Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Specifications

The article reads "Few details of the UAV's characteristics have been released, but estimates of its wingspan range from approximately 65 feet (20 m)[3] to 90 feet (27 m).[4]", but the specifications list the wingspan as being 43 feet / 13 meters (estimated). The latter seems to be based on the video released by Iran of the captured drone (ref. 37), while references 3 and 4 as quoted in the text are based on two poor photographs taken from a distance.

So, the question is, which source is more credible? Is the Iranian video showing a genuine RQ-170?

At any rate, the article should be consistent and list one value for its wingspan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.63.157 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone else above observed, the drone's dimensions as attributed to Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh must assuredly be either misquoted or simply wrong. It is an entirely reasonable conclusion that the space the drone was shown in is a multipurpose gymnasium with a netball or basketball court combined with a volleyball court. (The line outside the center circle denotes the volleyball court.)

File:Iran RQ-170 photogrammetry.png
Iran RQ-170 photogrammetry.png

A netball court is 30.5 meters (100 feet) long from one bounds line to the other. If the drone’s wingspan was around 26 meters (over 85 feet), it would almost completely fill the netball court. It clearly does not. This is not original research but basic observation. On the other hand the earlier quoted dimensions of between 65 and 90 feet were published conjecture before fairly good photographs of the drone on the ground were released in late 2009 and later. Others using various photogrammetry techniques have come to similar conclusions; that those figures are much too large. I have done further photogrammetry and have come to a similar conclusions as when I modeled the drone for the current illustrations regarding the dimensions. I did not assert these dimensions at that time over two years ago. Today's conclusion is about the same. The wingspan is about 45 feet (about 13.7 meters). It is certainly less than 60 feet and more than 30, but 85 to 90 feet is too large by a factor of 2 or 3! Please see my recent photogrammetry efforts to the right or here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_RQ-170_photogrammetry.png If this is not good enough for an estimate, then the wingspan dimension should be left blank until further evidence is presented. truthdowser (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur, there is no doubt that the aircraft shown is genuine, (there are far too many details that the Iranians would need close detailed access to an original for it to be anything but original), comparing the size of the intake, (clearly shown on the video with a size reference), I calculated approx 40-50 feet wingspan.
The quoted engine is obviously wrong too, as a TF34 could not get enough air from that intake. Something like a TFE731 would be more likely.Petebutt (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement assumes 1) no other sources of information other than Google are available to the Iranian intelligence services. 2) Details are indeed correct. You would also need close access to an original to confirm these details. Since you are calculating sizes based on air intake, it appears you do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive, does it irk you that nobody believes that the drone crashed due to Iranian Interference? As for the details I have worked on aircraft and been an aviation historian long enough to know what things should look like, and I would spot a made-up model in an instant. Everything shown on the videos just confirms that the drone is genuine.Petebutt (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

-- in your opinion. If one carefully compared the fit and finish of the model shown by the Iranian state news, to a craft known to be made by Lockheed Martin, one would see enough irregularities to warrant question. For a historian, as you claim to be, you should be aware of the government of Iran's known reputation for deception and Anti-Western propaganda; it seems hasty to accept the thing as genuine, without so much as seeing an engine or undercarriage, and without adequate documentation of the original, such as a known wingspan, to make comparisons. This is an indication of bias, which has no place on Wikipedia. Dave7777777 (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave7777777 do you really think the Iranian Government would go to the trouble of building a model of the RQ-170 just for the sake of berating the US Government - which happened to have lost an RQ-170 in the region a few days previously and has asked the Iranians to return it? While its not 100% proven that what the Iranians have displayed is an RQ-170, all the available evidence points that way Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


Why wouldn't Iran use the loss of a spy drone to attempt to "berate" the USA?

Iran has a history of "berating" the US Government and falsely inflating their military capabilities. They have for example turned part of the former American Embassy into a museum dedicated to anti American propaganda http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=508478&page=1 and have paraded phony S-300 missile launchers and so on. http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/april/iranian_missiles_20042010.html A constant barrage of anti-American rhetoric has flowed from the Iranian regime since 1979, as well as material support for anti American proxies. http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-involvement-iraq/p12521 Keep in mind that FARS is the official news outlet for the Iranian regime, which is a police state. They have no meaningful freedom of press http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2010/03/01/iran-and-no-freedom-of-press/ and show you only what their government wants you to see; its up to you to apply common sense and healthy skepticism.

