Wouldn't it be better to equip these things with self-destruct devices? It seems like we care far too much more about keeping the farkers intact than we do about the security of keeping critical technology out of the hands of pariah governments.

HUGS for the headline :-)

jagarr: casual disregard: Wouldn't it be better to equip these things with self-destruct devices? It seems like we care far too much more about keeping the farkers intact than we do about the security of keeping critical technology out of the hands of pariah governments.

the MSM told me this morning while i was sippin' mah sugary coffay that this was because the termination systems are also usually the most likely to cause a catastrophic failure of the drone to occur. Engineers can't agree on how sensitive the failsafe should be. Devices equipped with SDMs sometimes fail themselves by blowin' the shiat up by assident, or fail to blow it up when necessary. Some pansy douches also argue that building in the capability to 'splode (no matter the size of the explosion) effectively arms them.

so instead they focus on keeping the drones from being shot down and captured (or even noticed) in the first place. all locally stored dataz0rz are supposedly encrypted. didn't i read a news story fairly recently (within the last year) about some information being sent completely naked that was intercepted though? i think it was in one of them sandy warzone areas there.

1. Airman Third Class Jones stares at the screen.
2. Pod X57 stops responding over Iran.
3. Airman Third Class Jones clicks the "delete" button.
4. Pod X57 becomes fireworks.

Okay!

Gosling: Submitted this with a similar headline that just plain got beat boat.

JerkStore: Why did we even acknowledge that Iran's drone was real and/or ours? We immediately said, "Yep, they got it," instead of saying that they have a fake or something. Is there a rule that says we have to admit it, and somehow we're the only country that plays by the rules? The thing looks silly enough that the rest of the world might believe it's a mockup by Iran. Hell, Iran is now saying that they can control and use it against us (which is highly unlikely, but they don't seem to be constrained by the truth).

Is there some political spin on this that I'm missing, because that's really puzzling.

I'm not sure what I missed, but the only thing I saw the Feds say is "if it's real, give it back."

Mil/Int said, well, yeah we lost one. And then Iran photoshopped their possession of one. If they refuse to give it back, then they never had it at all. Iran isn't exactly a fountain of truth after all, and I for one cast a gloomy eye on their engineering department.

jagec: I think that we crossed THAT bridge a long time ago.

When one crashes, like the on in Iran, you've got a couple of options other than a self destruct; you can follow it up with another drone and air strike the suminabiatch, toss in a few covert ops to recover and\or destroy it, or you can just let it ride. So far experts are dismissing the claim that they can be reverse engineered because the composite metals used to create them (and give them their small radar signature) could not be reproduced even with Chinese and Russian help. The radar systems which might be equivalent to that used in the F22 relies heavily upon software that has classified safe guards in it that prevent tampering. (i.e. Self Destruct) So, instead of it going "boom" in the sky or on the ground you just destroy the software that runs the thing and viola - the opposition just landed themselves a metal bat looking thing that they can't reproduce nor have the software to make it work.

It does make me wonder if there isn't some hacking going on that's causing these things to suddenly go offline and crash.

SearchN: Where would you get that idea from? That's just crazy talk.

So they discover a keylogger that's been mapping every keystroke a pilot makes and they aren't sure if it's harmful?? Is that a joke??

The money quote for me though, was:
"We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back," says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. "We think it's benign. But we just don't know."

So they keep trying to kill it and it keeps coming back but you know, we think it's harmless...

(Facepalm)

CanisNoir: jagec: I think that we crossed THAT bridge a long time ago.

When one crashes, like the on in Iran, you've got a couple of options other than a self destruct; you can follow it up with another drone and air strike the suminabiatch, toss in a few covert ops to recover and\or destroy it, or you can just let it ride. So far experts are dismissing the claim that they can be reverse engineered because the composite metals used to create them (and give them their small radar signature) could not be reproduced even with Chinese and Russian help. The radar systems which might be equivalent to that used in the F22 relies heavily upon software that has classified safe guards in it that prevent tampering. (i.e. Self Destruct) So, instead of it going "boom" in the sky or on the ground you just destroy the software that runs the thing and viola - the opposition just landed themselves a metal bat looking thing that they can't reproduce nor have the software to make it work.

