Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel/Archive 1

Copyright Third Reich?
Looks like another nice Northrop copy of the Gotha Horten Go-229. The similarity is too obvious to not mention it in the article! 82.131.133.164 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article states that it is a flying wing aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that the Northrop flying wings predate the Go 229. Not everything is the descendant of the Napkinwaffe. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Horten's theories were tested by Northrop-Grumman in 2008 and found to have been successful, resulting in a radar cross section only 40% that of conventional planes (see below)". Sounds like there could have been some R&D with the Ho 229. I doubt that you could say that it's copyright infringement because the designers, Horten brothers, and Gothaer Waggonfabrik would probably not be entitled to reconfiguration since they are no longer incorporated nor are they living. The US may have acquired design models and plans through the Operation Paperclip program. Through Operation Paperclip the US gained V2 and developed their own. Under the experiece of Operation Paperclip scientist Wernher Von Braun, the US further developed rocket systems that would later become the first US space and ICBM platforms. In Addition, a former regime (government) would not be entitled to a copyright. This paragraph does contain a lot of original research, but I contend that it is truthful. In short, even if the US did study the Ho 229, no copyrights would have been infringed. Dreammaker182 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also this, this, and this, all of which are flying wings and predate knowledge of the Go 229. While some may have been learned from the Go 229, saying it was "copied" isn't exactly kosher. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it is well known that Northrop's design had stability problems (read Chuck Yeager's autobiography where he tells the story of a colleague who crashes with a Northrop during landing. The Flying Wing starts to burn, and as the fire men approach the burning wreck the plot tries to prevent them from extinguishing the fire), which the Horten Brothers (who designed a number of flying wings from the 1930's onwards by the way) had overcome, that's the difference. The secret is the 'tail' aft between the wings. In addition, the stealth potential of the flying wings was first recognised and exploited in Germany; I do not know of any connection of Northrop with stealth during the 1940's. 152.78.178.254 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Gerald
 * Damn i wanted to say it first! :P But yes, mr Horten must be very proud. Very, Very proud, sneering at R.J Mitchel and laughing at Willi Messerschmidt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.67.242 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoils of war

 * Nobody can probably clame copyright from the Horten on the RQ-170, that is exactly in shape as the Horten Ho-IX / Gotha Go-229, simply because the designers are dead, and no copyright lasts longer than 70 years, most patents expire in 10-15-20 years. It's difficult to say which precede which, the Northrop flyng wings or the Hortens, but the german research in this kind of airplane started with gliders before WW II, and some say one of the reasons why the USA founded the Northrop research on flying wings is that the Airforce men were aware that the germans were working in this kind of airplane. There are many sites giving information about flying wings, including Wikipedia, and you can buy the plans for the Ho-IX / Go-229: airfoils, structure, everything, at www.albentley-drawings.com . The RQ-170 is obviously a remake of the german airplane, it just has no pilot and only one engine, that is a turbofan instead of two pure turborreactors as in the 1945 airplane, and probably the RQ-170 is built of composites, and not of wood as the original, that is stored at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.

looks a lot like a polecat to me.
This picture of the Lockheed polecat looks very similar, not the same, as the second picture links in the article

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Y7kQSOBuEJw/ShLRmU4fqdI/AAAAAAAAAio/XynJraIgNFg/s320/PolecatUAV.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukisuki (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The development could be related, but I don't think there are much in the way of reliable sources on this. Joshdboz (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: "the Beast is not Polecat, as one look at the exhaust will indicate." --JGGardiner (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's not the Polecat, it's very likely that the Sentinel was developed from, or alongside of, the Polecat. Nothing to add to the article until there is a reliable source, but it's a reasonable bit of OR for the talk page. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well as long as it is only for the talk page you can even skip the research part and just guess. But a number of sources have noted the physical similarity so I don't think it would hurt to include that if somebody is interested.  --JGGardiner (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so from Wired we have "The Beast bears some resemblance to the Skunk Works’ Polecat drone, revealed in 2006..." and "The lines of the drone clearly indicate a stealth design slightly reminiscent of the B-2A Spirit bomber, but smaller." And from Aviation Week there's "The RQ-170 design has linkages to earlier programs at Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs including the stealthy DarkStar and Polecat UAVs." Also several months ago UVOnline wrote: "The aircraft engine nozzle is the same half moon shape as the Lockheed P175 Pole Cat, but the wing is not cranked on its trailing edge like the Pole Cat is." So I guess if we wanted to we could add a sentence along the lines of:
 * "Journalists have noted design similarities between the RQ-170 and previous stealth and UAV programs, including the B-2 Spirit, RQ-3 DarkStar, and Polecat."

-- Joshdboz (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that line, but I'd drop the B-2 reference. That's just the default comparison to any flying wing design. The B-2 was the first, and it's not the only one. Otherwise go ahead and add the line. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lockheed Martin Polecat actually has 2 engines. It looks like it has 2 engines from the wikipedia article and other sites. The Sentinel appears to only have one engine. As speculated, the two aircraft may have been co-developed or they may have been developed as competitors in a secret design competition similarly to the much publicized F-22 Raptor and Northrop YF-23. Dreammaker182 (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there was a competition, both are made by Lockheed Martin. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did they skip '19' and go with '170'?
The next drone 'Q' sequence number is 19, yet they went with 170. That kinda reminds me of the F-117 skipping 19 in the fighter sequence numbers and going with 117. Redjacket3827 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the same logical several reporters have mentioned; going out of sequence to avoid anyone "deducing" that it is being developed/used. I.e., If they had made an (public) XQ-20, everyone would wonder why they had skipped 19 (if they had named the Sentinel "RQ-19"). -SidewinderX (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At least with the '117 they had the double excuse of using the old sequence and covering the Soviet fighters under test with 112-116. 170 doesn't match any sequence at all. And skipping a number has been done before many times without their being a black project hiding, so...
 * * flails at the desecration of the should be perfectly logical numbering system* - The Bushranger (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still cheesed off at the misnumbering of the F-35, which should, logically, be the F-24. Mark Sublette (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. (Or F-25, if you believe some reports...). I think I recall that it's F-35 because a general somewhere goofed up? Although that may just be a modern version of the "RS-71/SR-71" story. But the system really should still be the pre-'62 system - in the end, we can always blame Strange! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RQ-3?
This actually seems to resemble the RQ-3 DarkStar, which was alleged to have gone black a few years ago. I wonder if they renamed the drone to reflect the supposed increase in capability or if they started from scratch. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Like the Polecat discussion above, it is likely that much of the RQ-170 development is related to the DarkStar, but it's definitely not the same. Physically, they are much different, and it is unlikely that they persisted with a UAV project that started in the mid-1990s. That said, I do think it's plausible that the 2003 rumors that the DarkStar program had "gone black" were actually the first whisperings of the Sentinel. my $0.02. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HIts
Just FYI, someone apparently linked to this article big time the other day. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/RQ-170%20Sentinel. Joshdboz (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to have been a story about the UAV on Fox News in the US; perhaps they included a link on their website? The number of hits is amazing. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16001 The Air Force made its release public. Fox News and AP are covering the story. Sergeant Wiggity (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos Posted
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50271097@N04/5033149847/in/photostream/lightbox/

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.206.140 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Engine Selection
TF34 engine is not at all likely. That model is 30-years old and the derivative program (TF34-100B) was canceled before any prototype hardware was built. No new engines have been built in decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjwagner (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None have been released publicly, at least. 87.194.84.44 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Image
While it's always nice to have an image to put up, fan-made images are generally a bad idea. While the side-view seems reasonable, based on what we've seen, the top view makes lots and lots of assumptions. No image is better than a bad image. Unless I hear a really good argument why we should keep it, I will remove it. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to edit the image so that only the side view is kept? I agree that there isn't enough information to create an image of the upper surfaces of the RQ-170. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, as long as we keep a caption making sure people realize that it is a fan-made image, nothing official. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with discussion. Assuming this has been created with reference to the Libération image, we should cite that in the caption as well. Joshdboz (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good call. Can anyone edit that image? I don't really have access to my tools atm. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The artist image is crap. The proportions between the size of the big, middle hump and the two smaller humps (placed on each side of the big hump) are wrong. That means even the one detail that was clear from the real pictures of the drone has been drawn badly. What can one expect for the rest of the details which were not even clear to begin with?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.78.3.253 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it that you haven't noticed that the image was created two years ago on the basis of the tiny and blury photos which were all that was available until about a week ago? Can you help with developing a better image? Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This image is an attempt at giving a general idea of the layout of the contraption. It is not meant to be authoritative, and removing it might absolutely be in order -- I would not be vexed if it was. As for editing the image, I am quite willing to make necessary adjustments if it is inconvenient for someone to make them himself. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)'
 * Looks good. Joshdboz (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The caption is good. If you were to just edit the top view out (and leave only the side view), I would not have a problem with the image. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rama's switched the pics, maybe refresh your browser? Joshdboz (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To create an image for the entry I am working on a 3D model somewhat photogrammetrically derived from the three photographs that seem to be available right now. (This Wikipedia contributor just requests that any result not be referred to as a "fan-made image", thanks.) truthdowser (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that anyone revising this image tone down the two "bars" laid down on its back. These appear to be taped-over areas, and there are others visible in the photo (another vertical one before the "spot" and a horizontal one running from that to the front). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Truthdowser, can you please look at the discussion we had just above your comment; Please re-render/crop your image to include only the side view, without the human figure. There is no good view of anything other than the side view, and we don't have a good estimate for scale (the guess of 65' is just that; a guess.) No image is better than a bad and/or misleading image. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SidewinderX, I agree with the concern about bad/misleading images. At this point I guess I'd like to testify that mine isn't a bad image. I will continue to improve this image as more information becomes available. First I've changed the wording in the image box from the original contributor's to emphasis that this is an artist's impression only. Please review the following image of my model compared to a lesser known photo http://imgur.com/3pDcr.jpg to assess how well the model conforms to the actual vehicle. I won't protest if the article image is deleted, but even if the wingspan proves to be larger than the 65 ft as current speculation is going, (up to 90 ft,) the human figure would not be that far out of scale. I'd argue that the figure gives context, illustrating that this is not a mini-UAV nor a giant like the Global Hawk. I'd also argue that this image (however imperfect) uniquely resembles the actual vehicle and not any other known UAV, so that the image has merit for the article, thus better than no image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdowser (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the article's been reverted and my image for it disappeared here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RQ-170_Sentinel_impression_3-view.png and I remembered my tildes this time... truthdowser (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than argue over it – not to mention waste Truthdowser's good work – why don't we just go with the side view for now. Since it's come out of the black and there's lots of interest in it, there should be a greater number of pictures and other information coming out in coming months. When more has been released, Truthdowser can update his 3-view and add it. The article is going to need a 3-view sometime and it doesn't even have to be in the sidebar. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Won't advocate for the 3-view anymore, but the second image uploaded for the article (2D side view) has lots of details that are guesswork. It also has no wings, as photos clearly show the RQ-170 has. (Note for those familiar with aircraft: the photos reveal that the RQ-170 has significant dihedral built in, unlike similar vehicles, and this will show up in a two-dimensional side-view.) I've just uploaded new work (an "artist's impression") that has nearly zero speculation but also shows the aircraft from an angle more understandable as an aircraft by the general public reading Wikipedia. Please review further details on the artworks info page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RQ-170_Wiki_contributor_3Dartist.png truthdowser (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see page for this image file regarding updates and references: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RQ-170_Wiki_contributor_3Dartist.png truthdowser (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice work! I'm looking forward to the magazine's other Sentinel images. Joshdboz (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010(UTC)

3/6/2010: Model and rendering updated and detailed from series of new photographs published in the February issue of Combat Aircraft Monthly. Again please see the Wikimedia Commons page for the image file for details and references including links to photos with model in same orientation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RQ-170_Wiki_contributor_3Dartist.png truthdowser (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1/28/2012: Model updated per new photographs and video stills from Iranian state media. Central fuselage hump lowered. Jet engine intake reshaped and grill added. Wing "humps" reshaped, (now asymmetrical in front view), and moved back. Other less obvious modifications. Color is still a light gray unlike the Iranian images. The RQ-170 type has been photographed in the gray color as well as the pale yellow. The neutral color works better for an encyclopedic entry as this is still an impression of the aircraft, not an attempt at a photographic rendition. Again please see the Wikimedia Commons page for the image file for details and references. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RQ-170_Wiki_contributor_3Dartist.png truthdowser (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Iran claims to have shot one down
Iranians claim to down US drone... Iranian media reports said the drone - identified as a type RQ170 Via BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16024605 <:ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16024605 80.3.228.153 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FARSI news agency now reports the RQ-170 was not shut down per se, as in missile or cannonade. It was commandeered by the iranians using hacking and/or electronic warfare skills and made to crash-land on purpose. They will invite russian and chinese experts to study western UAV wreckages as usual, who pay for this access to hi-tech info with secret military shipments. Having its drone hacked is probably 10x bigger problem for the USA, compared to having it shot down by a vintage iranian F-14 or a modernized Hawk missile. There must be heads rolling in the USAF / CIA drone HQ right now, because the virus infection in the Nevada UAV base's LAN was not taken seriously. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: In the factbox to the right side, the picture is NOT of an RQ-170, and the unit cost and number produced are wholly fictional. Not sure how to edit that box, but can somebody take those figures out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.117.160 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please update that according to Fox News TV, citing anonymous US official, the drone that the US army reported as missing was confirmed to be the RQ-170.--Gilisa (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw if you look closely you'll notice that the "UAV" the iranians shot down has horzontal vanes in its intake whereas a real model doesnt....nice ploy there(Undeadplatypus (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Can an experienced Wiki editor please re-write this section of the article. Currently it reads as a jumble of dates and claims. If it could be wikified it would be great. 71.219.110.24 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Please eliminate the bias in this article. Unverified claims should not be put forth as fact. So far we have the US Government admitting only that a UAV was lost in the region, opinions in the media by persons not involved in the Sentinel program, and Iranian government controlled news, which is the propaganda branch of a regime known to be deliberately deceptive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.106.28 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why no self destruct function?
It would be easy to implement and seemingly worth the extra payload and reduction in range to add high explosives and incendiary compounds to ensure that cutting-edge, top-secret technology does not literally fall into the wrong hands. Since even the skin is highly-classified and can be somewhat easily reverse engineered through gas chromatography and microscopy, wouldn't it be prudent to include such functionality? Satellite launch vehicles and even some manned spacecraft have manual or automatic "flight termination systems."

For instance, on the raid on the Bin-Ladin compound, where the downed stealth Blackhawk had to be destroyed manually with HE and thermite grenades, unsuccessfully, it seems that an integrated flight termination system could cause total vehicle conflagration and destruction of classified surveillance electronics in a predicable fashion. It's probably good that the Iranians have yet to release a photo of the downed drone because an intact drone would certainly be shown off to the Iranian peoples and world press, whereas a mangled wreckage would be less viable and valuable to countries wanting to reverse-engineer.

76.23.15.109 (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello 76.23.15.109, this talk page solely serves for discussion on improving the article. This is not a forum for general discussion on the drone. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, you do not know if there is or is not a self destruct option present in the RQ-170. I can't comment on the reliability of this web article, but its at least a counterpoint: http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=6868  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we link to American policy on keeping spy planes unarmed? Hcobb (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Iran have the real thing or is it a model?
I look up pictures of it on google and the pictures don't match what Iran has. Could Iran have made up the whole thing at least of the part of it being intact and made a model of it or did the US AirForce change the design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.83.70 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ABC News is reporting that US military sources are saying that it is likely a model. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-rq-170-sentinel-stealth-drone-shown-iran/story?id=15115781 97.75.161.222 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

According to CBS News US officials have confirmed the authenticity of the drone shown by the Iranians :

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57339834/u.s-official-iran-does-have-our-drone/

MRC37 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about arguing it's a model, it's not probable that the images came from Iran showing a model and not the real thing and I think that AMC is the only media source that suggest this idea. Other media sources in the US know to tell that Obama stopped an American commando action to return back or destroy the UAV. I believe no army in the world would take the risk for military operation to destroy carton model. The US army acknowledged that the contact with the drone was lost over Afghanistan. All evidences show that the drone was taken over, how hard this may be, and not shot down. There is no indication it crashed and I don't think that any source who cite officials in the military establishment argued it crashed. So, the all paragraph need to be rephrased.--Gilisa (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide links—not just opinions—about the following assertions you have made: Its not likely that it is a model, Obama stopped a commando raid to retrieve it, All evidence points to it being taken over (as opposed to malfunctioning). 71.219.110.24 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of a take-over beyond the boasts of the Iranians, and it doesn't sound particularly possible to me.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the U.S. stealth drone’s wingspan is around 26 meters (85 feet). On the other hand the basketball court is 28x15 meters and the diameter of center circle is 3.6 meters. As well, the volleyball court is a rectangle, 18 meters long by 9 meters wide with two lines 3 meters from and parallel to net line. Now you compare the length given by the commander with the diameter of the green center circle or distance between parallel white lines in the court. See the measurements here: http://i40.tinypic.com/nyem44.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.164.86 (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If the US found out why would Iran risk showing a model? Besides, it's been confirmed.--2.97.33.86 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it extraordinary that Iran has displayed a genuine craft, even less likely the Iranians could safely guide the aircraft into landing somewhere without significant damage, and least likely that "they took it over". It is also unlikely that a special forces team would be called in to "retrieve" or destroy the craft. For the most part, the sourcing on this whole issue is pretty suspect in my eyes. There's also the historic problem of western observers granting our enemies fantastic powers that they later turn out not to have, and that obstacle to reasoning also has to be gotten around. The US admits to a loss of an aircraft, so I could see it crashing into Iranian territory and parts being recovered. If specops were considered, it would only be to recover the electronics. Otherwise, the Sentinel is probably designed to minimize the amount of useful data that could be extracted from it. No need to risk lives or an escalation of military hostilities.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:RQ-170 in Iran.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * Oppose - It's obvious that this photo comes from the government of Iran. I don't believe governments can have legally binding copyrights in the United States. It's highly doubtful the government of Iran will issue a DMCA notice. Also, the photo likely constitutes fair use since numerous news organizations not affiliated with Iran are publishing it. --JHP (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi res images
The Iranians have released some hi res images of the alleged RQ-170 Sentenial : http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/08/stealth-pix/

I think we should use these images in this article. MRC37 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the Pentagon writing this page or just censoring it?
I just removed "alleged" from the title "Alleged Seizure by Iran".

In short, the US lost a drone inside Iran, but no one knew it. Iran immediately put it on TV. Then the US said oh yeah, they had lost one (in Afghanistan, a flat lie).

Calling it an allegation is ridiculous at this point, and this section contains lies by the US government.

Sad to say that the greatest thing Iran has had in the entire history of their Islamic republic is something American made that just fell into their hands, but it is and they have it, deal with it instead of posting pathetic denials that just make Americans look Herman Cain stupid.--75.79.150.96 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not like you have any bias or anything! "Siezure" implies Iran's military deliberately took it by force or cunning. But how they acquired it, and in what condition, is not fully known at this point, with a technical malfuction unrelated to Iranian ECM the most likely cause. See Aviation Week article here

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abca8e6e2-70ef-40a3-8c56-f83aa6fc7ade

I have tried several times to change the text to remove bias and unsubstantiated facts, however my edits were swiftly undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave7777777 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)