So it would not be unusual for Iran to use the loss of an American spy craft to attempt to humiliate the USA and make it appear as if their fantastically superior ECM capabilities were responsible. For that, they needed this stage prop. The model may or may not have been made specifically for this event. It may have been made for a pre planned propaganda display of "shot down enemy drones" www.infowars.com/iran-to-display-numerous-captured-israeli-and-u-s-drones/ infowars.com does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Personally, I suspect it was made for experimental testing of the Sentinel's radar signature against the Iranian Air Force's radar equipment. Radar tests using aircraft mockups are not unusual. That would explain the accurate proportions and movable control surfaces, and the possibly undersized dimensions. Its possible, for example, the Iranian authorities decided mangled wreckage would not play well on TV, so they took a 3/4 scale radar test mockup out of storage, taped the wings back on and quickly added some surface details for the cameras.

You say that all evidence points to the drone being original. What evidence would that be? The ongoing US Government secrecy and lack of basic data is available on the Sentinel, e.g. wingspan, hinders forming an educated opinion.

I have heard editors and commentators speculate that the model must be real, because its shows details not seen on the few known actual Sentinel photos. That is faulty reasoning because it is based on an assumption that the Iranians do not have other sources of information (e.g. wreckage of an actual crashed Sentinel, spies, Russian satellite photos, etc) and that the details (e.g. front grille) are indeed correct. How can we know they are correct and precise unless we clearly see those details on a known original? Further, the Iranians have deliberately hidden the underside. They don't show the landing gear, interior bays, engine or electronics. I don't think it coincidence that these features are difficult to fabricate accurately, I think its part of the deception. I have also heard the president's request for the return of the craft as proof the model is real. According to the Defense Secretary of the US, such a request for a crashed military aircraft is part of "appropriate" diplomatic protocol http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/world/la-fg-obama-drone-20111213 and note the request was for the UAV which crashed, not specifically the object displayed in the gymnasium by the Iranian Air Force.

Regarding evidence, we do have a wealth of information on Lockheed Martin's products and American Aerospace high standards. We also have information regarding stealth coatings, and aircraft practice in general. A comparison of the model shown by the Iranian news shows enough irregularities to warrant a good dose of skepticism. Here is an example that any reasonably observant person can understand. A large format photo from Iran shows the top hatch panel lines and fasteners are cosmetic, drawn on the surface to give the appearance of detail. I have uploaded a crop to show you the area in question. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sentinel_RQ-170_UAV_Panel_Lines.jpg . The fasteners are not aligned, they are not all the same size, they aren't 3 dimensional and they aren't even round. Further, the panel lines are irregular with poor tolerances and a sloppy corner that would not pass inspection at the lowliest economy car factory. It is unreasonable to accept without question that this came from the assembly line at a SOTA aircraft facility in the USA. Elswehere on the web, some non-skeptics have claimed this to be "tape" but there is no reason to interpret these lines and circles as "tape" except to create an excuse for the sloppy corner, clearly not something that rolled off the Lockheed Martin assembly line. And there are other issues, but the drawn-on panel lines can be understood by a layman.

All of the above is why I have attempted to restore objectivity to the article by simply inserting one word, "alleged," into the FARS citation, because we can not take Iran's word that this craft is American made, without reasonable doubt, or verify it according to Wiki's own rules. Using the word "alleged" is not POV pushing, it is conscientious journalism, inviting the reader to decide his own POV by weighing the evidence. However other editors quickly removed the word "alleged" and I was reported to the moderators for "edit warring." I wonder if perhaps they are motivated by the wish to see America "berated." Finally, I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Wiki moderator basically take the position of "mob rule" instead of actually moderating, and while he was willing to take the government of Iran at their word, he made an issue out of my newly registered Wiki ID which is immaterial to the issue at hand, and frankly counter to Wikipedia's credo of giving new users the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks, Mztourist, for asking the question, I hope this helps you understand my reasoning and welcome further discussion. Also I apologize for not fully understanding the formatting on Wiki, I have done my best. Dave7777777 (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Iranians need any props to berate the US. There can be no doubt that the US (and probably Israel also) have been spying on and sabotaging the Iranian nuclear program and it seems undoubtable that the RQ-170 has been a part of that spying effort. I think you do raise a credible argument that the craft displayed could be a model and on that basis Wikipedia shouldn't definitively say that what was shown by the Iranians was a genuine RQ-170. Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mztourist, thank you for considering my reasoning. I agree, Iran needs no prop to make a clear case about spying and airspace invasion, and there is no doubt that the US lost a Sentinel drone in the region, probably as part of intelligence gathering on Iran's nuclear program. However, Iran's regime does not just want to make a case about airspace invasion, they also want to make an improbable claim that they captured the Sentinel down intact through incredible military skill and cunning. Photos of crashed wreckage do not support this boast, so, presto, they produced a prop which looks like an intact Sentinel.

If you agree there is room for reasonable doubt and Wikipedia shouldn't definitively say that the model shown by the Iranian regime is genuine American made aircraft, then edit the article accordingly. For example, under "Capture by Iran", the statement "The Iranian government released footage of a captured RQ-170 on 8 December" should be changed to "The Iranian government released footage of an alleged captured RQ-170 on 8 December." I have made this edit several times, but was immediately undone, which I believe is a clear case of POV pushing and article owning. In any case, I have been asked by the Wiki moderator not to continue making this edit myself, so I invite others to do so. Thank you. Dave7777777 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave that there is insufficient evidence that the aircraft is genuine. The sources are not sufficiently credible in my eyes, and there are historical reasons for a) considering that it is partially or completely staged and b)doubting the Iranians ability to take control over the aircraft in flight. However, at this time, there is also not sufficient evidence that the craft is a phony, or that it is real-but-refurbished and arranged to conceal damage from a malfunction or a crash.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Iranian seizure

i added the fact that it was a claim and dubious at that into the area Id say it was fairly NPOV like this since a claim is neither false for legit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Lock This Article from Unregistered Editors

I present the following two pieces of evidence to show that unregistered editors located in Iran may be attempting to edit this article in such a way as to provide a pro-Iranian bias. I propose locking the article from unregistered edits. Please share your opinion.

Exhibit A: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel&action=historysubmit&diff=465035291&oldid=465019335

I edit a section title of the Wikipedia article for the Lockheed RQ-170 from "Seizure by Iran" to "Possible Seizure by Iran". Two hours later an unregistered user with no prior edits changes it back to "Seizure by Iran"

Exhibit B: http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=2.146.20.139

A whois lookup showing that the IP of the user originates from Tehran and is owned by Iran Cell Service and Communication Company.

Winston Spencer (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at the time that edit was made, the US had already acknowledged the loss of the drone and the Iranian television had shown footage of the captured drone. Therefore the removal of "alleged" was legitimate. In addition to that, your anonymous user actually made a few quite correct linguistic and stylistic improvements and removed unencyclopedic conjecture such as "the captured item appears to be a Duck=egg green colour", "the intakes shown closely in the Iranian video are too small for a CF34 engine" and "possibly CF34, but intake looks too small, possibly TFE731". This editor didn't introduce pro-Iranian bias, he/she improved the article. I therefore oppose your motion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledging loss (e.g crash) of the drone is not the same as confirming the object shown by the Iranian news agency is the Sentinel. The US Government has not issued a statement pertaining to the originality of that object, and none of the commentators on the subject are directly involved in the Sentinel project, they have stated opinions only. Opinions are still in conflict. Thus the issue is still open to dispute and the use of the word ALLEGED is correct and should not have been removed. I am also concerned by motivations of those who seek to remove doubt as to the originality of the object shown by Iranian news agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose your motion. I did the same edit myself from 75.79.150.96 in Los Angeles, and I posted the snarky paragraph about Pentagon censorship above. The bias is yours and yours alone, anyone calling this alleged is brainless and/or working for Obama.--75.79.150.96 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for the Iranian incident?

Alborzagros (talk · contribs) has split out the material on the capture of a RQ-170 by Iran to create the United states UAV seizure by Iran article. I've just restored this material here as I really don't think that this justifies its own article at the moment - the four paragraphs which exist are a bit bloated with old information, and there's not really much more to write. Having a separate article seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. What do others think? I'll post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to invite editors active there to comment as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think NOTNEWS and RECENT are the two appropriate policies - I see the content as being chiefly what-the-media-have-reported included some by-by-blow recounting of the news reports with "A said X but did not say Y" content. Since this is not a great public scandal dwelling upon media reaction it can probably be rewritten, at the end of which I doubt there will be sufficient content to warrant a separate article. After all the gist of the story is "a Sentinel drone operated by the CIA was brought down over Iran and is in the hands of the Iranians". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The sentence in quotes above summarises the event well enough.TSRL (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've seen comments (non-RS, of course) speculating that the photos of the "captured" drone don't even show the drone, but a mockup...but either way, this isn't something that needs a seperate article. Maybe later if this becomes Something Big, but there is no deadline. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I Disagree, this is a huge event and deserves its own article. More information can be added as more details will come out of both parties, (Iran and USA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The separate article is, at present, nothing but the material which was removed from this article. The only reason it's longer than what's here is that it's bloated with outdated speculation and repetition. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Like i said, this is a ongoing event/conflict. as time passes more information will get added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly in the same ballpark, let alone league. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
How so? Marcus Qwertyus 21:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The U-2 was shot down 2 weeks before US and the Soviets were due to meet at a four-power summit during the Cold War. Apart from the collapse on the summit the USSR got a four day UN Security Council meeting albeit they lost the vote at the end. This incident has similarities but as yet does not appear to have the import.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Same situation here. The incursion came after tensions over Iran's nuclear program and has apparently caused Iran to initiate safeguards against attack. [1] [2]. Marcus Qwertyus 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not everything that's in the media needs its own article. WP:NOTNEWS. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Oneevent is for BLPs. Marcus Qwertyus 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This incident clearly has geopolitical significance that goes beyond the scope of a paragraph in RQ-170 article. Besides it is still evolving and will most probably grow in coming days both in importance and size. It would be as if we merge U-2 shot down over Soviet Union article with U-2. It just does not make sense. --182.185.41.17 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Recentism says "writing or editing...inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention" warning that it can result in "articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens" which seems to be an argument against creating a separate article. I think you might have meant inclusion would be a case of WP:UNDUE GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, although my opinion still stands. The RQ-170 article has been hijacked by recent events. Emphasis on the word "events" because an encyclopedia article about a serious of aircraft (of which there are many tail numbers) should not heavily cater to the fate of one. "The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject," is why I cited WP:RECENTISM. Despite today's news, I want to read about the RQ-170! Thus I prefer a separate article with the {{Main article}} hat note on the RQ-170 seizure section remaining. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: If we merge the articles, then half of this article would just be about this particular incident and not about the aircraft itself. If we merge it, I'm absolutely positively sure that the crash article will be re-created. And this whole incident may turn out to be not as notable as the media made it out to be, and if that's so we can merge it back into this article. But we'll just have to wait and see... —Compdude123 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - for now at least. We don't know how big this story will get - there is no hurry to do this merge, so let's wait until the storm has blown past - and then we can make this call more intelligently. If we merge now then the odds are good that we'll have to split it up again in a month from now...or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep for now: Wait until everything calms down and then a small entry can be placed in the aircraft article, and the hyperbolaew and conjecture can be thrown away.Petebutt (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of duplication right now. When a consensus is reached here, either the articles will be merged or the RQ-170 article will be thinned. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 08:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article needs to be separate for its own notability and the incident's notability. We do have many other articles on such incidents (for example 1960 U-2 incident as Marcus Qwertyus pointed out). Also, voidxor & Compdude123 raised a good point there. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is pretty clear which way this is going. I have removed the merge tag. If anyone seriously objects I will happily ask another admin to formally close this. --John (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aviation and international law deserves a section in this article

IANAL, and I doubt I want to write it, but I see a missing section, relating (to) the laws relevant to flying an aircraft in national airspace. Midgley (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show potential resource The Atlantic

Jon Stewart's Theory on How a U.S. Spy Drone Wound Up In Iran by Erik Hayden 8.December.2011 99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! But not a reliable source. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed: it is an American aircraft

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16150384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right, it was approved by Obama himself that Iran captured American UAV, no place for alleged any longer.--Gilisa (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Approved?. Are you saying that Obama approved giving it to Iran? Just joshing, confirmed would have been a better word.Petebutt (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. US Government did not confirm a Sentinel had been captured intact and displayed by Iran. The US Government confirmed a Sentinel was lost in the region and apparently followed diplomatic protocol by requesting its return. It did not remark on the condition of the Sentinel or the authenticity of the object claimed by the Iranians to be the missing drone. To claim the article confirms the object presented by the Iranian news agency is a captured authentic RQ-170 is reading personal biaas into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a tomato, smells like a tomato, flies like a tomato.....Petebutt (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Date format

