See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Drone crash in Iran has US worried over spy secrets
Source:
[NZ Herald]
URL Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new ... e.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10771425
Published: Dec 6, 2011
Author: Lolita C. Baldor
Post Date: 2011-12-06 21:44:04 by angK
Keywords: None
Views: 438
Comments: 28
United States military officials are concerned that Tehran may have an opportunity to acquire information about the classified surveillance drone programme after one of the stealthy aircraft crashed in Iran. A senior US official yesterday said the drone was on a mission for the CIA but that it was unclear whether the drone's mission took it over Iran or whether it strayed there accidentally because of technical malfunctions. Though the drone flight was a CIA operation, US military personnel were involved in flying the aircraft, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy involved. On Monday, Iran's armed forces said they had brought down RQ-170 - known as the Sentinel - that violated the country's airspace along the eastern border. Nato's US-led force in neighbouring Afghanistan said Iranian authorities might have been referring to an unarmed US reconnaissance plane that went missing during a mission in western Afghanistan late last week. Ever since it was developed at Lockheed Martin Corp's famed Skunk Works facility in Palmdale, California, the Sentinel drone has been cloaked in tight secrecy by the US Government. But now the drone that the Iranian military claims to have brought down for invading its airspace might be made far more public than the Pentagon or Lockheed ever intended. Another US official with access to intelligence said that losing the Sentinel was a major security breach. The official, who was not authorised to publicly speak about the information, wouldn't say how the drone fell into Iranian hands, but confirmed that the downed drone was largely intact. "It's bad - they'll have everything" in terms of the secret technology in the aircraft, the official said. "And the Chinese or the Russians will have it too." Peter Singer, author of Wired for War, a book about robotic warfare, said it was not new to have drones downed in enemy territory, but that the RQ-170 represents the next generation of drone aircraft. "It carries a variety of systems that wouldn't be much of a benefit to Iran, but to its allies such as China and Russia, it's a potential gold mine," Singer said. Defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute doubted Iran shot down the drone or that there would be much left of it to sell. "They were designed to be silver bullets that could go places that other manned or unmanned aircraft would not be able to go," she said. "This is a high-flying unmanned aircraft that malfunctioned and then fell to earth. "It's likely to be broken up into hundreds of pieces." - AP Poster Comment: Why are they so worried if the drone is likely to be broken up into hundreds of pieces? Wishful thinking?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: angK (#0)
It's probably a dummy drone with fake electronics, designed to throw off anyone trying to reverse engineer it...
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. If it landed nearly intact, perhaps "somebody" managed to hack into its controls and bring it down safely.
Why go to that trouble, if the enemy doesn't have that technology in the first place? It doesn't make sense. It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
Now that makes sense. I wonder if Lockheed Martin has been using Chinese components to save money? It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
I don't think the chinese are that advanced yet. Maybe a collaboration between them and the russians, perhaps? Can you imagine the panic in the control room if that's what happened? Them boys were probably shitting bricks.
Various reasons; War by deception is the motto. If I were a betting man, I'd choose number 3. Divert their time and energy into a rabbit hole See if they deliver the item to Russia or China, then cite that as a reason to attack them Use a REAL drone for a false flag attack, making it look like an Iranian engineered drone based upon US technology You make some good points I never thought of. It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
I seem to remember something about that. I'll Google it: Earlier this year, Boeing and the Navy found that the ice detection system on a brand new P-8 Poseidon was defective. The ice detection system is a critical piece of hardware designed to prevent tragedies by alerting pilots to the presence of ice on an aircraft’s control surfaces. Where did this defective part come from? China. A whole batch of a key piece of the ice detection hardware that was sent to the P-8 production line turned out to be used and worn out parts that were badly refurbished and sold to P-8 subcontractor BAE Systems as a new part, according to Levin. Boeing and BAE first became aware of the problem in 2009, he added. The fake P-8 parts are just one of many examples of how counterfeit parts — often made from 1980s and 1990s-vintage junk computer parts that are sanded down and remarked in China and then sold back to the U.S. as brand new computer chips for advanced weapons systems. One witness at the hearing just described growing counterfiet semiconductors seeping into critical weapons systems as “ticking time bombs.” Levin also noted that China feels no need to cooperate in his investigation into the problem, saying that the Chinese ambassador to Washington declined to send a representative to the hearing, despite the fact that there’s plenty of evidence that the vast majority of counterfeit weapons parts are coming from China. This is just the tip of the iceberg of a huge problem that I wrote extensively about at Inside the Air Force in early 2008. Oh, and while the Pentagon and defense industry is working on detecting counterfeit parts, the counterfitters are becoming ever more adept at hiding the fact that their parts are fake. Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/08/counterfeit-parts-found-on-new-p-8-posiedons/#ixzz1foq8z4Ei Defense.org It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
I think that's doubtful. Or at least, I don't think there's much to suggest that had to happen. These drones are relatively small and light, compared to manned aircraft, so an impact on the ground would be a magnitude or 3 less catastrophic. Granted even then, a split S nose dive would smash even a small RC airplane (speaking from experience... ahem...). But if it simply glided, which it's no doubt programmed to do by default in the event of loss of contact with controllers, until it hit the ground, then it may well be in reasonably good condition. If nothing else, Iran has something they could trade to Russia for some high end anti-ship or anti-sub missiles. Or maybe just a nuke bomb just to put an end to the speculation that they might build one, which might be a good way to just shut down this whole issue about them building nukes. And then everyone would leave them alone.
