Jump to content

Talk:Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident/Archive 1

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

The meaning of 'aviation crash'

This is not an article about an aircraft incident we are talking about incident when the plane has crashed. and the drone that was shown on tv (that was confirmed by US officials) was not a drone that had an accident but rather brought down with no damages. The seizing of the UAV was done by IRGC and the regular army of Iran - Mehrnia - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Any change of downing to crash will get reported to the moderators. There is no crashing here otherwise we would see the US drone in 100 pieces on TV. Stop editing please - Mehrnia )- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

By both Iranian and US official accounts, the UAV in question crashed. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents where aviation crash is defined as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible." The UAV presented on Iranian television has sustained damage, therefore the aircraft in question has crashed. Furthermore, no evidence has been presented that the UAV has been downed. If you have evidence that the aircraft has been downed, please add it to the wiki page. --Bronzmajom (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"downing" vs. "crashing" is semantics. Threatening to report dissent to moderators is not a good use of editing time. The word used, like all aspects of wiki articles is subject to the availability of reputable sources and consensus of the editors thereon. You do not get to dictate what is used, via threats. Crash is used in reputable sources, making it a viable term. We work on verifiability, not what you feel to be the "correct" term.204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The aircraft crashed, what is wrong with saying so? Why it crashed is not determined yet, but it is highly unlikely to have been due to Iranian interference.Petebutt (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The report by Voice of America, which is a U.S. Government international broadcast agency, states that the "unmanned U.S. drone downed recently just recently inside Iraq's eastern border." (Source: VOA, Iranian Video Displays Alleged US Drone, 10 December 2011) In the video broadcast of the incident, VOA states that the RQ-170 was "brought down within minimum damage" (See video report in previous source cited.) Neither U.S. agency report states that the RQ-170 "crashed." It clearly appears from the Iranian videos that the drone is mostly undamaged, as well. Charvex (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are selectively quoting the article, which indicates bias. It in fact says that "The images appear to be the high-tech RQ-170 Sentinel drone, brought down somehow with minimum damage." And note the correct use of the term Alleged Drone in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.106.28 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you're applying a very specific definition to a generally used word, "crash". In common parlance, as well as in reputable sources, "crash" is used, and can be taken to mean any instance in which an aircraft falls to the ground, whether it results in damage or not. Can we get past this semantics squabble? As long as reputable sources say crash, it is a viable term. We are not allowed to use our own judgement on what is the "correct" term, we can only report what reputable sources say. I know this may rankle some aviation enthusiasts, but this is not a page or site specifically to serve them. This is a general public site. If the word bothers you so much, why not just add a sentence (if you can find a proper source to back it up) that says something like, "while the drone was described as crashing, the term for an unintentional landing without widespread damage used in the aviation community is "downing"" or whatever semantic hoo hah you want to add. But let the issue die. Just because you don't like the word crash doesn't mean it's not viable. A simple Google search for "drone crash Iran" reveals it is still be used continuously by many major outlets. Whether we think they are using the wrong word is IRRELEVANT. We are not here to second guess news sources. Both words are used, so both are viable for use in this article.204.65.34.128 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As I understand the semantics, "Downed" would be used in reference to a situation where the aircraft came down due to 'intentional' 3rd party action, and "Crashed" would be used when it came down due to some form of 'self inflicted' instance: mechanical failure, operator error, environmental factor. Reports from US sources indicate they lost control of the UAV, thus making "Crashed" appropriate. While the Iranians claim they were directly responsible, thus making "Downed" the appropriate term. Might I recommend finding a suitable replacement for both terms that adequately describes "It performed a low impact litho-breaking maneuver without operator control, with conflicting reports as to why." Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

Is the presence of this infobox even needed? It isn't a military conflict. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment was removed without a reason. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it and just left the image. It is clearly inappropriate to use the military conflict infobox on this article. TigerShark (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

merge to Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel

The Daily Show unlikely, 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

99.56.122.24 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Object shown is disputed

Some have begun to dispute whether that is the actual drone or a mockup. They say the drone shouldve smashed to bits essentially when it crashed and could not be in that good quality. [1] I dont know much about this, so Ill just leave the link here.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No toys boy.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.34.239 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What would a metallurgist know about an aircraft built from composite fibre materials? There are plenty of crash modes where the aircraft could remain essentially intact, note that the Iranians shrouded the underside during the video and cut the wings off for transporting it to the research facility (probably Isfahan)!Petebutt (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, they did so to check the inside of the object, since such things are possible to be 'trojan.' --Z 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Diplomat Blog is not a reliable source. That post is simply unsubstantiated conjecture and blogging blather, which is so prevalent on the Internet. If the drone were a "mockup," as the blog post suggests, why are Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama demanding that the RQ-170 be returned to the U.S.??? It doesn't make sense. That post is simply noise. Charvex (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Three meaningless comments and one response. I never said it was reliable, but it does cast doubt. If the drone was smashed, they would still ask for it back.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Facts

  1. The aircraft is a RQ-170 Sentinel (attributed to Lockheed Martin) - looks like a tomato....
  2. The drone was probably in Iranian airspace when it crashed. (There is a possibility that it crashed near the border and was retrieved by an illegal cross-border penetration, but this is unlikely to have been unnoticed and unopposed.) - how else did the Iranians get it
  3. The cause of the crash is unknown and very likely to remain so, even by the operators. - Statement of fact!
  4. The Iranians thought there was some intelligence value in shielding the underside of the aircraft from view. - statement of fact
  5. The aircraft impacted the ground at a relatively low forward speed and low rate of descent. - statement of fact otherwise the wreckage would have been in very small pieces-- based on the assumption the model shown in the Iranian news is the actual craft. So, not a statement of fact, but an assumption.
  6. The drone was operating out of Afghanistan. - it certainly wasn't operating out of Iran now was it, and they have been witnessed at Kandahar
  7. The Sentinels are operated by the USAF. - known fact, but they might be operated on behalf of another Agency
  8. The aircraft shown on the video is real and not a model concocted by Iran. - There is absolutely no way the Iranaians could have made a modelwith the details shown on the video. -- I see nothing remarkable about the details, which do not appear to be consistent with US Aerospace standards. As for accuracy, on what basis are we able to determine the details of a model are accurate? The only confirmed photos of an RQ-170 were taken at long range and the US Government has not released basic information, such as wing span. We only have estimates, which are considerably larger than the model shown by the Iranians.
  9. All estimated specifications published are wildly wrong by a factor of 2. - Do the arithmetic yourself, compare sizes of intakes and wings with the persons and the basketball/netball/volleyball court.Petebutt (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC) See above.

Can anyone think of any other facts? (Discuss)Petebutt (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

-The aircraft shown on the video cannot be proven to be an actual RQ-170. It is therefore speculation or opinion, not a fact, that the object shown in the video is not a model.

-Nor can it be proven how the aircraft impacted the ground.

-Or that specifications are wrong by a factor of 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.106.28 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Crashed"? Though I don't know much about these things and highly regard your opinion, but how is it possible for such object to crash from such high altitude and remain (mainly) undamaged? --Z 00:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User:Z. The RQ-170 did not "crash." According to U.S. government reports through the VOA, it was "brought down with minimum damage." (See VOA source cited above.) And, please cite your source for your supposed "fact" that "The Iranians thought there was some intelligence value in shielding the underside of the aircraft from view." Perhaps you are making a supposition from your viewing of the Iranian video that is not supported by Iranian reports. (You may cite a source in the Farsi language, if you like.) I would like to read this. Charvex (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Afghan-Iranian border is hardly air tight. This aircraft did not crash if the video footage is to be believed. Published specifications even if complete and utterly false, are the only cite-able documentation we have unless there is a conflicting reputable source. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yet again you're applying a very specific definition to a generally used word, "crash". In common parlance, as well as in reputable sources, "crash" is used, and can be taken to mean any instance in which an aircraft falls to the ground, whether it results in damage or not. Can we get past this semantics squabble? As long as reputable sources say crash, it is a viable term. We are not allowed to use our own judgement on what is the "correct" term, we can only report what reputable sources say. I know this may rankle some aviation enthusiasts, but this is not a page or site specifically to serve them. This is a general public site. If the word bothers you so much, why not just add a sentence (if you can find a proper source to back it up) that says something like, "while the drone was described as crashing, the term for an unintentional landing without widespread damage used in the aviation community is "downing"" or whatever semantic hoo hah you want to add. But let the issue die. Just because you don't like the word crash doesn't mean it's not viable.204.65.34.128 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
While we know the USAF does indeed operate Sentinels, I believe it may be too hasty to attribute this mission to the prevue of the USAF. Therefore, in my opinion this should be removed from the "facts".Michaelduprey (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

In my opinion the word "seizure" in the title is inaccurate and a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. If I don't hear any strong opposition, I am going to move this page to solve that double problem. Comments? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, thought about the same thing earlier, current title is not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I also completely agree. The word "seizure" is a ridiculous choice for inclusion in the title of this article. Charvex (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

-Rename it into capture User:Mehrnia

UnitedStatesian, Supreme Deliciousness, Charvex, in your opinions, in what way does the use of the word 'seizure' violate WP:NPOV? --Bronzmajom (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been moved 3 times in less than 3 hours, the latest is "United States' RQ-170 Iranian airspace violation". From a NPOV perspective I would suggest that this is far worse than the seizure and capture titles, but all 3 of them are far from perfect. I would personally suggest that we come up with a title that uses the word "incident", perhaps something similar to 1960 U-2 incident. That title sufficiently labels the article, but doesn't make any claims of fact (such as how the U-2 came down, or what it was doing). Perhaps something such as "2011 UAV incident" or "2011 US-Iran UAV incident". Just my two cents. TigerShark (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Iranian airspace violation"? Do we know this for sure? It could have very well been Afghanistan airspace which US has aircraft all the time. We do not need such a long title. Why not call it something like "Iranian capture of US RQ-170"? That is what happened that we can be sure of.
"Seizure" implies US committed an airspace violation which is not confirmed. Also when I hear seizure I think of police capturing illicit drugs or bootleg dvds. This could also be seen as an illegal capture/hacking by Iran. Either version would not be neutral.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A Certain White Cat, your personal associations with a word is not relevant in this discussion. Seizure: the act or an instance of seizing. Seize: to take possession of by legal authority; confiscate. I think 'seizure' describes perfectly what happened to the U.S. UAV. After it crashed for whatever reason, the legal authorities in Iran took possession of the crashed drone. Both the Iranian and the U.S. accounts of what happened agree with this. Furthermore, the using the word 'sieze' is not a violation of WP:NPOV but we're still waiting to hear back from UnitedStatesian, Supreme Deliciousness, and Charvex on why they believe that it is. There is no evidence to suggest that Iran captured the UAV (capture: to take by force or stratagem) and 'United States' RQ-170 Iranian airspace violation' is not very indicative of the events. Summary: when legal authorities tow your car, they don't capture your car (unless your car was actively trying to get away all by itself), they seize your car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronzmajom (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Irans sovereignty was violated and it crashed there, "seize" suggests a negative implication, or that Iran actively tried to capture it outside of Iran. "Apprehend" is more accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
But if your car crashes into the impound lot, you can't really say that the authorites "seized" it.UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tigershark. The current article name is unwieldy and inconsistent. Sort of implies the main reason this is notable is the "airspace violation" when the main reason is the aircraft crashed into Iran and became an international incident. Look at other articles 1960 U-2 incident and Hainan Island incident they contain the word "incident". Or, if there is a more common name then something like this Korean Air Lines Flight 007. --MarsRover (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Tigershark's solution is the best one. "Incident" is the perfect example of neutral language, and consistent with the naming of every Wikipedia article on similar events. (although I would prefer "2011 US-Iran drone incident" to avoid having the abbreviation "UAV" in the title. (Parenthetically, to meet Bronzmajom' request that I elaborate on my WP:NPOV issue: using "seize" or "capture" or "violation" implicitly accepts one version of events over alternative versions of events.) UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
We'd only need to disambiguate the year if there were to be a whole series of such incidents in the future. I prefer UAV to drone as it is the term of art. --John (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed the year is not necessary. But my problem with UAV is that we would need to spell it out, not use the abbreviation, and the result is very awkward. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
THIS TITLE IS JUST WRONG: "United States' RQ-170 Iranian airspace violation". If this incident were merely an "airspace violation", I doubt we would even be writing an article about this! This article is about the CAPTURE of a top-secret U.S. military aircraft by Iran that was illegally in its airspace. The hubbub about this event is less about than "airspace violation" (although the espionage act and violation of Iran's sovereignty is critical) than it is about the UAV and the avionics and technology inside it. Until now, most of the info published about the RQ-170 - its specs, size, wingspan, etc., etc. - have been misinformation and conjecture. Beyond the aggressive actions by the U.S., the fact that the world is actually seeing this thing for the first time is a big deal! ---- To User:Bronzmajom : As for my objection to the use of the word "seizure": this word would be appropriate if the UAV incident took place in international airspace - similar to the Somali Pirates who have been seizing oil tankers in international waters. (To sieze = to grab). In this case, the UAV was above and in Iran; Iranian forces "brought down" the UAV. This is according to published reports by the VOA, the mouthpiece of the U.S. government outside of that country. Iran is not going to return the UAV. ---- I think US-Iran UAV incident is an acceptable title for the acticle as well; technically better than using the word "drone" but perhaps more confusing. (I disagree that UAV must be spelled out.) --- The point of this post is, the simple minded and incorrect title needs to be changed. (Although I could, I am not going to do it.) Let's get this right. --- Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I like my Iranian capture of US RQ-170 or Iranian capture of US UAV better. This is hardly the first time US flew a drone over Iran probably which means this incident is significant for some other reason. What makes is significant is the capture of the drone. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, User:John. I agree with User:A Certain White Cat -- « Iranian capture of US RQ-170 » is perfect! It is accurate, specific, and concise. Great job, White Cat! (Your English is really excellent, by the way -- better than mine!) I don't think anyone can really come up with anything better. But before I -- or someone else changes it -- I would like to read a couple more voices agreeing with this, just for argument's sake. If you are reading this, plase indicate thumbs-up or thumbs-down. -- Tchao! Charvex (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
My preference would still be for a title that utilised "incident" rather than using words such as capture or seizure. Those words are not completely neutral, and incident solves that problem and probably fits better with WP:NDESC. I'm also not sure about including the "RQ-170" designation, rather than UAV or drone. U-2 is used in the "1960 U-2 incident" title, but U-2 is arguably more easily and widely remembered. I doubt a year from now, many people will remember the designation, so the title will not be as easily recognised. I still believe that something such as "US-Iran drone incident", would be better, with or without the year attached. I understand the reasoning of A Certain White Cat, with regard to fact that there are no doubt many more flights, but still none of them have become "incidents", in the same way that there were maybe hundreds or even thousands of U-2 flights over Russia, but most did not lead to an incident. Anyway, those are my current thoughts. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Iranian capture of US RQ-170 incident or Iranian capture of US UAV incident or Iranian capture of US drone incident? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wouldn't think that the title should contain both capture and incident. My thinking behind incident is that it is about as neutral a word as you can find, more so than capture. So, I think that we should either use capture or incident, but not both (because the use of incident becomes superfluous if you have capture), and I just think that incident is more neutral than capture. TigerShark (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I think capture may be somewhat of a debatable term...I understand the probably intention, but I worry that it might spark further debate with some, depending on what actually happened, which still seems uncertain. Capture seems to imply intent, and an overt act. I don't have a huge issue with it, but we may want to at least think about other options like "recovery" that don't have a potential negative implication. Like, if I found a dollar my friend Jim lost on a sidewalk, saying I "found" Jim's dollar is appropriate. It would be a negative implication to say I "took" Jim's dollar ( or in this case, "captured" Jim's dollar). If it turns out that this was an errant drone that crashed in Iran without intent or provocation or action on Iran's part, I think it's more appropriate to say Iran recovered the drone, than to say they captured it. Recover is more passive of an action, capture implies they purposefully brought it down. If the latter is actually teh case, then it's perfectly acceptable. In either case the current "violation" title is pretty POV, intended or not.Given the choice between capture and incident, I vote for Incident.
I agree with incident, it's neutral and simple.Leobarlach (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
US-Iran x Iran-US?

Why is it that all proposals above that include the name of the countries put US in before Iran? Is it reversal alphabetic ordering or just some other kind of hidden bias? --damiens.rf 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters either way. If there is a bias, it is perhaps because US-Iran seems a far more prevalent description than Iran-US in the English speaking media (at least it seems so from a casual Google search "US-Iran relations" vs "Iran-US relations"). This might be because of a bias in the media or it might be simply because it flows better when you say it. Either way, I think either is perfectly acceptable here. TigerShark (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Iran-US RQ-170 incident per above. It's imperative that we avoid any wording like "capture" or "violation" to avoid accusations of prejudice as this sorry episode plays out. Damiens is right and it should be alphabetical order. --John (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, does anybody have any objections to me moving it to Iran-US RQ-170 incident for now? I still prefer drone or UAV, but I think that Iran-US RQ-170 incident is much, much better than the current title and think it would be good to get it changed. TigerShark (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I moved it. Hope that is OK. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Good job. The new name is a much much better name. --MarsRover (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GPS Spoofing

GPS spoofing and jamming are very hot topics in the GPS world these days, but I'm not sure whether the Homeland Security Journal is really a good source for anything. It's not commonly read in the GPS community. I'm hesitant to change it to a different one (e.g. [2] or [3], both of which are more recent), because I'm not sure that we need a mention like this at all in this article since it belongs more properly in the spoofing attack article. Thoughts? siafu (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and wrote up a quick section on GPS Spoofing at that article, so I'll cut that sentence from here. siafu (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

U2 incident

The U2 incident has no relevance here. This incident is hardly the first time since U2 where US lost a spy plane/craft. It is neither the first drone. Why do people feel U2 incident is relevant? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious similarity is the "parade" aspect: the soviets put the U-2 pilot Gary Powers on display on TV and the iranians put the RQ-170 drone on display on TV. The CIA was humiliated big time on both occasions. Furthermore, the first-wave denial reaction by the USA was very similar on both occasions: first, they claimed they haven't been there or anywhere near, then said the aircraft flew across the border due to tech fault, etc. which made them look like a total fool hen the undeniable proof went on USSR / Iran TV. Pentagon PR isn't exactly best in the world. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with 82.131 here. --John (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. U2 incident is significant because
  • It almost started WW3.
  • USSR downed an "untouchable" U2 which until that day due to the altitude of U2's flight.
  • USSR also captured cutting edge stealth technology of that time.
  • USSR had the capability to level all of US or engage in a full-scale convectional war.
  • USSR was a permanent member of the UNSC
Certainly this incident is notable but comparing it with the U2 incident is an exaggeration. This incident is simply not as significant because
  • Iran does not have the capability to retaliate - not in a manner like how USSR was capable.
  • The drone is not cutting edge technology how U2 was back then.
  • This is hardly the first time US lost a drone. Drones were downed throughout the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Kosovo war, and even the recent Libya war.
  • This is not the first time a country "paraded" US spies. Also I do not like the idea of "parading" be a criteria for relevance.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Current article simplifies things too much!

"GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170... The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system".

However, even the best inertial-based avionics system has a rate of location coordinate error accumulation of circa 5 kilometers per 1000km flown or 1 flight hour. This means any laser ring gyro needs periodic re-accuratizing via GPS or LORAN, etc. especially for long-time loitering UAV drones! If the russo-iranian-chinese "axis of evil geniuses" were able to hack the "red key" RSA that is securing the mil-spec GPS channel, they could have been able to slowly poison the interial reference systems via faux, but validly signed GPS accuritization transmissions (so that eventually the drone thought he is landing in Budapest when it was in fact over Bukarest, so to speak).

As to how the islamists and the alleged red accomplices managed to trick RSA crypto? Either chinese hackers accessed and stole the super-secret "red key" via net-based intrusion, or some russian, iranian or DPRK boffin (all of them big math nations) managed to break the algorythm underlining RSA. (The "Comodo-hacker" guy, self-apppointed iranian IT "genius of geniuses", bragged on Pastbin this spring that he has been working on reversing RSA for a long time and hopes to make a breakthrough soon. Maybe he succeeded eventually?)

If the mil-spec GPS signing key was stolen, it is a big trouble. If RSA's math was reversed, it is more like game over to computerized civilization as we know it. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Further proof for the drone's genuinity, if still needed.

1., The "Bentley mesh" type grille covering the drone's jet intake is perfectly right. On the close-up photo an abrupt change of vertical strip placing is recognisable at about 2/3rd height. Transfer the layout to CAD, trace a Raleigh scatter reflection and see that, without that grille off-set change done, the radar cross section of the intake would be 17x greater in the 2-10cm band! That F-117 era grille is a relatively low-risk stealth accessory by now, but it was very carefully designed, indeed.

2., The top of the drone's main hump is visible in one hi-res photo. The large access hatch on top of that was visibly cut-plied open with an axle grinder (notice how the cuts are too long at the corner). That is exactly where the self-destruct explosive charge is located, in order to utilize the jet turbine's rotary inertia for even greater destruction, when remote activated. The iranians were in a haste to access and neutralize that module while the radio jamming lasted, so they couldn't afford to meticulously unwind the stealth tape covering and unscrew two dozen hatch access screws, they just used an axle grinder. If the drone on display was a mock-up made in Iran, they wouldn't install a self-destruct to suprise themselves. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but wikipedia does not engage in original research. The only "proof" we needed was the US government acknowledgement of the drone, which we have, since that constitutes a reliable source on whether or not the drone is real. There is no further argument to have here, unless some other reliable and notable sources are claiming the opposite, in which case all we need do is properly state and attribute those claims. siafu (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Current article much skewed to US viewpoint.

The article mentiones a dispute of iranian claims based on satellite observations, i.e. it took the mullahs days just to locate the aircraft. That was completely the opposite! Iranians were on-site waiting for the commandeered drone landing, hastily chopped of the wings and 18-wheeled the whole loot to their AF base. Meanwhile aircraft scrapheap junk was spread over the whole site by the iranians, which the US spysats merrily imaged. The Pentagon then concluded the secret stealth drone was pulverized for good on crash and told Pres. Obama the wreckage is not worth a spec-ops "carpet vacuuming" mission. They were mighty suprised when the wholesome Beast of RQ-170 went on iranian TV. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever secret information you seem to claim to be privy to that the rest of don't know, we can't use it unless it is included in reliable sources. This sounds an awful lot like conspiracy theory, and not much like useful suggestions. siafu (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarity to B-2

I must stress that any similarities between B-2 and RQ-170 are superficial at best. Anyone who has studied engineering or physics understands this easily: You can't design a bomber the size of a house and a drone the size of a hatchback with the same blueprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.70.87 (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work on a great article with pictures .!.

Congratulations; and Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Войска РЭБ проиграли борьбу GPS

Войска РЭБ проиграли борьбу GPS :) --Ze-dan (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

2011? How?

Every single date in this article said "2011". This event happened recently, and it's 2012. I'm not sure how this happened; how could anyone get every single date wrong on accident (even the categories said 2011)? Is there something that helps editors auto-fill dates or the like? If I did something wrong by changing it, I'm very sorry. This is the first time I've edited anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patientbomb (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This even happened in 2011, as indicated by the sources. It has been in the news recently for other reasons. siafu (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

New photo surfaces of the RQ-170 captured by Iran.

Iran has recently put on public display one copy of each kind of "imperialist" drone they have drowned thus far, including the RQ-170. The new photo shows its nose landing gear in extended position:

Photo: https://sun9-54.userapi.com/c852224/v852224991/1d0241/prq8BUpLVvI.jpg Article: https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_1213664 94.21.229.47 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident/Archive_1&oldid=1040037269"