In need someone to translate this video. Please email me:

This entry was posted in Iranian RQ-170 Incident, Opinon, Photo and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. nico says:

    At first glance, it looks like it “landed” in the middle of the desert, IMHO it means it had a some kind of failure, doesn’t look like Iran took enough control of it to land it on a runway. They could have just spoofed its GPS though to run out of gas.

    Seeing it on a flat bed, it looks even smaller than when they released the pictures in the school gym.

  2. Amir says:

    I don’t have the time to do it now but you might find some pieces in this link.

    also people might add more over time.
    But mostly, the video brag about US air force and role of UCAV and RQ170 and its missions in the region. They also cover the US reaction to the incident and how they first deny and ridiculous Iran but eventually accept that Iran got (somehow) the plane. Then it focus a little about how and where they toke it (it says they have to make it into pieces to transport it to Tehran) Interesting thing I think is when he discuss that an order was given to missile sites to be prepare to launch an attack on US bases in case of an attack by US to destroy RQ170 (they gave 10-15% chance that US bomb the area but 0% chance that they send commandos). Then it talk a little about the footage and places that RQ170 has had missions.

  3. nico says:

    I would like to hear from officials about what Amir is talking about. Why wasn’t the order given to go in there in destroy it and who made the call? We had an uproar about Benghazi, why wasn’t this investigated? Because no one died? What about the lost of technology and prestige to the USA? From the different timelines given, it would appear to me that Iran wasn’t really sure that the drone was missing and/or where it was so why didn’t the USA go for it? You couldn’t just send a Reaper with a Hellfire to destroy it?

    We violated Pakistan’s airspace to go after OBL so why not Iran? Who wasn’t so afraid to order the mission in the first place than not go and destroy the drone when it was lost?

  4. Todd Frohwirth says:

    Ty, the headline says “Iron” instead of “Iran” (unless Tony Stark was involved somehow).

    Great stuff the last few days. Do you comment at any other milblogs? If you’re looking to grow your readership, that’s how I did it with my old sabermetric baseball blog. Informationdissemination is good one with knowledgable commenters. Maybe try to get a blogroll going. You should definitely be more widely-read.

  5. Todd Frohwirth says:

    RE: Farsi translations

    I only know a few words from my Persian girlfriend, but checking out Nader Uskowi (Uskowioniran) might be worth your time. He’s not a defense expert at all—I think he’s a doctor—but he’s an ex-pat who covers Iranian issues pretty informatively.

  6. Paul says:

    Nico, see

    Stealthy drone crash in Iran update: “The recovery team couldn’t find it to blow it up” source says

    And … Iran is not Pakistan.

  7. nico says:

    Interesting note at the bottom of the article about Iran putting Scan Eagle into production.

  8. aerodawg says:

    I’d bet more on an equipment failure than spoofing. The mil-gps SAASM (anti-spoofing) capability is pretty robust. Maybe a C&C failure or something along those lines…

  9. Eric says:

    Is there a reason the RQ-170 isn’t painted the normal US military gray with the US military star logo on it? When I first saw the video, I thought this was just a joke by Iran. The sentinel’s paint job only added to my belief it was a fake but after seeing the footage, I guess its not. Anyone have ideas about this? I know its a simple question but thanks for any replies!

  10. Paul says:

    If you look at the video you will see that the RQ170 had been spotted optically in the past by IRGC air defense (date given in the caption is the year 2009).

    Also see Iran’s Scan Eagle production line!

  11. Boomer135 says:

    My thought is that the US wanted Iran to get that drone. I get the feeling 😉 that the RQ-170 is decades old technology and that we could afford to lose one if need be. Otherwise they wouldn’t have put our “most sophisticated drone” in the air space anyway. Does anyone know off hand when “flame” or “stutnex” was deployed to the Iranian nuclear bases? Perhaps a trojan horse of some sort? Doesn’t seem likely that we were too worried about losing that technology if you ask me.


  12. Sanem says:

    asuming this is the real deal (and it doesn’t seem over the top enough not to be) one does have to wonder what Iran actually got out of the RQ-170, I’d imagine LMT used a lot of off the shelf parts, the video quality for example seems rather poor

    this makes the aircraft stealthy enough to snoop around undetected, but expendable enough to risk losing (even if the failsafe works as should and it explodes or crashes vertically, there will always be parts to find) contrary to something like an F-35 which is simply too valuable to even risk losing (even a small piece will yield that $300 billion stealth coating)

  13. nico says:

    I am with Sanem on this one, how much is Iran really getting out of RQ170 apart from the prestige of sticking it to the USA? I am pretty sure the sat-com are interesting to the Chinese but everything else? The Chinese downloaded and copied a Predator and have already shown it to the world at their last aviation expo. RAM? Probably similar to F117 if that, the grille for intake is probably same generation tech. Engine more than likely a civilian business jet with some changes for high altitude. Cameras are probably same as Predator or Scan Eagle. Funny that today Iran announced they are producing the Scan Eagle, wonder why that instead of RQ170? Maybe the design has more potential and has a real usefulness compared to RQ170 which might be a cheap, “use a few times and throw away” drone, it is interesting to note how much maintenance it needed in the past year or so. If the decision was not to destroy it, someone somewhere had to do a risk balance analysis and told the Chief of Stall, SEC-DEF or President, not really as big of a technology loss as presumed, maybe it wasn’t worth the escalation. Just my 2 cents…

  14. Paul says:

    Photoshop? For real? Photo of RC controlled version?

  15. Paul says:

    Photo above is fake (F-313 flying). Blue light patches on rear are the same patches that appears in indoor photos, projecting from the bottom!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *