Iran claims to have shot down US drone

[gf0012-aust]

1. First they jammed the communication downlink to the drone so it reverted to ‘idiot mode’. i.e. return to base and land.
2. They then overpowered the signals being received by the drone from the GPS satellites to convince it that it had arrived at its home base. They did not changing the navigation waypoints programmed into the drone.
3. The landing area was either selected because it resembled the drone’s base or specially constructed to mimic it, and at (nearly) the same elevation. They claim that the bottom of the drone was damaged during landing because the elevation was off by a few meters.

Here is a link to a nice report anticipating this and other problems that are / will severely limit drone capabilities in the near future. (U//FOUO) USAF Operating Next-Generation Remotely Piloted Aircraft for Irregular Warfare | Public Intelligence

I particularly like Key Finding #3 about limited communication bandwidth. It is nice to see my opinion that this is a major limitation on current drone operations confirmed. :hul

I kind of agree with you but with some variation:

platforms in the UAS are programmed to do a series of options (one of or all of them) unless they are under constant intervention management (like GHawk)

1) if signal lost return to last strong signal point and commence circling
2) if signal lost stay on station and do increasingly wider laps until reconnected
3) if signal lost then go to the next programmed waypoint and continue the mission
4) if signal lost then proceed to the next safe waypoint for recovery (ie friendly airfield or country where known recovery assets (eg specials) exist

on assets like the 170 there is no "self destruct"

I'm guessing that Option 2 probably occurred and that she ran out of fuel, although the fuel loaded is usually enough to get home under a worst case scenario

OTOH, the US is dealing witbh 125gb lines already, and UAS don't require fat pipes, unless they are GHawk and under constant streaming. even the BAMS UAS that are currently under development to work in conjunction with manned ASW air assets are only sending tactical sized packages. the vid streaming is not high defintion but is usually grey scale as well as it is something which is easier to work with and is of a known quality. again, I don't see anything from historical docs on the 170 that denotes carriage of streaming etc... unless it was a flat panel with a fairly fixed aperture

tactical data packets are in bytes and deliberately so. streaming is an issue, but I seriously doubt that the 170 was streaming as it doesn't look like it ever had the capacity. at best it may have had a set of arrays, but they also only transmit in bytes

the bandwidth issue for UAS is about streaming - but the bandwidth that gets provided to assets like GH is pretty robust - they make sure of it.

 

[My2Cents]

I kind of agree with you but with some variation:

platforms in the UAS are programmed to do a series of options (one of or all of them) unless they are under constant intervention management (like GHawk)

1) if signal lost return to last strong signal point and commence circling
2) if signal lost stay on station and do increasingly wider laps until reconnected
3) if signal lost then go to the next programmed waypoint and continue the mission
4) if signal lost then proceed to the next safe waypoint for recovery (ie friendly airfield or country where known recovery assets (eg specials) exist

on assets like the 170 there is no "self destruct"

I'm guessing that Option 2 probably occurred and that she ran out of fuel, although the fuel loaded is usually enough to get home under a worst case scenario

IF the Iranian claims are correct it was Option 4, then they spoofed the GPS signal to make it think it had gotten home so it landed.

OTOH, the US is dealing witbh 125gb lines already, and UAS don't require fat pipes, unless they are GHawk and under constant streaming. even the BAMS UAS that are currently under development to work in conjunction with manned ASW air assets are only sending tactical sized packages. the vid streaming is not high defintion but is usually grey scale as well as it is something which is easier to work with and is of a known quality. again, I don't see anything from historical docs on the 170 that denotes carriage of streaming etc... unless it was a flat panel with a fairly fixed aperture

tactical data packets are in bytes and deliberately so. streaming is an issue, but I seriously doubt that the 170 was streaming as it doesn't look like it ever had the capacity. at best it may have had a set of arrays, but they also only transmit in bytes

the bandwidth issue for UAS is about streaming - but the bandwidth that gets provided to assets like GH is pretty robust - they make sure of it.

GH gets all it needs by making others suffer.

But what happens when you have a couple dozen UCAVs in the same space, which will need streaming for target tasking and approval, plus other air, ground, and possibly naval assets with their own communications demands, including their own drones. Finding enough dedicated bandwidth to go around will be impossible, and setting the priorities for allocation in a dynamic system an ongoing nightmare.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This idea that the Iranians spoofed the GPS so the RQ-170 thought it had flown to the wrong home is complete and total nonsense. It doesn’t take into account anything about how the system actually navigates and how it lands nor why the unit displayed clearly shows that it has belly landed in the bush somewhere.

GPS is only a secondary navigation system used to update the INS system. INS suffers drift of a few metres or so every few kilometre and GPS is used to update the INS position. If the GPS is jammed then the update just don’t happen and while the UAV may end up off course it will only be by a very small margin and certainly not heading in the wrong direction for 300km! Before GPS most military aircraft solely relied on INS for automatic navigation. If the GPS signal was replaced by a false one (which would be extremely difficult to do even for civil GPS) then the divergence between this and the INS would result in the systems internal logic ruling that the GPS was faulty and stop using its measurements. The INS has primacy because the GPS is reliant on an outside signal which can be disrupted via system failure, solar flares, WWIII, whatever.

This argument is reliant on most of the people hearing it being ignorant of how things works. Which is fine for propaganda but it just doesn’t cut it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This idea that the Iranians spoofed the GPS so the RQ-170 thought it had flown to the wrong home is complete and total nonsense. It doesn’t take into account anything about how the system actually navigates and how it lands nor why the unit displayed clearly shows that it has belly landed in the bush somewhere.

GPS is only a secondary navigation system used to update the INS system. INS suffers drift of a few metres or so every few kilometre and GPS is used to update the INS position. If the GPS is jammed then the update just don’t happen and while the UAV may end up off course it will only be by a very small margin and certainly not heading in the wrong direction for 300km! Before GPS most military aircraft solely relied on INS for automatic navigation. If the GPS signal was replaced by a false one (which would be extremely difficult to do even for civil GPS) then the divergence between this and the INS would result in the systems internal logic ruling that the GPS was faulty and stop using its measurements. The INS has primacy because the GPS is reliant on an outside signal which can be disrupted via system failure, solar flares, WWIII, whatever.

This argument is reliant on most of the people hearing it being ignorant of how things works. Which is fine for propaganda but it just doesn’t cut it.

The problem is however that the USAF and alphabets have had quite a few go off the reservation, and quite a few instances of some being in moron mode and doing laps at the last connected point.

That seems to indicate no redundant navigation systems but some redunancy within the primary (and only) system.

Not all UAS artefacts have multiple nav systems, and thats part of the payback for lusting after COTS as a fast deploy solution, and then minimising the costs and engineering issues by taking away some of the reqs which would be good common sense to keep

I'm still thinking that this one has had a brain fart, done laps in descending altitude (which is the other pre-programed option in some) and then run out of fuel and then attempted to go into an onboard system managed graceful descent - which hasn't worked out because its pretty apparent that they're hiding the belly because its all busted up.

I think some tribesman in that area has spotted it occurring and then called it in upon which they're recovered it.

I don't subscribe to the GPS spoofing as we've known about it for years and there are countermeasures available which have been used before. It comes as no surprise to anyone that attempts have been made to hijack signals, but a preprogrammed way point and subsequent management issues make this an unlikelihood IMO

 

[NICO]

There are still is a lot of unknowns and : "ifs,maybes,buts..." and some things that don't make sense. As mentioned, even if Iran jammed GPS, what about the INS system, hard to believe there isn't one on board? Seems the software needs some more work because it seems "buggy"......How did it "crash or land" and remain relatively intact? That's just for starters. Still not sure why UAVs like RQ don't have a self-destruct as many are mentioning. If you are over enemy territory, shouldn't there be at least some form of "nose dive at vmax" and make a nice crater?

