I'm sure many of you have already read about this, but this was the first I'd seen the video of it "flying". This is no way that is an actual plane capable of flight. So the question is, who do they think they are fooling? The US? Their own government? The outer procinces of the country? I've found this whole thing so interesting and honestly a bit hilarious.
See, let's talk about this.
The "it's plasticky and obviously fake" charge was leveled against the RQ-170 they dragged out, and then once the US said "yeah, that's our UAV" all the nay-sayers pretended they'd never said anything. Frankly, a carbon fiber airframe with a carbon fiber skin could be built in 1 piece. You'd see no "rivets." There aren't any on the F-117A, for example, nor on any of our UAVs.
The "it's completely un-airworthy" comments - air ducts too small, not enough wing area - could be leveled against the Foland Gnat which not only flies, it flies well enough to be desirable by well-to-do aviation enthusiasts. We won't even get into comparisons with the BD-5J.
Now, granted - the BD-5J barely flies. Roger Moore aside, the thing needs 2 miles of runway at sea level just to get up to speed and can't even take off over 5000 feet. But it is a plane. And if all you're looking for is something stealthy that you can put a couple missiles in, actual performance doesn't really matter. I mean, The X-24B will fly. Just not very well.
If I had to guess what's going on, I'd guess that Iran is designing this plane. I'd guess they flew an R/C prop to test airworthyness and radar cross-section - an un-manned Have Blue, if you will. And I'm guessing that Iran's propaganda ministry wanted something to "impress the west" and so they over-reached, built a mock-up, and had Ahmadinejad pretend it was real.
So in a way, I agree with you - what we've seen flying isn't what we've been told is flying. But I also disagree - what we've been shown could fly, probably will fly, and represents PR over-reach rather than full-court bullshit.