I am not interested in this discussion anymore. Experience wasn't constructive - didn't felt welcome.
Last edited:
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
How convenient...
Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Aramagedon
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 8,801
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Mashallah.
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
You are shockingly dumb. First of all we see a long missile not a dot. Secondly its too slow for separated warhead.
Fafnir
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The warhead has been gliding for over 300km in a long flat glide after it separated from its boost stage over iraq,by the time it reached the target in syria its speed would have dropped down into the mid to high sub sonic range.
But I`m curious if its not a ballistic missile then what else do you think it could possibly be then,a cruise missile,an air dropped precision guided bomb?
Similar threads