How did Iran know RQ was around, did it's operations become so predictable that they eventually spotted it? Just an idea, maybe the color is to keep it closer to "sand dust" or smog, maybe 10,000 ft? not 50,000ft in the atmosphere so significantly closer to Earth. Could it have been visually spotted? Hard to believe but how did they spot it? Has Iran been moving radars around until an RQ flew close enough to be spotted? But then, how did they spot it over and over? You don't plan this in a few hours....Was USAF that freaking stupid to just keep flying over and over the same route? You think they would have learned from F117 shot down....Could Iran have observers/spotters in Afghanistan to tell them when one takes off? That's more likely.....

Still don't buy the whole theory of jamming, wouldn't any air force send a fighter for ID? Wouldn't they first shoot it down? The whole "Iran wanted to take it intact, baloney" sounds too much like a James Bond movie. Come to think of it, it is something the evil mastermind in JB would do instead of destroying it outright .

Just me putting up a bunch of ideas out there.

Maybe US is telling the truth, could it just be a plain engine failure?

I also think the timeline would be revealing here, what exact day did it go missing? where did it go down and when did USAF know it was down and why more wasn't done to destroy it or retrieve it? finally, what was it's target and original orbit? Probably we won't know for a long time....

 

[surpreme]

There are still is a lot of unknowns and : "ifs,maybes,buts..." and some things that don't make sense. As mentioned, even if Iran jammed GPS, what about the INS system, hard to believe there isn't one on board? Seems the software needs some more work because it seems "buggy"......How did it "crash or land" and remain relatively intact? That's just for starters. Still not sure why UAVs like RQ don't have a self-destruct as many are mentioning. If you are over enemy territory, shouldn't there be at least some form of "nose dive at vmax" and make a nice crater?

How did Iran know RQ was around, did it's operations become so predictable that they eventually spotted it? Just an idea, maybe the color is to keep it closer to "sand dust" or smog, maybe 10,000 ft? not 50,000ft in the atmosphere so significantly closer to Earth. Could it have been visually spotted? Hard to believe but how did they spot it? Has Iran been moving radars around until an RQ flew close enough to be spotted? But then, how did they spot it over and over? You don't plan this in a few hours....Was USAF that freaking stupid to just keep flying over and over the same route? You think they would have learned from F117 shot down....Could Iran have observers/spotters in Afghanistan to tell them when one takes off? That's more likely.....

Still don't buy the whole theory of jamming, wouldn't any air force send a fighter for ID? Wouldn't they first shoot it down? The whole "Iran wanted to take it intact, baloney" sounds too much like a James Bond movie. Come to think of it, it is something the evil mastermind in JB would do instead of destroying it outright .

Just me putting up a bunch of ideas out there.

Maybe US is telling the truth, could it just be a plain engine failure?

I also think the timeline would be revealing here, what exact day did it go missing? where did it go down and when did USAF know it was down and why more wasn't done to destroy it or retrieve it? finally, what was it's target and original orbit? Probably we won't know for a long time....

There still some unanswer questions on both ends Iranians and USAF. Don't believe the Iranian story don't add up what their saying. Why would USAF let a UAV just land in Iran without sending a F-15 or something to destroyed it. In Iraq US forces destroyed equipment so it won't fall insurgents hand what the different in this action that took place. It not one Iranian aircraft that can match up to a F-15. Another thing puzzle me is the information in the UAV must not been important it would not let it get in Iran hands just don make sense.

 

[NICO]

There still some unanswer questions on both ends Iranians and USAF. Don't believe the Iranian story don't add up what their saying. Why would USAF let a UAV just land in Iran without sending a F-15 or something to destroyed it. In Iraq US forces destroyed equipment so it won't fall insurgents hand what the different in this action that took place. It not one Iranian aircraft that can match up to a F-15. Another thing puzzle me is the information in the UAV must not been important it would not let it get in Iran hands just don make sense.

I don't think sending an F15 to destroy it would be the answer since you are REALLY doing some hostile actions but SF couldn't do it? Especially if USAF knew it was down and then maybe a day or 2 went by before the Iranians noticed or found the exact location??? But I do think you raise something interesting to note, we destroy helicopters,cargo planes,etc...that we don't want insurgents to retrieve in Iraq and Afghanistan but we let a spy drone pretty much be retrieved intact inside Iran????

Isn't that a little perplexing?

 

[My2Cents]

There still some unanswer questions on both ends Iranians and USAF. Don't believe the Iranian story don't add up what their saying. Why would USAF let a UAV just land in Iran without sending a F-15 or something to destroyed it. In Iraq US forces destroyed equipment so it won't fall insurgents hand what the different in this action that took place. It not one Iranian aircraft that can match up to a F-15. Another thing puzzle me is the information in the UAV must not been important it would not let it get in Iran hands just don make sense.

I don't think sending an F15 to destroy it would be the answer since you are REALLY doing some hostile actions but SF couldn't do it? Especially if USAF knew it was down and then maybe a day or 2 went by before the Iranians noticed or found the exact location??? But I do think you raise something interesting to note, we destroy helicopters,cargo planes,etc...that we don't want insurgents to retrieve in Iraq and Afghanistan but we let a spy drone pretty much be retrieved intact inside Iran????

Isn't that a little perplexing?

It mostly depends on who is in the decision loop and who has the most clout at the point where the decision is made. The Air Force, CAI, etc. would assuredly have wanted to destroy the drone as thoroughly as possible, but the diplomats at the State Department would have opposed it on general principles to avoid upsetting the Iranians (more than they currently are). In any case the final decision would probably have had to be made by the President. The current one has displayed a greater tendency to dithering with problems of a military or diplomatic nature than most, and may have just let it wait to long.

 

[STURM]

But I do think you raise something interesting to note, we destroy helicopters,cargo planes,etc...that we don't want insurgents to retrieve in Iraq and Afghanistan but we let a spy drone pretty much be retrieved intact inside Iran????

Isn't that a little perplexing?

The key difference here would be that the drone was actually on Iranian soil, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan which were invaded and already had a Western military presence.

 

[colay]

What particular technology on the drone would likely provide the biggest intelligence windfall to those who examine it? Shaping? Materials? Electronics? The level of tech seems to be quite modest from media reports.

 

[localhost127]

I don't subscribe to the GPS spoofing as we've known about it for years and there are countermeasures available which have been used before. It comes as no surprise to anyone that attempts have been made to hijack signals, but a preprogrammed way point and subsequent management issues make this an unlikelihood IMO

if the UAV is LO, how did the iranians know it was in the vicinity to begin with (to begin EA/GPS spoofing/etc) ?

edit: NICO beat me to the question -

 

[AegisFC]

The current one has displayed a greater tendency to dithering with problems of a military or diplomatic nature than most, and may have just let it wait to long.

Except he hasn't. Take both the Osama raid and Maersk Alabama hijacking, both he approved rather quickly and then sat back and didn't attempt to micromanage.

 

[STURM]

if the UAV is LO, how did the iranians know it was in the vicinity to begin with (to begin EA/GPS spoofing/etc) ? -

The Iranians could have had a land based passive ESM system, like Kolchuga or VERA - that detected it by it data link or maybe TACAN [do drones use TACAN?].

 

[Gremlin29]

The Iranians could have had a land based passive ESM system, like Kolchuga or VERA - that detected it by it data link or maybe TACAN [do drones use TACAN?].

TACAN went out a long time ago. I don't disbelieve that they were able to detect it, I just don't believe they were able to do what they claim to have done. If they could jam and spoof GPS they would be doing just tha,t all along the Iraq and Afghanistan border all the time.

1. Do they actually have a fairly intact RQ 170? Some good evidence has been pointed out that what they do have is a fake.

2. They are now claiming they delayed their announcement to "test" US response. They gain far more internally by not saying anything. Drone? No we haven't seen any drones around here. Wouldn't it be smart to not say anything, let the US think the UAV simply crashed and catch a few more? I'm not a strategic thinker but even I know this makes the most sense.

The US isn't going to say any more about what happened, and Iran isn't doing anything to further prove they don't have a fake. Why aren't they showing pictures of the internals? If they really wanted to rub it in the US's face, that's exactly what they would be doing. Curious.

If they were able to hack into this thing and actually control it, I would expect the whole fleet will be grounded.

 

[My2Cents]

Except he hasn't. Take both the Osama raid and Maersk Alabama hijacking, both he approved rather quickly and then sat back and didn't attempt to micromanage.

The Osama raid was long in planning, including input from the Whitehouse. POTUS did not have to make that decision cold, he probably several months as plans were made, discussed, and rejected, to make up his mind on whether to go forward with it.

Maersk Alabama went quick, primarily because the pirates own behavior set the pace and precluded other courses of action. But the curious part of the story I heard was when the final go ahead was given the SEAL commander kept getting bumped up the chain of command until he suddenly found himself talking directly to, and getting the order to proceed from, the POTUS himself. Now this looks more like political grandstanding instead of micromanagement, but it is also indicative of a deep distrust of the officers in the military chain of command and an inability to delegate.

 

[Belesari]

The Osama raid was long in planning, including input from the Whitehouse. POTUS did not have to make that decision cold, he probably several months as plans were made, discussed, and rejected, to make up his mind on whether to go forward with it.

Maersk Alabama went quick, primarily because the pirates own behavior set the pace and precluded other courses of action. But the curious part of the story I heard was when the final go ahead was given the SEAL commander kept getting bumped up the chain of command until he suddenly found himself talking directly to, and getting the order to proceed from, the POTUS himself. Now this looks more like political grandstanding instead of micromanagement, but it is also indicative of a deep distrust of the officers in the military chain of command and an inability to delegate.

Yes pretty much exactly. I think the Navy class has developed a very bad risk aversity when it comes to decissions like that. Of course from the way the Navy and the government in general acts when they do something that is politicaly inconvient or when this or that congressmen/senator goes on crusade.........i can see how and why.

The same happens in afghanistain. Becoming more so for US forces but some NATO forces basicly have to go up the chain of command to do a damn thing.

 

[surpreme]

The key difference here would be that the drone was actually on Iranian soil, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan which were invaded and already had a Western military presence.

Yes I understand that US not trying to wake up the Iranian. If this is highly classfied info I don't see the US letting the Iranian get the UAV. I came to a conclusion that either the info is not of good use or they know the Iranian can't get the information anyway so it doesn't matter if they get the UAV. The US could have destroyed what information that was in the UAV. I just dont see that the US will let any hostile nation collect information like that. Is the US scared i don't think so it just don't add up. As the saying go "leave no man behind".

 

[lucinator]

My opinion is that they let them have it, or something that could pass of as a Rq-170. Think about it, the CIA makes a fiberglass crude replica put a cheap engine on it, loads the internals with viruses and lets it soft land in Iran. Iran gets it then tries to download its code, and then shit breaks loose.

 

[jorgedr]

My opinion is that they let them have it, or something that could pass of as a Rq-170. Think about it, the CIA makes a fiberglass crude replica put a cheap engine on it, loads the internals with viruses and lets it soft land in Iran. Iran gets it then tries to download its code, and then shit breaks loose.

They just need to download whatever code it has on an isolated computer/network and no harm done, if your are thinking why stuxnet went through that was probably because it was infiltrated in a more subtle way, in this case they will take a more carefull approach, specially after stuxnet...

 

[lucinator]

They just need to download whatever code it has on an isolated computer/network and no harm done, if your are thinking why stuxnet went through that was probably because it was infiltrated in a more subtle way, in this case they will take a more carefull approach, specially after stuxnet...

What I said was a simplified version of what I think happened, of course the Iranians are going to use a secure network but the means of transmission would be very subtle or sophisticated.