See, let's talk about this.

The "it's plasticky and obviously fake" charge was leveled against the RQ-170 they dragged out, and then once the US said "yeah, that's our UAV" all the nay-sayers pretended they'd never said anything. Frankly, a carbon fiber airframe with a carbon fiber skin could be built in 1 piece. You'd see no "rivets." There aren't any on the F-117A, for example, nor on any of our UAVs.

The "it's completely un-airworthy" comments - air ducts too small, not enough wing area - could be leveled against the Foland Gnat which not only flies, it flies well enough to be desirable by well-to-do aviation enthusiasts. We won't even get into comparisons with the BD-5J.

Now, granted - the BD-5J barely flies. Roger Moore aside, the thing needs 2 miles of runway at sea level just to get up to speed and can't even take off over 5000 feet. But it is a plane. And if all you're looking for is something stealthy that you can put a couple missiles in, actual performance doesn't really matter. I mean, The X-24B will fly. Just not very well.

If I had to guess what's going on, I'd guess that Iran is designing this plane. I'd guess they flew an R/C prop to test airworthyness and radar cross-section - an un-manned Have Blue, if you will. And I'm guessing that Iran's propaganda ministry wanted something to "impress the west" and so they over-reached, built a mock-up, and had Ahmadinejad pretend it was real.

So in a way, I agree with you - what we've seen flying isn't what we've been told is flying. But I also disagree - what we've been shown could fly, probably will fly, and represents PR over-reach rather than full-court bullshit.