Iran claims to down US stealth spy drone

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Why are people assuming that Iran was acting alone?
I look at how situations are developing and positions hardening along all the Geopolitical faultlines and I would bet good money that Russian equipment and advisers have been helping to facilitate this kind of result.
 

advill

Junior Member
Re: Chinese UAV & UCAV development

This is going to be a "bonaza" for the Russians and others who would like to examine the US stealth drone in greater details. Could'nt the US embedded a "self-destruct" mechanism? That's something to consider (by any country) to keep secrets away from preying eyes.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Re: Chinese UAV & UCAV development

This is going to be a "bonaza" for the Russians and others who would like to examine the US stealth drone in greater details. Could'nt the US embedded a "self-destruct" mechanism? That's something to consider (by any country) to keep secrets away from preying eyes.

Unlikely.

This drone was designed to not incorporate anything too sensitive or advanced as it was viewed that there was a high chance of it falling into enemy hands.

This would probably be a quantum leap for the Iranians in terms of the technologies they can gleam from it, but for the likes of Russia and China, who both have stealth fighter prototypes flying, it probably will not yield all that much that they did not already know.

Ironically, for the Iranians, the technology the drone carries may be too advanced for them to make much practical use out of in the short term, and by the time they had it all figured out, chances are the technologies would have become obsolete. That would be why they would be willing to allow the Russians and Chinese access to the drone, and have some sort of agreement in place whereby the Russians and Chinese would help them absorb the stealth technologies of the drone a lot faster than they would hope to on their own.

The main reason the Russians and Chinese would be interested in the drone is to help their own domestic UAV programmes and also to develop counters to US UAVs. The things they would be most interested in would probably be the secure datalink and sensors etc instead of the stealth coating or structural design of the thing.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
This drone was designed to not incorporate anything too sensitive or advanced as it was viewed that there was a high chance of it falling into enemy hands.
I hear this again and again and disagree with it. The U2 spy plane flown by Gary Powers that the USSR shot down had sensitive equipment. Granted the USAF thought it flew to high to be vulnerable but they knew it was always a risk.

If you don't put your most advanced and capable equipment in a drone flying over Iran, where do you put it? When you develop advanced equipment, you use it as much as possible. There would be no point in developing advanced surveillance technology and never using it for fear of it falling into enemy hands. There are risks, but who knows how long the CIA's spying program has been going on. Maybe it's been going on for years and this is the first crash, just like with the U2 program, making the program and drone less vulnerable than we all think.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The remark about not having the most advanced tech was made with regards to stealth technologies. For a drone such as this, of course it will need the best sensors and datalink as well as the latest in UAV tech, which is why I highlighted those as areas where Russia and China would be most interested in.

But we need to bare in mind that if this drone did indeed crash instead of making a perfect landing, the sensor equipment is very likely to have been damaged if not destroyed, so it's value to Russia and China may not turn out to be all that great.

However, the stealth technology used to make this drone is unlikely to be anything the likes of China and Russian do not already know or have mastered already.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
From Air Force Times Don't believe everything what Aboulafia said he is always derisive of anything not made in USA.. The same one who look down on J 20 when it first fly give BS comments.
but the worst damage is it put into question the viability of all kind UAV against state actor

Iran’s captured RQ-170: How bad is the damage?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 9, 2011 10:09:04 EST

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 Thursday during a taping of “This Week in Defense News.”

The Iranian broadcast showed apparent footage of a mostly intact RQ-170 put on public display. While the craft showed some damage, it seemed to be in remarkably good shape.

One source said the aircraft in the footage was definitely the Sentinel, a subsonic, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft built by Lockheed Martin. The aircraft appeared to have sustained damage consistent with a wheels-up landing, he said.

The Associated Press quoted a former U.S. official as saying the Pentagon was using the aircraft to keep watch on Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons facilities.

However, the Pentagon had no official comment on the Iranian video footage.

“We’re not going to add to what we said over the weekend,” said George Little, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
How Damaging?

Analysts were split over just how damaging the loss of the Sentinel will be.

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., compared it to the Soviet shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane, a tactical and strategic disaster for the U.S.

The capture of the Sentinel calls into question the viability of the very concept of stealthy unmanned aircraft penetrating enemy airspace, Goure said

“It kind of undermines the whole argument for replacing manned aircraft with unmanned systems,” he said. “Unless you want to use it as a one-way missile.”
.


The capture of a mostly intact RQ-170 by a hostile power like Iran is “the biggest Christmas present to our enemies in probably a decade, at least,” Goure said

The captured aircraft will help adversaries copy U.S. stealth design techniques, coating materials, engine technology, and UAV command-and-control systems, he said. It will also help them develop countermeasures against stealthy U.S. aircraft.

Moreover, he said, “Everybody now will get an understanding of our state-of-the-art intelligence collection capabilities.”


Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia was more measured in his response.

“It’s not the end of the world,” Aboulafia said.

The Iranians will undoubtedly share the technology or even the crashed aircraft with other nations, he said — and Iranian news site Nasim reported Dec. 8 that Russian and Chinese experts were already on their way to visit. But the manufacturing know-how to build such aircraft can’t be duplicated from a captured machine, he said.

Moreover, even if the coatings were compromised and much of the shaping of a stealth airframe article is already public domain, Aboulafia said, “There is so much more to stealth than the airframe.”

Most of the mission systems on the captured plane are probably useless to an adversary, he said.

“From a secrecy standpoint, it’s like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture,” Aboulafia said. “But I’m sure they can sell it to someone who can get some kind of information out of it. But the mission systems are likely to be too encrypted to be of use to anyone.”

Still, reverse engineering is inevitable, he said: “Please insert Ethernet cable and download operating instructions here.”

There are few examples of countries that gained a strategic edge simply by capturing an enemy platform. Soon after World War II, the Soviet Union jump-started its jet-engine program by copying Western technology, but lacking the deep understanding provided by bootstrap developments, never developed an innovative aerospace industry that could go toe-to-toe with the West.

“It doesn’t work like that,” Aboulafia said. “But it wouldn’t be good.”
How’d It Go Down?

Still unknown is how Iran captured the stealthy aircraft in the first place. Tehran claims to have used cyberwarfare to hack the drone’s systems.

Schwartz declined to say whether he believed the RQ-170 was brought down by electronic means.

Goure said the largely intact airframe ruled out the possibility of an engine or navigational malfunction.

“Either this was a cyber/electronic warfare attack system that brought the system down or it was a glitch in the command-and-control system,” he said.

If it was a malfunction, it was a spectacular one. Not only did the aircraft lose its command link, it also failed to return to base as it was designed to do in such an eventuality, Goure said.

Aboulafia pronounced himself flummoxed that the RQ-170 was not programmed to self-destruct.

“I would really hope they’d have a kill switch. Is the world really that poorly run?” he said.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
Likely the craft had an engine failure and made a belly landing.The Iranians might have assisted in causing that engine failure. As for the landing it reminded me of an incident with a F-84F Thunderstreak in the Netherlands more than fifty years ago. The pilot left his office at considerable altitude after which his stead straightened out and made wide circles for the next half hour until it ran out of fuel. It made then a near perfect belly landing and was easily repaired.
I consider it unlikely that the craft was not fitted with the best, light, equipment for spying less than twelve months ago. It should have self-destruct provisions perhaps, but they also cost weight and the experience seem to be that such incidents occur rarely.
If the craft only loses contact with his pilot it should return to its departure airfield and be able to make an autonomous landing. If even a space shuttle like Buran can do this it should be possible for a much better subsonic airplane.
The notion that this can have been caused by the failure of the board computer is absurd. Such craft need several computers to compare the outcome of their calculations. The US Shuttle had four main computers who voted and a fifth to keep an eye on the four others. The computers to be used here are no larger than a video card each.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
Re: Chinese UAV & UCAV development

I believe so. When the American helicopter was downed in Pakistan (on the mission that killed OBL) the tail rotor was on displace within a couple of days.

So you believe that by exceeding by two days, 100% more, the Iranians were into chicanery? Just saying.
 
Top