Iran military downs US RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone

Eagle2009 said:
Now taking that tape on the wing roots into account..Let's say that both wings broke off during it's fall to the ground or on impact. Iran doesn't want to display a broken drone and decides to try and re-attach the wings for display purposes. Since the wings are no longer secured to the rest of the airframe properly, would they not droop down as Mr. Pike notices?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of blemishes and scratches on the underside of the leading edge. Combined with the wing failure and the hidden undersides this clearly indicates a wheeled up landing.

Maybe the Iranian hackers couldn’t find the control for the gear? (That is a sarcastic joke, the chance that the Iranians hacked this would be under 0.01%).

Another important issue is that there was no fire. Which would indicate that the fuel was exhausted before the crash.

Maybe the Iranian hackers found the control for fuel dump? (More sarcasm).


The 99.99 percentile likelihood of events is this RQ-170 was over Iran spying for the CIA and suffered a major systems failure on its own accord. Which lead to it crashing. Many aircraft under similar circumstances have crashed in a rather benign manner.

That Iran shot it down or even knew it was there before someone noticed the aircraft on the ground is extremely unlikely. Especially since it took them a week to announce to the world they had it and then another day or two to unveil it. Indicating the timeframe for their discovery: 5-6 days after a loss some Iranian sheep herder tells his local police there is a duck white aircraft in his backyard. One day later they work out what they have and tell the world. Another day or two to recover the wreckage and set it up for display.


I think the Americans knew exactly where it crashed but because this was 200+ km inside Iran took some time to work out what to do. And after a week the Iranians had found it before the US had done anything forestalling any further action. The RQ-170 is supposedly designed and built without sensitive equipment and technology onboard so the political risk of destroying or recovering it just wasn’t worth denying the aircraft to Iran. Since it is actually very small and with the flying wing presents very little area to radars it would not be hard to make stealthy. Even without any RAM it would have an extremely small RCS.
 
Abraham,

Sounds like as good a summary as any. My only note is the taped area suggests at some point the wings were torn off either completely or not I don't know. They could have come off during the landing or before so.

A side note, it is being reported on Twitter that the UN's mission in Iran claims the drone actually went down in Tabas, Iran. Now only is this site best known for the botched Operation Eagle Claw but is nearly 100km DEEPER inside Iran than the previously reported crash location of near Kashmar.

Somethings else to consider. As you pointed out, the lack of burn marks suggests it ran out of fuel. If that's true, what kind of flight path was it was flying that it would run out ~350km inside Iran? A drone the size of the Sentinel likely has a "combat" radius much greater than that, and if it simply ran out of fuel where did the loss of control occur?
 
At one point in the video the guy with the beard can be seen pointing to the port bulge and then making a "satellite dish transmitting" hand signal towards a notional satellite. Assuming its a real 170, and assuming he has seen inside, that takes care of one bulge I think...


Not hard to imagine this is a rapidly prototyped 'low tech' drone, but still, it was over Iran by the looks of it
 
...with that inlet grill 'face' it looks like captured, wounded knight scout captured by saracens and awaiting vivisection
 
www.english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9004075393

News number: 9004075393
14:09 | 2011-06-28
Defence

Iran Displays Shot-down US
Drones to Russian Experts

TEHRAN (FNA)- Commander of the
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps'
Aerospace Force Brigadier General
Amir Ali Hajizadeh announced on
Tuesday that Iran has allowed a
number of Russian experts to see the several US drones the IRGC has
shot down over the Persian Gulf in
recent years. "Russian experts asked to see the
airplanes and we allowed them to see
the shot-down drones as well as the
reversely engineered models made by
the IRGC," Hajizadeh told reporters. Referring to the IRGC's defense and
combat power in confrontations
against US drones in the Persian Gulf,
he said that the drones were shot
down in free waters and also in those
regions under the control of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Earlier this year, a senior Iranian
military official had confirmed reports
on the shooting down of several
enemy drones over the Persian Gulf,
and said Iran has targeted a large
number of these pilotless planes during the last 7 years. "We have experienced similar
incidents many times in the past and
there have even been drones
belonging to the occupying Zionist
regime (Israel), the United States and
Britain which have been shot down in the Persian Gulf during the past 7
years," the senior military official told
FNA in January. Also in January 2007, the Iranian
military troops shot down a spy plane
of the US army when trying to cross
Iran-Iraq borders in the Southwestern
city of Dasht-e-Azadegan, Khuzestan
province.
 
26m is longer than a tennis court. Now, I am no expert but in the higher rez picture you can see from the centerline out to the wingtip and that looks like less than one-half tennis court. ???
 
