Philosopher
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,683
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
- Location
But....that wasn't the original point.
I am aware what you're saying, but my point was as long as the function can be delivered, it's an acceptable starting point.
Not exactly. I meant, even for the size of the rq170, it's still not able to carry a lot of ordinance.
Can't we say the same for other UAV's with internal bay?
Sure, but that's not what's being offered, nor was that the original point being made.
You said that the rq170 and this drone are similar in role and capability, I disagreed.
Just to clarify, I mean the Simorgh UCAV which was based on the RQ platform. As far as the RQ itself is concerned, I agree, it's does not fit the exact same category.
Sure, but that's true for everything. Are we not allowed to speculate with what little information we DO have?
Sure we can, just as long as we're careful when using those speculation as major foundations for our beliefs.
A fully autonomous system wouldn't really counter hacking.
If you have a fully autonomous system, this removes the necessity for outside communication. e.g controlling the UAV etc. If you've created a relatively air-gapped UAV system, how would you go about hacking it?
My point was that the system was, according to the Iranians, relatively easy to hack. It honestly looks like the US half assed its electronic counter measures, because they were confident that the drone would never be seen on radar.
It's hard to assess exactly where the issue lay. Did the American underestimate Iran's E-warfare capability? Was RQ inadequately equipped? I frankly don't have enough information to base an opinion here.
Which I agree with. The gap can be closed, but right now, Pakistan has bigger priorities.
I still don't think this drone is anything more than a concept.
Well we can just sit and watch. I wish our Pakistani friends all the best.