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 military jet crashes, reason unknown

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Iran military jet crashes, reason unknown


www.trust.org

TEHRAN, Jan 26 (Reuters) - An Iranian military plane crashed in the early hours of Thursday near the Gulf coast, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, saying no reason had yet been given for the incident.

"An F-14 crashed three minutes after take-off at 4:30 a.m. (0100 GMT) near the city of Bushehr," Fars reported, citing a local government official.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Well I can't remember hearing about the Iranians loosing a Tomcat to a catastrophic system failure before, but that certainly is possible considering they cannot import replacement parts for maintaining their fleet. Although, I do not doubt their capabilities to domestically produce the parts required to keep their Tomcats operational.

Two interesting points, the crash occurred three minutes after take-off, and neither the pilot or the RIO ejected. This would suggest the jet was either flying too low at the time of the incident to have time to eject, or the system failure was so catastrophic that the airframe was destroyed in mid-air.

Possibilities? Catastrophic systems failure? Downed shortly after take-off by hostiles? Another likely case of sabotage? What do you make of this ATS?

Of course, respect to the airmen and their families, may they rest in peace.

www.trust.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I chalk this up to the age of the aircraft coupled with stepped up missions due to the increase of tensions. Military aircraft crash somewhere in the world almost on a monthly basis, more so when they are on increased mission status.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Will see how this develops but no doubts tptb will decide for themselves how they want this one to go. Accident or not, doesn't matter - this will be whatever they want it to be. My own suspicions would be straight forward accident but thats just a hunch and nothing more until more details emerge.

Thoughts with the drivers and families too.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darce


Well I can't remember hearing about the Iranians loosing a Tomcat to a catastrophic system failure before, but that certainly is possible considering they cannot import replacement parts for maintaining their fleet. Although, I do not doubt their capabilities to domestically produce the parts required to keep their Tomcats operational.

Two interesting points, the crash occurred three minutes after take-off, and neither the pilot or the RIO ejected. This would suggest the jet was either flying too low at the time of the incident to have time to eject, or the system failure was so catastrophic that the airframe was destroyed in mid-air.

Possibilities? Catastrophic systems failure? Downed shortly after take-off by hostiles? Another likely case of sabotage? What do you make of this ATS?

Of course, respect to the airmen and their families, may they rest in peace.

www.trust.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


This happens every time they are actually brave enough to fly. A couple years ago, two planes were lost on a national holiday while they were queing up for flybys for an airshow. So, no, it was not the Israelis or the US, it was likely a mechanical failure of some kind.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


HAARP. The U.S have surveillance satellites working in tandem with their HAARP array taking pot-shots at those poor jets



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Their only F-14 oops!!
Just kidding. Iran's F-14's are old. They would have acquired them back when the Shaw was still in power. Pre 1979. So I would imagine that Preventative Maintenance and repair in the shadow of sanctions is less than stellar on these planes. They are estimated to only have 10 or less of these Shaw era Tomcats left. Whatever they had was used for spare parts to keep the 10 flying. After that its just Duct Tape and Super Glue
and a prayer to Allah.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Making a small pun, there's nothing to see here.

If it was another type of aircraft, I would be concerned, but not if it's a F-14. For several reasons.

1- Nobody ejected, which means it was sudden, like an explosion. But that has nothing to do with altitude like someone mentioned earlier.

2- F-14's are really known for mechanical problems, even when they were heavily used by the US air force and navy.

There were several cases of F-14's exploding just after entering sonic speeds.

Example:




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I remember seeing a picture of an Iranian F-14 with car mirrors mounted outside the cockpit. I guess getting rear view cameras for that aircraft became a bit difficult......



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I highly doubt altitude is a contributing factor. Three minutes is a long time for an aircraft to be flyign at a low enough altitude for there to be too little time to respond.

I know roughly of the F-14's mechanical problems, but nothing indepth. I don't like the idea of a mechanical fault though; surely there's a system in place that will be usable during loss of most system controls? This isn't go off of any facts, but I'd imagine that the crew eject systems are independent of other systems.

I hate jumping to conclusions, especially about conspiracies an secret missions, but something that prevents the crew from ejecting must be very sudden or a broad catastrophic failure. Plus, there's been a bit of ruckus amongst the Israelis recently.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
There were several cases of F-14's exploding just after entering sonic speeds.

Example:



Yes, Several out of a total production run of 712 [various models] and a service record spanning 36 + Years isn't that bad considering it was designed using late 1960's era technology.

Linky

The F-14 first flew in December 1970. It first deployed in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tactical reconnaissance platform. In the 1990s it added the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system and began performing precision strike missions. The F-14 was retired from the active U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006



Must be why they have been retired eh?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bambobo
 


if the israeli's and the us wanted to sabotage irans airforce they wouldn't just take one plan out, if you start to hear about the other 9 planes that iran has go down then your on to something but i would chalk this off as a mechanical failure of epic proportions



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bambobo
 


I agree with you, the only other possibility that comes to mind is a failure of the ejection system itself.

I hope we don't see a forthcoming headline from press.tv reading something like "Iranian Air Force Generals accuse Israeli/Saudi/US forces of shooting down one of their most technologically advanced air superiority fighter jets".

What I'm saying is; either way it's a bad time for this to happen.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bambobo
I highly doubt altitude is a contributing factor. Three minutes is a long time for an aircraft to be flyign at a low enough altitude for there to be too little time to respond.

I know roughly of the F-14's mechanical problems, but nothing indepth. I don't like the idea of a mechanical fault though; surely there's a system in place that will be usable during loss of most system controls? This isn't go off of any facts, but I'd imagine that the crew eject systems are independent of other systems.

