Venezuela says building drones with Iran's help

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Its always funny when the two idiots in the class room join forces,


I can just see them now ....covertly sneaking into Toys R Us to back engineer RC toys


Iran took down the US's most sophisticated UAV without much trouble. It is not wise to underestimate Iranian capabilities.

That remains to be proved. If the Iranians took it down or it went down due to technical issues (as many equipments legitimately have in the past).


New drones don't just fail. It was taken down by Iran and that is the end of the discussion.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Its always funny when the two idiots in the class room join forces,


I can just see them now ....covertly sneaking into Toys R Us to back engineer RC toys


Iran took down the US's most sophisticated UAV without much trouble. It is not wise to underestimate Iranian capabilities.

That remains to be proved. If the Iranians took it down or it went down due to technical issues (as many equipments legitimately have in the past).


New drones don't just fail. It was taken down by Iran and that is the end of the discussion.


Well with Stuxnet and that Flame virus. It would be an efficient weapons platform. Make Iran think it brought it down, hook it all up, then sit back and relax. I'm sure there are a myriad of viruses that could be deployed in this fashion, if they haven't been already.

Wars of the future. Not gonna lie, any war with no casualties is preferable to bullets and explosions.
edit on 15-6-2012 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
The only one who is being Imperialistic in today's modern society is the Chinese imperialism

Where has Tibet gone?

Just ignoring that one was you?



Oh right.

Still in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan are you?


Not at all. Have you looked at the news? Iraq is in charge of Iraq, and nobody is in charge of Afghanistan.


Is half of your country based on lands you stole from the Mexicans?


No, it was purchased from the French, and the rest stolen from the pre-existing natives, as the Mexicans stole theirs from their natives.



Do you still control the stolen Guantanamo Bay region of Mexico?


Cuba,yes.


Do you still occupy Korea and Japan?


No. They are sovereign democratic governments. The USA has treaties with military cooperation. Except on the bases, the USA has no authority in those nations.


Are you still attempting to circle China by basing your military out of nations you would otherwise have no connection to?


No. There were military bases since the end of WW2, and as far as I can tell, Russia and India are still there and not going anywhere so any encirclement is not feasible.


Are you still attempting to force hegemony on the Pacific ocean by backing Taiwan to anger China?


As in, being opposed to invasion and imposition of a communist dictatorship on a democracy? Yes. Just as in South Korea.

edit on 15-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Citybig
 


New drones DO just fail. Old drones DO just fail. New UAVs have a tendency to fail MORE than others. The Predator at one point had an accident rate of 40 accidents per 100,000, by 2009 it was down to 25, and by the end of FY2010 it was down to 7.5. The accident rate dropped as they learned from their mistakes, and figured out the aircraft and any design problems.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The only technology that counts is the technology you are using operationally, that, to all intents and purposes IS your latest technology, everything beyond that is just hopes, dreams and ambitions.


And I showed this was not new technology, it was technology that was already in use and was simply repurposed, how do you not understand that?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


you have provided no evidence for the Rq-170. Stop spinning and spouting BS.



So how about you respond to my post and prove it wrong. You cant, so you adopt a youre wrong, Im right mentality without actually responding. I showed you evidence, you can ignore it all day long if you want, you will still be wrong.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So the only equipment that the military uses is equipment that someone else has already stolen the design for?


The Sentinel was hidden from use for years before the military finally admitted it existed. The only reason they even did that was because there were so many reports of complaints from U-2 pilots of near misses, and of unknown UAVs out of Kandahar, and then finally a picture.


It would depend on the engagement. Would you show your hand and play your Ace up your sleeve when you have the game won, or wait for an oponnent you needed the Ace for. Simple logic. They are not going to let the big guns out to play in a conflict that is already decided and show Russia and China our full capabilities. If you think they would then you are crazy.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


No, you don't bring out everything you have, just like training. When doing DACT, especially with other countries, you keep some systems handicapped. But that doesn't meant that everything they're using in Afghanistan is old technology. You still use some new systems, which the RQ-170 is. Its first operational use was in the 2007 timeframe. The closest relatives are the RQ-3 Darkstar and the Polecat, both of which are fairly new.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Its always funny when the two idiots in the class room join forces,


I can just see them now ....covertly sneaking into Toys R Us to back engineer RC toys


Iran took down the US's most sophisticated UAV without much trouble. It is not wise to underestimate Iranian capabilities.

That remains to be proved. If the Iranians took it down or it went down due to technical issues (as many equipments legitimately have in the past).


New drones don't just fail. It was taken down by Iran and that is the end of the discussion.


First, youre wrong. They do.
Second, as I already proved this is an economy model drone, not new technology. Its not even a fully stealthed drone.

