Iran Shows Off Captured US Drone On State TV

2011-12-15 15:24:37

#226

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Shocking wrote:
Let's just say that it's not very plausible.

Besides,

FEOS wrote:
In either case, it wouldn't end up in one piece, smaller than actual size, with a different paint job, on bad guy TV.

why is it not very plausible? the only thing stopping them from refining top-grade uranium in nuclear tech is the sanctions and difficulty the rest of the world are giving them. why does everyone have this notion that all states in the middle-east are full of tribal mong-lords and spastics? these people are just as smart when it comes to sciences and maths as we are... the only thing they (did) lack was technology, because we tried to stop them from getting hold of it. news reports are already talking about how many crashes and instances they've had dealing with drones in the past... why do you think it's not very plausible that iran have managed to hack the admittedly-easiest part of the drone - the gps? do you think when they see a drone flying overhead they're like a bunch of naked amazonian savages or something? this is not a backwards country.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 16:32:07

#227

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6239|...

No Uzique, nowhere did I say that the Iranians are "tribal mong lords" or "spastics" or otherwise wholly incompetent. Though it is easily verifiable if you just took the time and looked at present day Iranian capabilities that there's a clear, large gap in military tech between them and the US, whether that be because we're disallowing them from progressing or not. That inherently means there will also be quite some gaps in their understanding of top of the line 21st century western produced military tech. Especially in the field of aviation - say what you will about the yanks but they're almost 2 decades ahead of pretty much everyone including the Ruskis and Chinese. (and remember, if you know how something works on paper it doesn't mean you will be able to make it work in practice).

In a mere 2 years of analyzing random drones flying about their borders they would figure out how to not only hijack a drone they cannot detect but then accurately guide it to an Iranian airfield and let it land nearly unscathed? To then, wanting to use this as a major propaganda item, show said drone on national TV which apparantly suddenly has a different paintjob and is smaller than it's supposed to be?

Why would they show a mockup if, according to them, they captured a real one and safely guided it back to their own airports? Hell, initially they reported they shot it down with AA fire before they uber hacked it.

Sorry it's just not plausible.

inane little opines

2011-12-15 16:40:51

#228

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

it is a PR stunt, no doubt, but the 'experts' are already saying that it's plausible that the GPS was hacked. not much tech required to trick an onboard GPS system into thinking your iranian airfield is the home-base in afghan, is it? hardly star wars.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 16:42:06

#229

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

@shocking: but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.

2011-12-15 16:47:18

#230

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6239|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.

different paint job and different size is what FEOS said, I trust him on that as he probably knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do, you do and all the journos that write their articles on this subject do.

If you hate speculation so much why don't you just lock the thread?

Uzique wrote:
it is a PR stunt, no doubt, but the 'experts' are already saying that it's plausible that the GPS was hacked. not much tech required to trick an onboard GPS system into thinking your iranian airfield is the home-base in afghan, is it? hardly star wars.

I said 'not very plausible' (last post said 'not plausible', wasn't my intention, am tired). I won't say it's wholly impossible, I just have a very hard time believing they pulled that off.

inane little opines

2011-12-15 16:49:19

#231

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

because you think they are mongs and that the us should rightfully have an easy technological dominion over them. not so, imo.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 16:52:03

#232

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6239|...

So stating that you don't think it's very plausible they hijacked that drone automatically means you think they're 'tribalist mongs' waving spears?

Alright uzi.

inane little opines

2011-12-15 17:10:03

#233

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

Shocking wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.
different paint job and different size is what FEOS said, I trust him on that as he probably knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do, you do and all the journos that write their articles on this subject do.

If you hate speculation so much why don't you just lock the thread?

you're just making yourself sound like an ass, like some other people in this thread. I don't pretend to know about it, which is why you won't see me tell anyone here what the real story is.

FEOS is a government spokesperson. While he is definitely more knowledgeable about aviation and probably government operations in the area, he's not going to come out and say, "we were flying missions over Iran, they got one of ours" even if it is true.

People here are free to suck on his balls because he has vast knowledge about the military hardware they have wet dreams about, but surely they have to understand that people will give them shit for it.

