PDA

View Full Version : Unclear whether Iran shot down drone, a U.S. official says



SarasotaRepub
12-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Wonderful... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/04/world/meast/iran-drone/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4) :rolleyes:




(CNN) -- Iran's military on Sunday claimed it shot down a U.S. drone into eastern Iran.
State media cited a military official who identified the aircraft as an RQ-170 Sentinel.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft was flying a mission over western Afghanistan -- which borders Iran -- last week when operators lost control.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the incident said the crew operating the unmanned drone reported a loss of flight control just before the drone went down



JHC...what about a fucking self-destruct???? They were saying tonight they probably got the thing almost undamaged!!!

Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 08:29 PM
Now they know too much, we have to kill them!

JB
12-05-2011, 08:31 PM
First I head it was shot down.

Then I heard it was taken over electronically. I hope not. That would be bad, m'kay.

Now I'm hearing it was operator error.

Either way, look for Chinese RQ-170s soon. :mad:

Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 08:33 PM
First I head it was shot down.

Then I heard it was taken over electronically. I hope not. That would be bad, m'kay.

Now I'm hearing it was operator error.

Either way, look for Chinese RQ-170s soon. :mad:

Destroy everyone and salt the ground!:mad:

Wei Wu Wei
12-05-2011, 10:22 PM
Why is everyone so afraid of other countries using drones? After all, drones are a perfectly legitimate form of warfare and they are very precise and they fit perfectly into combat situations.

Iran isn't fighting any big wars with anyone, neither is China. hmmmmm?

or maybe building flying death-robots and sending them all over the world to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with just because we can wasn't the best idea. Some people were against drones along time ago, saying they were opening up a can of worms, but I guess they were all just libtard moonbats. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 10:37 PM
Why is everyone so afraid of other countries using drones? After all, drones are a perfectly legitimate form of warfare and they are very precise and they fit perfectly into combat situations.

Iran isn't fighting any big wars with anyone, neither is China. hmmmmm?

or maybe building flying death-robots and sending them all over the world to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with just because we can wasn't the best idea. Some people were against drones along time ago, saying they were opening up a can of worms, but I guess they were all just libtard moonbats. :rolleyes:

Move to China traitor.

noonwitch
12-06-2011, 10:07 AM
Wonderful... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/04/world/meast/iran-drone/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4) :rolleyes:





JHC...what about a fucking self-destruct???? They were saying tonight they probably got the thing almost undamaged!!!


It would be great if it was able to self-destruct once it was moved to a secure Iranian military site, though. They need to think about that for the next model year.

JB
12-06-2011, 06:21 PM
Why is everyone <snip>Are you just saying stupid shit for the sake of stupid shit these days?

Trust me, others have come before you that were much better at it than you are.

Nubs
12-09-2011, 02:01 PM
They knew where it was when it went down. Barry was notified and was given the option to drop a JDAM on it. Barry decided to do nothing.

Starbuck
12-09-2011, 05:37 PM
They knew where it was when it went down. Barry was notified and was given the option to drop a JDAM on it. Barry decided to do nothing.
And there ya go.
It is a little frightening that Iran got it intact. Sort of supports their "we ambushed it electronically" statement.

Bad guys have been trying to intercept these drones ever since the started flying. Maybe Iran figured out a way to do it, maybe not. You can't simply jam the operating frequency anymore because (thanks to Heddy Lamar) they use something called spread spectrum communication, which bounces the assigned frequencies all over the spectrum, so jamming a frequency wouldn't phase it.

So maybe the brainless little robot just coasted to a stop in front of a mosque...:) Who knows.

But one thing is for sure. If they can jam and capture ours, we can jam and capture theirs.

Know what bugs me? Surely there is a fail safe installed so that if it can't communicate with the base any longer, it just goes home. You know, GPS and all that. Surely, they thought of that.:confused: Even SR's dog is that smart!:D

txradioguy
12-10-2011, 05:14 AM
Are you just saying stupid shit for the sake of stupid shit these days?

Trust me, others have come before you that were much better at it than you are.

No JB he's saying what he honestly believes.

Which to me is more frightening than if he were just making shit up to piss us off.

JB
12-10-2011, 04:35 PM
No JB he's saying what he honestly believes.

Which to me is more frightening than if he were just making shit up to piss us off.I was really hoping he was just stirring shit.

Otherwise, what he's saying is "If the US has top secret advanced weapons systems that give us a tactical and strategic advantage over everyone else, why can't they have that technology too"?