It does make me wonder if there isn't some hacking going on that's causing these things to suddenly go offline and crash.

Ah, yes, the conspiracy-theorists rise from the murk to invent a "hacker" just like in the movies; or a sinister gubmint plot to start a war with somebody someplace by letting them capture our (unarmed) drones or whatever; and somebody else brings up a semi-reliable source who mentions a virus that nobody can wipe out of their system blah blah blah...and it's ALL SO SINISTER HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!??!?!

Meanwhile, I just think of all the cars driving around with "Check Engine" lights that have been on for 18 months and nobody knows why, and the NASA space vehicles that we lost because of missing hyphens and commas in their programs; and why anybody thinks that somehow the military uses programmers or hardware that is any better than the rest of us, I have no idea.

SearchN: Yea, which makes me kind of wonder. [tinfoil hat] China does have a pretty large hacker army. Pretty convenient that a drone went down somewhere we can't retrieve it from; and the country it landed in has no issues about selling American tech to them.[/tinfoil hat]

Yea, my foil hat's on too: To be honest, that was one of my first thoughts. Causing an American drone to crash into Iran via covert cyberwarfare would be a pretty decent Win for China. Not only does it cause major diplomatic problems with a country we're already teetering on the verge with, but bankshot means they'd get access to the tech as well.

/Takes hat Off

"An unarmed MQ-9 Reaper..."

Why would you name something "Reaper" if it's unarmed? I could see something like "Janus", "Horus", "Shiva", or other impressive mythological names associated with seeing or observation. In this case, all I keep thinking about is salmon mousse.

Yeah, this whole situation is looking more like "wag the dog" to me. It's not as transparent as the Bush era bullshiat that was heaped on us when sabres rattled... but I think there is something to this as far as picking a fight with Iran.

casual disregard: 1. Airman Third Class Jones stares at the screen.
2. Pod X57 stops responding over Iran.
3. Airman Third Class Jones clicks the "delete" button.
4. Pod X57 becomes fireworks.


Um... you understand what "stops responding" means, right?

way south: ...and for what reason?
You have to remember that these drones are basically skin and bones aircraft. The enemy isn't getting much but plastic fragments and radio shack parts.

Blowing him up, while satisfying, might cause a bigger political problem.
Let the Iranians or whoever dance around the wreckage. Its no skin off our teeth and we can sleep better knowing the damage was limited.

Not that I necessarily believe the Iranians, but there is a distinct possibility that by studying the wreckage, they can determine the control frequencies of the drone, and that would be bad. They could then either assume control, or jam the control frequencies. A self-destruct mechanism doesn't have to be explosive; it could be thermal, or a huge capacitor that blasts all the electronics within the unit.

BigNumber12: casual disregard: 1. Airman Third Class Jones stares at the screen.
2. Pod X57 stops responding over Iran.
3. Airman Third Class Jones clicks the "delete" button.
4. Pod X57 becomes fireworks.


Um... you understand what "stops responding" means, right?

I thought about that as I was typing up my SimpList.

I was reminded of the pilot of Aeon Flux. Aeon goes way the fark deep undercover, she gets right up to her target, and then a nail stuck in her boot pierces her foot and she falls to her death. Her dying heart sends a signal to home base that she is liquidated and a sobbing technician presses a button which torches her room and every trace of her remainder personality.

Cute show, but in reality I guess it depends. If the enemy can only stop the device from responding, then we can blow it to pieces. If the enemy can stop it from responding and then prevent it from receiving any commands at all, maybe not so much. From what little indication Iran has allowed, it sounds like they were able to force it to land and no more.

As soon as the heart stops beating, burn it.