It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:50 AM
thank you, you are the only one so far to notice that USAF Planes were sent instead of fighters from the Carrier.

I highly doubt that the Carrier was unaware of the UAV. Aside from the electronic tracking, the Navy still uses human eyes as well to see what is flying about.

Of course if this did happen, then why aren't the Iranians touting it?

Thanks again for the info.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:31 AM
I dont think the US would win a HEAD on war with Iran....
unless they used nukes..

but i wouldnt call that a war if they did.. it call it a stupid mistake leading to the end of mankind.
even bush isnt that dumb.. well chenney at least.

I believe the US wouldnt win a head on war against anyone at the moment.
accept maybe some small under develouped country.. say sudan?

The US military WAS the greatest in its day.
No one else had the Jets, the missles.. and all the carry on they us did.
but now,

EVERYONES technologically advanced. Everyone has something someone else doesnt.

Its no longer a war of who has the best weapons, its a war of

a. who's insane enough to use nukes
b. who's people are FOLLOWING the cause, not being told to FIGHT for the cause.

If the US does attack Iran, the Iranians are fighting for independance, and to resist being OCCUPIED.
unlike Iraq, the Iranians actually enjoy the life they are living under the regime,
they get what they want, they have good infrastructure and a half decent leadership.

The US are already morally SAPPED from Iraq, and the beating they are getting back home in the polls and media..

The USA will never win a war when they arent fighting for a GENUINE reason, or to face of a GENUINE threat.
when you go looking for a fight,

the person your attacking is always stronger than you.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:41 AM
What about Orestes Lorenzo Perez? He was a Cuban fighter pilot who defected to the U.S. in 1991 by flying his MIG-23 straight into a Naval air station in Florida. His fighter was definitely not intercepted, nor even detected by radar, apparently. The media reported that Perez circled the airfield a few times to initiate contact (!) and show his friendly intentions. Clearly not SOP for armed enemy jets entering U.S. airspace but there you have it

A relatively tiny UAV might have done this. I'm not saying I buy the story but clearly stranger things have happened.

Why would anyone expect such a craft to be armed? It's for reconnaissance, not support. Probing defenses like this is routine behavior for all sides.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:13 AM
Had to laugh when i saw this thread..

Give the guys on the Reagon a break,they weren,t used to drinking with a geordie in Dubai. probably still suffering from the effects of copious amounts of smirnoff blue and 4AM chicken takeaways.

BIG SHOUT OUT TO SCOTTY N THE GUYS!!!.Take care and have a safe trip back


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:47 AM
one point that doesnt seem to have been raise yet , is :

if iran really does have a stealth drone capaple of penetrating the defensice screen of an entire CBG undetected , then anouncing it , for some cheap propaganda point has got to be the dumbest course of action possible .

talk about shooting yourelf in the foot by revealing the capabilities of a " secret weapon "

wether the story was true or not -- some one some where in the USN and asosciated support agencies is sure to be taking a fresh look at the subject , very carefully -- to determine detection capacity , and feasible responses to drone assault .

so all iran has done is to highlight a potentional threat , that was very nice of them

OTOH if they had any sense , they would have kept it quite , and modified planned thier atack / and or defence strategy to USN carriers based on the fact that a certain drone could penetrate CBG defences

well thats what i would have done , if i " ran the zoo " , of course YMMV

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:45 AM
Do any of you realize that a few years back Russian fighter aircraft buzzed the deck of the Kitty Hawk, took pictures, AND emailed them to the crew. This was a real event and were caught with their pants down.

On top of that the first plane the carrier launched was an EA-6 Prowler, electronics plane. It would have been shot down had the Russian pilot who was on his tail chosen to do so.

This was a real event that you can look up for yourselves.

* * *

Here would be the Iranian strategy for the ships at sea. The Iranian Air Force isn't much. So they would have to launch their cruise missiles (Sunburn 22) from hidden locations along the coast lines. Perhaps aircraft can get airborne in time to fire additional cruise missiles but I don't know.

The Sunburn 22 cruise missile was developed by Russia to evade enemy defences because the weapon was developed as a cheap weapon to exploit weakness.

For Iran to do damage you can rest assured that they won't just send over one. Or one UAV either. they will send hundreds. The Fleet can shoot down some of what is thrown their way but they won't be able to shoot down everything. It's like in teh 50's with all the big nuclear bomber groups. Many would have gotten shot down but a few would have inevitably made their targets. And a few is all they need.

The Iranian military is not something to laugh at. Iran is not Iraq. Militarily and geographically. When Iraq's army was destroyed it was because they were caught in the open desert. It was a turkey shoot for the airforce. Iran has lots of hills and mountains. Excellent places for underground bases. Excellent areas to launch attacks against the Eastern border of Iraq and the occuation as the American forces move across the Border. Lots of places to ambush the Crusaders.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:35 AM
someone in another forum said that the official behind the claim is Rahim Safavi, Chief Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. I don't think he would make such claim just for propaganda purposes.

There has been many such incidents along the Lebanon-Israel border in which Iranian-supplied UAV intruded into Israeli airspace and after half an hour returned safely.

Hezbollah Drones over Israel

Hezbollah flew a spy drone over northern Israel today, the Lebanese militant group claimed in a broadcast on its TV channel.

Lebanese security officials confirmed the flighty.

“A Mirsad drone of the Islamic Resistance flew over settlements in the northern part of occupied Palestine and later returned safely,” Al-Manar Television said.

Two Israeli military aircraft flew over southern Lebanon shortly after the drone’s flight, Lebanese officials said. Earlier Monday, an Israeli reconnaissance plane flew over southern and eastern Lebanon, the Lebanese Army command said.

It was the second flight over Israel by a Hezbollah drone. The Iranian-backed group sent such an aircraft over northern Israel on November 7, saying it was in response to repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese air space.

Apparently, there is an unknown iranian UAV designed & built for such ops.

The al-Mirsad-2 was built for naval photography. It has been tested twice, both times taking photographs of US warships in the Persian Gulf. The Americans shot at a slow-flying Iranian UAV- but missed.

Iran’s third drone, whose name is unknown in the West, is to be used for long-range reconnaissance flights. It is not yet operational.


[edit on 2-6-2006 by proprog]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:50 AM
I think this is funny.

It's funny because people try to say that Iran is not going to be like Iraq if there was a war. Well they are right. Iran dose have more operational military bases and a stronger military. Basically what this means is that there are going to be more targets for the US. There are units with weapon systems that could not be used in Iraq. They wouldn't be effective because Iraq didn't have the military strength. We are talking about a real war where the US wont just roll right through the country. The US would move slower and be more stratigic but the outcome would be the same. When I say the same, the US would still have the problems with suicide bombers and people using their familys as human sheilds.

Because of those problems the US dose not need another war, however if there was one the US would come out on top. People don't take it well when the US uses certain weapons in cities with large amounts of civilians. Iran has more military targets so the us can use a bigger selection of units.

What it all comes down to is that the US military is better against militarys like Iran.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Styki
I think this is funny.

What it all comes down to is that the US military is better against militarys like Iran.

do you know what is funny? just check the American health stats, and you'll quickly realise that by year 2010 no American can fit into a F-16, hahaha

That's what I call a superior army


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:28 AM

Originally posted by proprog

do you know what is funny? just check the American health stats, and you'll quickly realise that by year 2010 no American can fit into a F-16, hahaha

That's what I call a superior army


do you know what i think is funny , idiots who make up or misrepresent statistics to " prove " a spurious point

so lets quote these " american helth stats " -- i presume you are refering to obesity trends , correct ??

so please put up or shut up -- and attempt to cite the statistics that show that in 4 years NONE of the 100 million + americans listed as " fit for milisary service , 18~49 " will be incapable of getting into a cockpit in just 4 years

you claim to " keep it real " -- imho you are just making it up as you go along

i am tempted to look up some iranian health and mortality trends to see if there are any health issues in iran we can poke fun at

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:29 AM
I'm sorry to be contrary, but launching an attack on Iraq from Iran would be a logistical nightmare when the US is the foe. The highways all bottleneck at the Zagros, creating a choke-point in the supply line to target.

Urban areas control the crossing of the Tigris, making it possible for a light infantry force to hold the line pending reinforcement.

To make an attack (I know I've said this a million times) Iran would have to capture Mosul or Basrah in the first week. Once the airborne starts reinforcing there is no way Iran is crossing the Tigris. Once the Tigris is held, it's only a matter of time till the tanks and arty show up, and if Iran knows whats good for them they'll retreat before that stuff shows up, because if they failed to do so, they'd be caught outside of the mountains and butchered.

The Iraq-Iran border is suitable for defense, and well hidden SS-22 emplacements near the Hormuz would constitute good control of the Gulf. It can be taken though because of America's technological edge. The accuracy of our artillery, our surveillance capabilities, and our ability to insert troops by air will allow us to take the mountains with relatively few casualties given appropriate planning and preparation.

An army on constricted terrain is a tower of toothpicks. It's strength is focused at a very fine point. If you press against the point, it will cut you. If you can press the side, it will snap easily. All you must do therefore, is beat the terrain.

Deep operations would be key to a war with Iran. Air assaults in the mountains, an armored push down the southern coast to Bandar e abbas, and quite possibly an amphibious operation across the hormuz. The superiority of American airpower and surveillance makes the first possible. The superiority of American armor makes the second possible. The third thing is doable obviously- all you've got to do is do number 2 to take the SS22s out of the equation, and the amphib becomes no problem. That would mostly be for show if it was done though. Just our way of warning the North Koreans and reassuring the Taiwanese that there's no beach out of reach.

All America has to do is play it smart. Sufficient forces, careful planning... you know, the basic things you'd expect any first world nation to do before starting a war (which for some reason didn't happen in 2003).

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:53 AM
I think it's just a lie. I mean US has the most sophisticated technology in the world, so how could iran, a not so techy country get a plane through US territory in the first place?
I wish I could find out what kind of URAV it was though...:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:20 AM
Photos please.. We need photos..and more sources..

Like the Kitty Hawk incident.. well documented..

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:43 AM
LMAO, there are some incredibly gullible people in this thread. Once again absolutely no proof, what's even funnier is that some people have no idea of the power of US radars, if they can track an inbound warhead in space, tracking a crappy drone is no problem. Even an American stealth jet would be seen flying over a US carrier, the AEGIS radars in the battle group are just too powerful.

While the SPY-1D has been designed primarily to detect theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) at ranges in excess of 500 kilometers, it also can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers. It has the ability to track multiple targets simultaneously and help the operator determine the nature of the targets. The land-based threats of mortar, artillery and small-caliber rockets pose no detection problem for the SPY-1D.

SY-1D radar

[edit on 2-6-2006 by rogue1]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:56 AM

Originally posted by proprog
I wonder if they could survive iran's awesome sunburn cruise missiles?

The GLORIOUS Sunburn Missile
was neutralized long ago with the advent of the SEARAM missile system. Also, our aegis cruisers would have simply shot down the drone, we would not have taken the time to "scramble" jets. Don't believe the hype. This story is B.S.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:34 AM
While I think that this story is male cow patties, there are a few points that need to be made.

1. While it is the largest ship in the Navy, an aircraft carrier is also the most vulnerable. You don't have to sink it, you just have to make the flight deck unusable. A small RPV with a cluster bomb or some incindiaries could create quite a problem.

2. Military radar is lousy for detecting small, slow, low flying targets. One name here Mathais Rust.

3. Other than the Phalanx system there is no weapons system for engaging small, slow, low flying targets. In 1983 the only protection that the USS Independence had from Ahab the Arab in his stealth Cessna was a Sea King helicopter on patrol with an M-60 machine gun. There has been no improvement in this capability since, except that the Seahawk helos now carry miniguns.

Now, before all of you Iran fans start beating your chests and hanging from pipes, let me give the other side of this situation.

If Iran was "lucky" enough to damage an aircraft carrier, it would be the end of it as a country. Iran would be a huge Red Flag exercise with live ammo. Anything military would be obliterated in a week. There would be no electric, running water or commerce. The US doesn't have to invade Iran, it just has to contain it. That is not a hard thing to do. Before the Iraq the US had nothing other than carriers close enough for sustained operations over Iran, now we have Iraq. Everybody says not to underestimate Iran. Fine. I say don't underestimate the US as well.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499
3. Other than the Phalanx system there is no weapons system for engaging small, slow, low flying targets. In 1983 the only protection that the USS Independence had from Ahab the Arab in his stealth Cessna was a Sea King helicopter on patrol with an M-60 machine gun. There has been no improvement in this capability since, except that the Seahawk helos now carry miniguns.

SEARAM uses the same tracking system as the Phalanx system with a much greater range and can engage more than one threat simulateously. The rolling airframe missile is much like a sidewinder and can engage these targets handily. Measures are being taken against these types of threats.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
SEARAM uses the same tracking system as the Phalanx system with a much greater range and can engage more than one threat simulateously. The rolling airframe missile is much like a sidewinder and can engage these targets handily. Measures are being taken against these types of threats.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

The Phalanx system cannot track a target that is moving slower than 120 knots. When I stated that the Phalanx could engage these targets I ment with the visual tracking system. Even then the target has to be with in one mile.

If I was going to attack a carrier I would do it when the ship was in confined waters (Straights of Hormuz) with rocket firing helicopters. I'd use a patrol aircraft to feed info on the location of the escorts and I would approach the ship at 75 ft altitude and at about 60 knots airspeed. It would take a visual sighting to detect me and by that time it would be too late.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:11 AM
The fleet probably thought it was a model aircraft
Come to think of it a lot of the Iranian stuff looks like models.

No matyrs deaths in those though, unless a hamster can convert to Islam

Even if a "probe" got near to a US vessel, that is a long way from harming it.

I guess any half ass dude who can read a hobby electronics book and was intelligent enough to buy the right components from model shops and Radio Shack etc (that aint hard work is it?) could manufacture a vehicle that may approach undetected. Does not prove a thing IMHO. Whats its weapon load a BB gun?

If such a thing did take place then all I can think of is the threat level that the systems are "tuned" too, are a little off. I mean the system is mostly looking for larger and/or faster threat objects is it not? Even the the stealth technology aircraft
will show up on screens eventually. The signatures are merely reduced to that of a model plane..mmmm..a coincidence?

I can not see how any aircraft could fly over a fleet for 25 minutes and someone not notice. Surely some swabbies would have been on deck swabbing or peeling potatoes or something?

"Hank, what the heck is that?"
"Is it a bird, is it a plane no its an Iranian radio shack stealth technology probe"

"Looks like a model aircraft to me"

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:27 AM
I get a real kick out of you armchair generals saying how easy Iran would be, more targets to hit, invade this, take out that...bla bla bla....Incase you just landed on Earth, your loosing in Iraq, its a goddam mess and there is no way an occupation of Iran would work. A war with Iran will result in the death of many many Americans here and abroad...But your cool with that right? just as long as we bomb them. Sure, drop bombs, kill a few hundred thousand innocents and then never get a wink of sleep again and your pals in Isreal....doomed....But you like the bloodshed, right?

Here is a novel idea for you armchair generals, ball up biotchs, enlist, get you arse over there and let 'em know your ready to fight Iran for Americas freedoms. Tell 'em your sick and tired of the ragheads NOT agreeing with Condalizards garble, tell 'em, it ill be easy cause you figured it all out back home while playing on ATS. Buck up soilder boy if you got the taste for blood and the hate for Iran.

Its a true coward who sits 10000 miles away, in saftey and calls for the distruction of real people he has never met.

Now of course, if you don't support war then disregard that

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in