Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on January 07, 2008, 02:53:33 PM
-
Haven't seen a post about this... you miss it?!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1299660,00.html
Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats have threatened three US Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz in what is being called a "serious provocation".
Typical US Navy shipsAmerican forces were on the verge of firing on the vessels after being harrassed and provoked, according to Pentagon officials.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Haven't seen a post about this... you miss it?!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1299660,00.html
Nope, didn't miss it. Just didn't find it to be earth shaking, and really, not too terribly news worthy. More like a minor attempt at provocation.
-
We learned from the Brits that the Iranian rubber boats are piloted by crazies and are a threat to be reckoned with. I am surprised the Navy let them get within 200 yards without blowing them up. Does no one remember the USS Cole?
-
poke a tiger with a stick, you gona end up dead.
-
I think it is embarrasing that NAVY let those monkey boats get so close.
Thats really bad form NAVY :mad:
Dont let there be a next time.
-
Yeah it was smart of the Navy not to poke the tiger.
I suspect tho that a poking while remaining at a distance from the ship was what the tiger was looking for so they could show the world how they got poked without beeing close enough to be a threat.
Good call imo. They kept their cool and the tiger left looking like a fool.
-
Originally posted by john9001
poke a tiger with a stick, you gona end up dead.
That's very ironic, considering what recently happened. I wonder if it was intentional.
-
Tiger? who are you fooling?
chances are very good that this was a failure of shipboard defenses to adequately ID and prioritize incoming threats.
NAVY should have blasted them out of the water at the half mile mark. Should have destroyed them outright. I would not be suprised to find disciplinary charges coming to those responsible for allowing a threat to come so close.
This confrontation was not a success for the NAVY nils.....not by a long shot.
-
Wait...You can get a good look at a t-bone steak by sticking your head up the bulls arse? or was it the butchers? lmfao.
-
Here are some photos of some Iranian patrol boats:
(http://english.people.com.cn/200604/04/images/mm3.jpg)
(http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/8883/normalfalakhan8xg.jpg)
As you can see, the larger ones can carry two powerful anti-ship cruise missles. They can strike from a good distance away.
The boats must have been some smaller speedboats, like this one below:
(http://itn.co.uk/news/story8d911b78ca40499c6a1d9410e7c898f7.jpg)
Fortunately all of the Iranian Navy Sailors wear florescent orange, so they are easy targets to spot! :lol :lol
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Tiger? who are you fooling?
chances are very good that this was a failure of shipboard defenses to adequately ID and prioritize incoming threats.
NAVY should have blasted them out of the water at the half mile mark. Should have destroyed them outright. I would not be suprised to find disciplinary charges coming to those responsible for allowing a threat to come so close.
This confrontation was not a success for the NAVY nils.....not by a long shot.
Falling for a provocation would have been a much bigger success eh?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Falling for a provocation would have been a much bigger success eh?
Seems probable Iran will push it too far one of these days and force a shooting confrontation. Might have better if the US Navy had fired on 'em. Might have prevented a larger conflict later. Time will tell.
-
Hard to say nils, but at some point you need to let your antagonist know where the line is that must not be crossed. We lost that opportunity here.
-
If I'm not mistaken the Iranians have just as much right to be in international waters as your navy has.
-
The right to be there, yes. But hostile posture and threatening messages to vessels flying the flag of another state IN those international waters is BAD. If the US ships had strayed into Iranian territorial waters would have been one thing, but Iranian vessels have no business threatening ANY nation's ships in INTERNATIONAL waters.
Incidentally Furball, your thread subject is misleading as the Americans never actually fired on the Iranian ships.
-
Don't you know what "nearly" means?
-
Originally posted by Viking
If I'm not mistaken the Iranians have just as much right to be in international waters as your navy has.
What Saxman said. The US Navy would have been justified in firing upon those who made verbal threats imo.
-
Originally posted by Viking
If I'm not mistaken the Iranians have just as much right to be in international waters as your navy has.
Do you ever tire of making really stupid posts?
-
If NAVY opens fire there's always chance a passenger jet will fall down; I hope they can keep their heads cool this time and avoid being an embarrasment for US :(
-
And then the Iranians would have been justified in sinking your ships. Provocation successful.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
-
In the '70's and '80's, during the cold war, NATO and Warsaw pact vessels' used to manuever very agressively around each other, in international waters. Agressively enough that there were a few collisions. Possibly, Standing orders are NOT to fire on any vessel, unless it's designated or proven to be hostile, or by direct order of the president, or congress.
To me, this seemed more of a political/diplomatic move.
-
the US navy had to get a OK from the US state dept before they could blow the Iranians out of the water, as usual the state dept said "lets negotiate".
-
Originally posted by Viking
And then the Iranians would have been justified in sinking your ships. Provocation successful.
I hardly think it would stop there. Iran destroyed, provocation unsuccessful.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
In the '70's and '80's, during the cold war, NATO and Warsaw pact vessels' used to manuever very agressively around each other, in international waters. Agressively enough that there were a few collisions. Possibly, Standing orders are NOT to fire on any vessel, unless it's designated or proven to be hostile, or by direct order of the president, or congress.
To me, this seemed more of a political/diplomatic move.
Aggessive manuvering is one thing. A verbal threat that we are coming to blow you up with a ship bearing down on you is another.
-
Good thing is there's no AH's armchair admirals onboard of those ships :)
-
Good move U.S. Navy.
Do not fire unless fired upon. Had the U.S. ships been fired upon then it would have been a different matter.
Then everyone would have cried foul for U.S. using excessive force.
You can't please the ignorant here, just entertain the stupid.
Mac
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
We learned from the Brits that the Iranian rubber boats are piloted by crazies and are a threat to be reckoned with.
No we learned that back in the '80s when we started to escort oil carriers in the Gulf. Back then, it cost the Iranians the majority of their naval forces after we were done.
ack-ack
-
Do not fire unless fired upon.
====
In the age of the Suicider, this is a very ignorant and self-defeating tactic.
Kill the brownshirted monkey boats!
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
Good thing is there's no AH's armchair admirals onboard of those ships :)
yeah, otherwise the Iranians would know what smackdown means. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What Saxman said. The US Navy would have been justified in firing upon those who made verbal threats imo.
The USN in my opinion had total justification if they had chosen to fire. The Iranian boats had come within the 200 yards "exclusion zone" of one of the USN ships and they also broadcasted threatening radio messages about blowing up the USN ships and then dropping white colored objects in the patch of one of the USN ships after broadcasting the threat.
The commanders of the USN ships have to be applauded for their restraint. It was clearly a case of the Revolutionary Guard trying to provoke the USN ships into some kind of action to use as propoganda.
It's funny to how for all the bluster of the Revolutionary Guard, they turned tail once it became apparent that the USN ships were growing bored with their meager chest thumping.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Incidentally Furball, your thread subject is misleading as the Americans never actually fired on the Iranian ships.
Originally posted by Viking
Don't you know what "nearly" means?
In case he missed it ;) :D
From Mr. Google: -
Definitions of Nearly on the Web:
about: (of actions or states) slightly short of or not quite accomplished;
-
Originally posted by john9001
the US navy had to get a OK from the US state dept before they could blow the Iranians out of the water, as usual the state dept said "lets negotiate".
Source? None of the reports so far mention that. The only mention of the State Department in the article is that they won't be officially protesting this incident.
ack-ack
-
oh sure ack ack, you really expect the state dept to come out and say they forbid US ships to defend themselves?
That is not the state dept way.
the reason the Cole was hit was because of the state dept, normal navy procedure in a hostile port is to anchor out and accept fuel by barge, the state dept did not want to insult the Yemeni govt by treating them as hostile so the Cole had to tie up to the fuel dock and not have any armed guards on duty. US state dept= one damaged ship and 18 dead sailors.
US state dept= a bunch of inbred career ivy league idiots that have caused most of the USA's foreign policy problems.
-
This bit is from Yahoo! news:
Gates said there had been two or three similar incidents — "maybe not quite as dramatic" — over the past year. He offered no details, but one Navy official said there have been several similar incidents that involved "aggressive maneuvering" by small boats in the Gulf. In one instance, a U.S. Navy vessel fired warning shots across the bow of the small boat, said the official, who requested anonymity because details of the earlier encounters have not been made public.
Here is the link to the whole story:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_navy_iran
And this part kinda explains' alot.
Quote from the article:
The three U.S. warships — cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham — were headed into the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz on what the U.S. Navy called a routine passage inside international waters when they were approached by five small high-speed vessels believed to be from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy.
The Iranians "maneuvered aggressively" in the direction of the U.S. ships, said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based at nearby Bahrain. The U.S. ship commanders took a series of steps toward firing on the boats, which approached to within 500 yards, but the Iranians suddenly fled back toward their shore, Cosgriff said.
Cosgriff was not precise about the U.S. ships' location but indicated they were about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, which extend 12 miles from its shores, headed in a westerly direction after having passed the narrowest point in the straits.
At one point the U.S. ships received a threatening radio call from the Iranians, "to the effect that they were closing (on) our ships and that the ships would explode — the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said.
"Subsequently, two of these boats were observed dropping objects in the water, generally in the path of the final ship in the formation, the USS Ingraham," he added. "These objects were white, box-like objects that floated. And, obviously, the ship passed by them safely."
