Air Force Says Iran Didn't Down Drone

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force Says Iran Didn't Down Drone

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday January 22, 2012 @12:05PM from the pilot-error dept.

First time accepted submitter QQBoss writes "The Air Force is not saying what caused the RQ-170 UAV to crash in Iran, but that Iran's claim to have forced it down is erroneous. The drone didn't come down and land gently as Iran had suggested it did. At least Iran got a good photo op, though the more interesting question is what technology will they be able to glean from what they did capture."

64 of 248 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Forget PR by oldhack · 2012-01-22 12:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Did USAF figured out how/why the drone got captured?

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Forget PR by cold+fjord · 2012-01-22 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:Forget PR by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-01-22 12:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hi. We're the US Airforce.
  We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.
  Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
3. Re:Forget PR by cold+fjord · 2012-01-22 12:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.
  Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.
  Yes, because obviously what the American public believes has a direct effect on the technical capabilities of the Iranian government in a sort of "mind over matter" fashion. Most people don't make that connection.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
4. Re:Forget PR by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-22 12:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah, I also laughed out loud when I saw the page in the link.
  
  I do find it credible that Iran didn't use technical wizardry to down the drone. As a former Air Force electronic warfare technician, I'm guessing that Iran just flooded the area with high-amplitude noise jamming to trigger an automatic landing routine. My knowledge is not current, but much military technology nowadays uses 2 other (3-letter-acronym) types of satellite-based navigation technology with better precision than that of GPS.
  
  There's a reason for classifying technology, and it's not to hide super-secret features. It's to prevent the enemy from knowing what a piece of shit the technology is.
  
  But then again, seeing how the Joint Strike fighter and the F-22 both turned out to be flimsy, overpriced pieces of shit, It would not surprise me to see hurried Tijuana design practices in the systems integration. The last good American aircraft was the ultra-versatile, ultra-reliable F-15 airframe, which is still being adapted for use. I know because I worked on 'em, back in the days when their main antenna array was mechanically scanned :)
5. Re:Forget PR by rtb61 · 2012-01-22 12:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Who can forget how this all started out.
  It not ours we didn't lose one.
  We lost one but that's not it.
  We want it back.
  Now it's, 'er' yeah, it's our's but they didn't bring it down, we lost it all on our own (somehow that's meant to be better.
  Of course the web site source is going wildly counter Republican dogma about the dangerous Iranians "the Iranians are constantly lying about their military exploits, especially when it comes to developing new weapons and technology. This is apparently done mainly for domestic propaganda as satellite photos never show more than a few prototypes of these wonder-weapons". So no great threat after all.
  The real battle at the moment is between the US and Israel. The US administration is sick of Israel forcing into losing situations, losing billions and losing soldiers and knows Israel is actively trying to goad Iran into attacking Israel.
  Likely Russia and China will not be too impressed in Israel launches an airstrike even a series of airstrikes on Iran in an attempt to precipitate a conflict and draw in the US at the US's expense.
  Likely this will result in both China and Russia supply Iran with the latest weapons to test them against US hardware.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
6. Re:Forget PR by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 13:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.
7. Re:Forget PR by dkleinsc · 2012-01-22 13:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.
  Incidentally, that would be admitting to breaking the law, because the US military is bound by law to aim psyops solely at foreign populations.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
8. Re:Forget PR by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-22 13:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Why are you contradicting yourself?
  
  Noise jamming is not "technical wizardry." It is the crudest form of electronic jamming known to man. It's the "hail mary" of the jamming world. If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
  
  Yeah that's called "security through obscurity" and no self-respecting security relies on it.
  Tell that to the Serbians who shot down an American stealth fighter using primitive sixties-era Russian technology.
9. Re:Forget PR by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-01-22 13:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Do you remember when laws used to be enforced? That seemed to work OK. I wonder why they stopped?
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
10. Re:Forget PR by swb · 2012-01-22 13:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It was damaging our ability to innovate.
11. Re:Forget PR by hairyfeet · 2012-01-22 14:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well don't forget it was only a couple of years ago (late 09 i believe) that Intel quit making the 386 because the military was still buying and that thing is so old they haven't been found even in goodwill stores in nearly a decade, hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.
  Despite all the talk of the "high tech military' by the time the gear gets through committees and sub-committees and 14 levels of bureaucratic BS the stuff is pretty damned ancient. I don't know what is sadder, how much really old crap our soldiers are dealing with or how the really old crap is better than the new stuff, like the F35 which is up to what? A billion plus just to fix the bugs they've found so far? Frankly i think we'd be better off having some more F-15s and F-18s cranked out even though those are old designs.
  but if this program is anything like what we've seen with the fighters the only thing the program is really good at is cost overruns and the thing probably has so many bugs you could knock it down with a hacked iPhone. How much you wanna bet the Chinese will end up with it like they did the stealth chopper we lost going after Bin Laden and the F 117 they had dug up in Kosovo? Maybe they can figure out how to make it at a decent price and have it actually functional.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
12. Re:Forget PR by countertrolling · 2012-01-22 14:09 · Score: 2
  
  Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
  'Tis but a scratch.
  A scratch? Your arm's off!
  No, it isn't.
  Well, what's that then?
  I've had worse.
  You liar!
  Come on you pansy!
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
13. Re:Forget PR by A+nonymous+Coward · 2012-01-22 14:11 · Score: 2
  
  Do you remember when laws used to be enforced?
  You must be joking. The only time laws are enforced against the fat cats is when the fatter cats throw a baby to the wolves. If a fat cat breaks an inconvenient law, the transgression is ignored unless it's a handy sop to the peasants. If a peasant needs to be punished and there is no convenient law, charges are made up or the law creatively re-interpreted.
  Anyone who reads even a little on the history of law will come to the same conclusion. Try Slaughterhouse or Dred Scott for particularly egregious examples in the fairly recent US.
  Your .sig isn't much better. Anyone who thinks capitalism has ever existed probably also thinks Marxism / communism ever existed. All we have ever had is fat cats running the world. They have rough spots once in a while when the peasants surprise them (see SOPA and PIPA for the most recent example), but they get over it.
  
  --
  Infuriate left and right
14. Re:Forget PR by Raindog · 2012-01-22 14:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  IIRC there was a version of the 386 that was hardened against high levels of radiation...hence their being used quite a bit in space (and presumably nuclear) applications, which would go along way towards explaining such a thing.
15. Re:Forget PR by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-01-22 14:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nobody would use a highly vulnerable communication system to fly an airplane, let alone in a war zone.
16. Re:Forget PR by timeOday · 2012-01-22 15:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think you and the GP are missing an important, falsifiable statement from the story: "The air force did say that, because they had figured out what brought the RQ-170 down, they were continuing to fly RQ-170s on reconnaissance missions."
  .
  I have a hard time believing they would do this if your theory - simple jamming - were correct.
  I also have a hard time believing the GP that US propagandists would use such a simple, falsifiable lie.
  So, I think the most likely scenario is that this new high-tech drone simply broke down over Iran and crash-landed.
17. Re:Forget PR by Rennt · 2012-01-22 16:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It wasn't so much hardened, as much as it was just made on such a crude process (over 1 micrometer) it was largely unaffected by radiation.
18. Re:Forget PR by Sun · 2012-01-22 17:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.
  There are more important aspects to a chip that is supposed to be used in an aircraft than processing speed. Radiation resistance, temperature sensitivity, having a frame that can withstand 9G over time and twice that at emergencies, etc. count for more than having more processing power, even if the result is that you are using a less powerful chip.
  The reason the 386 took so long to be replaced wasn't because of some slow working committee. It is because the economical pressures at ground levels are different, causing chip makers to produce chips that are indeed faster, but less suited to the operating conditions inside a fighter aircraft.
  I didn't know they actually found an alternative. Maybe they didn't, and are just so swell stocked up on 386s that they feel there is no need to pay the cost to Intel of keeping the old production line open.
  Shachar
19. Re:Forget PR by JWSmythe · 2012-01-22 17:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Right. They upgraded to IBM AP-101S. 32bit, 1.2Mhz, 1MB RAM.
  From what I understand, there were Intel 80386 processors used for other functions.
  They are used in all kinds of embedded systems, both gov't and commercial. There isn't much need to upgrade the CPU on some embedded device that's always worked that way. Well, not til the next generation needs more power.
  The shuttle didn't generally change very much, so if they were using 386's to run some device, there wasn't much need to upgrade.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
20. Re:Forget PR by MichaelSmith · 2012-01-22 18:37 · Score: 2
  
  It seems strange that a UAV would be designed to perform a soft landing when its communications are degrading. Wouldn't it be more secure to spear in under those circumstances? And maybe blow itself up in the process.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
21. Re:Forget PR by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-01-22 18:52 · Score: 2
  
  I'm afraid that Law operates on precedent. The preceent now established? Might makes right.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
22. Re:Forget PR by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-01-22 19:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You believe all the distortions, half truths and misrepresentations sold to you by the CNNBCFox?
  It is impossible to retort to those who play in imaginary sandboxes. I'm glad that - at least - you didn't pay for that brainwashing.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
23. Re:Forget PR by zdzichu · 2012-01-22 19:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There's a great quote I saw recently:
  General: "So, how do we get Stuxnet 2 in Iran? USB sticks won't do it any more"
  Sergeant: "What if we crash land an infected drone there?"
  
