Air Force Says Iran Didn't Down Drone 248
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."
Forget PR (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)
If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Half-assed is hyphenated, you insensitive clod!
Ass Math (Score:3)
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)
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)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Informative)
Right. They upgraded to IBM AP-101S. 32bit, 1.2Mhz, 1MB RAM.
From what I understand, there were Intel 80386 processors used for other functions.
They are used in all kinds of embedded systems, both gov't and commercial. There isn't much need to upgrade the CPU on some embedded device that's always worked that way. Well, not til the next generation needs more power.
The shuttle didn't generally change very much, so if they were using 386's to run some device, there wasn't much need to upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
But the point is that aircraft should be self-contained and should not rely on other aircraft to perform jamming for them.
Actually, no. The jamming aircraft is a huge source of radio signals - the opposite of stealth. The jamming aircraft needs to be well out of range, because it's like a huge light bulb at radio frequencies.
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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!".
Re: (Score:3)
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:5, Interesting)
Why are you contradicting yourself?
Noise jamming is not "technical wizardry." It is the crudest form of electronic jamming known to man. It's the "hail mary" of the jamming world. If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
Yeah that's called "security through obscurity" and no self-respecting security relies on it.
Tell that to the Serbians who shot down [wikipedia.org] an American stealth fighter using primitive sixties-era Russian technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the stealth fighter was 70s era technology sold to the public as next generation after it was nearing obsolescence.
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)
Noise jamming is not "technical wizardry." It is the crudest form of electronic jamming known to man. It's the "hail mary" of the jamming world. If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
Well, it did work. Seeing as they successfully netted themselves a USAF unmanne drone with simple noise jamming (if that is indeed what happened), anything "more sophisticated" would have been wasted effort. Like picking the lock on a door when the window is wide open.
Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Insightful)
If Iran used it, they did so because their technology is primitive, not because they had inside information.
Which technology is more primitive? The Iranians with their crude jamming, or the multi-million dollar drone which is clearly easily defeated by said crude jamming?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why are you contradicting yourself?
Knowing what countermeasure to use and how to exploit an automatic routine isn't technical wizardry?
Erm, that's not a contradiction at all. It's like lockpicking vs. smashing the door. There isn't a lot of subtlety involved (or required) to jam such a signal. Drones require shitloads of bandwidth to operate (i read something like 500mbit/s) and if he was still alive, I would suggest asking Claude Shannon about difficulty of jamming high-bandwidth signals (almost none). A bit of noise and the whole thing breaks down.
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody would use a highly vulnerable communication system to fly an airplane, let alone in a war zone.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't met the geniuses at the DoD.
Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Do you remember when laws used to be enforced? That seemed to work OK. I wonder why they stopped?
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Funny)
It was damaging our ability to innovate.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid that Law operates on precedent. The preceent now established? Might makes right.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic commentary, not naive rumination.
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Insightful)
You believe all the distortions, half truths and misrepresentations sold to you by the CNNBCFox?
It is impossible to retort to those who play in imaginary sandboxes. I'm glad that - at least - you didn't pay for that brainwashing.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.
Even if they did say anything, would anyone believe them?
Re: (Score:2)
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
'Tis but a scratch.
A scratch? Your arm's off!
No, it isn't.
Well, what's that then?
I've had worse.
You liar!
Come on you pansy!
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have an excellent grasp of international relations. It's a big game of he-said she-said in a world theater.
Re:Forget PR (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
older than ARPAnet
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forget PR (Score:5, Funny)
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
While an interesting theory about the virus, it's only affecting the site that handles the Predator and another class of drones. The site that handles the drone that was downed in Iran has not been affected by that virus.
And yes, the underside of the drone was hidden and is probably very badly damaged. At the very least you can see in the pictures of the drone that tape is covering the where the wings attach to the central part of the drone. It's very likely the wings cracked or came off at some point.
Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Way to save face...
Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you manage to get your grubby hands on a drone, call a buddy over to help you pull the boxes. Get one man on the front section while the other pulls the boxes from the center of gravity (near the middle of the plane).
The rule of thumb is that boxes with the widest data connectors and RF (Coaxial) connections are more valuable. The more connections the box has, the more valuable it is.
Next, strip all a
Don't trust USAF, but in this case . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
They didn't bring it down... (Score:3, Funny)
It's just so well made that it fell out the sky undamaged.
Drones don't "fall out of the sky" (Score:2)
The drones are made to be extremely stable. They practically fly themselves.
If the engine died, it would glide to a crash landing. It would not "fall out of the sky."
SOPA (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we need SOPA.
Re:SOPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Lawyers vs. Mullahs.
I can only hope they annihilate each other.
Re:SOPA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can the cast of Jersey Shore get in on this?
Re: (Score:3)
Islamic Republic of Iran Software Rating Board (Score:3)
Rated I (Imam and up). Contains Violence, Discussion of Magic, Pictures of Jewish Women, and Muslim Ankle Nudity. Online Interactions Not Rated by the IRISRB.
Jam (Score:2, Informative)
Good Evening HBO
From Captain Midnight
$12.95/MONTH ?
No way !
[SHOWTIME/MOVIE CHANNEL BEWARE!]
Self-Destruct anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
may it does or at least a suicide battery
Re:may it does or at least a suicide battery (Score:5, Funny)
Sony and Chevy are both competing for the new self-destruct battery contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony and Chevy are both competing for the new self-destruct battery contract.
I suspect that Sony actually provided the special self-destructing battery in that drone, and that battery failed to self-destruct.
or they copied capcom and the battery kills the co (Score:2)
or they copied capcom and the battery kills the code / fpga config.
Self-destruct (Score:3)
At least your post had a self-destruct. Now I can't understand it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
If it was hacked than the self-destruction wouldn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Drone glides/fails into home/school/hospital/nursing home and
You can say it just had optics ect. and its sort of ok.
Traces of explosives found is less good.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it can be done, but making the process safe for maintenance crews would be expensi
Does have self-destruct (Score:2)
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
Why Drones? Right Here's Your Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoops! Iran, Iraq... My brain knows the difference, but my fingers don't.
Re: (Score:2)
:%s/iraq/iran/g
Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference?
Re:Why Drones? Right Here's Your Answer (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and it was a half-assed BS apology... which is all China deserved, considering the whole incident was their pilot's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
World War 2, slightly less so, but still had a low approval rating among the public.
In case you failed to notice, America stayed out of the war until Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and the Nazis declared war on America.
Alt. Scenario (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
$5 says it ran out of gas (Score:2)
Did they hire this guy recently? (Score:2)
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg [welovethei...nister.com]
I think I'm hearing familiar intonations there.
They would say, wouldn't they? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
We have never been at war with East Irania (Score:3)
... so they certainly could not have tricked our drone into landing even though we give zero consideration to any security but physical.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure. First violate another country's airspace, then compound the error by sending in an airstrike to destroy the property you so carelessly lost. If another country did that to the US, there'd be hell to pay.
Honestly, it's no wonder the US has such a bad rep in some parts of the world. Maybe you shouldn't have been flying your precious drones over another country if you didn't want to lose them.