It's thinking like that, that's going to get us all killed. Hopefully the guy never runs for congress. Who knows what he'd be willing to sell to our enemies.

txradioguy
12-11-2011, 06:14 AM
Otherwise, what he's saying is "If the US has top secret advanced weapons systems that give us a tactical and strategic advantage over everyone else, why can't they have that technology too"?

That's exactly what he is saying. And it's exactly what he believes too. It's the same thinking that allows places like the NY Times to release details on covert operations we are conducting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not lose a minutes sleep. They look at is as their patriotic duty to ensure we are not superior to anyone else in the name of fairness. And today that line of thinking starts at the very top and continues downward.


It's thinking like that, that's going to get us all killed. Hopefully the guy never runs for congress. Who knows what he'd be willing to sell to our enemies.

And they'll do it all in the name of "fairness".

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2011, 11:22 AM
Killing scores of people, including civilians, with inaccurate weapons, in nations that we are not at war with, from the comfort of a control room half a globe away, is not "superior".

Drones are not accurate, they cause a lot of collateral damage, innocents are killed, and it's done in a way that is truly frightening. We aren't even at war with some of these countries, and we have a method of killing people that is similar to a video game.

It is a terrifying concept. I also think nuclear weapons are terrifying, and the United States building and using them kick-started a paranoid half-century where everyone is panicked about being blown up. Once you open up these cans of worms, you take us into a new era. You cannot expect the US to be the only nation that has these technologies for long.

newshutr
12-11-2011, 12:56 PM
Using the atomic bombs on Japan was a bad thing?

Starbuck
12-11-2011, 01:28 PM
Killing scores of people, including civilians, with inaccurate weapons, in nations that we are not at war with, from the comfort of a control room half a globe away, is not "superior......
We were attacked by, and continue to be threatened by, civilians. Most of us don't care what nation they are hiding in.
The control room is comfortable. That seems to be an issue? Maybe we could make it less comfortable. Happy?:)

The world will go on without you. There is nothing you can do. You don't count.

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2011, 01:34 PM
Using the atomic bombs on Japan was a bad thing?

It ended the war swiftly and saved American lives, but it also opened up a can of worms and entered us into an era of nuclear paranoia. It also killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It may be too simplistic to label it as "good" or "bad". These things tend to have many consequences.

Rockntractor
12-11-2011, 01:37 PM
It ended the war swiftly and saved American lives, but it also opened up a can of worms and entered us into an era of nuclear paranoia. It also killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It may be too simplistic to label it as "good" or "bad". These things tend to have many consequences.

Is the life of a soldier worth less than a civilian?

txradioguy
12-11-2011, 01:52 PM
Using the atomic bombs on Japan was a bad thing?

According to Liberals it was. Never mind how many lives it saved on both sides and the years it cut off the length of the war.

Somehow in the eyes of Liberals we have no moral authority to tell anyone what to do because we've nuked another country.

txradioguy
12-11-2011, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Killing scores of people, including civilians, with inaccurate weapons, in nations that we are not at war with, from the comfort of a control room half a globe away, is not "superior......

You mean like the Taliban did to us on 9/11?

Zathras
12-11-2011, 02:11 PM
It ended the war swiftly and saved American lives, but it also opened up a can of worms and entered us into an era of nuclear paranoia. It also killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It may be too simplistic to label it as "good" or "bad". These things tend to have many consequences.

The fire bombings of Tokyo caused more casualties than the A-Bombs. Also the bombs saved more Japanese civilian lives than they killed by bringing the end of the war to a swift end, making the need for an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary which would have ended up killing millions of civilians if they had been carried out.

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2011, 02:24 PM
You mean like the Taliban did to us on 9/11?

Yeah sort of like that. How on earth is that an argument for it?

Are you saying we should kill civilians because terrorists kill civilians? We should not be trying to be just like them, that's insane.

What makes someone a terrorist? The color of their skin? Their religion? Something in their DNA? or is it their actions?

If you think we should stoop to their level, and engage in killing civilians in countries we aren't at war with, because that's what they do, then it almost sounds like you are suggesting we should out-terrorist them. If they do a terrorist-thing, we should do it harder!

If that's the case, what the hell are we fighting for or against?

Chuck58
12-12-2011, 12:17 AM
Seems to me that we go to the extreme not to kill civilians in these current wars. Accidents happen because nothing is perfect.

In regular wars, against nations, the civilians are as much the enemy as the soldier in the field. Those civilians make bullets, build tanks, planes, etc and grow food. They support and contribute to the war effort, and should be fair game.

djones520
12-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Yeah sort of like that. How on earth is that an argument for it?

Are you saying we should kill civilians because terrorists kill civilians? We should not be trying to be just like them, that's insane.

What makes someone a terrorist? The color of their skin? Their religion? Something in their DNA? or is it their actions?

If you think we should stoop to their level, and engage in killing civilians in countries we aren't at war with, because that's what they do, then it almost sounds like you are suggesting we should out-terrorist them. If they do a terrorist-thing, we should do it harder!

If that's the case, what the hell are we fighting for or against?

You seem to think that our government is advocating the death of civilians who are not illegal combatants. Accidents happen in war. It can't be helped, there will never be a perfect system that does not involve collateral damage.

The simple fact is that the efforts we take to mitigate the number of innocent casualties goes beyond anything anyone has ever tried in the past. We view a single wrongful death as one to many, and we take every step possible to avoid it, including putting our own lives in extra danger because of it.

War is hell. Mistakes are made. Especially when time sensitive targets are in play. You want to bemoan dead civilians, put in on the ones who are putting them in harms way. The ones who hide among them, who use them as shields. They are the ones you should be waving your moral stick at, asshole.

txradioguy
12-12-2011, 02:59 AM
You seem to think that our government is advocating the death of civilians who are not illegal combatants. Accidents happen in war. It can't be helped, there will never be a perfect system that does not involve collateral damage.


And the leftist idiots like Wee Wee will tell you that the fact there will never be a perfect system is why we should dismantle our "war machine" right now and never engage in hostile conflict ever again.

Odysseus
12-12-2011, 11:57 AM
Why is everyone so afraid of other countries using drones? After all, drones are a perfectly legitimate form of warfare and they are very precise and they fit perfectly into combat situations.
We're more afraid of other countries hacking the signals to our drones and either negating them or using them against us.


Iran isn't fighting any big wars with anyone, neither is China. hmmmmm?
In 1933, Germany wasn't fighting any big wars with anyone, either.


or maybe building flying death-robots and sending them all over the world to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with just because we can wasn't the best idea. Some people were against drones along time ago, saying they were opening up a can of worms, but I guess they were all just libtard moonbats. :rolleyes:
First, the drones aren't "robots", in the sense that they don't have their own onboard intelligence. They are remotely operated by human beings, which means that they are not simply robotic killing machines. Second, we use them because we can keep them aloft for longer hours (simply switching the controllers permits that without having to land the vehicle) and because they can go places that Soldiers cannot go without assuming greater risk. I assume that you don't have a problem with saving American lives, right? Finally, all countries assassinate their enemies. It's part of warfare. If an enemy combatant takes refuge in a neutral nation, then it is the obligation of the neutral power to ensure that they do not conduct combat operations from their territory. If they don't do that, or cannot do it, then they abrogate their neutrality and any nation can engage targets that are engaged in combat operations within their borders. Yemen claims neutrality, but cannot control the activities of al Qaeda within its borders. Pakistan claims to be an ally, but harbors enemy combatants. Iran openly calls itself our enemy and has declared war on us. In each case, the laws of warfare permit us to act as we have.

It ended the war swiftly and saved American lives, but it also opened up a can of worms and entered us into an era of nuclear paranoia. It also killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It may be too simplistic to label it as "good" or "bad". These things tend to have many consequences.


Is the life of a soldier worth less than a civilian?
To Wei, it depends on who the Soldier or civilian is. For example, he has no problem with Hamas using Arab civilians as shields when they launch rockets at Israel, and his concern for Israeli civilians is somewhere between slim and none.

Yeah sort of like that. How on earth is that an argument for it?

Are you saying we should kill civilians because terrorists kill civilians? We should not be trying to be just like them, that's insane.

What makes someone a terrorist? The color of their skin? Their religion? Something in their DNA? or is it their actions?

If you think we should stoop to their level, and engage in killing civilians in countries we aren't at war with, because that's what they do, then it almost sounds like you are suggesting we should out-terrorist them. If they do a terrorist-thing, we should do it harder!

If that's the case, what the hell are we fighting for or against?

Al Qaeda deliberately targeted civilians. They used civilian aircraft as weapons and attacked a civilian trade center. By every law of warfare, these are blatantly illegal acts.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, OTOH, targeted industrial centers that were critical to Japan's war effort, even though there were large numbers of civilians present. In fact, it is the obligation of combatant powers to separate military and civilian facilities in order to reduce the risk of collateral damage, but the Japanese deliberately sited their munitions plants in major population centers. Also, the laws that protect civilians, the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to non-signatory powers, and Japan was not a signatory (in fact, the Japanese revelled in violating the terms of the conventions whenever they could). Japan's prior conduct also exposed them to retaliation, in that Japan had previously bombed civilians in China and the Philippines, and had abrogated the protections of the Geneva Conventions by doing so. The bombing also resulted in millions of saved Japanese lives, as the invasion of the home islands would have incurred horrific casualties, as Okinawa demonstrated. In short, it was legal and moral to do so.

THE Gypsy
12-12-2011, 04:56 PM
US asks Iran to return captured drone

President Barack Obama has said the US government has requested that Tehran return the surveillance drone captured by Iran's military earlier this month.

Mr Obama said he would not comment on classified intelligence matters, but confirmed: "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16150384

Starbuck
12-12-2011, 07:33 PM
There is a reason the drone is seen with flags hiding the undercarriage. I am not sure what the reason is, but there is a reason; that is not an accident.

In reading about the RQ-170 I learned that it is programmed to fly level if contact is lost. Don't know if it attempts to stay in the same area or tries to go home, but it does fly level. And that's how it hit the ground. Flying level.

So I'm suspecting the sensors where damaged - perhaps badly damaged - when it 'landed'. And I'm suspecting that the Iranians just lucked out and witnessed the landing. I don't believe they tracked it somehow. I know the Pakistanis couldn't detect it because it was used in the Bin Laden raid and evidently was never challenged.

Information or thoughts, anyone?

djones520
12-13-2011, 12:55 AM
There is a reason the drone is seen with flags hiding the undercarriage. I am not sure what the reason is, but there is a reason; that is not an accident.

In reading about the RQ-170 I learned that it is programmed to fly level if contact is lost. Don't know if it attempts to stay in the same area or tries to go home, but it does fly level. And that's how it hit the ground. Flying level.

So I'm suspecting the sensors where damaged - perhaps badly damaged - when it 'landed'. And I'm suspecting that the Iranians just lucked out and witnessed the landing. I don't believe they tracked it somehow. I know the Pakistanis couldn't detect it because it was used in the Bin Laden raid and evidently was never challenged.

Information or thoughts, anyone?

I'm not 100% on drones, but I do believe that Iran is probably one of the most technilogically advanced nations in that part of the world. If anyone there had the capabilities, it would be them.

Kay
12-13-2011, 01:41 AM
Maybe we are using it as a Trojan horse and let them have it on purpose as part of a larger plan.
That's what I'd like to hope.

Or not, and our POTUS is just purposely letting them take their time looking it over like he did
in Pok-E-ston with the helicopter tail section. I would think these things could be destroyed from
from the air in a flash before anyone could get their hand on them. I would hope that our drones
have a self destruct feature that could be set off remotely.

In other news (and needs its own thread) Lebannon has outted all of our CIA agents in their country.
There sure is a lot of our country's secret and classified shit being passed around the world these
days. Kinda makes one wonder if we are just getting careless or if we have a traitor in high places.

djones520
12-13-2011, 02:14 AM
It wasn't all of our agents. Sounds just like a couple, and one of them may be the double agent that Hezbollah used to get the information.

Things may sound ugly, but think of it this way. You only hear about the bad news. You never know when the good stuff happens. That's just how that works.

Kay
12-13-2011, 09:40 AM
It wasn't all of our agents. Sounds just like a couple

The last paragraph of this story says a network of 10 agents.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/12/hezbollah-identifies-undercover-cia-officers/?test=latestnews

There is breaking news of another drone crash At Seychelles Airport.

Starbuck
12-13-2011, 10:09 AM
I'm not 100% on drones, but I do believe that Iran is probably one of the most technilogically advanced nations in that part of the world. If anyone there had the capabilities, it would be them.
I'm sure you have reasons for your belief. But reading about the Iranian missile program leads me to very different conclusions. Pictures of their 1st satellite - launched in '09 - show a payload situated inside a square aluminum box, D cell batteries, and electrical tape. And it only weighed about 100 pounds.

Drones like the RQ-170 are satellite controlled, and clearly Iran does not have that capability.

The Rooskies, now...that's a different thing. The Rooskies may have something which may be used to disable a drone. And of course they would make it available to Iran. Or would they? Would they trust the Iranians to be able to keep it out of western hands? Maybe.:confused:

marv
12-13-2011, 10:41 AM
In the event of a communications loss, the RQ-170 is pre-programmed to self-land.

My guess is that the Chinese did it; and the one in the Seychelles as well. The Seychelles have invited the Chinese to make port stops (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_SEYCHELLES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-12-21-46-38) there.