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.[13] 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.


Facts do not support you.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

The closest relatives are the RQ-3 Darkstar and the Polecat, both of which are fairly new.


Thank you for proving my point!!! The RQ-3 is 90s technology, that is what this is. There is newer technology being used but all the sensitive technology is old, there is nothing new that is sensitive. The design is compromised in the pursuit of keeping this from being anything new.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So, since it is related to the RQ-3 that means that they didn't improve it AT ALL? That makes NO sense whatsoever. You don't just take previous drones and make new ones based on them without improving them. If you have a design that works, you take ELEMENTS of that design, and you IMPROVE on them, which is probably what happened here, as it has a SIMILAR design to the Darkstar. But it is CERTAINLY an improvement to anything the Darkstar may have been had it continued.

As for it not being stealthy, then that must mean that the E-3 is a huge piece of crap, because when the U-2 pilots were reporting seeing something at their altitude the E-3 controllers were reporting there was nothing on their screens in the area.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So, since it is related to the RQ-3 that means that they didn't improve it AT ALL? That makes NO sense whatsoever. You don't just take previous drones and make new ones based on them without improving them. If you have a design that works, you take ELEMENTS of that design, and you IMPROVE on them, which is probably what happened here, as it has a SIMILAR design to the Darkstar. But it is CERTAINLY an improvement to anything the Darkstar may have been had it continued.

As for it not being stealthy, then that must mean that the E-3 is a huge piece of crap, because when the U-2 pilots were reporting seeing something at their altitude the E-3 controllers were reporting there was nothing on their screens in the area.


Ok where to begin.

First I never said it was not improved on at all. The body shape was changed to reflect that of a B-2 bomber (a 90s design, not state of the art). Youre using logical fallacies to link any improvement into being cutting edge. I never said it was the Darkstar, I said it is an improved Darkstar, and was improved using already known technologies, not NEW technologies. I linked PROOF of that in another post. No one wants to talk about the evidence I show. Lets say the Darkstar was using 1996 technologies, and the RQ-170 was upgraded to 2002 technologies. That is an improvement and is FAR from cutting edge. I quoted a source PROVING this is not using new technologies, and the author comes to the same conclusion I did that it is done on purpose to prevent sensitive cutting edge technologies from being discovered.

Second, what the heck does the E-3 have to do with anything we are discussing? Maybe you should read what I am actually writing, use some critical thinking, and you will see why the E-3 is irrelevant to the discussion of the RQ-170s stealth capabilities.
edit on 15-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


You haven't shown evidence in relation to RQ-170.Rq-3 and rq-170 are different.Rq-170 was the latest.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


How about you actually respond to one of the numerous posts I made, if all you want to say is no its not, dont bother responding, you are adding zero substance. The fact you ignore every single thing I say is proof I am right, you cant refute my evidence.

Respond to my evidence and refute it or dont respond.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Please provide evidence for the Rq-170 is not one of latest tech as you foolishly claimed.Then I will debate.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Please provide evidence for the Rq-170 is not one of latest tech as you foolishly claimed.Then I will debate.


Fine, respond to both of these please.

1.

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.[13] 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.


2.

It is believed that the Sentinel (introduced in 2007) is a "cost-effective" UAV system built from available conventional aircraft/UAV systems with "stealth-friendly" qualities built into the design.


In many respects, the Sentinel looks much like a smaller scale version of the Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bomber - particularly from the top and side profiles.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Please provide your link.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


This is not new information, this is stuff I already put in my posts and posted links to. Here you go yet again, getting harder to simply ignore my evidence.
www.militaryfactory.com...
The other information is from Aviation weekly.
analysisintelligence.com...

avoided using, “’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”.

And for the belief we were not prepared for the loss of an RQ-170.

“It was never a matter of whether we were going to lose one but when,”

www.washingtonpost.com...

Now respond to my actual evidence and points please.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


I provided a link, no response?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   


It is believed that the Sentinel (introduced in 2007) is a "cost-effective" UAV system built from available conventional aircraft/UAV systems with "stealth-friendly" qualities built into the design.


Believed? Beliefs ?? children believe in fairy god mothers too does that make them true?




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.


Did the designers of the conglomerate confirm this?USAF calls its one of the latest tech they have.People suggest here that the world will end in 2012,but then give no evidence for it.Did the designers confirm it to aviation week?




the Sentinel looks much like a smaller scale version of the Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bomber - particularly from the top and side profiles.


where is the proof for the claim that is a smaller version of B-2? USAF does not call it B-2. Many features of RQ-170 are different from B-2.Different roles.Its designed for recon.
edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join