Iranian UAV Over US Aircraft Carrier

[Janbaz]

This Video is the filmed by Iranian UAV over Ronald Regan Aircraft Carrier. You could see several F-18 and a few others are taking off to chase the intruder (Iranian UAV).

http://www.iribnews.ir/PhotoGallery/Photo/_f385fef9-cfbb-4de3-848d-3211975fb095.wmv

[Power_Serj]

LOL. What's a remote controlled airplane going to do to an aircraft carrier?:roflmao3:

[Sarajevo071]

It’s called surveillance. :3eyes4:

[Power_Serj]

What's the point? They can't do anything to it.

[abdou]

i think the irans, can do great damage to the US navy.

to my knowledge, the air craft carriers are extremly exposed, there is a russian missle called Kh-35 (not sure about name) that can cause good damge to ships.

it hink iran has those missles.


thanks

[Sith]

Well, well, well, attach a few missiles to the drone and Iran can hit the Catapults and make the Carrier useless. :leph3:

[Power_Serj]

You do realize that if Iran hits an aircraft carrier, there will be retaliation. If you are saying that they would be doing this in war, aircraft carriers would be protected by other ships and planes.

[Kaveh]

http://www.network54.com/Realm/kickarse/UAV.jpg

armed uav ;)

[Sith]

You do realize that if Iran hits an aircraft carrier, there will be retaliation. If you are saying that they would be doing this in war, aircraft carriers would be protected by other ships and planes.

Carriers always have other ships around it though the camera angle kept usfrom seeing them.. This drone managed to penetrate the screening ships and planes.

SomeAdmiral is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

[leftwing]

LOL. What's a remote controlled airplane going to do to an aircraft carrier?:roflmao3:

recon, the first thing you have to do before you blow that multibillion dollar toy up in pieces

[leftwing]

What's the point? They can't do anything to it.
No they cant, your right, also Ronald Reagen was a peace philantropist in comparison to mahatma ghandi and UFOs landed in jamaica last night smoking the first intergalatic joint.

[Janbaz]

No one got the point about the Iranian Filmed UAV from US Ranold Regan.

Let me explain that this incident happened back in July and US Navy did not belive Iranians at all and they dismissed it as propeganda.
Now by releasing this Video, am sure you will see some one going to get retired soon and a few people (Commanders) going to be replaced. Also Iran did send a message that if you attack us, we can attach you as well. No body going to attack any one, this is the game of mouse and cat trying to point to each other that if this we can do this, and if that we can do that. Bottom line, this is a game that both side are playing.

US did send it's drone to the Iranian main land (a few of them crashed) and in return Iran send a few of it's UAV to spy on US aircraft Carrier.

Now think about this:
If united state attack Iranian Nuclear installation, then Iran in return Iran can lace up the aircarft carrier and hit it with it's laser guided bombs and missiles without being detected.

[Power_Serj]

I doubt during wartime a remote controlled airplane will be able to attack an aircraft carrier. It will be in high alert and there will be ships guarding which are also on high alert. If Iran attacked pre-emptively then it might be successful.

[AK54]

so what happened to the uav?? dont leave us hangin man

[JAWilliams]

Guys, if this turns out to be true it's a serious matter, even a small explosion on the flight deck can be a disaster, do some research and find out about the fire on board USS FORESTAL, if the deck is loaded down with fueling aircraft and bombs yeah it can be a problem.

I have been saying for years that the Persian Gulf is too dangerous to risk a carrier.

[Sith]

Guys, if this turns out to be true it's a serious matter, even a small explosion on the flight deck can be a disaster, do some research and find out about the fire on board USS FORESTAL, if the deck is loaded down with fueling aircraft and bombs yeah it can be a problem.

I have been saying for years that the Persian Gulf is too dangerous to risk a carrier.

Good luck connvincing the powers that be.

[Janbaz]

so what happened to the uav?? dont leave us hangin man

Iran did announce that the UAV returned to it's base safely.

[rabs]

You all are talking about loading this drone up with missiles. You realize that its probally not large enough to do that right, and even if it was those missiles are going to slow it down and makes its RCS bigger.

I figure this was a small drone and was classified as a bird.

[JAWilliams]

Unless the drone struck the ship at the exact right time and in the exact right place I don't think much damage would be done. The flight deck of a carrier can be covered with foam in a few seconds. And the crews are trained in fire fighting, day and night. Again depending on the size and payload of the drone.

[Tbagger]

to my knowledge, the air craft carriers are extremly exposed, there is a russian missle called Kh-35 (not sure about name) that can cause good damge to ships.

it hink iran has those missles.


thanks
That's why the USN have a lot of escort ships protecting the carrier.

[Fulkrum]

"then Iran in return Iran can lace up the aircarft carrier and hit it with it's laser guided bombs and missiles without being detected."

Since when does Iran have laser guided weapons?

And since when are there laser guided antishiping missiles?

The thing is, a UAV that can carry weapons large enough to cause damage to a naval vessel is going to be large enough to be detected, intercepted, and destoryed. The UAV that Iran sent could probably drop threatening letters on the Americans at most, and I've never seen hate mail sink a capital ship before.

[Bosnian]

Guys, if this turns out to be true it's a serious matter, even a small explosion on the flight deck can be a disaster, do some research and find out about the fire on board USS FORESTAL, if the deck is loaded down with fueling aircraft and bombs yeah it can be a problem.

I have been saying for years that the Persian Gulf is too dangerous to risk a carrier.

What do you think if 50-100kg UAV warhead stuck command bridge where radar sensors are placed on the top? So no need to sink this huge ship at all. Or if the UAV stuck floating radar ship and his anntenas? And how they found where carrier was? If this UAV can show you right position of the ship, that would mean you can target it with balistic missiles with cluster warheads. A single small hole in the aircraft is enough to put him on deck until check and reparation. Shahab-2 1400 cluster bomblets would be a weapon of choice, not a C-802 before bomblets destroy any electronic anntena on carrier and escort ships. Just remember that Iran tested Shahab-2 in April-March 2006 naval maneuveres so it see Shahab-2 as potential anti-ship weapon?

[azrael]

Since when does Iran have laser guided weapons?

Since 1972, first customers for the early paveway upgrade
Domestic production of our own , yes more advanced, version began in 1992

The thing is, a UAV that can carry weapons large enough to cause damage to a naval vessel is going to be large enough to be detected, intercepted, and destoryed. The UAV that Iran sent could probably drop threatening letters on the Americans at most, and I've never seen hate mail sink a capital ship before.

uavs in the iranian gulf are hunter platforms, they offboard coordinates to the killers, the killers, well take your pick , we have a diverse selection of things that can cripple a base ship in the constricted waters of the khalij-3-fars.

[Janbaz]

"then Iran in return Iran can lace up the aircarft carrier and hit it with it's laser guided bombs and missiles without being detected."

Since when does Iran have laser guided weapons?

And since when are there laser guided antishiping missiles?

The thing is, a UAV that can carry weapons large enough to cause damage to a naval vessel is going to be large enough to be detected, intercepted, and destoryed. The UAV that Iran sent could probably drop threatening letters on the Americans at most, and I've never seen hate mail sink a capital ship before.


UAV does not need to carry weapons. As I said it before, they can lace up any ship and hit it with laser guided weapons, which can even be lunched from a small boat 100s of miles away. Also Iran has been making the laser guided bomb, rocket from early 90's.

[BlackDak22]

Since when is it in any way yours? You live in Australia.

Hahaha.. night, What's wrong, lad?

Getting confused, concerned or irritated?

Still itching for a fight this spring?

[JAWilliams]

The Iranian Command Authority must be made up of Morons, if they have a way to evade U.S. Radar and can attack a Carrier Strike Group why tell us about it? You can bet that the NAVY is going to take this seriously and be ready for the next over flight. If hostilities break out I want to be the first Sailor to thank you for tipping your hand.

[azrael]

The Iranian Command Authority must be made up of Morons, if they have a way to evade U.S. Radar and can attack a Carrier Strike Group why tell us about it? You can bet that the NAVY is going to take this seriously and be ready for the next over flight. If hostilities break out I want to be the first Sailor to thank you for tipping your hand.

Once upon a time , there was a chinese sage by the name of sun tzu, he advocated that the best way of fighting a war was by not fighting. Thus occasionally nations like iran will show off some uav footage of a u.s. base ship, or a nation such china will surface a sub within strike range of a u.s. base ship to convey the futility of conflict and thus win a fight by avoiding it thru deterrence.

p.s. i give full credit for the idea of military might as a means of deterrence to prevent conflict to night, i owe all this to him.

And how would an Australian teenager such as yourself know in-depth details of Iranian defence?

Just so you know, Iran's best defence is deterrence. Iran doesn't need to keep that many secrets, infact it is best for Iran to build up it's military like it is doing now.
And , please night stop calling me a little australian teenager, it's starting to affect my sleep pattern.

[JAWilliams]

I knew some one was going to say that, well I guess the U.S. should have proven to Japan how good our code breakers were before the Pearl Harbor attack? Japan would have changed it's coding methods and would have attacked anyway. One little tactical weapon will not be sufficient for deterance but thanks for the tip anyway now we can counter it and what have you gained? Nothing.

BTW the U.S. and Iran are not going to war anyway. I think the film was for domestic propaganda more then deterance.

[azrael]

One little tactical weapon will not be sufficient for deterance but thanks for the tip anyway now we can counter it and what have you gained? Nothing.
Let us hypothetically say that some faction in the iranian foreign ministry is convinced that the u.s. movement of base ships into the persian gulf is a prelude to a limited airstrike to take advantage of a window of oppourtunity in u.s. domestic elections before the lame duck republican congress is replaced with a democratic congress. Furthermore let us speculate that the other factions of the government believe this notion to be unlikely given the consequences of any air strike will mean severe setbacks for the the u.s. in iraq and afghanistan. But , because the government in tehran works thru a very complicated form of consensus decision making, it is decided that the best course of action is to send a very small yet very clear message to the omrikiye leadership that it's base ships are very vulnerable in the persian gulf. The instrument to send this message, an older uav from the early 90's. It will take a few months for the u.s. to counter this threat, thus closing the window of oppourtunity for any attack, thus quieting a particularly arrogant bunch of foerign service diplomats who think they know everything and at the same time iran loses no real advantage since the uavs it uses now are two generations ahead of the one it used to make the film.

BTW the U.S. and Iran are not going to war anyway.
From your lips to god's ears.

[JEskandari]

It returned safely to iran coast
the f-18 couldnot reach it

[JEskandari]

the drone can be the missile in that case it wont needs all the survaliance equipment in it

[Janbaz]

The Iranian drone was as big as a midum size bird. You could not see it on Radar (because of the size and also radar absorbing paint). The only way you could see it was with naked eye and you had to be a few feet away. Also, I strongly belive (my opinion only) that this Iranian Drone was an electric with solar powered engine.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The Iranian drone was as big as a midum size bird. You could not see it on Radar (because of the size and also radar absorbing paint). The only way you could see it was with naked eye and you had to be a few feet away. Also, I strongly belive (my opinion only) that this Iranian Drone was an electric with solar powered engine. I am not sure about the solar part. It doesn't just need to fly but transmit data. I just don't think it could get enough power from a tiny solar panel. I think they where just testing the radar or something. If they want to sink the carrier, they could anyway.

[Janbaz]

I am not sure about the solar part. It doesn't just need to fly but transmit data. I just don't think it could get enough power from a tiny solar panel. I think they where just testing the radar or something. If they want to sink the carrier, they could anyway.

You could have a solar power motor and use battery for powering the camera and flight controls. These type of remote control (UAV) readly available in all United States marts (without camera and long range remote control).

[wxtornado]

You can find the movie of this Iranian claim on youtube, well, those of you who can get to youtube anyway. I just watched about 10 seconds of the video, and laughed. A question for those who believe this nonsense: Why do you suppose the USS Ronald Reagan has Su-37s and Kamovs on her deck, hmmm?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

You can find the movie of this Iranian claim on youtube, well, those of you who can get to youtube anyway. I just watched about 10 seconds of the video, and laughed. A question for those who believe this nonsense: Why do you suppose the USS Ronald Reagan has Su-37s and Kamovs on her deck, hmmm?


I viewed the video and it is definitely the Ronald Reagan. However, I do knot know how you could identify the aircrafts with such a low resolution video. My eye site is 20/15 and I cant tell. hmmm

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060428_4967.html

[SS_Charlemagne]

Su-37? is Su-37 in production? I sincerely ask, in my ignorance...

[Dylan]

If they want to sink the carrier, they could anyway.


With what? :huh2:

[SS_Charlemagne]

With what? :huh2:

Perhaps with one of these:

http://www.aviation.ru/jno/MACS99/images/Moskit_missile.jpg

http://www.softwar.net/MOSKITE.JPG

[Behrooz Boonabi]

With what? :huh2:

Iran can easily fire 1000 torpedo's at a time from shore. And nothing can stop them.

[Dylan]

Doubt it. Really. Sources? Sea dominance would be gained before sending a Carrier that close anyhow.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Doubt it. Really. Sources? Sea dominance would be gained before sending a Carrier that close anyhow.

How? Iran doesn't need sea dominance. All carriers are is big targets. If you want a bone I will throw you one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm

The strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway so the bigger the ship the bigger the target. The strait of Hormuz is also Iran's pond. Torpedoes can be launched from the shore, the mainland and the Islands. This is why I believe any attack on Iran by the US will not be conducted from a carrier. It is like sacrificing a bishop for a pawn.

[JEskandari]

You could have a solar power motor and use battery for powering the camera and flight controls. These type of remote control (UAV) readly available in all United States marts (without camera and long range remote control).

I wont think a solar powered engine plane could have escaped the plane that take off the carrier

[JEskandari]

Perhaps with one of these:

http://www.aviation.ru/jno/MACS99/images/Moskit_missile.jpg

http://www.softwar.net/MOSKITE.JPG
Not one of those the auv aonly needed to damage the radar of the ship or its
scorts then they with be blind prey for any thing to hunt them

[Janbaz]

I wont think a solar powered engine plane could have escaped the plane that take off the carrier

You only red half of my post. First you have to see it. A light color object a big as a basketball, is very difficult to see it and may not even appear on your jet radar.

[wxtornado]

Ok fellas, we should really try to put this one to rest - it's kind of old now.

If I remember correctly, the Iran propoganda machine first released this story in late May or early June. Iran made a mistake though of naming the carrier and the location, and the Pentagon was able to eaisly debunk their claim, because the USS Ronald Reagan was nowhere near where Iran claimed it was at the time of the claimed video shooting. It's all public knowledge - look it up.

Now they release the story again but don't name the carrier or location. Nice try, (well not really) but you're not fooling anyone, except yourselves. Notice the Pentagon isn't going to bother commenting this time; it's a non-issue.

Too many things wrong with the picture for it to be who you claim it is:

1. The boat is not conducting flight ops, nor is it ready to. The only things on the deck with their wings extended are the Hawkeye on the starboard cat forward, and two smaller planes (possibly S-3 Vikings) port side abaft the island.

2. The waist cat has three planes parked on or near it, none of which is in launch position. This tells me that the ship has no planes in the air for CAP. In fact, if you look back from the front of the angle deck to the stern, you'll see not only the three around the cat, but it appears that thee are planes spotted all the way across the stern, and two more portside aft, facing starboard; perhaps not IN the landing path...but close enough to give the drivers of something as small as a Hornet a very uncomfortable feeling as he called the ball. Navy carrier pilots are the best in the world, but they get upset when someone parks planes in their landing path.

3. And ultimate proof that this ship is not on an alert footing (and I cannot imagine a skipper taking his boat into the Persian gulf without being on alert): there aren't any helos on deck. If you've got a CAP or sentry in the air, you've got a helo on the deck ready to go.

So, you all can believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better. But the US Navy isn't too worried about your claim.

[Janbaz]

Ok fellas, we should really try to put this one to rest - it's kind of old now.

If I remember correctly, the Iran propoganda machine first released this story in late May or early June. Iran made a mistake though of naming the carrier and the location, and the Pentagon was able to eaisly debunk their claim, because the USS Ronald Reagan was nowhere near where Iran claimed it was at the time of the claimed video shooting. It's all public knowledge - look it up.

Now they release the story again but don't name the carrier or location. Nice try, (well not really) but you're not fooling anyone, except yourselves. Notice the Pentagon isn't going to bother commenting this time; it's a non-issue.

Too many things wrong with the picture for it to be who you claim it is:

1. The boat is not conducting flight ops, nor is it ready to. The only things on the deck with their wings extended are the Hawkeye on the starboard cat forward, and two smaller planes (possibly S-3 Vikings) port side abaft the island.

2. The waist cat has three planes parked on or near it, none of which is in launch position. This tells me that the ship has no planes in the air for CAP. In fact, if you look back from the front of the angle deck to the stern, you'll see not only the three around the cat, but it appears that thee are planes spotted all the way across the stern, and two more portside aft, facing starboard; perhaps not IN the landing path...but close enough to give the drivers of something as small as a Hornet a very uncomfortable feeling as he called the ball. Navy carrier pilots are the best in the world, but they get upset when someone parks planes in their landing path.

3. And ultimate proof that this ship is not on an alert footing (and I cannot imagine a skipper taking his boat into the Persian gulf without being on alert): there aren't any helos on deck. If you've got a CAP or sentry in the air, you've got a helo on the deck ready to go.

So, you all can believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better. But the US Navy isn't too worried about your claim.

Who cares what US thinks. But you are right on the ship been on alert or not.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

The link to the video is dead to me.

[Janbaz]

The link to the video is dead to me.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERn75VRlc-o

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERn75VRlc-o
Thanks for the vid.

[satan]

So which carrier is it on the video and more importantly if ti is not Iranian UAV than what?

It is not a baloon, it shakes to much - stabilizator cant reduce vibration from the engine fully.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

So which carrier is it on the video and more importantly if ti is not Iranian UAV than what?

It is not a baloon, it shakes to much - stabilizator cant reduce vibration from the engine fully.

Don't believe some of these people here. There sources where disproved a long time ago and they just repeat things like a broken record.

[satan]

So may I kindly ask what you believe it is?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

So may I kindly ask what you believe it is?

I am not sure what you are referring to

[crod]

I am not sure what you are referring to

i think the member is asking what it is you belive regarding your broken record post. i think....

could well be incorrect here, god knows i usually am....:biggrin1:

[Behrooz Boonabi]

i think the member is asking what it is you belive regarding your broken record post. i think....

could well be incorrect here, god knows i usually am....:biggrin1:

I would hate the persons it was directed at should know.

[Land-Man]

Now you have a picture of the carrier that will shortly be kicking Iran's ***.

[Native]

I wasn't going to post, but then I watched the video.

The video has no credibility to the claims of "secretly taping a U.S. warship" sorry.

For as small as the UAV is supposed to be, the camera quality is too good.

For claims that the U.S. didn't see it or couldn't shoot it down. The U.S. would not have shot it down, just like they would not have shot down an Iranian acft observing them.

The carrier was clearly not on alert.

As for not being tracked. Learn more about Aegis.

[wxtornado]

I wasn't going to post, but then I watched the video.

The video has no credibility to the claims of "secretly taping a U.S. warship" sorry.

For as small as the UAV is supposed to be, the camera quality is too good.

For claims that the U.S. didn't see it or couldn't shoot it down. The U.S. would not have shot it down, just like they would not have shot down an Iranian acft observing them.

The carrier was clearly not on alert.

As for not being tracked. Learn more about Aegis.

Lol, who knew Baghdad Bob worked for the Iranians too :wub2:

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I wasn't going to post, but then I watched the video.

The video has no credibility to the claims of "secretly taping a U.S. warship" sorry.

For as small as the UAV is supposed to be, the camera quality is too good.

For claims that the U.S. didn't see it or couldn't shoot it down. The U.S. would not have shot it down, just like they would not have shot down an Iranian acft observing them.

The carrier was clearly not on alert.

As for not being tracked. Learn more about Aegis.


It is this kind of aregance that will cause the US downfall.

All US equipment has magic and was partly developed by space aliens. :)

[Janbaz]

Now you have a picture of the carrier that will shortly be kicking Iran's ***.

Then what would you say, if the truth is the otherway around?

[Xerxes]

It is this kind of aregance that will cause the US downfall.

All US equipment has magic and was partly developed by space aliens. :)


Mr Native happens to be a former Navy servicemen who served in the Gulf. His post was not a case of arrogance but that of expertise for people's benefit.

For some reason, he doesnt post here often, and I think these comments (arrogance) from us have something to do with it. :err2:

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Mr Native happens to be a former Navy servicemen who served in the Gulf. His post was not a case of arrogance but that of expertise for people's benefit.

For some reason, he doesnt post here often, and I think these comments (arrogance) from us have something to do with it. :err2:

My intention was not to offend him. It is just that many people come on here and say things that insinuate that are minds are to feeble to come up with items such as a UAV when in reality, Iran has been making UAV's since the start of the Iran /Iraq war. Saying things like the UAV is to small for a good camera is rediculuse because these cameras are common. I have one in my jacket pocket right now. This is just after a conversation with a guy who said that ship is not the Ronald Regan when the ship looks exactly like it. They don't get that Iranians are not bent on world domination or anything like that. We just defend ourselves for our children, religion, race, and history. We are not the blood thirsty ones.

[Falco]

The page cannot be found

do you have another link/ can u upload the vid somewhere plz?
id really like to see that!

[azrael]

do you have another link/ can u upload the vid somewhere plz?
id really like to see that!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-324294841727623684


1. The boat is not conducting flight ops, nor is it ready to. The only things on the deck with their wings extended are the Hawkeye on the starboard cat forward, and two smaller planes (possibly S-3 Vikings) port side abaft the island.

They manage to launch a flight of f-18s, that would fall under the title flight operations.

2. The waist cat has three planes parked on or near it, none of which is in launch position. This tells me that the ship has no planes in the air for CAP. In fact, if you look back from the front of the angle deck to the stern, you'll see not only the three around the cat, but it appears that thee are planes spotted all the way across the stern, and two more portside aft, facing starboard; perhaps not IN the landing path...but close enough to give the drivers of something as small as a Hornet a very uncomfortable feeling as he called the ball. Navy carrier pilots are the best in the world, but they get upset when someone parks planes in their landing path.

Hmmm, okay try to wrap your mind around this, those planes are in ready launch positions, they don't park planes in blocking positions even when there is no cap flying around. In fact if you look at the deck , it seems as if the carrier is in a high sortie mission profile, most likely a wargame. Imagine ,if you will, how long it would take to launch every aluminium bird on that deck while in that configuration.

3. And ultimate proof that this ship is not on an alert footing (and I cannot imagine a skipper taking his boat into the Persian gulf without being on alert): there aren't any helos on deck. If you've got a CAP or sentry in the air, you've got a helo on the deck ready to go.


you can actually see the launch of a uh-60, most likely launched to provide ready sar for the f-18's that go up during the video.

[Snauhi]

Omg no.. And Iranian UAV flew over an US aircraft carrier in neutral waters...!!

[SS_Charlemagne]

Omg no.. And Iranian UAV flew over an US aircraft carrier in neutral waters...!!

Snauhi (the forgiven one), are you ok? do you feel fine? first you recognized TOR-M1 is a good SAM and now you recongnize that a iranian UAV has flown over an US aircraft carrier... have you taken your daily medicine??:err2:

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Snauhi (the forgiven one), are you ok? do you feel fine? first you recognized TOR-M1 is a good SAM and now you recongnize that a iranian UAV has flown over an US aircraft carrier... have you taken your daily medicine??:err2:Or maybe, for the first time he's NOT taken his daily medicine and is beginning to perceive reality more accurately? :p...or is this exactly what you meant?

[SS_Charlemagne]

Or maybe, for the first time he's NOT taken his daily medicine and is beginning to perceive reality more accurately? :p...or is this exactly what you meant?

