Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States

Air Force Says Iran Didn't Down Drone 248

Posted by samzenpus
from the pilot-error dept.
First time accepted submitter QQBoss writes "The Air Force is not saying what caused the RQ-170 UAV to crash in Iran, but that Iran's claim to have forced it down is erroneous. The drone didn't come down and land gently as Iran had suggested it did. At least Iran got a good photo op, though the more interesting question is what technology will they be able to glean from what they did capture."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Air Force Says Iran Didn't Down Drone

Comments Filter:
  • Forget PR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oldhack (1037484) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:07PM (#38786289)
    Did USAF figured out how/why the drone got captured?
    • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:10PM (#38786315)

      If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.

      • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:14PM (#38786341) Homepage Journal

        Hi. We're the US Airforce.

        We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.

        Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.

        • by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:27PM (#38786481)

          We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.

          Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.

          Yes, because obviously what the American public believes has a direct effect on the technical capabilities of the Iranian government in a sort of "mind over matter" fashion. Most people don't make that connection.

          • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nutshell42 (557890) on Monday January 23, 2012 @06:37AM (#38789547) Journal
            No but it has a direct effect on the financial capabilities of the DoD.

            If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.

            • Half-assed is hyphenated, you insensitive clod!

              • If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.

                Half-assed is hyphenated, you insensitive clod!

                And, as they say, two half-asseds make an ass whole!

                I'm here all week, folks. Try the veal.

                ...now where's that scotch...

            • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Insightful)

              by cold fjord (826450) on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:21PM (#38792467)

              If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.

              That is ridiculous. Drones are pretty clearly necessary, so finding an actual vulnerability would generate more contracts to fix the problem, not fewer from the elimination of drones.

        • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:35PM (#38786571) Homepage Journal
          Yeah, I also laughed out loud when I saw the page in the link.

          I do find it credible that Iran didn't use technical wizardry to down the drone. As a former Air Force electronic warfare technician, I'm guessing that Iran just flooded the area with high-amplitude noise jamming to trigger an automatic landing routine. My knowledge is not current, but much military technology nowadays uses 2 other (3-letter-acronym) types of satellite-based navigation technology with better precision than that of GPS.

          There's a reason for classifying technology, and it's not to hide super-secret features. It's to prevent the enemy from knowing what a piece of shit the technology is.

          But then again, seeing how the Joint Strike fighter and the F-22 both turned out to be flimsy, overpriced pieces of shit, It would not surprise me to see hurried Tijuana design practices in the systems integration. The last good American aircraft was the ultra-versatile, ultra-reliable F-15 airframe, which is still being adapted for use. I know because I worked on 'em, back in the days when their main antenna array was mechanically scanned :)
          • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Interesting)

            by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Sunday January 22, 2012 @10:02PM (#38787211) Journal

            Well don't forget it was only a couple of years ago (late 09 i believe) that Intel quit making the 386 because the military was still buying and that thing is so old they haven't been found even in goodwill stores in nearly a decade, hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.

            Despite all the talk of the "high tech military' by the time the gear gets through committees and sub-committees and 14 levels of bureaucratic BS the stuff is pretty damned ancient. I don't know what is sadder, how much really old crap our soldiers are dealing with or how the really old crap is better than the new stuff, like the F35 which is up to what? A billion plus just to fix the bugs they've found so far? Frankly i think we'd be better off having some more F-15s and F-18s cranked out even though those are old designs.

            but if this program is anything like what we've seen with the fighters the only thing the program is really good at is cost overruns and the thing probably has so many bugs you could knock it down with a hacked iPhone. How much you wanna bet the Chinese will end up with it like they did the stealth chopper we lost going after Bin Laden and the F 117 they had dug up in Kosovo? Maybe they can figure out how to make it at a decent price and have it actually functional.

            • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Informative)

              by Raindog (13847) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @10:32PM (#38787417)

              IIRC there was a version of the 386 that was hardened against high levels of radiation...hence their being used quite a bit in space (and presumably nuclear) applications, which would go along way towards explaining such a thing.

              • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Rennt (582550) on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:14AM (#38788029)
                It wasn't so much hardened, as much as it was just made on such a crude process (over 1 micrometer) it was largely unaffected by radiation.
            • by peragrin (659227)

              ah but that is the trick, if you want new designs you need to invest in the R&D.

              for computers the R&D is done by companies looking to make money by selling the "Best", for military they have to foot their own R&D costs on top of procurement costs.

              You can't have the "latest" without someone spending the R&D to build the damn thing to begin with.

              Also as things age it gets harder to get replacement parts. look at the A-10. The Air Force has tried to discontinue it several times, however it ke

            • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Sun (104778) <shachar@shemesh.biz> on Monday January 23, 2012 @01:05AM (#38788265) Homepage

              hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.

              There are more important aspects to a chip that is supposed to be used in an aircraft than processing speed. Radiation resistance, temperature sensitivity, having a frame that can withstand 9G over time and twice that at emergencies, etc. count for more than having more processing power, even if the result is that you are using a less powerful chip.

              The reason the 386 took so long to be replaced wasn't because of some slow working committee. It is because the economical pressures at ground levels are different, causing chip makers to produce chips that are indeed faster, but less suited to the operating conditions inside a fighter aircraft.

              I didn't know they actually found an alternative. Maybe they didn't, and are just so swell stocked up on 386s that they feel there is no need to pay the cost to Intel of keeping the old production line open.

              Shachar

          • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Interesting)

            by timeOday (582209) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @11:21PM (#38787735)
            I think you and the GP are missing an important, falsifiable statement from the story: "The air force did say that, because they had figured out what brought the RQ-170 down, they were continuing to fly RQ-170s on reconnaissance missions."

            .

            I have a hard time believing they would do this if your theory - simple jamming - were correct.

            I also have a hard time believing the GP that US propagandists would use such a simple, falsifiable lie.

            So, I think the most likely scenario is that this new high-tech drone simply broke down over Iran and crash-landed.

            • by l00sr (266426)

              I think you and the GP are missing an important, falsifiable statement from the story: "The air force did say that, because they had figured out what brought the RQ-170 down, they were continuing to fly RQ-170s on reconnaissance missions."

              Exactly. I'd love to see the US call Iran on their bluff and have them demonstrate their ninja hacking skills on a test drone.

          • It seems strange that a UAV would be designed to perform a soft landing when its communications are degrading. Wouldn't it be more secure to spear in under those circumstances? And maybe blow itself up in the process.

            • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Patch86 (1465427) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:15AM (#38789025)

              Great when you're flying over enemy-infested desert mountain ranges, but not so great when flying over a city or key piece of infrastructure. The military is (generally) not in the business of "let's just blow everything up regardless!".

              • Sure so thats why it should have a setting. In home airspace it has one behaviour. In other places, different behaviour.

        • Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:42PM (#38786623) Homepage

          Who can forget how this all started out.
          It not ours we didn't lose one.
          We lost one but that's not it.

          We want it back.
          Now it's, 'er' yeah, it's our's but they didn't bring it down, we lost it all on our own (somehow that's meant to be better.

          Of course the web site source is going wildly counter Republican dogma about the dangerous Iranians "the Iranians are constantly lying about their military exploits, especially when it comes to developing new weapons and technology. This is apparently done mainly for domestic propaganda as satellite photos never show more than a few prototypes of these wonder-weapons". So no great threat after all.

          The real battle at the moment is between the US and Israel. The US administration is sick of Israel forcing into losing situations, losing billions and losing soldiers and knows Israel is actively trying to goad Iran into attacking Israel.

          Likely Russia and China will not be too impressed in Israel launches an airstrike even a series of airstrikes on Iran in an attempt to precipitate a conflict and draw in the US at the US's expense.

          Likely this will result in both China and Russia supply Iran with the latest weapons to test them against US hardware.

          • by ArcherB (796902)

            Of course the web site source is going wildly counter Republican dogma about the dangerous Iranians "the Iranians are constantly lying about their military exploits, especially when it comes to developing new weapons and technology.

            Nope! I don't know if you notice, but the President is not a Republican any more. A Republican hasn't held that office in almost exactly three years.

            When will Democrats stop blaming Republicans for fuck ups that are all their own?

            • by Grishnakh (216268)

              Nope! I don't know if you notice, but the President is not a Republican any more. A Republican hasn't held that office in almost exactly three years.

              What are you talking about? Obama's been one of the best Republican Presidents ever; he's a far better Republican than Bush was.

        • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:15PM (#38786843) Homepage

          We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.

          Incidentally, that would be admitting to breaking the law, because the US military is bound by law to aim psyops solely at foreign populations.

          • Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:26PM (#38786947) Homepage Journal

            Do you remember when laws used to be enforced? That seemed to work OK. I wonder why they stopped?

            • by swb (14022) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:34PM (#38787031)

              It was damaging our ability to innovate.

            • Do you remember when laws used to be enforced?

              You must be joking. The only time laws are enforced against the fat cats is when the fatter cats throw a baby to the wolves. If a fat cat breaks an inconvenient law, the transgression is ignored unless it's a handy sop to the peasants. If a peasant needs to be punished and there is no convenient law, charges are made up or the law creatively re-interpreted.

              Anyone who reads even a little on the history of law will come to the same conclusion. Try Slaughterhouse or Dred Scott for particularly egregious ex

            • by Ksevio (865461)
              Laws aren't like the game hearts - they don't all become invalid after some aren't enforced.
            • Do you remember when laws used to be enforced? That seemed to work OK. I wonder why they stopped?

              It didn't. People simply ask rhetorical questions implying it did and get freebie +5s. My hat is off to you sir, but your post is nonsense.

      • If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.

        Even if they did say anything, would anyone believe them?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:04PM (#38786769)

      The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

    • by stanlyb (1839382)
      They already said: The drone was not "forced" to land, but was asked politely "...dear drone, would you care to join us for a brief photo session?", and the drone, as you know it, could not resist the urge to be seen in the latest playboy... i mean playdrone magazine.
    • by zdzichu (100333) <zdzichu@i r c .pl> on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:04AM (#38788823) Homepage Journal

      There's a great quote I saw recently:

      General: "So, how do we get Stuxnet 2 in Iran? USB sticks won't do it any more"
      Sergeant: "What if we crash land an infected drone there?"

  • Uh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:11PM (#38786321)

    Do people expect the military to admit that their drone wasn't hacked and gently landed? Of course they're going to save face here. I don't trust their PR department any more than I trust any other PR department.

    • "Our drone was NOT hacked by the enemy, in fact no outside influence was required to cause our super-expensive, top-secret drone to crash land in enemy territory. We refuse to divulge why precisely this happened, but we can assure you that whatever happened, it was our own fault, and not the work of enemy forces. No questions please."

      Way to save face...
    • Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike (68054) * on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:55PM (#38786715)

      Do people expect the military to admit that their drone wasn't hacked and gently landed? Of course they're going to save face here.

      Did you read the linked article:

      Then many Americans familiar with the RQ-170 carefully studied the pictures of the "captured" RQ-170 and immediately suspected something was off. For one thing, the RQ-170 shown was the right size and shape but the wrong color. Not just a different color from that seen on many photos of the RQ-170s in Afghanistan but also a color unknown in American military service. A closer examination of the Iranian RQ-170 photos indicated that the Iranians had reassembled an RQ-170 that had crashed and broken into three or more pieces.

      It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
      And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
      If it landed intact why hide it?

      • Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:22PM (#38786909)

        the fact is that Iran HAS the unit, even if they had to duct tape it back together. Even if it crashed, it was still close enough to Iran to land ON THEIR SIDE of the border. The thing to take as US citizens is that our military is consistently goading Iran along... Obviously the drone was violating Iran's airspace when it went down... so our government is stoking them to keep up the crazy talk.. just because they are paranoid doesn't mean our side isn't out to start shit.

      • It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
        And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
        If it landed intact why hide it?

        You must remember this is Iran. Although in English, the word drone is neuter, I believe that in Farsi, the word for drone is feminine, so the drone is considered female. As such it must be properly draped so as to be modest. Also, the old paint job done by the American manufacturers, in the eyes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made the drone look like a whore. And as far as the widely rumored Revolutionary Guards rubber tire fetish.... let's not go there. The Revolutionary Guards did what they co

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They didn't claim it landed intact.

        They claimed to spoof the drone into believing it was over its home base, in which the runway was a few meters lower then at the Iranian airbase. As a result, the drone came in for a "hard landing", damaging its undercarriage because it expected the ground to be coming up in a few more meters rather then exactly when it did.