The boxes were not retrieved, so U.S. officials do not know whether they posed an actual threat. Cosgriff the U.S. ship commanders were moving through a standard series of actions — including radio calls to the Iranians that went unheeded — but did not reach the point of firing warning shots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reads' as something that has come to be regarded as routine or normal activity, that started to get more hostile than normal. Kinda makes you wonder why it got bumped into a headline....?
-
As a nation state, the likelihood of an Iranian suicide boat attack is virtually nil. Why commit a clear act of war with a speed boat bomb when you have plenty of ASMs and delivery platforms? Especially since you lose those platforms within a handful of hours after the opening shots?
Iran was looking for an over reaction and we didn't play their game.
Charon
-
Should have just given the Iranians a bad "sunburn" from our space based lasers. ;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
oh sure ack ack, you really expect the state dept to come out and say they forbid US ships to defend themselves?
That is not the state dept way.
Ahh...so like all of your sources, you just pulled this one of your arse again? And you still wonder why most of us think you're just a tool.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Good move U.S. Navy.
Do not fire unless fired upon. Had the U.S. ships been fired upon then it would have been a different matter.
Then everyone would have cried foul for U.S. using excessive force.
You can't please the ignorant here, just entertain the stupid.
Mac
The problem is, they dropped objects in front of the Navy ships... That's pretty f**king hostile in my book. What they did is a bit like flying up next to an airplane, maneuvering to a firing position, and launching an unguided rocket past one wing.
Pretty damn hostile because until it's far too late to do anything about it, all you know is that someone just launched something at you that might kill you (and the entire crew for a boat being attacked like this).
I personally think the Iranians were trying to make the statement that if they wished to deny us access to the strait, it would not be difficult. Mines are cheap, and they just demonstrated an operational capability to toss mines out in front of our ships without *quite* giving us enough excuse to blow them out of the water first. That means they probably think that they have first-strike capability against our forces in the strait.
I personally think our command and control structure would make this somewhat ineffective since a weapons-free change in ROE would take mere seconds to transmit across the fleet, but there's a chance they could get a lot of mines in place and possibly sink a couple ships before we took any action in response.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Ahh...so like all of your sources, you just pulled this one of your arse again? And you still wonder why most of us think you're just a tool.
ack-ack
yes, i am a tool, i am a hammer.
-
(http://americanhistory.si.edu/lunchboxes/images/02-02_thumb.jpg)
(http://www.dowahdiddy.com/celebrity/beatles_yellow_detail.jpg)
(http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/mcd_history_pg1/mcd_history_pg4.TopPar.0013.Image.gif)
Possible boxes dropped by Iranian speed boats.....
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Falling for a provocation would have been a much bigger success eh?
Im afraid I will have to agree with Nilsen.
sometimes the attack you dont make is more defeating to the enemy then the one you do.
Blowing these ships out of the water would have played right into the hands of our enemies. Its what they wanted us to do.
Just like When Isreal didnt respond with a strike of its own to the Scud missle attacks.
To have done so would have played right into Saddams hands. Its what he calculated Ireal would do. Its what he wanted Isreal to do.
By not responding with an attack of its own Isreal delivered a far greater blow to Saddam then would have been acheived if she had.
Same thing here.
I am afraid that in order for the US forces to respond. There will have to be an actual attack, probably with servicemen killed for us to respond.
Its not the nice thing to do.
And it certainly isnt the popular thing to do among our servicemen Im sure
But considering the current situation.
It is the smart thing to do.
Anything else will be twisted in the media over there to make it look like our fault.
For us to respond there will have to be an absolute undenyable incident clearly and undisputably an act of agression on their part.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No we learned that back in the '80s when we started to escort oil carriers in the Gulf. Back then, it cost the Iranians the majority of their naval forces after we were done.
ack-ack
If I am right, the US forces sunk one iranian frigate, the Sahand, while the attack on a second iranian frigate, the Sabalan, was stopped because the ship was in full fire and seemed to be lost.
But the iranians managed to bring the Sabalan back to Bandar Abbas where ist was repaired and is today back in service.
With it remaining sister-ships Alvand and Alborz.
Also one of the 12 french built Combattante II class missile boats, the Joshan and some smaller speedboats were sunk by the US forces.
Thats surely not "the majority" of the iranian naval forces.
So its wrong to say that in the 80ties the US forces destroyed "the majority" of the iranian naval forces. One frigate and one missile boat were sunk. Another frigate was damaged but the iranians were able to rescue the ship and to bring it back to service.
On the other hand the USS Stark was attacked and 37 US soldiers died in the attack. But not by iranians.
No - the attack was ironicly executed by those who were supported by the USA in those days of the Iran-Iraq-War: By Saddams Iraq.
The same Saddam, who got high tech weapons by the so called civilized world - like french exocet missiles (two of them hit the USS Stark) - or gas weapons to use them against iranian cities (and also iraqi cities like the kurdish Halabja).
The same Saddam who transported his oil via the Persian gulf by his allies, the Kuwaitis. When Iran wanted to stop this by attacking the kuwaiti tanker which had Saddams Oil on board the Kuwaiti tankers got US flags and were escorted by US fforces.
But in those good old 80ties Saddam was the good guy.
So even an attack by Iraq against the USS Stark and even the killing of so many US naval soldiers didnt resulted in something against Saddam.
Finally the Frankenstein Saddam went totally mad and attacked his old ally - Kuwait - and finally the sunnite dominated Iraq was replaced by the shi ite dominated Iraq of today. So no one can say that there is no irony in the development of historical events.
But back to the good old 80ties and the glorious days where US ships helped Saddam to get his oil through the perian gulf on kuwaiti tankers with US flags.
The next dark episode in the Persian Gulf was the killing of 290 helpless and inncoent civilians on the iranian Airbus Flight Number 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988.
Like today it was said that the USS Vincennes operated in international waters in the Persian Gulf and was attacked by iranian naval units. In all this chaos the Vincennes crew made their mistake by shooting missiles on the civilian aircraft which was on its normal flight path.
Iran always said that the Vincennes was not in international waters but had entered iranian waters.
1991 US Admiral William Crowe admitted that the iranian statement was true: The USS Vincennes was inside iranian territory when it launched the missiles.
Today we got the news that 5 mighty iranian ships surrounded 3 US naval units.
Interesting picture: 5 small motor boats are "surrounding" 3 US ships ????
Maybe we have to wait 3 years like Iran had to wait after the Vincennes-event until an US Admiral tells, what really happened.
-
Another bitter Euro posts....
:rofl
Mac
Oh almost forgot....
IN
-
Originally posted by Viking
If I'm not mistaken the Iranians have just as much right to be in international waters as your navy has.
And that is exactly the way it would have been spun in the middle east media had we "blew them out of the water"
the headlines would read somethign like this
"Iranian Boats patroling (or on manuvers) in international waters Fired on and destroyed by unprovoked US Warships"
Course we would make our own claim to the contrary.
But which headline over there is going tp be beleived?
They wanted us to fire on them. It was a trap. And we didnt fall for it.
Really it was a no loose situation for them.
Had we fired. We'd be painted as The great amarican satan destroying these poor little boats and murdering their crew.
If we dont fire they show they can "Poke the Tiger"
Im sure it will be looked upon with much amusement by the population over there. But even they have to know that the Tiger let itself be poked.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What Saxman said. The US Navy would have been justified in firing upon those who made verbal threats imo.
Would that same rule apply to when Saddam Declared war on the US?
Dunno about you. But if someone declared war on me I'd certainly consider it a verbal threat. ;)
-
clear provocation,US Navy reaction was weak
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Another bitter Euro posts....
:rofl
Mac
Oh almost forgot....
IN
Bitter huh? If the truth seems bitter to you, who knows, maybe? You should count yourself out not in btw. :D Tell me, do they teach this stuff at history lessons at school nowadays or is it conveniently pushed aside?
-
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
<---Former Navy
You'd be suprised at what a small lil boat does when a big gun is suddenly trained and aimed towards it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
:rofl :aok
-
Anyone having a pic with Airbus & USS Vincennes? That "Don't tase me, Bro!" is sooo funny :D
-
Navy does not fire upon the Iranian vessels and are looked down upon for it.
Navy does fire upon Iranian vessels first and are looked down upon for over use of power.
Either way nothing became of the event.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by john9001
the US navy had to get a OK from the US state dept before they could blow the Iranians out of the water, as usual the state dept said "lets negotiate".
That's funny. You obviously don't understand the rules of engagement.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The USN in my opinion had total justification if they had chosen to fire. The Iranian boats had come within the 200 yards "exclusion zone" of one of the USN ships and they also broadcasted threatening radio messages about blowing up the USN ships and then dropping white colored objects in the patch of one of the USN ships after broadcasting the threat.
The commanders of the USN ships have to be applauded for their restraint. It was clearly a case of the Revolutionary Guard trying to provoke the USN ships into some kind of action to use as propoganda.
It's funny to how for all the bluster of the Revolutionary Guard, they turned tail once it became apparent that the USN ships were growing bored with their meager chest thumping.
ack-ack
First of all... 200 yard exclusion zone?
