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.
I remember that slightly different. No one doubted that it was our drone, and that part was confirmed almost immediately. What was doubted was Iran's story of how they got it, that's where the contention was. They said they hacked it and then remotely flew it back to their airbase and landed it safely, whereas the US would later say "It malfunctioned and we lost contact with it. It went into a flat spin and probably crashed, that's why they have the bottom skirted off". I don't doubt that "project" could eventually fly with some major changes, but as it stands there are quite a few things wrong with that thing. If it's a really rough mockup, it's possible engineers are working on something like it, but it won't look anything like that when it's done. Flight surfaces will have to change, won't use the ejection seat from an old F4, and won't use Garmin domestic products for it's "instrument" panels. So yes they could be working on a new plane, but why try to sell us this as "real"? Plus, building a modern fighter is difficult, even China can't get it right. Even with plans and fighters cloned from American and Russian blueprints, they still can't produce their own jet engines domestically, and have to rely on purchasing them from Russia for their fighters. These factors also kind of make me doubt they (Iran) will be flying anything that was domestically built anytime soon. Plus, unlike China, they have to deal with massive sanctions as well. For reference about the difficulties China is having producing an indigenous fighter, and more importantly a reliable jet engine. http://thediplomat.com/2012/12/09/the-long-pole-in-the-tent-.../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.
what we've been shown could fly, probably will fly, and represents PR over-reach rather than full-court bullshit.
I remember three days, during which every tom, dick and harry with an opinion was laughing and pointing at Iran. Gotta say - I'm siding with the Iranians on this one. | Flight surfaces will have to change, won't use the ejection seat from an old F4, and won't use Garmin domestic products for it's "instrument" panels.| ...right. In other words, it wouldn't be a "mock up." ...because it was the anniversary of the Iranian revolution. You missed my point. I never said this was "modern." I said it would fly. China has had indigenous aircraft since the '50s using licensed Russian designs. As far as engines, who cares? Even Ilyushin used American engines for a while. You can continue to laugh and point, but I'm not feelin' it.I remember that slightly different. No one doubted that it was our drone, and that part was confirmed almost immediately.
They said they hacked it and then remotely flew it back to their airbase and landed it safely, whereas the US would later say "It malfunctioned and we lost contact with it. It went into a flat spin and probably crashed, that's why they have the bottom skirted off".
So yes they could be working on a new plane, but why try to sell us this as "real"?
Plus, building a modern fighter is difficult, even China can't get it right.
Where was this? Forum comments somewhere like people on Reddit? The President of the United States of America even acknowledged it was our drone and asked for it back. That's why people should wait for more information before talking, but yes I remember the conjecture flying around. But that's what happens with most major stories in the first few days following it. Doesn't mean they were right or that everyone felt the way those early commenters/reports did. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-asks-iran-rq-170-sentine... But what I'm saying is even the mock up is wrong. The wings and balance and intakes are all wrong. So even if this goes from mock-up to actual plane, the actual plane wouldn't look anything like this, because that mock-up, even if made out of the correct materials, avionics, and fitted with an engine, wouldn't fly. So that begs the question, is this even a mock-up of any practical design? I lean towards no. It won't. I'm not saying they can't make a domestic fighter and fly it, but it won't look anything like that one. I get it's a mock-up, but again, the mock-up is a fantasy and has many things wrong that make it not air-worthy. Any fighter that does actually make it into the air and carrying an actual pilot simply won't look anything like that. The air intakes alone are going to cause the plane to fall out of the sky (stall severely) at any high angle of attack. Where they are placed simply does not work. Ignoring the parts about it being a mock-up, this article also has some structural and engineering points that I hinted at. http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/04/iran-plane-cannot-fly/#... I'll continue to laugh and point, just as you are entitled to your opinion. They have a history of doing stunts like this as of late. The photoshoped missile launches, the two different monkeys from before and after they "sent it into space", the drone "they invented" that was proved to be a Japanese one, etc. They have a solid recent history of manufacturing fake military prowess. So, in my personal opinion, I need a little more than their "word" when it comes to proof of any of these supposed projects and accomplishments they put out into the media. Examples: Fake drone they "created", actually just Japanese drone with some minor photoshop work. They claimed it was the first VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) drone ever created in the world. http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19700/iranian-koker-1-vtol-d.../ So they didn't create one, and on top of that, it was far from the first VTOL drone, so even their claim was dishonest. http://www.uskowioniran.com/2012/11/iranian-vtol-drone-first... Fake crowds and missiles. Yes I realize this is a Gawker link, but there are plenty of links for all of these stories from plenty of sources. These are just the first I found. http://gawker.com/5293988/someone-in-iran-probably-the-gover... Their recent space "monkey launch" also has a lot of doubt surrounding it, they even acknowledged the monkey mixup of appearances and insure us it was "just a mistake", but no physical evidence to date. Even North Korea admitted when their space launches failed, and multiple countries were able to verify when they did semi-successfully launch a payload late last year. No such confirmation exists for the Iranian space program as of yet. I need a little more than "their word" at this point in time. http://www.space.com/19629-iran-space-monkey-launch-question... So I guess at this point in time I need a little more than Iran's "word" to believe anything they say they've accomplished of any technical or engineering capacity. I'll agree to disagree.I remember three days, during which every tom, dick and harry with an opinion was laughing and pointing at Iran.
...right. In other words, it wouldn't be a "mock up."
You missed my point. I never said this was "modern." I said it would fly.
Fair enough. :) I guess we'll have to wait and see.