I suspect you may be closest the truth. If there was a communications failure on either end there would be no control signal reaching the aircraft. If it has a failsafe mode that causes it to land in a glide? Another possibility would be a power system failure which might cause it to feather it's blades and again it would drop safely. However, I think a communication system failure more likely as I am willing to bet it has a self destruct, but if it could not receive the signal to destruct then it wouldn't. While this is all speculation there are not a lot of things that could go wrong that would not allow it to self destruct. Ahh well, funny how things change. Best response of thread You too, huh? They are fun to fly, but the crashes hurt. But wouldn't it make more sense to self-destruct instead of glide if control is lost? -------------------------------------------------------- you'd have to know the frequency of the control receivers on the drone. you'd have to know the software well enough to tune the receivers to your frequency... which would eliminate "self destruct" commands coming in on the original frequency. you'd have to know the software well enough to disable "self destruct" programs that would destroy the drone if it went off course... but maybe that's not a feature, or maybe the drone would assume your new course was the right course. you'd have to know the software well enough to squirt in the GPS coordinates of where you wanted the plane to land, and the GPS approach data.
My limited understanding is that instructions are encoded. Getting the freq(s) won't do any good without knowing those codes.
-------------------------------------------------------- okay, so in addition to getting the freqs and the software, they got the scrambler codes. i got to say it's a sad state of affairs when i'm more inclined to believe the iranian version of the story instead of the israeli american version... i guess the only thing we know for sure is that something happened to a drone that may have entered iranian airspace.
If they can hack their way into taking control of US government satellites, then gaining control of a drone would probably be a piece of cake. Unregardless, somebody somewhere is onto us.
You'd have to know the private digital decryption key that the drone is using to decrypt all the data going to and from the drone. Hacking it is not a realistic scenario. It's not like the drone is running Windows Internet Explorer with myriads of security holes. Lockheed would do better than to miss that.
Only if they put a bomb on board the plane in advance. I'd think patriotic American contract engineers would be too proud to suggest it would be needed.
Okay, that's a good point. But I'd think their safeguards would be stronger for a spy drone that flies over "enemy" airspace than a satellite.
If it's a stealth aircraft, it's probably got a small jet engine instead of a prop.
They do it for rockets. There's vids of them having to use it when the rocket goes out of control. They do it for safety but it's still done. -------------------------------------------------------- what if there are sane people with access to the data? if the thing landed "largely intact", what are we supposed to think? ...that everyboy's lying about the "intactness"? somebody fed control data to iran? the iranians hacked into the control system? divine intervention?
well, exuse me, aerospacenews.com this thing should not be able to fly... i would like to know how many control inputs per second it takes to keep it in the air... one per millisecond? ...one per microsecond? is it capable of gliding once the computers shut down? ...not likely. ...of course, nobody's saying enough so we can piece together a likely scenario. so the incident stinks like another disinfo operation... for instance, are there isolated computer networks in iran, russia and china that will be infected with a virus as they're attempting to analyze the drone's software? ...who knows? . Although many concepts of “cyber-war” have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing “control,” or even what “security” on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. from PNAC's "rebuilding america's defenses, page 57
well, we seem to have a scrambler attached to freedom4um.com... coming from where? ...PNAC's slimeball document?... but that's okay, seeing as how you can read all about it by googling "rebuilding america's defenses". you might want to check out page 51 of that same document, to read PNAC's lament that how very fortunate that PNAC's new pearl harbor happened so soon after they got into position to make it happen.
I think if it's intact, the Iranians are lying about shooting it down, and it's likely it just ran out of fuel and glided at a reasonably slow speed until it hit the ground. As I said before, these drones are not the same as full size manned aircraft, and their smaller size would make impact with the ground, so long as flight is about level, relatively uneventful. I think the formula for the momentum of the craft is Momentum = Mass * Speed * Speed. So if Momentum is 1/10th of a normal aircraft, and speed is only gliding.... Not much energy at impact. Sometimes things go wrong even for the bad guys. I do take exception to the premise that the PTB's and their minions will never make mistakes.
Meh, it's all just speculation anyway. They're gonna play their games and we're all just spectators. For now.
There is a great scene in the new 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' starring Keanu Reeves where drones are sent to attack the large sphere Klaatu arrived in at Central park, NYC. Gort, the robot takes radio control of them and smashes them into military assets like tanks on the perimeter of the control zone around it after destroying the launched sidewinder missiles. Drones are a relatively new technology and they will get much more sophisticated and be given many new types of missions as they evolve. I very highly recommend the book 'Wired for War' -- The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century by P.W. Singer. It is especially an appealing book if one has a pilot's perspective. The book's jacket review quotes: (Robert D. Kaplan, author of Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground) "Singer's book is as important (very) as it is readable (highly), as much a fasinating account of new technology as it is a challenging appraisal of the strategic, political, and ethical questions that we must now face. This book needs to be widely read -- not just within the defense community, but by anyone interested in the most fundamental questionsof how our society and others will look at war itself." (Anthony Lake, former U.S. national Security Advisor and professor of diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University) "Lively, penetrating and wise, A warmly human (even humorous) account of robotics and other military technologies that focuses where it should: on us." (Richard Gordon, former Secretary of the Navy and director, National Semiconductor Corporation)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#2. To: angK (#0)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#3. To: angK (#0)
#4. To: FormerLurker (#1)
It's probably a dummy drone with fake electronics, designed to throw off anyone trying to reverse engineer it...
#5. To: Obnoxicated (#3)
If it landed nearly intact, perhaps "somebody" managed to hack into its controls and bring it down safely.
#6. To: angK (#5)
#7. To: angK (#4)
Why go to that trouble, if the enemy doesn't have that technology in the first place? It doesn't make sense.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#8. To: FormerLurker (#7)
Various reasons;
#9. To: Obnoxicated (#6)
I don't think the chinese are that advanced yet.
#10. To: Obnoxicated (#3)
If it landed nearly intact, perhaps "somebody" managed to hack into its controls and bring it down safely.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)
#12. To: Eric Stratton (#2)
Those things operate at a pretty high altitude, a lot higher than the aircraft of 9/11. I'm just surprised that it didn't disintegrate like Flight 93 did upon impact.
I support the occupation
#13. To: Pinguinite (#10)
Granted even then, a split S nose dive would smash even a small RC airplane (speaking from experience... ahem...).
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#14. To: PSUSA2 (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: lead.and.lag (#14)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#16. To: PSUSA2 (#15)
(Edited)
Getting the freq(s) won't do any good without knowing those codes.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#10)
#18. To: lead.and.lag (#14)
you'd have to know ...
#19. To: PSUSA2 (#13)
But wouldn't it make more sense to self-destruct instead of glide if control is lost?
#20. To: Obnoxicated (#17)
If they can hack their way into taking control of US government satellites, then gaining control of a drone would probably be a piece of cake. Unregardless, somebody somewhere is onto us.
#21. To: Original_Intent (#11)
a power system failure which might cause it to feather it's blades and again it would drop safely.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#19)
Only if they put a bomb on board the plane in advance. I'd think patriotic American contract engineers would be too proud to suggest it would be needed.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#23. To: Pinguinite (#18)
(Edited)
You'd have to know the private digital decryption key that the drone is using to decrypt all the data going to and from the drone. Hacking it is not a realistic scenario.
#24. To: All (#23)
(Edited)
The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power.
#25. To: All (#24)
(Edited)
"...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
#26. To: lead.and.lag (#23)
if the thing landed "largely intact", what are we supposed to think? ...that everyboy's lying about the "intactness"?
#27. To: Pinguinite (#20)
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
"P.W. Singer has fashioned a fefinative text on the future of war around the subject of robots. In no previous book have I gotten such an intriinsic sense of what the military future will be like."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest