rq-170 video decoded and shown off by iran

[plasmahawk]

I'm not going to individually counter all your response, for a number of reasons. A few of us deal with and or have more than a passing familiarity with how UAS work, and with ISR issues

However, a lot of the claims you are making about this footage and about how UAS work on a mission set is just plain incorrect.

Please ensure that you underly your claims about how things work as a matter of personal opinion, otherwise the uninformed are going to take it as actual fact when it is not.,

ISR missions are not developed or conducted in the manner you describe.

In case of the RQ-170 I am un-informed and in the dark.. I agree, and submit. I did say Thus I would strongly suggest that as I dont know.

If you can help out and clarify, I would love to know more about ISR Mission profiles for this tier of a UAV or you can tell us how the UAS functions and integrates. Or more specific and focus on a Int. profile (even if hypothetical) over a sovereign nation with existing and functioning air defenses, such as Iran or North Korea, I would like to know more.

The loss/capture of the RQ-170 has been to me: excuses from USA and boasts from Iran. The truth is somewhere in the middle

Nothing makes me more appreciative of this forum is dealing with those who know and the overall good mood of sharing, level of interest and level of engagement that happens here.

For a UAV like the RQ with clearly visible stealth characteristics - I truly and honestly can not see the drone being used as a real time broadcast station in a hostile environment with where sufficient capability to triangulate broadcasts exist.

- again, I may be wrong - unless the US Military has figured out how to make RF/MW communication links be undetectable by bending laws of physics, or perfected point to point optical data link ...to stream at least 0.5mb/s of data over 150km+ without loss and deterioration.. ( I can see a point to point data stream work with a re-translator aircraft which then uses a uplink of higher power outside the hostile environment)

I am going to "assume" the following flight plan for a hostile airspace:

Once the UAV takes off, it has a pre-programmed route, it has a set of targets, logic to id and some level of AI to analyze and if criteria is met to loiter, it can receive plan and course changes - one way.. and transmit only if certain conditions are met .. such as: antennas on if while in safe air space, while coming in for a landing etc, or remotely the device is flagged to broadcast.

Where is the surveillance data stored if the aircraft can not uplink? locally of course in the aircraft.
Unlike the soviet union U2 overflights, its likely digitally recorded and not filmed.

thats my humble set of opinions, if folks here have knowledge of the RQ-170 design specs, flight profiles, data storage protocols and communication protocols and wants to say i'm completely wrong... please correct me, and as long as nothing too secretive is divulged pls educate me!

a Mission profile of a UAV over a territory with:
- air defenses,
- an airforce
- the country in question being under the control of the owner of the UAV
- the country being "closely" related to the owner of the UAV (Pakistan... as an RQ was apparently watching the Abbotabad 'take down' and transmitting in real time back to the pentagon

vs a nation with capacity and capability to detect and eliminate a drone should be quite different

Over a low tech target/or unable/incapable targets you can fly the UAV, have it transmit encrypted, non encrypted data, have it play Ride of the Valkyries ... if the folks below cant shoot it down or even know its up there, what does it matter?

last time I saw a video of a drone broadcasting... with someone else listening this happened: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6b35gjZ9cc"]RUSSIAN MIG-29 SHOOTING DOWN GEORGIAN DRONE - YouTube[/nomedia]

Anyway, I am not trying to flame war or a battle of wits, I just had more questions and I thought it was pretty cool that there was data on the RQ drone and the Iranians published it.

Plas

 

[Todjaeger]

If you can help out and clarify, I would love to know more about ISR Mission profiles for this tier of a UAV or you can tell us how the UAS functions and integrates. Or more specific and focus on a Int. profile (even if hypothetical) over a sovereign nation with existing and functioning air defenses, such as Iran or North Korea, I would like to know more.

Something to keep in mind. While it is possible for some of the more outrageously incorrect assertions and assumptions to pointed out as such, giving accurate information on what/how some current ISR missions are conducted is really not something which is done. At least by those who actually know the what/how of such missions and with any interest in maintaining their own freedom/non-imprisoned status.