Ehe... yes, you've read my mind, sir... :D

[wxtornado]

Lol, keep brainstorming guys, you'll figure it out soon enough. Okay, maybe not. :roflmao3:

[bub]

I think you have all been fooled by irainian government propaganda. This is probably a video taken from a helicopter off the shores of america. I dont believe everything I see. I could easily get a copy of planes leaving the deck of an aircraft carrier of the coats of canada or the U.S put some subtitles on it and say it is something it is not. I think you have all been had. I know I will be bashed and ridiculed for saying this but does anyone honestly believe the video is what they claim. The supposed drone appears to hover in one spot for almost a minute. Believe what you all wish but I dont by it. The U.S. military could have shot it from the sky easily with one of the many, many warships that seem to be missing from the picture. If this ship was in the middle east where are all the destroyers ect? America can intercept ICBM'S and they can definatley knock a drown out of the sky. The can put a missile on a target 5000 miles away accurate within inches. 40 years ago they could shoot satellites out of orbit as could russia. Something china has recently done. That photo and the claims are laughable. Not hear to offend to telling it like I see it!!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I think you have all been fooled by irainian government propaganda. This is probably a video taken from a helicopter off the shores of america. I dont believe everything I see. I could easily get a copy of planes leaving the deck of an aircraft carrier of the coats of canada or the U.S put some subtitles on it and say it is something it is not. I think you have all been had. I know I will be bashed and ridiculed for saying this but does anyone honestly believe the video is what they claim. The supposed drone appears to hover in one spot for almost a minute. Believe what you all wish but I dont by it. The U.S. military could have shot it from the sky easily with one of the many, many warships that seem to be missing from the picture. If this ship was in the middle east where are all the destroyers ect? America can intercept ICBM'S and they can definatley knock a drown out of the sky. The can put a missile on a target 5000 miles away accurate within inches. 40 years ago they could shoot satellites out of orbit as could russia. Something china has recently done. That photo and the claims are laughable. Not hear to offend to telling it like I see it!!


Irans drone program is massive. It was used heavily during war with Iraq. You can easly read about this. Irans drone program has been a topic that has emerged many times in the last 20 years. It is an advanced program, believe it. Drone's are the future.

[bub]

I dont dipute the existance of drones only the valididity of the video. Maybe it is real but I remain very skeptical. There is a huge propaganda and psyclogical campaign going on between both sides. I just dont believe the particaular video to be a valid claim. Perhaps it is but until I recieve more evidence than that I dispute the claims. If America cant make a stealth drone that is so fast to evade enemy aircraft or radar lock from ships or airplanes there is no way Canada,Iran,China or anyone else can. One again I may be wrong but I wasnt born yesterday either!! Maybe someday a more reliable source will come forward to verify this claim than irainian state run media in the mist of a propaganda campaign with the west. In a time of high tensions countries will say things to boost the moral of the citizens and dishearten the enemy. It works both ways. Lets just hope war is avoided as my country is involved as well along with many others. This will not be just a war between Iran and the U.S! I have children as many of you do and my love for them and thier future is very important to me as it is to you. But my own feeling is that many will soon die for better or worse!!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I dont dipute the existance of drones only the valididity of the video. Maybe it is real but I remain very skeptical. There is a huge propaganda and psyclogical campaign going on between both sides. I just dont believe the particaular video to be a valid claim. Perhaps it is but until I recieve more evidence than that I dispute the claims. If America cant make a stealth drone that is so fast to evade enemy aircraft or radar lock from ships or airplanes there is no way Canada,Iran,China or anyone else can. One again I may be wrong but I wasnt born yesterday either!! Maybe someday a more reliable source will come forward to verify this claim than irainian state run media in the mist of a propaganda campaign with the west. In a time of high tensions countries will say things to boost the moral of the citizens and dishearten the enemy. It works both ways. Lets just hope war is avoided as my country is involved as well along with many others. This will not be just a war between Iran and the U.S! I have children as many of you do and my love for them and thier future is very important to me as it is to you. But my own feeling is that many will soon die for better or worse!!

Nobody in Iran wants a war either. It just seems that the Bush regime does so Iran is preparing for the worst. I think the situation could be easily cooled but Bush is not helping matters.

Iran has been known for building drones for many years. I reamember seeing posters of them when I was a child (about 1984). Also, objects not constructed from permiable materials can easily avoid radar.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

America can intercept ICBM'SProof?40 years ago they could shoot satellites out of orbit as could russia.False. The Soviets first destroyed a satellite in 1974 and the Americans in 1985. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon


You know there are helicopter UAVs. Also, you are forgetting that the US and Iran are not at war. So, why WOULD the US shoot down a UAV even if they saw it?

[wxtornado]

I think you have all been fooled by irainian government propaganda. This is probably a video taken from a helicopter off the shores of america. I dont believe everything I see. I could easily get a copy of planes leaving the deck of an aircraft carrier of the coats of canada or the U.S put some subtitles on it and say it is something it is not. I think you have all been had. I know I will be bashed and ridiculed for saying this but does anyone honestly believe the video is what they claim. The supposed drone appears to hover in one spot for almost a minute. Believe what you all wish but I dont by it. The U.S. military could have shot it from the sky easily with one of the many, many warships that seem to be missing from the picture. If this ship was in the middle east where are all the destroyers ect? America can intercept ICBM'S and they can definatley knock a drown out of the sky. The can put a missile on a target 5000 miles away accurate within inches. 40 years ago they could shoot satellites out of orbit as could russia. Something china has recently done. That photo and the claims are laughable. Not hear to offend to telling it like I see it!!

Bub, nobody but the Iranians, well, most muslims too probably, believe what the Iraninan government claims about this video. It's pretty much a non-issue in the rest of the world.

[MrWanted]

Proof?False. The Soviets first destroyed a satellite in 1974 and the Americans in 1985. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon


You know there are helicopter UAVs. Also, you are forgetting that the US and Iran are not at war. So, why WOULD the US shoot down a UAV even if they saw it?

Because Iran actually shoots down US drones. Why would a US carrier tolerate a drone in it's aproximity?:worried2:

[wxtornado]

Why would a US carrier tolerate a drone in it's aproximity?:worried2:

That's the whole point - a US Carrier and her battle group, on alert footing, in a hostile area, wouldn't tolerate an enemy drone anywhere near it.

[Native]

I was not offended.

I don't believe American technology is magic, but I do understand alot of the technology. I have worked with UAV's, satellites, AEGIS. I understand ROE. I would not say for a fact the video is what some claim. But there is no proof it is. I could dig up some video and say it is whatever I want.

Saying i'm arrogant because I doubt the validity of the video as to it's claims puts a smile on my face. Not because I know i'm right. I don't know that.

What really puts the smile on my face is people who want something to be true, so they jump on the bandwagon of saying it happend a specific way, not only with no proof but with no real knowledge.

I am more then willing to believe that Iran has good UAV's, that Iran can do a fly by on an American CV, but to assume that the Battlegroup wasn't aware of it just because they didn't act in which the way you would assume they would is ignorant.

fyi. An armed F-4 could do a fly by on a U.S. CV and not be shot down so long as it didn't take on an attack profile.

So imagine a similiar video of an Iranian armed F-4 flying over a U.S. CV and all the posters, saying "omg Iranian acft can totally sneak up on a U.S. warship and sink it, look we are flying over it and it isn't shooting us down, they didn't even know we were there."

See my point? /ramble off

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Because Iran actually shoots down US drones. Why would a US carrier tolerate a drone in it's aproximity?:worried2:When did that happen?That's the whole point - a US Carrier and her battle group, on alert footing, in a hostile area, wouldn't tolerate an enemy drone anywhere near it.False. If they're not in American waters and not at war with Iran, they won't shoot down anything, unless they are actually on some undeclared war like that time they shot own an Iranian commercial plane full of civilians.
fyi. An armed F-4 could do a fly by on a U.S. CV and not be shot down so long as it didn't take on an attack profile.

So imagine a similiar video of an Iranian armed F-4 flying over a U.S. CV and all the posters, saying "omg Iranian acft can totally sneak up on a U.S. warship and sink it, look we are flying over it and it isn't shooting us down, they didn't even know we were there."

See my point? /ramble off

Thank you for supporting my point.

[azrael]

I don't believe American technology is magic,

Blasphemer!!!! has a stealth satellite smoked your ar'se already with a super duper secret laser blast?

hahahahahahahahah

Unfortunately most fan boys here share in a strange religion that holds that u.s. military technology is magic. When forced to confront issues such as vietnam, iraq, afghanistan or any other conflict where invincible u.s. military tech does not produce the 'anticipated' results, they go into a near catatonic state from which they emerge from to start spewing out a torrent of excuses; liberals media bias, iranian agents aroound every corner, whatever is neccesary to salvage their sacred belief in their +5 magic weapons.

Warfare has always and will always be a human affair, the equipment and gadgets are great but everything has a counter and the side willing to confront the buther's bill and pay it upfront can usually tiumph even in the face of superior technology. All u.s. military weapons are based on the very well known laws of physics, iran may not have the technological infrastructure nor the economic might to match the u.s. arsenal, but we have the basic understanding of science, the willingness to sacrifice ourselves and the requisite industrial base to challenge u.s. forces asymmetrically across the entire spectrum of warfare.

Take my word for it, iranian infantry is harder, meaner, smarter and far more capable than their u.s. counterparts, we are more integrated for combined action small unit fights for a number of reasons, we move with a smaller foot print, and when we hit , we hit to knock out , not to fix for support as the u.s. counter part does. In mountain, forest or urban fight we'll savage any army on the face of this planet. Our airforce , while capable of acting against regional threats, is no match for the sole remaining super power, but we have taken measures to compensate for that without relying upon aircraft. Our navy has bifurcated into two forces, one a regional policing navy, to keep our friends in our gulf in check and a guerilla navy ready to strike out in the constrained waters of iran's gulf. The iranian military is not magic, just flesh , blood and steel, throw your lives upon at your own peril.

[JEskandari]

I was not offended.

I don't believe American technology is magic, but I do understand alot of the technology. I have worked with UAV's, satellites, AEGIS. I understand ROE. I would not say for a fact the video is what some claim. But there is no proof it is. I could dig up some video and say it is whatever I want.

Saying i'm arrogant because I doubt the validity of the video as to it's claims puts a smile on my face. Not because I know i'm right. I don't know that.

What really puts the smile on my face is people who want something to be true, so they jump on the bandwagon of saying it happend a specific way, not only with no proof but with no real knowledge.

I am more then willing to believe that Iran has good UAV's, that Iran can do a fly by on an American CV, but to assume that the Battlegroup wasn't aware of it just because they didn't act in which the way you would assume they would is ignorant.

fyi. An armed F-4 could do a fly by on a U.S. CV and not be shot down so long as it didn't take on an attack profile.

So imagine a similiar video of an Iranian armed F-4 flying over a U.S. CV and all the posters, saying "omg Iranian acft can totally sneak up on a U.S. warship and sink it, look we are flying over it and it isn't shooting us down, they didn't even know we were there."

See my point? /ramble off

Then I Must say shame on such strike group that allowed it to happen
.

[Ricardo]

I found this video in youtube of the iranian drones:biggrin1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46OdJFXr4v4

[Kaveh]

@ricardo

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7568/iranuavas1.jpg

this is the uav which has flyed over the carrier

[Native]

Then I Must say shame on such strike group that allowed it to happen
.

Where is the shame? I don't get it.

Are you saying shame on the BG for allowing a Iranian drone to fly over or by a CV? There is nothing illegal about that and if the CV did not perceive the drone as a threat there is no reason to shoot it down.
But remember this whole thread is based on assumptions.

[JEskandari]

Where is the shame? I don't get it.

Are you saying shame on the BG for allowing a Iranian drone to fly over or by a CV? There is nothing illegal about that and if the CV did not perceive the drone as a threat there is no reason to shoot it down.
But remember this whole thread is based on assumptions.
I'll say shame on the battle group that allow an f4 fly over the carrier
and was that 8 f18 fly for vacation from the career

[rabs]

Its highly unlikely the US knew the drone was Iranian or a drone at all. We cant really know what happened cause the US wont comment. The drone should of been well within the SPY-1Ds capabilities. .

[wxtornado]

Its highly unlikely the US knew the drone was Iranian or a drone at all. We cant really know what happened cause the US wont comment. The drone should of been well within the SPY-1Ds capabilities. .

The US won't comment because it's a non-issue. What the Iranian government claims happened, didn't! It's just that simple:biggrin1:

[Native]

I'll say shame on the battle group that allow an f4 fly over the carrier

um.. ok...

So what should the U.S. do if a IR F-4 or UAV were to overfly a CV in a peaceful manner? What would you have done?

And I don't understand what your saying here, could you please rephrase it?

and was that 8 f18 fly for vacation from the career

[JEskandari]

um.. ok...

So what should the U.S. do if a IR F-4 or UAV were to overfly a CV in a peaceful manner? What would you have done?

And I don't understand what your saying here, could you please rephrase it?


I think its routine for them to make some sort of alarm
and in the movie there are some f18 that fly from the career

[Native]

I think its routine for them to make some sort of alarm and in the movie there are some f18 that fly from the career

Now why did you have to base your opinion on tv? How do you know that they are not in an "alarm" status as you say?

If this CV is in the gulf or really anywhere besides off the coast of the U.S. there would be a CAP up.

If an enemy acft were this close to a U.S. warship in a heightened status. This is what would be going on.
1) There would be CAP up.
2) AEGIS would be tracking it.
3) Farther out a missile would be ready to go, at this range it would more then likely be Phalanx ready to go.

There is nothing fanboy or magical about my statements, that is just the wa

[wxtornado]

Now why did you have to base your opinion on tv? How do you know that they are not in an "alarm" status as you say?

If this CV is in the gulf or really anywhere besides off the coast of the U.S. there would be a CAP up.

If an enemy acft were this close to a U.S. warship in a heightened status. This is what would be going on.
1) There would be CAP up.
2) AEGIS would be tracking it.
3) Farther out a missile would be ready to go, at this range it would more then likely be Phalanx ready to go.

There is nothing fanboy or magical about my statements, that is just the wa

Indeed. A carrier in the Gulf would be on alert footing and she would have a helo on her deck. This one clearly isn't on alert footing. This vid was taken with a handheld camera out of the window of an airplane - there are references to it out there. Again, non-issue. Iranian propoganda. Standard.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I think its routine for them to make some sort of alarm
and in the movie there are some f18 that fly from the career

True. If they could shoot it down they would. Obvosly, it is not a commercial jet liner or it would be shot down.

[Azarakash]

@ricardo

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7568/iranuavas1.jpg

this is the uav which has flyed over the carrier
If Iran was smart they's bring these aircraft into the U.S. and handicap/destroy U.S. power grids causing mass black-outs throuout the nation.

[MrWanted]

If Iran was smart they's bring these aircraft into the U.S. and handicap/destroy U.S. power grids causing mass black-outs throuout the nation.

Why should they do that?:err2:

[JEskandari]

Indeed. A carrier in the Gulf would be on alert footing and she would have a helo on her deck. This one clearly isn't on alert footing. This vid was taken with a handheld camera out of the window of an airplane - there are references to it out there. Again, non-issue. Iranian propoganda. Standard.
then wasnt it hard for american to produce the original film

[Power_Serj]

Why should they do that?:err2:
The real question is not "why would they do that", the question is "how would they do that?"


The answer, is that they can't.

[Azarakash]

Why should they do that?:err2:

To cause internal grief.:3eyes4:

[JEskandari]

The real question is not "why would they do that", the question is "how would they do that?"


The answer, is that they can't.
they can buy the plane in american toy stores i have heard their toys are intresting

[sacred defence]

kaveh, dont be naive, iran and israel are the only democracy in the persian gulf and greater middle east, also has for being against the islamic republic it means you are against iran, and if you say you are against the last shah pahlavi dynasty then you are an hypocrite because you fly the flag of the pahlavis, and did you not no the lion on the flag represents maula ali, one last comment freedom has limitations it is not to be abused otherwise we end up with anarchy, chaos and then breakdown in the rule of law everything has limits including freedom. Freedom now days is to widely mis-used.

[rabs]

Yes brilliant idea, attack the mainland united states. Unite the American people against you, yes brilliant idea.

[JEskandari]

Yes brilliant idea, attack the mainland united states. Unite the American people against you, yes brilliant idea.
you think only america and israel have the right to attack other country infra structure.
and as i said in another place why attack civilian when you can use them to make a second war behind the line of enemy you only need to make the american casualties high and see that they are your best ally in the war now its good to disturb for examole power line or communication so they can feel the war too butattacking civilian is useless strategy it only unite them but i must say there are someones who cant see such simple think look at what happened in lebanon its a perfect demonstaration of the failure of strategy what israel did

[KingoftheHill]

Of course Iran would have the right to attack American infrastructure.

But, it would be the dumbest thing they ever did.

If they did it in a major way, that could very well led to the end of Iran as we know it.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

kaveh, dont be naive, iran and israel are the only democracy in the persian gulf and greater middle east, also has for being against the islamic republic it means you are against iran, and if you say you are against the last shah pahlavi dynasty then you are an hypocrite because you fly the flag of the pahlavis...Didn't the pre-1979 flag have a crown above the lion?
You use the same logic patriotic Americans use: If you're against Bush, you're against America!Yes brilliant idea, attack the mainland united states. Unite the American people against you, yes brilliant idea.It wouldn't exactly be an attack if the US made the first move. Also, it would be a major strategic advantage, if the Iranians *somehow* managed to destroy military command centers in the US.

[NeoConVirgin]

See Mr know it all. If I analyse your policital profile from your postings which I have done. I would suspect you to be working for MI Fart, MI Sux o Central Intercorse Agency. Where it comes to US Aircraft carriers bottom line is take your crappy ships and leave the persian gulf and head back to wherever you came from. Not all white americans and europeans are racists but nearly all racists are white americans and europeans. Now go and bite on this bone for a while and come back with a better signature.

Ciao

I was not offended.

I don't believe American technology is magic, but I do understand alot of the technology. I have worked with UAV's, satellites, AEGIS. I understand ROE. I would not say for a fact the video is what some claim. But there is no proof it is. I could dig up some video and say it is whatever I want.

Saying i'm arrogant because I doubt the validity of the video as to it's claims puts a smile on my face. Not because I know i'm right. I don't know that.

What really puts the smile on my face is people who want something to be true, so they jump on the bandwagon of saying it happend a specific way, not only with no proof but with no real knowledge.

I am more then willing to believe that Iran has good UAV's, that Iran can do a fly by on an American CV, but to assume that the Battlegroup wasn't aware of it just because they didn't act in which the way you would assume they would is ignorant.

fyi. An armed F-4 could do a fly by on a U.S. CV and not be shot down so long as it didn't take on an attack profile.

So imagine a similiar video of an Iranian armed F-4 flying over a U.S. CV and all the posters, saying "omg Iranian acft can totally sneak up on a U.S. warship and sink it, look we are flying over it and it isn't shooting us down, they didn't even know we were there."

See my point? /ramble off

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Not all white americans and europeans are racists but nearly all racists are white americans and europeans.
That's like saying "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

[NeoConVirgin]

Mohmar this is his (Natives) signature what you just wrote ;).


That's like saying "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Mohmar this is his (Natives) signature what you just wrote ;).Oh yeah :D

[Yasin20]

if iran did blow up the Aircraft carrier would things be more easer for iran or not just still hard and would also be verry big hit to the media all around the world

[Ramziz93]

Hehehe..Or it(Iran) could use 20 to 30 of these Drones as Kamakazies..and Blow up the whole Aircraft carrier...Well,it could be possible..What do you all think??

[JEskandari]

Hehehe..Or it(Iran) could use 20 to 30 of these Drones as Kamakazies..and Blow up the whole Aircraft carrier...Well,it could be possible..What do you all think??
iran can destroy the career radars with one and let its missile from the shore do the rest if a ship loose its radar even 60 era missiles can destroy it.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

That is if it gets thru the AEGIS air defense shields of the frigates that will be stationed between the carrier and the coast. I don't think the chances are too good. :(

[SuperSixOne]

You also seem to forget Operation Praying Mantis back in '88 when the USS Enterprise sunk most of the Irainian Navy in the matter of an afternoon.

Yours guy's best chance would be on the ground where it is still somwhat a level playing field.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

You also seem to forget Operation Praying Mantis back in '88 when the USS Enterprise sunk most of the Irainian Navy in the matter of an afternoon.

Yours guy's best chance would be on the ground where it is still somwhat a level playing field.

Many things changed since 19 years ago.

[SS_Charlemagne]

You also seem to forget Operation Praying Mantis back in '88 when the USS Enterprise sunk most of the Irainian Navy in the matter of an afternoon.

Yours guy's best chance would be on the ground where it is still somwhat a level playing field.

Hmmm... be a little modest, please. Only two major vessels (a frigate and a gunboat) were sunk, and also several speedboats. If this is "most of Iranian Navy", you are underestimating Iranian Navy more than any "serious" american analyst has ever done :D

[SuperSixOne]

Many things changed since 19 years ago.

Like what? You still fly our aircraft from vietnam in 60's, they are allmost 50 years old!!!

Only two major vessels (a frigate and a gunboat) were sunk, and also several speedboats. If this is "most of Iranian Navy", you are underestimating Iranian Navy more than any "serious" american analyst has ever done

your "ships" were sunk and attacked by electronics warfare aircraft, they were never designed to drop munitions. The aircraft wern't even on a DAM (direct attack mission) they were doing combat air patrol and just stumbled accross some for your frigates.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Like what? You still fly our aircraft from vietnam in 60's, they are allmost 50 years old!!!



your "ships" were sunk and attacked by electronics warfare aircraft, they were never designed to drop munitions. The aircraft wern't even on a DAM (direct attack mission) they were doing combat air patrol and just stumbled accross some for your frigates.

Allot can change in 19 years.

You don't even have the slightest clue on what Iran has other than a massive military. During the Shah, Iran bought US equipment at a astronomically high price. Now we build our own and your red necks get bent up. In fact, we sell it to anybody we want too. We advanced guidance systems and excellent engineering. Many Iranian engineers work on US defense contracts. I even have. You have no secrets anymore.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

your "ships" were sunk and attacked by electronics warfare aircraft, they were never designed to drop munitions. The aircraft wern't even on a DAM (direct attack mission) they were doing combat air patrol and just stumbled accross some for your frigates.I doubt any Spanish ships were sunk during Operation Praying Mantis.

In case you meant Iranian ships, you are wrong. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis A-6E Intruder aircraft from the VA-95 "Green Lizards" were vectored in on the speedboats by an American frigate. The two aircraft, piloted by Lieutenant Commander James Engler and Lieutenant Paul Webb dropped Rockeye cluster bombs on the speedboats, sinking one and damaging several others. The Intruder was developed in response to a U.S. Navy specification for an all-weather carrier-based attack aircraft to serve as a replacement for the piston-powered, World War II-era A-1 Skyraider.

[4X-IL]

I doubt any Spanish ships were sunk during Operation Praying Mantis.

In case you meant Iranian ships, you are wrong. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis



The battle, the largest for American surface forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.



Can't you read?

[SS_Charlemagne]

Can't you read?

two warships and six speedboats is not "the most of Iranian Navy", as the american guy was claiming...

[Tbagger]

two warships and six speedboats is not "the most of Iranian Navy", as the american guy was claiming...
It was enough to send the Iranian Navy packing. :)

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Can't you read?How does this contradict anything I said?

[crod]

Don’t know much about naval abilities etc but apart from the subs how would the Iranian fleet be able to defend an attack (not that one is coming)?

Have they anti aircraft missile boats etc? if they were going to attack, would the Iranian ships not all be in port (I know some would be on patrol etc but not the entire fleet) and literally be sitting ducks? What is the defence contingency plan for such an attack have they offered any clues in recent war games? I know the have a few good torpedos and surface to surface missiles but anyone any insight to a possible defence situation?

[JEskandari]

It was enough to send the Iranian Navy packing. :)
pack i dont think so
till the last they of war iraq had no navy ato send to persian gulf
and iran fast boats did as they did before that special day.
and sinking those ship wasnt very hard when they have no defence.

[JEskandari]

Don’t know much about naval abilities etc but apart from the subs how would the Iranian fleet be able to defend an attack (not that one is coming)?

Have they anti aircraft missile boats etc? if they were going to attack, would the Iranian ships not all be in port (I know some would be on patrol etc but not the entire fleet) and literally be sitting ducks? What is the defence contingency plan for such an attack have they offered any clues in recent war games? I know the have a few good torpedos and surface to surface missiles but anyone any insight to a possible defence situation?
recent wargames implyed iran wanmt to make a surface to sea war if its needed

[abdou]

if iran really wants to neytralize a US air carrier, they can just destroy the ships radar and raun ways, is it possible??

thanks,

[JEskandari]

if iran really wants to neytralize a US air carrier, they can just destroy the ships radar and raun ways, is it possible??

thanks,
yes no radar and you are a blind and cant see were enemy come from

[Oriellien]

AEGIS cruisers would eliminate any missles/aircraft, the only way to defeat an American carrier group is to eliminate its cruisers first, which would give the carrier time to launch and the subs to launch misslse (which could be nukes) and then its game over.

I'm not trying to inflame anyone but US Carrier Groups are the most powerful naval fleets in the world. The only clear way to destroy one would be a nuke (or a huge EMP missle). You could destroy the radar but that would be as diffuclt as destroying the ships themselves.

[Janbaz]

AEGIS cruisers would eliminate any missles/aircraft, the only way to defeat an American carrier group is to eliminate its cruisers first, which would give the carrier time to launch and the subs to launch misslse (which could be nukes) and then its game over.

