Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iranian drone plane buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I love how quickly all the anti-American posters on here are willing to believe ANY story that has Iran scoring one on the United States. Forget the fact that they know nothing about the credibility of this alleged news source, nor do they care that of the thousands and thousands of news agencies in the world only ONE has chosen to carry this story.

They are willing to take the word of just about anyone, that an Iranian drone (RC plane is more likely!) was able to circle above the most powerful and most advanced aircraft carrier in the history of the world, unnoticed, for 25 minutes. They don't require ANY proof of this alleged mission either. It's an established fact as far as they're concerned.

Meanwhile, a thousand news agencies could post a positive story, verified and confirmed by a thousand independent witnesses, about the US doing something positive somewhere in the world, and these very people will refuse to believe a single word of it. Now let me say for the record that I despise the Iranian regime. I think it is a repressive, Islamofascist dictatorship that is hell-bent on destroying Israel and the US at any cost. And despite my personal opinions, I would never rule out this story with 100% certainty. Unlike some of the people who have posted in this thread, I have independent thought and an OPEN MIND. I feel that it is extremely unlikely that this alleged incident occurred, but simply based on the fact that things never cease to amaze me, I will keep the possibility open that it could have happened.

But the terrorist and Mullah-sympathisers here on ATS have a one-track mind.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I love how quickly all the anti-American posters on here are willing to believe ANY story that has Iran scoring one on the United States. Forget the fact that they know nothing about the credibility of this alleged news source, nor do they care that of the thousands and thousands of news agencies in the world only ONE has chosen to carry this story.
I love the fact that all the chest thumping Yanks are so quick to say its false.

Its highly unlikely the US media is going to report anything that undermines their position.

They will just keep on with the pro US propaganda.

Anyone with a brain will still have an open mind on this.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Nearly all of the media outlets in the US are anti-american, so if this story could be backed up with any kind of proof, the story would be broadcast night and day by CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, they don't track a kid's remote controlled toy plane.

I don't see why its immpossible that the iranians have some thing that could fly over, at who knows what height, an aircraft carrier.


I thought about that, but no kids remote controlled airplane could have the range required to get out there, any drone able to actually get there, would also need to be large enough to have cameras and GPS (or some other guidance) for navigation. All of a sudden its not a kids plane anymore. Not to mention model remote controlled planes, even the ultra high end ones, dont have the kind of altitude that would alow them to be un noticed.

This whole story is absurd. If any of you believe this for half a second, I have a bridge to sell you.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by skippytjc]



I agree that the story has a high degree of absurdity to it.

As a matter of interest here's a pic of what some folks in the R/C hobby are accomplishing.





A scale model of a B52, although the rear horizontal stabilizer may be proportionately larger due to the difficulty in flying an exact scale model.
Has to do with how the small R/C aircraft reacts to full scale air.

23' wingspan, two pilots required due to the complexity factor.
8 genuine turbine engines at $1500. each.

I don't have any range or speed information.
The plane was built by a British modeling group and there's about $30,000. invested along with a lot of time.
It did fly, successfully, but crashed due to the old bugaboo of slow airspeed in the downwind turn.
Unlike a full scale aircraft where you can feel what the plane's doing as well as monitor airspeed, R/C aircraft speeds have to be judged visually and it is difficult.
Video's taken of the crash show the typical stall/turn accident that gets a lot of full scale aircraft and a whole lot more of R/C aircraft.


With the GPS systems available today for not a whole lot of money as well as the abillity to transmit B&W images to a receiving station, a smart group of people could do a remote control drone with off the shelf stuff.

As a small fwiw, some of the leading and best R/C pilots, builders and designers were hired by the gov't a few years back.
Their skills and knowledge base were utilized in the building and flying of drone type aircraft.
Said aircraft larger than the usual R/C model of the time, but small enough to prove the theories at a reasonable cost.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
That RC plane is awesome. I want one.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I love the fact that all the chest thumping Yanks are so quick to say its false.
Its highly unlikely the US media is going to report anything that undermines their position.
They will just keep on with the pro US propaganda.
Anyone with a brain will still have an open mind on this.


For one, i ain't no chest thumping yank, as you put it. For two ,as i have already mentioned before, i seriously doubt that the US were not switched on enough to notice this.

As i said before, how credible is the news source?

I have a brain, that is why i can reply with certain questions that need some answers.

As for having an open mind, well, i always have had, hence the questions. I try and make my own mind up with facts that are given to me that are relevant and make sense.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The nation of Iran has many mountains, the mountains contain an abundance of resources, minerals, ores and such. they should have plenty of capability to physically build drones and/or stealth technology. I will not accept the story as of yet due to lack of evidence and conflicts in reporting. However, I do not put it past Iran to be in possession of fully operational UAV's, and perhaps even stealth ones.

The issue I believe here is many of the people here believe that america has a monopoly on science and information and that no other nation has or has had the ability to develop technology and science on their own, or gather the information that already exists to do so.

Now I honestly will be a realist here, Iran will not win a head on war with America. Thats just like unquestionable. However I will not blindly accept that America will mow the lawn with them without any trouble. I do not believe ANY land incursion into Iranian borders will have any success whatsoever. You HAVE to consider the terrain man!! This is not a big flat open desert with no obstructions and almost cloudless sky all the time. These large tank columns cannot just roll over the field when it comes to mountains. There will be many points where it will get botlenecked, and that is the point where they will suffer massive casualties.

Sure Airstrikes will definetly hurt them, but the Airspace over the critical targets are being watched from satellites, radar, naked eye, and air patrols. Perhaps the air strike may even be succesful, but it is highly likely the majority of those aerial units will not make it back. No doubt due to sheer numbers and superior technology the US will have bombed enough of Iran to rende it unable to engage in anymore offensive or defensive actions against the air force.

The focus will then be on the ground. Homefield advantage and the terrain itself would give this battle to the Iranians As far as I can see. Even with Air support. Your tanks can only go so far when the only navigable terrain is littered with immobilized tanks due to mines, precision ground attacks, basic battle or even the simple equipment failures.

Just wanted to acknowledge that. As far as the story goes, After searching through google and www.onlinenewspapers.com I cant honestly say there is enough credibility or evidence to support the claims of this article. There are just more than a few conflicting claims to make it legitimate.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Skippy- we can only monitor our airspace the way we do because all of the civilian aircraft have transponders.

That being said, consider the source. This is Russian media reporting on what they were told by Iranian officials.

If responsible news agencies accepted that as evidence, we would have been told a few years back that the Republican Guard was anhilating our forces in Iraq just days after we began the invasion.

Of course Iraqi officials were full of it... and so are the Iranians.

Casualties in Iran will be a direct function of the caution and planning undertaken by the United States. It is within our power to choose whether we would like to sustain 50-100 casualties, 500-2,000, or 5,000+. It all depends on how we plan our time table (don't leave ourselves flapping in the breeze for months of bombing just hoping they wont attack, don't rush in like John Wayne either), how clearly we define our objectives (do the job and leave), how appropriately we task our forces (ie, sending enough troops), and of course, whether or not we realistically evaluate their capabilities and plan our targets accordingly (no irrational fear of magical stealth fighters they don't have, no disregard for the fact that they have the SS-22, etc).

It's nothing to worry about. Owned my foot. IF it's true (I'd give it 1 chance in 10- the only way we didn't see it is if our radar was off for some strange reason) we need to plan accordingly, but a UAV can't carry something as large as an SS-22 as far as I know.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I don't think it's impossible, a small slow RPV might not show up on radar as much more than a bird. I don't think a CVN scrambles F-18's for every seagull that flies over it...

On the other hand, if the carrier wasn't in the area at the time, that seems to make the story more than a little bit iffy...



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I love the fact that all the chest thumping Yanks are so quick to say its false.

Its highly unlikely the US media is going to report anything that undermines their position.

They will just keep on with the pro US propaganda.

Anyone with a brain will still have an open mind on this.


I'm hoping that the first line of your post wasn't referring to me. Because if you bothered to read and comprehend my entire post, you would have noticed that I personally didn't find the story to in all likelyhood be correct, but I left the door open to the possibility. Nowhere in my post did I "thump my cheast."

What is almost as amusing as the anti-American posters on here taking uncorroborated stories as fact, is those who don't live in the States telling us what our media is like. I sincerely doubt that you have access to all of the American media that us in the US have. Even if you did, I doubt you spend your days watching, reading and listening to it as many Americans do. Please don't sit there and act as though the American media simply swallows whatever the government throws at them, because that couldn't be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that the majority of our media is constantly at odds with our President and his administration, they make it a high priority to find controversial stories that highlight the mistakes of our government and our troops.

If you turn on the telvision for the evening news here in the US, you don't see many stories about the schools we're building in Iraq, the soldiers we're training, the women we're educating, the elections we're supporting, etc. Rather, you see the protestors in the streets, the IED's killing US troops, the bombs blowing up in markets killing civilians, etc.

So if I want to find out what the BBC or Sky News is reporting, I'll ask someone like yourself who lives in Great Britain. But you're the last person I would want telling me, or anyone else for that matter, the state of the American media. The only propaganda I see at this point is coming from your keyboard.

In closing, the only comment you made that has any logic to it was your last one. As with virtually ANY story, one should always have an open mind until absolute and definitive proof is provided. But in the meantime, we are more than entitled to have a personal opinion as to the likelyhood of this, or any other, story being true or untrue. My personal opinion as of this moment is that this story isn't true. That's not a fact, it's just something that I'd put the house on if I was a betting man.

The irony here is that you mock "cheast thumping" Americans for dismissing this story, yet you say nothing of all the anti-American posters on here who are buying this story and giving it as much credibility as if they witnessed the incident with their own two eyes. If there is anyone here who needs to open their mind up and look at things OBJECTIVELY, it would be you, my friend!

But please, by all means, continue to paint us Americans as well as the US media, of which you view a tiny fraction of, with such a broad brush!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
We are ALL waiting... Where are the pictures Proprog?



When REAL air forces send in recon flights, they come back WITH pictures. Or do remote real time transmits back to their base stations/remote links.

You know... Like those gun camera shots of Iraqi tanks getting vaporized.


Keep it real?



I really like that idea. Do you have ANY idea of the distances involved? Do you have ANY idea of the range of the type of UAVs the Iranian Air Farce/UAV groups use? The capper is of course the guidance system... If this vaunted drone had any real capabilities, we would see that reflected in the rockets they supply the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Don't you think?


Trust me when I tell you that their UAVs are simply not that sophisticated.

Neither is this puff propaganda piece.

Neither is your wishful thinking... 'hundreds of small remote controlled planes'.

It practically took all of their imagineers to get a single UAV to make this imaginary flight.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
First up: Total BS.

Secondly: The comments from some of you members are so predictable I could have wrote them for you.

And lastly: Total BS, its funny how the man gives no details. Always the case...And how would he know what was scrambled? The drone? I thought that was already back in Iranian airspace? let me guess: He had Iranian spies on a stealth raft 100 feet from the carrier reporting on it as well...

I need to go wash off my shoes after wading in all this B.S.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by skippytjc]


lol very good point about knowing what was scrambled, and i like the whole stealth raft, made my night!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Originally posted by Flyer
I love the fact that all the chest thumping Yanks are so quick to say its false.
Its highly unlikely the US media is going to report anything that undermines their position.
They will just keep on with the pro US propaganda.
Anyone with a brain will still have an open mind on this.


For one, i ain't no chest thumping yank, as you put it. For two ,as i have already mentioned before, i seriously doubt that the US were not switched on enough to notice this.

As i said before, how credible is the news source?

I have a brain, that is why i can reply with certain questions that need some answers.

As for having an open mind, well, i always have had, hence the questions. I try and make my own mind up with facts that are given to me that are relevant and make sense.


bikereddie,US news propoganda my a$$ man everyday we have those idiots reminding us of the marines who "brutally murdered iraqis in retalliation of a mirine killed by a bomb" so why dont you watch the news in the us to really see its not propoganda



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
im sry bikereddie read the wrong quotwe thing
meant the other guy you were talking to(flyer)
no hard feelings?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by blackhumvee113]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I think you people are....all biased one way or antoher so this topic really isn't going anywhere.....so what's the point of arguing?.....


Thanks.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poison
I think you people are....all biased one way or antoher so this topic really isn't going anywhere.....so what's the point of arguing?.....


Thanks.


I wouldn't call it an argument as much as a debate. And without good debate and discussion, this site is pretty much impotent. I'm Viagra, and this Flyer guy is some untested and unproven herbal remedy that you get 100 e-mails about everyday. And without misguided folks like him, there wouldn't be much to debate on here!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yes, its POSSIBLE iran sent in a small drone that evaded radar.
its even more possible because the USA have said nothing about it.

Could you imagine them saying
'' Iran sent out a light recon craft that was unnoticed for 20 minutes above our nuclear warship?''
especially after they claim they have the greatest military on earth...
guess they got dooped by those narrow minded peace hating nookular chasing moolah's?

Being Iran just invaded the ships airspace, and COULD of been a potential threat.. wouldnt hte US of been justified in chasing it into Iran and shooting it down ?

using the excuse that they WERNT aware how far they'd flown.. possible because of jamming devices on the UAV..

why would the iranians of risked such a move?
had it been shot down.. and LANDED in the control room of the carrier, killing some captin... wouldnt that of been justification for some sort of minimal action?

Either the USA never knew it was there.. the thing buzzed them..
left, got within 100m of the border.. and some crazy iranian informed them of what happened.

Maybe Iran sent a uav to within SIGHT distance of the carrier..
quickly turned it back.. and over exxaturated what happened?

But why on earth would Russia, the US or even IRAN make up such a claim?

If Iran DIDNT get anything close, surely the US would of released a statement saying its completely false, nothing of the sort happened.. the US technology would of been able to pick it up, its just another outburst from Iran trying to induce the world into action?

Could the crew of the carrier become too secure in there ship.. believing no one would dare invade there space.. and simply didnt look out ?

too many questions to say it did or didnt happen.
But its going to be great to see which ats members are pro us , pro iranian. or just pro war.

If the iranians DID buzz them, well thats bad.
They can get within range to sink carriers.
They can LOCATE carriers, and hit them with there sunburn missles.
They have shown they arent scared of the US military, any smart iranian SHOULD be. unless they have backup.. or something the world doest expect.

Even if iran DIDNT buzz them, but did release the statement to the world, I beleive they are trying again to PROVOKE the west into action.
They probably sent the weakest, crude uav over.. hoping it would get shot down. so they could say the us sent the FIRST punch.
after al the US has been buzzing iran for quite some time, why should they be allowed to spy, and Iran not ?

Iran are poking the US, like a kid brother teases his sister waiting for action.

Iran wants this war because it will be the end of Israel and the USA.

It will be interesting to see the debates coming up, being the US just agreed to enter talks.

It could be the final event that puts bush and iran face to face..
Iran will have the chance to show the world HOW pathetic bush is,
how strong and confident the leader of the muslim nations are,

and how ready the world is for a religous war.

I predict this debate will end in iran screaming down at bush, and the promise for the bombs to start falling.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I wouldnt give Iran any credit on this one if it turns out to be true.


This is clearly Russian folks.


I mean, how else?!?!?!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
This story is true, it just leaves out some important details.

Did anyone notice when it happened, what happened that day, and where it took place?

The UAV was deployed within the waters of the strait of hormuz while the USS Reagan was leaving the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point and there are strict regulations of the sea regarding what warships can and cannot do in choke points.

Turns out, the USS Ronald Reagan couldn't do a damn thing about it when the UAV was detected, and to insure no violation of the "Law of the Sea" USAF fighters were sortied instead of Naval fighters launched.


The following can be found on the United Nations website that governs the "Law of the Sea."

At the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the issue of passage through straits placed the major naval Powers on one side and coastal States controlling narrow straits on the other. The United States and the Soviet Union insisted on free passage through straits, in effect giving straits the same legal status as the international waters of the high seas. The coastal States, concerned that passage of foreign warships so close to their shores might pose a threat to their national security and possibly involve them in conflicts among outside Powers, rejected this demand.

Instead, coastal States insisted on the designation of straits as territorial seas and were willing to grant to foreign warships only the right of "innocent passage", a term that was generally recognized to mean passage "not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". The major naval Powers rejected this concept, since, under international law, a submarine exercising its right of innocent passage, for example, would have to surface and show its flag C an unacceptable security risk in the eyes of naval Powers. Also, innocent passage does not guarantee the aircraft of foreign States the right of overflight over waters where only such passage is guaranteed.

In fact, the issue of passage through straits was one of the early driving forces behind the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, when, in early 1967, the United States and the Soviet Union proposed to other Member countries of the United Nations that an international conference be held to deal specifically with the entangled issues of straits, overflight, the width of the territorial sea and fisheries.


The US wasn't about to break the law it wants in the UN, although many believe the time has come to support a new law.

Naval commanders are briefed regarding how to handle these types of situations. It was training to do the right thing, specifically nothing, that results in some random Russian news report that Iran was flying a UAV in Iranian coastal waters. Wow, what a headline, call the NYTimes!

[edit on 1-6-2006 by darksided]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
it's going to take Iran a lot more than a RC plane if it wants to confront the US.


Do you think an RC plane poses any threat the the Ronald Reagan? Especially if they are already at a choke point in the middle east?

The only way a RC plane could threaten the US is if you could expand the wings another 10 inches so that it would produce enough lift so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could hitch a ride on it.

We have jockeys in the US that are more threatening then this guy.







top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join