For a UAV like the RQ with clearly visible stealth characteristics - I truly and honestly can not see the drone being used as a real time broadcast station in a hostile environment with where sufficient capability to triangulate broadcasts exist.

- again, I may be wrong - unless the US Military has figured out how to make RF/MW communication links be undetectable by bending laws of physics, or perfected point to point optical data link ...to stream at least 0.5mb/s of data over 150km+ without loss and deterioration.. ( I can see a point to point data stream work with a re-translator aircraft which then uses a uplink of higher power outside the hostile environment)

Yes, you are wrong, or at least your understanding of physics and RF propagation is lacking. It is possible for a radio transmission to be directional, which means triangulation as most people understand it will not work, especially if the RF source is moving.

-Cheers

 

[Gremlin29]

If there's a technology out there that can target aircraft by triangulating communications transmissions that is news to me. What system is this specifically? I think you may not fully understand the EM spectrum or how secure comms work.

I believe the reason we don't see symbology is that the footage is declassified public domain footage. When you see location and or range information on a video you are looking at classified material (some of which is found in public domain anyway). When the DoD declassifies this stuff they blur or black out this info. Why hide coordinates and date time group when you are running a propaganda campaign? It's counter intuitive. If I were Iran I would want to make sure this info was visible so the US and allies would know it's no bluff.

 

[aussienscale]

If there's a technology out there that can target aircraft by triangulating communications transmissions that is news to me. What system is this specifically? I think you may not fully understand the EM spectrum or how secure comms work.

I believe the reason we don't see symbology is that the footage is declassified public domain footage. When you see location and or range information on a video you are looking at classified material (some of which is found in public domain anyway). When the DoD declassifies this stuff they blur or black out this info. Why hide coordinates and date time group when you are running a propaganda campaign? It's counter intuitive. If I were Iran I would want to make sure this info was visible so the US and allies would know it's no bluff.

Correct, also of note, why would they overlay it at a later stage ? as previously mentioned, to many errors, data is superimposed live so there is no error

 

[mAIOR]

well, the technology has been around for a long time. Look at the debunks of the fake moon-landing myth. basically, you study the RF receiving times on two different locations (say Australia and the US), you can compare the receiving time differences and precisely locate the Eagle lunar module on the surface of the moon. The same is true for earth-to-earth communications. Even if the beam is directional, as long as you have one emitting and two receiving stations, you can get bearing and interception from the time differences. It's similar to how you locate yourself using GPS or any other precise clock (as in Quasars).

For a directional beam, it's trickier since you need an emitting unit, with a known frequency and polarisation, and two receiving units who'll get the emitter signal and compare to what they are supposed to be getting. They only need to find a frequency that interferes with the other causing a shift in the signal. If you know the frequency code, you will be then able to tell what they are transmitting. If you get more stations emitting and receiving, you'll square (as in resolve) ambiguities and the system will work even better. This is the physical theory behind it. Quite simple actually. I don't know if it's much trouble turning it into practice but that shouldn't be too hard. At least not in the time window we're considering here.

EDIT: Well, I think I oversimplified this problem trying not to go into much detail. What You actually need is basically a modulated pulse like a chirp pulse that could stop lowering frequency once contact was established with the directional R/F beam. That way you'd have the time at which the signal was intercepted and could get a bearing on the direction of the craft. Been reading a bit on ESM/SIGINT systems and those are especially suited for the EM "listening" role. Apparently Ethiopia bought four such advance systems from Ukraine which were kinda "lost" afterwards. If Iran managed to get a hold of them, those systems are probably their best bet countering VLO targets. This is just conjecture but it shows that technology for signal interception and triangulation is out there.

Source on the kolchuga's sale to Ethiopia:
cannot post due to post count.


EDIT2:
Can't post for the above reasons.

Aparently Iran has aquired Kolchugas directly from Ukraine. Not sure about the validity of this source,

 

[Gremlin29]

My point is there's nothing out there that can do this, if there was I sure would know about it. And that's before we even start talking about freq hopping.

 

[mAIOR]

My point is there's nothing out there that can do this, if there was I sure would know about it. And that's before we even start talking about freq hopping.

