Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weazel on October 15, 2001, 09:13:00 PM
-
That prior to the Afghanistan military operations we had OBL in the gunsight of one of our armed Predator drones and didn't take him out?
WTF are these guys thinking?
A golden opportunity squandered. :mad:
-
Predators aren't armed.
-
Why not, Funky-one?
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Predators aren't armed.
Rumsfeld was asked about this today, and he refused to comment. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I thought they were Hellfire capable, at least.
-
Well so far all they have publicized is one test firing back in February. There were supposed to be a couple more phases of testing before going operational. I haven't heard anything on that.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Predators aren't armed.
Ummm...yes they are, Bush authorized Omars <Taliban> killing when they had him in a Predators gunsight, General Franks didn't pull the trigger.
-
I strongly doubt that Gen. Franks is trained as an RPV operator. What is your source that the weaponization plan has gone operational?
-
I don't remember which news agency reported the story, think it was on the McNeil/Lehrer Hour but not positive.
They showed Predator camera footage of Omar and also an in-flight shot of it with what appeared to be a Hellfire anti-tank missle hanging on its wing.
The report stated that Bush gave his OK and handed off to Franks who didn't give the order to fire.
-
I though the predator was just used to either take photos or to set off air defence systems which are in turn monitored by another aircraft.. perhaps a rivetjoint... I never heard that they were in any way armed...
???
-
The USA has armed predators in operational status. It is true.
-
even if it wasnt armed, RAMMING SPEED.
I bet those things would make some nice mess of OBL
-
Originally posted by Wobble:
I though the predator was just used to either take photos or to set off air defence systems which are in turn monitored by another aircraft.. perhaps a rivetjoint... I never heard that they were in any way armed...
???
TheWobble?!?!? Is that you?
-
dang, yup the can be armed, with hellfire missles.. wierd
The Air Force's Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle made aerospace history Feb. 21 as it successfully launched a live Hellfire missile helping it evolve from a non-lethal, reconnaissance asset to an armed, highly accurate tank killer.
(http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/N-Predator-3.jpg)
-
Ok, ya take out Osama, then who is the focus, who is the face of "the evil doers"?
I think Osama alive keeps the public involved, able to support the "long war".
And you all know we will be fighting Iraq soon enough. It's Osama's job to show that Saddam is guilty and needs to be delt with!!
-
I wouldent want to kill him with that... not much enjoyment.. hell, like playing a video game.. naa, just capture him, tie him down.. and tap him on the head with a wooden spoon till he goes nutts.. the give him a sex changes.. and make him live in afganistan
-
Got a bit of info here that may shed some light on why the dron didn't fire (if it indeed WAS armed).
If the drone had a helfire missle on it, that missle requires a laser designator on the target. It like the copperhead artillery shell, is a guided warhead. No designator, no lock on target. If the drone cannot mark the target AND launch you can't target effectively. Now if it was a Maverick missle with TV guidance and the drone operator was able to launch and guide it would be a different story.
Mav
-
A laser designator could be mounted coax to the flir pod under the nose. I assume they did this or the whole developement is useless.
-
Yes the Predator has a laser to guide the Hellfire and designate targets for other aircraft.
-
Originally posted by weazel:
That prior to the Afghanistan military operations we had OBL in the gunsight of one of our armed Predator drones and didn't take him out?
WTF are these guys thinking?
A golden opportunity squandered. :mad:
they all look alike to me ...
how can you tell, did he have OBL sewn into the top of his rag??
-
The Predators capabilities are still being expanded.. and experimented with. Its a RECON platform, with a lotta neat capabilities.. but was never intended to haul ords to a target.
As noted above, we've played with ah... um.. well a few armament options... but the prime intent was not for this particular vehicle type to be routinely armed. I do not believe we have armed Predators in theater at this time.
Re: Hellfire loadout.. as Mav said.. requires laser designator.
Maverick TV or IR load is too bulky and heavy for the mis-named 'Predator' RPV... we're working on a next generation RPV.. one designed from the ground up as an attack drone.
Just about all the poop on that is being held real close to the vest at present. Next War, maybe. :D
Like somebody else mentioned, augering it wouda been possible.. but doubtful it woulda been accurate enuff to get him precisely. "Real-Time' control propagation on Predators lags about 3 seconds to 5 seconds, plus OBC stability and gyro lockouts.. suffice to say; it's REAL hard to crash one of those things, even manually.
What we SHOULDA had was an AIRCAP close by to expidite the intel. We didn't. :(
-
I read a funny article, not confirmed.. but just before the beginning of the attack on the Taleban, we were flying predators all around Afganistan trying to get the Taleban to activate AA defences so the Rivetjoints could monitor them and thus map out the plan for action... the whole point was to get them to fire up the dar and maby take a poke to get a feel for their response time..
well after a few days the taleboogers smartened up and started ingnoring the predators.. even when they would fly relativley near them. so then they sent up an armed one.. with a hellfire.. as usually it buzzed around.. it flew right near a sam site and as usualy the talebannans just came outside and watched it.. then it prompty blew the hell out of their radar dish and flew off..
not quite sure of true, but would be funny as hell if so.
anyone know?
-
Well, here's something a bit more definitive on "Mullah Omar's Excellent Adventure".
http://www.newyorker.com/PRESS_RELEASES/ (http://www.newyorker.com/PRESS_RELEASES/)
October 14, 2001
THIS WEEK IN THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS:
Perri Dorset, Director, Public Relations (212) 286-5898
Betsy Judelson, Junior Publicist (212) 286-5996
Seymour M. Hersh, in "King's Ransom," in the October 22, 2001, issue of The New Yorker, reports that the U.S. military failed to kill Taliban leader Mullah Omar when he was in its sights during the first night of the war, according to intelligence-community members with whom Hersh spoke, who said they "were crestfallen" about the incident.
An unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft operating in the Kabul area identified a convoy carrying Mullah Omar as he fled the capital. The Predator is armed with two anti-tank missiles, but under the rules of engagement in effect Sunday night the C.I.A. could not order such a strike.
Although the precise sequence of events could not be fully learned, Hersh reports, General Tommy R. Franks, the commander in charge at the United States Central Command in Florida reported that "my JAG"—Judge Advocate General, a legal officer— "doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire." It was decided to target a few cars in front of the building to perhaps scare Mullah Omar out of the building to take a look.
Omar did leave the building, but not immediately. Soon after he left, Hersh reports, the building was targeted and destroyed by F-18s, too late to kill Omar.
Reaction in Washington to the failure to strike immediately was fierce, Hersh reports. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors," one military official said. "But in the end I don't know if it'll mean any changes."
Hersh also reports that a number of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family that were electronically intercepted by the National Security Agency, beginning as early as 1994, "demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups."
The intercepts, Hersh writes, "depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it."
By 1996, Hersh reports, Saudi money was supporting Al Qaeda and similar extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and throughout both Central Asia and the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official tells Hersh. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys—it's like the Grand Alliance—and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations."
Hersh reports that the intercepts have provided several important insights into political and economic affairs in the kingdom, including the extent of the physical incapacitation of King Fahd, the corruption of specific royal-family members, and the funding of fundamentalist groups through charities. The intelligence official tells Hersh that as far as bankrolling fundamentalist groups goes, the Saudis had "gone to the dark side."
Current and former intelligence officials suggest, Hersh reports, that the instability of the Saudi regime is "the most immediate threat to American economic and political interests in the Middle East," and that "the Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, is refusing to confront this reality."
Interesting side-note, I think.