Iran Fires On US Drone

reply to post by icepack


There were two involved. I don't know if these are the two seat version or the single seat version though. Iran has the SU-25K, the SU-25T, the SU-25UBK and the SU-25 UBT, the latter of which are two seat variants. The K/UBK were the ones impounded from Iraq during the war.

I think the US response should be to send a couple pairs of glasses to the Iranian Air Force.

I agree with those who say that if the drone had penetrated Iranian airspace, the Iranians would have been howling about this from day one. Probably before they even went after the drone.

Most likely, the drone was sent in to observe a specific target, like an Iranian military base. Obviously, the US wouldn't want the Iranians to know exactly what we were checking out.

Less likely, but still possible, was that the US was testing Iran's responses to a situation just like this. I imagine the report could have gone something like this:

"Well, the Iranians can obviously spot our drones. Also, they're trigger happy to the point of violating international airspace. Fortunately, they're really crappy shots."

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
They didn't do squat about the Russian subs due to the fact that they know better and they only bully lesser powers and will never consider fighting an equal force.

Yeah. I bet. As we both know, the Russians never attacked a "lesser power".

The US never attacked because we knew it would start WWIII, and after that was finished, we'd be pitching rocks at each other.

Get a clue.

I really don't know what the debate is here. The report said it was a predator drone, and obviously not the civilian version, that means either CIA or US military, so either snoop or offensive and that its status is classified by both organisations. This is a thing that has killed ordinary people by the score in Pakistan, and probably Iraq or anywhere that it has been used in a classified status. Quite frankly, if a CIA or US military drone came over my head, I would not be pleased either, neither would I be particularly pleased if it was a civilian version with Belfast corporation written on it. God knows, there are so many nosy feckers about these days...a bit like this Google chrome I'm using at the moment, it's spell checker is telling me that I spelt feckers wrongly!

If both jets were fully armed with cannon rounds, The SU-25 uses the 30mm GSh-30-2 whose dual barrels fire at a combined 3000 rounds per minute and carries 250 rounds giving each aircraft 12 seconds of continuous fire.

12 seconds times 2 aircraft should be enough time to walk the rounds into the target by tracer fire alone.

I think that at the end of the day this is a non issue. There is a reason that it was a Predator and not a U2 or RC-135 and firing a warning shot across the bow is a time honored international tradition.

With the knowledge that these were Republican Guard's pilots and not regular IRIAF my guess is that the Mullah's decided to send a message that they aren't complacent, they know Iran is under intense surveillance and are willing to push back.

Of course, there is always the possibility that they really did try to down the Predator and couldn't hit it.

Gun shots are difficult under the best circumstances with aircraft designed to kill other aircraft and the GSh-301 series have a notoriously short barrel life

Originally posted by Meshakhad
Less likely, but still possible, was that the US was testing Iran's responses to a situation just like this.

I think it is a given that at this juncture the U.S. is aggressively probing the Iranian air defense network.

Every time an Iranian surveillance or weapons tracking radar switches on, somebody in Langley puts a check mark on a map of Iran (figuratively).

It's part of the game and sends the message that the threats coming from the Whitehouse are more than hollow rhetoric.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Beavers

 

Except that our instrument of war was in international airspace where it had every right to be. What if it had been an RC-135, or a C-17? Or even worse, an A320, or 737? They had every right to fly a Predator in international airspace, wherever they wanted to, without it being shot at.

According to the AP article, it was 16km from coastal Iran. With International waters starting at 12km out, that means it was technically 4KM from being inside Iran.

If an Iranian drone approached the Statue of Liberty, you don't think the US would lauch a few jets to "send a message" ?

It's also possible this is complete BS just meant to further demonize Iran.

reply to post by HIWATT


Of course they would. And no one has said Iran was wrong to. Where Iran was wrong was to fire on it in international airspace. International airspace has always been the one area that you were safe, no matter what you were doing, unless you had been chased out of someone's airspace, in which case, they could keep chasing you. Otherwise, if you stayed out in international airspace, you were safe.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HIWATT

 

Of course they would. And no one has said Iran was wrong to. Where Iran was wrong was to fire on it in international airspace. International airspace has always been the one area that you were safe, no matter what you were doing, unless you had been chased out of someone's airspace, in which case, they could keep chasing you. Otherwise, if you stayed out in international airspace, you were safe.

You do realize you're talking about the safety of an UNMANNED craft right?

People are making too much of this (if it happened at all). When you go sniffing around in someone else's back yard you can expect to be confronted.

Also if this drone was fired upon when it was a mere 4KM away from Iranian territory, then where should we suppose it was when it was acquired? (again, if it happened at all)

The US surely isn't using the drone to map out oceanographic anomalies. If it wasn't armed then it was sent to spy ... and not on some fish out in the ocean.

reply to post by HIWATT


It doesn't matter WHAT it was. Aircraft of any sort have the right to fly in international airspace, armed, unarmed, whatever. Just as ships of any sort have the right to passage while at sea. Under current UN treaties, that Iran has signed, I even have the right to fly through parts of their airspace/waters, under the Innocent Passage clause of the UNCLOS III treaty, as long as I don't do anything threatening to their security.

It was actually four miles, not 4km, outside the start of their airspace. It wouldn't matter if it was a half mile or a mile though. As long as it stays out of the 12 mile limit that is their airspace, it can be there doing anything short of attacking Iranian interests, and has the right to be.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
With a Predator though it's hard to say that it was showing hostile intent towards a fighter type aircraft, especially if it was flying unarmed. They don't carry a gun, and the only missiles they carry are for attacking armor, or ground targets.

They can carry Stingers and have used them in anger. During the No Fly Zone period in Iraq Predators armed with Stinger air-to-air missiles were used to bait Iraqi fighter aircraft. The Iraqis would stay away from engaging Coalition fighters but would attempt to engage Predators. It probably came as a bit of a shock to the MiG-25 Pilot when the Predator operator engaged him with a Stinger? The MiG Pilot had already launched his missile before the Predator operator and was successful.

Predator vs MiG-25, December 23rd, 2002

Lilly said the Air Force was "baiting" the Iraqi air force by flying Predators over southern Iraq and fleeing when Iraqis scrambled their jets. "Then they put Stinger missiles on a Predator. They took it up and the Predator didn't run away," he said. The Predator and an Iraqi MiG 25 fired air-to-air missiles at each other. Lilly said the Stinger missed when its heat-seeker got diverted by the MiG's missile. The Iraqi missile downed the Predator.

CBS Link

reply to post by Zaphod58


You ignored the other part of my post.

The US didn't send a drone out into international waters just a hair outside of Iran. Come on.....

If this actually happened, I think CNN left out the part where that drone was followed out into sea after having snooped around over land, and then fired upon. Far as I've read, Iran isn't building their nuclear reactor 15 miles out on the ocean.

reply to post by HIWATT


And there are plenty of other reasons for it to be there, besides spying on Iranian reactors. There are navy ships in the area it could be patrolling with, or an antipiracy patrol, etc. Regardless of why it was there, it was in international airspace.

As for reports of it being in Iranian airspace, Iran was the source of those reports. I forgot they always tell the truth.

Do you think the picture with the four missiles has been altered?
It's pretty clear that all four missiles didn't launch at the same time. The question is whether this is a straight clone job [copy and paste], like The New York Times blog is suggesting, or if the fourth missile is in fact a separate missile launch that was photographed and then composited into the original picture.

www.scientificamerican.com...

If it had been in their airspace, they would have been announcing it to the world right after it happened, to try to embarrass Obama before the election. Every other time that they have downed a UAV, or anything of the sort they were yelling about it immediately. Why sit on this one? When they captured the RQ-170 (which I'm convinced they had nothing to do with the downing of), they waited about five minutes before announcing it.

reply to post by tommyjo


Cool video. I'm wondering if the MiG-25 pilot shot an AA-6 Acrid at it to destroy it. Those were some pretty accurate standoff missiles designed to counter USA's Buffs.



Source: militaryrussia.ru...

I'm wondering if the air to air Stinger usage is as effective as the SAM variant?

reply to post by tommyjo


I missed this one. You're right, I forgot that the Predator can carry the Stinger or Griffin. I don't think they have carried either since the Gulf War though. They haven't had a need to since then, as there hasn't been an actual air to air threat against them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HIWATT

 

It doesn't matter WHAT it was. Aircraft of any sort have the right to fly in international airspace, armed, unarmed, whatever. Just as ships of any sort have the right to passage while at sea. Under current UN treaties, that Iran has signed, I even have the right to fly through parts of their airspace/waters, under the Innocent Passage clause of the UNCLOS III treaty, as long as I don't do anything threatening to their security.

It was actually four miles, not 4km, outside the start of their airspace. It wouldn't matter if it was a half mile or a mile though. As long as it stays out of the 12 mile limit that is their airspace, it can be there doing anything short of attacking Iranian interests, and has the right to be.

There must be different rules at sea then er, um international waters, nope you forgot already the Gaza flotilla.

reply to post by smurfy


No I didn't. It's not part of the discussion. But I told people then that Israel was wrong to do that, and I've been saying for years that Israel goes way too far, and is allowed to by everyone. Everyone is so afraid of offending them that they let them do what they want, and get away with it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

No I didn't. It's not part of the discussion. But I told people then that Israel was wrong to do that, and I've been saying for years that Israel goes way too far, and is allowed to by everyone. Everyone is so afraid of offending them that they let them do what they want, and get away with it.

Well, it is indeed part of the discussion, you can't be singular in these things and so far, we have the Israelis bucking the UN and kiliing people, the Russians bringing down civilian aircraft and killing people, the US doing the same and killing people, now Iran targets a belligerent aircraft and killing no one, not even the 'bot and you want to contest international waters by 4kms?

reply to post by smurfy


And I've said from the start that international waters/airspace regardless of where it is, if it's off Russia, off the US, off Iran, off North Korea, whoever, should be inviolate. Where have I condemned Iran, and not said anything about anyone else? I've mentioned Korean Air off Russia, talked about the mistakes made by the US crew in the Iran Air incident, etc. From the start, I have said I don't care what kind of plane it is, it has the right to be in international airspace and not have to worry about being attacked, and has the right to do just about anything it wants while out there.

And it's 4 miles not 4 kms.

Jesus christ, who the freak cares. The predator went on to fly another day. Shot, at! Shot, at! Not, shot, not shot down... It's perfectly functional and back in American hands where it belongs.