Jump to content
The Education Forum

Iran unveils cutting edge technology


Recommended Posts

I don't know how many people have followed the international joke that is Iran, but they have done it again.

First they claim they achieved spaceflight but the monkey payload appears to have been swapped whilst in flight.

Then they reveal a stealth super fighter that isn't much more than an oversized Airfix kit. Photos of it in flight are shown to be laughably crude fakes.

Now they roll out their stealth attack drone.... which seems to be made from shopping trolley parts, rubber bands and Tupperware!

drone_2559082b.jpg

Seriously - do they actually believe they are fooling anyone? Are the people of Iran so naïve that they believe it? I'd imagine that North Korea looks up to them and will be asking for some technology transfer! These guys make the Keystone Cops look like a world class law enforcement agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the provenance of this but....

Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks rocket launchings and space activity, also said this [end of Jan 2013] week's monkey space flight was real, but he had a slightly different explanation for the photo mix-up. He claimed the light gray monkey with the mole died during a failed space mission in 2011.
"The monkey with the mole was the one launched in 2011 that died. The rocket failed. It did not get into space," McDowell said. "They just mixed that footage with the footage of the 2013 successful launch."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many people have followed the international joke that is Iran, but they have done it again.

First they claim they achieved spaceflight but the monkey payload appears to have been swapped whilst in flight.

Then they reveal a stealth super fighter that isn't much more than an oversized Airfix kit. Photos of it in flight are shown to be laughably crude fakes.

Now they roll out their stealth attack drone.... which seems to be made from shopping trolley parts, rubber bands and Tupperware!

Seriously - do they actually believe they are fooling anyone? Are the people of Iran so naïve that they believe it? I'd imagine that North Korea looks up to them and will be asking for some technology transfer! These guys make the Keystone Cops look like a world class law enforcement agency.

Doesn't this contradict the notion Iran is capable of and perhaps even close to building nuclear weapons?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was pretty much my first thought, too.
And said as much when copy-pasta-ing it to my Facebook :P

To be honest, I really doubt that much of anything the American government/military/CIA/NSA/DHS/alphabet soup of media says these days about "rogue" states is anything remotely close to the truth. Dubya screwed the pooch on that for pretty much the whole world, with Iraq....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve / Len,

Thanks for the replies.

1. I'll check out that possibility of photo mix-up with the monkey; it COULD happen so is worth checking.

2. You'd think that it required a high level of technology to build a nuclear weapons but it doesn't. What is difficult is getting certain key components for the manufacture. Of course, the level of bomb technology is a factor; if you wanted a thermonuclear weapon with multiple independent warheads, each of between 20 - 100 Kt yield and weigh not more than 50 Kg each, then that does require a greater degree of technology. If you just want a warhead with a yield of between 10-20 Kt and deliverable by a ballistic missile with a range up to 2000 Km, then the problem is much simpler. See https://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf

3. On the other hand, developing a UAV with stealth characteristics is much more difficult. Stealth technology requires high level computer modelling and is still a close held secret. Then there is the UAV mission sensors; what is it designed to do and so how good are they? Likewise, the command and communications system on the vehicle takes a great deal of work (otherwise it is going to be easily compromised or subverted).

But it is the pure propaganda farce that amuses me. Come on, seriously - a shopping trolley wheel for nose gear? That alone tells you this is not serious. Likewise the indigenous fighter; sure, Iran could develop an aircraft industry but what they showed was at best a mockup; the photoshopped image of it claiming to be in flight just made it a farce.

As far as US claims regarding Iran's nuclear technology, I think they could be right but we have been burnt by them too much in the past and so I can agree with part of your comments. I think taking a very sceptical view of their (the US) claims and wanting to see some solid evidence is a very reasonable stance to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve / Len,

Thanks for the replies.

1. I'll check out that possibility of photo mix-up with the monkey; it COULD happen so is worth checking.

2. You'd think that it required a high level of technology to build a nuclear weapons but it doesn't. What is difficult is getting certain key components for the manufacture. Of course, the level of bomb technology is a factor; if you wanted a thermonuclear weapon with multiple independent warheads, each of between 20 - 100 Kt yield and weigh not more than 50 Kg each, then that does require a greater degree of technology. If you just want a warhead with a yield of between 10-20 Kt and deliverable by a ballistic missile with a range up to 2000 Km, then the problem is much simpler. See https://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf

3. On the other hand, developing a UAV with stealth characteristics is much more difficult. Stealth technology requires high level computer modelling and is still a close held secret. Then there is the UAV mission sensors; what is it designed to do and so how good are they? Likewise, the command and communications system on the vehicle takes a great deal of work (otherwise it is going to be easily compromised or subverted).

But it is the pure propaganda farce that amuses me. Come on, seriously - a shopping trolley wheel for nose gear? That alone tells you this is not serious. Likewise the indigenous fighter; sure, Iran could develop an aircraft industry but what they showed was at best a mockup; the photoshopped image of it claiming to be in flight just made it a farce.

As far as US claims regarding Iran's nuclear technology, I think they could be right but we have been burnt by them too much in the past and so I can agree with part of your comments. I think taking a very sceptical view of their (the US) claims and wanting to see some solid evidence is a very reasonable stance to take.

It looks more like something made by engineering students for a competition or end of course project. Are you sure the 'landing gear' and other aspects are inadequate? Don't forget that to Jack White's much of the Apollo hardware was 'obviously' inadequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should clarify myself.

Could Iran develop a UAV? Absolutely; I am sure they have the technical knowhow to develop a basic UAV (but being vulnerable to the jamming / subversion, as previously mentioned). All you need is an aerodynamic shape with a powerplant and a control system. Remember that the F-4 Phantom II was McDonnell-Douglas proof to the world that with enough thrust, even a brick can fly (TIC).

But that nose-wheel? There is no ability to absorb shock whatsoever. Have a look on every aircraft / UAV that is meant to me recoverable and if they have landing gear, there will be a shock absorbing system built into it. Even when there is just a skid, the skid itself can absorb shock and protect the airframe. Anything approaching a hard landing with that thing and if the nosewheel hasn't gone through the fuselage then there will be stress forces through the fuselage frame.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/predator-7.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/RQ-7B_UAV.jpg

http://www.compositecomponents.com.au/images/home/long-endurance-uav.jpg

http://www.satuma.com.pk/Upload/Medium%20Range%20UAV%20-%20Flamingo1a.jpg

http://www.uavglobal.com/wp-content/gallery/demon/1.jpg

Look at the main gear; that is totally believable. The struts would absorb shock.

Now, the UAV is meant to be is a "...stealth aircraft that cannot be detected by enemies." That claim is a joke. Non-retractable gear, the Tupperware radar dome under the aircraft, etc... it is simply not possible. Now, if they had simply said they had a new UAV ready and this was the mockup prior to production then that would be totally plausible.

Have a look at countries like India, Korea, China, etc: you can see the stages their aviation industries have gone through. You can see the development (sometimes advancing at a very rapid pace) but you can see it.

This is my point; instead of simply saying what they have - or even just gilding the lilly slightly, they go right over the top. Instead of building a car and saying it is a fast sports car, they claim it has an in-built flux capacitor and is capable of time travel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, what do you base the statement ''that nose-wheel? There is no ability to absorb shock whatsoever.'' on?

Do you have a photo that shows the underside of the drone? As it is I don't think you can say there is no retraction.

See the triangular plates. See how there are what looks like two mounting bolts that are not on the same vertical line plus what looks like it might be a guiding pin in line with the front top bolt. I can picture a front bolt swivel point. A rear shock mount rear bolt with guide pins all working together as a guided cantilevered single shock spring assembly.

The wheel itself is not your ordinary shopping trolley wheel.

There is nothing aerodynamic about that wheel assembly beacuse... ? It retracts? I don't know? makes sense though.

Is it really the color scheme that offends you? (just kidding)

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I disagree but let me gather some images to show you why I disagree. Is that okay? BTW, if you have got any other questions about my assertions, please let me know.

Cheers!

Evan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I cannot see why you disagree re the image posted. Obviously more data is necessary. I'd like to see that.

Re other things. Why does the pod have to be any different? It's a casing like the golfballs in pine gap. It just gives a clue about the dimensions of whatever is inside.

BTW, can you id the missiles?

Cheers to you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the front wheel retracted it is aerodynamically sound? The straps go to a parachute? The jet air scoops are under,? 400mph, 2 hr airborne? It's a fairly standard (sans the bulge (which itself has lift as well as a fluid resonance (?) capacity) but easily explained as housing the electronics?) wing/body/jet configuration? The front guy and the others helping are turning it towards the camera and to facilitate it takes some weight off the nose while pushing and pulling by all indicating its front carriage does not swivel (unlike a trolley wheel assembly) and is in motion turned by the rudder 'aerielons(?)' and the rise from the rear wheels to the rear rudder unders indicates takeoff and landing 'attack'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...