Venezuela says building drones with Iran's help

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003

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)

You do realize the specs are secret so no one can claim anything other than this. You did not respond to anything I posted, as I knew you wouldnt. Dont be afraid of the facts.

ETA: The design is known, the reasons behind the poor design is speculative. But hey why respond when you can ignore. Until you respond to my posts rather than brush them off, I am done with you.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


so how did you say that it is not latest tech if you do not know the specs and the specs are secret?USAF calls it one of the most advanced drones.And respond to my questions and provide evidence on that basis?

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

so how did you say that it is not latest tech if you do not know the specs and the specs are secret?USAF calls it one of the most advanced drones.And respond to my questions and provide evidence on that basis?

edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

I quoted government sources stating they know one will fail and be captured. I quoted aviation experts who are giving expert opinions based on known information. Address my posts, if you wont then stop talking to me, Im not going to keep posting evidence and information which you wont respond to.

Show me your expert credentials that make you more qualified than the author of the Aviation Week source I cited. Show me a source where the USAF says it is cutting edge technology. You refuse to address my posts, just like I said you would.

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”.

Address that.

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.

Address that.

You cant. Your wrong. End of story. Keep cherry picking the parts you want to address so you can sweep it all under the rug though if it makes you feel better, anyone with a semi functional brain sees the truth.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Clearly you have provided the 'experts' speculations and opinions not facts.

Here is what a a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters has to say:

At the end of November, an American RQ 170 stealth super-drone landed in Iran and was promptly seized by the Revolutionary Guards. Beyond the special coating and the avionics, the real prize on-board was the state-of-the-art sensor package ― the finest collection devices decades of experience, billions of dollars and our defense industry’s best scientists could field. Now the Iranians have it all. They certainly will share it with the Chinese. They may share it with the Russians.
www.armchairgeneral.com...

Ralph peters , a former Lieutenant Colonel regards it as one of the advanced ,so how the hell can you call it not cutting edge and old? Using unnamed analyst and their silly speculations is not factual.Also you do not have the specs of Rq-170 .Your claims that Rq-170 is not one of the top cutting edge items is a joke .

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.

postulates means suggestion.They are speculations.Do you have the mathamatical calculations and coating data?I doubt so.You are giving silly speculative explanations.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Clearly you have provided the 'experts' speculations and opinions not facts.

Here is what a a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters has to say:

At the end of November, an American RQ 170 stealth super-drone landed in Iran and was promptly seized by the Revolutionary Guards. Beyond the special coating and the avionics, the real prize on-board was the state-of-the-art sensor package ― the finest collection devices decades of experience, billions of dollars and our defense industry’s best scientists could field. Now the Iranians have it all. They certainly will share it with the Chinese. They may share it with the Russians.
www.armchairgeneral.com...

Ralph peters , a former Lieutenant Colonel regards it as one of the advanced ,so how the hell can you call it not cutting edge and old? Using unnamed analyst and their silly speculations is not factual.Also you do not have the specs of Rq-170 .Your claims that Rq-170 is not one of the top cutting edge items is a joke .

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.

postulates means suggestion.They are speculations.Do you have the mathamatical calculations and coating data?I doubt so.You are giving silly speculative explanations.

edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

So a guy who retired in 1998 knows about cutting edge technology? Well in 1998 I guess this was cutting edge.
How about we listen to a guy who was actually working past the 90s.

U.S. officials have described the loss of the aircraft in Iran as a setback but not a fatal blow to the stealth drone program. “It was never a matter of whether we were going to lose one but when,” the former official said, indicating that the CIA had used technologies that it could afford to have exposed.

www.washingtonpost.com...

The fascinating point here is that Sweetman predicted this event in 2009. At that time, he also hypothesized that this would not be much of an intelligence loss

analysisintelligence.com...

I have the facts on my side, I can do this all day long, you already lost. You still REFUSE to answer this ...
This is a FACT, not conjecture.

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.

Why would our most recent state of the art drone have obvious glaring weaknesses?

This is the part that is conjecture, but it is EXPERT opinion, unlike yours. Logic dictates it is the only reason why.

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.

So how about you actually respond to the design of the plane which is fact. WHY is our most recent state of the art cutting edge drones designed with glaring weaknesses?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You haven't answered my questions yet.... I am still waiting for valid answers not speculations.

and please name the officials you cite.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You haven't answered my questions yet.... I am still waiting for valid answers not speculations.

and please name the officials you cite.

edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

Government officials are never named, and like I said, you cherry pick the parts you can obfuscate and refuse to answer the parts which you cant twist. Ive asked you the same question since the 2nd page of the thread, you refuse to answer, because you cant. You lose.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


as you wish the unnamed officials speculatory games here:

Due to the highly sensitive technology used in the drone, military analysts regard it as one of the most advanced unmanned aerial vehicles in the world.
www.chariweb.com...

Like I said before one of the most advanced.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You haven't offered any valid explanations except speculations from the pseudo scientists at aviation week .

The largely unknown RQ-170 drone from Lockheed Martin -- the U.S. Air Force's official Fact Sheet is a single piece of paper with precisely 100 words of information -- made headlines recently when it was lost in western Iran. Experts say the drone is the most advanced model yet with high-definition cameras, sensors that can scan for nuclear armaments, and an advanced stealth shell that hides the plane from detection Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Experts say the drone is the most advanced model yet with high-definition cameras, sensors that can scan for nuclear armaments, and an advanced stealth shell that hides the plane from detection

Case closed.It is one of the most advanced.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003

The largely unknown RQ-170 drone from Lockheed Martin -- the U.S. Air Force's official Fact Sheet is a single piece of paper with precisely 100 words of information -- made headlines recently when it was lost in western Iran. Experts say the drone is the most advanced model yet with high-definition cameras, sensors that can scan for nuclear armaments, and an advanced stealth shell that hides the plane from detection Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Experts say the drone is the most advanced model yet with high-definition cameras, sensors that can scan for nuclear armaments, and an advanced stealth shell that hides the plane from detection

Case closed.It is one of the most advanced.

edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

Thats nice and all, did you even read the article. It gives no reasoning behind it, how about you address the GLARING weaknesses which prove its not that advanced. Who are these experts, you do realize this was a story about Google Maps and not the RQ-170. Show me your promised USAF admitting this is all cutting edge technology.

Seriously the best you can do is an article about Google Maps? You lose, again. Address the TECHNICAL details I posted which PROVE this is not advanced.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


What technical details? you haven't provided any...None of the physics and mathematical calculations behind the engineering of RQ-170. only speculations of aviation week.

which prove its not that advanced.

again where is the proof?

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

What technical details? you haven't provided any...None of the physics and mathematical calculations behind the engineering of RQ-170. only speculations of aviation week.

which prove its not that advanced.

again where is the proof?

edit on 16-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

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.

Proof. That is actual design facts. Keep trying to ignore and obfuscate, it doesnt change facts.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Your Source is Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

call me when you quote something more credible than wikipedia. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

To the others :

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the quote to which occamrazor is refering to:

The RQ-170 is a flying wing design containing a single (as yet classified) engine and is estimated by Aviation Week as being approximately 66 feet in wingspan.[13] Its takeoff weight is estimated as being greater than the RQ-3 DarkStar's, which was 8,500 pounds. 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.[13] The publication also suggests that the medium-grey color implies a mid-altitude ceiling, unlikely to exceed 50,000 feet since a higher ceiling would normally be painted darker for best concealment.[13] The postulated weight and ceiling parameters suggests the possible use of a General Electric TF34 engine, or a variant, in the airframe.[13]

wikipedia.lol......

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

This is a FACT, not conjecture.

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.

Why would our most recent state of the art drone have obvious glaring weaknesses?

Several times you have cited this as if it is evidence of weakness or lack of advancement. You are interpreting simple design choices, and incidentally, an interpretation of those features made by journalists, as a measure of the technology used. It does not necessarily follow. The airframe only needs to be as complex as the role it is designed for requires, your assumptions on this are a total fallacy. What about KC-135 and Beech King Air derived systems that are deployed by the USAF and RAF over afghanistan, such as the Shadow R.1 and Rivet Joint among others, are they ancient technology? of course not. They are the latest systems carried in airframes that will do the job, and so it is with drone design, your whole argument is based on what you think about the outward shape.

Anyone can make a flying wing drone, there's nothing hard about designing it, I would think the biggest worry about the tech that Iran got hold of was the tech it contained inside, I'd like to know what grounds you have for suggesting it was all 20 years out of date just because the airframe didn't have notches in the landing gear doors?

reply to post by Citybig


Guantonamo Bay is in CUBA.....NOT Mexico.


2nd line.

reply to post by Citybig


No, that's 5 year old technology. An it was INTRODUCED in 2007. How long do you think it was in service before we knew about it?

So, is your 5 year old computer considered "up to date technology"?

reply to post by wdkirk


Well, the squadron that operates it was activated in September 2005.

So, is your 5 year old computer considered "up to date technology"?

This is a strawman argument.

Its like denying that the USAF flies forty year old fighters because you would never keep a car that long

Look, I don't have any proof other than the actions of the US. IF this drone were that sensative, the US would have recovered or destroy it.

I just don't think the drone was that big of a deal. Cameras and sensors would be its most sensative payload. The stealth skin isn't a big deal either. Stealth IS old tech for the US.

When the general public is made aware of military technology, its usually been in service and the US already has a firm designing something better.

There is a difference between cutting edge technology and "the most adavanced FIELDED technology".

Again, no links, no proof just and opinion based on past US military tech that gets shown to the public.

(The Russians shot down a U2 spyplane way back in 1960). Sounds kind of familiar.

Purely hypothetical:

A trojan horse spy plane drone sitting in Irans R & D lab. BOOM....no more R & D lab.

Now that would be comical.

Just saying................