Second of all...without multiple station triangulation.. you cannot determine the "broadcaster" of said threat.
So what you approve of.. is... in international waters... A US Navy Captain to authorize release of weapons on 5 powerboats that are within 200 yards of his ship... and that happen to be around when a non-descript, non identified or triangulated voice makes a threat on a clear channel.
I'm extremely happy you don't have that responsibility...you failed the exercise. Yes the Iranians were testing... but we acted correctly. Opening fire on those boats with the information available would have started something much worse.
(The video is extremely boring.. and there are no weapons apparent on any of the boats involved, and only two of them act anything like interested. Mostly they just jump the wake of the cruiser a couple of times. Whooo hoo...threatening. Interesting the Navy didn't show pictures of ANY of them dropping ANYTHING in the water.)
And I seem to remember this story..small boats harrassing big bad US Navy... Gulf of Tonkin, Anyone? Yeah, that was proven to be a pink elephant too.
-
If they did fire I would hope the US would react.
Whilst they are at it instead of another occupation just help the Iranians with their Nuclear Programme. Test Area 1 Tehran :p
-
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/26424.html
Couple warning shots would have done thes dumb-bastards some good.
-
Now they say it's fabricated... They need to make up their mind...
:lol
Iran says US video was fabricated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178878.stm)
-
Oh fear the great Iranian Navy!~ Did you check out those russian era french boats? Lol, I expected some poodle dog to be skiing behind those little boats. Still, they should have shot one up just to show the monkeys what happens, or what should have happened.
Maybe next time :rofl
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/ship1.gif)
LOLOL!:rofl :aok :lol
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
First of all... 200 yard exclusion zone?
Second of all...without multiple station triangulation.. you cannot determine the "broadcaster" of said threat.
So what you approve of.. is... in international waters... A US Navy Captain to authorize release of weapons on 5 powerboats that are within 200 yards of his ship... and that happen to be around when a non-descript, non identified or triangulated voice makes a threat on a clear channel.
I'm extremely happy you don't have that responsibility...you failed the exercise. Yes the Iranians were testing... but we acted correctly. Opening fire on those boats with the information available would have started something much worse.
(The video is extremely boring.. and there are no weapons apparent on any of the boats involved, and only two of them act anything like interested. Mostly they just jump the wake of the cruiser a couple of times. Whooo hoo...threatening. Interesting the Navy didn't show pictures of ANY of them dropping ANYTHING in the water.)
And I seem to remember this story..small boats harrassing big bad US Navy... Gulf of Tonkin, Anyone? Yeah, that was proven to be a pink elephant too.
Did you read my post at all before you started foaming at the mouth and penned your reply? I said the USN naval ships would have been justified in using force to defend their ships due to the provocation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard speed boats (those were not Iranian Navy boats). I also stated the captains of the USN ships should be applauded for their restraint at was clearly a provocation on the part of the Revolutionary Guard. Please read someone's post thoroughly before replying. Makes you seem like less of an arse.
And I seem to remember this story..small boats harrassing big bad US Navy... Gulf of Tonkin, Anyone? Yeah, that was proven to be a pink elephant too.
You're either too young to remember or just didn't know but the Iranians and the Revolutionary Guard have a history of using small boats to attack shipping. They did this in the '80s when they were using speed boats to launch machine gun and RPG attacks against oil tankers and other commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. They even used these speed boats to drop mines in the shipping lanes inside of the Gulf.
ack-ack
-
I think it also depend greatly on the class of NAVY ship being threatened. You threaten a destroyer class or cruiser class the captains are more likely to do what they did and hold fire till determining if the threat is valid.
Now if it was a Nimitz class supercarrier, they would have been fishy food, err atleat for the fishys that didnt die in the tremendous explosion were the lil boat had just been
Just like if you get a sailboat or rubberboat to close to a Ohio class boomer when leaving or returning to port......pieces of it might get within 200yrds
-
think it also depend greatly on the class of NAVY ship being threatened.
====
17 dead sailors from the USS Cole would most likely disagree with you, but who am I to say.......:rolleyes:
-
The captain's Akbar sense was triggered, he knew it was a trap...
Headline: US Navy attacks Iranian naval vessels in international waters... green light for Iranian Air Force to attack US Naval ships in retaliation.
Lots of shooting and blowing stuff up, many US soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen die. Democrats announce we have lost the war in Iran. Kill annoying president of Iran, destroy revolutionary gaurd, build democracy in Iran. Stops annoying insurgent flow from Iran to Iraq, establish peaceful democracy in Iraq. We have now replaced both annoying leaders of Iraq and Iran with new democracies that work. Democrats no longer use talking points of losing in Iraq and Iran, but declare them distractiosn for the war we should be fighting in Afghanistan. American people come to senses and realize "don't fall into the trap, democrats are full of crap". Vote GOP back to power in House & Senate...
If those circumstances would play out, I would have encouraged the Navy to fire... unfortuneatly it would have been more like this:
Headline: US naval forces open fire and destroy Iranian naval ships in internation waters. Iranaian air force attacks US Naval ships in retaliation. Small scale combat takes place. Many US sailors dies, US backs down and talks peace with whack-job Iranians to prevent further war in Mideast. Iran looks like winners, US has egg on face. Democrats rejoice because of US defeat.
-
For the Iranians to tease, this is the right time. Presidentally :D
Anyway, I am surprized that the USN didn't shoot warning rounds.
Did they man guns BTW?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
think it also depend greatly on the class of NAVY ship being threatened.
====
17 dead sailors from the USS Cole would most likely disagree with you, but who am I to say.......:rolleyes:
im not saying its right . Its simple numbers. a supercarrier has 5000+ souls onboard PLUS the price of one. Its politics and policy.
And IMNSHO the USS. Cole should have never let any waterborn craft get that close. The officers in command at the time to me are responsible for those 17 dead crew (may they rest in piece ).
-
Not only should they have opened fire they should of opened fire with every single gun in the fleet, video it, then post it on You Tube as a reminder not to **** with a real Navy.
Who ever was commander that day showed far more restraint then anyone might of execpted. If the Iranians want to rattle their sabre then they should rattle something back. No one would of though any less in doing so given the situation and past history of the Iranian Navy.
...-Gixer
-
I think it's time to bring back Teddy Roosevelt's doctrine of:
"Talk softly, but carry a big stick"
68ROX
-
the navy should have captured the crews and held them hostage for 444 days.
-
Originally posted by MadMan
The captain's Akbar sense was triggered, he knew it was a trap...
Headline: US Navy attacks Iranian naval vessels in international waters... green light for Iranian Air Force to attack US Naval ships in retaliation.
Lots of shooting and blowing stuff up, many US soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen die. Democrats announce we have lost the war in Iran. Kill annoying president of Iran, destroy revolutionary gaurd, build democracy in Iran. Stops annoying insurgent flow from Iran to Iraq, establish peaceful democracy in Iraq. We have now replaced both annoying leaders of Iraq and Iran with new democracies that work. Democrats no longer use talking points of losing in Iraq and Iran, but declare them distractiosn for the war we should be fighting in Afghanistan. American people come to senses and realize "don't fall into the trap, democrats are full of crap". Vote GOP back to power in House & Senate...
If those circumstances would play out, I would have encouraged the Navy to fire... unfortuneatly it would have been more like this:
Headline: US naval forces open fire and destroy Iranian naval ships in internation waters. Iranaian air force attacks US Naval ships in retaliation. Small scale combat takes place. Many US sailors dies, US backs down and talks peace with whack-job Iranians to prevent further war in Mideast. Iran looks like winners, US has egg on face. Democrats rejoice because of US defeat.
I think that all that would have happened' in that scenario is that the whole world would have got a look at how good the AEGIS and goalkeeper/phalanx systems' are.
-
Well Aegis system already proved its potential when they shot down that Iranian passenger plane and killed all the passengers and the crew.
-
Here's a hires version of the video.
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide%5C320%5C080107-D-6570C-001.wmv
-
Well Aegis system already proved its potential when they shot down that Iranian passenger plane and killed all the passengers and the crew.
====
That didnt even qualify as a test run in my book. The ageis system is still waiting for its moment to shine. Perhaps the monkey man from Iran has something cooking for the great satan :O
Maybe brownshirt got something up his sleeve :lol
:aok
-
The US Navy played this one out superbly. The Iranian leadership ended up looking rather silly.
-
According to a german report from yesterday the US-Navy has declared that the video-version of the US-government, showing iranian speedboats threatening US ships with "You will explode" and so on was not what happened some days ago.
The voice was later added in the video.
An analyse of the voice brought meanwhile the result that the sentence with "You will explode soon" which was done in english with heavy accent was not spoken by an iranian but obviously by someone whose mother-language is English. At least they could have used an exile iranian when they add such funny nonsense in their propaganda-clips...
Iran meanwhile also showed a video about the incident, where the iranian soldier first asked in english the US ship´s name and gets the answer that the ship is in international waters and dont has to answer such questions. Then the iranian soldier informed his superiors in Farsi about this and the iranian ships are heading for other ships.
Its interesting that after the CIA report, where the US secret service openly disagreed with Bush´s theory that Iran has a military nuclear program now the US Navy is doing the same and told that the video showing iranian boats threatening via radio calls US ships is wrong.
