Defense & Security Technology

When I heard about this happening I could not believe that the equipment didn't have some sort of self destruct mechanism. Like an explosive charge which would destroy the whole thing or even just the vital parts.

Cheers

Peugeot Man

wonder who the highest bidder will be

you wont see it on ebay though... lol

maybe next April 1 ?

Fire is generally a more effective and safer way to destroy an aircraft. Aluminum and magnesium alloys are difficult to light, but once ignited they cannot be exinguished with water. Carbon fiber and JP8 fuel also burn very well. All can be ignited with a small amount of nonexplosive impact-insensitive incendiary material such as thermite. It can be wired to light if the aircraft lands without receiving a do-not-ignite command. Though not very dramatic, the fire would burn very hot. In a few minutes everything would be burned or melted -- even steel parts.

I'm sure it did have a self destruct mechanism that failed, or was unable to be activated for some reason.

We couldn't send in manned aircraft to finish the job, because to do so would have been considered an act of war. It was a judgement call.

It's a little naive of the blogger to think that no one had ever thought of a self destruct mechanism. They have them.........................but I doubt you will see the details published on the net.

i think a micro-wave transmitter put the comuter system out of commission.

way too sophisticated or iran to do alone. china would be my guess.

Self-destruct is actually very rare for military equipment since it is more dangerous than the risk of losing the equipment. Ejection seats are one of the more dangerous pieces of gear in the inventory.

The drone itself is undoubtedly classified, but the individual piece parts are generally cobbled together COTS and hardware that was already in the inventory given the development cycles early in the war.

While as a system it was very capable, once it is on the ground what do you actually have? A camera system as capable as a police helicopter? Most of the rest will be standard military aircraft parts.

Self-destruct is actually very rare for military equipment since it is more dangerous than the risk of losing the equipment.

Maybe for manned equipment, but not drones.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/18/single-key-stroke-nearly-leads-unmanned-navy-copter-to-self-destruct/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/downed_cia_drone_was_it_rigged_to_self_destruct_.html

"Flight Termination" and "Self-Destruction" are very different beasts.

_{Self-destruct mechanisms are a common plot device in science fiction stories. The frequency of occurrence has caused it to become a cliché, or an overused concept.}

_{These flight termination systems are designed to be able to terminate the unmanned vehicle's flight, e.g. when required to keep a vehicle within a defined test range boundary}

The only thing I know about the press is never believe the press for technical details.

Self destruct doesn't necessarily have to be a spectacular explosion. Something as simple as frying electronics and wiping out software would be effective.

Press or not, I can't imagine the US not incorporating some sort of self destruct in our drones. Naturally, the pentagon wouldn't be sending out press releases describing what those measures were.

you might imagine that control and transmission frequencies would be of value to some to assist in developing interception tools

the data transmitted is probably encrypted , so breaking those encryption systems would again be enticing to some

get James Bond to go and ask for it back , offer to swap them a bowler hat for it maybe

Of course it was the latest encrypted doodads --NOT!!! The pressure on the builders to get it out a week ago, the incredible weakening effect of many many layers of bureaucracy to be hurdled, often by stupid modifications of the original sensible design. AND, the drone DIDN'T KNOW it was out of control. I read a report from supposedly an Iranian countermeasures expert who said the broken undercarriage was because the elevation of the fake landing strip was three feet higher than the programmed one they substituted the fake for, so the drone came down a little hard.

I would believe Iranian reports about as much as my local news, obviously for different reasons.

The "Beast" was a DARPA that suffered too little bureaucracy and was rushed to service despite it's shortcomings.

A frequent occurrence under war needs.

well that all sounds plausible .

so washington will find a scapegoat , kick the wrong ass and bump up the cost of the next one

the operator does have the option to "self-destruct" the drone. the miitary's excuse was that the drone was out of range?????

This is undoubtedly Iranian propaganda (which could be true), but they claim they hacked the control system and took it over; which would explain why any self-destruct mechanism failed.

A month or so back there were news stories suggesting that the software for these drones had been hacked. Now we have a news story (confirmed by Iran) that a drone is down and in their possession. These stories may or may not be related. The best bet is to withhold judgement since anything from the mouths of the intelligence types should be regarded with deep scepticism. These are folks who lie for a living. They may or may not know what really happened, but they sure aren't going to make anything public unless it serves their purposes.

I remember that story. I found it odd that the military went public with the fact their security was breached. They said the virus was benign but had failed to purge it from their system. With the rumors of cyber war between US/Israel and Iran, it would not surprise me that this was a program lying in wait for a 3rd party to take over one of the drones.

But, as you say, stories coming from intelligent agencies are always released for more than ostensible purposes.

Waaaay back in time I was involved in sonabouy work. A lot of them that had proprietary (secret) internals also had a ferrite bomb attached. If they were dragged to the surface without the appropriate signal - POOF! - everything was fried to a crisp!

Certainly the same techniques could have been applied here...maybe they were... but we're not being told everything about this.

But how can you start another arms race unless you help your so called enemy catch up with your technology ? Right now the U.S. Military is so far ahead of the rest of the world with arms and weapons there is no real competition so the arms industry needs to create something or they end up selling just to one client who is now broke.

Remember most of the Corps that make U.S. Arms have operations in China also. China built and staffed 1000's of R&D Labs for American Corps. Some could only afford 1 or 2 in the USA but China built several U.S. Corps 5 or more and paid the bills for everything from Equipment to Training for the personnel who work there.

I have a remarkable book in my library written by a WWII design team, in which they published their findings on cybernetics before being demobilized (No, I won't "loan" it out) In it they discussed their guided bomb. A bomb which had a television camera in the nose cone, and was guided from the aircraft which dropped it.

They noted that they didn't dare deploy it on targets behind enemy lines because they didn't want the technology to be snapped up. And this was in 1942! The team worked on it through the war, and because so much bombing was being done at night, they reworked it into a radar guided bomb by 1944.

They never stopped working on the TV guided one though. Dr. Carlo Kopp has a very nice precis about the development of the smart bomb during this time, and how it has inevitably become the drone of today.