I hate jumping to conclusions, especially about conspiracies an secret missions, but something that prevents the crew from ejecting must be very sudden or a broad catastrophic failure. Plus, there's been a bit of ruckus amongst the Israelis recently.


The fact that someone gave your post a star shows that people will believe in a conspiracy even when there are multiple precedents for this type of accident, with this airforce. It is a choice between doing research and jumping to conclusions that you want to reach. It was a mechanical failure likely do to poor maintenance. It is simple. It has happened before, and will happen again. As I said, 2 years ago, when the airforce was doing flyovers for a military parade, there were 3 accidents in one day, and 2 crashes! But I bet it was the Israelis then too, right?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Yes, Several out of a total production run of 712 [various models] and a service record spanning 36 + Years isn't that bad considering it was designed using late 1960's era technology.

Linky

The F-14 first flew in December 1970. It first deployed in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tactical reconnaissance platform. In the 1990s it added the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system and began performing precision strike missions. The F-14 was retired from the active U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006



Must be why they have been retired eh?



Oh, absolutely.

It was a beautiful craft, and very well made, apart from some "mistakes". People unknown to the aircraft must be aware of how complex that thing was, and how ahead of it's time it was.

The F-14 had adjustable wings (the whole wing, both wings), that alone is a portray of how advanced it was.

I think (without researching or cheating on google) it had something to do with how the air flow affected the aircraft. After going supersonic, the air "path" shifted, causing some fuel flow problem inside the engine making it blow up. At least, that's what I remember from that plane.

That's why you don't see it blow when it breaks the barrier sound, but right after it (fuel flowing).

And besides, they solved it by just using the F-14 as a precision attack bomber/long-range fighter, like your article states, and avoiding taking the plane to sonic speeds.

Sadly, it was put out of it's misery by another masterpiece of US air force, the F-15.
edit on 26/1/12 by Tifozi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 


I starred his post because I agree with it. You're right there was a bad incident in 2009 which involved an Il-76.

Of course aircraft occasionally crash for various reasons, but don't you find anything slightly suspicious about this at all? When did the last Iranian F-14 go down? The Iran-Iraq war?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Maybe, but one must wonder how often they actually take to the air. The Iranians have a very high accident rate especially considering their limited flight hours and the rather small inventory of fighters.

Also, you could argue that the variable geometry wing is an overweight, overdesigned feature with as many faults as it has advantages. The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14. But then, I am a fan of John Boyd. Also, to suggest that a problem is solved by not exceeding supersonic speed when the primary role of the aircraft is as an interceptor is laughable. However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is your friend.
edit on 26-1-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: I wish there was a way to cite/reply to muliple posts at once



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by Darce
 

However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is your friend.
edit on 26-1-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: I wish there was a way to cite/reply to muliple posts at once


That was Tifozi. Tomcat was a NAVY bird.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by Darce
 


Also, you could argue that the variable geometry wing is an overweight, overdesigned feature with as many faults as it has advantages. The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14. But then, I am a fan of John Boyd. Also, to suggest that a problem is solved by not exceeding supersonic speed when the primary role of the aircraft is as an interceptor is laughable. However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is your friend.
edit on 26-1-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: I wish there was a way to cite/reply to muliple posts at once


Mistake 1:


you could argue that the variable geometry wing is an overweight, overdesigned feature with as many faults as it has advantages.


Overweight? Do you know any crap about aviation? It doesn't matter how much it weights, as long as it generates enough upper lift to maintain it in the air. How do you think the Airbus A380 flies? By miracle?

As to the overdesign, that's pretty ignorant to say. The system did work, and it wasn't all that complex. Actually, it didn't have any problem besides the fact that it was too ahead of it's time. The wings weren't the problem, it was a genius idea. The problem was that the rest of the envolving tech in the plane wasn't all that clever to take the most of the design.

Same way that the original Nazi "flying wing" didn't function, but it does work with the B-2 stealth bomber. Same way the first version of the B-2 (with propeller engines) didn't work, but the jet-engine version with advanced computer systems did.

Mistake number 2:


The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14.


Idiot statement, may I say.

The F-15 is a normal superiority fighter jet, it relies on attacking first and not on agility. The F-15 was developed in order to seek and destroy targets BEFORE it was even detected by the target him-self. Allied with new types of radar and new engine technology, it was just the best jet possible at the time, for the cost.

The F-14 was expensive to maintain, and the fact it had an outdated engine model (that was actually the cause of it's problems) meant it actually had a lower thrust than the F-15 (known for it's power and speed), making it a bit slower.

But in therms of ACTUAL agility, the variable wing provided the F-14 strong performances on all situations.

Mistake 3:


Also, to suggest that a problem is solved by not exceeding supersonic speed when the primary role of the aircraft is as an interceptor is laughable. 


No, they didn't solve the problem by not exceeding supersonic speeds. That's your ignorance getting in the way of my comments (that had humor in them, btw, you just didn't get it).

They solved it by tuning the flow of fuel to the engine. But that took time to research, leaving the US with an aircraft that had fame for blowing up mid-air. That's why, for a short period of time, F-14's were restricted to precision bombings.

Final Mistake:


However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.


It did replace the F-14 in the US air force, as it came afterwards. It didn't replace the F-15 in THE US NAVY because the F-15 was never meant to be used on a carrier.


Wikipedia is your friend


No, but it surely is yours.


And by the way, the fact that you don't even know how to elaborate a post quoting different people, only shows how mentally limited you are, and I take your tone as highly offensive.
edit on 26/1/12 by Tifozi because: cleared up a phrase



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I feel bad for the pilots family.
He should of never got
involved in Iran's terrorist
military. Poor guy was probably
forced into it. If he wasn't then to Iran
he is just another pawn.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join