Iran broadcasts spyplane footage of US fleet in Gulf

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
why would the military care about this small toy plane taking pictures. they want them to take the pictures, so that they can look at what is going to hit them if this nuke oil thing starts to go. it is called a show of force. it is a military tactic used to scare the enemy into doing what the u.s.a wants. i mean if you saw this activity at your doorstep would you not be scared and wonder. we'll yeh. sure the military let the drone thru. when i was in the military on a ship they use to let some drones do a fly by only if the outside of the ship ," on the deck", had no secret aircraft or materials outside being moved around. but yeh, we shot down some drones before. and it is not an act of war to shoot down an unmanned drone.marcopolo. and mazzroth you are absolutely right, there is a bigger player in the game. the player so to speak is the oil. all nations need it, and yes we cannot contaminate it with nukes and we certainly will not blow it up , we need it. why do you think that saddam ordered the wells to be set ablaze in dessert storm, i was there. he knew the scorched earth policy. we all need the oil , why do you think," we all as nations", rushed over there to cap the wells. this whole thing is a nation problem. if iran does not back down to the nations needs we will go over by force. we did not choose the location of this oil, unfortunately saudi arabia, iran are major contributors in the nations oil. the president of iran will not back down," this is my opinion". this hitler re-incarnate will try to domminate the world with blackmail and threaten the nations oil with nuke bombs. this blackmail the nations will not accept. russia, does not care. they have enough oil in their own country to sustain itself. unfortunately U.S.A does not, and some of our allies do not either. our small spots of oil, canadas oil does not compare to the oil usa needs to sustain itself. this is why i say, we will go to war with iran. this iraq invasion was only to destroy the powers at be there so the nations get their oil. iran is the next on the list, that is why this is a planned war. we as nations will not allow this to happen. we will go to iran in february, it is planned, we little pawns in america will not be able to stop it. it will happen, this has been in the works for some time, why because our gov't knows the time frame when we as americans will run dry of our own sources. this has been in the works, to invade iran, change the gov't there for the benefit of the nations at power. i know what i am talking about.




posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I spent two six month periods in the Gulf region in 1995 -1996. At that time I was a radar operator onboard a type 42 destroyer of the Royal Navy. I can tell you all that this footage is real and up to date. However wether it was taken from an unmanned drone or a maritime patrole aircraft I couldn't say.
Twice a day back in 1996 we were overflown by an Iranian P3C orion maritime patrole aircraft. The Iranians were quite open about the patrole and overflew the fleet at extremely low altitudes. the reason that they were never shot down is because their IFF (identification, friend or foe) transponder was transmitting a code that clearly identified it as an Iranian maritime patrole aircraft.
You can't just go shooting aircraft down for flying overhead. Do you remember back in the 1980's when an Iranian airbus passenger aircraft was shot down for not transmitting the correct IFF code ? nobody wants that to happen again.
Filming the fleet from an aircraft is no great shakes. It probably happens daily. In fact the ships filmed would no doubt have there own footage of the aircraft flying overhead. filmed from their remote cameras mounted on the bridge wings.
I am sure that every military ship out in that region can tell the difference between a missile and a patrol aircraft. A missile travels at close to or faster than the speed of sound, patrole aircraft reach no where near these speeds. A missile does not transmit an IFF code and both missiles and aircraft have completely different Radar signatures.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
since the aircraft carrier is operating in international waters with no restrictions on the airspace above it, why couldn t a civilian airplane have taken this photo? i see this as more iranian bullcrap and flatulence.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I agree,
the photo may look like an old photo, but then again Ive seen the footage from American UAV's... and they are grainy and appear out dated also.

I beleive Iran does have the abiltiy to spy on these ships.
And that to me looks like an american A/c,

Whats so wrong with Iran spying on these ships anyways?
Arent the USA doing it to EVERYONE?

double standards eh...

because bush declares them the enemy, we are allowed to spy on them.. in the interest of national security..

but lord behold.. should they want to find out what that Large, destructive, hostile fleet is doing on there coastline... no now that just cant happen.

Did America know this was there...
possibly.

They probably didnt shoot it down because

A. They arent ready to start this conflict yet
B. They couldnt positivley idenfitify it
C. It could of been the Israeli's
D. They could research it a little and find out its capabilities
E. They simply didnt expect Iran to be so brason, thus never really watched out for it.

Who cares, point is... If america does intend on going after Iran... They'd better be prepared to lose alot of men, a lot of hardware and a chunk of there economy.

you ask me, thats a lot to lose, simply for a friend, all be it not a very good one.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by avriel
I spent two six month periods in the Gulf region in 1995 -1996. At that time I was a radar operator onboard a type 42 destroyer of the Royal Navy. I can tell you all that this footage is real and up to date.


Hey, thanks for weighing in. Glad to have an expert opinion here.

Confirmed my thought that this is real.. and those planes aren't F4s.


Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by mazzroth
Its really quite irelevent as to the location of the US fleet in the Gulf, a single Sunburn Missile can wipe out a carrier in seconds.


Complte and utter bollox, one Sunburn cannot wipe out a carrier it only carries a 320kg warhead


It will be as good as wiped out. What's going to launch from a messed up deck? Not much, maybe Harriers if you were desperate.

[edit on 12/11/06 by SteveR]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
"Whats so wrong with Iran spying on these ships anyways?
Arent the USA doing it to EVERYONE?"

I dont think Americans are complaining about it, its the Iranians who are the ones talking about it like its some great feat.

The smart thing for the USN to do is just to let it fly over. Big deal, so the Iranians will see there are F/A-18s on a carrier. Gives the US a chance to learn more about Iranian UAVs.

Some here seem to think that because the Navy didnt send fighters up, that they didnt know the UAV was there. They probably did, but they dont have to react, reacting just gives the other side information.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The Navy probably knows that the UAV was there. Heck after all we know the navy could have sent the ships in to stirr trouble. If the United States would have fired down the UAV I still remain confident that it could have been an act of war. Theoretically the thought provoking act of them firing footage of carriers with planes on top would allow us to gather intelligence on their intel

As I suppose I could see that in sometime in the near future the iranians could fire dozens of missiles on the aircraft carrier. Then the missiles could fundementally mess up the aircraft carrier and if the UAV spy drone planes the Iranians has contained Weapons they most certainly would be shut down. If the US fired down the spyplane that would certainly be looked on as an act of war. For all serious motions of all things in life, this would result in war.

Then again-- I still say that we can barely hold our own against our other countries-- maybe if we face a country with similar tech we can better understand it.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
If Iran could get a Armed UAV within 10 miles of a battle group I would be very surprised. I don't think We would give them the chance. Its not like our boys are sitting off the coast eating cheetos and playing ping-pong. Belive me when I say that our boys are watching from the deck and from way above.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You can tell what it's not because of the angle on at which the deck widens on the port side. Most older carriers feature very sharp expansions of the deck at near-right angles just behind the bow. Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Enterprise class all looked something like this on the port bow (this one is Kitty Hawk).




The Iranian photo looks a bit like Nimitz. JFK, despite similarities to Kitty Hawk, also has that slanted bow.


Now, what about Kuznetsov? I found it on Google Earth, in drydock at 69 degrees, 02'26.61" North by 33 degress, 04'07.40" East. It also has a very sharp angle on the port bow.

So the carrier in question is almost certainly American, probably a Nimitz.


That leaves the question of how the Iranians located it and got a UAV over it, and why America put up with it.

The USS Eisenhower joined the 5th fleet in the Gulf on October 31st. Eisenhower is Nimitz class and would have had to pass through the straight of Hormuz to enter the Gulf, a place where Iran has the sovereign right to overfly, would need minimal technical means to locate the carrier, and where the US wouldn't have any reason to fire on a UAV unless first threatened.

Come to think of it, the last time Iran claimed to buzz us, it was also while a carrier was entering the gulf, wasn't it?

Now, does anybody else wanna talk about how doomed America is over this childish little Iranian stunt, or play armchair intel analyst over how old the photo is, or can we just accept the obvious? The facts all add up for recency (the quality of the photo best explained by how bass ackwards Iran is) and they also add up to this being completely insignificant.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Big whoop....they had the thing on radar long before it ever got close and if they had felt like it was a threat it would have been beaming back pictures from the bottom of the gulf.

Amazing how people think this is some indication of weakness in our defenses.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Well Vagabond, appreciate the extra work there, and your logical conclusions drawn. Seeing as that was probably the most valuable input so far on this thread imho, for that:


You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


However. I must disagree with you as to the significance of this event, in that clearly, even as an American myself, it does kinda give me the feeling that "Hey, if they wanted to they could have, and the carrier would have been caught by surprise." How really valid that is, I don't know. But the notion of Iran being able to video tape the fleet at will is startling to me, and surprising. Then again, I don't hang out in the military forums much, and so really don't know what to expect and where our true weaknesses are.

Getting or seeing stock military footage is one thing, but to see a picture from a spyplane of a US carrier in real world deployment in such a volatile environment is unusual to me. Can't military anylists tell certain things from pictures like those? You telling me the US absolutely does not care at all about pictures like these being taken?



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
However. I must disagree with you as to the significance of this event, in that clearly, even as an American myself, it does kinda give me the feeling that "Hey, if they wanted to they could have, and the carrier would have been caught by surprise."


Thanks for the vote bro.

As for the significance, I don't feel as if the carrier was completely safe, but I don't think the drone's pictures enhance that fact in any way.

It isn't as if the carrier didn't see the drone coming in all likelihood. Odds are we just couldn't do anything about it without committing an act of war. Now, the Iranians could have surprised us by hitting that carrier out of the clear blue sky with a couple of missiles (presumably larger missiles fired from shore or from something of Corvette size) but that's been a possibility for years, and doesn't make strategic sense for Iran. We've known of that danger AT LEAST since General Van Ripper made a great big mess out of the pre-Iraq wargames in 2003.

As far as the military significance, as in what the drone flight means for US Capabilities when entering the gulf under open hostilities with Iran: that's where I think the true insignificance of the event shines through. We would see it coming and we would down it. Shore launched ramjet cruise missiles pose the greatest danger, being harder to detect in flight and easier to hide than anything on a naval vessel, and we'd be aware of that danger and bomb the snot out of the area around Bandar-e-Abbas appropriately.


So I'd analogize in this way: Suppose that some guy said he could get a shot in on Bruce Lee, then one day they shake hands at an autograph signing, and the guy says "see, I was right there, I coulda done it!"

Well, yeah, he probably could have. He never would have used that arm for anything else again, but he coulda done it, strictly because of the venue. If that same guy had walked up on Bruce Lee in a dark alley somewhere though, he never woulda had the faintest chance of getting a shot in.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Certainly a great analysis to illustrate your point Vagabond, although maybe I should have been clearer as to what kind of significance I am talkin here. Militarily, this may mean nothing at all, but to the average American, and even to some foreigners who hold America's military to the high standards that they do, the fact that Iran can obtain this footage comes as a smack across the face. That's about the way it hit me, anyway.

But I'm glad to hear this means nothing, happens all the time, and that Iran has libraries full of spyplane footage of anything that ever sailed the seven seas.
First time I've ever heard that the exact location of our fleet was so widely known, and unclassified as dj put it earlier. It doesn't make sense at all to me from a strategic standpoint. So I suppose Iran has underwater cameras mounted on little mini subs too, buzzing around merrily with all the fish and taking pictures of all our subs? Lol, just nvm.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
like i said earlier , they want them to take pictures, it is a military tactic, show of force. and if any of there people see it , they talk. that is what they want. show of force. if irans president does what he says he is going to do then we are going to invade.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmericanBut I'm glad to hear this means nothing, happens all the time,

Touche I suppose.


First time I've ever heard that the exact location of our fleet was so widely known, and unclassified as dj put it earlier.


Rest assured that Iran lost track of that carrier within a couple of hours. There's not much hiding in the straight of Hormuz. If you're planning on entering the gulf, it's fairly easy for almost anyone to wait for you to show up and snap a few pictures. If Iran really wanted to send shockwaves through the strategic community by revealing a new capability, they'd be locating ships in open water, or at least out in the gulf, not just pointing whenever it passed through a narrow waterway. The presence of our ships in Canals, straights, and ports is readily known when they go there. Only when operating in open waters is secrecy at all possible.



It doesn't make sense at all to me from a strategic standpoint. So I suppose Iran has underwater cameras mounted on little mini subs too, buzzing around merrily with all the fish and taking pictures of all our subs?


I don't know about Iran, but the Koreans try it from time to time. The only problem is that every once in a while one of their mini-subs gets caught in Japanese fishing nets and the crew ends up committing suicide when they no longer have enough ammunition to hold Japanese police at bay.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Anybody who thinks Iran has a weapons system that could take out a state-of-the-art U.S. Naval Vessel is simply living in LA-LA Land. Give me a break.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I don't think they were caught unaware...

In the video here...

Click me

@ 3:08 into it you can see an aircraft launch, plus it appers that there were several aircraft in the air allready...



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
Anybody who thinks Iran has a weapons system that could take out a state-of-the-art U.S. Naval Vessel is simply living in LA-LA Land. Give me a break.


Dont be too quick to discount the effectiveness of the Sunburn anti ship missile that the Iranians have, they are a deadly serious weapon.

Simply dismissing the potential of an adversary can have undesired consequences!



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I don't think they were caught unaware...

In the video here...

Click me

@ 3:08 into it you can see an aircraft launch, plus it appers that there were several aircraft in the air allready...


Son of a gun! THAT'S IT!!!

Awe damn, I had written an email to Al-Alam requesting a link on the net to the footage, and was hoping to surprise ya'll. But they still have not replied. Note that footage was just uploaded! Jedi, you are da MAN!



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
So an Iranian UAV takes pictures of USN assets and yes recon is a critical aspect of military planning, but in this case does it really undermine he capabilities of the USN?

a) If an UAV can infiltrate US Carrier Battle Group defences, then it is easy to achieve anti ship strikes against the carrier: Nope, I don't think so. A carrier is never alone, it has a complement of ships and subs that specialize in specific combat tasks.
Plus, not only are all these ships on high alert when crossing sensitive areas such as the Strait of Hormuz, they also have satellite coverage to detect heat signatures of missile launches. Surprise missile launches are possible but the thing is that surprise missile "strikes" are very tough things to achieve.



b)USN should've shot down the UAV: Well professional navies tend not to act without considering civilian authority. Those waters are international waters and Iran has the same rights to them as the US. While protocol does define certain military ROE between navies (overflights over military vessels), these rules often get bent or broken on a regular basis. You seriously cannot show off your military prowess everytime an aircraft breaches sercurity perimeters as it multiples the chances of armed conflict and lets face it, everyone does that.

There are ample cold war examples by both sides of such overflights of "lost" civilian (and military) flights over military facilities where shooting the errant aircraft down would have turned very serious (as happened in the Sakahlin island case). The "Cowboy" image of the US notwithstanding, they are a very professional force.



c)The US will get a bloody nose in a war with Iran: Context, context, context. Context is the key for understanding military outcomes. Vietnam; the role (as ill defined as it was) was as an occupier facing an unconventional enemy. Gulf War II; combat environment similar to Vietnam, an organized and vsible military force against a fragmented (though still very lethal) and hidden guerilla force.

On the other hand, take Gulf War I, where containment was the main aim, not occupation and all the Iraqi forces deployed in classic military formations got hammered and pushed back. After this, Iraq, a substantial force in the region, is reduced to a much smaller power.

I don't think Iran will make a similar geopolitical mistake. Yes if it comes down to it, the US would get a lot of bodybags coming in, but I don't think the Iranian military would be whooping with joy for a long time either.

And one more thing, someone said Tridents are outdated and a 60s technology. Technological obsolesence matters if you have something comparable. Not having a similar capability or a countermeasure against it means that this "obsolete" tech is going to kill one as stone dead as a state-of-the-art tech.



To conclude, while all these are just theories, nonetheless while refuting them please rationalize your answers. Military operations aren't about achieving a single surprise attack or recon mission against the enemy but also about having ability to withstand counter punches. Don't you think a surprise Carrier strike where 5000+ die would inflame the Americans when all they did was patrol the sea and weren't even engaged in aggressive military operations. Plus, do you really think that any of the countries that regularly launch political triades against the US would step out and help the Iranians in war?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join