According to what I've read, it was specifically made without using unique technology. This is owing to the fact that it was designed to operate over hostile territory and one was almost certainly going to be downed eventually.

:haha:

That is hilarious.

Possible it's a sort of trojan horse? Perhaps it was intended to be "shot down", captured by the Iranians, and has a transponder to send back info on its final destination. Perhaps as a means of determining the exact locale of Iranian research facilities or to dtermine who the ultimate "buyer" of the drone might be...

IIRC, it was rumored that the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Triploi several years ago during an attack on Libya was due to a transponder beacon on a piece of U.S. technology the Chinese had acquired from Libya...

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-170-sentinel/

As I steted earlier....a model.

Link?

Earlier this day I read on some meanwhile forgotten side that Obama had ruled ouzt a demand by the armed forced to derstroy the drone via an air strike. Those precious diplomatic sentiments, you know, talks in Paris with Vietnam in flames and all that.

According to BBC and the NYT, Iran claims to have electronically hijacked the drone, and then remote-controlled it to a safe landing.

Don'T know if the claim is true - but that in can be done - and would be done sooner or later by somebody - I think must be clear to everybody. You can harden electronics and comm-links. And you can penetrate hardened systems.

This hitech gadgets and warfare is all nice and well against an inferior enemy. But an enemy of sufficient own hitech capability turns a dependency on such hitech stuff into something that can unpleasantly boomerang against you. You launch a drone to bomb the enemy - and the drone gets hijacked and bombs you. You have clever ammunitions navigating by itself on basis of GPS, and somebody floods the atmosphere with static noise. You have trained supoerior movement coordination via computerised, satellite-supported comm-links, and somebody switches the birds off or silences their chirping.

Agreed :yep:

I don't profess to speak from a position of definite understanding...but I doubt thry currently have the capability.....I certainly hope they don't.

I ain't no expert, but it looks fake.

* It's painted beige/tan. USAF RQ-170s are painted haze grey.

* No markings whatsoever, not even any numbers. USAF RQ-170s should have USAF markings on them (roundel, etc).

* Not a scratch. Even if it landed safely in the desert, it should have some wear and tear.

well, there is a shortage of facts here.

But here are some of what appear to be facts.

The Iranians claim to have taken possession of a real drone. The US acknowledges it has lost one.

The easiest way for the US to disprove the Iranian claim is to find the lost drone.

The Iranians have gone to the trouble of making a model for display, so presumably they are confident the US won't just find their lost one. And the best way to be sure of that is if you are indeed in possession of the real lost drone.

On the matter of colours, let us then assume that both the US and Iran know what colour the real drone is.

It may be that Kaye T.Baye's assertion that all are painted haze gray is wrong and that there are variant colours. Paint is cheap. But it may be that this person is right, and in that case the Iranians know that the Americans know that this is a fake. In any case Kaye T.Baye shows there are other signs it is a fake.

The question is then, why go to the trouble of showing a fake?

My preferred candidate answer is that the Iranians are no longer in possession of the original, and neither are the Americans, but they want everyone to know that they had it.

But another answer could be that the original is so badly damaged that it will be apparent the Iranians are not in possession of anything useful if they showed it

According to this:

http://www.conunderground.com/breaki...ran-the-drone/

Obama served them the drone on silverplate.

(That's just hard to believe).

Markus

My opinion? Black flag op.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

The purpose, and the originators is a mystery. Could be Iran seeking casus belli on Israel via the USA.
Could be other arab nations with access to American Hardware doing spying of thier own. IE the Saudis. Or Israel trying to bait America into a conflict, both have a good reason to keep us in the middle east.

Or the most obvious, Us Americans being what we are, and boldly spying. Only no Francis Gary Powers to rescue/trade this time.

My mind is open, I know what my country is capible of.

I too have read that Obama has refused a demand by the military to launch an airstrike on the landing/crashing site.

I wonder why one cannot report on that in an objective, fact-oriented manner, critical - but professional? Why this manipulative sub-tone, this emotional rant? Maybe because the way it was set up is linked to and refers to FOX, that it even mentions?

I question Obama'S wisdom there. But I am willing to discuss over his motive. Consider an airstrike, a bombing raid being carried out. The diplomatic turmoil. De facto an act of a hot shooting war that diplomats of the Obama regime want to avoid at all cost, it seems. The massive swing of public opinion again.

I do not say these reasons are more valuable than denying the technology of the drone to the Iranians. But I hate this hate-filled, manipulative gutter-journalism that is no journalism at all, but is propaganda and emotional rant.

From what I have been hearing on this, the CIA is not happy! They used this same type of drone over Pakistan, during the runup to take out OBL.