|
Notably, The other Russain demo team, the Strizhi, uses Mig-29s.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
60 seconds in... PERMABONER
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Goddamn I'd sell my left nut if we could get the Snowbirds into some airframes worthy of their skills. I'd love for them to get the hornets we'll retire when the JSF comes into service but those are some seriously old, taxed birds by this point. EDIT: In that Four Horsemen video look how OLD those guys are to be Captains. Good lord. MA-Horus fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:EDIT: In that Four Horsemen video look how OLD those guys are to be Captains. Good lord. I thought the same thing. Even if you go with some very generous assumptions for when they entered the military as far as the service in WWII that they referenced, by 1957 (the first year of the demo team) they would still be pushing the upper limit of today's standards for promotion from Captain to Major...and some of those dudes were a lot older than some 20 year old that entered the military during WWII.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
^^Tactical expertise rather than "box-checking for promotion" used to be valued.iyaayas01 posted:However, this drat it, I was gonna post the Four Horsemen (I think this thread is what brought them to my attention in the first place). Ridge_Runner_5 posted:PAK-FA? Yup. Godholio fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yup. The end of Western Air Power as we know it has never looked so good.  Good God what an amazing time to be alive. So damned casual about such mind blowing things... If it weren't for the constant threat of nuclear fire 90 minutes away, would have been the perfect time to be growing up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
Well, if it ran out of fuel and crashed, it was a very nice crash. Video of Iranians feeling up a Beast of Kandahar. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16098562 Sure doesn't look like it ran into a mountain. The color is surprising, looks like it is made out of quick-expanding foam. Wonder if that is a lowvis color, or if that is raw composite....or if they made it out of quick expanding foam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
It's BS. A plane like that from us would be painted lowvis gray. And for having shot it down, it sure seems to be in decent shape. In fact, it looks too small. Doesn't our plane have a wingspan a bit smaller than a Cessna? Certainly taller than what they are showing... This is the same country who has an airforce that includes propeller-powered boats as seaplanes...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Did you read the link or watch the video? They're claiming they didn't shoot it down. They're claiming the electronically hijacked it and took control of it. The condition it is in would "seem" to back it up, although I suspect they could have just got lucky with it coming down. As for the color and size of it, since relatively is really known about it, it is all armchair conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Sorry, just saw the article on Yahoo and came to post. Yahoo doesn't have a video, just an image that looks like a screenshot from a video, with a play button in the middle and everything. The drone looks like it's only 3 feet tall. I don't think Iran could hijack it. Best guess would be watch it until it points a direction that is convenient to you and then jam the signal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
It looks pretty much like these shots of one: http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/0/fca4f5df-716d-48da-8015-58115b44dcac.Full.jpg http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/7/6d98f77a-df5f-4c6b-b7b2-2d4ada6051c5.Full.jpg Taken from this article: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/beast-kandahar-quietly-resurfaces-new-pics
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
If it's not gray, it's fake. If it were gray, that would be one less thing that's obviously wrong. This video tells me Iran probably has not recovered any wreckage. They either found out one was missing through some kind of tip from someone involved in the program, or more likely they have someone sitting at the end of the runway counting airplanes as they take off, then counting them as they land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
The RQ-170's precurser, the Polecat, most deffinitly had a fail safe to fry its payload and autocrash on any type of severing of its connection back to base. We know that because... thats what it did during testing when the control trailer lost power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Polecat I'm sure the RQ-170 did too. I imagine it went down fairly hard, and the Iranians reconstructed the left over pieces and filled in the gaps with the internet pictures and local craftsman, hence the delay in releasing any pictures. If it landed intact somewhere, you would release those pictures that day to proof how awesome you are (mostly to your own people).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:more likely they have someone sitting at the end of the runway counting airplanes as they take off, then counting them as they land. Guys in lawnchairs? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
It looks pretty real to me... I see no reason at all why it would be a fake. Its construction is too high-quality to be made from something as crude as expanding builder's foam, and it even has the same kind of drag rudders and other details present on other drones that I've seen. Stealth is not all it's made out to be, and hopefully this will finally convince my country's MoD of just that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:It looks pretty real to me... I see no reason at all why it would be a fake. Its construction is too high-quality to be made from something as crude as expanding builder's foam, and it even has the same kind of drag rudders and other details present on other drones that I've seen.  If it landed, why set it on a box? Where is the landing gear? If it crashed gear-up, where is the damage? Not to mention this model is about 1/3 the size of the Polecat. poo poo, it's not even as large as a predator. Lockheed does a better job of taping seams, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
I'd say it'd take me about a day to make that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps this still from the Iranian press release will convince you: Okay yeah that definitely looks suspect. The bad looking bondo-esque job at the wing there plus what you mentioned makes me think it's just a shell with a part or two they may have found as wreckage somewhere. Explains the delay in actual footage of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:Okay yeah that definitely looks suspect. The bad looking bondo-esque job at the wing there plus what you mentioned makes me think it's just a shell with a part or two they may have found as wreckage somewhere. Explains the delay in actual footage of it. Someone else said it should be gray. Maybe they stuck it back together as best they could, including a new layer of paint, to make it look like they brought it down safely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Someone else said it should be gray. Maybe they stuck it back together as best they could, including a new layer of paint, to make it look like they brought it down safely? That sounds plausible to me. Considering they immediately came out saying they hijacked it and everything was intact they couldn't show a gaping hole in the wing where AA or whatever hit it without looking silly/as cool as they wanted to. Tricky bastards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
It looks like its the correct color.  Most of the images you get on a GIS for it are X-47s and stuff. Annoying. Also looks to be the correct planform, and small details (the tiny bump on either side of the larger 'shoulder' satcom humps) seems to be there. Dunno, they may have gotten enough to get something meaningful out of it, but I highly doubt that anything in the payload (the actually goodies) survived. Otherwise it's just a flying wing Predator with an A-10 engine, something that Iran could build off pictures alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps this still from the Iranian press release will convince you: Where can I get an American flag with skulls instead of stars? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps this still from the Iranian press release will convince you: quote:Not to mention this model is about 1/3 the size of the Polecat. poo poo, it's not even as large as a predator. Lockheed does a better job of taping seams, too. I've heard that from a few people, do we have any photos of other drones next to people for scale? I heard someone say it should have an over 30M wingspan.. which is something like 100'. That seems awful big to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The thing was wrecked and I think you're seeing the product of the equivilant of an Iranian MAACO splash job. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
It just seems entirely too done up to be the real drone. I look at something like the photos of the F-117 shootdown in Bosnia as a legitimate photo op. This just screams, "Look how great Iran is!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
No way in hell that's real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
grover posted:That's because UAVs are every bit as large as their manned counterparts, and that's how large they need to be to fly their mission. For comparison, here's a reference photo of Global Hawk, US's other top-tier UAV. Wow, I had no idea the Hawk was so f'n huge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:Wow, I had no idea the Hawk was so f'n huge.  And the F-35 is a SMALL fighter by modern standards. The first generation UAV were little more than glorified RC planes, with performance that wasn't much more than RC plane performance either. They need to be much larger to carry high-resolution telephoto cameras and satellite uplinks, with enough fuel to loiter for 12 or more hours. Essentially, growing to the size of modern fighters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Someone else said it should be gray. Maybe they stuck it back together as best they could, including a new layer of paint, to make it look like they brought it down safely? That'd be pretty counterproductive. Aside from shooting yourself in the foot in the propaganda game (because it looks fake as HELL) you also waste time trying to reassemble it for a press conference when you should be dissecting it to learn something, and you're running the risk of causing further damage. Iran isn't stupid, despite their best efforts to appear that way EVERY TIME they release a photo of how awesome they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
I'm sure the telemetry and extra fuel more than make up pilot and HVAC savings. Really, your savings (weight and money) are in the fact that if it gets shot down, it's merely a blurb on the news. No need for protection against battle damage or the ability to pull 9 Gs without airframe fatigue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
grover posted:Modern aircraft are much larger than they look. There are often simply few points of reference. For instance Hell, an Su-35 is basically as long as a B-17.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
It can carry a good deal more ordinance too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
grover posted:That's because UAVs are every bit as large as their manned counterparts, and that's how large they need to be to fly their mission. For comparison, here's a reference photo of Global Hawk, US's other top-tier UAV. I knew they were big, as in, full manned AC big, but I didn't know it was that big. Do we know for a fact that the RQ-170 is that big as well? I suppose even if it is smaller, that Iranian thing seems too small.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I knew they were big, as in, full manned AC big, but I didn't know it was that big. Do we know for a fact that the RQ-170 is that big as well? I suppose even if it is smaller, that Iranian thing seems too small.    Edit: TF34 turbofan photos  
grover fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
grover posted:It's hard to get a sense of scale from other purported RQ-170 photos, but it doesn't look as big as Global Hawk. Wikipedia estimates were 46–90' wingspan before the article got corrupted with data inferred from the Iranian mockup. If it's powered from a TF34 turbofan as reported by Aviation Week (same engine as A-10 Warthog & S-3 Viking), that places a hard minimum size on it. Picture the engine pod of an A-10 in there: The wheels on the landing gear looks too big relative to the rest of it to be 90' wingspan...to me. But I am bad at that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The wheels on the landing gear looks too big relative to the rest of it to be 90' wingspan...to me. But I am bad at that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Where do they usually operate them out of? Perhaps they went with oversize wheels so it could be used on unprepared surfaces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
grover posted:It's hard to get a sense of scale from other purported RQ-170 photos, but it doesn't look as big as Global Hawk. Wikipedia estimates were 46–90' wingspan before the article got corrupted with data inferred from the Iranian mockup. If it's powered from a TF34 turbofan as reported by Aviation Week (same engine as A-10 Warthog & S-3 Viking), that places a hard minimum size on it. Picture the engine pod of an A-10 in there: According to a quick google, that engine is 102" (8.5') long itself. Assuming it starts pretty close to behind the intake and tapers off, that fusalage is probably at least 12 if not 13+ long. Does the main part of the fuselage look more than twice as long as those Iranian guys are tall? Darn hard to tell, but it might be close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
gently caress the Po-lice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps this still from the Iranian press release will convince you: As for the seams and the drapes, it simply makes it look like the Iranians propped up a damaged aircraft as best they could to convince people who are not familiar with aircraft that they captured a fully intact UAV, but it looks to me they are trying to hide the fact that this plane will never fly again, and that they failed to preserve its most valuable component, the sensor suite. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:42
|
|