PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th Dec 2011, 13:28   #161 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,460
Now that article is interesting, if only to show that there is no lateral thinking going on.

If the RQ was jammed then it should pick up the emergency mission and fly back until, either:

1. It re-establishes comms with the SAT link (you wouldn't have to go far from your jamming source to vastly reduce the effect of the jammer as free space path loss of signals is logarithmic over distance (in dB it is 20Log(distance)+20log(frequency)+32.45)) - it's energy is dispersed under an inverse square law.
2. It establishes link with a LOS link (if it has one?).

Now, if the jammer shown in the article fried the avionics (and it would need a lot of power to do that) then this is not just a threat to remotely piloted aircraft, but also to manned aviation. Why? Because just about every aircraft flying in the military today has digital fuel control modules, engine management, fly-by-wire, communications/datalinks, RADARs and other avionics. So if the RQ became unflyable due to its kit getting fried by this supposed "wonder weapon" then we had best wheel out the Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancaster from BBMF! However, as seen above to fry avionics over long distances would require huge amounts of power concentrated right on the SAT dish - unlikely from the ground also, due to geometry.

So I reckon it had an engine failure, the AD Cdr that "claimed it" got lucky and the Iranians now have a piece equipment that the US would rather they did not.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 13:38   #162 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
I read about that so called 'jamming device' and took it with a pinch of the proverbial.

Would Iran show all the working innards of that UAV and would they then tell the World how they managed to over ride the command and control of that aircraft.

Apart from industrial espionage, it is sadly very much a fact of life that money talks and loyalty can walk.
glojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 14:29   #163 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,098
500N: Flying wings can be very stable. The sweep back gives them directional stability and dihedral effect. With forwardish centre of gravity and a bit of washout on the tips (trailing edge higher than leading edge) they will glide very happily by themselves. BBC - Earth News - Vine seeds become 'giant gliders'

If someone wanted to deliver a gliding mock up into Iran they could do this with a couple of radio control servos, a GPS plus something to link the two. All it would need is to be pre-programmed to steer towards a chosen landing point. Some current UAVs do this if their engine stops, they glide to pre-programmed, reasonably flat, remote areas and go into a descending circuit until the ground gets in the way. If the programmer is clever, he sets it so it turns into the forecast wind at, say, 300ft and glides straight ahead. Some land with almost no damage.

People have towed free flight gliders with radio controlled or even other free flight models. It can be done.

Leon Jabachjabicz

Firstly I think you are right, that the thing had an engine failure before or after entering 'return home' mode, and came down either where gravity took it on the return home route, or to a pre-programmed empty space.

History; don't forget J.W. Dunne's tailless aircraft from the First World War. he even sold the designs to the Americans. Some were biplanes, others monoplanes.




Terminology; RPVs, RPAS, UAVs, UAS, UMA or drones. At least drone can cover them all, and doesn't just tell you what it isn't. Not all UAVs are remotely piloted; some are pre-programmed or 'think' for themselves once airborne, and when does an aeroplane become a system? Most modern aircraft, particularly military ones, are part of a system as they are of limited use without their ground support equipment, air traffic control, etc.

Jamesdevice wrote:
Quote:
those early flying wings were all very stable and very difficult to control. Its really only modern computer control systems that enable them to fly.
Can't see anyone wasting that money on a fake.
This sounds contradictory. Is this what you are really trying to say?:
Early flying wings were all very stable but could be sensitive in pitch if trimmed with a rearward centre of gravity to allow them to be efficient. Its only really the use of modern computer systems (neutral stability +fly by wire) that enables them to fly efficiently.

Last edited by Mechta; 10th Dec 2011 at 15:42.
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 16:14   #164 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Africa
Age: 69
Posts: 19
self destruct device

Please tell me the US installs self destruct devices on these advanced tech drones and that this malfunctioned.
Otherwise my guess is it was meant to fall into Iranian hands and is still transmitting!
hexboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 16:21   #165 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 850
Mechta
That isn't what I meant to say, but I'll defer to your better knowledge. If thats the case I'll not argue

Avtobaza jammer
from Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) system | Defense Update
" Each 1L222 system includes an passive ELINT signals interception system and a jamming module capable of disrupting airborne radars including fire control radars, terrain following radars and ground mapping radars as well as weapon (missile) data links."
How vulnerable is a drone which has had terrain and ground mapping radar disabled?
When I was looking earlier I did find a couple of comments suggesting that the device COULD fry circuitry. However they were unreferenced and at face value hard to believe
jamesdevice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 17:12   #166 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,098
Jamesdevice,

Depending upon the level of redundancy the RQ-170 designers buit in, it would be likely to have some sort of inertial navigation system as a backup to any GPS or terrain interpreting system (I don't know if the latter exists). Assuming that areasonable degree of electromagnetic shielding has been built into the avionics boxes, an inertial navigation system, I would have thought, would keep working. Maybe that Avtobasa sytem played a part in helping the remote operator lose his uplink, and send the RQ-170 into a 'return home' mode, but I think that its unlikely to have directly permanently damaged anything onboard.

Hexboy, The Americans may have systems to burn out components if the RQ-170 is believed lost after its flight duration, but putting explosives in it runs the risk of bad publicity if it is first found by children who are subsequently maimed or killed by it intentionally exploding. After all, America has not yet declared war on Iran. Surveillance and espionage is all part of the 'game'. Once it turns to indiscriminate killing by the Americans, the Americans may be seen by the world to have stepped things up a gear. They don't want another 'USS Vincennes'.

Temprarily losing an uplink is not that uncommon with UAVs, so operators wouldn't want to destroy it until they were absolutely sure they wouldn't get it back.
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 17:42   #167 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 12,925
Quote:
Temprarily losing an uplink is not that uncommon with UAVs, so operators wouldn't want to destroy it until they were absolutely sure they wouldn't get it back.
So do you still think they are still hoping the Iranians are going to pop it in the mail?



NutLoose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 18:32   #168 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Quote:
So do you still think they are still hoping the Iranians are going to pop it in the mail?
At least the Chinese eventually returned the US EP-3E aircraft that landed at Hainan Island. The Chinese very kindly flat packed this aircraft and put all the parts into numerous Airfix boxes. These boxes were then handed over to the Russians who then subsequently gave it back to its rightful owners. PDF file

Is it possible that the innards of this drone have now also been flat packed and being returned to the USA via Iran School of Stealth Technology, China, Russia and anyone else willing to pay for the privilege of handling this imitation state of the art UAV that was deliberately deposited into the centre of Azadi Square. Mr Google

No doubt neither the Chinese nor the Russians will peek at the contents of those boxes.
glojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 19:37   #169 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
So do you still think they are still hoping the Iranians are going to pop it in the mail?


Not until the Chinese have measured taken measurements and filled eB*y with models of it. They're cutting it fine though, if they are to arrive in time for Christmas...
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 21:14   #170 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesdevice View Post
its not big enough
the RQ-170 is variously reported as 26-28 metres in wingspan
I have seen these claims a number of times. However, when looking at the few images said to be RQ170 in the internet this assumption seems rather unlikely.

In some of those images it looks much smaller compared to structures in the photos.


Look at the canopies in the open (F-18?) canopies in the background
http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/...0_enhanced.jpg

Or the small tower in this pictures:
http://elhangardetj.********.com/

Or in this image compared to the AN 26 in the background:

Edit: Does this Link work?
DOPPELADLER.COM | Thema anzeigen - OT: USA bestštigen Einsatz von RQ-170 "Sentinel" in Pakistan

6th picture from the Top shows an AN 32 (rather than 26 as I wrote) in the background on the right.

That thing seems actually quite small.

Looking at those images the size in the pictures shown by the Iranians seems reasonable.

Last edited by henra; 11th Dec 2011 at 09:09.
henra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Dec 2011, 21:19   #171 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 850
those last two links are getting corrupted by the forum software
Theres something in the forum setup which blocks links to some other competing aircraft web sites
jamesdevice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Dec 2011, 01:56   #172 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 810
Quote:
Would the USA over fly Iranian air space with a toy replica full of advanced technology just to 'fool' the opposition?
Wern't they the ones who dropped over sized condoms on the viet cong? Or was that an urban myth.
rh200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Dec 2011, 02:13   #173 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 1,961
Analysis at the following link.

IN-DEPTH PHOTO ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPOSED RQ-170 SENTINEL DRONE IN IRANIAN HANDS | aviationintel
TEEEJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Dec 2011, 02:24   #174 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 53
Posts: 4,258
TEEEJ

I read that the other day (on another computer so couldn't post the link),
a very interesting analysis.

I notice he mentions carbon fiber which is interesting.


Mechta
Thanks for the explanation to my questions re gliding.
500N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Dec 2011, 21:43   #175 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 107
US asks Iran to return captured drone

BBC News - US asks Iran to return captured drone

Guess that answers this one then!
dc1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Dec 2011, 07:47   #176 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Difficult to believe that the Iranians would have the ability to "hack" into a drone's control systems, if this was the case then I'm sure that a few more drones would have gone missing in Afghanistan (although would such losses be in the public domain?)
Mike7777777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Dec 2011, 08:26   #177 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
We have gone through numerous pages of folks claiming this was a fake drone that was deliberately landed in Iran just to make that country look silly. We are now claiming the thing is real but it had a 'technical' malfunction and simply glided down to earth and somehow landed intact!!

I TOTALLY accept technical items of any type be they in a computer, car, tank, refrigerator or aircraft will always at some time fail to operate correctly b ut in this specific case, I just do not buy that excuse.

How long do we want the list of US military equipment having 'technical' issues that have caused them to crash or be destroyed?? My befuddled memory tells me that the last case of a 'technical' issue comparable to this was the helicopter that 'could not take off' after it developed 'technical' issues in the compound at the home of Bin Laden. Before that I can recall an Apache aircraft that was allegedly shot down over Iraq by a very old farmer with an antiquated rifle. The US claimed the thing had been forced to land because of 'technical' issues and the aircraft had subsequently been destroyed by an F-15E. The problem with that claim was that those of us with satellite TV saw this same helicopter on the back of a low loader being driven into an embassy compound in Baghdad!!

My thoughts are still that the US has been 'outsmarted' and they are now paying the price. My personal observations are that.... 'Please may I have my ball back' is unlikely to wash unless the USA makes Iran an offer they CANNOT refuse.
glojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Dec 2011, 08:29   #178 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 53
Posts: 4,258
glojo

In brief, what do you think the full story is now ?
500N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Dec 2011, 08:46   #179 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 810
Oh I don't know, if you where someone like the Chinese, or Russians and wanted to get experiance into blocking and or hacking into the latest and greatest of your enemy how would you do it.

Oh thats it, go somewhere where they are inevatibly sending assets into or really close to a country that you can deal with. Just sit back and play with your latest Chinese or Russian toys and see what happens. If lucky let said country have some photo ops.
rh200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Dec 2011, 12:24   #180 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 500N
In brief, what do you think the full story is now
Me brief!!

Risky thing putting one's head above the parapet but I possibly go along roughly with the comments of rh200

Countries that want to find out just how good the US technology is can safely enter Iran, set up their detection equipment and then play to their hearts content without fear of interruption and just wait for these drones to fly over.

If you insult me once more fool you,
If you insult me twice then more fool me.

In other words if the US continually over fly the same area then they are asking for trouble.... Or to be detected. I understand that nothing is completely invisible, it is just harder to detect.
glojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1