  --
  :wq
24. Re:Forget PR by Patch86 · 2012-01-22 20:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Noise jamming is not "technical wizardry." It is the crudest form of electronic jamming known to man. It's the "hail mary" of the jamming world. If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
  Well, it did work. Seeing as they successfully netted themselves a USAF unmanne drone with simple noise jamming (if that is indeed what happened), anything "more sophisticated" would have been wasted effort. Like picking the lock on a door when the window is wide open.
25. Re:Forget PR by Patch86 · 2012-01-22 20:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Great when you're flying over enemy-infested desert mountain ranges, but not so great when flying over a city or key piece of infrastructure. The military is (generally) not in the business of "let's just blow everything up regardless!".
26. Re:Forget PR by MichaelSmith · 2012-01-22 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  Sure so thats why it should have a setting. In home airspace it has one behaviour. In other places, different behaviour.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
27. Re:Forget PR by nutshell42 · 2012-01-22 22:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No but it has a direct effect on the financial capabilities of the DoD.
  If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.
  
  --
  Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
28. Re:Forget PR by shiftless · 2012-01-23 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
  Which technology is more primitive? The Iranians with their crude jamming, or the multi-million dollar drone which is clearly easily defeated by said crude jamming?
29. Re:Forget PR by garyebickford · 2012-01-23 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  But the point is that aircraft should be self-contained and should not rely on other aircraft to perform jamming for them.
  Actually, no. The jamming aircraft is a huge source of radio signals - the opposite of stealth. The jamming aircraft needs to be well out of range, because it's like a huge light bulb at radio frequencies.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
30. Re:Forget PR by stewbacca · 2012-01-23 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  Half-assed is hyphenated, you insensitive clod!
31. Re:Forget PR by cold+fjord · 2012-01-23 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.
  That is ridiculous. Drones are pretty clearly necessary, so finding an actual vulnerability would generate more contracts to fix the problem, not fewer from the elimination of drones.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Uh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 12:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do people expect the military to admit that their drone wasn't hacked and gently landed? Of course they're going to save face here. I don't trust their PR department any more than I trust any other PR department.
1. Re:Uh by adamofgreyskull · 2012-01-22 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  "Our drone was NOT hacked by the enemy, in fact no outside influence was required to cause our super-expensive, top-secret drone to crash land in enemy territory. We refuse to divulge why precisely this happened, but we can assure you that whatever happened, it was our own fault, and not the work of enemy forces. No questions please."
  
  Way to save face...
2. Re:Uh by icebike · 2012-01-22 12:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Do people expect the military to admit that their drone wasn't hacked and gently landed? Of course they're going to save face here.
  Did you read the linked article:
  
  Then many Americans familiar with the RQ-170 carefully studied the pictures of the "captured" RQ-170 and immediately suspected something was off. For one thing, the RQ-170 shown was the right size and shape but the wrong color. Not just a different color from that seen on many photos of the RQ-170s in Afghanistan but also a color unknown in American military service. A closer examination of the Iranian RQ-170 photos indicated that the Iranians had reassembled an RQ-170 that had crashed and broken into three or more pieces.
  
  It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
  And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
  If it landed intact why hide it?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 13:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the fact is that Iran HAS the unit, even if they had to duct tape it back together. Even if it crashed, it was still close enough to Iran to land ON THEIR SIDE of the border. The thing to take as US citizens is that our military is consistently goading Iran along... Obviously the drone was violating Iran's airspace when it went down... so our government is stoking them to keep up the crazy talk.. just because they are paranoid doesn't mean our side isn't out to start shit.
4. Re:Uh by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-22 14:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Aldous Huxley, let me give you and the other burgeoning terrorists some advice regarding that:
  
  If you manage to get your grubby hands on a drone, call a buddy over to help you pull the boxes. Get one man on the front section while the other pulls the boxes from the center of gravity (near the middle of the plane).
  
  The rule of thumb is that boxes with the widest data connectors and RF (Coaxial) connections are more valuable. The more connections the box has, the more valuable it is.
  
  Next, strip all antennae from the plane. I can't say more about this without being taken away by a black SUV, but if something is sticking out from the airframe, it's an antenna.
  
  Ignore the propulsion section and all electronics connected to fuel lines.
  
