Iran Claims US Stealth Drone downed (NATO Confirms)

laxmax613

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
4,071
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Car(s)
Merkavim Mars
CNN said:
(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.U.S. officials believe the drone Iran is referring to may be the same one, but the U.S. government has not confirmed that it was shot down, the source said.The RQ-170 Sentinel is a stealth drone developed for the Air Force to help provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Although the Sentinel was developed for the Air Force, the U.S. official did not say whether it was the U.S. military or the U.S. intelligence community operating the drone at the time of the incident.The official said the drone's mission was to fly over Afghanistan. American officials over the years have been adamant that U.S. assets do not fly over Iranian air space.Iranian media reported that the RQ-170 was slightly damaged and in the hands of Iranian forces."Armed forces with a dominant control over the country's borders managed to identify and down the invading plane," the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.The unnamed Iranian military official called it a "clear example of aggression" and added that Iran is "fully ready to counter any aggression," the report said.
In July, Iran's military made a similar claim, saying it downed a U.S. "spy drone" flying near its Fordo nuclear enrichment plant in Qom province. But Iran backtracked on the statement a few days later, saying the incident was actually part of a training exercise.


FYI, this is what they claim to have downed:

rq-160.jpg


And in addition, this is NATO's response:

NATO said:
The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a US unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status.
 
Espionage makes the world safer. Generally speaking. So I don't think it's morally bankrupt to fly a drone over Iran. But you can get screwed by it.
 
Espionage makes the world safer.

What? The Soviet Union was scared shitless that the U.S. would nuke them at any moment. The countless CIA's countless failures did not dissuade them of that notion, it made them more paranoid.
 
The Iran turned the implausible-claim-o-meter to 11 and is now claiming they did not shoot the drone down but that their cyberwarfare division downed the drone. (src)

I highly doubt that claim. A solid return of investment form all the money spent on russian anti-aircraft equipment looks more plausible in my book. But if it's true, that's a major setback for remote-controlled and autonomous warfare.
 
I don't. The people who have designed, built and operate these drones have consistantly failed to protect them from hacking. It also would be interesting to know if they have protected them from simple RF jamming.
 
I think the more important issue is that there's probably a Chinese plane carrying a multi-million dollar check and a crew of engineers toward Tehran right now.
 
What? The Soviet Union was scared shitless that the U.S. would nuke them at any moment. The countless CIA's countless failures did not dissuade them of that notion, it made them more paranoid.
Espionage gave Kennedy knowledge that helped him avoid nuclear armageddon over Cuba. It is also worth noting that the Soviets, while scared by Reagan, still knew they would probably get some warning from their KGB and GRU operations in the US before it got to war, which might be why they didn't feel the need for a first strike.

The best idea would be to let nations fly over each other's territories, as Ike suggested to Crutchev, but as we know, it didn't work out that way.

It does make the world a safer place, if you know what the other guy has, you're less likely to overeact out of fear or ignorance.

But it does bite you in the arse from time to time. Which is exactly what happened to Ike. He was close to getting a proper summit with Crutchev, but a U2 flight on May 1st was too much of a provocation. So there was no summit, and Gary Powers got arrested, then deported, then demonised and ended up dying in the news helicopter he flew.

Intelligence isn't easy, it is not always advisable, but as a rule, it does make the world a safer place. Not that governments like it, of course, but I don't detest foreign spies. They're not traitors, they're more often than not very brave professionals doing a job that needs doing.

When your own people betray their nation, that is something else.
 
Espionage gave Kennedy knowledge that helped him avoid nuclear armageddon over Cuba.

Nope. Khrushchev sent the missile to Cuba because the U.S. had nukes in Turkey. The U.S. could attack the Soviet Union without fear of a counter attack. Again the Soviet feared the U.S. would destroy them at any time. Kennedy ended the crisis by agreeing to remove the missiles in Turkey.

It is also worth noting that the Soviets, while scared by Reagan, still knew they would probably get some warning from their KGB and GRU operations in the US before it got to war, which might be why they didn't feel the need for a first strike. The best idea would be to let nations fly over each other's territories, as Ike suggested to Crutchev, but as we know, it didn't work out that way.

They had no desire to attack. They were afraid the U.S. was going to attack them. The Soviet Union knew they would lose both a conventional war and a nuclear war. They weren't deluded like the West.

It does make the world a safer place, if you know what the other guy has, you're less likely to overeact out of fear or ignorance.