It seems that more and more officials dont want to play the MDW-propaganda-game Bush once used as an excuse for his attack on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by babek-
According to a german report from yesterday the US-Navy has declared that the video-version of the US-government, showing iranian speedboats threatening US ships with "You will explode" and so on was not what happened some days ago.
The voice was later added in the video.
An analyse of the voice brought meanwhile the result that the sentence with "You will explode soon" which was done in english with heavy accent was not spoken by an iranian but obviously by someone whose mother-language is English. At least they could have used an exile iranian when they add such funny nonsense in their propaganda-clips...
Iran meanwhile also showed a video about the incident, where the iranian soldier first asked in english the US ship´s name and gets the answer that the ship is in international waters and dont has to answer such questions. Then the iranian soldier informed his superiors in Farsi about this and the iranian ships are heading for other ships.
Its interesting that after the CIA report, where the US secret service openly disagreed with Bush´s theory that Iran has a military nuclear program now the US Navy is doing the same and told that the video showing iranian boats threatening via radio calls US ships is wrong.
It seems that more and more officials dont want to play the MDW-propaganda-game Bush once used as an excuse for his attack on Iraq.
And I'm sure the Iranian news agency and the state-run English-language channel Press TV are models for journalist integrity and wouldn't post any government fed propoganda, especially in a totalitarian theocracy that has 100% control over the media.
The US Navy has never stated that video was of a different incident or that it never happened. The US Navy has maintained it's a video of the incident that lasted 20 minutes.
From the AP News
In the four-minute, 20-second video released Tuesday, the Iranian boats appeared to ignore repeated warnings from the U.S. ships, including horn blasts and radio transmissions. The video was shot from the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper.
After spotting the approaching Iranian boats, a Navy crew member on the Hopper says over the radio: "This is coalition warship. I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. Intend no harm."
The audio and video recordings were made separately but were pulled together by the Navy. Often uneven and shaky, the video condenses what Navy officials have said was a confrontation of about 20 minutes.
I think you're mistaking the State Department's statement that they aren't going to file an official complaint as they consider this to be a non-issue.
Yes, a report by the CIA did say that the Iranians had stopped trying to further develop plans to make a nuclear weapon due to the difficulty they were having in procurring nuclear material for the weapons.
That is one of the reported reasons why they have been trying to build a nuclear power plant that would give them weapons grade plutonium. There is no refutting that the Bushehr facility will produce weapons grade plutonium, which would then allow the Iranian government to restart their nuclear weapons program once again.
I'm sure you were referring to the CIA as the secret service (i.e. an intelligence service) and not trying to say the US Secret Service disagreed with Bush. Though, the Secret Service doesn't like the fact that a large amount of counterfit US large bills comes from Iran. One of the reasons for the major changes to the appearance of US bills is due to countries like Iran and North Korea counterfitting operations.
Maybe it's time we start blowing up those Iranian oil rigs again and sink some of the Iranian naval ships to remind them who's King.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
And I'm sure the Iranian news agency and the state-run English-language channel Press TV are models for journalist integrity and wouldn't post any government fed propoganda, especially in a totalitarian theocracy that has 100% control over the media.
The US Navy has never stated that video was of a different incident or that it never happened. The US Navy has maintained it's a video of the incident that lasted 20 minutes.
From the AP News
I think you're mistaking the State Department's statement that they aren't going to file an official complaint as they consider this to be a non-issue.
Yes, a report by the CIA did say that the Iranians had stopped trying to further develop plans to make a nuclear weapon due to the difficulty they were having in procurring nuclear material for the weapons.
That is one of the reported reasons why they have been trying to build a nuclear power plant that would give them weapons grade plutonium. There is no refutting that the Bushehr facility will produce weapons grade plutonium, which would then allow the Iranian government to restart their nuclear weapons program once again.
I'm sure you were referring to the CIA as the secret service (i.e. an intelligence service) and not trying to say the US Secret Service disagreed with Bush. Though, the Secret Service doesn't like the fact that a large amount of counterfit US large bills comes from Iran. One of the reasons for the major changes to the appearance of US bills is due to countries like Iran and North Korea counterfitting operations.
Maybe it's time we start blowing up those Iranian oil rigs again and sink some of the Iranian naval ships to remind them who's King.
ack-ack
Meanwhile even the conservative german Focus reports in this (german) article http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/hormus-zwischenfall_aid_233120.html that the radio-threatening shown in the first US video was not from the iranian boats. So Mr. Geoff Morell from the Pentagon.
Also the article mentions another US-official, Mr. Frank Thorp - a spokesman of the US Navy, who said that this was not the radio traffic between the iranian and the US ships but another one recorded between people of any possible nations.
But in the video teh Bush-government showed you saw 5 iranian speedboats, 3 US ships and the radio call of an iranian who threatens the US by his english sentence "You will explode soon...".
Now thats, what I call a manipuilation and propaganda to bring people to a mad point where they whish that a war starts.
Or - like you have mentioned - to attack installations and ships in order to show who is the king in teh region. Maybe that works in some ghettos where the strongest gang leader is the King of the region but at least I would not call this a civilized behavior - especially when innocent people have to die for such demonstrations.
Interesting also the CIA report: It said that Iran has stopped in 2003 its military nuclear program. Thats long before Mr. Ahmadinedjad - a much more radical leader than Mr. Chatami - became president of Iran.
I assume that the CIA send its reports also to the president of the USA.
Nevertheless, Mr. Bush continued to tell the people in many speaches after the date of the CIA report that Iran still has a military nucvlear program and is only few months away from producing nuclear weapons - threatening the whole world, so a Maginot-Line-defense-system has to be built in Poland and so on.
But this is normal for propaganda actions. Bush knows that Iran has no military nuclear program, but he tells his people that Iran is producing nuclear weapons. That causes fear and so it is accepted when Bush starts a new war to show who is the king in region (using your words). The CIA report has maybe stopped this development.
So next was the boat-incident.
This propaganda tricks have been used by every nation throughout history in order to cause fear and then start a war.
Even Hitler started the 2nd World War by "proving" that polnish soldiers have attacked the german news sender in Gleiwitz and used this as an excuse ofr his attack against Poland. Later it was revealed that KZ-prisoners were put into polnish uniforms and then killed and placed in Gleiwitz to "proof" the attack on Germany.
-
OK, so here's the status of the story now:
- there was no imminent threat
- no boat "made a run at a US ship" as reported by CBS
- the US crews were not fearful of the boats
- no captain was on the verge of firing at anything
- the radio voice was not Iranian
- earlier Pentagon and news reports seriously distorted what happened
All hotheads may stand down until Pavlov rings the bell again.
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
Well Aegis system already proved its potential when they shot down that Iranian passenger plane and killed all the passengers and the crew.
AEGIS worked as designed for this and in fact had the system been in full auto, it would not have taken the shot. It was mistakes of an extemely overzealous gloryhound Captain and a poorly trained CIC team that got the ID's screwed up and caused that disaster.
-
o chit!!!!!!!!! Dont tell them that was me squeakin ur gonna blow up in a minute!!!!!!:O :O :O :O :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The US Navy played this one out superbly. The Iranian leadership ended up looking rather silly.
Silly perhaps but if you consider that their foolishness may yet provoke a war, which Amadmanjihad seems to want, stupid may be a better word.
-
Originally posted by babek-
According to a german report from yesterday the US-Navy has declared that the video-version of the US-government, showing iranian speedboats threatening US ships with "You will explode" and so on was not what happened some days ago.
The voice was later added in the video.
An analyse of the voice brought meanwhile the result that the sentence with "You will explode soon" which was done in english with heavy accent was not spoken by an iranian but obviously by someone whose mother-language is English. At least they could have used an exile iranian when they add such funny nonsense in their propaganda-clips...
Iran meanwhile also showed a video about the incident, where the iranian soldier first asked in english the US ship´s name and gets the answer that the ship is in international waters and dont has to answer such questions. Then the iranian soldier informed his superiors in Farsi about this and the iranian ships are heading for other ships.
Its interesting that after the CIA report, where the US secret service openly disagreed with Bush´s theory that Iran has a military nuclear program now the US Navy is doing the same and told that the video showing iranian boats threatening via radio calls US ships is wrong.
It seems that more and more officials dont want to play the MDW-propaganda-game Bush once used as an excuse for his attack on Iraq.
This does seem to be a propaganda piece.
I agree that the voice on the tape does not have a Farci accent. No wind noise either from their end. Remember that the small boats are going full speed and there is no cabin for the crew to be able to talk or hear clearly. Notice the voice is not yelling. After he says "I am coming for you."(seemingly calmly BTW) Why is our operator still requesting for them to establish communications?
We've made our intentions known and all we need is an excuse for escalation. Doesn't make sense for them to act and make threats against a superior and aggressive force.
They know our history. We don't need a reason, but a will to attack. We're chomping at the bit.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
This does seem to be a propaganda piece.
...
They know our history. We don't need a reason, but a will to attack. We're chomping at the bit.
I think your tinfoil hat is on a wee tight.
-
The US sunk Iranian vessels in the 80s without any provocation. It was just to support Hussein and Iraq. They lured them into international waters then sunk several ships & boats in one day. Do you remember that?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I think your tinfoil hat is on a wee tight.
