US Drone(s) Crashing

Fatbat said:
Aircraft crash all the time. Does that mean all aircraft are faulty?

1,653 aircraft accidents were recorded in 2010 according to the NTSB database.
1,796 were recorded in 2009
1,916 were recorded in 2008
2,009 were recorded in 2007
Click to expand...

All airplanes aren't faulty and neither are all drones. Both are imperfect. My first question was is it worth the risk to fly drones illegally over Iran knowing that there's an x% chance is might crash? I guess it was.

My second question then was, will there by any backlash?
 


Fatbat said:
Aircraft crash all the time. Does that mean all aircraft are faulty?

1,653 aircraft accidents were recorded in 2010 according to the NTSB database.
1,796 were recorded in 2009
1,916 were recorded in 2008
2,009 were recorded in 2007
Click to expand...

You two are having a dumb debate over semantics because you don't know the basics about reliability and failure rates in systems. You should just stop now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
SUP3RNOVA said:
All airplanes aren't faulty and neither are all drones. Both are imperfect. My first question was is it worth the risk to fly drones illegally over Iran knowing that there's an x% chance is might crash? I guess it was.

My second question then was, will there by any backlash?
Click to expand...

First you said imperfect = faulty and now you're saying airplanes and drones aren't faulty but are imperfect? :eek7:

Is it worth the risk? There's always a risk. There's a risk every time someone boards a plane or gets in their car that they won't make it to their destination either as a result of mechanical error or human error.

Will there be any backlash? Politically I doubt it. Iran isn't taken seriously enough for its disgust to have any impact and the rest of the world hasn't been complaining too loudly. I think it's a given that the US is keeping close tabs on Iran. However, I'm sure there's some loot to be made by the Iranian gov't to let Chinese agents take a good look at that US tech if it is indeed real which could hurt other ways.

geomark said:
You two are having a dumb debate over semantics because you don't know the basics about reliability and failure rates in systems. You should just stop now.
Click to expand...

Wild assumptions. You should stop jumping to conclusions.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
First, a drone crashes in Iran, a place it shouldn't be. The US claims it malfunctioned and was destroyed, rendering it useless to Iranian military. Iran has a happy picture of their guys with a fully complete drone, claiming it's in tip top shape and they brought it down with their own tech-weapons.

Somebody is obviously lying here, so that had me thinking a bit.
Click to expand...

Jesse Ventura and Brad Meltzers decoded - my favorite two shows, lol. The g dam government is full of lies.
 
geomark said:
Pretty sure this is complete nonsense. All battlefield communications is encrypted and there is no way they would leave drone control communications in the open and easily hacked, not unintentionally unless somebody screwed up or there was a malfunction.

On the other hand, how about a drone as a Trojan horse? Make it easy for the enemy to capture it but let them think it was a malfunction. Then track it as it gets moved to various depots for analysis/cloning. Then send in a real drone and blast 'em.
Click to expand...

What I read wasn't a discussion of the encryption, but of the vulnerability of the frequencies and technology to being jammed/interrupted.
 
Fatbat said:
First you said imperfect = faulty and now you're saying airplanes and drones aren't faulty but are imperfect? :eek7:
Click to expand...

I agree with above poster that we're arguing pointless semantics. But I said that not all drones are faulty, but some are, which makes "drones" imperfect.

The statement made was

Probably because it's not faulty equipment, it's imperfect/experimental.
Click to expand...

Imperfect drones that malfunction are faulty drones. In the context I was using it, imperfect drones = faulty drones. I didn't mean to say that the US would send over a drone they know is faulty, of course they thought the mission would go as planned.
 
The US is detaining one of china's green dragon members well a claimed member (Yeah secret society stuff). No clue, but if Iran could knock down these drones then it should been done sooner. Well it has me thinking.
 
Interesting idea the US would infect Iran, or give us the location of their labs through letting them capture the drone.

Another much more frightening thing is if they've figured out how to take control of the damn things. Not too difficult since the Chinese have been hacking into our systems for years, stealing billions of dollars of secrets from the gov, military and businesses. Heck they've probably hacked a couple of gay webmasters!

Another possibility is the chips inside the damn thing were made in China complete with a backdoor. Another chilling thought.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
I agree with above poster that we're arguing pointless semantics. But I said that not all drones are faulty, but some are, which makes "drones" imperfect.

The statement made was



Imperfect drones that malfunction are faulty drones. In the context I was using it, imperfect drones = faulty drones. I didn't mean to say that the US would send over a drone they know is faulty, of course they thought the mission would go as planned.
Click to expand...

You guys should really stop it. Aside from going off in nonsensical directions you're not even using the right vernacular. It's about probabilities of latent defects manifesting faults that cause system failure. If you grasped the concepts of your probability course(s) (assuming you got a real degree) then pick up a copy of the Handbook for Reliability Engineers if you are so inclined.
 
(O_o) said:
Exclusive: Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer - CSMonitor.com

Iran hijacked US drone with GPS spoofing, says Iranian engineer
Click to expand...

Or, someone read my previous post and ran with it.

Napolean said:
If Iran reverse engineered technology that we created, and we know the technologies flaws, couldn't we exploit those flaws if Iran tried to duplicate it?

Let Iran make the drones, then hack into them and bomb them with their own equipment. Who are they going to blame?
Click to expand...
 
Can someone answer me this:

How do all these candidates reach the conclusion that Iran is the country producing IED's?

I thought IED stood for "Improvised Explosive Device", and from what I've seen, they are simple devices, using technology that you may even find at a junior high school science fair. It's actually just a new way to word "booby trap". They are built onsite by very crude methods.

Either these candidates think Iraqi's are stone age neanderthals who can hardly beat two rocks together, or they are curve fitting their evidence as more propaganda to invade Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom