Iran shoots at U.S. drone over Persian Gulf

[birdman]

No I wouldn't, I worked with them.  For flying 16 miles from a coastline and trying to peer in it is not the correct tool for the job.

If we are one upping, you are going to lose.  I design  sensor packages, missions, and airframe modifications and upgades for them (predator, reaper, and GH).

You are correct however, a predator isn't the right tool for that job, of course, neither is a GH or a reaper.

That doesn't change the fact that IT WAS A PREDATOR, not a reaper, not a global hawk.  You are making the ASSUMPTION they were trying to look INTO Iran. 

[kgbsquirrel]

If we are one upping, you are going to lose.  I design  sensor packages, missions, and airframe modifications and upgades for them (predator, reaper, and GH).

You are correct however, a predator isn't the right tool for that job, of course, neither is a GH or a reaper.

That doesn't change the fact that IT WAS A PREDATOR, not a reaper, not a global hawk.  You are making the ASSUMPTION they were trying to look INTO Iran. 

*shrug* I suppose my using both the GH and Pred platforms to find (successfully) the enemy in real world environments is totally without merit then. 

As for the story, looks like other media outlets are saying Predator. The articles I previously read just listed it as "a drone."

[birdman]

*shrug* I suppose my using both the GH and Pred platforms to find (successfully) the enemy in real world environments is totally without merit then. 

As for the story, looks like other media outlets are saying Predator. The articles I previously read just listed it as "a drone."

KGB, I'm sorry, I was having a crap day and over reacted to what was an innocuous statement.

I do agree, a predator-A is a crap platform for oblique use due to altitude and sensor limitations.  A reaper is substantially better due to its greater altitude and far better sensors (MTS-B instead of MTS-A).  A global hawk is superior still (only due to altitude, as far as EO/IR goes, the reaper is actually better).

My point was, given that the operating area they were in, which was easily inside medium SAM range, we wouldn't risk a GH just to get some oblique imagery, that is what satellites are for.  Since coastal surveillance is not a persistent mission, none of the UAV's attributes are well suited, and they are exceedingly vulnerable, and in the GH case, really expensive.  16nm off the coast means a minimum of 35-40km slant range for a predator/reaper and 40-50km for a GH.  At that range and oblique angle, any EO is going to be not so good, and SAR is going to be really limited. 

My thought is the mission was a maritime one, not a land one.

For oblique non-persistent surveillance against land work, they would use a U-2 or other special aircraft to get sufficient look angle for SAR, and satellites for oblique.

To put in perspective, at 50km, the optical sensors on the best UAV's are going to get you at best 0.3-0.5m cross range and 0.5-1.5m downrange resolution...even commercial satellites do better than that.  SAR would be worse.

It was that thought (and the fact it was technically in "denied" (ie potentially in SAM coverage) airspace) that leads me to believe it was a predator as the press reports, and was likely a maritime mission.

Anyway, I'm sorry for my reaction.  We should talk sometime about our experiences with the aircraft, I'm always looking for some set reactions to better design the net gen stuff.