Typical 'response' coming from the likes of you. Why am I not surprised?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Typical 'response' coming from the likes of you. Why am I not surprised?
Oh, so now we generalize! So what are my "likes" ? While you leap off the edge to find fault with the Navy, I've just been following the news stories like most people.
You strike me as one who loves a conspiracy theory. But, I could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by babek-
An analyse of the voice brought meanwhile the result that the sentence with "You will explode soon" which was done in english with heavy accent was not spoken by an iranian but obviously by someone whose mother-language is English.
The latest GLG-20 voice modulator analysis has determined that the voice on the tape is this man from Florida.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RCqKYi3jhEo&feature=related
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh, so now we generalize! So what are my "likes" ? While you leap off the edge to find fault with the Navy, I've just been following the news stories like most people.
You strike me as one who loves a conspiracy theory. But, I could be wrong.
...and you'd be wrong...again (not surprising).
I love my country and our military. That's why I don't want its sailors and soldiers put in harms way without a valid reason, let alone a made up one.
I scrutinize what I read, see, and hear from the media. I won't accept anything blindly especially when it doesn't add up.
That audio (of the so called Iranian voice) in that video is faked. That alone makes me question the credibility of the story that's being presented as fact.
Life just isn't that simple so you might want to wipe clean your rose colored glasses and look a bit further.
But no, I doubt you will. You see, instead of discussing with the facts of the case to refute my claim(s), you tend to want to go with childish insults (you can't even get those right either).
My mentality is just fine (notwithstanding your juvenile tinfoil hat remark). At least I don't fixate on a childish, nerdy, simplistic Star Wars movie and spend a bunch of money and hours on a duplicate R2D2 robot. you done with that thing yet? After you're done, you're going to play make believe? :rofl
Because I question a tape that happens to feature our Navy, I'm all of a sudden leaping off edge to find fault with our Navy??!! What a spin job! I'd explain it but you'd just screw that up too.
Now to fit me in your little box for your simplistic mind, I now may be a conspiracy theory lover? Just show me the theories that I supposedly believe in. Don't hold your breath while searching though.
Don't like the insulting nature of my post, then back off.:aok
-
Ah the personal attacks begin. Is that the best you've got? Ohh, you mocked my building a robot. Big freaking deal. What have you built lately?
You can scrutinize the video/audio all you want. I don't think this is something made up by the Navy. Im sure those speedboats were just out pleasure cruising several hundred yards near those cruiser. Yup, I bet we even hired them, didnt we?
Based on your childishly lame "retort" it sounds like I hit a nerve.
I could respond as you do, with a bunch of lame insults about you and your hobbies. But I wont take the bait.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
OK, so here's the status of the story now:
- there was no imminent threat
- no boat "made a run at a US ship" as reported by CBS
- the US crews were not fearful of the boats
- no captain was on the verge of firing at anything
- the radio voice was not Iranian
- earlier Pentagon and news reports seriously distorted what happened
All hotheads may stand down until Pavlov rings the bell again.
This seems about right.. I read the first few pages of this thread and wonder wtf Iran has to gain from this but a bunch of dead folk and a handfull fewer water skiing craft..
What do we feel Iran has to gain by provoking the US or otherwise going to War w/ the US? Do some of you here feel that the Iranian government might actually think they could win or even have a positive outcome should a conflict arise?
I consider most here to feel as though we (here in the US) don't have a trustworthy government.. Why are so many here ready to click those safetys off over something like this? Gulf of Tonkin indeed!
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Ah the personal attacks begin.
Oh you're such a poor victim. You like dishing it but when responded to in like fashion, you whine 'personal attack'
Just shows your typical bias. Again, not surprising. Boo Hoo.
-
Ah so now I have a bias.
Whose putting who in a box now?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The US sunk Iranian vessels in the 80s without any provocation. It was just to support Hussein and Iraq. They lured them into international waters then sunk several ships & boats in one day. Do you remember that?
The attack on the Iranian naval forces and oil rigs in the '80s was a direct response to the USS Samual B. Roberts hitting an Iranian mine and almost sunk. It was known as Operation Praying Mantis. I guess your memory is a little fuzzy.
ack-ack
-
US forces had already attacked Iranian oil platforms before that, as part of the Reagan administrations direct support of Iraq during the first persian war.
Tronsky
-
Wow, it seems Viking isn't the only complete idiot on this board.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The attack on the Iranian naval forces and oil rigs in the '80s was a direct response to the USS Samual B. Roberts hitting an Iranian mine and almost sunk. It was known as Operation Praying Mantis. I guess your memory is a little fuzzy.
ack-ack
I don't think it's so much that his memory is fuzzy as it is biased in favor of Iran in regards to Iran vs the US.
-
You really believe that?
-
Originally posted by moot
You really believe that?
Does who believe what? I've read Rolex's posts for years and they consistently favor Iran over the US whenever a conflict is in play. I suspect he's Iranian or his heritage is. For whatever reason, his bias is obvious to me.
-
It ceases to amaze me, the simplistic nature of supposedly educated americans these days. Most of you are chomping at the bit, currently, to open up a THREE FRONT WAR. You people are idiots.
Just because someone questions the validity of a video, does not call into question their national stance, or patriotism. Stop with the BS republican talking point recitals already.
The strength of this nation used to be it's own scepticism...and we've obviously lost it with idiots out there about to start another war cuz a couple of lil blue boats went and jumped our wakes. There were no armaments on the lil speedboats and none came within 100 yards.
I personally commend the Navy for just cruising along, middle finger to the sky.
I don't commend the administration for using it as a ploy to garner support for another lame duck war from a lame duck president.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Hi, I'm a drama queen.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
There were no armaments on the lil speedboats and none came within 100 yards.
USS Cole.
-
Originally posted by john9001
USS Cole.
This has to do with Iran how?
The USS Cole was docked at Aden port in Yemen.
The Sudanese govt. has been ruled liable for that attack.
The attacker(s) most likely were Arab and/or African, not Persian (Iranian).
They were most likely Sunni*, not Shia (Iran's majority population is Shia).
The Arabs and Sunnis have been the traditional enemy of Iran, but lets continue to cower in fear and rattle our military's sabres, eh?
*This is not to put down Muslims of the Sunni faith as only a miniscule fraction are fanatical enough to be involved in suicide attacks.
-
my reference was to "little speedboats" being harmless.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
There were no armaments on the lil speedboats and none came within 100 yards.
How did they know that the boxes weren't some sort of mines they were dropping?
I hold no desire to see us attack Iran, but I also would rather that no Americans are placed in harm's way to "not confront" Iran.
-
If Iran really want to they can sink every American surface ship in the Gulf. They have hundreds upon hundreds of modern anti-ship cruise missiles stationed along their coast on fixed and mobile launchers.
This incident was nothing more than "poking the tiger", and probably more for internal political reasons than international relations.
(http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/04/187078_orig.jpg)
(http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2000/October/Images/missile.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
If Iran really want to they can sink every American surface ship in the Gulf. They have hundreds upon hundreds of modern anti-ship cruise missiles stationed along their coast on fixed and mobile launchers.
and then? :lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
my reference was to "little speedboats" being harmless.
Sure and hence my reply. Three US warships on the move and on alert were not in danger. Not even a warning shot was fired against any of the five unarmed speedboats. Had they been a real threat based on the judgment of the Captain/Commander in charge, we would of seen some warning shots fired by us at least.
Apples and Oranges.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and then? :lol
Spare me your "then we'd nook 'em" knee jerk response. The point is that if Iran wanted to attack your ships they wouldn't do it with speedboats. Over the years USN ships have attacked and sunk Iranian naval vessels and even shot down one of their airliners while violating Iranian waters. I think Iran have shown remarkable restraint in their response to your aggressions.
-
i said nothing about "nooks', nooks are so last century, now we have smart bombs, one bomb one target,
anyway, my response was not what the US would do, but what would Iran do after they sunk all the US ships in the gulf. (as if they could).
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
US forces had already attacked Iranian oil platforms before that, as part of the Reagan administrations direct support of Iraq during the first persian war.
Tronsky
Any attacks by US Naval forces against Iranian targets were in direct support of Operation Earnest Will, which was the naval operation to protect US flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers as well as keep the international shipping lanes open. We also engaged in Operation Prime Chance which was to prevent Iranian forces from dropping mines in the Gulf.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
It ceases to amaze me, the simplistic nature of supposedly educated americans these days. Most of you are chomping at the bit, currently, to open up a THREE FRONT WAR. You people are idiots.
Just because someone questions the validity of a video, does not call into question their national stance, or patriotism. Stop with the BS republican talking point recitals already.
The strength of this nation used to be it's own scepticism...and we've obviously lost it with idiots out there about to start another war cuz a couple of lil blue boats went and jumped our wakes. There were no armaments on the lil speedboats and none came within 100 yards.
I personally commend the Navy for just cruising along, middle finger to the sky.
I don't commend the administration for using it as a ploy to garner support for another lame duck war from a lame duck president.
Stop drinking before you post.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by john9001
i said nothing about "nooks', nooks are so last century, now we have smart bombs, one bomb one target,
anyway, my response was not what the US would do, but what would Iran do after they sunk all the US ships in the gulf. (as if they could).
It's a hypothetical situation since Iran obviously did not attack your ships and never intended to. Even you should be able to see that.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Any attacks by US Naval forces against Iranian targets were in direct support of Operation Earnest Will, which was the naval operation to protect US flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers as well as keep the international shipping lanes open. We also engaged in Operation Prime Chance which was to prevent Iranian forces from dropping mines in the Gulf.
ack-ack
Isn't that what Tronski said? In not so many words.. ?
-
No, he said we had attacked Iranian assets in direct support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War.
Operation Earnest Will was aimed at protecting US reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers from both Iranian and Iraqi attacks.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Viking
If Iran really want to they can sink every American surface ship in the Gulf.
BS
-
Originally posted by AKIron
BS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Yj86lg.jpg/300px-Yj86lg.jpg)
“The Yingji-82 or YJ-82 (Chinese: 鹰击-82, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N-8 Saccade) is a Chinese anti-ship missile first unveiled in 1989 by the China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy (CHETA), also known as the Third Academy. Due to the Yingji-82 missile's small radar reflectivity, low attack flight path (only five to seven meters above the sea surface) and strong anti-jamming capability of its guidance equipment, target ships have a very small chance of intercepting the missile. The hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98 percent. The Yingji-82 can be launched from airplanes, surface ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and has been considered – along with the US Harpoon missile – as among the best anti-ship missiles of its generation.[1] Its export name is the C-802.”
This is the missile Hezbollah used in 2006 to attack an Israeli corvette. Probably supplied by Iran or Syria. Iran has 60 of these in Qeshm. With a range of 120 kilometres the the C-802 covers much of the gulf, and also the estuary to the gulf.
In addition Iran has over 300 Exocet missiles, also covering most of the gulf. An unknown number of “Sunburn” missiles…
“The Raduga Moskit “Sunburn” anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The MOSKIT is designed to fly as low as 9 feet at over 1,500 miles per hour, faster than a rifle bullet. The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defense.”
…and an unknown number of the Sunburn’s replacement, the Yakhonts 26 with a range of 250-300 kilometres.
Iran also produces an indigenous version of the Silkworm missile with a range of 150 kilometres. Hundreds of these are in service.
Any US ship operating in the Gulf is literally sailing under the guns of the Iranian missile forces.
-
AkIron already said "BS" so quit grasping thin air, will you?
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by AKIron
BS
Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.
Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.
Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.
Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.
You need to base your opinion on fact.
The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well. There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment. Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago. Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.
Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.
Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.
Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.
You need to base your opinion on fact.
The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well. There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment. Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago. Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.
Sources for your facts?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.
Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.
Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.
Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.
You need to base your opinion on fact.
The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well. There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment. Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago. Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?
-
My thought is that the first launch plumes detected in Iran will result in the GPS system being shut down immediately in that area.
There might be a small problem after that with those missiles finding their targets.
-
Originally posted by Viking
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Yj86lg.jpg/300px-Yj86lg.jpg)
“The Yingji-82 or YJ-82 (Chinese: 鹰击-82, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N-8 Saccade) is a Chinese anti-ship missile first unveiled in 1989 by the China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy (CHETA), also known as the Third Academy. Due to the Yingji-82 missile's small radar reflectivity, low attack flight path (only five to seven meters above the sea surface) and strong anti-jamming capability of its guidance equipment, target ships have a very small chance of intercepting the missile. The hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98 percent. The Yingji-82 can be launched from airplanes, surface ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and has been considered – along with the US Harpoon missile – as among the best anti-ship missiles of its generation.[1] Its export name is the C-802.”
This is the missile Hezbollah used in 2006 to attack an Israeli corvette. Probably supplied by Iran or Syria. Iran has 60 of these in Qeshm. With a range of 120 kilometres the the C-802 covers much of the gulf, and also the estuary to the gulf.
In addition Iran has over 300 Exocet missiles, also covering most of the gulf. An unknown number of “Sunburn” missiles…
“The Raduga Moskit “Sunburn” anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The MOSKIT is designed to fly as low as 9 feet at over 1,500 miles per hour, faster than a rifle bullet. The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defense.”
…and an unknown number of the Sunburn’s replacement, the Yakhonts 26 with a range of 250-300 kilometres.
Iran also produces an indigenous version of the Silkworm missile with a range of 150 kilometres. Hundreds of these are in service.
Any US ship operating in the Gulf is literally sailing under the guns of the Iranian missile forces.
How can you continue to argue the point, against such a well thought out, researched and structured argument as "BS"?
-
I doubt Iran is stupid enough to launch an attack as proposed. Since we're dealing with far fetched scenarios it isn't unreasonable to plant a sub or two with an airburst tactical nuke quick launch capability just off shore in the event of a massive attack.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?
AK, I really doubt that a Nuclear weapon of any sort will be used for any reason in that situation.
However, I do notice that while the anti-shipping missiles' seem to be there, what is protecting the missiles? What air-defence assets? Anything offensive undertaken by the U.S. Navy won't be FFG's blundering right into the straights' of Hormuz, It will be from the Carrier air wings' wiping the Anti-ship missile batteries' out before they can come into play. And I doubt that the Iranian air force can do anything to stop it. There won't be 'swarms' of missiles, only the odd one or two that might have been missed. Phalanx and it's replacement, Goalkeeper, can handle that.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?
That is just beyond silly. Nuking the little pond your fleet is in? Yeah that's really smart.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
My thought is that the first launch plumes detected in Iran will result in the GPS system being shut down immediately in that area.
There might be a small problem after that with those missiles finding their targets.
These missiles do not use the GPS system. No non-NATO weapon does. These missiles use inertial guidance, mid-course radio/satellite guidance and active radar terminal guidance. As for targeting and mid-course guidance the Iranians launched its first recce satellite in 2005. They know exactly where your ships are at any given moment.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I doubt Iran is stupid enough to launch an attack as proposed.
Originally posted by Viking
Spare me your "then we'd nook 'em" knee jerk response. The point is that if Iran wanted to attack your ships they wouldn't do it with speedboats. Over the years USN ships have attacked and sunk Iranian naval vessels and even shot down one of their airliners while violating Iranian waters. I think Iran have shown remarkable restraint in their response to your aggressions.
-
Originally posted by Viking
That is just beyond silly. Nuking the little pond your fleet is in? Yeah that's really smart.
If it came to suffering some burnt out electronics vs sunk ships I think the emp is vastly preferrable. We're talking miles separation here and relatively low yeild weapons. It would be a drastic measure but would also likely be successful. Iran would not be afforded a second attempt.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
However, I do notice that while the anti-shipping missiles' seem to be there, what is protecting the missiles? What air-defence assets? Anything offensive undertaken by the U.S. Navy won't be FFG's blundering right into the straights' of Hormuz, It will be from the Carrier air wings' wiping the Anti-ship missile batteries' out before they can come into play. And I doubt that the Iranian air force can do anything to stop it. There won't be 'swarms' of missiles, only the odd one or two that might have been missed. Phalanx and it's replacement, Goalkeeper, can handle that.
The Iranians have been busy modernizing its air defenses, but I don't think they can withstand a prolonged air campaign from the USN/USAF. But that is beyond the scope of my premise: An Iranian attack on US ships already in the gulf.
They don't need to drop "boxes" from speedboats.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If it came to suffering some burnt out electronics vs sunk ships I think the emp is vastly preferrable. We're talking miles separation here and relatively low yeild weapons. It would be a drastic measure but would also likely be successful. Iran would not be afforded a second attempt.
Modern missiles and military equipment are EMP shielded. Have been since the early '90s. All you need is some metal mesh.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Iranians have been busy modernizing its air defenses, but I don't think they can withstand a prolonged air campaign from the USN/USAF. But that is beyond the scope of my premise: An Iranian attack on US ships already in the gulf.
They don't need to drop "boxes" from speedboats.
To stay in the scope or your premise, then...as can be seen from this latest incident, they will have 2 or 3 U.S. Navy ships' which they can attack. So, let's say they do, being able to sink all 3. This is where my argument comes into play. We get a few days' of smart-bomb camera footage on Fox and CNN, and the Missile batteries' are a memory. The CV air group in the area chalks' up some more kills, and diplomacy (or further military action) Take it from there.
-
Frode, what are you on about? More or less the entire USN's fifth fleet is in the gulf. I believe their base at the moment is in Bahrain. They are all within range of Iran's missiles.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Frode, what are you on about? More or less the entire USN's fifth fleet is in the gulf. I believe their base at the moment is in Bahrain. They are all within range of Iran's missiles.
I believe that the CV groups' don't come into the gulf itself; They stay out in the Indian ocean.
-
Yup, Bahrain, home of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT)/5th Fleet headquarters.
I don't know the disposition of the fleet's CV's, that's not something the USN are likely to publish. ;) However there are a lot of USN ships in the Gulf, far more than just three destroyers.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Modern missiles and military equipment are EMP shielded. Have been since the early '90s. All you need is some metal mesh.
Wrong again.
To ensure that missiles go a bazillion miles per hour, they are cut down on weight to provide the missile's motor with less to push.