AeroFranz said:
26m is longer than a tennis court. Now, I am no expert but in the higher rez picture you can see from the centerline out to the wingtip and that looks like less than one-half tennis court. ???
Click to expand...
ha! did you hear all these fishers' stories about how large fish was?:)
 
The control surfaces appear to be frozen in a high lift configuration. Coincidence or does this indicate that the plane "landed" either manually or autonomously? This might explain the minimal damage. The flaps certainly wouldn't have been down immediately prior to losing contact.
 
Stuka said:
The control surfaces appear to be frozen in a high lift configuration.
Click to expand...
I think it means nothing...hydraulic system obviously lost pressure that caused 'em to drop
 

Attachments

  • damage.jpg
    damage.jpg
    100.6 KB · Views: 268
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    333.1 KB · Views: 268
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    348.1 KB · Views: 256
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    564.1 KB · Views: 256
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    511.6 KB · Views: 248
Eagle2009 said:
Now taking that tape on the wing roots into account..Let's say that both wings broke off during it's fall to the ground or on impact. Iran doesn't want to display a broken drone and decides to try and re-attach the wings for display purposes. Since the wings are no longer secured to the rest of the airframe properly, would they not droop down as Mr. Pike notices?
Click to expand...

This is correct.
The point where the wings broke is where they detach for transport. The vehicle breaks down to fit into a C-17, which is how they were moved to the operating location. It's reasonable to think that the vehicle had a hard landing on the sensor pod, and that damaged the wing at it's weakest point - where it detaches for transport.
Right now the wings are being held on by what looks like packing tape and bond-o.
 
Eagle2009 said:
Somethings else to consider. As you pointed out, the lack of burn marks suggests it ran out of fuel. If that's true, what kind of flight path was it was flying that it would run out ~350km inside Iran? A drone the size of the Sentinel likely has a "combat" radius much greater than that, and if it simply ran out of fuel where did the loss of control occur?
Click to expand...

Nevada, probably ;)
 
Hell, looks like they are keeping it in my old high school gym. Minus the death to America signs of course.
 
Of course, even with the wings breaking off, the intactness of the Sentinel is still pretty surprising and I and many others on the net are not fully convinced the drone crashed that intact. On the ACIG Forum, someone suggested the unstable design of the Sentinel makes it impossible to have simply glided to the ground "safely". They attempted to prove this point this a video of a Global Hawk losing control, going into a spin, and hitting the ground at a relatively slow speed and it SHATTERED. Now I pointed out that Sentinel's "flying wing" design is actual quite stable as proven by the Horten brothers many gliders (especially the similarly dimensioned Ho VI glider).

But regardless of that, it does raise an important issue. IF the "go home" function of the autopilot failed to return the drone to base, what are the chances the whole autopilot system functioned after the SATCOM link was lost (whether intentionally or not)? IF the autopilot did fail completely, I have a hard time believing the Sentinel could have glided to the ground on its own regardless of how stable it's airframe design is. Any major headwind could cause it to spin out of control and hit the ground like the Global Hawk did in that video and there wouldn't be much left to pick up.

So to me, the following are the possibile scenarios of what DID happen:
1. SATCOM Failure- The drone lost SATCOM link (either intentionally or in error), but continued flying on autopilot but failed to return home, and ran out of fuel and glided "gracefully" the ground with the only major damage is torn off wings and roughed up underside.
2. Hacking- Somehow, Iran managed to gain some control of the Sentinel (maybe with China's help since they actually have known cyber unit abilities) likely in a premeditated action. IN other words, somehow Iran got ahold of the access codes needed and waited for a Sentinel drone to wander close enough to an Iranian base to take control and "land" it safely.
3. Hoax- A Sentinel drone did crash in Iran, but was not intact enough to display satisfactory on television or gain much knowledge from and so Iran wouldn't look empty-handed so they build a very detailed mock-up in most aspects but then very slopy in other areas (such as the tape at the wing roots).

Now I know alot of folks here won't buy Option 2 for a second but Option 1 is pretty hard to wrap my head around too. Option 3 I think is the least believable of them all.

Thoughts?
 
Eagle2009 said:
Now I know alot of folks here won't buy Option 2 for a second but Option 1 is pretty hard to wrap my head around too. Option 3 I think is the least believable of them all.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Loads of planes without pilots in control have crash landed without major damage. Its not so strange.
 
Option 1 is most likely was a case
Option 2 switching command link to Iranian operators...err...not a believer
Option 3 should be dropped off as newly-built mockup wouldn't have one wing attached via scotch or something like that

just wonder why self-destruction stuff didn't work (if it was there at all)
 
theory that using of self-destruct mechanism would be considered as 'act of war' may be possibly dropped off?
US wasn't worrying of that while Tagboard flights over China
at all, it reminds me story of D-21 that have made trip down to USSR back then
 
Except the point the member of the ACIG Forum was making is that without any form of control (meaning no autopilot) that a flying wing can remain stable from 50,000 feet to the ground and I personally agree. The D-21 has a arrow-shape, which is a traditionally very stable design so if it lost it's autopilot controls, its speed and airframe shape could theoretically allow it to land relatively intact but the flying wing is more unstable from what I understand WITHOUT some form of control (whether it be pilot or computer).

More importantly, from what I understand, if the engine runs out of fuel the autopilot would fail because without the engine there is no power source to run its computer systems correct? So when the engine would finally fail, the Sentinel would become a 26 meter wide kite except without the string and you folks are telling me that shape can remain stable enough to crash with only broke wings as a consequence?

Further, the D-21 was constructed of MUCH stronger materials that would help it survive an uncontrolled landing no?
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/iran-shows-off-downed-spy-drone-as-u-s-assesses-technology-loss.html

Some of this speculation is a little breathless to say the least: This drone is the antithesis to the 'Quartz/AARS' lesson. The U.S Defence Establishment has known for a long time that other countries can already produce LO shaping for aircraft (but not neccessarily VLO nor advanced composite materials, and not in serial production), so I'm sure there is nothing by way of physical makeup on the RQ-170 (nor equipment in this particular payload module) which compromises much beyond what an enterprising foreign government could already buy of the shelf: otherwise it wouldn't have been there in the first place.


My bet would be that they weren't air sampling nor circling some secret Nuclear bunker but were simply following a vehicle or foot party across/around the border area before the drone comms link was lost. We should remember that the Sentinels declared mission is Tactical and not Strategic, supporting boots on the ground... (and that Iranian Scientists and RG commanders keep dying from carbombs and shootings in the area).



I'm more interested in what the second type of mission is! (if true):


The officials said that for three years the U.S. has been flying two types of unmanned surveillance missions over Iran and along the Afghanistan-Iran border from a 9,200-foot runway at a former Soviet airbase in Shindand in western Afghanistan's Herat province
Click to expand...
 
Eagle2009 said:
Except the point the member of the ACIG Forum was making is that without any form of control (meaning no autopilot) that a flying wing can remain stable from 50,000 feet to the ground and I personally agree. The D-21 has a arrow-shape, which is a traditionally very stable design so if it lost it's autopilot controls, its speed and airframe shape could theoretically allow it to land relatively intact but the flying wing is more unstable from what I understand WITHOUT some form of control (whether it be pilot or computer).
Click to expand...

Well who says it was flying at 50,000 feet? And if it was it’s not the sort of aircraft that would build up a huge amount of velocity before reaching thicker air to slow it down. The flying wing can be very stable. As mentioned earlier in this thread that was proven by the Hortens. For a small low cost UAV you can be pretty sure Lockheed made it a stable design. It is very unlikely that this aircraft needs a flight control computer to keep it in stable flight. Also while it may be a very un robust aircraft it also has very low wing loading so is able to fly quite slow. It likely landed at low speed.
 
i have some Alternative explanation how the Iranians got the RQ-170

the Drone run simply out of fuel

is not the first time if civilian or military aircraft has this problem, so it happen to Drone also
so the RQ170 glide down and ripped gear off and it belly open during rough landing
that would explain why the Drone is on this odd display with American “death head” Flag
before the Panic comes: “OMG the Iranians gonna replace there V1 clone drones "Karrar" with RQ170 clones”

intrigue questions:
why din’t work the Self-destruct system of this RQ170 ?
or wanted the Obama Administration that this “particular RQ170″ falls in hand of Iranians ?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Loads of planes without pilots in control have crash landed without major damage. Its not so strange.
Click to expand...

Southwest Airlines even built a business on it. Not strange at all.
 
Might as well be a couple a monkeys with baseball caps on looking at a crashed flying saucer.


I wonder if this RQ-170 is a CIA gift packed with Trojan horse technology.


Either that, or the Iranians really did hack it and land it with some wing damage that they primer'd and taped back together.


I doubt a flying wing planform glided without power to a smooth landing. Would've tumbled end over end, or spun into the ground with more damage.


And if there was still some control, why not limp it over the border or blow it up first. Something weird is going on here.
 
Eagle2009 said:
Except the point the member of the ACIG Forum was making is that without any form of control (meaning no autopilot) that a flying wing can remain stable from 50,000 feet to the ground and I personally agree. The D-21 has a arrow-shape, which is a traditionally very stable design so if it lost it's autopilot controls, its speed and airframe shape could theoretically allow it to land relatively intact but the flying wing is more unstable from what I understand WITHOUT some form of control (whether it be pilot or computer).
Click to expand...

Flight control systems and autopilots are two different things. The F-16 needs it's flight control system to remain stable, because it was designed to be statically unstable. It does not need an autopilot. There is no reason to think that the RQ-170 is not statically stable - it may naturally return to wings level flight without help from the flight control system to maintain stability.

Eagle2009 said:
So when the engine would finally fail, the Sentinel would become a 26 meter wide kite except without the string and you folks are telling me that shape can remain stable enough to crash with only broke wings as a consequence?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Eagle2009 said:
Further, the D-21 was constructed of MUCH stronger materials that would help it survive an uncontrolled landing no?
Click to expand...

The D-21 was covered in relatively fragile composites around its perimeter. It was built for speed, not durability.
There is no public information on the construction of the RQ-170, but using what is known about P-175 as a guide, it is probably very durable.

UAVs have software problems all the time. For all we know that could have been the cause here.
 
Michel Van said:
why din’t work the Self-destruct system of this RQ170 ?
Click to expand...

Is there any reason to believe that the RQ170 even has a "self-destruct system"?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
At the risk of going over old ground (sorry I don't have time to read the entire thread), how did the Iranians even detect this drone, it being so stealthy and all?

And I know you guys can't bare the thought that the lastest toys are conceptually flawed and could possibly be neutralised by little old Iran, but I can't help but gloat a little when real life proves me right :D .

www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2353.msg67814/topicseen.html#msg67814

Time for a reality check?

Cheers, Woody
 
Woody said:
Time for a reality check?
Click to expand...

You're taking the press statements of the Iranian regime as the basis of support for your suppositions? There is no evidence that Iran had anything to do with the downing of this aircraft. There is actually a lot of evidence that they didn't: no sign of damage caused by a kinetic weapon causing it to be shot down and signs of damage from a crash refuting their claims to have 'hacked' it and controlled its landing.

Since it took them a week or so to notice it had crashed in Iran I would say its stealth capability is pretty impressive. Even after belly landing in the bush. But don’t let any facts or understanding of UAV technology and operations get in the way of your opinion. Little things like reading the thread. Might rain a bit on your self declared validation day.
 
Woody said:
And I know you guys can't bare the thought that the lastest toys are conceptually flawed and could possibly be neutralised by little old Iran, but I can't help but gloat a little when real life proves me right :D .

Time for a reality check?

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...

Yes, you could you could really use a reality check.
 
sealordlawrence said:
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/08/iranian-drone-looks-like-a-fake-not-an-rq-170-former-dod-off/


Not saying I agree, just posting for the sake of completeness.
Click to expand...

Funnily I was thinking the same thing. That square cornered louvre over the intake doesn't look stealthy at all to me - but it could be something new.

I see military UAVs as more a marketing, accountability and HR convenience than an actual good idea but my opinion of the subject is well advertised.

I agree the Iranian evidence is very shakey and obviously no western news source as any interest in validating any of it ;D .

Cheers, Woody
 
Just another news source


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/iranian-tv-airs-purported-images-downed-us-drone/
 
Woody said:
sealordlawrence said:
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/08/iranian-drone-looks-like-a-fake-not-an-rq-170-former-dod-off/


Not saying I agree, just posting for the sake of completeness.
Click to expand...

Funnily I was thinking the same thing. That square cornered louvre over the intake doesn't look stealthy at all to me - but it could be something new.

I see military UAVs as more a marketing, accountability and HR convenience than an actual good idea but my opinion of the subject is well advertised.

I agree the Iranian evidence is very shakey and obviously no western news source as any interest in validating any of it ;D .

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...

The radar blocker shown is not unlike that one the F-117 in function.
 
I believe the Global Hawk that crashed in a flat spin was a result of an erroneous flight termination command from someone else on the same range. Said command forced the ailerons in turn command and Vee-tails in full nose up (or something like that - either way it was DESIGNED to put the vehicle in an attitude resulting in damage).
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byS2UcA1QKk&feature=channel_video_title
 
sferrin said:
Woody said:
sealordlawrence said:
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/08/iranian-drone-looks-like-a-fake-not-an-rq-170-former-dod-off/


Not saying I agree, just posting for the sake of completeness.
Click to expand...

Funnily I was thinking the same thing. That square cornered louvre over the intake doesn't look stealthy at all to me - but it could be something new.

I see military UAVs as more a marketing, accountability and HR convenience than an actual good idea but my opinion of the subject is well advertised.

I agree the Iranian evidence is very shakey and obviously no western news source as any interest in validating any of it ;D .

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...

The radar blocker shown is not unlike that one the F-117 in function.
Click to expand...

Something does not look right in the pictures as if someone did try and "model" from internet pictures? Here's to hoping it blows up just as Mahmoud shows up ;D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom