If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Iranian Air Force lacks the capability to destroy an unarmed drone with the maneuverability of your grandma   (wired.com) divider line 93
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

9419 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Nov 2012 at 1:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 02:20:50 PM

kindms: All2morrowsparTs: detritus: Yet Iran managed to intercept and land unscathed a top-secret stealth RQ-170 drone which really pissed off the US. They must have fixed the vulnerability.
The question is, was this a stealth drone or not, and did their assumed reverse-engineering of the stealth technology on the RQ-170 lead to them detecting it? The US must have balls of steel to do this and risk exposure. Not sure what right a foreign nation has flying a drone in another country. We certainly wouldn't stand for it...

This was over international airspace.

says the US military. The Iranians claim they were over Iranian air space. I highly doubt that Iran is going to send air to ground fighters in to International airspace looking for drones to shoot down.

If the Iranians were flying drones near or over our airspace I think the response would be a lot worse than firing on the drone.


International airspace is 12 miles from shore. Those planes were probably up there on a routine patrol or training flight, when the pilots decided to go play a little. The Revolutionary Guard is notoriously ill-disciplined.

If it were actually in Iranian airspace, they probably would have shot it down with a SAM; it's well within range even in international airspace.
 
2012-11-09 02:24:48 PM

Marine1: So uh... let's say they do shoot one down... so what? It's an overgrown model airplane. We've got lots more, too.


No no, you got it all wrong. If they shoot one down, it's an act of war. We must send in hundreds of thousand of Americans to get revenge. Plus we'll need to give Raytheon a couple of billion taxpayer dollars to develop a force field shield for the drones so the tragedy can never happen again.
 
2012-11-09 02:26:02 PM

orezona: Would have been a much different outcome if one of these had shown up:
[www.aerospaceweb.org image 550x329]
/still a little sad the only place the Tomcat is being flown is by those assholes


Here's where, if I were an internet douchebag, I'd jump down your throat for suggesting that one of the biggest fighters ever fielded (designed that way to carry big honkin' air-to-air missiles to shoot down big honkin' Russky bombers and a big honkin' radar to guide them) would mop the floor with a drone whose radar signature is almost too small for one of those radars to lock on and whose top speed can be accomplished by my Hyundai on a long gentle downhill.

But I miss the F-14 too.
 
2012-11-09 02:27:23 PM

EngineerAU: Marine1: So uh... let's say they do shoot one down... so what? It's an overgrown model airplane. We've got lots more, too.

No no, you got it all wrong. If they shoot one down, it's an act of war. We must send in hundreds of thousand of Americans to get revenge. Plus we'll need to give Raytheon a couple of billion taxpayer dollars to develop a force field shield for the drones so the tragedy can never happen again.


Guess what? The people who think like that lost the election Tuesday.

If they keep screwing around, we might take out their air defense systems, but that would involve only 2-3 carrier battle groups. There's certainly no danger of us trying to invade; what would be the point?
 
2012-11-09 02:27:57 PM

santini: Allen262: Iran used Su-25s. You know GROUND ATTACK aircraft? This would be like the U.S. sending up A-10s to shoot down a aircraft.

Link

Well the A-10 does have at least one air to air kill, it was a helicopter though

Link


OMG WTF HAX!!!
 
2012-11-09 02:30:20 PM

mbillips: I imagine if they really wanted to shoot it down, they would have. It was over international waters; this looks like the kind of crap the Soviets used to do with our ships in the Black Sea. Playing chicken, bumping, etc.


I've seen some other commentators say that they might have just been warning shots to get our attention ('cause we already know they're attention whores). IMO it's also possible that, if those cannons are armed with proximity rounds, that the pilot was told to bring it down without seriously damaging the fuselage, so they can try to reverse-engineer some of the technology.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 02:31:55 PM
Jake Grafton took out four Su-27s flying an Su-25, so the Iranians must be wimps.

Seriously, the Su-25 probably doesn't even have a proper gunsight with radar ranging and an air to air mode.
 
2012-11-09 02:33:23 PM
Anyone play this blast from the past?
pics.mobygames.com
/that was a tough game
 
2012-11-09 02:35:22 PM

VegasVinnie: santini: Allen262: Iran used Su-25s. You know GROUND ATTACK aircraft? This would be like the U.S. sending up A-10s to shoot down a aircraft.

Link

Well the A-10 does have at least one air to air kill, it was a helicopter though

Link

OMG WTF HAX!!!


What about the AH-64 Apache that shot down an Iraqi MiG during one of those gulf wars?
 
2012-11-09 02:39:41 PM

All2morrowsparTs: detritus: Yet Iran managed to intercept and land unscathed a top-secret stealth RQ-170 drone which really pissed off the US. They must have fixed the vulnerability.
The question is, was this a stealth drone or not, and did their assumed reverse-engineering of the stealth technology on the RQ-170 lead to them detecting it? The US must have balls of steel to do this and risk exposure. Not sure what right a foreign nation has flying a drone in another country. We certainly wouldn't stand for it...

This was over international airspace.


En route to....? Not like we haven't intercepted aircraft over international airspace if it's headed in our direction.
 
2012-11-09 02:42:03 PM
Hey all you aviation buffs.

The Wikipedia and other sources claim that SU-25 has a service ceiling of 23,000 feet. Link

Does that seem odd given that the SU-25 was a jet first flown in 1975, and is claimed to have a rate of climb 11,000 feet per minute? Compared to the A-10, the SU-25 has about the same thrust, (9000 lbf), but weighs about half.

How can a "modern jet", even a ground attack fighter, only have a ceiling of 23,000 feet?

Are there any other jets like that that seem so limited?
 
2012-11-09 02:43:59 PM
img135.imageshack.us
Ahmadinejad: So we attacked a Drone, but didn't shot it down.
Khamenei: A Drone? Of course we didn't shot it down! Bumblebees are tiny.
Ahmadinejad: No, not a bee, a pilotless aircraft.
Khamenei: Our planes don't have pilots?
Ahmadinejad: No, our planes has pilots, theirs don't.
Khamenei: How do they fly?
Ahmadinejad: By remote control.
Khamenei: Using bees?
Ahmadinejad: Just stop okay?
Khamenei: Okay.
 
2012-11-09 02:47:12 PM
Give them a box of these:

misswingman.com

"They're such children"
 
2012-11-09 02:48:29 PM

Callous: edmo: And they can build a nuke?

No one said they have the capability to deliver it.


FedEx: when it absolute, positively has to get there overnight.
 
2012-11-09 03:21:49 PM
My money is on the heebs in that war.
 
2012-11-09 03:22:39 PM

RoyBatty: Hey all you aviation buffs.

The Wikipedia and other sources claim that SU-25 has a service ceiling of 23,000 feet. Link

Does that seem odd given that the SU-25 was a jet first flown in 1975, and is claimed to have a rate of climb 11,000 feet per minute? Compared to the A-10, the SU-25 has about the same thrust, (9000 lbf), but weighs about half.

How can a "modern jet", even a ground attack fighter, only have a ceiling of 23,000 feet?

Are there any other jets like that that seem so limited?



Information I can find says the ceiling is actually closer to 10,000 meters or ~33,000 feet. Which seems a bit more realistic.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 03:34:07 PM
RoyBatty

Does the Su-25 have a pressurized cockpit? The limit could be human factors rather than aerodynamic.
 
2012-11-09 03:52:04 PM

orezona: Would have been a much different outcome if one of these had shown up:

[www.aerospaceweb.org image 550x329]

/still a little sad the only place the Tomcat is being flown is by those assholes


Probably not actually. The Boeing support people nicked all the fire control computers before they left. Iran's F-14s can't shoot missiles. At this point, I wonder how many of them can even fly anymore. It isn't like they can easily get parts to fix them.
 
2012-11-09 04:22:30 PM

VegasVinnie: santini: Allen262: Iran used Su-25s. You know GROUND ATTACK aircraft? This would be like the U.S. sending up A-10s to shoot down a aircraft.

Link

Well the A-10 does have at least one air to air kill, it was a helicopter though

Link

OMG WTF HAX!!!


my favorite part was when they said "We tried to ID the helicopter after we were done and it was just in a bunch of little pieces, so we can't tell what type it was." 30 MM gatling cannons firing at 3000 rounds per minute tend to do that.
 
2012-11-09 04:34:17 PM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

Does the Su-25 have a pressurized cockpit? The limit could be human factors rather than aerodynamic.


And keep in mind, it was designed a Soviet close air support plane. No reason or money to give it extra capabilities.
 
2012-11-09 04:36:12 PM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

Does the Su-25 have a pressurized cockpit? The limit could be human factors rather than aerodynamic.


I couldn't imagine a warbird that doesn't.
 
2012-11-09 04:44:48 PM

Satanic_Hamster: ZAZ: RoyBatty

Does the Su-25 have a pressurized cockpit? The limit could be human factors rather than aerodynamic.

And keep in mind, it was designed a Soviet close air support plane. No reason or money to give it extra capabilities.


But I think the definition of ceiling is more an aerodynamic definition.

It's the max altitude an aircraft can attain. So your aircraft is presumably pitched for climb, with engines at max, but no longer climbing, but flying at the same consistent altitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)

I know very little about aerodynamics, it just seems odd that a jet aircraft that can fly almost 600 mph, climb at sea level at 11,000 feet per minute, would top out lower than some single engine piston engined aircraft.

I am not saying it doesn't, or that there aren't reasons for that, I am more curious as to what those reasons might be.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 04:53:50 PM
RoyBatty

Check out this flight envelope for the F-104: http://starfighter.no/web/envel-e.html. The square edge on the right at Mach 2 is an artificial limit because the original customer (USAF) didn't care to have it certified past Mach 2.0. It can go to Mach 2.2 or so near 50,000 feet without melting anything. (Some newer fighters have Mach limits of 2.0 or less because the canopy melts or something silly like that, but the F-104 is a real fighter not a plastic toy.)
 
2012-11-09 05:22:29 PM
Bogeys speed not sufficient for intercept. Suggest we get out and walk
 
2012-11-09 05:24:00 PM

China White Tea: Well, they may not be fast, but they have a pretty small sig radius, and are probably agile enough to keep their transversal up.


I love you.

eveinfo.com

/please think you can roll in on me while I'm hammering with rails, like I'm defenseless closeup... I need more scrap
 
2012-11-09 05:28:24 PM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

Check out this flight envelope for the F-104: http://starfighter.no/web/envel-e.html. The square edge on the right at Mach 2 is an artificial limit because the original customer (USAF) didn't care to have it certified past Mach 2.0. It can go to Mach 2.2 or so near 50,000 feet without melting anything. (Some newer fighters have Mach limits of 2.0 or less because the canopy melts or something silly like that, but the F-104 is a real fighter not a plastic toy.)


That is interesting. I know how to read much of that but I don't understand the 0.1G or 0.5G Stall Lines, or why the zoom boundary is less at Mach 2.0 than at Mach 1.0.
 
2012-11-09 05:29:29 PM

RoyBatty: I know very little about aerodynamics, it just seems odd that a jet aircraft that can fly almost 600 mph, climb at sea level at 11,000 feet per minute, would top out lower than some single engine piston engined aircraft.

I am not saying it doesn't, or that there aren't reasons for that, I am more curious as to what those reasons might be.


Both aerodynamics and engine ability. There's less oxygen higher up, different engines perform better at different elevations.
 
2012-11-09 05:31:23 PM
So when we miss an aircraft, it's a warning shot. When they miss an aircraft, it's inferior equipment?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 05:31:47 PM
RoyBatty

The zoom envelope assumes you start within the level flight envelope at top speed. You gain altitude by losing speed. If you slowed to Mach 1 you turned more kinetic energy into potential energy than if you remained near Mach 2.
 
2012-11-09 05:58:43 PM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

The zoom envelope assumes you start within the level flight envelope at top speed. You gain altitude by losing speed. If you slowed to Mach 1 you turned more kinetic energy into potential energy than if you remained near Mach 2.


Okay thanks. So do you know how to read the 0.1G and 0.5G stall lines?
 
2012-11-09 06:06:13 PM
Just wait, the photoshop of the drone's destruction should be online shortly.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 06:14:59 PM
RoyBatty

The "stall speed" of an airplane is normally the speed at which the wings can pull 1g, sufficient to maintain level flight. It is not the speed at which the airplane goes out of control. If you're willing to pitch down you can keep flying at less than 1g for a while.

The .1 and .5 lines are where the wings can exert a force equal to 10% and 50% of the airplane's weight. You reach these lines while in a climb. Gravity is pulling the nose down and will eventually force the airplane back below the 1g line.

Imagine driving in snow, or on a wet track. You can go into a turn knowing the wheels will slide. The car may still be under control.

At sufficiently high altitude the wings and airframe don't have enough lift to keep the airplane under control. One of the super zoom altitude records was aided by rocket thrusters keeping the pointy end of the airplane aimed in the right direction. Without assistance the airplane would have tumbled out of control. In the car example, this is where your rear wheels snap out and you spin.

