It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by proprog

very true. Once Iranians ged rid of all US warships in the gulf (mission kill) and take full control of the strait, then it becomes a nightmare. without any oil flow, it could so simply turn into a global crisis.

Any thoughts?


yes -- it works both ways


sealing the straits from the outside , is just as easy -- and irans abilities to break out are limited , to say the least


saudi oil can be run to red sea ports [ via tapline , petroline etc to yambu - and other ports ]

iraqi oil likewise via overland pipelines can go via jordan -- at reduced capacity

iran has homouz , and thats it -- iraq and russia are not going to buy oil from iran why would they , and hosww -- no pipes -- and china would want to , but again HOW ???

also the " rest of the world " - can pick up increased production from nigeria , venezela , russia , canada , brunei etc etc etc

closing the staits = iran shooting itself in the balls

you could kiss " arab street opinion " goodbye in an instant -- as kuwait , barhain , UAE and 30 to 60 % of saudi oil must flow through the straits [ unless MASSIVE works are undertaken to bypass them ]

iranian foreign revenes are 95 % oil generated - so for iran to interdict the straits wold be virutal suicide .



[edit on 2-6-2006 by ignorant_ape]




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
There is a giant assumption being made that just because the US did not shoot down this "UAV", it did not know about it. As a member of two carrier crews during my Navy stay, we were "flown-by" many, many times. By russian, chinese, you name it. However we didn't shoot any of them down. A direct vertical overflight could have been considered a provocation and defensive measures taken, but nobody did that. My point is this, an iranian UAV could have been in the vicinity of a US carrier with the carrier fully aware of it and no action taken. It even could have been allowed to linger, so that US could garner info on the controlling freqs being used, so that it needed, we could jam the sucker and let it fly around useless.

I really, really doubt that USN would spend the fuel to launch against an RPV! There's no purpose to it.

A previous poster asked about whether alert AC are maintained 24/7. In our day, the ship only kept planes on 5 and 15 min alerts when the threat posture was high enough to warrant it.

To the poster gloating about the Kitty Hawk. I could see the same thing here, launching an EA-6B makes lots of sense. You can jam, jam, jam. If it would have been a shooting situation, incoming planes would have met Mr. Tomcat way back!

Carriers do get caught with their pants down. They are not invincible and the USN knows that very well, thank you! Remember that carriers operate in a battlegroup concept. Carriers have vulnerabilities that are supposed to be covered by other units in the 'group. Carriers are very tough, structurally. UAV with 20kg charges are only going to peel the non-skid off the flight-deck. DON'T FORGET THAT MUCH OF THIS THREAT (Sunburns, Kilos etc) HAS BEEN PLANNED AGAINST FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES!!!!!!!!! Granted, the threat updates but so do the defenses. Also remember that carriers are used offensively in war. They don't sit around and wait for hordes of SSM's, UAV's and balsa wood gliders carrying 8 oz of C-4 to attack.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by scarecrow19d
It was out of action for a time, but was able to sail away under its own power.


Ever hear of the term "mission kill"?


Yes I know exactly what you are talking about, my point was that the Forestal had at least a half dozen 1,000 pound bombs explode on the Flight Deck. I recall the training film from Basic, the Chief with the Purple K and his team just disappear after one blast.

My point being that it takes an incredible amount of power to even disable a Carrier and that was a smaller carrier then what we use now.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by scarecrow19d
[Yes I know exactly what you are talking about, my point was that the Forestal had at least a half dozen 1,000 pound bombs explode on the Flight Deck. I recall the training film from Basic, the Chief with the Purple K and his team just disappear after one blast.

My point being that it takes an incredible amount of power to even disable a Carrier and that was a smaller carrier then what we use now.


All you have to do to disable a carrier is to damage the flight deck. I am not talking about sinking the ship. When you saw the movie "Trial By Fire" what had happened to the aircraft? If the flight deck, catapults or arresting gear are damaged all you have left is a 1200 ft cruise ship. One Rockeye or its equivilant can damage a carrier bad enough that it would have to return to the US for repairs.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
In the first official response, US denies claims iranian drone buzzed US aircraft carrier.

Well, Am I surprised? NO.
this kind of answer was expected. The USN would never admit to such an embarassing occurence even if it did happen.

Now All Iran has to do is release de pictures taken by the UAV, and prove them wrong.

Another embarrassing failure


Navy refutes Iran claim that UAV buzzed Reagan


A news item that an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle loitered over the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf was refuted by Navy officials this week.

“It was an erroneous report,” said Lt. Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.


On Thursday, a United Press International wire story cited a report from Azerbaijan’s Trend news agency quoting Iranian officials and Iranian news service claims that a pilotless drone flew over the Reagan for 25 minutes before descending back into Iran.

The news item also claimed that the Reagan dispatched four fighter aircraft and two helicopters but the UAV got away.

The report comes at a time of heightened international tensions over Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.

Mann said 5th Fleet officials in Bahrain “categorically denied” the event took place and “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.”

The Reagan is on her first deployment after being commissioned in 2003.

Reagan relieved the carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the gulf in February. Reagan left the gulf on May 22 and is returning to San Diego.

An anonymous Iranian official quoted in the wire story would not say when the UAV allegedly flew over Reagan.




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Oops, double post

[edit on 3-6-2006 by proprog]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
In the first official response, US denies claims iranian drone buzzed US aircraft carrier.

Well, Am I surprised? NO.
this kind of answer was expected. The USN would never admit to such an embarassing occurence even if it did happen.

Now All Iran has to do is release de pictures taken by the UAV, and prove them wrong.

Another embarrassing failure


another unevidenced claim by foreign sabre rattlers more like


another example of the strange mind set which assumes that whatever the US says is false and what ever any one else says is true



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by proprog
In the first official response, US denies claims iranian drone buzzed US aircraft carrier.

Well, Am I surprised? NO.
this kind of answer was expected. The USN would never admit to such an embarassing occurence even if it did happen.

Now All Iran has to do is release de pictures taken by the UAV, and prove them wrong.

Another embarrassing failure


another unevidenced claim by foreign sabre rattlers more like


another example of the strange mind set which assumes that whatever the US says is false and what ever any one else says is true


What's wrong with you people?


I just said they would never ever admit to such occurences even if it did happen? if you think they would, man, you have serious problem

Not to mention, I'm still waiting for the pix of the incident.

KEEP IT REAL



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Kind of hoping the war starts soon, so we can tell Proprog...

Told you so.

THAT is 'Keep(ing) it real'.

Watch the mighty Iranian (Ohh... ) Revolutionary Guard run home to mama.

Hey Proprog, you've got it backwards... YOU are the one that is supposed to supply the pictures! As proof of the Iranians Imagineers major accomplishment.



What do you guys think?



[edit on 3-6-2006 by golemina]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The fact that Reagan was in fact in the area gives a little more credence to the story.
That said, I don't doubt that Iranian officials would exaggerate the story for the propaganda value. Still, the claim could easily be proven if they'd release pictures taken by the UAV, which they apparently have not.

As for the threat posed by the UAV to a 100,000+ ton CVN, obviously it doesn't amount to much of a direct threat. On the other hand, used as a targeting platform to pinpoint the vessel's location for other platforms, I can see it being useful.

As for the macho back and forth posturing in this thread - please grow up people. A war with Iran would prove to be costly and tragic for both sides. War is no joke kids... tens of thousands will die in such a conflict.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Tens of thousands? More millions... From simulations by the american military, only the air strikes on nuclear installations will cost 3 millions deaths from the iranian side. And this number imply that iranian don't move and don't attack anyone and that the war end there. So there will be a hell much more deads if the US really attacks Iran.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The fact that Reagan was in fact in the area gives a little more credence to the story.
That said, I don't doubt that Iranian officials would exaggerate the story for the propaganda value. Still, the claim could easily be proven if they'd release pictures taken by the UAV, which they apparently have not.


LOL, gee I guess in yur estimentation of teh Iranians, they don't use the internet, because anyone with a half assed knowlege of google could look up and see which US aircraft carrier was in the Persian Gulf
.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Tens of thousands? More millions... From simulations by the american military, only the air strikes on nuclear installations will cost 3 millions deaths from the iranian side. And this number imply that iranian don't move and don't attack anyone and that the war end there. So there will be a hell much more deads if the US really attacks Iran.


LMAO, how exactly would 3 million Iranian deaths result from a US air attack, the USAF and RAAF could only manage about 800 000 German deaths from 5 years of MASSIVE bombing of German cities



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I think 3 million is probably an exaggeration. On the other hand, bombing nuclear facilities, some of which are in or near urban areas, is likely to release a lot of radioactive material into the air, and kill a lot of innocent civilians.

If the conflict can't be contained to a simple set of airstrikes, and ends up with a wider war requiring a land invasion and occupation of the country, a death toll in the millions is entirely possible. I'd expect a lot more resistance from the civilan population in Iran than we've seen in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, which is an artificial country concocted after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, with a weak sense of national identity, Iran is almost totally dominated by Persians, and as you can see on this board, even somewhat westernized Iranians are strongly nationalistic, and would resist any invasion.

[edit on 6/3/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I think 3 million is probably an exaggeration. On the other hand, bombing nuclear facilities, some of which are in or near urban areas, is likely to release a lot of radioactive material into the air, and kill a lot of innocent civilians.

If the conflict can't be contained to a simple set of airstrikes, and ends up with a wider war requiring a land invasion and occupation of the country, a death toll in the millions is entirely possible.


I stillf ail to see why everybody talks about invasion
If teh US really wanted to occupy the country, they could just strike a deal with the CHinese and Russians to provide garrison troops.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
.......
Another embarrassing failure


We will wait and see which side is embarrassed.
Still no confirmation from Iran on this one.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Tens of thousands? More millions... From simulations by the american military, only the air strikes on nuclear installations will cost 3 millions deaths from the iranian side.


Please post where you get your information on U.S. simulations. Such statements need backing.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Tens of thousands? More millions... From simulations by the american military, only the air strikes on nuclear installations will cost 3 millions deaths from the iranian side.


Please post where you get your information on U.S. simulations. Such statements need backing.


I am not sure where he gets his info, but I know where I get mine...

The only simulations I have heard about are the ones put out publically by China and Russia last year. Since China and Russia do not typically put out simulation results, it caught my attention.

Basically the models they both used say Israel would attack first, Iran would counter agianst Israel and the US, and as soon as they attacked the US it was game over.

The problem both countries found is the situation always escelated into something uncontrollable, and resutled in anything from a massive economic impact to a regional scale war that couldn't easily be contained.

FYI, Paul Levian, a former German intelligence officer, wrote some about the wargames in an Asia Times article, you can read it here. In those simulations, millions of people died before it was said and done as war spiraled out of control.

As for the wargame results, they were online for a few weeks, but came down shortly after the Asian Times article. You can thank Google for shutting down free speech from China.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I can't see how this is supposed to be a trick by the iranians. They don't state that the US didn't detect the thing at all, they state that the US detected it at the last minute. So the US military knows that this is true, or knows that this is false, they will know if they did or did not detect the device and scramble their own jets. And since the military hasn't stated that no such event occured, it almost certainly did.


edit: I see that they did deny it. So they could be lying. It would be facile for the iranians to prove the US wrong. Lets see if they do.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
move along -- nothing to see
, i posted in reply to a post that has been edited

[edit on 5-6-2006 by ignorant_ape]




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join