IRAN HAS IT ? our stealth drone
- Thread starter CatholicCrusader
- Start date
A trojan horse? *ROTFLMAO* Where do you idiots come up with this stuff? To throw them off? To what end?
No, I don't find it a bit odd. You see, Iran has better air defenses. Your drones have been flying in areas with NO AIR DEFENSES, you moron. Why do you think even the Israelis have avoided Iranian airspace? Those Jews are experts at interdicting people's airspaces. Just ask the Syrians and Iraqis. Remember Osirak?
Fascist Canuck, netanyahoo, et al,
I agree.
(COMMENT)
For some reason, the professional politician in the US is deathly afraid of the Americans the show an allegiance toward Israel, above American interests.
I do not buy into the threat that Israel's security is, in any way, tied to the Security of the US. If anything, the association is extremely dangerous.
I agree that we should halt foreign and military aid to ALL countries, including Israel.
Remember the USS Liberty!
Most Respectfully,
R
I agree.
(COMMENT)
For some reason, the professional politician in the US is deathly afraid of the Americans the show an allegiance toward Israel, above American interests.
I do not buy into the threat that Israel's security is, in any way, tied to the Security of the US. If anything, the association is extremely dangerous.
I agree that we should halt foreign and military aid to ALL countries, including Israel.
Remember the USS Liberty!
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Hear, hear!!
Get rid of the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington, and watch Israel get pushed into the sea where they belong. Palestine for Palestinians!
Fascist Canuck, CatholicCrusader, et al,
Yes, this nugget is true. Most UAVs are operated in an environment that is very light on ADA or with host nation authorization.
(COMMENT)
Iran has, at the top of the ADA Pyramid, the Soviet style S-300 with some Chinese Innovations.
We cannot go directly against the Chinese, but we can test their sensor and guidance systems by flying a drone against the surrogate (third-party interrogation telemetry). It may cost you a one-time $5M UAV, but it may yield the spectral data necessary that could save a flight of $30M fighters.
Technical Intelligence cost money. An ISR UAV may need to be sacrifices in order to gain the technical telemetry that determines when an ADA system first makes acquisition, when it locks on target, and what kind of maneuvering capability a launched missile might have. It can also give us the necessary data to program anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) to pick-off the launch platforms, or cause them to disengage. It may also help us develop decoys.
There are a number of Trojan Horse scenarios that may be applicable. All the US Command has said is that it was an ISR platform.
Just a thought.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, this nugget is true. Most UAVs are operated in an environment that is very light on ADA or with host nation authorization.
(COMMENT)
Iran has, at the top of the ADA Pyramid, the Soviet style S-300 with some Chinese Innovations.
We cannot go directly against the Chinese, but we can test their sensor and guidance systems by flying a drone against the surrogate (third-party interrogation telemetry). It may cost you a one-time $5M UAV, but it may yield the spectral data necessary that could save a flight of $30M fighters.
Technical Intelligence cost money. An ISR UAV may need to be sacrifices in order to gain the technical telemetry that determines when an ADA system first makes acquisition, when it locks on target, and what kind of maneuvering capability a launched missile might have. It can also give us the necessary data to program anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) to pick-off the launch platforms, or cause them to disengage. It may also help us develop decoys.
There are a number of Trojan Horse scenarios that may be applicable. All the US Command has said is that it was an ISR platform.
Just a thought.
Most Respectfully,
R
A STEALTH drone would be used to test all that? It's a STEALTH drone, hence it would not be the same as if a flight of expensive fighters flew through the AD. The testing results would not be the same. WTF?
By your logic, the American military would exclaim 'oh yes sir, one of our STEALTH drones, one of the most-difficult targets to acquire by radar, was easily shot down by an 'aged' air-defence system.' All the testing would do is prove that the air defences were simply TOO GOOD.
This is more bullshit by the Americans. 'We were simply testing their air defences' without admitting the spying of Iranian airspace was a complete failure. 'We meant for that to happen'. It's much like, during the Balkan wars, when the Americans had one of their newest stealth fighters shot down, something that should have been an impossibility 'we meant for it to be shot down. We were testing the Serb air defenses', which were using older Soviet-era equipment. Americans did not wish to admit that their 'stealth' bullshit was but a limited threat to the Soviets who would have SEEN such fighters on their own more modern air defence systems. The Americans knew their allies would understand this, so they came up with bullshit excuses.
The most frightenting part of all this would be that the Iranian air defenses were designed by the Soviets in the 1970s. THIS is the technology that shot down the USA's most-advanced aerial hardware. Hmmmm? NO wonder the Americans never faced the Soviets in battle.
Last edited:
Fascist Canuck, et al,
First, let me say that "I" don't know what happened to the "drone." It could have gone down due to mechanical failures; or hit by lightening. I was merely commenting that it could have been an ISR sacrifice mission.
(COMMENT)
Yes, it can test all that and much more; and in real time. A UAV of that size can carry multiple packages. ELINT, ECM, ECCM, are not unusual packages for any aircraft, let alone a craft specifically designed for ISR work.
Drones are used all the time as targets. They can be configured with different packages and can be made to display a wide variety of flight characteristics. They are used by almost every nation for target practice. While we say "stealth," it doesn't mean invisible. It is all about the aspect angle.
We have an array of decoys (drones - for a long time), very small, that are used to hide aircraft as large as B-52s. They can be outfitted to transmit the telemetry and IR signature of just about any aircraft we choose. They can also be used to pick-up hostile RADARs and present the RADAR picture the hostiles see; to include their own missiles and aircraft in the area.
(COMMENT)
We seldom confirm or deny the countermeasures characteristics of any active aircraft in the inventory, used exclusively by the US. If a country wants to believe that their current sensor array and target acquisition is good enough to acquire, illuminate, and missile track any US entity, so be it --- so much the better for us. The last thing we want is to encourage a potential adversary to upgrade an existing warning net that we have mapped and analyzed.
(COMMENT)
I think it is, pretty much, common knowledge that no single weapons system is prefect; either in design or operation. Least of all, something on the order of "stealth" technologies. Would it be considered a complete failure (as you say)? Probably not.
The F-117 (Tail Number AF82806) was shot down in 1999, nearly a decade since the last delivery. F-117s were first introduced in about 1982 and haven't been made since 1989; with the last delivery in early 1990. That design was more than a decade old when, in 1999, it was intercepted. Since that time, no other F-117 has been lost in combat.
(COMMENT)
Hummm! The US never faced the Soviet in battle because it was never required. Warfare, between nations, is usually a result of something other than your suggestion here. It has to do with political advantage. It doesn't warrant further comment.
Most Respectfully,
R
First, let me say that "I" don't know what happened to the "drone." It could have gone down due to mechanical failures; or hit by lightening. I was merely commenting that it could have been an ISR sacrifice mission.
(COMMENT)
Yes, it can test all that and much more; and in real time. A UAV of that size can carry multiple packages. ELINT, ECM, ECCM, are not unusual packages for any aircraft, let alone a craft specifically designed for ISR work.
Drones are used all the time as targets. They can be configured with different packages and can be made to display a wide variety of flight characteristics. They are used by almost every nation for target practice. While we say "stealth," it doesn't mean invisible. It is all about the aspect angle.
We have an array of decoys (drones - for a long time), very small, that are used to hide aircraft as large as B-52s. They can be outfitted to transmit the telemetry and IR signature of just about any aircraft we choose. They can also be used to pick-up hostile RADARs and present the RADAR picture the hostiles see; to include their own missiles and aircraft in the area.
(COMMENT)
We seldom confirm or deny the countermeasures characteristics of any active aircraft in the inventory, used exclusively by the US. If a country wants to believe that their current sensor array and target acquisition is good enough to acquire, illuminate, and missile track any US entity, so be it --- so much the better for us. The last thing we want is to encourage a potential adversary to upgrade an existing warning net that we have mapped and analyzed.
(COMMENT)
I think it is, pretty much, common knowledge that no single weapons system is prefect; either in design or operation. Least of all, something on the order of "stealth" technologies. Would it be considered a complete failure (as you say)? Probably not.
The F-117 (Tail Number AF82806) was shot down in 1999, nearly a decade since the last delivery. F-117s were first introduced in about 1982 and haven't been made since 1989; with the last delivery in early 1990. That design was more than a decade old when, in 1999, it was intercepted. Since that time, no other F-117 has been lost in combat.
(SIDE NOTE) AF82806 was detected because of 806s active RADAR use. It was NOT detected through Serbian RADAR searches, according to Colonel Zoltán Dani, CO, Serb 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade.
(COMMENT)
Hummm! The US never faced the Soviet in battle because it was never required. Warfare, between nations, is usually a result of something other than your suggestion here. It has to do with political advantage. It doesn't warrant further comment.
Most Respectfully,
R
It was a trick. That's why you are demanding your drone back?
More ****ing American propaganda claiming it was the plane's radar that got them shot down. The above calls your bullshit.
Fascist Canuck, et al,
Hummm!
(COMMENT)
First, we (the USG) Always ask for our state property back, the same as all the other nations. This is not unusual at all. If a nation claims it has it, and we acknowledge it, we ask for it back; whether it is a U-2, EP-3 Aries, or a RQ-170 Sentinel. There is nothing unusual about it. It doesn't prove your point and it doesn't disprove my point.
That is correct; as far as it goes. The "electromagnetic waves" that COL Dani was referring to was the active RADAR signature. No where does COL Dani say that the 250th Missile Brigade had RADAR acquisition. COL Dani does not claim that at all. COL Dani's RADAR did not detect the F-117 until after his human spotters pointed it out (8 miles away inside the IP and firing point). In fact, COL Dani's RADARs were not operating most of the time because of the threat of HARM.
Like I said before, "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible' or "undetectable." It is really amazing that in the nearly 30 years of using "Stealth" you can count the loses on one hand and still have fingers left over. And the technology gets better all the time.
Most Respectfully,
R
Hummm!
(COMMENT)
First, we (the USG) Always ask for our state property back, the same as all the other nations. This is not unusual at all. If a nation claims it has it, and we acknowledge it, we ask for it back; whether it is a U-2, EP-3 Aries, or a RQ-170 Sentinel. There is nothing unusual about it. It doesn't prove your point and it doesn't disprove my point.
That is correct; as far as it goes. The "electromagnetic waves" that COL Dani was referring to was the active RADAR signature. No where does COL Dani say that the 250th Missile Brigade had RADAR acquisition. COL Dani does not claim that at all. COL Dani's RADAR did not detect the F-117 until after his human spotters pointed it out (8 miles away inside the IP and firing point). In fact, COL Dani's RADARs were not operating most of the time because of the threat of HARM.
Like I said before, "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible' or "undetectable." It is really amazing that in the nearly 30 years of using "Stealth" you can count the loses on one hand and still have fingers left over. And the technology gets better all the time.
Most Respectfully,
R
You never answered my question. WHY would a 'stealth' plane use active radar which would give away its location? That would defeat the entire BILLIONS OF DOLLARS purpose behind the stealth technology, therefore your statement that it was the plane's active radar that gave it away is bullshit. You just will not admit that the Serbs shot down your most-advanced plane using 60s technology.
Similar threads
