|
New Division posted:The US said that they doubted the Iranians could reverse engineer the systems off the drone they caught, which was entirely intact and almost undamaged. I dunno know about that. The Iranians definitely don't have the technological base the U.S. does, but it seems a bit dumb to write off their ability to learn anything from the captured drone. No way could they reverse engineer our advanced RC model airplane but you better well drat believe they're making a nuclear bomb underground
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
SilentD posted:The Iranians shot at the drone. That's hostile and not everyday military rival asshattery. Escalating hostilities because somebody shot at your remote control plane isn't going to get you much support internationally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5RhHVO0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mx2AkIlb4M What's going on here? Some rebels in the east of Syria got a tank? I didn't think there was that much fighting in the east.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:No way could they reverse engineer our advanced RC model airplane but you better well drat believe they're making a nuclear bomb underground It's not really not a good comparison because nuclear bomb technology has been around since the cold war and isn't super advanced. Regardless of whether the Iranians can reverse engineer it or not, I see no point in it for them. They would probably just sell it to China who would have an active interest in making unmanned drones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
New Division posted:The US said that they doubted the Iranians could reverse engineer the systems off the drone they caught, which was entirely intact and almost undamaged. I dunno know about that. The Iranians definitely don't have the technological base the U.S. does, but it seems a bit dumb to write off their ability to learn anything from the captured drone. They could learn some things, but they don't have the engineering capability to meaningfully apply the technology in any way that's threatening to the US, nor the industrial base to apply any advancements they can make in large numbers. The statement was really just an acknowledgment of how much Iran is not a threat to the West.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:They could learn some things, but they don't have the engineering capability to meaningfully apply the technology in any way that's threatening to the US, nor the industrial base to apply any advancements they can make in large numbers. The statement was really just an acknowledgment of how much Iran is not a threat to the West. Case in point; they somehow managed not to shoot down a drone after intercepting it. The SU-25 is a ground attack plane but still it shouldn't have been that difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Case in point; they somehow managed not to shoot down a drone after intercepting it. Yeah, this made me wonder. How did they manage not to down the drone? Maybe the stealth characteristics made it difficult to deal with. Or is the SU-25 the Soviet equivalent of an A10 warthog?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It's not really not a good comparison because nuclear bomb technology has been around since the cold war and isn't super advanced. It requires a huge industrial/chemical infrastructure to produce the fissile materials. Not to mention the precision machining/engineering to produce a hydrogen bomb, which in the public mind is never differentiated from a cruder fission weapon. I'd bet sophisticated drones are pretty much a US only toy though, because they are likely dependent on Military grade GPS and not off the shelf parts/public satellites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Yeah, this made me wonder. How did they manage not to down the drone? Maybe the stealth characteristics made it difficult to deal with. Or is the SU-25 the Soviet equivalent of an A10 warthog?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Well, you'd think they would either put some type of 'self-destruct' into the system that makes it impossible to duplicate, or on the other hand make it almost impossible to reverse engineer for the most critical systems. But I don't know.. Alchenar posted:Case in point; they somehow managed not to shoot down a drone after intercepting it. But I've read a couple of theories why it might not be. One, shooting down another aircraft is not actually easy (!), even something like a drone - it does require a lot of air-to-air training, something which Iran's Su-25 pilots might not have. Israel actually missed the first time they shot at a Hezbollah drone last month. (They blew it up with a missile on the second attempt). Second, there could be a bunch of other factors. The U.S. might have sent fighters after the Iranians, limiting the amount of time the pilots had to try and shoot it down. The pilots might have been running low on gas. The simplest explanation is that the Iranians didn't try to shoot it down at all, but only fired warning shots. Edit: The warning shot theory seems to track with what Iran's defense minister said: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107118018 BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Well, you'd think they would either put some type of 'self-destruct' into the system that makes it impossible to duplicate, or on the other hand make it almost impossible to reverse engineer for the most critical systems. But I don't know.. They do
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
New Division posted:The Iranians claimed they hijacked a US drone over their territory a year or two ago if I recall correctly, although the US claims the drone simply malfunctioned and crashed. It's not the first time the US and Iran have had tensions over drones. Lascivious Sloth posted:Well, you'd think they would either put some type of 'self-destruct' into the system that makes it impossible to duplicate, or on the other hand make it almost impossible to reverse engineer for the most critical systems. But I don't know.. New Division posted:The US said that they doubted the Iranians could reverse engineer the systems off the drone they caught, which was entirely intact and almost undamaged. I dunno know about that. The Iranians definitely don't have the technological base the U.S. does, but it seems a bit dumb to write off their ability to learn anything from the captured drone. Well, according to Iran they hacked the drone's controls and captured it completely intact and according to everyone else: hahaha yeah right. Even if they did somehow get it relatively intact, reverse-engineering tends to be a destructive process, and the Iranians have only one example to work with. Plus, all the sensitive components almost certainly include anti-tamper systems that make them impossible