  TOP SECRET: You perform a hex dump only to find Excel on Windows CE running its flight simulator.
5. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 14:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They didn't claim it landed intact.
  They claimed to spoof the drone into believing it was over its home base, in which the runway was a few meters lower then at the Iranian airbase. As a result, the drone came in for a "hard landing", damaging its undercarriage because it expected the ground to be coming up in a few more meters rather then exactly when it did.
  I'm not saying I believe the Iranian explanation by any means -- while I can believe them spoofing the civilian band GPS signal (those are very low power signals, which can be overpowered by a local transmitter), I find it very hard to believe the drone wouldn't be using the *encrypted* military band of GPS. They can't spoof that without access to the encryption keys (which admittedly, has been done recently by the Iranians as well).
  I also find it very hard to believe the drone would fall back on civilian band GPS when the military band was unavailable, but stupider things have been done in the past. It is possible the military said "oh shit, from now on, if the military band goes unavailable, the drone self destructs instead of falling back on civvy gps" and that's why they believe its safe to fly them again, but aside from having a TS clearance, I doubt any of us will ever know the full truth in our lifetimes.
They didn't bring it down... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 12:12 · Score: 3, Funny

It's just so well made that it fell out the sky undamaged.
SOPA by mr_lizard13 · 2012-01-22 12:18 · Score: 5, Funny

They shouldn't just be able to take what they want from it. That technology is valuable IP.

This is why we need SOPA.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
1. Re:SOPA by oldhack · 2012-01-22 12:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, Lawyers vs. Mullahs.
  I can only hope they annihilate each other.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
2. Re:SOPA by bky1701 · 2012-01-22 12:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  My god, you are a genius! We can get them to fight it out in ritual combat using swords and axes. Chris Dodd can head the US/Lawyer team, and Khamenei can head the Iran/Mullah team. If we put it on pay-per-view, we can probably pay off the US debt!
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
3. Re:SOPA by bky1701 · 2012-01-22 13:29 · Score: 2
  
  The idea has been modified for the good of humanity.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
Re:what they'll get.. by DigiShaman · 2012-01-22 12:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

They will exchange or gift it to some other nation in exchange for diplomatic relations. Namely China or Russia. Aside from the whole stealth paint technology, it provides little extra value.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Jam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 12:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Good Evening HBO
From Captain Midnight
$12.95/MONTH ?
No way !
[SHOWTIME/MOVIE CHANNEL BEWARE!]
Self-Destruct anyone? by mvmortier · 2012-01-22 12:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?
I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?
Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.
1. Re:Self-Destruct anyone? by Darkness404 · 2012-01-22 12:43 · Score: 2
  
  It does. At least all evidence points to it. After all, a few months ago a drone was nearly blown up when they accidentally pressed the spacebar. And I think there was some drone in 1999 which was accidentally blown up too because of a similar glitch.
  
  However, if Iran was jamming the signal and there was no way to get commands to it, a failsafe of landing is usually much better than a faildeadly of exploding. Especially when you are dealing with millions of dollars. Saying a drone got hijacked/malfunctioned/etc. and fell into enemy hands is a lot better than saying, yeah, we just blew up a drone that cost us $5 million to build.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Self-Destruct anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 12:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Bingo! - except you can't say this one didn't have any.
  TFA's case is that this was a crashed drone; why it got re-painted the wrong color in the pics.
  If you're going to bondo for the photo-session, there's no reason you can't also bondo the damage from the self-destruction of the important bits.
  Given the extensive standard-procedure self-destruction built into any other flying intelligence equipment, it's nonsensical to think these drones don't have it. Just don't expect it to evaporate the whole vehicle -- that stuff adds weight. There will just be enough to chemically burn the really important parts. This drone likely had some scorch marks before the re-paint.
3. Re:Self-Destruct anyone? by izomiac · 2012-01-22 12:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I would imagine one could politically argue that putting explosives on an unmanned aircraft is just a convoluted way of making a missile, the use of which would be an act of war. Furthermore, I'm sure the designers made them exceptionally difficult to reverse engineer, and there are probably digital and perhaps even chemical self-destruct mechanisms that aren't as flashy nor leave as much visible external evidence. For all we know, Iran got a warped airframe with a bunch of melted circuit boards and oxidized stealth paint.
4. Re:Self-Destruct anyone? by Hentes · 2012-01-22 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  If it was hacked than the self-destruction wouldn't work.
Why Drones? Right Here's Your Answer by grumling · 2012-01-22 12:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Imagine if this was a U2 or similar piloted vehicle instead of a drone. We'd be preparing the bombers right now, along with special congressional resolutions condemning the Iraqis to death for "capturing" one of "our boys." Meanwhile the Iraqi government would be parading him all over Tehran, mostly for the western media to slobber over.
Instead we get a few jokes on Leno and the Daily Show, and a lot of diplomatic posturing.
No doubt we're going to war with Iran no matter what the American people want, but at least not over a spyplane (for a change).

