Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran fails to intercept Predator UAV

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Of course, if you want to talk about airliners - particularly Iranian ones - we can do.


Yes, the Iranian airliner that was "accidentally" shot down by the U.S. Navy, in 1988, while flying over the strait. Killing all on-board. (Iran Air Flight 655)... Believe it or not, that one event created an independent Islamic movement that will eventually reveal itself in ways that no one will want to see. And IMO, gave birth to a clandestine group hellbent on the destruction of the west, a group that has been covertly involved in global acts of terrorism, and most of the major attacks aimed at "western" and US interests since the early 90s... IMO

That said, there is no point in arguing about that, because I think on that point you'll quickly find that we can agree on most of it.

I would have liked to see your response to my hypothetical, but it's okay... I think I already know the answers and why...

Thanks for the response nonetheless.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The Iranian jet were within range to fire on the Predator at 16 miles, so they could and did pose an immediate risk to the Predator as it doesn't carry any defensive armaments. I think the US aircraft showed great restraint allowing Iranian aircraft that close and only responding with a verbal warning instead of firing on them.

Would you allow someone you didn't trust within 2 feet of your kids? Or wait until they did something stupid before you stepped in and defused the situation? Somehow I doubt it. The likelihood of Iran's intentions, when closing on that drone, being benin are slim to none. Every country has a right to protect it's property in international waters and those Iranian jets were not on a joyride.

Now as for the discussion as to wether or not The Unites States should be overflying Iran and controlling airspace around Iran is for a different thread. This is about a specific incident and the response to it not the overall United States foreign policy on the mideast.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zonetripper2065
 



Fighter Jet Chases US Spy Drone Over Persian Gulf

An Iranian fighter jet has pursued a US surveillance drone over the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon says.
The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said Thursday that the incident occurred on March 12 as a US Predator drone was conducting a ‘routine classified’ surveillance mission.
An Iranian F-4 aircraft approached within 16 miles (about 25 kilometers) of the drone, which was accompanied by two US military planes. United States officials did not mention the type of American planes involved.
US officials initially said one of the two planes discharged a flare as a warning to the Iranian jet. The officials, however, later denied the statement.
On March 12, Commander of Iran’s Khatam ul-Anbia Air Defense Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmaeili said the Islamic Republic had identified and repelled an American U2 reconnaissance plane that was trying to intrude Iran’s airspace above the Sea of Oman on February 10.
The commander further stated that the radar-evading plane left the zone after receiving a warning from Iran’s air defense units.
In November 2012, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said the military had driven away an unidentified plane violating Iran’s airspace above its territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.

Link
Doesn't seem to be any pouting.
Another article.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by peck420
 

Then why is it that the American military is the only military that has NOT shot down an aircraft flying near their airspace (or attempted to) if they're so arrogant? Any country has the right to warn off another country operating near their aircraft as long as they are not operating over said country. A whole different set of rules come in to play then.

Um, because nobody has parked a carrier off the US coast yet...or built military bases around their country.

Unfortunately, the US and Canada will be facing this scenario inside my lifetime, which kind of sucks.



To date Iranian fighters have used guns in their attacks on UAVs. That prevents an errant shot hitting something else and let's them get close up camera footage to show off.
edit on 3/15/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/15/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


The only UAV's that Iran has attacked to date, have been UAV's that Iran has claimed as inside their air space, and the US has claimed other wise. Neither side has released any documentation or proof of their version of events, so I'm going to have to side with the country that actual belongs in that part of the world...no offense intended, but if the US was actually interested in peace, they wouldn't be there.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by neformore
 


Regardless, it sets up a history of shooting at them. So why take the chance this time? It's the same as if we were intercepting Iranian aircraft and shooting at them, even if they were "accidentally" in our airspace. When they weren't, and we intercepted them, they would react the exact same way.


You keep posting up about a 'history of shooting at drones', but have zero proof that US drones don't invade Iranian air space.

Oh, wait, no, we do have proof that US drones invade Iranian air space, one crashed in Iran.

Zaphod, you will never win this argument, due to the fact that your government is just as shady as the Iranian government, with one big difference. Iran isn't dicking around in the US's backyard.

