RQ-170 captured in Iran (oddity)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
They could have a sliding door or this could just be an early prototype without all the bells and whistles that are necessary for it to work properly. They haven't had that much time to work on this, give them another year to get it completed. This release of information is just to give their people confidence and to make others fear their technology. It is propaganda basicly, all small countries do the same thing. When the countries get powerful they hide their technology from everyone including their own citizens.




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Look at the nose gear of the one at Kandahar, and then at the one in Tehran. Every picture of the one in Kandahar has a nose gear door, on the left side of the strut. The one in Tehran doesn't have anything on the nose strut, and no damage to account for it being ripped off, or damaged in the crash landing.


Probably the gear and door was damaged. The gear was replaced with a mock-up for the Iranian photo, and nobody bothered to replace the door.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I would image it came down with some damage, and the Iranians have improvised.

I most certainly don't buy the cock and bull complete crap "we let them have it" story. Thats just the height of ASS.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Except that there are no wheel wells either. If the doors were removed, the wells would still be there. Among other oddities that makes me think that this is a fake being displayed.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


On the contrary my friend. You know that I'm one of the last people to suffer from ASS.

I have no problem with the idea that Iran can bring down American UAVs, I just have a problem with them bringing down this PARTICULAR UAV. To bring down a UAV, you have to know pretty much exactly where it is. They could know when it took off, just by watching Kandahar, but how do they know where it's going? And how do they find it? We know that the RQ-170 flies about the same height as the U-2, which puts it in the 75-80,000 foot range. That means that very few radars are going to get a skin paint off it to begin with. The RQ-170, being a flying wing, is naturally going to have a very low RCS, before you add the other features, such as RAM. Any ground based radar that does get a signal back, is probably going to filter it out, because it's such low energy the computer will think it's noise.

We already know that the E-3, which has an outstanding radar (which on occasion detected F-117s flying "lights out") only knew where the Sentinel was, when U-2 pilots complained about not getting traffic warnings about aircraft flying at their altitude. The AWACS response was usually to the effect of "There's nothing there." An airborne radar has a much better chance of picking up stealth, as the radar signal doesn't have as far to travel, so the computer is less likely to filter it, as it will have more energy when it hits the antenna on the way back. So this tells us that it's an extremely stealthy platform.

So how did the Iranians know where it was? You would need a lot of power to jam the signal to the aircraft, because of the altitude it flies at. You couldn't just broadcast in the blind, and hope to jam it, so you would have to know pretty close to where exactly it was, so how did they track it? Not just because the US can't, but because the odds are most definitely against a ground station being able to track it, due to power, range, and other factors involved. So how did they find out exactly where it was to jam the signal and bring it down? It almost definitely wasn't radar, it certainly wasn't IR or audible tracking methods, and the odds of it being optical are so remote as to be laughable. You would have to look at exactly the right place, at exactly the right time to see it to start with. I have trouble finding aircraft that I can hear, that are at a much lower altitude, let alone something that I'm guessing is in the area, and isn't leaving any kind of visual clue as to where it is.

The reason that I believe it either crashed on its own, or was deliberately brought down, is just because the odds are so far against it being hacked, without some kind of inside help (by anyone, not just Iran) that I just don't see it. I could be wrong, lord knows I have been in the past, but there's just too much that doesn't make sense here for me to say the Iranians brought it down.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The Iranian drone displayed on this image looks like a Mock Up.



They could have taken the gear doors of for some reason. But my bet is; that this is a mock up.

The real RQ- 170 is probably under the microscope.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Iran have had about 10 years to moitor and study US drone's, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran does have some very sophisticated detection system to track targets way past their own border.



KIEV, Ukraine -- Jane’s Defence Weekly reported on Monday Ukraine had sold Kolchuga radio intelligence complexes to Iran. According, to British experts, such acquirement equipment has been aimed at reinforcement of Iran’s antiaircraft defence in the light of the nuclear program.

The Kolchuga is intended to detect the take-off and formation of aircraft groups at ranges beyond those of existing radar, as well as determine the course and speed of targets while designating them for air-defence systems.

It can identify aerial targets through their emissions and identify the mode of aircraft weapon control systems.

Three Kolchuga stations would normally operate along with a command vehicle to provide accurate triangulation on a target. The system is claimed to have a range of 600 km (narrow beam) or 200 km (wide beam) along a front of 1,000 km.