Well, you are the defence professional but, if Iran has a system like the Kolchuga and can work it with an active system, then, with the right number crushing, it could be possible. Not saying it was or that it is very likely but, it's a possibility.

In my opinion, the drone probably fell due not due to Iranian meddling however, I can't bring my scientist side to disregard the other option. I mean, if I'm sitting in front of a computer thinking of ways to interfere with a R/F directional beam and can come up with an answer in 5 minutes, what could a team of scientists who have specific formation in the area and who are paid to look for such answers do? Iran got the Kolchuga system in late 2006. This means that Iranian scientists have been able to tinker and test with it for 6 years now. The possibility is there. It's not like inventing new technology. It's just using current technology to do it. The US has many good scientists but, I believe it takes more time and work for mice to become smarter than the traps to catch up.

Just my 2c and don't mean to be a wise guy or anything. This is more on a "don't underestimate the other guy" kind of answer.

This post is based on my understanding by reading previous posts that basically mention that a Stealth UAV is receiving and emitting information in real time.

One final question if I may, is it just the emissions from the UAV that are sent in a directional beam or does this information beam work in both ways simultaneously?

If you can provide some clarification on this I'm grateful. If I find myself on a blackhawk while blindfolded, bugger...:

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, you are the defence professional but, if Iran has a system like the Kolchuga and can work it with an active system, then, with the right number crushing, it could be possible. Not saying it was or that it is very likely but, it's a possibility.

In my opinion, the drone probably fell due not due to Iranian meddling however, I can't bring my scientist side to disregard the other option. I mean, if I'm sitting in front of a computer thinking of ways to interfere with a R/F directional beam and can come up with an answer in 5 minutes, what could a team of scientists who have specific formation in the area and who are paid to look for such answers do? Iran got the Kolchuga system in late 2006. This means that Iranian scientists have been able to tinker and test with it for 6 years now. The possibility is there. It's not like inventing new technology. It's just using current technology to do it. The US has many good scientists but, I believe it takes more time and work for mice to become smarter than the traps to catch up.

Just my 2c and don't mean to be a wise guy or anything. This is more on a "don't underestimate the other guy" kind of answer.

This post is based on my understanding by reading previous posts that basically mention that a Stealth UAV is receiving and emitting information in real time.

One final question if I may, is it just the emissions from the UAV that are sent in a directional beam or does this information beam work in both ways simultaneously?

If you can provide some clarification on this I'm grateful. If I find myself on a blackhawk while blindfolded, bugger...:

It would appear that you missed (or perhaps misunderstood) a few things. For a UAV like the RQ-170, it would seem that the comms to & from the UAV is handled via SATCOM datalinks. If one looks at a few photos of the 'Beast of Kandahar' it would appear that there are some bumps/domes on the top of the wing which could house a skyward pointed satellite dish. By the very nature of a dish antennae, they are directional. While RF emissions from an aircraft-mounted satellite dish are detectable, the detecting antennae would need to be positioned between the transmitting aircraft and receiving satellite. In otherwords, unless Iran had a properly kitted out ELINT/ISR aircraft flying nearby the RQ-170 and at a higher altitude, Iran would not have been able to detect the transmissions from the RQ-170.

Now satellites also use dish antennaes when transmitting, which means these transmissions are also directional. It would be possible for an ESM system to detect RF emissions from the satellite (depending on how tightly the focus of the dish/RF beam was) but that would not provide much of a clue as to where the receiving UAV was located in flight.

Some of the UAV's which operate from local control centres might not use SATCOMMS, in which case RF emissions from them might be detectable, but AFAIK these are not LO stratetic UAV's but smaller man-portable 'backpack' recon ones.

Also potentially complicating the detection of RF emissions is the use of frequency-hopping and burst transmissions.

As for disrupting the comms between a UAV like an RQ-170 and a milsat, it might be possible for a hostile ground-based or airborne emitter to do so, but I am disinclined to discuss how on an open forum.

-Cheers

 

[Gremlin29]

I can't argue what ifs. What I can argue is whether or not there is a recognized existing threat (there isn't). I agree it would be unwise to underestimate the Iranians however it seems somewhat humorous (to me at least) that the Iranians could get something this complex going when the Russians (or anybody else for that matter) didn't/couldn't.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree it would be unwise to underestimate the Iranians however it seems somewhat humorous (to me at least) that the Iranians could get something this complex going when the Russians (or anybody else for that matter) didn't/couldn't.

especially when they have none of the prerequisites or infrastructure in place to do the basics

 

[aussienscale]

Appreciate the lesson in communications Looks like my 12 years in Defence communications and Cryptography was for naught

When is comes to systems like this, if you can't find it in a Google search in the public domain, you are not going to get an answer here

Cheers

 

[mAIOR]

It would appear that you missed (or perhaps misunderstood) a few things. For a UAV like the RQ-170, it would seem that the comms to & from the UAV is handled via SATCOM datalinks. If one looks at a few photos of the 'Beast of Kandahar' it would appear that there are some bumps/domes on the top of the wing which could house a skyward pointed satellite dish. By the very nature of a dish antennae, they are directional. While RF emissions from an aircraft-mounted satellite dish are detectable, the detecting antennae would need to be positioned between the transmitting aircraft and receiving satellite. In otherwords, unless Iran had a properly kitted out ELINT/ISR aircraft flying nearby the RQ-170 and at a higher altitude, Iran would not have been able to detect the transmissions from the RQ-170.

Now satellites also use dish antennaes when transmitting, which means these transmissions are also directional. It would be possible for an ESM system to detect RF emissions from the satellite (depending on how tightly the focus of the dish/RF beam was) but that would not provide much of a clue as to where the receiving UAV was located in flight.

Ah. That was a bit of an oversight on my part. Satellite guidance... It's a bit embarrassing since I kinda work with satellite guidance for a living

But yes, a Satellite guidance system does make things more complicated since, even if you are able to detect there is such radiation in the area, you won't be able to get a bearing.

Also potentially complicating the detection of RF emissions is the use of frequency-hopping and burst transmissions.

As for disrupting the comms between a UAV like an RQ-170 and a milsat, it might be possible for a hostile ground-based or airborne emitter to do so, but I am disinclined to discuss how on an open forum.

-Cheers

Freq hopping helps to a point. In the standard radio band (2.4 GHz) there are only 6,000,000 possible combinations which for today's computer power is little. This is assuming of course they managed to get a lock on the signal.

As for the second paragraph, you sparked my curiosity. I'll have some thinking to do to see if I can come up with something.

I can't argue what ifs. What I can argue is whether or not there is a recognized existing threat (there isn't). I agree it would be unwise to underestimate the Iranians however it seems somewhat humorous (to me at least) that the Iranians could get something this complex going when the Russians (or anybody else for that matter) didn't/couldn't.

Well, I was just trying to show that theoretically, the concept is simple. It was not meant as a "what if", it was meant as a possibility that appeared to be overlooked. And, if I stumbled across such discovery, I'd also keep quiet about it.

Appreciate the lesson in communications Looks like my 12 years in Defence communications and Cryptography was for naught

When is comes to systems like this, if you can't find it in a Google search in the public domain, you are not going to get an answer here

Cheers

lol. Sorry if I came off a bit arrogant. Not my intention. Well, I'm sure you have much more info on the practicality of this subject. I was merely going for the theory and possible solutions.

I already learned a lot from this small discussion. Thanks for the time spent educating me. I hope some day I can repay the favour (doesn't seem likely in the near future).

For the topic at hand, I recently watched the PBS show "NOVA" which had a good episode on UAVs. In it they stated that UAVs are 3x as likely to crash than regular planes. So, it gives further strength to the claim that Iran had nothing to do with the UAV going down and are indeed very, very lucky to get their hands on a shiny new toy.
Were they able to crack it? It can't be said with so little info. If they released some high res footage or some in depth sensor specifications (as in what kind of cameras and wavelengths does this UAV operate) that would be a better indication that they indeed cracked it. Of course they might just be keeping all the other info to themselves...

 

[Todjaeger]

Ah. That was a bit of an oversight on my part. Satellite guidance... It's a bit embarrassing since I kinda work with satellite guidance for a living

But yes, a Satellite guidance system does make things more complicated since, even if you are able to detect there is such radiation in the area, you won't be able to get a bearing.