Current EMP shielding is either copper mesh, foil backed gypsum, galvanized steel, and of course lead sheathing. There have been experiments with blown polymer / metal techniques but these remain very fragile and are best used in static applications. All except the very last mentioned are very heavy. The only missiles that we standardly carry that have any EMP shielding are some nuclear cruise missiles, the ABM genre and ICBM's. The thought process being that cruise missiles are meant to be stealthy alleviating defensive EMP measures.
-
Bodhi, please join the rest of us in the 21st century.
(http://news.thomasnet.com/images/large/024/24222.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Frode, what are you on about? More or less the entire USN's fifth fleet is in the gulf. I believe their base at the moment is in Bahrain. They are all within range of Iran's missiles.
I wouldn't say Iran "couldn't" do it, but the aftermath of them sinking our ships would be horrific for the Iranians. The loss of that battlgroup would be a setback for the U.S., but a small one compared to what the Iranians would end up suffering when the U.S. military is finished with them.
It would be a dumb move on the Iranians part.
One just has to remember another sneak attack on our navy some 50ish years ago to know this.
Just because you CAN walk up to Mike Tyson and smack him in the back of the head doesn't mean one should.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I doubt Iran is stupid enough to launch an attack as proposed. Since we're dealing with far fetched scenarios it isn't unreasonable to plant a sub or two with an airburst tactical nuke quick launch capability just off shore in the event of a massive attack.
I've never heard of anything even close to this as a weapon? Could it be launched from space? Or, maybe a space station with a automatic .. humm semi-automatic for accuracy.. heat lazer beam?
This sure sounds like :noid
-
Originally posted by Viking
Bodhi, please join the rest of us in the 21st century.
(http://news.thomasnet.com/images/large/024/24222.jpg)
Believe what you want, the EMP from a nuclear detonation is a threat to almost everything airborne.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I've never heard of anything even close to this as a weapon? Could it be launched from space? Or, maybe a space station with a automatic .. humm semi-automatic for accuracy.. heat lazer beam?
This sure sounds like :noid
You don't know what subs are? They are like ships but can go underwater. They can launch all manner of underwater, air, and surface attack weapons. Some even carry nuclear missiles.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You don't know what subs are? They are like ships but can go underwater. They can launch all manner of underwater, air, and surface attack weapons. Some even carry nuclear missiles.
lol Iron.. was speaking about the flip a switch and fire a 'small' tactical nuclear missle that would detonate and take out incoming anti-ship missles.. never heard of the sort..
-
Well, good secrets often aren't heard of until they're used. Seriously though, how hard would it be to put a 10 kiloton nuke warhead on a sub launched surface missile and fuse it for say 20k alt? You could launch several and get miles wide coverage providing a pretty effective protective curtain. I think even an attack sub could function in this capacity.
didn't you guys ever play missile command???
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
Well Aegis system already proved its potential when they shot down that Iranian passenger plane and killed all the passengers and the crew.
You mean the Iran Ajr flight that was tracking from Bandar Al Abbas, non squaking IFF? Further heading to the group operating in international waters, and having an Iranian 3-pack (One P-3 and two F-4's) in formation to it which was the tactic of the day.
Or, do you mean the Iran Ajr flight loaded with convicts and other enemies of the Iranian state retained to their chairs with ropes and zip ties?
Its documented on how the bodies we pulled out the water were tied to their chairs. Dig a little farther than Wikapedia if you really want to know what happened during 87-89 in the Tanker Wars with COMIDEASFOR and CJTFME later.
Capatain Will Rodgers was in his right, and acted correctly. Certain events during that time were omitted by the powers that be for political reasons.
P.S. I am proudly a veteran or the US Navy and participated in many Earnest Will Missions during the Iran Iraq war.
I was also there during the event
-
Originally posted by rstel01
I was also there during the event
So what is your view on the disparate data from other USN ships in the area at the time such as the Sides which correctly identified the airliner (including its squawk #) before it was shot down?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So what is your view on the disparate data from other USN ships in the area at the time such as the Sides which correctly identified the airliner (including its squawk #) before it was shot down?
link?
-
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~nrotc/ns302/20note.html
-
It's easier to calmly assess a threat when you aren't the target.
Indeed, as Captain Carlson would learn minutes after the Airbus plummeted into the water, the electronic specialists in the Sides combat information center had correctly identified the aircraft's commercial transponder code at virtually the same instant that the Vincennes fired her missiles.
Kewl to hear my surname (sides) used in naming a ship, not a common name, wonder how distant the relation?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I find the below statement to be ambiguous and perhaps even dishonestly so. Just to qualify my bias, I went to a radar school in a class of 9 with 4 of those being Iranian AF warrant officers and 1 Saudi for 10 months in the 70's so I am not completely without connection to Iran.
Indeed, as Captain Carlson would learn minutes after the Airbus plummeted into the water, the electronic specialists in the Sides combat information center had correctly identified the aircraft's commercial transponder code at virtually the same instant that the Vincennes fired her missiles.
Can you elaborate? I'm no expert on any of this stuff, rstel01's comments made me go searching and the reports from peers of the vincenne's made me wonder. So I'm all ears with no preconceptions. Also comments on the video recorded on the vincennes casts some doubt onto his comments.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Can you elaborate? I'm no expert on any of this stuff, rstel01's comments made me go searching and the reports from peers of the vincenne's made me wonder. So I'm all ears with no preconceptions. Also comments on the video recorded on the vincennes casts some doubt onto his comments.
I may have read more into the document you posted than what was intended. Still, it's not much of a stretch to see Iran as provocatively belligerent both yesterday and today.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?
Now you want to use nukes?
Is that our American answer to everything...nuke it?
-
Probably a good thing we didn't fire at the little blue boats.
Prank May Have Sparked Gulf Showdown
AP
Posted: 2008-01-14 19:37:16
Filed Under: World News
CAIRO, Egypt (Jan. 14) - A threatening radio message at the end of a video showing Iranian patrol boats swarming near U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf may have come from a prankster rather than from the Iranian vessels, the Navy Times newspaper has reported.
Photo Gallery
Press TV / AP Was It All
A Joke?1 of 4 A threatening radio message that was purportedly sent from Iranian vessels and directed at U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf on Jan. 6 may have been transmitted by a radio heckler, the Navy Times reported. Here, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer is seen with what purportedly shows U.S. naval ships in the background during that incident.
A video and audio of the Jan. 6 incident in the Strait of Hormuz featured a man in accented English saying "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after ... minutes."
Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said the Navy was still trying to determine the source of the transmission but believed it was related to the Iranian actions.
"The Iranian boats were coming close to the ships, making aggressive maneuvers and objects were being dropped into the water," she told The Associated Press.
However, the Navy Times, a weekly newspaper published by the Gannett company, quoted several veteran sailors as speculating the transmission could have come from a radio heckler, widely known among mariners by the ethnically insulting term "the Filipino Monkey."
The newspaper, which serves the Navy community, said U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf have heard the prankster - possibly more than one person - transmitting "insults and jabbering vile epithets" on unencrypted frequencies.
"Navy women - a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example - who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment," the newspaper said Sunday. "Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video."
Filipino Monkey is a name used by mariners around the globe for someone who uses his radio for unnecessary or inappropriate transmissions.
It also is sometimes used by the prankster himself. Two Navy officers said they have personally been aboard ships elsewhere in the world when all of a sudden they've heard someone from another vessel come on the radio and say, "Filipino Monkey, Filipino Monkey" over and over again in a singsong voice.
U.S. Navy officials at Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain could not immediately be reached for comment. However, Navy officials have said they were unsure where the transmission came from.
The threat, however, ratcheted up tensions in the incident, which began when Iranian patrol boats swarmed around three U.S. Navy vessels near Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has denied that its boats threatened the U.S. vessels and accused Washington of fabricating video and audio it released. Iran's government has released its own video, which appeared to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least yards from the American warships.
The Navy Times quoted Rick Hoffman, a retired captain, as saying a renegade talker repeatedly harassed ships in the Gulf in the late 1980s.
"For 25 years there's been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats," he said. "He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship," Hoffman said.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Now you want to use nukes?
Is that our American answer to everything...nuke it?
When ya got it, flaunt it.
It is a desperate measure for desperate situation.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. ?
If it's more than my 3,571 logged dives, congrats.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~nrotc/ns302/20note.html
I have heard this amongst other versions as well. It seems to me, that this LtCol David Evans has an axe to grind. Funny, I can not find anything else about him online.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
If it's more than my 3,571 logged dives, congrats.
TT is the issue. 25 minutes chasing fish isn't diving.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
If it's more than my 3,571 logged dives, congrats.
Ya got me beat. Maybe it's time you came up for air?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
My thought is that the first launch plumes detected in Iran will result in the GPS system being shut down immediately in that area.
There might be a small problem after that with those missiles finding their targets.
Might be.. Except that Iranians are buddies with the russians who have their own GPS system running.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Might be.. Except that Iranians are buddies with the russians who have their own GPS system running.
GLONASS is not up to full speed yet. As of the end of 2007 they still did not have full coverage of Russia and relied on the Navstar or GPS system outside of their coverage. It is not expected to reach full coverage until 2010. The last three GLONASS M satellites were launched at the end of last year. 3 GLONASS K's, the new versions, are expected to be launched this year but may not due to budget constraints.
In the end, it really does not matter as any GPS system can be jammed. Add to that the fact that if the Russians allowed the Iranians to attack our ships with their abilities, a defacto state of war would exist. Something that neither the US nor the USSR can afford.
-
I'm sure GPS is used on many attacks around the world today and nobody's declaring war on US because of it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, he said we had attacked Iranian assets in direct support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War.
Operation Earnest Will was aimed at protecting US reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers from both Iranian and Iraqi attacks.
ack-ack
Which is part of the Reagan's edict to the CIA/NSA that Iraq was not to lose the war against Iran. Reflagged tankers was designed to keep Iraq's war economy supplied, while the US Navy assisted in bankrupting the Iranian efforts.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm sure GPS is used on many attacks around the world today and nobody's declaring war on US because of it. ;)
I agree in part Ripley, but if, as GScholz was saying, the Iranians sank all our ships in the Persian Gulf using Russian assistance, I'd bet the US and Russia would be on a totally different footing.
In reality it is probably a here nor there, as the Iranian President and US President are both changing and policies will likely change to one of appeasement anyways.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I agree in part Ripley, but if, as GScholz was saying, the Iranians sank all our ships in the Persian Gulf using Russian assistance, I'd bet the US and Russia would be on a totally different footing.
Please point to where "Russian assistance" is mentioned:
Originally posted by Viking
These missiles do not use the GPS system. No non-NATO weapon does. These missiles use inertial guidance, mid-course radio/satellite guidance and active radar terminal guidance. As for targeting and mid-course guidance the Iranians launched its first recce satellite in 2005. They know exactly where your ships are at any given moment.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So what is your view on the disparate data from other USN ships in the area at the time such as the Sides which correctly identified the airliner (including its squawk #) before it was shot down?
It should also be taken into account the Vincennces was the only Aegis Cruiser operating in the group, and Sides is a Perry Class FFG.
There is a big difference in the tactical picture that was Rodgers saw versus what was saw as it played out in the CIC of the Sides.
Granted Vincennes was known in the theater as "RoboCruiser" but, you need to understand the whole dynamic of the battlefield of the Arabian Gulf during 87-89.
It was a common tactic for the three pack (one P-3 and two F-4's of the IIAF) to shadow commercial flights in the corridor and bounce the convoys. Also, understand the geography of the area. Where it occured was the Silkworm choke point, where the gulf is at its narrowest. Up north is a fairly open enviroment but, the transit to the I/O is a mass of Dhow's, Commercial Traffic, plus IIN Boghamers and IIAF aircraft running weapons profiles and painiting shipping in the choke point.
The common story of the CIC crew mistaking the aircon for an F-14 is an utter lie. Everyone knew the Tomcats the IIAF had are Unicorns. Meaning everyone hears about them but, no one has ever seen them.
Had we not pulled the bodies out of the water bound and tied to their seats, it might of been a different story.
Also, the crew of the Vinncenes was award multiple medals and merits for the action of that day.
Not a common USN practice for a crew that dropped the ball and killed 248 some odd civilians.
Like I said, sometimes things are changed for Poltical Reasons.
If anyone is really interested, I could scan and post some photos of the operations of the time. We used to have alot of fun with the Soviet warships also operating in theater.
-
What are you trying to say rstel01? That the Iranian airliner was "fake"?
-
Originally posted by Viking
What are you trying to say rstel01? That the Iranian airliner was "fake"?
Wow... he can actually comprehend something! :O
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Wow... he can actually comprehend something! :O
Unlike you ...
-
Originally posted by Viking
What are you trying to say rstel01? That the Iranian airliner was "fake"?
It was a win-win for the Iranian government. If Captain Rodgers did not shoot the airliner down, the 3-pack of combat planes has a clear shot into the convoy and group sinking American ships and Kuwaiti shipping under the US flag.
If a shoot down occurs, the US Navy is demonized in the world press as killers of civilians (as occured).
-
I think I'll put you in the same category as those who think the Pentagon was hit by a CIA cruise missile. The loony bin.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Believe what you want, the EMP from a nuclear detonation is a threat to almost everything airborne.
That depends on alot of factors, how large of EMP explosion, distance from detonation, etc. I know for a fact that an military aircraft that Boeing makes for our government has some sort of nuclear "hardening" around the avionics packages and wiring. None of it is any good if you're close though...
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think I'll put you in the same category as those who think the Pentagon was hit by a CIA cruise missile. The loony bin.
Were you there?
I was and the bottom line is Capatain Will Rodgers acted in the best interests of his ship, his crew, the law of the sea and the right of the United States Naval Warships Operating in international waters.
Otherwise, this is where my input to the discussion ends.
Best Regards
-
The story with the iranian bodies being tied to their seats is not a part of the official truth about the incident, at least as portrayed by national geographics or discovery documentary about it. Are you sure you aren't falling to some urban legend there? Because it sounds pretty far fetched.
Most likely it's a fabrication of some of the usual 'see no evil hear no evil' folks that we see on this board also who think US forces can never fail, never do a mistake and fart greenhouse effect free gases.
-
What is a big question for me is would a body in a seat float?
In all reports I've seen of airliner crashes in the ocean the bodies have been through such violent forces that often the clothing is ripped off them and none have been still attached to seats. I'm no expert but your comments rstel01 on this particular detail are what leads me to question your entire story.
In all the reports in the vincennes incident there is no mention of a "3 pack", including the video shot on the bridge at the time.
As for the sides 'tactical image', as I understood they were data linked with the vincennes and seeing exactly the same info. Including the fact the airliner was not diving and in fact in a slow ascent as per the data tapes.
rstel01 you do realize is that there are video tapes that were made available at the time of what happened on the bridge of the vincennes - and that video evidence seems somewhat at odds with your opinion.
-
Not surprised with this. They fired on us during first gulf war. Couple of times.
This was one of my concerns during the lead up to the current war. If you go into Iraq, Iran and Syria needs to be dealt with. They weren't dealt with so now Iran will be a problem and will be for some time. It was never a question of our military might it has always been a problem of political resolve and ability.
Iran is a nuisance. The real concern is China. Iran and China have been cozy for quite some time. Not that China will come to Iran's aid but that China will supply Iran with technology. China's need for oil will rival the US demand within a few years. Given that oil production has peaked or is near peak China will have to get a foothold in the Gulf. Add to this the constant irritant of Taiwan.
Here are some of the things China has done in the past few years;
Captured an American ASW aircraft
Shot down an American satellite
Sharply increased defense spending
There are some economical concerns. Dumping of products on the US market. Meddling with the Chinese stock exchange and the currency markets. Next year a Chinese auto plant will be operational in Mexico. An estimated one hundred thousand trucks will be produced. Most will ship to the US. How much tariff will the US collect? Nada! Thanks NAFTA.
If oil production has peaked and can only decrease and the demand is going up then what will a country like China do? What will the US do?
Our politicians are bought with a few junkets and promises and are beholden to lobbyists not the citizens. Our politicians are like frogs in a pot of cold water, they won't realize the temperature is going up until we are all cooked.
-
Originally posted by rstel01
It was a win-win for the Iranian government. If Captain Rodgers did not shoot the airliner down, the 3-pack of combat planes has a clear shot into the convoy and group sinking American ships and Kuwaiti shipping under the US flag.
If a shoot down occurs, the US Navy is demonized in the world press as killers of civilians (as occured).
:huh
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What is a big question for me is would a body in a seat float?
In all reports I've seen of airliner crashes in the ocean the bodies have been through such violent forces that often the clothing is ripped off them and none have been still attached to seats. I'm no expert but your comments rstel01 on this particular detail are what leads me to question your entire story.
what you say gels with the news reports at the time of that incident that i remember i.e lots of naked bodies left floating in the sea from the shoot down.
-
i wonder if this laser defense systems are already operational and in use in Navy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg&feature=related)
-
Originally posted by ghi
i wonder if this laser defense systems are already operational and in use in Navy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg&feature=related)
If that were real, wouldn't that be a much better missle defence than what our government is spending billions on?
Track a motar round? Hows that work you think?
-
Originally posted by rstel01
Were you there?
I was and the bottom line is Capatain Will Rodgers acted in the best interests of his ship, his crew, the law of the sea and the right of the United States Naval Warships Operating in international waters.
Otherwise, this is where my input to the discussion ends.
Best Regards
Did a couple of cruises with the Vincennes in the early 80's.
If someone we're to ask, "If a Navy ship shot down an airliner, which one do you think it would be?"
I'd have answered, "Vincennes."
-
Where would they get the power to operate a Laser like that in the field? Bet it takes huge amounts of power.
-
No Furball, latest tech has relatively low output lasers detonating mortar rounds in a few seconds. In addition to that, there's been some other tracking tech public demo that can indeed track mortar rounds.
Put the two together and you have an effective mortar defense out in the boonies... I think the tracker video had it frying two or three shells fired in a row. I think both videos were linked to on the forum, but I can dig it up if you're interested. I'm pretty sure the former was, and IIRC it was called fibre laser, or something about the laser beam not being completely coherent or something.
Edit- Looks like the tracker tech is in ghi's link.