5 ms·

There seems to be a lot of comments to the effect of, "They'll never get their version to work.". First, this probably isn't true and, second, it's not what's

by beloch 12y ago

There seems to be a lot of comments to the effect of, "They'll never get their version to work.". First, this probably isn't true and, second, it's not what's really important here. How many parts inside these drones are off-the-shelf parts manufactured in China? Of the parts that aren't off-the-shelf, how many can be reproduced exactly just by sending a design files and a check to the right place? How much of the software do they now have binaries for? Iran could probably produce a drone configured to run on the U.S. TDRSS system fairly quickly. All they'd have to do is reproduce the drone that crashed exactly. Unfortunately, this wouldn't do them a whole lot of good. The big problem is probably going to be to reverse engineer and adapt the drone's software/hardware so they can be used with Iranian systems, which probably don't exactly have global coverage. It's another challenge still to learn enough from this design for Iran to be able to produce different designs. Copying is a great way to learn though. The drone's stealth tech may be compromised for a variety of reasons, such as the difficulty of reproducing paint coatings, etc.. This brings us to what is really important. This same stealth tech was already compromised by the Chinese radar installations Iran used to detect and hijack the drone in the first place. Iran is already using Chinese radar systems and is probably not working alone. The opportunity to reverse engineer the latest stealth drone hardware is going to make China (or perhaps Russia) very generous to Iran. Chinese radar systems can already penetrate the latest U.S. stealth tech given the right circumstances, but now they are likely to get even more effective. Stealth requires such huge compromises from aircraft designs that I wouldn't be surprised if stealth designs are soon abandoned. This incident is not the beginning of the end for Stealth aircraft, it's closer to the end of the end!

