US drone now Iran’s property: defence minister

[Devil Soul]

US drone now Iran’s property: defence minister (AFP)

13 December 2011, 3:50 PM
TEHRAN — A US drone captured by Iran is now the property of the Islamic republic, Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday, dismissing a request by US President Barack Obama for its return.

“The American espionage drone is now Iran’s property, and our country will decide what steps to take regarding it,” Vahidi was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.

“Instead of apologising to the Iranian nation, it (the United States) is brazenly asking for the drone back,” Vahidi also said, according to another news agency, Mehr.

Iran “will not back down from defending the nation or its interests,” Vahidi declared.

Obama on Monday acknowledged that Iran was holding the reconnaissance drone — a bat-winged RQ-170 Sentinel — by saying: “We’ve asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond.”

Iran last week displayed on state television what it said was the drone. A lawmaker said the Islamic republic was unlocking the aircraft’s software and was going to reverse-engineer the drone.

The foreign ministry in Tehran was similarly dismissive of Obama’s request.

“It seems he (Obama) has forgotten that Iran’s airspace was violated, spying operations were undertaken, international laws were violated and that Iran’s internal affairs were interfered with,” ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said told his regular media briefing, according to Fars news agency.

“Instead of an official apology and admitting to this violation, they are making this request,” he said.

Iranian officials have said a Revolutionary Guards cyber-warfare unit had hacked the aircraft’s controls and brought it down.

US officials have admitted anonymously that the drone was on a CIA spying mission over the Islamic republic when it was captured.

The head of Iran’s parliamentary national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said on Monday that Iran was in the “final stages” of decoding the drone’s software and “our next action will be to reverse-engineer the aircraft.”

Valihi added that Iran was “highly capable” of making drones and had already built some capable of reconnaissance and attack, according to ISNA.

Obama, who gave the first official US confirmation that the drone was in Iran’s hands, shed no light on the plane’s mission or why it failed to return to its base in Afghanistan.

“With respect to the drone inside of Iran, I’m not going to comment on intelligence matters that are classified,” he said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had expressed doubt that Iran would agree to give back the drone.

“Given Iran’s behavior to date, we do not expect them to comply,” Clinton told reporters at a Monday press conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, with whom she discussed Iran.

Although the drone incident has handed Iran a propaganda coup, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta voiced scepticism that Tehran would gain much of a technological advantage from the aircraft.

“It’s a little difficult to know just frankly how much they’re going to be able to get from having obtained those parts,” Panetta told reporters aboard a US military aircraft.

“I don’t know the conditions of those parts. I don’t know what state they’re in.”

Asked if Iran may have forced the plane down in a cyber-attack, Panetta said: “I don’t know.”

 

[nomi007]

Iran's win my heart and soul
that idiot beast also spying our country
thanks ALLAH that rq-170 has not been in Pakistan

 

[Roybot]

Iran's win my heart and soul
that idiot beast also spying our country
thanks ALLAH that rq-170 has not been in Pakistan

It has actually. It was covering Osama operation.

 

[acetophenol]

Iran has justice in its part. Iran must rise this issue in the international arena like UN. It for sure will be having the support of pakistan and maybe china and russia(MAYBE india,on this issue).

 

[Takaavar]

Iran has justice in its part. Iran must rise this issue in the international arena like UN. It for sure will be having the support of pakistan and maybe china and russia(MAYBE india,on this issue).

Iran has already done that:
articles.cnn.com/2011-12-11/middleeast/world_meast_iran-us-drone_1_spy-drones-rq-170-unmanned-aircraft/2?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
but the problem is veto power of the U.S.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

 

[pmukherjee]

Really silly of the US to expect it back. One does not return enemy spy planes which crash in the act of spying.

 

[gambit]

Really silly of the US to expect it back. One does not return enemy spy planes which crash in the act of spying.

Why?

1- If Iran 'hacked' the UAV operation centers back in Nevada to do whatever it takes to divert one US UAV to Iran, that is theft.

2- If Iran committed a wide area wide bandwidth high power EM transmission DESIGNED to interfere with the normal operations of any electrical devices, and even though the consequential actions of those devices cannot be predicted when they are affected by this jamming signal, the fact that Iran committed such an act meant Iran wanted to created an environmental condition in the hope that an American UAV would be sufficiently affected and fly into Iranian airspace. This make Iran no less a thief than option 1.

So which do you PREFER to believe? That Iran actually 'hacked' into the UAV operations centers in CONUS, thereby making Iran a thief? Or that it was a mistake or deliberate trespass on our part, thereby making US look silly for asking for the return of our property?

 

[pmukherjee]

Why?

1- If Iran 'hacked' the UAV operation centers back in Nevada to do whatever it takes to divert one US UAV to Iran, that is theft.

2- If Iran committed a wide area wide bandwidth high power EM transmission DESIGNED to interfere with the normal operations of any electrical devices, and even though the consequential actions of those devices cannot be predicted when they are affected by this jamming signal, the fact that Iran committed such an act meant Iran wanted to created an environmental condition in the hope that an American UAV would be sufficiently affected and fly into Iranian airspace. This make Iran no less a thief than option 1.

So which do you PREFER to believe? That Iran actually 'hacked' into the UAV operations centers in CONUS, thereby making Iran a thief? Or that it was a mistake or deliberate trespass on our part, thereby making US look silly for asking for the return of our property?

Gambit. You know better than that. Neither was the Sentinel 'hacked' nor was it shot down. The bloody thing malfunctioned, as simple as that. Maybe a loss of propulsion, engine failed (and it has only one) or some other systemic failure, we will never know unless it is returned and investigated. Which does not seem likely. The sentinel was most certainly flying over Iran when it crashed. The Iranians are in the process of extracting data from the on board hard drives which should be pretty conclusive regarding the activities of the drone immediately prior to the crash. Although most of the date is transmitted back to the control station on secured data links in real time, record of command guidance instructions received from the controller which took the drone where it crashed would be available on the hard drives along with other evidence.

On the whole, very embarrassing.

PS:- Oh, sorry I forgot. A small piece of the US U-2 spy plane piloted by Gary Powers and shot down by the USSR in 1960 was indeed returned to USA even though the Russians retained most of the wreckage. So, precedence of returning spy planes or parts thereof do exist.

 

[gambit]

Gambit. You know better than that.

Yes, I do.

Neither was the Sentinel 'hacked' nor was it shot down.

But it is more comforting for most people here to believe Iran had an active role in its acquisition. But since critical thinking skills have been long abandoned, the believers unwittingly called Iran a thief as well.

The bloody thing malfunctioned, as simple as that. Maybe a loss of propulsion, engine failed (and it has only one) or some other systemic failure, we will never know unless it is returned and investigated. Which does not seem likely. The sentinel was most certainly flying over Iran when it crashed. The Iranians are in the process of extracting data from the on board hard drives which should be pretty conclusive regarding the activities of the drone immediately prior to the crash. Although most of the date is transmitted back to the control station on secured data links in real time, record of command guidance instructions received from the controller which took the drone where it crashed would be available on the hard drives along with other evidence.

There is no way for anyone to know the particulars of the drone's avionics. Speculations are enjoyable but often they go into the absurd, then once the absurdity is repeated often enough, it becomes an entrenched belief. At best, the flight control system data would be extractable but since they are exactly that: flight controls, what need is there to encrypt them? It is the sensor data that would be encrypted and if they are, would it be on the speculative hard drives or immediately sent off? We do not know. The ubiquitousness of hard drives in popular culture should not be taken as mandatory for these things. This is pure 'Hollywood' driven. So with all due respect for everyone here, when it comes to the technical aspects of these things, and you guys know how I am about them, I would take the US position on them over others.

 

[IranZamin]

Gambit, get over it. You got humiliated,slapped in the face. Your commander in chief wants their plane back, Iran said no... double slapped.

 

[acetophenol]

Iran has already done that:
articles.cnn.com/2011-12-11/middleeast/world_meast_iran-us-drone_1_spy-drones-rq-170-unmanned-aircraft/2?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
but the problem is veto power of the U.S.

I can't follow your link as i am frm a cell phone bro. I didn't expect US to be punished by UN. But they must learn that they can get back punches.

 

[pmukherjee]

There is no way for anyone to know the particulars of the drone's avionics. Speculations are enjoyable but often they go into the absurd, then once the absurdity is repeated often enough, it becomes an entrenched belief. At best, the flight control system data would be extractable but since they are exactly that: flight controls, what need is there to encrypt them? It is the sensor data that would be encrypted and if they are, would it be on the speculative hard drives or immediately sent off? We do not know. The ubiquitousness of hard drives in popular culture should not be taken as mandatory for these things. This is pure 'Hollywood' driven. So with all due respect for everyone here, when it comes to the technical aspects of these things, and you guys know how I am about them, I would take the US position on them over others.

Agreed, the command guidance instructions or the flight control data in itself will not be very conclusive unless the precise location of the controller at the time of the incidence is known. But in conjunction with data from the GPS receiver stored abroad the machine a picture of the exact flight path of the Sentinel can be traced out. Whether the Iranians have this expertise or not is not known to me. However, it is not difficult to 'hire' expertise from Europe or elsewhere to do the calculations.

Sensor data is almost certainly highly encrypted and also certainly passed on to the controller in real time. There would be no need at all to store this data on board unless, maybe in the form of high definition still snap shots of sensitive places which need too much bandwidth to be transmitted and which the sentinel was spying on.

The position you take over any issue is of concern only to you. You don't have to justify that to anyone. I was discussing from a totally neutral stand point. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sentinel crashed on its own without any help from anyone. Also, I have no doubt that it had been spying over Iranian territory. I doubt that the US will see it again unless some serious concessions are made. Iran has ended up with an awesome hand and they will milk it like hell, of that I am sure.

 

[53fd]

Why?

1- If Iran 'hacked' the UAV operation centers back in Nevada to do whatever it takes to divert one US UAV to Iran, that is theft.

2- If Iran committed a wide area wide bandwidth high power EM transmission DESIGNED to interfere with the normal operations of any electrical devices, and even though the consequential actions of those devices cannot be predicted when they are affected by this jamming signal, the fact that Iran committed such an act meant Iran wanted to created an environmental condition in the hope that an American UAV would be sufficiently affected and fly into Iranian airspace. This make Iran no less a thief than option 1.

So which do you PREFER to believe? That Iran actually 'hacked' into the UAV operations centers in CONUS, thereby making Iran a thief? Or that it was a mistake or deliberate trespass on our part, thereby making US look silly for asking for the return of our property?

The US violated international law when the drone entered Iranian territory in the first place.

 

[harpoon]

Really silly of the US to expect it back. One does not return enemy spy planes which crash in the act of spying.

Why not?The Chinese returned the USN EP-3 after the infamous 2001 mid air collision.