I was not talking about satellite guidance (like GPS) for UAV's, I was actually referring to the communications link between the UAV and the ground-based controler/pilot. Given that most of these (at least for the major UAV's) seem to be run from ground stations located in the US, satellites relay the data and commands back and forth between the two.

-Cheers

 

[mAIOR]

I was not talking about satellite guidance (like GPS) for UAV's, I was actually referring to the communications link between the UAV and the ground-based controler/pilot. Given that most of these (at least for the major UAV's) seem to be run from ground stations located in the US, satellites relay the data and commands back and forth between the two.

-Cheers

I understood that. My comment about oversight was more directed to the general ability to use space assets to relay communications which is the obvious choice to control these assets when pitted against a small power.

Also, it appears I can't see smilies on Posts. Unless I'm using the full reply mode. Tried fiddling with my character encoding settings to no avail.

 

[Todjaeger]

I understood that. My comment about oversight was more directed to the general ability to use space assets to relay communications which is the obvious choice to control these assets when pitted against a small power.

Also, it appears I can't see smilies on Posts. Unless I'm using the full reply mode. Tried fiddling with my character encoding settings to no avail.

AFAIK the use of SATCOMS has little to do with the 'scale' of the opponent, but rather much more to do with here the control centres are located. In this case, the major US UAV control centres are located within the continental US, which means that long distance comms is either via satellite or bouncing RF signals off the ionosphere. Given some of the inherent limitations associated with using the ionosphere, satellites just make much more sense.

-Cheers

 

[mAIOR]

AFAIK the use of SATCOMS has little to do with the 'scale' of the opponent, but rather much more to do with here the control centres are located. In this case, the major US UAV control centres are located within the continental US, which means that long distance comms is either via satellite or bouncing RF signals off the ionosphere. Given some of the inherent limitations associated with using the ionosphere, satellites just make much more sense.

-Cheers

Well, I just said small power since vs a large power I assume that the first things going down is all manner of satellites.

Ionosphere bouncing is actually what I was thinking to detect Satellite transmissions

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ionosphere bouncing is actually what I was thinking to detect Satellite transmissions

you can't track in (3 dimensions) using ionospheric methods

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, I just said small power since vs a large power I assume that the first things going down is all manner of satellites.

Ionosphere bouncing is actually what I was thinking to detect Satellite transmissions

The problem (or rather one of the major problems) with relying on ionosphere backscatter to detect transmissions to a satellite, is the fact that frequencies most commonly used to communicate with a satellite are higher than the frequencies usually used when bouncing a signal off the ionosphere.

In order for the signal to exit the atmosphere and actually reach the satellite, it needs to punch through the ionosphere. Also the RF reflecting properties of the ionosphere change depending on the local time of day.

-Cheers

 

[mAIOR]

The problem (or rather one of the major problems) with relying on ionosphere backscatter to detect transmissions to a satellite, is the fact that frequencies most commonly used to communicate with a satellite are higher than the frequencies usually used when bouncing a signal off the ionosphere.

In order for the signal to exit the atmosphere and actually reach the satellite, it needs to punch through the ionosphere. Also the RF reflecting properties of the ionosphere change depending on the local time of day.

-Cheers

Yeah, was reaching that conclusion since it had to be a frequency that would both be reflective on the Ionosphere and be able to interfere with a Satellite signal that goes through the said ionosphere. It's not an easy problem to solve with satellite based transmissions... USA should be show a bit more sportsmanship... where's the fun this way?

Seriously though, interesting problem. I might just nag my former EM teacher for a clue or three

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah, was reaching that conclusion since it had to be a frequency that would both be reflective on the Ionosphere and be able to interfere with a Satellite signal that goes through the said ionosphere. It's not an easy problem to solve with satellite based transmissions... USA should be show a bit more sportsmanship... where's the fun this way?

Seriously though, interesting problem. I might just nag my former EM teacher for a clue or three

even if they were using the same freq it still wouldn't work

you can't do 3D track management with ionospheric systems

your teacher should know that already