Zigurd 12y ago
There is some history of countries, especially China, trying to reverse engineer airplanes. It isn't easy in practice, and not just secrets like the stealth paint. Iran's industry probably can't manufacture an RQ-170. That said, it's pretty tragic to lose a modern drone intact. There is a lot to be learned even if the learning can't be directly translated into a clone.
- trhway 12y ago
  >Iran's industry probably can't manufacture an RQ-170 ... >There is a lot to be learned even if the learning can't be directly translated into a clone. yes, it isn't only about cloning. It reminds me about the MiG-25 flown to Japan from USSR. US didn't clone it, yet it was a huge win for US and a big loss for USSR.
  - dsl 12y ago
    We didn't "clone" it, but did reverse engineer it to the extent that we could manufacture a reliable supply of replacement parts and spares for the 4477th Test and Evaluation squadron.
- beloch 12y ago
  China is actually doing pretty good. Not too long ago photos were leaked of China's F-35 clone. Interestingly enough, they dropped the V/STOL fan and slimmed down the fuselage. The result is a copy that will likely out-perform the original in the majority of applications. Yes, the Chinese copy has no V/STOL capability, but neither do the majority of F-35's. The non-V/STOL F-35's retain the fat, slow fuselage of the the V/STOL versions, ostensibly for interchangeability of parts, even though the percentage of parts that are actually interchangeable keeps going down further and further.
  - lloeki 12y ago
    > the percentage of parts that are actually interchangeable keeps going down further and further It's sad to see so much people at every scale and in every field buy on OSFA / WORA when it's been empirically demonstrated so many times that it just doesn't work. This is why I'm sad to see the A10 decommissioned: it's a testament to Unix'y "do one thing and do it well, and possibly be so awesome that it may cover a few more unexpected bases along the way".
cc439 12y ago
Stealth will end up as a footnote in the history of military technology just like reinforced concrete. Prior to WWI, reinforced concrete gave rise to an era where networks of large forts could hold against any attack with proper coordination. Then early formulations of "modern" high explosives combined with advances in metalworking gave rise to artillery that could easily blast any fort to pieces. Stealth worked well against radar systems lacking the computing horsepower needed to filter an aircraft out of the noise. Military hardware lags far behind the capabilities of consumer hardware since the rate of progression has been so rapid while military projects are planned over decades but if systems from 1998 are capable of tracking the latest in stealth technology the next few years will be the bookend of the stealth era. Personally, I think the future will be an environment where swarms of small drones are thrown against these advanced radar systems in an effort to overwhelm their tracking capability. It'll be an updated strategy along the lines of Baldwin's "the bomber will always get through" ideology. The difference is that drones don't cost lives so the weak point of WWII era bombing strategy won't be of any concern. The winning side will be the one that can afford to keep throwing 1,000 drones at every mission.
- adventured 12y ago
  There will always be more weapons to shoot down each drone, at a lower cost, than there will be drones. The throw 10,000 drones at them approach will not shake the super powers. Aircraft bombing runs against high powered military nations is long since over. It will never see a return as a broad strategy method. The swarm strategy won't produce a winning side in any scenario except for ones in which a high-powered military takes on a weaker military. Nothing will fundamentally change about who dominates the global military sphere.
  - andrewfong 12y ago
    Maybe, but you're not considering (a) the value of the target or (b) the effectiveness of drone defense. Even if defense is cheaper than offense, it will never be perfect. If all it takes is one drone to destroy the target and the target is sufficiently high-value, then the 10,000 drone strategy may be worth it. For comparison, see ICBMs and missile defense.
dsl 12y ago
The primary reason "their version won't work" is because the Iranian's didn't capture all the ground control systems.
jacquesm 12y ago
Drone technology is within the reach of high level amateurs, stealth is optional and Iran is a nation state. They could do this if they really wanted to. Iran is full of clever people, in spite of the impression that we get of them in the West as backwards and 'religious idiots' (which is mostly propaganda and would qualify tons of people in the West just as easily). The Mullahs have many faces, they're anything but dumb and they are quite capable of enlisting the help of science when it suits their goals. The fact that they abuse Islam to control their population and to violate human rights on many levels does not detract from any of that.
- pavelrub 12y ago
  The fact remains that in terms of military technology Iran is decades behind the western world. Their monthly demonstrations of "the best [aircraft|ship|submarine|drone] in the world" which then turn out to be fiberglass models of non-existing things, or photoshopped images, doesn't help to improve their image much either. If it was that simple for them "to enlist the methods of science" to develop something worthwhile, they would have done it long ago. In fact Iran seems to have serious problems with military and defense R&D.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    You must be aware that Iran is under continuous sanctions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran I think that may have something to do with their degree of achievement versus their desires.
    - pavelrub 12y ago
      Yeah, I'm aware of it. I'm not saying that Iran has no potential to do great things - I'm not even sure what that means, but Iran definitely can't make good science simply by willing it, especially if their whole defense R&D efforts were crippled due to sanctions in the last 40 years.

by beloch 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago

There is some history of countries, especially China, trying to reverse engineer airplanes. It isn't easy in practice, and not just secrets like the stealth paint. Iran's industry probably can't manufacture an RQ-170. That said, it's pretty tragic to lose a modern drone intact. There is a lot to be learned even if the learning can't be directly translated into a clone.

trhway 12y ago
>Iran's industry probably can't manufacture an RQ-170 ... >There is a lot to be learned even if the learning can't be directly translated into a clone. yes, it isn't only about cloning. It reminds me about the MiG-25 flown to Japan from USSR. US didn't clone it, yet it was a huge win for US and a big loss for USSR.
- dsl 12y ago
  We didn't "clone" it, but did reverse engineer it to the extent that we could manufacture a reliable supply of replacement parts and spares for the 4477th Test and Evaluation squadron.
beloch 12y ago
China is actually doing pretty good. Not too long ago photos were leaked of China's F-35 clone. Interestingly enough, they dropped the V/STOL fan and slimmed down the fuselage. The result is a copy that will likely out-perform the original in the majority of applications. Yes, the Chinese copy has no V/STOL capability, but neither do the majority of F-35's. The non-V/STOL F-35's retain the fat, slow fuselage of the the V/STOL versions, ostensibly for interchangeability of parts, even though the percentage of parts that are actually interchangeable keeps going down further and further.
- lloeki 12y ago
  > the percentage of parts that are actually interchangeable keeps going down further and further It's sad to see so much people at every scale and in every field buy on OSFA / WORA when it's been empirically demonstrated so many times that it just doesn't work. This is why I'm sad to see the A10 decommissioned: it's a testament to Unix'y "do one thing and do it well, and possibly be so awesome that it may cover a few more unexpected bases along the way".

cc439 12y ago

Stealth will end up as a footnote in the history of military technology just like reinforced concrete. Prior to WWI, reinforced concrete gave rise to an era where networks of large forts could hold against any attack with proper coordination. Then early formulations of "modern" high explosives combined with advances in metalworking gave rise to artillery that could easily blast any fort to pieces. Stealth worked well against radar systems lacking the computing horsepower needed to filter an aircraft out of the noise. Military hardware lags far behind the capabilities of consumer hardware since the rate of progression has been so rapid while military projects are planned over decades but if systems from 1998 are capable of tracking the latest in stealth technology the next few years will be the bookend of the stealth era. Personally, I think the future will be an environment where swarms of small drones are thrown against these advanced radar systems in an effort to overwhelm their tracking capability. It'll be an updated strategy along the lines of Baldwin's "the bomber will always get through" ideology. The difference is that drones don't cost lives so the weak point of WWII era bombing strategy won't be of any concern. The winning side will be the one that can afford to keep throwing 1,000 drones at every mission.

adventured 12y ago
There will always be more weapons to shoot down each drone, at a lower cost, than there will be drones. The throw 10,000 drones at them approach will not shake the super powers. Aircraft bombing runs against high powered military nations is long since over. It will never see a return as a broad strategy method. The swarm strategy won't produce a winning side in any scenario except for ones in which a high-powered military takes on a weaker military. Nothing will fundamentally change about who dominates the global military sphere.
- andrewfong 12y ago
  Maybe, but you're not considering (a) the value of the target or (b) the effectiveness of drone defense. Even if defense is cheaper than offense, it will never be perfect. If all it takes is one drone to destroy the target and the target is sufficiently high-value, then the 10,000 drone strategy may be worth it. For comparison, see ICBMs and missile defense.

dsl 12y ago

The primary reason "their version won't work" is because the Iranian's didn't capture all the ground control systems.

jacquesm 12y ago

Drone technology is within the reach of high level amateurs, stealth is optional and Iran is a nation state. They could do this if they really wanted to. Iran is full of clever people, in spite of the impression that we get of them in the West as backwards and 'religious idiots' (which is mostly propaganda and would qualify tons of people in the West just as easily). The Mullahs have many faces, they're anything but dumb and they are quite capable of enlisting the help of science when it suits their goals. The fact that they abuse Islam to control their population and to violate human rights on many levels does not detract from any of that.

pavelrub 12y ago
The fact remains that in terms of military technology Iran is decades behind the western world. Their monthly demonstrations of "the best [aircraft|ship|submarine|drone] in the world" which then turn out to be fiberglass models of non-existing things, or photoshopped images, doesn't help to improve their image much either. If it was that simple for them "to enlist the methods of science" to develop something worthwhile, they would have done it long ago. In fact Iran seems to have serious problems with military and defense R&D.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  You must be aware that Iran is under continuous sanctions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran I think that may have something to do with their degree of achievement versus their desires.
  - pavelrub 12y ago
    Yeah, I'm aware of it. I'm not saying that Iran has no potential to do great things - I'm not even sure what that means, but Iran definitely can't make good science simply by willing it, especially if their whole defense R&D efforts were crippled due to sanctions in the last 40 years.