I'm not trying to inflame anyone but US Carrier Groups are the most powerful naval fleets in the world. The only clear way to destroy one would be a nuke (or a huge EMP missle). You could destroy the radar but that would be as diffuclt as destroying the ships themselves.


There are hand full of other ways to defeat AEGIS capable Naval Aircraft Carrier group.

[JEskandari]

AEGIS cruisers would eliminate any missles/aircraft, the only way to defeat an American carrier group is to eliminate its cruisers first, which would give the carrier time to launch and the subs to launch misslse (which could be nukes) and then its game over.

I'm not trying to inflame anyone but US Carrier Groups are the most powerful naval fleets in the world. The only clear way to destroy one would be a nuke (or a huge EMP missle). You could destroy the radar but that would be as diffuclt as destroying the ships themselves.
lebanon war show that aegis can be defeated and aegis is like an armour dont you think when you make an armour its logical that somebody else make a weapon that penetrate it. then its time that you make another armour which is more power full and it begin again and again and again.

[TOMMYJO]

lebanon war show that aegis can be defeated and aegis is like an armour dont you think when you make an armour its logical that somebody else make a weapon that penetrate it. then its time that you make another armour which is more power full and it begin again and again and again.

Israel doesn't have AEGIS. I expect you are thinking about the Israeli Corvette hit by C-802? The Israeli's admitted that their fire control system was down as they didn't expect such a missile strike from Lebanese shores.

[Ramziz93]

Hey guyzz Don't you think An attack on Iran would be Massively Discouraged..I Mean C'mon During the War in Iraq There were Massive Demonstrations in America and the European Countries..People were Totally against the War in Iraq..There was so much criticism about the War in Iraq..And there are talks of Troop Withdrawl and etc. etc...Don't you think That if a Guerilla Force Fewer than 10,000 in no. could cause so much Havoc and So much Problems for American Troops..Imagine What could an army million times Better than the Iraqi's..Equipped with the Best Technology(Ok,Not "THE" best but at-least Million times better than the Iraqis)..Weapons..All the **** you know..Could be Extremely Devastating For the U.S army.

Think about it,A war in this Scale at this time is not possible..At-Least The American People won't Allow it nor would the Free people Anywhere in the World.

[Oriellien]

Hey guyzz Don't you think An attack on Iran would be Massively Discouraged..I Mean C'mon During the War in Iraq There were Massive Demonstrations in America and the European Countries..People were Totally against the War in Iraq..There was so much criticism about the War in Iraq..And there are talks of Troop Withdrawl and etc. etc...Don't you think That if a Guerilla Force Fewer than 10,000 in no. could cause so much Havoc and So much Problems for American Troops..Imagine What could an army million times Better than the Iraqi's..Equipped with the Best Technology(Ok,Not "THE" best but at-least Million times better than the Iraqis)..Weapons..All the **** you know..Could be Extremely Devastating For the U.S army.

Think about it,A war in this Scale at this time is not possible..At-Least The American People won't Allow it nor would the Free people Anywhere in the World.

US couldnt invade Iran but they have enough bombs to do a lot of damage without stepping foot in Iran. Iran could attack the army/marines in Iraq thouigh which would be bad for the US.

[asif]

if iran really wants to neytralize a US air carrier, they can just destroy the ships radar and raun ways, is it possible??

thanks,

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you come right out of a comic book:roflmao3: :roflmao3:

[SuperSixOne]

If america went to war with IRAN (which is becoming less likely every day as bush's days are coming to a end thank god) we would probably just bomb iran into submission with cruise missiles and such. But I don't see it happening so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Ramziz93]

If america went to war with IRAN (which is becoming less likely every day as bush's days are coming to a end thank god) we would probably just bomb iran into submission with cruise missiles and such. But I don't see it happening so I wouldn't worry about it.

Yeah,But I don't Think That Iranians Would like to Have Cruise Missiles Hitting their Butts..Now Don't You think that If America Bombed Iran..Iran would Retaliate..And That Retaliation would Be Supported By Shahabs,Fajrs,Noors,Kowsars,Ababils,(These are Names of Iranian Missiles),All of them Capable of hitting American Ships(Cruisers,Aircraft Carriers,Destroyers,Frigates) in the Gulf,And then The Americans Retaliate with a Ground Offensive all leading to "WAR"..What do you think..??

[Ramziz93]

Or the American Stealth Bombers Go in and Bombard The Coast Line and Then..

[Ramziz93]

Ok I have one Question for all of you..If in case There is War..Would the Iranians Attack the American Base in Northern Qatar..Or the American Installations in Saudi Arabia..Now that we Know that Iranian Missiles are Capable of Doing that..??..And Then All of IRIAF Come together to attack the American Port and Base in Bahrain and then we have another Pearl Harbour..What do you Guyyz Think..??

[Oriellien]

America is never going to attack Iran first, because if it did the American people would literally tear down the White House.

The US went into Afghanistan to destroy Bin-Laden and those who helped him. In Iraq the government lied to make it seem like Saddam was supporting Bin Laden which the American people stupidly believed.

Believe me the USA is never going to attack Iran unless the government sets off a nuke in New York and blames it on Iran. And if that happened the US gov't would just nuke Iran.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

America is never going to attack Iran first, because if it did the American people would literally tear down the White House.

The US went into Afghanistan to destroy Bin-Laden and those who helped him. In Iraq the government lied to make it seem like Saddam was supporting Bin Laden which the American people stupidly believed.

Believe me the USA is never going to attack Iran unless the government sets off a nuke in New York and blames it on Iran. And if that happened the US gov't would just nuke Iran.

I am not so shure about that. Bush is known for lieing and cheating so I would not put it past him and Chaney again.

[Oriellien]

The difference is the US people would never believe the same lie in a different shade unless there were ALOT of dead Americans blamed on Iran. A lot meaning more then 9/11.

[Ricardo]

The difference is the US people would never believe the same lie in a different shade unless there were ALOT of dead Americans blamed on Iran. A lot meaning more then 9/11.

Now they are blaming Iran saying that they support al-qaeda.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The difference is the US people would never believe the same lie in a different shade unless there were ALOT of dead Americans blamed on Iran. A lot meaning more then 9/11.

What Bush, Chaney and his cronies did was diabolical. They pull tricks. If Chaney attacks Iran, even a small strike, that will cause a retaliation and there will be plenty of dead Americans to serve his benifite. I hope it wont happen but I just dont trust them for anything.

[Oriellien]

I hope it doesnt happen either :( I think even if the US first attack is small people will still realize what is going on though.

To Ricardo: They said Iran is supplying some shia militia's, but that argument fell apart fast when US generals said there was no evidence that the government of Iran was responsible.

[SuperSixOne]

Bush and Cheyney don't have enough time left in office or enough support to start another war.

You guys should be more concerned with Israel, they have mentioned preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran, and they have done it in the past. The best example was probably the Israel - Egypt war. I forget it's name.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Bush and Cheyney don't have enough time left in office or enough support to start another war.

You guys should be more concerned with Israel, they have mentioned preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran, and they have done it in the past. The best example was probably the Israel - Egypt war. I forget it's name.

Bush and Chaney have plenty of time to start a war, especially because they don't have to finish it. They really dont need the support, just attack and wait a few minuits for the retaliation.

I$rael is not much of an issue, they are an easy missile target and Iran has more missiles than they have buildings.

[SuperSixOne]

You forget bush and cheyney arn't supreme warlords, they can't just hit a button called war and it begins. Congress has to approve it and approve the money to pay for it, Congress is now controlled by the democrats bush is a republican

Democrats + Republican's = Nothing is going to happen.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

You forget bush and cheyney arn't supreme warlords, they can't just hit a button called war and it begins. Congress has to approve it and approve the money to pay for it, Congress is now controlled by the democrats bush is a republican

Democrats + Republican's = Nothing is going to happen.

I understand he is mostly a lame duck right now but he could just call it a pre-emptive strike fearing imminant danger, raise the terror alert level to red and call the retaliation a unjust attack. Bush and Chaney have done the seemingly impossable before, I wouldn't trust them not to do it again.

[damnations]

If america went to war with IRAN (which is becoming less likely every day as bush's days are coming to a end thank god) we would probably just bomb iran into submission with cruise missiles and such. But I don't see it happening so I wouldn't worry about it.

