Breaking: Iran unveils Saeqeh UCAV, shows captured American MQ1 Predator

[SOHEIL]

We need a satellite to link them all in a network .... why we don't do that ....

We are developing satellites...

+ we need Geo space launch vehicles for that !

 

[Hack-Hook]

The naming is done on purpose to confuse the enemy. If the enemy spots a Saegeh it can mean 5 different things.

no the naming is a joke , by the way NATO usually have its own naming for your equipment which I'm sure they don't repeat them if you name 10 thing the same.

 

[SOHEIL]

The above being the case, the copies of RQ-170 look like cheap versions of the original and far from proven.

 

[Rukarl]

Is that really so?

Phantom Ray (U.S.)
View attachment 341944

X-47B (U.S.)
View attachment 341945

Sharp Sword (China)
View attachment 341946

CH-X (China)
View attachment 341947

nEUROn (France)
View attachment 341948

Taranis (U.K.)
View attachment 341949

Kudos to Iran for pulling off such a feat whilst under repressive sanctions, but let's keep things in perspective here.

How exactly did you counter my point here? You posted pic of some UAVs in testing/development, many nations have such UAV's in development. The Americans have had the RQ-170 alone for many years . Are you under the impression that your technology could match American UAV? Sorry but I stand by my statement, American RQ-170 technology is still years ahead of anything you have and at the time it was downed,it was far beyond anything you or anyone else had. Remember I am not talking about the just the Body/shape of the UAV but its electronics etc. Clearly Iran has RQ-170 like platform , but that technology within the original RQ-170 like its sensors etc was extremely advanced.

This isn't something to be upset about. The Americans have much larger resources, better industries etc and thus its natural they're ahead. China, Iran etc are closing the gaps but much more work needs to be done. So yes indeed, lets keep things in perspective.

Contrary to the popular opinion, Iranians are actually very good in the field of robotics and drones.

The above being the case, the copies of RQ-170 look like cheap versions of the original and far from proven.

According to whose "popular opinion" Iran did not have good drone and robotic tech to begin with?

The 1:1 RQ looks identical to the original RQ-170. What on earth are you mumbling about? You're confusing the smaller versions of it. Regardless, the RQ was not stated to be a 100% clone anyway. Minus the air-frame design, the rest of it was suited to Iran's needs. Iranian version uses composite body and is lighter than the American one etc.

 

[LeGenD]

According to whose "popular opinion" Iran did not have good drone and robotic tech to begin with?

You believe that the entire world perceives Iran as a beacon of scientific achievements in the ME? Many do not.

Iranians show lot of stuff on the ground, but not much during operations.

The 1:1 RQ looks identical to the original RQ-170. What on earth are you mumbling about? You're confusing the smaller versions of it. Regardless, the RQ was not stated to be a 100% clone anyway. Minus the air-frame design, the rest of it was suited to Iran's needs. Iranian version uses composite body and is lighter than the American one etc.

From the photos and known information, I do not get the impression that those clones are as good as the original.

Though, suitable to Iran's needs, is good enough.

 

[C130]

Thanks America

thank Obama.

 

[SOHEIL]

From the photos and known information, I do not get the impression that those clones are as good as the original.

Known information!?

Can you elaborate !?

 

[AmirPatriot]

thank Obama.

I lost my water bottle at university... thanks Obama!

 

[KAL-EL]

I lost my water bottle at university... thanks Obama!

Oh yeah? Well I lost my Smallville DVD set... thanks Obama!!

 

[Rukarl]

You believe that the entire world perceives Iran as a beacon of scientific achievements in the ME? Many do not.

Iranians show lot of stuff on the ground, but not much during operations.

Instead of spouting out baseless claims, try to substantiate them. Maybe then people would take you more seriously.
Iran is a scientific power house in the middle east. Who doubts that? You? I have never come across any experts doubt Iran scientific prowess, and certainly not when its comes to other middles eastern nations most of which are backward nations.

From the photos and known information, I do not get the impression that those clones are as good as the original.

Though, suitable to Iran's needs, is good enough.

Are you thick in the head? I just told you not all those UAV's are a clone of the original. Some of them are 40% the size etc. The 1:1 version was never even stated to be a complete copy. How its performance compares will be elucidated later. There is no evidence so far to claim its performance its lower than the original. That just baseless nonesense you're creating for yourself.

 

[LeGenD]

Instead of spouting out baseless claims, try to substantiate them. Maybe then people would take you more seriously.
Iran is a scientific power house in the middle east. Who doubts that? You? I have never come across any experts doubt Iran scientific prowess, and certainly not when its comes to other middles eastern nations most of which are backward nations.

Thanks for telling me something that I already know.

Did you even understand my point? I suppose not.

As for my credibility, I have ample. Do not feel the need to boast about it.

Are you thick in the head? I just told you not all those UAV's are a clone of the original. Some of them are 40% the size etc. The 1:1 version was never even stated to be a complete copy. How its performance compares will be elucidated later. There is no evidence so far to claim its performance its lower than the original. That just baseless nonesense you're creating for yourself.

They are identified as copies of the original by your own media sources. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/01/487166/Iran-IRGC-UAV-Saeqe

 

[Rukarl]

Thanks for telling me something that I already know.

Did you even understand my point? I suppose not.

As for my credibility, I have ample. Do not feel the need to boast about it.

Credibility my behind. You're probably a 13 year old kid.

They are identified as copies of the original by your own media sources. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/01/487166/Iran-IRGC-UAV-Saeqe

I don't understand how someone can be this thick? Use your common sense for a moment. I am telling the information based on what the IRGC head of aerospace stated not what Press tv stated. Those Journalist are even more clueless than you are.

So let me this repeat this for you, and lets hope and pray your brain will compute this time:

1- There are multiple version of the RQ versions in Iran. from 40%, 60% and then 1:1 size.
2- The only similarity between Iranian one and US version is the design of the body's platform. Everything else from materials used, to engine etc is different. How they compare, is not possible to answer at the moment. Now, is this finally clear or do we need 2 year of trying to educate you?

 

[LeGenD]

Credibility my behind. You're probably a 13 year old kid.

Damn right, your behind.

My patience has limits.

I don't understand how someone can be this thick? Use your common sense for a moment. I am telling the information based on what the IRGC head of aerospace stated not what Press tv stated. Those Journalist are even more clueless than you are.

So let me this repeat this for you, and lets hope and pray your brain will compute this time:

1- There are multiple version of the RQ versions in Iran. from 40%, 60% and then 1:1 size.
2- The only similarity between Iranian one and US version is the design of the body's platform. Everything else from materials used, to engine etc is different. How they compare, is not possible to answer at the moment. Now, is this finally clear or do we need 2 year of trying to educate you?

Again, what is the purpose of your argument?

None of that contradicts my point-of-view on the subject. I stated that those drones look like cheap copies of the original design in the pictures. And that their performance is not on par. As a neutral observer, I have my own way of looking at things. I don't feel the need to issue a 'politically correct' statement on this matter.

Your could state your argument in brief that it is too early to comment on their performance and following are the differences. Your hostility and gibberish is entirely uncalled for.

Another member (@SOHEIL) stated that Iranian drones are good enough for Iranian needs. A sound point. No debate over it.

Learn some manners and how to address people.

 

[Rukarl]

Damn right, your behind.

My patience has limits.


Again, what is the purpose of your argument?

None of that contradicts my point-of-view on the subject. I stated that those drones look like cheap copies of the original design in the pictures. And that their performance is not on par. As a neutral observer, I have my own way of looking at things. I don't feel the need to issue a 'politically correct' statement on this matter.

Your could state your argument in brief that it is too early to comment on their performance and following are the differences. Your hostility and gibberish is entirely uncalled for.

Another member (@SOHEIL) stated that Iranian drones are good enough for Iranian needs. A sound point. No debate over it.

Learn some manners and how to address people.

You're just wasting my time and thread space. If you have nothing contructive to say except unsubstantiated gibberish, go play with your toys and cease these useless rants.