Iran's Captured RQ-170: How Bad Is the Damage?

• TA wrote on 2012-01-24 10:52

  Iran's Captured RQ-170: How Bad Is the Damage?
  
  By DAVE MAJUMDAR
  Published: 9 Dec 2011 10:09
  
  No one in the U.S. government has officially confirmed that Iran has captured a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel UAV. But just an hour after Iranian state television aired images purporting to show off its prize, the Air Force's top uniformed officer raised the specter of a foreign power copying the stealthy jet's top-secret technology.
  
  "There is the potential for reverse engineering, clearly," said Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz. "Ideally, one would want to maintain the American advantage. That certainly is in our minds."
  
  If the jet "comes into the possession of a sophisticated adversary," there's not much the U.S. could do about it, Schwartz said Dec. 8 during a taping of "This Week in Defense News."

  
  
  http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8517205&c=AIR&s=TOP
  
  Russia and China have jumped the wagon to get a look at this thing.
  
  http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93294-china-russia-want-to-inspect-downed-us-drone
  
  It is still a profound mystery how Iran was able to track it and came into possession of it.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-24 14:04
  There is no mystery. :P I've been tracking this when news first got out (which, btw, was quite a while ago). What happened became pretty obvious when information surfaced about Iran's purchase of a sophisticated jamming system from Russia.
  
  I mean, just think about it. Those birds fly using an encrypted communication link with the ground station, as well as a GPS-guided autopilot. What happens if you jam the communication link? The system is forced into auto pilot, naturally.
  
  But if you could jam the communication link, what stops you from jamming GPS as well? Hell, GPS may even be easier to jam. Or better yet, why not feed faked GPS coordinates with a more powerful signal of your own? US military GPS has security vulnerabilities, and this has been known since around 2003. They've supposedly been working on upgrading the security, but with the US military being incompetent like it always is, this is the end result.
  
  End result being that the top secret Sentinel landed where it thought was the US Afghan airbase, but in reality ended up landing inside Iran.
  
  The good news is that the Sentinel isn't that top secret. In fact, it's been designed in a way that it wouldn't be too precious to lose should an operation go wrong.
  
  Iran responded to Obama's formal request to return the drone by mailing him a pink toy shaped like one.
  
  Bonus: Can you think of a way to design a drone navigation system that's not using a retarded setup like the US currently does?
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-01-24 14:09
  Iran's government is bad too lol.
• Froglord wrote on 2012-01-24 15:54
  Iran couldn't make a stealth jet even if they tried, the c4 they'd attached to it would make it look like a giant fatass pigeon.
• Osayidan wrote on 2012-01-24 17:24

  Quote from Yoorah;747248:

  Bonus: Can you think of a way to design a drone navigation system that's not using a retarded setup like the US currently does?

  
  
  With 600+ billion dollars per year military budget I don't see why not.
• paladin wrote on 2012-01-25 03:10
  Lovely
  Iran likely will rush things and screw it up
  China and russia not so much
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-25 12:17

  Quote from Osayidan;747283:

  With 600+ billion dollars per year military budget I don't see why not.

  
  No need for cash. I'm just curious if anyone else here can come up with intelligent ideas for solutions. :p
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2012-01-25 18:06
  Well there is no sure fire way to make a fool proof drone. It's going to require a communication link somehow and any communication links are vulnerable to being jammed. Unless you specifically program into the damn thing where to fly and when so that it rely's only on itself...
  
  Hey wait a second...That's not a bad idea. Pre-program where you want the thing to go before hand and then whenever it's done with it's pre-programmed mission. Setup the next mission coordinates.
  
  You wouldn't have a live feed though so as to reduce communication corruption and instead wait for it to return to you with the data. Maybe have some tracking chip on it through that doesn't impact it. Make sure it's an encrypted one that enemies can't tap into of course.
  
  That's all I got.
• Taycat wrote on 2012-01-25 18:57
  I'd love to see them try to make a fool-proof drone though.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-25 23:45

  Quote from Kingofrunes;748567:

  Well there is no sure fire way to make a fool proof drone. It's going to require a communication link somehow and any communication links are vulnerable to being jammed. Unless you specifically program into the damn thing where to fly and when so that it rely's only on itself...
  
  Hey wait a second...That's not a bad idea. Pre-program where you want the thing to go before hand and then whenever it's done with it's pre-programmed mission. Setup the next mission coordinates.
  
  You wouldn't have a live feed though so as to reduce communication corruption and instead wait for it to return to you with the data. Maybe have some tracking chip on it through that doesn't impact it. Make sure it's an encrypted one that enemies can't tap into of course.
  
  That's all I got.

  
  
  You're on the right track. Autopilot and AI are the way to go. But those systems still need outside input to work. ie. Autopilot is useless if it doesn't know where it is. Or is it?
  
  To critically rely on a communication link (be it controls from the ground station or coordinates from GPS) when you're flying into hostile territory where a technologically capable enemy is in control (ie. where you need stealth in the first place) is, well, stupid. :)
• Osayidan wrote on 2012-01-26 01:41
  AI controlled drones, that's one step closer to skynet and a world filled with Arnolds :scare:
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2012-01-26 18:41

  Quote from Yoorah;748726:

  You're on the right track. Autopilot and AI are the way to go. But those systems still need outside input to work. ie. Autopilot is useless if it doesn't know where it is. Or is it?
  
  To critically rely on a communication link (be it controls from the ground station or coordinates from GPS) when you're flying into hostile territory where a technologically capable enemy is in control (ie. where you need stealth in the first place) is, well, stupid. :)

  
  
  Well isn't that what the tracking chip is for? To know where it is?
  
  Yes it's closer to those fearsome AI's and androids that we've come to fear in science fiction but if we are careful and responsible and make sure it only does what we tell it to do, it should be fine. It's when it goes beyond those instructions and begins thinking on it's own that it can become problematic.