U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with ‘Top Gun’-worthy stunt

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Thanks MD,

This i understood, but my question was : Does the US fighter pilot actually have the right to forcibly intervene over international airspace IF he can prove that the Iranian pilot is/was an actual threat to the drone.

Kindest respects

Rod




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rodinus
 


My apologies.

Someone will have to answer that question, as I am not 100% certain, but I believe that in defense of self and property in international space you can defend or intercede if required. Of course the justifiability is another matter.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rodinus
 


They've been on an anti-piracy campaign in the area for years. Predators, and other long endurance aircraft are perfect for that mission, as they can stay in the air a lot longer than any manned aircraft currently can, unless they carry multiple crews on board.

You can put an armed, or unarmed Predator in the area, on an overwatch mission over a ship that you think might be at risk of being attacked, and have it follow their transit of the area.

As for determining the mission, you can't determine if they are hostile or not, until they shoot. But if you have an air asset in the area, and you see two aircraft take off, flying a fighter profile (even numbers of aircraft [2, 4, 6, flying in close formation], and they head directly towards your asset, you can pretty safely assume that they're at least going to intercept and look it over. If you have an escort in the area, then the escort can join up on the incoming fighters, and let them know that they are there, and even follow along with them to make sure they don't try to shoot it down. Most pilots, knowing there is something there that can fight back, aren't going to take a shot in that situation, even if they were ordered to.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
An American pilot stationed thousands of miles from home in the Middle East telling an Iranian pilot who lives in the Middle East to go home? How arrogant?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rodinus
 


Yes. The US, and any country for that matter, has every right to protect their assets that are in the region. If another aircraft shows hostile intent, or fires upon a US air asset, the US has the right to shoot back at them. International airspace or not, any attack on an air asset can be met with equal force, at any time.

The problem is that the only time you can prove, with 100% certainty, that they have hostile intent, is after they shoot. In the case of a Predator, or other UAV, that means you lost your UAV. But at least it's an unmanned aircraft, so you only lose the airframe.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


So it's ok for the Iranians to violate international law, and interfere with operations in international airspace, since they live there? How arrogant.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Thanks for clearing that up Zaph

Kindest respects

Rod



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


The drone was filming over "international waters"?


...then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’”


Said the pot to the kettle.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So it's ok for the Iranians to violate international law, and interfere with operations in international airspace, since they live there? How arrogant.

Of course the drones mission was to "film over international waters", lol.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
International airspace works both ways. The US pilot had just as much right to be there as the Iranian pilot did. Anybody remember a certain Chinese aircraft's run in with a P-3 Orion a few years ago?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


No worries MD, Zaph answered probably while you were typing back to me


Kindest respects

Rod



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So again, it's just fine for the Iranians to violate international law, since they live there, but it's NOT ok for the international community to conduct anti-piracy, or other missions in international airspace? Got it.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It doesn't matter what the mission was. The attempted intercept was in international airspace. The UAV, and all aircraft have the right to be there, without interference. The Iranians would have a case, and every right to shoot it down if it was in their airspace. Since it wasn't, it had every right to be there, without interference.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So again, it's just fine for the Iranians to violate international law, since they live there, but it's NOT ok for the international community to conduct anti-piracy, or other missions in international airspace? Got it.

Other missions? You know as well as I "the mission" was to ward off the close approach of a drone by an Iranian fighter. I know as little about where that (actually) happened as you .

And we both know why it happened.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Rodinus

princeofpeace


In what only can be described as a scene out of Tom Cruise’s “Top Gun,” Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Air Force chief of staff, describes how F-22 stealth jets scared off Iranian jets from a U.S. drone flying in international airspace.



International airspace... shame that the original news story is not more specific as to where this actually took place!?

So if the US jets were flying there then the Iranians had the right to do so too no?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


They only have the right to fly where we let them...

Respect back

The Bot



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So you really think that a PREDATOR is going to be used to penetrate Iranian airspace? God don't make me laugh. They're barely survivable in Afghanistan, where there is no opposing air force at all, but somehow they're going to use it to penetrate Iranian airspace, which is home of one of the better air forces in the region, and take pictures? God, give me a break.

Again though, it doesn't matter. I can make as many close passes to Iranian airspace as I want to, in anything I want to, and as long as I'm in international airspace, and not doing anything to interfere with, or damage Iranian military assets or operations, I have every right to be there.

If we took shots at Russian aircraft flying near US airspace, or NATO territory, the way Iran did with the Predator before this incident, you'd crucify the US/NATO for that too. But it's fine for Iran to do it, because they live in the region, and we all know the US is eeeeevvvviiiiillllllll.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So again, it's just fine for the Iranians to violate international law, since they live there, but it's NOT ok for the international community to conduct anti-piracy, or other missions in international airspace? Got it.

Other missions? You know as well as I "the mission" was to ward off the close approach of a drone by an Iranian fighter. I know as little about where that (actually) happened as you .

And we both know why it happened.


Why are we discussing international law?

Nobody broke any laws. Not the Iranians, not the Americans.

Surprising another aircraft, and telling them to move along, is not illegal. Neither is flying up to another aircraft in international airspace to see what they are doing.

I do find it pretty ironic that Iran achieves a higher 'kill ratio' by just flying up to see...based on the money required to keep escorts up and giving Iran a very generous 1:50 chance of taking down an escorted drone.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Exactly, but since it's the US, they're Evil Incarnate, and that means they're Wrong.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by peck420
 


Exactly, but since it's the US, they're Evil Incarnate, and that means they're Wrong.


What are you going to do?

Hell, you know I am not a fan of a lot of things the US Feds have been doing, but this is getting ridiculous. US anti-piracy has been one of the best things the US has done in the ME, and people want to crap on it...terrible.

It should be noted to a lot of the other posters, the Iranian showed his intent by bugging out. If he was just there to take a gander, he would have exchanged pleasantries with the US pilot, took his gander, and moved along. The US pilot would have only took him to task if he attempted to target (if detectable) or if he fired.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Exactly, but since it's the US, they're Evil Incarnate, and that means they're Wrong.

Don't you mean the US Military Industrial Complex? They are the ones conquering the Middle East, not the "US".

I'm the "US" and I am not conquering anyone.

ETA: Sorry, gotta go. Been real. Have fun with your war preparation rhetoric.
edit on 26-9-2013 by intrptr because: bail out.





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join