It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
www.msnbc.msn.com...
"The GPS navigation is the weakest point," the Iranian engineer told the Monitor, giving the most detailed description yet published of Iran's "electronic ambush" of the highly classified US drone. "By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."
The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.
Originally posted by Pokoia
reply to post by verschickter
I like your post. You still have to consider the fact that you need a satellite in orbit to pull this off.
So it is logical to assume the Russians or Chinese were involved.
But this picture may make it less suspect:
Originally posted by verschickter
reply to post by Biigs
Your Edit makes the jammed theory even more suspect. Good points about the stealth, this is something I didnt thought of
Russia delivers specialized jamming equipment to Iran 6 weeks earlier and some people want to claim jamming seems unlikely?
Stephen Trimble from Flight Global reports Russia delivered the Avtobaza ground-based electronic intelligence and jamming system to Iran six-weeks ago.
While most weapons deliveries to Iran are blocked, a jamming system like the Avtobaza is allowed because it's a passively defensive machine "designed to jam side-looking and fire control radars on aircraft and manipulate the guidance and control systems of incoming enemy missiles."
Possibly what NATO regulators didn't plan on was the jammer's potential as a communications link allowing UAVs to be controlled remotely.
Who said this drone was for visual surveillance?
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yet, We are to believe that the US needs to fly a drone into Iran to observe their covert activities at other locations?
You need to be closer to the source to intercept some communications, due to the inverse-square law which causes the intensity of radio signals to drop off rapidly with distance. It would be hard for satellites to capture the weaker signals. Cell phones transmit with a power of less than one watt, for example.
On the basis of the few publicly-available photographs of the RQ-170, aviation expert Bill Sweetman has assessed that the UAV is equipped with an electro-optical/infrared sensor and possibly an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar mounted in its belly fairing. He has also speculated that the two undercarriage fairings over the UAV's wings may house datalinks and that the belly fairing could be designed for modular payloads, allowing the UAV to be used for strike missions and/or electronic warfare.[11] The New York Times has reported that the RQ-170 is "almost certainly" equipped with communications intercept equipment as well as highly sensitive sensors capable of detecting very small amounts of radioactive isotopes and chemicals which may indicate the existence of nuclear weapons facilities.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.
Are these the same type of Iranian Engineers that blew themselves up recently at the missile facility? Also, if they were able to land it so precisely why are they hiding the under carriage damage? And the drone in question shows obvious signs of wing damage? [which they poorly taped up for the photo op]
I think the Iranians are grandstanding/showboating and trying to milk this for all it's worth and many here at ATS [Supposedly outside the box thinkers] are falling hook, line and sinker for it.
Originally posted by buddha
The Wars of the Future, Cyber Wars !
If a enemy turns are own kill drones and missiles
against america.
why do you blame?
their will not be much left.
So should we even be using Drones?
Originally posted by Pokoia
You still have to consider the fact that you need a satellite in orbit to pull this off.
The most common method of constructing an OTH radar is the use of ionospheric reflection. Given certain conditions in the atmosphere, radio signals broadcast up towards the ionosphere will be reflected back towards the ground.
Correcting a GPS receiver's clock One of the most significant error sources is the GPS receiver's clock. Because of the very large value of the speed of light, c, the estimated distances from the GPS receiver to the satellites, the pseudoranges, are very sensitive to errors in the GPS receiver clock; for example an error of one microsecond (0.000 001 second) corresponds to an error of 300 metres (980 ft). This suggests that an extremely accurate and expensive clock is required for the GPS receiver to work.
Because manufacturers prefer to build inexpensive GPS receivers for mass markets, the solution for this dilemma is based on the way sphere surfaces intersect in the GPS problem.
Originally posted by intrptr
I don't care how sophisticated the software is, you see a drone, listen for the encrypted data link. Debug it, amplify it and take over control.