Nobody is going to attack anyone! Specially now that americans and bush administration are so overpopular all over the world..
follow the link :
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01e_1174091038

[Oriellien]

You forget bush and cheyney arn't supreme warlords, they can't just hit a button called war and it begins. Congress has to approve it and approve the money to pay for it, Congress is now controlled by the democrats bush is a republican

Democrats + Republican's = Nothing is going to happen.

Democrats are a paper tiger. Too afraid for themselves and being viewed as anti-troop and loosing votes, they aren't cutting funding for Iraq. Cutting funding would end the war and that would be pro-troop though.

[SuperSixOne]

were not talking about Iraq, Iran is a whole different animal and the democrats would never approve of it. They would vote it down and then promote themselves as the political party that stopped more americans from dieing and those who saved a boatload of $$$ for america.

[Oriellien]

What if Bush ordered an airstrike on Iran (which he can do) and Iran retailiated by attacking all American bases in the region killing thousands of US soldiers. I dont the Dems would be able to stop that war.

Although thats just a theoretical possibility someone told me about on these forums.

[SuperSixOne]

He wouldn't order an air strike, that wouldn't get him to Tehran and it would look even worse.

Also if he did launch it and Iran didn't fight back it would make him look even worse, he would probably be impeached and visit the local prison at that point.

[damnations]

were not talking about Iraq, Iran is a whole different animal and the democrats would never approve of it. They would vote it down and then promote themselves as the political party that stopped more americans from dieing and those who saved a boatload of $$$ for america.

Do NOT use the terms like "animal" in association with Iran.....

[SuperSixOne]

Do NOT use the terms like "animal" in association with Iran.....

Calm down, it's a figure of speech, don't sh1t yourself over it.

[damnations]

Calm down, it's a figure of speech, don't sh1t yourself over it.

I really hope so cause in the forums like this one when two enemy countries come to the table to talk, those terms will trigger an explosion. Now if i "sh1t" myself as you so delicately put is not relevant in this matter...

[Ramziz93]

Heyy..Israel must never be Underestimated..They Have Proved themselves Many Times Before..But you know Arab countries are a different Issue they are not even Comparable to Iranian soldiers..Believe me even without Shahab-3 Iranians are Capable of defeating the Israeli Army..But you never Know..War is War..Even Nos. Don't Count when you have Experienced,Well-Trained and Well-Equipped Soldiers..Take the Eg. of The Battle of Thermopylae..300 Spartans against 1 Million Persians..Though In the end the 300 Spartans were Defeated..Iranians are a well Trained and Well Equipped Force..!!

[damnations]

Heyy..Israel must never be Underestimated..They Have Proved themselves Many Times Before..But you know Arab countries are a different Issue they are not even Comparable to Iranian soldiers..Believe me even without Shahab-3 Iranians are Capable of defeating the Israeli Army..But you never Know..War is War..Even Nos. Don't Count when you have Experienced,Well-Trained and Well-Equipped Soldiers..Take the Eg. of The Battle of Thermopylae..300 Spartans against 1 Million Persians..Though In the end the 300 Spartans were Defeated..Iranians are a well Trained and Well Equipped Force..!!

:roflmao3: I really don't care about that movie man!! it ain't gonna trigger anything here. We ain't gonna start no war with Israel and that's for sure. These are games for the whole world to focus on while we are conducting bussiness elsewhere!!! europeans feel guilty about killing over 3 million jews which will shift their attention to the ME when someone mentions jews there. While they are arguing amongst themselves Iran will become a super power. And i can promis you that we will have Israel as an ally in the future.....The real threat ain't coming from Israel and Iran knows that. So Iran is pawning the Israel issue...

[Janbaz]

Heyy..Israel must never be Underestimated..They Have Proved themselves Many Times Before..But you know Arab countries are a different Issue they are not even Comparable to Iranian soldiers..Believe me even without Shahab-3 Iranians are Capable of defeating the Israeli Army..But you never Know..War is War..Even Nos. Don't Count when you have Experienced,Well-Trained and Well-Equipped Soldiers..Take the Eg. of The Battle of Thermopylae..300 Spartans against 1 Million Persians..Though In the end the 300 Spartans were Defeated..Iranians are a well Trained and Well Equipped Force..!!

These kind of thoughts are common among Persians/Iranians. These Kind of thinking caused Iran to lose Azarbayeejan, Turkamaestan, Osbakestan, Armenia, Afghanestan, to Russia 84 Years ago. Otherwise Iran would have be been force to reckon with.
You never underestimate your enemy, you will not increase your defence gradually, you will confrot it with FULL Force, and hit him hard. That is the way it should be, and that is US and Israeli doctorine.

[Ramziz93]

Hey,Damnations Cool Avatar,Is that you in The Display Picture..!!

[Ramziz93]

Anyways..What is The Newest Weapon in Iran's Inventory..??

[Ramziz93]

And What are the Capabilities of the Kheibar Bullpup..??

Thanxx,Ramziz

[mustavaris]

To Ricardo: They said Iran is supplying some shia militia's, but that argument fell apart fast when US generals said there was no evidence that the government of Iran was responsible.

Well, there is difference between four alternatives:

1# Some rogue elements in Iranian military act on their own and supply the shia´s with various stuff. No government involvement needed.

2# There are no Iranians involved (unlikely, many weapons have been captured and shown).

3# It´s Quds or some other organization that works on it´s own without direct instructions of Iranian regime. There are many factions in Iran that could work on their own, without direct orders from the government. Maybe even against governments will (unlikely though).

4# They just haven´t gotten the "smoking gun" evidence. It´s REALLY serious if some general blames Iranian government. You cannot swallow those words (esp. when considering the fact that in this case it looks like the politicians want war, but the armies dont, works for both sides).

[bub]

Incase there is any confusion on whether congress needs to authorize war with iran,they do not!!


Fox news
WASHINGTON — Top House Democrats retreated from an attempt to limit President George W. Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and to alleviate what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.

The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they "are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement that said Democrats should not count on any help passing their legislation. "Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror," he said.

Top Democrats had a different perspective.

Pelosi issued a written statement that said the vice president's remarks prove that "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement that America was less safe today because of the war. The president "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it," he added.

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility toward the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

Public opinion has swung the way of Democrats on the issue of the war. More than six in 10 Americans think the conflict was a mistake -- the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling.

But Democrats have struggled to find a compromise that can satisfy both liberals who oppose any funding for the military effort and conservatives who do not want to unduly restrict the commander in chief.

"This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need," said Rep. Dan Boren, an Oklahoma Democrat, on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.

In his speech, Cheney chided lawmakers who are pressing for tougher action on Iran to oppose the president on the Iraq War.

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," he said.

[dannytoro]

...Is there a fresh link to the video? The one I saw had two very wrong facts in the picture. There are no F-4 Phantoms or S-3's on the Ronald Reagan, both long retired now.....

[Oriellien]

...Is there a fresh link to the video? The one I saw had two very wrong facts in the picture. There are no F-4 Phantoms or S-3's on the Ronald Reagan, both long retired now.....

Doesnt that mean there shouldnt be any on it?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

The video isn't what Iran claims it to be - long since debunked....

no it hasnt

[dannytoro]

..The last offical Phantom unit retired in January of this year. It was a unit flying F-4F's in support of the German Fleet. They were USAF reserve and certainly not carrier qualified. The last Marine Corps Phantom unit retired in 1992 and was officially the last carrier qualified Phantom unit to retire...

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Do you say Iran built a duplicate carrier just to make a little video?

[JEskandari]

no he means as its best to hide things in front of the eye of who search for it . the carrier is irans Aircraft carrier but as iran didnt want american know about it mad such movie and show it so they can think its theirs.

[dannytoro]

..no, I just think it's old footage.....

[Behrooz Boonabi]

..no, I just think it's old footage.....

It is a little old now.

[SuperSixOne]

It would have to be atleast 15 years old, haha maybe the first gulf war?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

It would have to be atleast 15 years old, haha maybe the first gulf war?

So do you say Iran built it just to make a clip?

[JEskandari]

Come on now, where would we hide and aircraft carrier, If we did have one, the Americans would have it all over their news, they like to show that we are evil and powerful.
Its because we made it so that they cant defrenciate it with their own we even made the f18 in the carrier:laugh4:

[JEskandari]

It would have to be atleast 15 years old, haha maybe the first gulf war?
If Iran 15 year ago could take that movie i'd like to know what we can do now.

[dannytoro]

....I do know that's not the Ronald Reagan today. The Mthel units will not allow aircraft that close to the ship......