--
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
1. Re:Why Drones? Right Here's Your Answer by grumling · 2012-01-22 12:53 · Score: 2
  
  Whoops! Iran, Iraq... My brain knows the difference, but my fingers don't.
  
  --
  "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
2. Re:Why Drones? Right Here's Your Answer by ironjaw33 · 2012-01-22 13:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Imagine if this was a U2 or similar piloted vehicle instead of a drone. We'd be preparing the bombers right now, along with special congressional resolutions condemning the Iraqis to death for "capturing" one of "our boys."
  There are at least two cases where this has happened. The Soviets shot down a U2 in 1960 and held the pilot hostage for over a year until he was traded for another prisoner. Also, in 2001, the Chinese forced a P-3 to land on Chinese soil and held the crew hostage for 10 days before they were released. In both cases, I'm sure the Soviets and the Chinese pored over whatever sensitive stuff was left intact and wasn't destroyed by the crash in the case of the U2 or the US aircrew in the case of the P3.
  I wasn't born in the 1960s so I couldn't tell you what the public sentiment was at the time, but in the 2001 incident, I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Clinton. If I remember, the Chinese forced Clinton to give some kind of apology before they released the crew.
Re:may it does or at least a suicide battery by Overzeetop · 2012-01-22 12:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Sony and Chevy are both competing for the new self-destruct battery contract.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Alt. Scenario by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 12:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

U.S. receives intelligence that Iran are working on tech to bring down an enemy drone safely.
U.S. plays along and lets Iran "land" a drone with sub-par/poisoned tech on board.
U.S. pretends to try and reproduce the bug that Iran publically announces, hence the delay.
U.S. claims that Iran's method couldn't have possibly worked and that it was an unknown error.

Iran thinks that U.S. is either incompetent or has failed to realise the key, unreleased, step in their methodology.
U.S. lets Iran believe that their method works, and, optionally, leads them down the garden path with poisoned tech on board the planted drone.
When Real War breaks out, U.S. has an advantage, drones continue to fly and Iran wastes time and energy trying to perfect their drone-capturing skillz.
1. Re:Alt. Scenario by l00sr · 2012-01-22 16:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The real scenario:
  Drone crash-lands in Iran due to software bug.
  Iran hauls drone away in pick-up truck, gives it a paint job, and makes it the centerpiece of a propaganda campaign.
  Never attribute to advanced spycraft that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Self-destruct by sakdoctor · 2012-01-22 12:43 · Score: 2

At least your post had a self-destruct. Now I can't understand it at all.
$5 says it ran out of gas by Flector · 2012-01-22 12:55 · Score: 2

... 'nuff said
Islamic Republic of Iran Software Rating Board by game+kid · 2012-01-22 13:09 · Score: 2

Rated I (Imam and up). Contains Violence, Discussion of Magic, Pictures of Jewish Women, and Muslim Ankle Nudity. Online Interactions Not Rated by the IRISRB.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Don't trust USAF, but in this case . . . by walterbyrd · 2012-01-22 13:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is extremely unlikely that Iran "hacked" the drone and landed it.
You are right not to trust the US government stories. But, Iran is not especially trustworthy either.
The most likely story is: the drone lost signal, or had some sort of mechanical problem, and glided to a crash landing. Iran picked up wreckage - which was probable not that bad.
1. Re:Don't trust USAF, but in this case . . . by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-23 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  Shouldn't it have self-destructed to protect all that super secret hardware? Nose diving into the ground at a few hundred MPH is pretty effective.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They would say, wouldn't they? by mbone · 2012-01-22 15:19 · Score: 3, Informative

The Air Force is saying that "Iran's claim to have forced it down is erroneous."
WIth all due respect they would say that, wouldn't they ? So, as an indication of what happened, I am afraid this is not very useful.
We have never been at war with East Irania by Sarusa · 2012-01-22 16:31 · Score: 2

... so they certainly could not have tricked our drone into landing even though we give zero consideration to any security but physical.
Ass Math by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-23 04:19 · Score: 2

If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.
Half-assed is hyphenated, you insensitive clod!
And, as they say, two half-asseds make an ass whole!
I'm here all week, folks. Try the veal.
...now where's that scotch...

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."