Iran fails to intercept Predator UAV, page 6

reply to post by amkia

---

And why would I listen to Iran?

Originally posted by peck420

I wonder why the Russian never seem to make a stink when any NATO (mostly US or Canadian) fighter aircraft come significantly closer than 16 km to them...military flights and some non-military flights?

Are they more secure in their understanding of international law, .

Years of talks and agreements during the Cold War resulted in signed treaties to avoid and limit misunderstanding and incidents. 1972 saw the agreements signed and they have remained current to this day.

'UNITED STATES/RUSSIAN FEDERATION INCIDENTS AT SEA AND DANGEROUS MILITARY ACTIVITIES AGREEMENTS'

www.fas.org...

As a consequence of the rapid growth of Soviet maritime power during the 1960s, hazardous incidents at sea and in the air became a regular part of the Cold War. Eventually, both Washington and Moscow came to recognize the importance of an agreement limiting this perilous set of interactions, resulting in the Incidents at Sea Agreement that was signed in May 1972. The set of rules and procedures agreed upon helped to calm tensions in subsequent crises and provides ample lessons for placing reasonable limits on other tense maritime rivalries.

www.tandfonline.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by superman2012

---

Because the way they claim to have spoofed it, it thought it was at home, and landed on an airstrip when it didn't. A number of quiet reports have all stated that there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft. It crash landed in the desert, where the Iranians were able to recover it. The damage is consistent with a crash landing, and the aircraft that was displayed by the Iranians as the recovered RQ-170 has a number of very big oddities (such as no wheel wells, no landing gear door, etc.

Both can be true at the same time. The Iranians did spoof the GPS and attempt to land it by deception, but was not totally successful. A small error could result in the damage.

reply to post by mbkennel

---

The behind the scenes comments I've heard and heard about all agree there was a problem with the aircraft before it went down. It's entirely possible that a self destruct was actually removed sometime in the last few years.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

---

The behind the scenes comments I've heard and heard about all agree there was a problem with the aircraft before it went down.

True, but that problem might not have been spontaneous. I would not be surprised if the Iranians had external assistance, and also I would not be surprised that some of the behind-the-scenes-comments are counterintelligence operations designed to confuse information flow to the External Assistors.

It's entirely possible that a self destruct was actually removed sometime in the last few years.

Not surprising, such a capability might be dangerous to operational crew.

reply to post by mbkennel

---

It's possible they were, but at least two of them (not mine) apparently had a history of giving very reliable information that they probably shouldn't have, and could have gotten into trouble for (nothing of the black sort damnit, but confirmations of other sources). With the number, and the reliability of sources involved, I think that they were on the up and up.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

---

It's possible they were, but at least two of them (not mine) apparently had a history of giving very reliable information that they probably shouldn't have, and could have gotten into trouble for (nothing of the black sort damnit, but confirmations of other sources). With the number, and the reliability of sources involved, I think that they were on the up and up.

I doubt they are attempting to dissemble knowingly. Of course they only know what they are told as well.

My experience is that it is actually quite infrequent for US government officials to lie outright, but misdirection and exploiting unspoken assumptions is common.

E.g.: XYZ: "We caught a drone". US: "U.S. Navy denies flying any drones in the area in question and all assets are accounted for." (Both are could be true, because the drone was operated by a private contractor on behalf of CIA.)

RQ-170 crashes. Iranians: "We brought it down." US: "It experienced mechanical failure."

Potential truth: Russian or Chinese EW experts working for Iran attempted to GPS spoof and insert commands. It was not fully successful and resulted in engine/aerodynamic control system failure. It wasn't total uncontrolled flight into terrain because it didn't end up in 10,000 pieces.

Note what has not been claimed officially: "U.S. has determined that Iranian actions played no role in the descent and crash landing of the lost RQ-170."

reply to post by mbkennel

---

For my own reasons, I really have my doubts about the RQ-170, and as to why the US hasn't said that. I believe they have with other UAVs, quite a few that have been kept quiet, or had barely a mention anywhere (there have been at least four or five that have gone missing in the Iran area). If my and others theories are right the gov't would want to keep it quiet about how the RQ-170 went down, and allowing Iran to think that it brought it down plays right into that reason. There are some interesting oddities about the Sentinel going down, and shortly thereafter.

The Avro Arrow resurfacing?
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags

Nasa:Silent and Efficient Supersonic Bi-Directional Flying Wing
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags

Can anyone shed any light on what this aircraft may be doing?
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags

Impressive Climb Rate of The F-14A+ and F-14D
  Posted 18 days ago with 1 member flags

ufo???
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: