RQ-170s Still Flying

My post is about as factual as the "stuff" you spew out. This is ATS -a conspiracy site right? Just because you choose not to believe my explanation i could really care less LOL. Furthermore, your grammar is atrocious which makes your posts taken even less seriously.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

No evidence of that, your just making up stuff as usual.

It likely is not a Trojan Horse.

Northrup Grumman hired a man from India who worked on the B-2 bomber. Noshir Gowadia.

He gave the blue prints of the B-2 bomber to China. Plus he designed them a stealth cruise missile.

That Federal Court Case was highly classified/much not public and I wouldn't be surprised if Noshir also passed information to China on the RQ-170.

The RQ-170 may be made by Lockheed but it may have electronics similiar to Northrup's X-47b.....which Noshir would have had access to.

America's entire Stealth air superiority....no longer exists. Northrup Grumman should have hired Americans instead of that man from India.

As many experts said and agree on, it was only a matter of time one malfunctioned and the RQ-170 doesn't really contain major technological secrets. You can even see in the HQ pictures that it wasn't built for extreme stealth, the top where the engine is placed has right angles all over.

As we lost I think 50 predators and global hawks so far in Iraq and Afganistan? I'm pretty sure correct me if I'm wrong I'm too lazy too look it up again, but it was no surprise that one malfunctions as UAV's are still not that advanced yet.

If it is still flying, it only make sense that they identified the problem and fixed it or Iran would be swatting these out of the air again if they did indeed "hack" it.

Here is a good read as the Chief of Skunk work says that the RQ-170 is just one, of a large collection of classified programs in the area of Small UAV's. Do you think we sent our most advanced project to Iran? No.

www.flightglobal.com...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

No evidence of that, your just making up stuff as usual.

You are easily one of the more arrogant and self righteous people on this board.

As for the OP, who somehow thinks the CIA is less loyal than the uniformed military, wow. I don't have the time to write a detailed response, but it is so off base that it would be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. You do realize that is the National Recon Office that operates all those KH-11's, right? Somehow no one knows their true abilities. The CIA is as reliable as they come. There are a few bad apples of course, but then there is also Johnathan Pollard, who was Naval Intelligence.

So is it your opinion that the CIA is less capable or are you stating it as fact? I think it is a moot point, as the Airforce and the intelligence community operate these missions jointly in most cases. Anyone who is half as well informed as you obviously believe you are would be aware of that.

My point is that I believe the military have demonstrated extreme competence as operators and deployers of systems such as these. I have no doubts that there are exceptional members in many of the intelligence communities outside of the military, which stands to reason since many do migrate to those agencies.

What I have found however, is that the 'for profit' security industry, which includes the myriad organizations whose credentials are the fodder of politically expedient businesspersons, often lack the substance to back up their claims when it comes to successfully carrying out operations. And the CIA (although now it's more the DHS than them) is surprisingly inept at securing competent help via the military industrial complex's procurement channels.

Since the deployment, mission, and even existence of those responsible for the loss of this vehicle (as insignificant as we may want it to be) are heavily classified, we can be certain that they are still at it... and will likely lose another, and another... because oversight would be a breach of 'security' where loss of a secret espionage platform is apparently... not.

"Holier than thou" enough for ya?

Originally posted by Maxmars
... oversight would be a breach of 'security' where loss of a secret espionage platform is apparently... not.

This is a rather profound and awesome statement.

reply to post by Maxmars


The funny thing is that it is simply NOT a hugely significant loss. The drone is only meant to be semi-stealthy, and was purposely designed without the latest advances in stealth technology. There will soon be a day when stealth aircraft will be in the arsenal of every air force that desires them. The fact of the matter is that the RQ-170 has the characteristics of what I would label a Generation 0.5 stealth plane.

The oversight you are looking for exists in that the design allowed for the possibility of it being captured.

From the wikipedia article:
The design lacks several elements common to stealth engineering, namely notched landing gear doors and sharp leading edges. It has a curved wing planform, and the exhaust is not shielded by the wing.[11] Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided 'highly sensitive technologies' due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by steppenwolf86


All levity aside, I know that I can be hypercritical of the brains behind our national security apparatus. I may be considered wrong, but I earned some right to that position long ago.

I know that the aircraft wasn't anything monumentally significant insofar as divulging our technological secrets, or capabilities; but it still chafes me that underneath the posturing and political theater of it all, there seems to have been little in the way of 'making this right' within our own operational activities.

While it is clear that this aircraft was 'expected' to suffer losses in the field. That is not the same as "it's OK to lose it." The physical device itself is only one aspect of the operational security breach this represents. Also, the fact that its operators may be relying on a defense of "it's no big deal" I suggest that any equipment loss is cause for concern; especially where we claim the "enemy" (such as it is) basically "lucked out" over the ostensible 'malfunction.'

But I will desist my criticisms, as in the larger picture you, and others, are correct. We are not endangered by this.... unless you include the ego damage to the responsible branch of service.... because frankly it is highly unlikely we will ever know who actually "lost" the bird since it was being operated by civilians....

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by steppenwolf86

 

While it is clear that this aircraft was 'expected' to suffer losses in the field. That is not the same as "it's OK to lose it." The physical device itself is only one aspect of the operational security breach this represents. Also, the fact that its operators may be relying on a defense of "it's no big deal" I suggest that any equipment loss is cause for concern; especially where we claim the "enemy" (such as it is) basically "lucked out" over the ostensible 'malfunction.'

But I will desist my criticisms, as in the larger picture you, and others, are correct. We are not endangered by this.... unless you include the ego damage to the responsible branch of service.... because frankly it is highly unlikely we will ever know who actually "lost" the bird since it was being operated by civilians....

I couldn't have said it better.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


More A.D.S. here?

Are people incapable of reverse engineering and improving? The answer is no - you only have to look at US military, British Military and Soviet Military designs captured from the Nazi's and adopted during WW2.

Why, oh why, do people seem to want to insist on thinking that scientists and weapons manufacturers in Iran are dumb as a box of rocks?

And why do peoples logical thought processes go out of the window with things like this?

So its semi stealthy.

Well semi stealthy is a 100% upgrade from not stealthy at all. Its a template. So you take the template and copy it, and improve on it working on what you have.

Scale it up, tweak it a little and you have a semi stealthy aircraft in your inventory capable of doing whatever you need it to do.

Remember when the Chinese forced down that P3?
Or when the guy defected with the Mig-25?

The Iranians will have been all over it, and will be developing whatever they can out of it.

In terms of intelligence, its a currently operating craft that has now been compromised - and thats something of a disaster.

reply to post by neformore


Read my post carefully. I said that it won't be long until any airforce that can afford it has stealth planes. I was implying that for whatever reason, the knowledge and technology is available. It would however mean that Iran would have to design an entirely new aircraft, not merely an upgraded f-5 that no one has ever seen flying. I am sure they have the scientists, and could possibly build a prototype. But how likely is it that they could produce them in the numbers required to be a threat?

Just a bit of follow-up ... thought those interested might like to know....

Adios Global Hawk; U2 will stick around

Wow, so it looks like we’re seeing the first of the upcoming budget cuts for the Air Force trickle out. The AP is reporting that the Air Force is cancelling the RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude spy drone opting instead to keep the legendary U-2 Dragon Lady in service (for now, anyway)! Yup, the 50-year old U-2 is replacing its replacement for the second time. Remember, it the U-2 outlasted the SR-71 Blackbird, a plane also meant to replace it.