The .1g line may be close to the control limit.
 
2012-11-09 06:33:49 PM
a.abcnews.com
Then how did they get this one?
 
2012-11-09 06:36:51 PM

neenerist: Callous: No one said they have the capability to deliver it.

Who credible said they had the ability to build one?


North Korean nuclear scientists?
 
2012-11-09 06:39:47 PM

NutWrench: I believe the point is that a nuclear weapon is a bit more complicated than a missile


Not really. You'll recall that we were dropping nuclear bombs out of airplanes before we had an ICBM delivery system for them.
 
2012-11-09 06:44:02 PM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

The "stall speed" of an airplane is normally the speed at which the wings can pull 1g, sufficient to maintain level flight. It is not the speed at which the airplane goes out of control. If you're willing to pitch down you can keep flying at less than 1g for a while.

The .1 and .5 lines are where the wings can exert a force equal to 10% and 50% of the airplane's weight. You reach these lines while in a climb. Gravity is pulling the nose down and will eventually force the airplane back below the 1g line.

Imagine driving in snow, or on a wet track. You can go into a turn knowing the wheels will slide. The car may still be under control.

At sufficiently high altitude the wings and airframe don't have enough lift to keep the airplane under control. One of the super zoom altitude records was aided by rocket thrusters keeping the pointy end of the airplane aimed in the right direction. Without assistance the airplane would have tumbled out of control. In the car example, this is where your rear wheels snap out and you spin.

The .1g line may be close to the control limit.


Thanks, I'm not sure that got through my dim skull, but maybe.
 
2012-11-09 06:48:14 PM

mbillips: EngineerAU: Marine1: So uh... let's say they do shoot one down... so what? It's an overgrown model airplane. We've got lots more, too.

No no, you got it all wrong. If they shoot one down, it's an act of war. We must send in hundreds of thousand of Americans to get revenge. Plus we'll need to give Raytheon a couple of billion taxpayer dollars to develop a force field shield for the drones so the tragedy can never happen again.

Guess what? The people who think like that lost the election Tuesday.

If they keep screwing around, we might take out their air defense systems, but that would involve only 2-3 carrier battle groups. There's certainly no danger of us trying to invade; what would be the point?


I don't recall anyone talking about a ground war in Iran.
 
2012-11-09 07:33:55 PM

orezona: Would have been a much different outcome if one of these had shown up:



/still a little sad the only place the Tomcat is being flown is by those assholes


It's generally accepted that most of them aren't even operational. We won't sell them the parts to keep them in the air.
 
2012-11-09 10:15:11 PM
warning shots?
 
2012-11-09 10:29:48 PM

NutWrench: Callous: edmo: And they can build a nuke?

No one said they have the capability to deliver it.

I believe the point is that a nuclear weapon is a bit more complicated than a missile but Iran can't seem to get even their missiles to work. Yet we've been bombarded for nearly a decade with propaganda about how Iran is always "a few months away" from building a nuke and how we simply MUST go in there right now and bomb something "before it's too late."


It is my understanding that the hard part about building a nuke is enriching enough uranium to a high enough level. The actual exploding of the bomb is a bit simpler... if you will notice, iran has been working on that hard first part, which pretty much just takes time once you figure it out...

/I am not a nuclear scientist
 
2012-11-10 04:46:43 AM

Callous: edmo: And they can build a nuke?

No one said they have the capability to deliver it.


Or that they can build one that actually goes boom.
 
2012-11-10 06:10:56 AM

stuffy: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]
Then how did they get this one?


Beware the CIA bearing gifts.
 
2012-11-10 06:42:45 AM

ZAZ: RoyBatty

Does the Su-25 have a pressurized cockpit? The limit could be human factors rather than aerodynamic.


Aircraft optimized for different roles have different engines and different aerodynamics. A plane the cruises at supersonic speed flies at high altitude and looks more like an arrow than an airplane. It's engines are designed to operate most efficiently at high altitude and take in air at a high rate of speed.

Supersonic fighters are notoriously bad at low speed maneuvers. In particular, the have to maintain at least 100 miles per hour or so just to have enough lift to stay in the air. (What we call stall speed.)

Ground attack craft are built to have a low stall speed, and their engines are designed to operate at low altitude at low speed. Thus why an A-10 looks so different than an F-14 or an F-22. An A-10 can fly much slower.
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report