Perhaps only the navigation system conked out but the flight systems were unaffected and the drone kept flying until it ran out of fuel and simply glided to earth? A possibility considering even unmanned aircraft have been known to land largely intact after their pilots had ejected. Strange things happen.
Iran claims to have shot down US drone
- Thread starter lucinator
- Start date
True, strange things do happen and that could explain why the 'carrier pigeon' program didn't take effect. Its more likely than the supposed 'hacking' by the Iranians, i'd have expected the navigation systems to be reliable enough for that not too happen but nothings 100% reliable. Whatever reason brought it down, it sure wasn't a deliberate action by the Iranians (in my opinion)
My opinion too - it's almost impossible to identify and track such an UAV; If they did the way they said (tricked GPS signal a.s.o...) they should of known first the planned route and position of the UAV.
RQ-170 Sentinel Unmanned Aerial Vehicle - Airforce Technology
"The RQ-170 can be controlled either manually from the GCS or through autonomous mode. An automatic launch and recovery (ALR) system facilitates the aircraft to land safely when communication with the control station fails."
Most remotedly controlled devices have such a feature.
True, but a DT article i posted earlier says that if communication with the controller fails then the drone is programmed to return to base. So i don't think it'd simply be a loss of communication issue unless there was something else at play, it has earlier been said about navigational issues. Which to me sounds plausible, navigation centre crash AND communication loss resulting in the drone being unable to navigate its way back to base and just glide to the surface when its fuel is exhausted.
Thats from my PoV, but i have no idea how technically feasible that idea would be, and the sheer unlikelyness of 2 major faults with the onboard technology makes the idea sound highly improbable. But weirder things have happened so
Last edited:
UAV looks in good shape. In case it looses thrust (empty fuel), I do not think it will glide so smooth; so that the landing was (self)controlled, in this case. It may be also the reason for the Iranians not displaying the formerly captured UAVs (if any) - they were in too poor condition as being shut down.
True it may not have been a perfect landing, but notice all public images of it in Iranian hands have the base covered up completely. This suggests the base had been utterly damaged, i suspect this was the case because a complete UAV in perfect order suggests 'Of course, we hacked it and landed it perfectly', however with damage it shows either 2 things
- That it crashed due to internal errors
- or that whoever controlled it after it was 'hacked' didn't do a particularly good job
It just makes me sceptical, you can't see any of the bottom of the UAV in the slightest. True it wouldn't be a perfect landing but i wouldnt be suprised if it had an effect like a glider and did a rudementary 'belly landing' in the desert (which would again substantiate a ruined undercarriage)
there are a number of preprogrammed solutions in UAV's
eg
return to last waypoint
hold at point and commence ever increasing circles in an attempt to connect
circle and start to gradually lose altitude (managed descent)
default to nearest safe harbour (ie friendly recovery loc
then there is the issue of whether the entire mission is waypoint programmed with human observors who only get involved if manual intervention required, or whether they are activeky ground managed.
if a UAV is going off the reservation, then thats when manned intervention would kick in - but it may well already be comms lost and is an airborne orphan
F-22 Technology On UAV That Crashed In Iran | AVIATION WEEK
I know some people don't like Bill for his position on J SF but as far as I'm concerned, he knows a lot more people and contacts in the Pentagon than myself or probably most of the people on DT, so I listen to what he has to say.
Read the new article just published by ARES and Bill, from what US officials are saying, there wasn't all that much lost. I believe the US officials more than Iranian officials anyways. Look at the missile Iran just launched:so called super technology and crap, it's a modified SA-2, you really think it could compare to a Patriot/S300 or HQ10?
From what US official is saying, considering how many Reapers/Predators have been lost, I guess the US assumes that all that technology is in the hands of Russia or China already, so how much would they really gain by looking at RQ?
IMHO, RQ was just a slightly more LO and reconfigurable Predator. Interesting to note that if RQ did pancake on landing, all the bottom with the "good" stuff hanging was more than likely shredded to pieces...If it is true the landing gear comes from a trainer, I am pretty sure the engine is some COTS jet engine from a Cessna or Lear...
Not sure Iran got a whole lot out of this as some people think....
I know some people don't like Bill for his position on J SF but as far as I'm concerned, he knows a lot more people and contacts in the Pentagon than myself or probably most of the people on DT, so I listen to what he has to say.
Read the new article just published by ARES and Bill, from what US officials are saying, there wasn't all that much lost. I believe the US officials more than Iranian officials anyways. Look at the missile Iran just launched:so called super technology and crap, it's a modified SA-2, you really think it could compare to a Patriot/S300 or HQ10?
From what US official is saying, considering how many Reapers/Predators have been lost, I guess the US assumes that all that technology is in the hands of Russia or China already, so how much would they really gain by looking at RQ?
IMHO, RQ was just a slightly more LO and reconfigurable Predator. Interesting to note that if RQ did pancake on landing, all the bottom with the "good" stuff hanging was more than likely shredded to pieces...If it is true the landing gear comes from a trainer, I am pretty sure the engine is some COTS jet engine from a Cessna or Lear...
Not sure Iran got a whole lot out of this as some people think....
For sure it's a scrap - technologically. That's the fate of any UAV (up to now)...
The fact it's CIA operated makes it valuable. Intelligence data may be very interesting. Hope there is no recorded data on board... which I think is the case, after loosing 50+ such vehicles.
It seems the USAF now knows the circumstances surrounding the loss of the drone and it had nothing to do with Iran.
RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone still in use by U.S. Air Force despite Iran crash, capture | News | National Post
U.S. knows what caused stealth drone crash, and it wasn’t Iran: Air Force Chief
Reuters Jan 13, 2012 – 12:24 PM ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has established what caused the crash of one of its unmanned spy drones over Iran late last year and continues to use that type of drone, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said...
U.S. officials reject Iran’s claim that it brought down the stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel built by Lockheed Martin Corp, but remain tight-lipped about what caused the crash.
RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone still in use by U.S. Air Force despite Iran crash, capture | News | National Post
U.S. knows what caused stealth drone crash, and it wasn’t Iran: Air Force Chief
Reuters Jan 13, 2012 – 12:24 PM ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has established what caused the crash of one of its unmanned spy drones over Iran late last year and continues to use that type of drone, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said...
U.S. officials reject Iran’s claim that it brought down the stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel built by Lockheed Martin Corp, but remain tight-lipped about what caused the crash.