to take apart without destroying them. More likely, as soon as word got out that the drone had gone down someone from the Chinese embassy showed up with one of those giant checks you see on game shows. It's not that the Iranians are stupid, it's that their domestic aviation industry is light-years behind that of America, due both to sanctions and to a lack of customers to finance development. There is no export market for Iranian-built aircraft and the domestic market can't support a major industry. Here's an illustrated example: This is the HESA Shahed 285 (click for big)  and this is the Bell OH-58D Kiowa (also click for big)  You wouldn't guess from looking at them, but both are derived from the Bell 206. The difference is, the Kiowa has additional comm gear, low-light/infrared sensors, a glass cockpit, military navigation gear, IR countermeasures, various defensive systems, and a modern four-bladed prop, while the Shahed has a completely exposed exhaust system (which is loving insane in a world with MANPADS.) The whole modern, interconnected industrial base of aviation and electronics and materials science which would employ the specialized engineers needed to build (or take apart) something like an RQ-170 exists only in an extremely limited manner in Iran. EDIT: Omi-Polari posted:The simplest explanation is that the Iranians didn't try to shoot it down at all, but only fired warning shots. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:The simplest explanation is that the Iranians didn't try to shoot it down at all, but only fired warning shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:More likely, as soon as word got out that the drone had gone down someone from the Chinese embassy showed up with one of those giant checks you see on game shows. Same thing we did during the Cold War whenever a MiG or Su crashed anywhere in the world that we could get access to. Regarding air to air gunnery, ability of pilots to shoot down a UAV, etc., this is a good post from the AI Aviation thread...I'm gonna quote it in its entirety because it's worth reading (and I'm 99% sure the goon in question has background as a military aviator): Geizkragen posted:"Evasive action" in a Predator? I'm sure like every program they have their secrets, but the entire MQ series is intended for a permissive environment. With the wing loading, airspeeds and thrust on tap the Predator (or any drone of significant size for that matter) is almost completely unable to defend itself from anything more than small arms fire (which it does through altitude and distance). And depending on where it was being controlled from don't forget the lag which wouldn't allow the operators to defend it from a gun attack, which happens very, very fast. e: It's also worth mentioning that even though the Su-25 is a ground attack aircraft in the vein of the A-10 and is therefore designed for slow flight, there is "slow," and there's "SLOW." Given the fact that there's almost a 100 mph difference between the Predator's cruise speed and the Su-25's stall speed (much less its cruise speed), you're talking a considerable speed differential, meaning that the Su-25 would've been overtaking the Predator at a high rate of speed iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Torpor posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5RhHVO0I I'm more curious with "reports" of FSA storming Kurdish towns like Ras-al-Ayn and Qamishlo, and report of battle in central Damascus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
syria.flv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuyNRKkY3sI
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
Why would Iran be patrolling with an SU-25 anyway? Are they looking for ground targets to pick off? Wouldn't it be like using an A-10 to patrol airspace? They would be better off using a standard interceptor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why would Iran be patrolling with an SU-25 anyway? Are they looking for ground targets to pick off? Wouldn't it be like using an A-10 to patrol airspace? They would be better off using a standard interceptor. With all the attention on Syria and the US elections they were probably feeling lonely. The Iranian air forces don't really "patrol." Mostly because they can't afford to. Combat aircraft aren't the sort of machines you can just cruise around in and not worry about. Every hour they spend in the air necessitates multiple hours of expensive maintenance on the ground. If you're Iran and your fleet is a hodge-podge of well-used former Iraqi and Soviet airframes and your supply channels for replacement parts are unreliable, you keep those planes on the ground and hope they work when you need them. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Case in point; they somehow managed not to shoot down a drone after intercepting it. Have you guys considered that maybe they didn't intend to shoot it down at all, just fire warning shots?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Have you guys considered that maybe they didn't intend to shoot it down at all, just fire warning shots? At a drone. With no one inside it. Others have given long explanations why the simplest explanation is they used a plane that is terrible at doing the exact job they tried to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:EDIT: By that logic we wouldn't know at all that they tried  because they missed and we noticed they missed. How is it functionally different if its a 'warning shot' or a 'missed shot'
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:More likely the Revolutionary Guard thought that they hadn't done anything insane and pointlessly provocative recently and that no one was paying attention to them so they grabbed the only aircraft they had with any air-to-air capability at all and decided to go bother a drone. It's really not much of a hodge-podge of Iraqi and Soviet airframes, Iran got a rather functional internal air industry that produces plenty of new F-5 "upgrades" (actual performance not known) and for older stuff they got several squadrons of various american F-4 variants (and maybe F-14) and chinese F-7 (modernized Mig 21 built by China) aircraft. Spare parts and airframes are probably not that much of a problem for them. Expense, maybe. General dictatorship paranoia over pilot loyalties - probably. But the American forces in the neighbourhood probably knows more about current Iranian patrolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:It's really not much of a hodge-podge of Iraqi and Soviet airframes, Iran got a rather functional internal air industry that produces plenty of new F-5 "upgrades" (actual performance not known) and for older stuff they got several squadrons of various american F-4 variants (and maybe F-14) and chinese F-7 (modernized Mig 21 built by China) aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Revolutionary Guard SU-25s are a mix of Iraqi and ex-Soviet airframes. Should have been more clear on what I was talking about. Why the Iranian Air Force didn't go bother a drone with real fighters is anyone's guess. Probably internal politics. They're professional enough not to open fire on an aircraft in international airspace. The IRGC...not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:They're professional enough not to open fire on an aircraft in international airspace. The IRGC...not so much. Just because the US says the drone was in international airspace doesn't mean it is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Will Rice posted:Just because the US says the drone was in international airspace doesn't mean it is true. Nobody remembers that spy plane that collided with a loving Chinese fighter jet that was TOTALLY over international airspace despite the fact it crashed and landed in Chinese airspace and its crew was held hostage by the Chinese government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
That baby has better trigger discipline than many American cops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Nobody remembers that spy plane that collided with a loving Chinese fighter jet that was TOTALLY over international airspace despite the fact it crashed and landed in Chinese airspace and its crew was held hostage by the Chinese government. ...except it was pretty clearly verifiable (and agreed upon by both sides) that the EP-3 was in international airspace. Like 70+ miles away from Hainan, not even close. It didn't "crash" in Chinese airspace, the crew of the EP-3 were able to luckily put it down on Hainan after 30 minutes of struggling to control the aircraft and avoid crashing into the ocean. I don't think you guys understand how slow and vulnerable (and big, in the EP-3's case) these kinds of aircraft are. There are aircraft like the RQ-170 or SR-71 that are fast, high, and/or stealthy enough to risk flying in non-permissive airspace, because the likelihood of them being detected and/or engaged is low enough to take the risk. The Predator is nowhere close to that category...if the U.S. wanted to fly an aircraft over another country's airspace it would be something other than a Predator (like a RQ-170).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Not sure where these photos came from, but some are really well done. Obviously, some are pretty grisly. http://ir-ingr.livejournal.com/1185799.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
These 'was in international airspace' or 'was in international waters' disputes between countries is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Not sure where these photos came from, but some are really well done. Obviously, some are pretty grisly. Just came in here to post the very same link. There are quite a few other interesting photo sets too there, from Africa, Sandy etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
This was the BBC top story for a little while but they went back to SexgaziGate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20278774 Yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20277710 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20265166 quote:Gen Valery Gerasimov replaces Gen Nikolai Makarov as the new armed forces chief of general staff. Tuesday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20218216 Something's going on behind the scenes that I really doubt has anything to do with Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I don't think there's anything going on behind the scenes here other than Putin wanting to clean house in the military leadership (he knows which side his bread is buttered on...the old leadership was pissing off the military rank and file with their modernization reforms, which is not something Putin would be happy with if he wants to stay in power) and the U.S. not being cool with Iraq buying billions of dollars worth of Russian arms. The LockMart thing is unrelated; highly paid executive can't keep dick in pants, isn't smart enough to keep story from getting out into the open, news at 11.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
They aren't necessarily directly connected; but that beyond the Chinese Politburo and US election there are other changes in staff (and policy and disposition) occurring in the three Major World Powers all at once, and the Iraq 'will they or won't they' game is one of many proxy struggles for power (since we have a global economic crisis and an Arms Sale involves those sweet, sweet petrodollars).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They aren't necessarily directly connected; but that beyond the Chinese Politburo and US election there are other changes in staff (and policy and disposition) occurring in the three Major World Powers all at once, and the Iraq 'will they or won't they' game is one of many proxy struggles for power (since we have a global economic crisis and an Arms Sale involves those sweet, sweet petrodollars). And Egypt finally is implementing the ban on porn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Torpor posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5RhHVO0I Unless I'm mistaken, it seemed like an effort at: -spotters using cover -hull-down firing -shoot and scoot That looked quite more professional than I expected from the rebels. Also, any new info from Taftanaz? That looked like a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:Also, any new info from Taftanaz? That looked like a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
As long as Egypt lets every country go through the Suez pretty much no one cares what they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
McDowell posted:As long as Egypt lets every country go through the Suez pretty much no one cares what they do. A lot of people care whether Egypt's government proves to be liberal/restrictive, or religious/secular, and we also care about how much influence the Salafi have on Egyptian policy. It's also very relevant to America's foreign policy; an Egypt with religious policies will shore up Republican opposition to other Arab movements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
esquilax posted:A lot of people care whether Egypt's government proves to be liberal/restrictive, or religious/secular, and we also care about how much influence the Salafi have on Egyptian policy. It's also very relevant to America's foreign policy; an Egypt with religious policies will shore up Republican opposition to other Arab movements. They care but there isn't much they can do about it since this is supposed to be a new era for Popular Sovereignty and a practical test of the NeoCon Democracy Agenda. In terms of Great Power Calculus I don't think Egypt factors in much more than the Suez, probably should have been clearer on that, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:34
|
|