Given the strong national ties to the US, I would suggest that the date format be changed to the US date format (MM DD, YYYY).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The US military uses dmy and so articles on US military topics generally use this date format. Is there a special reason you want to diverge from that consensus? --John (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:STRONGNAT states: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day ... Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." I imagine one could make an argument for each of two or three formats -- and indeed, at least three different formats are used within the article now. It would be better IMHO if we used a consistent format. If there is already a consensus on this point as this article, I missed the discussion, and the article itself reflects differing approaches. The drone was created by a US company (US format), is operated by the US military (day-first format) for the Central Intelligence Agency (US format). Under the circumstances, while arguments could be made for different formats, I think: a) it is most important that we use a consistent format; and b) because the article is about the drone, and is operated for the CIA, it would seem to me at least that the more common format for the US would be appropriate, notwithstanding that the US military is operating the drone for the CIA.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree the article should use a consistent format. As it was started in 2009 using dmy and has carried a dmy tag since June this year, I think it makes sense to stick with dmy, don't you? --John (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for agreeing that it should use a consistent format -- one day, perhaps we will have a bot that can enforce that generally, rather than use up editor time. I think that a reasonable argument can be made for dmy. But I think that given that this article is about a drone created by a US company, being used for the CIA, and that the US military role in the article is only an operational one, the better course is to use the common US format. Perhaps others will express a view.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It's a military aircraft (albeit being used to collect data for an intelligence agency), so STRONGNAT pushes us towards dmy, as you quoted above. Right below that in the MoS is WP:DATERET; we err towards retaining the original date format, and as I showed above this also pushes us towards dmy in this case. I am not sure there is a lot else to say about it. --John (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, at risk of repeating myself, it is a Lockheed aircraft (US format) used for CIA (US format) activities, which pushes us in precisely the opposite direction. And John -- perhaps you missed it, but if you read the wp:dateret reference that you refer to, the guideline clarifies that that is subject to STRONGNAT (not the other way around). I'm curious now, though -- the CIA article uses US format, but also the US Air Force article and the Iraq War article and a large number of similar articles -- there is clearly a lack of connection between the rule as stated and its application to articles with a US modern military connection. It strikes me that either the rule or the articles should be changed. I've left word at the guideline talkpage -- perhaps we will get some helpful input from others, on this somewhat gray area.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Manual of Style is a guideline, not a rule. The only important thing is that the date formats are consistent throughout the article, which they now are. By all means come back with whatever you glean from MoS talk. Thanks for noticing the inconsistency. --John (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                • As already stated, we have adopted use of dmy for the vast majority of US military articles, and perhaps to a less uniform extent to US militaristic articles. These seem clearly to be areas where dmy use is favoured if not overwhelming. Also, it seems that quite a few aeronautical articles of US subjects have evolved with dmy dates. As this article is military related, plus the fact the use of dmy format therein is well-established, it makes little sense to disturb it, even though the conversion can be done with one mouse click. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the RQ-170 airframe is now in iranian hands, it would be most justified to use the islamic date format (1360-something, month-2.5 and whatnot) in the article! That's about as serious a proposal as the above quoted, serpentine discussion! Why waste Wikipedia on such petty issues? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Incident

as it has its own article , more correctly called "incident" the section about what may or may not have happened in Iran with one of these particular, or some other drone is simply speculation on the part of the media and people interested in it. the part about it in this article needs at least to read "alleged capture by Iran", as nothing has officially been acknowledged or denied, other than that the U.S. has lost contact with "some drone". no model specification was ever given and nothing that Iran made of it was ever confirmed by any third party. the way Iran has set it all up, makes it look like a propaganda stunt more than anything of real substance. whatever is in the videos and pictures does not look like any "genuine" sophisticated stealth drone, much less anything cutting egde being used in such a delicate environment like Iranian airspace for spying on them. if what was shown or "captured" by the Iranians was indeed of U.S.-military origin, then this certainly must have been a carefully weighed undertaking to "test" Iranian airspace and their reaction times and means to deter / intercept any intruder once detected by Iranian radar stations. in other words, they sent a "duck" into the Iranian skies to see how exactly they would react. in typical fashion Iran used this to boast and present its capabilities to its own people airing it on state TV in loops with nice paintings and speeches drawn on pieces of cloth wrapped around the "captured stealth drone". and for the international viewers of the spectacle the Iranians even prepared some english words on those cloth pieces too. when the impact and effect of nervousness on the part of America at the possibility of having lost sensitive military equipment to a hostile nation would have been much greater if Iran had just kept its lips tight and acted like nothing ever happened with a certain smile to any request that may have reached from someone looking for something he dearly misses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.132.200 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Iran replication claims

The Iranian replication claims clearly consist of 2 parts :

1) In April 2012 General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards aerospace division, claimed that Iran had reversed-engineered the RQ-170, and was building a copy of the UAV.

2) As of September 2013, Iran claimed it had duplicated the drone through reverse engineering. (FarsNews, September 22, 2013 http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920631000264)

We indeed have no proof that the replication has actually been completed, however the CLAIM has changed. I would thus suggest that we keep both parts, although anyone willing to cite a U.S. official (or Lockheed exec, or whatever) mentioning that the claim is not substantiated may very well do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vheld (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RQ-170 Wraith

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d5f0a062d257

Sourcing solid enough to mention the knickname? Hcobb (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

From that source? No. That is a decidedly unreliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Concur regarding that "source". If it's a common enough name, it'll be reported in reliable sources in time. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. "Beast of Kandahar" still seems to be the common nick-name for the type, even though deployments further afield are now known. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of Different

Recently Iran became an owner of this drone by completing it's own reversed-engineered one. But some editors denies it and They're saying "It's Not RQ-170. It's something different." Is it the new meaning of "Different"? After when a reversed-engineered thing became different thing? Reverse engineering means copying and improving something, like an illegal upgrade, not inventing something new. I insist that according to sources after US Forces, it is Iran that have it. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The only way it would be the same is if the Iranians repaired the crashed RQ-170, and that is what is actually flying. I certainly doubt Iran is paying Lockmart royalties for building more RQ-180s! This is not a nww issue: The Tupolev Tu-4 is reverse-engineered copy of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, but no one claims the Soviet Union built and operated B-29s. They built Tu-4s. - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is not a place for me or you to "Doubt" the ability of Iranians. We work with Sources. You said it's different. on What source you're saying so? The Pentagon, as it's primary owner, admitted They reversed-engineered it but they Cheapened Iran's ability to do this, like when they do the same about capturing this. But Iran said that They would take a home-made RQ-170 to the US if sanctions on them removed. Which means they don't have anything to hide and they can show their work to US as a proof, something they did when Russian Defense Minister went to Iran in 2013. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ability isn't what is in question here - identicality is. Without access to the exact plans and to Lockmart's supply chain, which Iran doesn't have because it doesn't have a production license from Lockheed Martin, it's not going to be the same aircraft. It's going to use different parts, especially engines, just as the Russians did with the Tu-4. They will be very similar, but not the same. If the Iranians did repair the crashed RQ-170, then we could say they were an operator, but they aren't claiming that - they claim they built new airframes. - BilCat (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is where I say you don't know the meaning of Reverse engineering. It's not about building a new thing. Its an illegal process to copy and improve it without Copyright owner. Copying not means have licence. they have it because they have it. If they name it with different name - as they have plan to do when they change some of their home-made RQ-170 plans - we can say it's a different product. but this drone that they now created used the same plan that Lockheed Martin's RQ-170 had. So, It's the same and the "Iranians Have Home-Made RQ-170". P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont doubt the ability of the Iranians to learn from the design of the "acquired" RQ-170 and make a similar aircraft but anything they build with this knowledge cant be an RQ-170, at best it is a similar design based on what they have learned. So it would be correct to say that the Iranians have built a UAV similar in design and concept to the RQ-170 but clearly could never be an exact copy and never an actual RQ-170, as far as I know only Lockheed Martin build RQ-170s and it would be illegal for them to sell one or even the bits for one. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bill and MilborneOne. This article is about the "Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel", and not an Iranian attempt to replicate the design. Given that Iran doesn't have anything like the US's aviation industry (most of its "new" military designs are not various ambitious variants of 1970s era technology!), there is simply no way that it could exactly replicate a state of the art American UAV. The Iranian aircraft is likely to be substantially different to the US type, especially in regards to its avionics, software and sensors (which are the key features of UAVs). Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup. It the Iranians do succeed in building a duplicate, regardless of how exactly, it won't be a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel - it won't be manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Though so far we have no credible independent source which suggests that the Iranians have the ability to duplicate the Sentinel anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Martin RQ-170 is a remake of an Horten flying wing

Hi!: without leaving Wikipedia, you may have a look at Horten Ho-IX, aka Gotha Go-229 flying wing that flew in Jan 1945, and is stored, pending full restoration, by the Smithsonian Institution, Northrop built a full size copy of the Horten, with WWII materials and technology, to test its stealth abilities. RQ-170 is a downscaled, single engine copy of the Horten, the Horten had two 900 kg thrust turbines, and its main if not only Radar echoes came from pilot's cabin, nose, rings of air entry to turbines, and wing section from turbine intake to nose. Good day, + salut--Caula (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored archives of a bunch of dead links.

The Aviation Week links were dead, with the articles not even on the website anymore. Entering their URLs into Wayback Machine came up with empty pages. (I didn't check all of them, just enough to get the idea.)

So I found IABot and had it repair them. The job wasn't perfect. It couldn't save some. The slideshow on reference 1 also starts on a different slide in the archive, and I don't have permissions with the bot to fix that. But it seems to have recovered most of the dead Aviation Week links, which was the goal.

Considering the sensitive/controversial nature of this article (due to current events), I think archives of these sources are important to have around.

Amaroq64 (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


Comments

  • Lead feels a little short to me, I know it's a lot of hypotheticals but you could increase the description of the design and operational history I think.
  • Put (USAF) after United States Air Force.
  • "images and details on " -> "images and details of"
  • The artist's rendering is very nice, but gives no feeling of scale at all, it could be as large as a B-2 Spirit...
  • "noted design similarities" what were those?
  • "presumably for sensors or SATCOMs" according to whom? This is an encyclopedia so we can say we're presuming that.
  • "characteristics have been released" officially?
  • "from 38 feet (11.5m) to 90 feet (27 m)." surely if the Iranian image is anything to go by this range of estimates can be refined significantly?
  • "Kandahar Airfield" link.
  • "to the discussion of the RQ-170 Sentinel on 4 December 2009." what happened in that discussion?
  • "AEW has... successfully" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
  • "is a flying wing design" overlinked.
  • "electro-optical/infrared" link.
  • "used for strike missions" so is it postulated that the UAV is weaponised?
  • That's used in speculation, so I'd leave it there. Payload could also mean various sensors and such. The "used for strike missions: could also mean the locating part of the strike; for example, it was used in the monitoring part of the strike against Osama bin Laden. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "led Bill Sweetman" no need for repeating first names if surname can be subsequently used unambiguously.
  • "Phil Finnegan, a UAV..." why is this a long quote? Why not paraphrase it into prose?
  • "expected that they would be" -> "expected to be"
  • "report, Bill Sweetman argued" same again.
  • "on 1 September 2005" vs "September 4, 2009." pick one format and stick with it throughout.
  • "Aviation Week reported" italics.
  • "fitted with a full motion video capability" wouldn't that have been part of the EO/IR capability already mentioned?
  • "electronic warfare unit[30][31][32][33] had" four cites? look to bundle them if absolutely necessary, and I would move it to the end of the sentence as it looks awkward.
  • Define ISAF before using the abbreviation.
  • "the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aerospace" overlinked.
  • "Tasnim news agency" news agency is part of the title.
  • "44th Reconnaissance Squadron - Creech Air Force Base, Nevada" " en-dash, not hyphen.
  • "Data from [43]" put the name of the source here.
  • "38 ft (12 m) [43]" no spaces before refs.
  • "The American built RQ-170 in Iran." no full stop.
  • In what sense are those "Related development" related?
  • You link the work in ref 2 but not many of the others?
  • Ref 16, WaPo is a work and needs italics. Compare with ref 35.
  • Ref 44, author isn't "Daily Telegraph".
  • Are those external links useful for material to go into the article?
  • Template: "designations 1924-1962" should be en-dash, also same applies "1962-present".

That's all I have for now, so I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've implemented everything. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'm content it's good enough, so I'm passing. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, thank you for your time! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel/Archive_2&oldid=1218532964"