They also have the russian built "Nebo 1L119" and the "Nebo-SVU-MiroslavGyuro-si 3S"

These things would do the job.

This one is built by Iran.




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Sure they do, but how well do they work against a target that's really stealthy? I've heard a lot of claims about radar stations from just about everywhere that work against stealth targets, but not one has been tested against a full up, all systems running stealth aircraft. Stealth has moved well beyond where the F-117 and B-2 began, as have radar systems. My guess is that these would work for Predators and Reapers, but not as well for stealthy targets.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I've been wondering about the theory you mentioned, that the CIA or Air Force deliberately allowed that Sentinel drone to crash. Just out of curiosity, are you aware of any cyber attacks, mysterious computer malfunctions, or something like that that occurred in Iran after the drone was downed? Just curious, because I tend to agree with the theory that it was deliberately downed by the government. And BTW, I'm with Zaphod up there when he says that its certainly possible that Iran could down a U.S. drone, but that the downing of this particular drone seems highly suspicious.
edit on 8-2-2013 by Antonio1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Antonio1
 


I've heard about explosions, and attacks on scientists (which is a whole different theory I have), but not any cyber attacks other than the Flame malware. But then, I haven't really looked that hard into it, as this has been a kind of work in progress. I wasn't really convinced based on reading other reports on the incident, but after seeing the missing landing gear, and looking at other things, I really started to think that it's entirely possible now.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That appears quite feasible considering.

Perhaps rather than an actual stealth aircraft, what they delivered to them "by accident" was actually a watered down model with the better aspects left out.

You said you think the painting scheme looks strange enough that you think it may not have had any special classified paints applied to it? White is a bad choice to avoid reflection I am betting(?)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're assuming it was buttered up perfectly for a start.

Stealth is only as good as its operators as we know. One access panel not quite screwed down, or one screw head protruding and there goes your aircraft.

Not only that, but you are ruling out a couple of things there - predictable flight patterns over a target of interest (if it had been visually observed before) and the ability to track/monitor signals.

The other thing ruled out is sheer utter luck on the part of the Iranians. It does happen, even if you apply "big sky" theory.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I know there are other factors to take into account, including luck, and I'm not saying they definitely crashed it, just that it's a definite possibility. But why is this one aircraft such an easy to see color when the others are all grey? And if the Iranians did remove the gear doors, why fill in the wheel wells? That just doesn't make sense. To many things don't make sense.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
There is one thing I'd come across the other night in looking into this again. They said this wouldn't have had anything highly sensitive on it anyway and finally, someone in one of the articles I'd gone through said why. It makes sense when explained, too.

This was a one engine aircraft, regardless. So, it was inherently high risk and more likely to be lost than other higher tech stuff they use. That's reassuring when the logic does make sense.

BTW.... The color is logical if the direction one worries about being seen is above against a desert backdrop and not from below, looking up. i.e...If this was buzzing around where air traffic and/or fighter traffic would be likely, blending into the ground would be good, right? It's the other things I don't get... Like they threw together a model on short notice to look like they got more from a wreck than perhaps they really did.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Just remembered the first released images of it and how the whole bottom section was covered.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Have you ever noticed that when someone sees an "odd" plane, they always say "it was white with no markings"? That's because white or lighter colors jump out at you when you're plane spotting. This is high enough that it would take equipment to see it, but it would still be much easier to see.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The only thing is that the only other aircraft that flies as high, is the U-2. That's how rumors of it started, the U-2 pilots were complaining to the AWACS they were seeing aircraft flying at the same altitude, and the E-3 wasn't warning them about it.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Anyone notice the flags on Chadwickus's photo with the skulls on, i assume this represents the American flag. Why do that?

And does anyone know what that writing says on the banner in the background?

The planes right wing appears to taped on. And like others have said, that colour just doesnt seem right.

I think this is a mock up plane and just for propaganda for the Iranians.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Moohide
 


The wings were removed, most likely by cutting, when they recovered it in the desert, so they could put it on a flatbed. That's why they look like they don't match up right.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Antonio1
 


I've heard about explosions, and attacks on scientists (which is a whole different theory I have), but not any cyber attacks other than the Flame malware. But then, I haven't really looked that hard into it, as this has been a kind of work in progress. I wasn't really convinced based on reading other reports on the incident, but after seeing the missing landing gear, and looking at other things, I really started to think that it's entirely possible now.


Thanks for the info. And I still gotta say that your theory is the best I've heard about this whole incident.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join