        I'm not saying I believe the Iranian explanation by any means -- while I can believe them spoofing the civilian band GPS signal (those are very low pow

    • by walterbyrd (182728) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:54PM (#38787139)

      It is extremely unlikely that Iran "hacked" the drone and landed it.

      You are right not to trust the US government stories. But, Iran is not especially trustworthy either.

      The most likely story is: the drone lost signal, or had some sort of mechanical problem, and glided to a crash landing. Iran picked up wreckage - which was probable not that bad.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        Shouldn't it have self-destructed to protect all that super secret hardware? Nose diving into the ground at a few hundred MPH is pretty effective.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:12PM (#38786327)

    It's just so well made that it fell out the sky undamaged.

  • SOPA (Score:5, Funny)

    by mr_lizard13 (882373) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:18PM (#38786375)
    They shouldn't just be able to take what they want from it. That technology is valuable IP.

    This is why we need SOPA.
  • Jam (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Good Evening HBO
    From Captain Midnight
    $12.95/MONTH ?
    No way !
    [SHOWTIME/MOVIE CHANNEL BEWARE!]

  • by mvmortier (1464377) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:34PM (#38786557) Homepage

    Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?

    I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?

    Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.

    • may it does or at least a suicide battery

    • It does. At least all evidence points to it. After all, a few months ago a drone was nearly blown up when they accidentally pressed the spacebar. And I think there was some drone in 1999 which was accidentally blown up too because of a similar glitch.

      However, if Iran was jamming the signal and there was no way to get commands to it, a failsafe of landing is usually much better than a faildeadly of exploding. Especially when you are dealing with millions of dollars. Saying a drone got hijacked/malfunctio
      • by shentino (1139071)

        What are the odds that Iran is actually going to give it back, let alone in one piece?

        Blowing it up wouldn't have actually cost any more than letting them shred it when they were done going over it with a fine toothed comb.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Bingo! - except you can't say this one didn't have any.

      TFA's case is that this was a crashed drone; why it got re-painted the wrong color in the pics.

      If you're going to bondo for the photo-session, there's no reason you can't also bondo the damage from the self-destruction of the important bits.

      Given the extensive standard-procedure self-destruction built into any other flying intelligence equipment, it's nonsensical to think these drones don't have it. Just don't expect it to evaporate the whole vehicle --

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by izomiac (815208)
      I would imagine one could politically argue that putting explosives on an unmanned aircraft is just a convoluted way of making a missile, the use of which would be an act of war. Furthermore, I'm sure the designers made them exceptionally difficult to reverse engineer, and there are probably digital and perhaps even chemical self-destruct mechanisms that aren't as flashy nor leave as much visible external evidence. For all we know, Iran got a warped airframe with a bunch of melted circuit boards and oxidi
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      If it was hacked than the self-destruction wouldn't work.

    • Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?

      I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?

      Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.

      It is likely that self-destruct functionality depends on the technology that is employed in the drones. Most sensitive electronics can be zeroized in some fashion to protect cyrpto keys without loss of the hardware. In some cases destructive zeroization is required, but another poster mentioned accidental activation of self-destruct systems is a reality so it needs to be considered with care where either loss of life/injury or expensive hardware costs could occur.

      In the case of an unmanned vehicle it seem

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Belgian_MiG-23_crash [wikipedia.org]
      Drone glides/fails into home/school/hospital/nursing home and ... crash or .....?
      You can say it just had optics ect. and its sort of ok.
      Traces of explosives found is less good.
    • If you are talking about explosives, I would imagine it would introduce a number of safety issues. Aircraft experience a lot of extremes. Hot, cold, turbulence, and hard landings can all knock around explosives. Never mind all the fuel/oil and electronics around. I work with explosives with the army. The idea of working with or around an explosive mechanism that experiences wear and tear scares the crap out of me.

      Sure it can be done, but making the process safe for maintenance crews would be expensi
    • Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.

      One of the news articles from a few weeks ago cited an analyst familiar with the program who says that it did have a self-destruct, but it malfunctioned.

      Perhaps since Iran reportedly forced it down with GPS spoofing the code for the automated return-to-base landing didn't have listener hooks for the self-destruct.

      I don't know what TFS is on about - people in Iran have claimed they got the lat/long coordinates right but messed up the altitude so the thing lande

  • by grumling (94709) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:37PM (#38786585) Homepage

    Imagine if this was a U2 or similar piloted vehicle instead of a drone. We'd be preparing the bombers right now, along with special congressional resolutions condemning the Iraqis to death for "capturing" one of "our boys." Meanwhile the Iraqi government would be parading him all over Tehran, mostly for the western media to slobber over.

    Instead we get a few jokes on Leno and the Daily Show, and a lot of diplomatic posturing.

    No doubt we're going to war with Iran no matter what the American people want, but at least not over a spyplane (for a change).

    • by jon3k (691256)
      :%s/iraq/iran/g
    • by ironjaw33 (1645357) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @09:05PM (#38786773)

      Imagine if this was a U2 or similar piloted vehicle instead of a drone. We'd be preparing the bombers right now, along with special congressional resolutions condemning the Iraqis to death for "capturing" one of "our boys."

      There are at least two cases where this has happened. The Soviets shot down a U2 in 1960 [wikipedia.org] and held the pilot hostage for over a year until he was traded for another prisoner. Also, in 2001, the Chinese forced a P-3 to land on Chinese soil [wikipedia.org] and held the crew hostage for 10 days before they were released. In both cases, I'm sure the Soviets and the Chinese pored over whatever sensitive stuff was left intact and wasn't destroyed by the crash in the case of the U2 or the US aircrew in the case of the P3.

      I wasn't born in the 1960s so I couldn't tell you what the public sentiment was at the time, but in the 2001 incident, I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Clinton. If I remember, the Chinese forced Clinton to give some kind of apology before they released the crew.

      • Sorry, my mistake, it was Bush who gave the apology, not Clinton.
        • by russotto (537200)

          Sorry, my mistake, it was Bush who gave the apology, not Clinton.

          Yep, and it was a half-assed BS apology... which is all China deserved, considering the whole incident was their pilot's fault.

          Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of the pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss.
          Although the full picture of what trans

      • by ThorGod (456163)

        I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Bush. If I remember, the Chinese forced Bush to give some kind of apology before they released the crew.

        Fixed it for you. Clinton was out of the white house by the time this incident occurred.

        From your own link:

        The incident took place ten weeks after the inauguration of George W. Bush as president and was his first foreign policy crisis

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        but in the 2001 incident, I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Clinton.

        President Bush cared very much about the hostages, but it is standard protocol to not inflame such situations by talking about it in the press.

        All the action goes on behind closed doors and out of the public eye, until a resolution is reached.
        There are some hostage situations that we don't even learn about until after the person has returned home,
        because the government asks the media to black it out so as not to upset delicate negotiations.

  • Alt. Scenario (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2012 @08:42PM (#38786615)
    U.S. receives intelligence that Iran are working on tech to bring down an enemy drone safely.
    U.S. plays along and lets Iran "land" a drone with sub-par/poisoned tech on board.
    U.S. pretends to try and reproduce the bug that Iran publically announces, hence the delay.
    U.S. claims that Iran's method couldn't have possibly worked and that it was an unknown error.

    Iran thinks that U.S. is either incompetent or has failed to realise the key, unreleased, step in their methodology.
    U.S. lets Iran believe that their method works, and, optionally, leads them down the garden path with poisoned tech on board the planted drone.
    When Real War breaks out, U.S. has an advantage, drones continue to fly and Iran wastes time and energy trying to perfect their drone-capturing skillz.
    • Re:Alt. Scenario (Score:5, Insightful)

      by l00sr (266426) on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:06AM (#38787981)

      The real scenario:

      Drone crash-lands in Iran due to software bug.
      Iran hauls drone away in pick-up truck, gives it a paint job, and makes it the centerpiece of a propaganda campaign.

      Never attribute to advanced spycraft that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.

  • ... 'nuff said
  • http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg [welovethei...nister.com]

    I think I'm hearing familiar intonations there.

  • by mbone (558574) on Sunday January 22, 2012 @11:19PM (#38787727)

    The Air Force is saying that "Iran's claim to have forced it down is erroneous."

    WIth all due respect they would say that, wouldn't they ? So, as an indication of what happened, I am afraid this is not very useful.

  • by Sarusa (104047) on Monday January 23, 2012 @12:31AM (#38788123)

    ... so they certainly could not have tricked our drone into landing even though we give zero consideration to any security but physical.

My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn

Working...