There is no logical reason for the US to start a fight with Iran, why are they there? Iran doesn't have the capability to cause the US any harm unless the US is there. Move back, and there is no longer any threat of any kind.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


And again, there is more than Iran in the region that is a threat. UAVs are being used in the fight against piracy in the region, as well as watching Iran. They've being used over Iraq still.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012


Fighter Jet Chases US Spy Drone Over Persian Gulf

On March 12, Commander of Iran’s Khatam ul-Anbia Air Defense Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmaeili said the Islamic Republic had identified and repelled an American U2 reconnaissance plane that was trying to intrude Iran’s airspace above the Sea of Oman on February 10.
The commander further stated that the radar-evading plane left the zone after receiving a warning from Iran’s air defense units.


Oh dear god, thanks for the laugh. The U-2 radar evading? That's funny. It's about as radar evading as a 757.
edit on 3/15/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Um, because nobody has parked a carrier off the US coast yet...or built military bases around their country.

Unfortunately, the US and Canada will be facing this scenario inside my lifetime, which kind of sucks.


So multiple aircraft flying along the US Adiz, and penetrating it doesn't count? The Soviets flew missions almost daily that came right along US airspace, and in a few cases just into US airspace. When the US did the same thing, a number of their aircraft, including obviously unarmed and non-threatening C-130s, they were gunned down. Flying in international airspace, along the Soviet border. There's even gun camera footage of some of the aircraft as they were shot down.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Two hypotheticals for anyone to answer.

1. An obvious military aircraft is flying 70-100 miles off your coast, in obvious international airspace. It had been there a few days, but never entered your airspace. Is it ok to interfere with it?

2. At least one, possibly multiple military aircraft flying along probing your defenses, eavesdropping on radio communications, getting radar frequencies, monitoring responses (including deliberately provoking responses). All this takes place in international airspace. Again, ok for this to happen?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The problem is - and lets not beat about the bush - anyone who thinks the US hasn't violated Iranian airspace is spectacularly naive.

And that's the problem here in a lot of respects - because this isn't the Iranians being awkward. Its a response.


The straight of Hormuz is 20 miles wide at its narrowest, depending on the exact location the IRIAF F-4's could have been threatening the Predator and F-18's in UAE airspace just as easily as Iranian airspace, it only takes 2 minutes to travel 20 miles at 600 Knts.

Aside from the obvious task of strategic reconnaissance plotting the structure of Iran's air defense network as a contingency to a strike on Fordow, The U.S. actually has a good reason and is easily justified in actively monitoring both the shipping lanes and Iranian Naval activities.

Iran has recently threatened to disrupt international shipping by closing the Straights in retaliation for the increased economic sanctions, a threat that needs to be taken seriously based on their past behavior.

If you are unfamiliar with Iranian efforts to disrupt Persian Gulf commerce, The Guns of '88: Lessons of the Forgotten Tanker War

With that, I think few would argue against the wisdom of deploying reconnaissance assets to monitor the situation and assure the free flow of commerce, in the modern military that means drones.

Adding to the tinderbox...

Aircraft belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force (the Mullah's special, separate air-force) made a failed attack on a U.S. MQ-1 drone flying in international airspace in November and issued a formal statement threatening to do so again given the opportunity.

As a logical response, the U.S. has modified its operational doctrine to begin escorting its reconnaissance platforms with armed fighter planes.

At this point, the situation has the potential to quickly escalate out of control.

It doesn't take much, one pilot feels the threat necessitates heightened preparedness and turns on his weapons radar just in case. In turn, the other guy feels threatened enough to meet the criteria for the current rules of engagement and 30 seconds later you have smoldering airplane parts scattered all over and a de facto state of war.

In this case the aircraft was piloted by regular IRIAF (not the IRGC AF, who have a reputation for zealotry and aggression ) so the chances of a spontaneous engagement was probably nil. The IRIAF have a reputation of professionalism and ingenuity with their training and operational doctrine being rooted in the best the U.S. could provide in the mid 70's.

The aircraft involved were much more capable than the aircraft involved in the November incident. The F-4 has grown long in the tooth but is still operating as a front line fighter with the Hellenic Air Force and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force is still a dangerous adversary.

The second Gulf of Sidra incident was a similar situation and circumstance that ended very poorly for the Libyan Mig Pilots


The F-14 pilot in the video takes the first missile shot at 15 miles

The U.S. pilots made the right call by verbally warning the IRIAF F-4's that they were to close and to back off, everyone is nervous and nothing good comes from armed jets from opposing nations being in close proximity to one another, regardless of who has the right to be there or not.

Sure, consider the F-4 intercept a response. The Libyan Mig-23's in the above video were a response as well, can Iran afford the consequences of escalating the situation by provoking a further response by U.S. air power?

How many TU-95's has NORAD tracked, intercepted and peacefully escorted out of the North American ADIZ without firing a shot?

Answer... lots.

Any way you want to look at it, The IRGC AF SU-25's were unjustified in firing on the MQ-9 and have only served to further inflame a situation that if carried to its conclusion on their current path Iran will inevitably end up regretting.

The way forward is through diplomacy, Iran really doesn't have much choice. Much of the world is uncomfortable with the ramifications of Iranian enrichment and the logical nuclear weapon that follows. We already have one global pariah in the DPRK, it is senseless for the Mullah's to continue as they have. Can anybody really say Iran is better off now in any way than it was pre 1979?

They are a truly great people with alot to offer the global community, here is the fix in three easy steps

Step 1) The zealots have had 34 years to build an Islamic utopia, its time to try something different. Elect a secular government that is a true representation of the people.

Step 2) Find a different hobby than uranium enrichment to showcase Persian technical prowess and sophistication. Develop a viable civilian aerospace program out of the F-5 clone production line or maybe cure cancer.

Just no fissile material or the means to deliver it.

Step 3 ) Lighten up with the "Evil Juice" rhetoric. Even if the Mullah's were right, nobody wants to hear it

Result.... Welcome back to the world community Iran, we've missed you. I've booked my vacation for September...
;
edit on 15-3-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by neformore
 


They do, provided they don't try to interfere with another aircraft. It's exactly the same as a Russian warship warning off an American plane that gets too close. Or the Chinese colliding with our EP-3 that was in international airspace at the time (70 miles off Hainan). Where do they get off warning our planes off? They have the right to be there.

It's an amazing double standard. Anyone else does it to the US, it's ok, because it's the US. The US does the exact same thing as everyone else, and it's "Where the hell do they get the right to do that?"


It is only a double standard preached by a minority of poorly informed anti U.S. types that believe they are being edgy by parroting anti western hyperbole or preaching pro-Islamic Republic of Iran vitriol.

Funny how none seem to grasp the irony that they can slander the west to great ends without worry of repercussion or consequence due to our regard for freedom of speech and individual liberties yet were they to write similar criticisms and accusations of the Iranian government as Iranian citizens they would be guaranteed a very unpleasant visit from the Basij.

I also wonder, if the U.S. is truly the hyper aggressive imperialist war mongers with no regard for others, what stops us from smashing Iran tomorrow?

What stops us from imposing our tyrannical will on the entire world?

The Russian Federations nuclear arsenal is the only force in the world really capable of giving us pause and there is every reason to question the condition and effectiveness of their strategic nuclear capability. Certainly enough doubt that Russia would only risk an actual exchange in defense of their country in a Barbarossa type scenario.

The reason is we generally react with restraint and reason. Like it or not the U.S. is currently the worlds only remaining superpower and as such we are generally responsible in our post WWII role of global leadership.

I defy anyone blindly criticizing U.S. foreign policy to cite another example in the history of human civilization when a single nation has wielded the overwhelming military and economic hedgeonomy of the United States with the restraint, caution and respect given to the world community by the modern U.S. ????

Crickets.....



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Two hypotheticals for anyone to answer.

1. An obvious military aircraft is flying 70-100 miles off your coast, in obvious international airspace. It had been there a few days, but never entered your airspace. Is it ok to interfere with it?

2. At least one, possibly multiple military aircraft flying along probing your defenses, eavesdropping on radio communications, getting radar frequencies, monitoring responses (including deliberately provoking responses). All this takes place in international airspace. Again, ok for this to happen?


A few folks might find this relevant to the discussion....

Aircraft Downed During the Cold War and Thereafter

A couple of examples...


13 June 1952 A US Air Force RB-29 Superfortress (44-61810) of the 91st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, based in Yokota Japan, was shot down by Soviet fighters over the Sea of Japan, 18 miles from the Soviet coast, near Hokkaido.

Soviet MiG-15 Fagot pilots Fedotov and Proskurin reported intercepting the aircraft in the area of Valentin Bay, nine miles from the Soviet coastline. They reported that the RB-29 fired on the Soviet fighters, when intercepted. The Soviet pilots returned fire and the US plane descended, burst into flames and crashed into the water at a distance of about 18 miles from our coastline.

Official US records state that the aircraft was on a classified surveillance mission of shipping activity over the Sea of Japan. The plane was followed by radar over the course of the flight until 1320 hours at which time the radar contact was lost.

Empty life rafts were spotted by search aircraft the next day. Radio Moscow stated on June 16 stated that one officer survivor had been picked up by a Russian vessel about two days before. The name of the survivor was not given and efforts to confirm the report were unsuccessful.

The crew of Sam Busch, Robert J. McDonnell, Roscoe G. Becker, Eddie R. Berg, Leon F. Bonura, William R. Homer, Samuel D. Service, James A. Sculley, William A. Blizzard, Miguel W. Monserrat , Danny Pillsbury and David L. Moore were all listed as missing, presumed dead.



13 June 1952 Soviet MiG-15 Fagot pilot Captain Boris Osinsky, of the 483rd Fighter Aviation Regiment, shot down a Swedish SIGINT C-47 (Tp79 79001 Hugin) piloted by Alvar Almeberg, over the Baltic, near Ventspils Latvia. Everybody on board the C-47 was killed - the only wreckage found at the time was a life raft.

The C-47 was one of two, (the other being 79002 Munin, both named after Odin's ravens), together with a Ju 86 called Blondie, which supposedly belonged to the so called 6 Transportflyggruppen at F 8, which at that time had a staff of twelve. In reality they were used for SIGINT duties, the C-47s fitted out with five operator stations, the operators belonging to FRA (Försvarets Radioanstalt = the Radio Establishment of the Defense).

In June 2003, Swedish searchers found the wreckage of the C-47 on the bottom of the Baltic in international waters near Gotska Sandoen island, about 120 kilometers (75 miles) east of the Swedish coastline. The wreckage was raised during the night of March 19/20 2004 and returned to Sweden.



8 May 1954 Three US Air Force RB-47E Stratojet reconnaissance planes took off from RAF Fairford in England. Two of the Stratojets flew as airborne spares and turned back before the overflight began. The remaining plane penetrated Soviet airspace near Murmansk.

The plane flew over numerous Soviet air fields and naval facilities conducting photographic reconnaissance and making radar scope images of the various facilities. The RB-47E continued to Arkhangelsk before turning west and heading back to England. The USAF plane was intercepted by MiG fighters after being over Soviet territory for about 50 miles. Initially, MiG-15 Fagots were spotted, but a short time later a flight of MiG-17 Frescos appeared.

The operational deployment of the MiG-17 was a significant surprise to the crew of the RB-47. When the MiG-17s climbed to approximately the same altitude as the reconnaissance plane (38,000 feet) they opened fire. The Soviet fighters each made single shooting passes at the USAF plane. The RB-47 was equipped with a tail gun controlled by the copilot and returned fire but did not hit any of the Soviet planes.

One MiG was able to hit the Stratojet with several rounds and caused moderate damage to the wing and fuselage. Before the MiGs were able to shoot down the USAF plane, it crossed the border into Finland and the MiGs broke off the attack. However, during the attack the RB-47's fuel tanks were hit and the plane nearly ran out of fuel before it was met by a Boeing KC-97 tanker for in-flight refueling. The RB-47E landed safely in England a short time later.





posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


More than 30 US aircraft were shot down, with the loss of over 200 crew members during the Cold War by the Soviet Union. In return, not one Soviet aircraft or crew member was lost, while performing the same missions along the US.

US RC-130 over Armenia, taken from the gun camera of a Soviet MiG-17 (one of four to intercept the aircraft). What POSSIBLE threat was a C-130 to the MiG-17?



The aircraft in question was C-130A, tail number 60528. On September 2, 1958 it was on a routine mission along the Turkish-Armenian border with 17 crew members (6 flight crew, 11 Security Service Recon members) on board, when it was intercepted by four Soviet MiG-17 aircraft. The MiGs took turns firing on the C-130 until it crashed on Soviet soil. The US didn't confront the Soviet Union about it until September 6, 1958. The Soviet's didn't respond until 6 days later, when they reported finding the remains of a crashed C-130, and that it appeared that the 6 crew members on board had perished. When asked about the other 11 crew members, the Soviet's said there was no other information. It wasn't until 1991 that the US found out what happened.

www.nsa.gov...



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This is the same type of provocation by the US that got us into the fighting in Vietnam. It is well past time to wean the Military Industrial Complex off the tits of the American taxpayer and quit fighting unjust wars so corporations can make a few trillion more dollars. I am sick of it as are many intelligent Americans!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by superman2012


Fighter Jet Chases US Spy Drone Over Persian Gulf

On March 12, Commander of Iran’s Khatam ul-Anbia Air Defense Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmaeili said the Islamic Republic had identified and repelled an American U2 reconnaissance plane that was trying to intrude Iran’s airspace above the Sea of Oman on February 10.
The commander further stated that the radar-evading plane left the zone after receiving a warning from Iran’s air defense units.


Oh dear god, thanks for the laugh. The U-2 radar evading? That's funny. It's about as radar evading as a 757.
edit on 3/15/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Having no knowledge of the U-2 I can only assume it is not capable of evading radar? Even though they tried with the original. What U-2 were they talking about? Could it be misidentification?
Edit:

The commander further stated that the radar-evading plane left the zone after receiving a warning from Iran’s air defense units.

Then again, maybe it was just evading their radar? Maybe their level of tracking isn't as great as the US?
edit on 15-3-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


The U-2 is about as opposite of radar evading as they come. Yes, it's fairly small, which makes a slightly harder to see radar target, but those long skinny flat wings increase the radar return. There were attempts made to make the U-2 stealthier, but several of them ended in disaster, and I believe one killed the pilot that was testing the system in question. None of them made any noticeable difference in radar return, and most of them actually hurt the performance of the aircraft (which is already a beast to fly). The U-2 relies instead on the fact that just about nothing can fly high enough to intercept it.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
You keep posting up about a 'history of shooting at drones', but have zero proof that US drones don't invade Iranian air space.


And the people stating anything else, have zero proof that the UAVs in question DID penetrate Iranian airspace. Iranian word is just as good as US word (oh wait, we all know Iran would NEVER lie). Without proof either way, it's irrational to immediately jump to the conclusion that they did penetrate Iranian airspace, because Iran was trying to intercept them and shoot them down.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Wow Zaphod, I'm impressed. I was aware of the C-130 shoot down over Armenia but I had no idea there was a frame of gun camera footage in the public domain.

Thanks for posting that.


I guessed you would be familiar with the bulk of the cold war incidents above but was hoping to make a point to some of the folks participating in this thread by presenting the historical record to clarify how these types of incidents have been addressed by various nations. It is just plain incorrect that some continue to insist the U.S. has shown belligerence and aggression responding to airspace intrusions when the exact opposite is actually the case.

Have you seen this one before? (sorry for the poor quality.)




OVER CESAR RODRIGUEZ’S desk hangs a macabre souvenir of his decades as a fighter pilot. It is a large framed picture, a panoramic cockpit view of open sky and desert. A small F‑15 Eagle is visible in the distance, but larger and more immediate, filling the center of the shot, staring right at the viewer, is an incoming missile.

It is a startling picture, memorializing a moment of air-to-air combat from January 19, 1991, over Iraq. Air-to-air combat has become exceedingly rare. Even when it happens, modern fighter pilots are rarely close enough to actually see the person they are shooting at. This image recalls a kill registered by Rodriguez, who goes by Rico, and his wingman, Craig Underhill, known as Mole, during the Gulf War.

A special-operations team combed the Iraqi MiG’s crash site, and this was one of the items salvaged, the last millisecond of incoming data from the doomed Iraqi pilot’s HUD, or head-up display. It was the final splash of light on his retinas, probably arriving too late for his brain to process before being vaporized with the rest of his corporeal frame. Pilots like Rodriguez don’t romanticize such exploits. These are strictly matter-of-fact men from a world where war is work, and life and death hang on a rapidly and precisely calibrated reality, an attitude captured by the flat caption mounted on the frame: THIS IS AN AIM-7 AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE SHOT FROM AN F‑15 EAGLE DETONATING ON AN IRAQI MIG‑29 FULCRUM DURING OPERATION DESERT STORM.


The Last Ace



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


I knew the story of that kill, but I didn't know that there was a picture from the MiG HUD. That's a little macabre, but at the same time, amazing. Thanks for that shot.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Then both sides are accepting of the situation.






top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join