2011-12-15 17:14:00

#234

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Shocking wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.
different paint job and different size is what FEOS said, I trust him on that as he probably knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do, you do and all the journos that write their articles on this subject do.

If you hate speculation so much why don't you just lock the thread?
you're just making yourself sound like an ass, like some other people in this thread. I don't pretend to know about it, which is why you won't see me tell anyone here what the real story is.

FEOS is a government spokesperson. While he is definitely more knowledgeable about aviation and probably government operations in the area, he's not going to come out and say, "we were flying missions over Iran, they got one of ours" even if it is true.

People here are free to suck on his balls because he has vast knowledge about the military hardware they have wet dreams about, but surely they have to understand that people will give them shit for it.

Are you the man in black?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-15 17:14:44

#235

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

huh?

2011-12-15 17:42:53

#236

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
huh?

exactly.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-16 00:11:12

#237

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

That inherently means there will also be quite some gaps in their understanding of top of the line 21st century western produced military tech.

"Top of the line military tech" is often 10 year old civilian tech ruggedised slightly.

It was only last year it occurred to these geniuses to encrypt the video-feed from Predators IIRC.

Military tech is often a long way from cutting edge.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-16 00:47:03)

Fuck Israel

2011-12-16 01:28:30

#238

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6388|'straya

Dilbert_X wrote:
That inherently means there will also be quite some gaps in their understanding of top of the line 21st century western produced military tech.
"Top of the line military tech" is often 10 year old civilian tech ruggedised slightly.

It was only last year it occurred to these geniuses to encrypt the video-feed from Predators IIRC.

Military tech is often a long way from cutting edge.

And often it is on the absolute cutting edge and civilian technology doesn't catch up for decades. Works both ways.

2011-12-16 02:59:59

#239

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Let's just say that it's not very plausible.

Besides,

FEOS wrote:
In either case, it wouldn't end up in one piece, smaller than actual size, with a different paint job, on bad guy TV.
why is it not very plausible? the only thing stopping them from refining top-grade uranium in nuclear tech is the sanctions and difficulty the rest of the world are giving them. why does everyone have this notion that all states in the middle-east are full of tribal mong-lords and spastics? these people are just as smart when it comes to sciences and maths as we are... the only thing they (did) lack was technology, because we tried to stop them from getting hold of it. news reports are already talking about how many crashes and instances they've had dealing with drones in the past... why do you think it's not very plausible that iran have managed to hack the admittedly-easiest part of the drone - the gps? do you think when they see a drone flying overhead they're like a bunch of naked amazonian savages or something? this is not a backwards country.

First: I don't assume the Iranians are a bunch of backwards savages. I simply know what their capabilities are in that regard. And they've been getting a lot of external help on their nuke program, btw, both in technology and design (like Russia, NK, Pakistan, and the like).

Could they have jammed (not "hacked) the gps signal? Sure--as you said, that's very straight-forward. That wouldn't have caused it to crash. These things are designed to work in a gps-degraded environment.

Second: What is with the intellectual dishonesty when it comes to Iran? With Iraq, everyone threw a fit because "the intel guys got it wrong." Now the intel guys are trying to make sure that everyone has it right regarding Iran's nuclear program and everyone's throwing a fit. Which is it? Do you want your cake, or do you want to eat it? Can't have both. In order to get the intel "right" you have to collect it somehow. That means you have to get a little intrusive. So the CIA was (to paraphrase Dilbert) "doing its job" and an asset malfunctioned. Doing its job to get information that would likely be shared with the UK, France, and GCC countries--all of which have a problem with Iran's nuclear program (probably even shared--at least in part--with UNSC members).

So I ask again: Which is it? Do you want solid information on Iran's nuclear program (which requires intrusive intelligence collection), or do you want nations of the world making decisions about it with Iraq-quality information?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-16 03:02:19

#240

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
That inherently means there will also be quite some gaps in their understanding of top of the line 21st century western produced military tech.
"Top of the line military tech" is often 10 year old civilian tech ruggedised slightly.

It was only last year it occurred to these geniuses to encrypt the video-feed from Predators IIRC.

Military tech is often a long way from cutting edge.

Predator feed was unencrypted for two reasons:

1. It was a quick-reaction project when it was fielded.

2. Troops in the field generally don't have the equipment to decrypt encrypted video feeds. Or didn't at the time, anyway.

And there's a lot of "top of the line military tech" that the civilian world doesn't see for years, if ever.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-16 03:11:36

#241

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Shocking wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.
different paint job and different size is what FEOS said, I trust him on that as he probably knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do, you do and all the journos that write their articles on this subject do.

If you hate speculation so much why don't you just lock the thread?
you're just making yourself sound like an ass, like some other people in this thread. I don't pretend to know about it, which is why you won't see me tell anyone here what the real story is.

FEOS is a government spokesperson. While he is definitely more knowledgeable about aviation and probably government operations in the area, he's not going to come out and say, "we were flying missions over Iran, they got one of ours" even if it is true.

People here are free to suck on his balls because he has vast knowledge about the military hardware they have wet dreams about, but surely they have to understand that people will give them shit for it.

I'm no "government spokesperson" KJ. Yes, I'm in the AF. Yes, I do have more knowledge than the average bf2s member about this particular topic (and I have to be careful about what I put in here because of that). Most of what I'm going off of here is what's been released publicly, though. Like this:

See the size and color of that? That's on an airfield in Afghanistan. It's much larger and a different color (gray) than the one being displayed by the Iranians. Guess how I found it...image search on "RQ-170". Really hard thing to do.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-16 03:32:02

#242

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6239|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Shocking wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but like i said, you have no idea. Your general overview above is at best an educated guess. More likely, it's what you've pieced together from various news articles

Shocking, what color is the paint scheme supposed to be? What is the paint scheme on the one paraded around on Iranian TV? What's the size of a normal RQ-170? What's the size of the one shown on Iranian TV?

You don't know shit, it's just making you look stupid trying to hypothesize when you (and most of us) have no fucking clue.
different paint job and different size is what FEOS said, I trust him on that as he probably knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do, you do and all the journos that write their articles on this subject do.

If you hate speculation so much why don't you just lock the thread?
you're just making yourself sound like an ass, like some other people in this thread. I don't pretend to know about it, which is why you won't see me tell anyone here what the real story is.

FEOS is a government spokesperson. While he is definitely more knowledgeable about aviation and probably government operations in the area, he's not going to come out and say, "we were flying missions over Iran, they got one of ours" even if it is true.

People here are free to suck on his balls because he has vast knowledge about the military hardware they have wet dreams about, but surely they have to understand that people will give them shit for it.

What I've written so far has been pretty straightforward. No, I don't expect him or the gov. itself to admit that the Iranians hijacked an rq170 even if it were true. Does that matter? No. I can still make an educated guess and there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Then you come out of the woodwork and suddenly start your "hurr you don't know shit, you're an ass, how do you know this?", I refer you to the post of someone else on which I was basing my argument and then you go 'you're sucking his balls, man'.

KEN, you're the one who's being an ass.

inane little opines

2011-12-16 04:18:33

#243

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Predator feed was unencrypted for two reasons:

1. It was a quick-reaction project when it was fielded.

2. Troops in the field generally don't have the equipment to decrypt encrypted video feeds. Or didn't at the time, anyway.

And there's a lot of "top of the line military tech" that the civilian world doesn't see for years, if ever.

Cable TV has been 'encrypted' for decades, the Pentagon couldn't supply a $5 decoder?

Obviously the military is ahead on some things, mostly things which don't have much of a civilian application.

Fuck Israel

2011-12-16 04:55:45

#244

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6739|so randum

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Predator feed was unencrypted for two reasons:

1. It was a quick-reaction project when it was fielded.

2. Troops in the field generally don't have the equipment to decrypt encrypted video feeds. Or didn't at the time, anyway.

And there's a lot of "top of the line military tech" that the civilian world doesn't see for years, if ever.
Cable TV has been 'encrypted' for decades, the Pentagon couldn't supply a $5 decoder?

Obviously the military is ahead on some things, mostly things which don't have much of a civilian application.

like uh, gps? or how about plastic surgery/limb replacement? i understand you don't really like america or their military and that's cool, they're pretty bad for lots of things but you can't be so black/white with your statements, it makes your arguments look petty at times.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-12-16 04:59:31

#245

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6462|Escea

Wonder when they're going to release that imager they used to look through bin Lid's walls to the public. Shenanigans will ensue.

2011-12-16 05:16:28

#246

Lipschitz: Member; +1|4766|Upstate New York

For me I find it hard to believe that the aircraft wasn't destroyed either in flight or once they knew it was "lost." I know about as much about military tech as an average person but I thought the craft would have a self-destruct feature or a tracking feature that would guide a cruise missle to it. I'm sure the military doesn't want to blow up a multi-million dollar piece of equipment at the first sign of trouble but then you end up in a situation like this.

Personally the story doesn't add up. We all know the Iranian's like to put on a show for their own people as they do for the outside world. I've been leaning toward this "accident" being staged by the U.S. military. Perhaps the drone contains old technology or misleading information to create confusion or a diversion within the Iranian ranks. Of course I could, and most likely am, way off base I just to think outside the box from time to time.

2011-12-16 10:36:14

#247

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Predator feed was unencrypted for two reasons:

1. It was a quick-reaction project when it was fielded.

2. Troops in the field generally don't have the equipment to decrypt encrypted video feeds. Or didn't at the time, anyway.

And there's a lot of "top of the line military tech" that the civilian world doesn't see for years, if ever.
Cable TV has been 'encrypted' for decades, the Pentagon couldn't supply a $5 decoder?

Obviously the military is ahead on some things, mostly things which don't have much of a civilian application.

That's not encryption, Dilbert. That's encoding. Two completely different things.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-16 10:39:23

#248

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Lipschitz wrote:
For me I find it hard to believe that the aircraft wasn't destroyed either in flight or once they knew it was "lost." I know about as much about military tech as an average person but I thought the craft would have a self-destruct feature or a tracking feature that would guide a cruise missle to it. I'm sure the military doesn't want to blow up a multi-million dollar piece of equipment at the first sign of trouble but then you end up in a situation like this.

Personally the story doesn't add up. We all know the Iranian's like to put on a show for their own people as they do for the outside world. I've been leaning toward this "accident" being staged by the U.S. military. Perhaps the drone contains old technology or misleading information to create confusion or a diversion within the Iranian ranks. Of course I could, and most likely am, way off base I just to think outside the box from time to time.

As I understand it from news reports, Obama was given a couple of options: airstrike to take out the site or SOF team to recover equipment and take out the rest. The Iranians got there first, before whatever option (if any) could be implemented.

I think we already covered the "destroy in flight" option earlier.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-17 01:40:32

#249

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Predator feed was unencrypted for two reasons:

1. It was a quick-reaction project when it was fielded.

2. Troops in the field generally don't have the equipment to decrypt encrypted video feeds. Or didn't at the time, anyway.

And there's a lot of "top of the line military tech" that the civilian world doesn't see for years, if ever.
Cable TV has been 'encrypted' for decades, the Pentagon couldn't supply a $5 decoder?

Obviously the military is ahead on some things, mostly things which don't have much of a civilian application.
That's not encryption, Dilbert. That's encoding. Two completely different things.

Hence the inverted commas.

Simple encoding isn't hard to do or needs to cost much, it wasn't done.

Fuck Israel

2011-12-17 06:58:28

#250

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Cable TV has been 'encrypted' for decades, the Pentagon couldn't supply a $5 decoder?

Obviously the military is ahead on some things, mostly things which don't have much of a civilian application.
That's not encryption, Dilbert. That's encoding. Two completely different things.
Hence the inverted commas.

Simple encoding isn't hard to do or needs to cost much, it wasn't done.

Yes, it was. All video streams are encoded--it's inherent to the technology. And as you said, take a $5 decoder to read. Unless it's encrypted.

Derp.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Iran Shows Off Captured US Drone On State TV

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lipschitz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer