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.

 

Iran shoots down US drone – state TV

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Anyone militarily knowledgeable know how tough a target a drone is?


It is very very easy.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
source is rt news in this thread and presstv in the other.
man, somebody wake me up if it hits a more reliable source.


It is being reported on Fox News and CNN right now. Is that reliable enough for you?

Sending a drone into Iran is an act of war. It would be an act of war if China were sending drones into the US. This is a perfect example of why people in other countries hate us. We are in their lands, we violate their countries airspace and we do what we please. The US is the bully.

I would like to know who authorized sending drones into Iran and why.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bruwin
 


The race of people they want wiped out also want their race wiped out. So what's the difference?? Oh yeah the US backs up one of those races for some apparent reason.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

muzzleflash- still though, what is the production/deployment cost of a Sentinel?
edit on 4-12-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


That information appears to still be classified.

The best thing I can find is this official document where they list acquisition costs for other related programs.

The Predator drone cost roughly 5 to 10 million US $ in FY1997, so if we use that as a template I would go ahead and guess that the RQ-170 Sentinel could cost anywhere from 10 to 35 million US $ per aircraft. That's all a guesstimate though, because I cannot find any sources listing it's actual price tag.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
It'll take a couple days to see what the "official" spin will be if it was unplanned or unforeseen.

Planned events like 9/11: instant talking points already prepared and ready to go, all outlets echo same day.
Unplanned events: almost always take a couple of days to get going.

The Iran war is on a schedule and a timeline, if this fits into what they want to do or was planned is hard to tell, but there will be indicators.

I've noticed a pattern especially through some radio talk show hosts, they'll come out right away with something and many times do a complete 180 a couple days later where the new line is echoed everywhere else too.

Must take a day or two to decide on strategy for feeding the sheeple nonsense.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
that's like saying i should take obama and company serious at every news conference.
i just don't trust media in general.
i'm not saying it didn't happen, i'm just saying stating something as fact before it's really prooven is jumping the gun.
in other words, you're saying rt and press tv have been 100% accurate in all of their reporting.


No, actually I'm not. Thanks for the assumption though


Please explain to me what source is most reliable in reporting things that happen within Iran? Because I refuse to accept that any source within Iran is automatically lying because they are the perceived "bad guys".

PS: No news source or news article is 100% accurate, ever. That's just a utopian ideal.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bruwin

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

And I wonder how this news will be spun in the Western mainstream media. I bet, just like the other incidents, it'll just be ignored because the fact that the US is the aggressor here doesn't fit into the whole "Iran is a dangerous terrorist nuclear state that must be stopped" agenda.



Iran wants of whole race of people wiped of the face of the earth and America is the threat? Really? I think it's unfortunate that we are only sending drones over their air space. A squadron of B-52s would be much more appropriate.


Iran "wants a whole race of people wiped off the face of the earth"? And your solution is to wipe Iran off of the face of the earth with a "squadron of B-52s"?

WTF are you smoking?


edit on 4-12-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Sending a drone into Iran is an act of war.


This is very muddy water actually.

Consider this:
Why isn't having spy satellites fly over a nation considered an act of war?

Do you have to be at a specific altitude when it becomes not an act of war? Say 100,000 ft?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MrWendal

Sending a drone into Iran is an act of war.


This is very muddy water actually.

Consider this:
Why isn't having spy satellites fly over a nation considered an act of war?

Do you have to be at a specific altitude when it becomes not an act of war? Say 100,000 ft?


I think it has to do with the fact that space is outside of the jurisdiction of any country.

That's why we say airspace not space-space.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MrWendal

Sending a drone into Iran is an act of war.


This is very muddy water actually.

Consider this:
Why isn't having spy satellites fly over a nation considered an act of war?

Do you have to be at a specific altitude when it becomes not an act of war? Say 100,000 ft?


Perhaps the line here is between which recon action can result in direct retaliation or not. Realistically, satellites aren't going to be shot down and are just accepted as a fact of life. Drones are capable of being shot down. Simply sending something of yours into an enemy territory that can be intercepted is in itself, an intensification.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Bit of sympathy needs to go out to the American taxpayer...

$4,500,000.00 gone



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bruwin

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

And I wonder how this news will be spun in the Western mainstream media. I bet, just like the other incidents, it'll just be ignored because the fact that the US is the aggressor here doesn't fit into the whole "Iran is a dangerous terrorist nuclear state that must be stopped" agenda.



Iran wants of whole race of people wiped of the face of the earth and America is the threat? Really? I think it's unfortunate that we are only sending drones over their air space. A squadron of B-52s would be much more appropriate.

Just because certain individuals said that, it doesn't mean the whole of Iran supports that... So if one person in the US says "i hate chinks", does that mean the US wants a wipe out China from the map?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by rubbertramp
that's like saying i should take obama and company serious at every news conference.
i just don't trust media in general.
i'm not saying it didn't happen, i'm just saying stating something as fact before it's really prooven is jumping the gun.
in other words, you're saying rt and press tv have been 100% accurate in all of their reporting.


No, actually I'm not. Thanks for the assumption though


Please explain to me what source is most reliable in reporting things that happen within Iran? Because I refuse to accept that any source within Iran is automatically lying because they are the perceived "bad guys".

PS: No news source or news article is 100% accurate, ever. That's just a utopian ideal.


in ways it would seem that we actually agree for the most part.
all i'm really saying is that i take news with a grain of salt.
i'm in no way claiming i know of a source that is 100% accurate.
but, since the op was put forth, a link to cnn was provided.
ok, press tv, rt and cnn so far.
getting closer. personally i look for multiple sources, both left and right leaning.
another thing i look for is actual video, no matter the explanation, if i see things with my own eyes it's another step forward.
did i miss a video so far?
it's like infowars, most articles are opinion in my opinion, but then paul watson and a couple of others will back their articles up with links to press releases and videoa and documents.
much more believable to me than an iranian press release with no links, no videos, no nothing.
does any of that make sense?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS

Originally posted by bruwin

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

And I wonder how this news will be spun in the Western mainstream media. I bet, just like the other incidents, it'll just be ignored because the fact that the US is the aggressor here doesn't fit into the whole "Iran is a dangerous terrorist nuclear state that must be stopped" agenda.



Iran wants of whole race of people wiped of the face of the earth and America is the threat? Really? I think it's unfortunate that we are only sending drones over their air space. A squadron of B-52s would be much more appropriate.

Just because certain individuals said that, it doesn't mean the whole of Iran supports that... So if one person in the US says "i hate chinks", does that mean the US wants a wipe out China from the map?


I'm not aware of anyone in Iran ever stating that they wanted to wipe out the Jews. Zionism is a right-wing, highly religious elite Jewish minority that is always invoking conflict- they are not the same thing as the Jewish ethnicity. It's like comparing the Nazis to white people.

PS: Since when did Jew become a race? It's an ethnicity. And why would Iran want to wipe out Jews? They have over a hundred thousand of them living happily in Iran.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse

Maybe the drone ran out of fuel or malfuntioned,or like someone else mentioned-it could have been hacked?

Anyone militarily knowledgeable know how tough a target a drone is?


Depends on what type of drone we are talking about.

The RQ-170 should have been one of the more difficult targets, especially considering it incorporates various "stealthy" aspects.

You would need a powerful radar system just to locate it, and you would also need some very sophisticated electronic warfare countermeasures equipment to hack it. Very sophisticated.

It would be far easier to shoot it down with a SAM.

Here is a document worth looking at:
China developing countermeasures


A variety of Chinese open source reporting suggests that China is developing an increasingly sophisticated understanding of US imagery collection capabilities and is steadily taking steps to evade both Western intelligence and commercial satellite and aerial reconnaissance. While Chinese military units for the past several years have carried out counter-reconnaissance drills during major exercises, this year reconnaissance and surveillance evasion emerged as a major training theme in Chinese military media and top level training guidance. Thus far, evasion methods are primarily passive -- emphasizing camouflage and deception --but a PRC commercial military magazine suggests that some "experts" in the field are advocating an ambitious future goal of developing active countermeasures that may include telemetry jamming and signals hacking.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I would like to see a Picture of it
in actual possession by Iran.

Like with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
doing a walk around inspection of it.
or a mob burning a flag over it .


anyone seen any photo's of it
to get an idea of what condition its in



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MrWendal

Sending a drone into Iran is an act of war.


This is very muddy water actually.

Consider this:
Why isn't having spy satellites fly over a nation considered an act of war?

Do you have to be at a specific altitude when it becomes not an act of war? Say 100,000 ft?


Perhaps the line here is between which recon action can result in direct retaliation or not. Realistically, satellites aren't going to be shot down and are just accepted as a fact of life. Drones are capable of being shot down. Simply sending something of yours into an enemy territory that can be intercepted is in itself, an intensification.



Thus, for example, an "expert" participating in the December interview with Bingqi Zhishi suggested that it was possible to electronically jam the "telemetry control signal" between the satellites and the ground control station to counter space-based imagery reconnaissance, citing a western press report on a "hacked" NATO satellite during its operation in Kosovo.


Satellites can be hacked, and according to this it has already happened a long time ago.
(Source link in my last post).

Also several nations have the capability to shoot satellites down as well.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Either way the US has to stop playing world police. I'm super glad that this thing went down either way. I'd be terribly pissed if the US were flying drones around in my country. I would shoot the damn thing down myself.


HaHa Don't worry, Your empty little country has nothing we want.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Satellites can be hacked, and according to this it has already happened a long time ago.
(Source link in my last post).

Also several nations have the capability to shoot satellites down as well.


Yes, that is true but as I said, realistically satellites aren't going to be attacked in direct response to a recon mission. One of the main reasons for this is that a satellite basically starts its recon mission as soon as it becomes operational in space, and ends its mission when the satellite itself fails.

And how can one nation prove that a specific satellite is conducting recon on them at a specific time in order to justify shooting it down? In my opinion, shooting down another nation's satellite would only be acceptable during a time of war when nobody would be itching for something to start the fight because it would already be in full swing.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
this is why i questioned the source in the o.p.
has anyone actually read the cnn blurb?
pay careful attention to the last sentence.




Iran shoots down American drone, state media says
A U.S. drone was shot down in eastern Iran, state media reported Sunday, citing a military source.

Press TV reported that the drone was "seized" by authorities after "minimum damage."

Attempts to reach U.S. officials for comment were not immediately successful.

In July, Iran's military made a similar claim, saying it downed a U.S. "spy drone" flying near its Fordo nuclear enrichment plant in Qom province. But Iran backtracked on the statement a few days later, saying the incident was actually part of a training exercise.




new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join