But it does bite you in the arse from time to time. Which is exactly what happened to Ike. He was close to getting a proper summit with Crutchev, but a U2 flight on May 1st was too much of a provocation. So there was no summit, and Gary Powers got arrested, then deported, then demonised and ended up dying in the news helicopter he flew.

Intelligence isn't easy, it is not always advisable, but as a rule, it does make the world a safer place. Not that governments like it, of course, but I don't detest foreign spies. They're not traitors, they're more often than not very brave professionals doing a job that needs doing.

When your own people betray their nation, that is something else.

That espionage back fires is a major concern. I agree on spying (everyone does it), but many times espionage has gone well beyond that and resulted in horrible messes. Sending drones to Iran in this instant would be towards the too far line. We already have sat coverage. Iran will be wondering why we are looking closer? Do we plan on attacking them?
 
Last edited:
It also would be interesting to know if they have protected them from simple RF jamming.
The drones are supposed to simply head home when they lose contact with the base.
I think the more important issue is that there's probably a Chinese plane carrying a multi-million dollar check and a crew of engineers toward Tehran right now.
I don't think so. Tehran traditionally buys Russian and has strong ties to their military development community. So make that a Russian plane.
 
But do they circle for a while first or just go straight home?
 
I think the more important issue is that there's probably a Chinese plane carrying a multi-million dollar check and a crew of engineers toward Tehran right now.

Most of it was probably built in China. :p
 
Nope. Khrushchev sent the missile to Cuba because the U.S. had nukes in Turkey. The U.S. could attack the Soviet Union without fear of a counter attack. Again the Soviet feared the U.S. would destroy them at any time. Kennedy ended the crisis by agreeing to remove the missiles in Turkey.
I think you're misunderstanding me here. First and foremost, I were not talking about intelligence prior to the crisis avoiding it, I am talking about how Kennedy could utilize intelligence to defuse the thing. The US had some superb information about the Soviet missile regiment, among many things, how long it took to make them operational. They had the manuals. While the USSR probably didn't want Kennedy to know that, the fact of the matter is that it made it possible for Kennedy to stall an attack and enabled him to seek a less dangerous sollution.

They had no desire to attack. They were afraid the U.S. was going to attack them. The Soviet Union knew they would lose both a conventional war and a nuclear war. They weren't deluded like the West.
Both sides would have lost a nuclear war, even if there were no bomber gap and no missile gap (the US had much more than the Soviets at all times), the US would not emerge as the "winner" of a nuclear war. As for a conventional war, that's a lot harder to say. The technological advantages the US had by 1985 weren't that big in 1965, to put it that way. The weapons that made war with the US in the 80s impossible weren't there in 1965. I'm just using arbitrary years, by the way.

I think it would have been close, but it's a very hard call. A war in 1965 would be a much more old fashioned war, it would use more artillery, less use of targeted bombs, less real time intelligence, worse communications on both sides and much more missing what you were aiming at.

That espionage back fires is a major concern. I agree on spying (everyone does it), but many times espionage has gone well beyond that and resulted in horrible messes. Sending drones to Iran in this instant would be towards the too far line. We already have sat coverage. Iran will be wondering why we are looking closer? Do we plan on attacking them?
Yes, you do plan to attack them. Well, at least you're making the plans just in case. Let's not forget that the US made plans for war against the United Kingdom (and Canada) as late as 1940, and were quite content doing so.

Obama doesn't want to go to war against Iran unless he has to. So he needs to know what, if any, is happening with the Iranian atomic program. If he can justify saying "They're not building a bomb right now", he can justify not going to war.

If Iran is building a bomb, that would be a different matter for the United States. I know it, you know it, Iran knows it and the member states of the UN knows it as well. Since I don't have codeword clearance, I'm not privy to US satelite overheads, I don't know what they're capable of, but I do know as a photographer, that the closer you are to something you're photographing, the easier it gets. So using drones to gather overhead intelligence a little closer to the objects to be photographed does make sense, it would be very suprising if drones in the atmosphere weren't capable of getting photos with a lot better detail than satelite overheads.
 
FYI, this is what they claim to have downed:

rq-160.jpg

The drone pictured is a French Dassault Aviation AVE-D. This is the RQ-170:

http://img535.imageshack.**/img535/4311/rq17020220magnify20560.jpg

The title of this topic is misleading. NATO claims that it lost a drone in Afghanistan, not Iran.
 
I think you're misunderstanding me here. First and foremost, I were not talking about intelligence prior to the crisis avoiding it, I am talking about how Kennedy could utilize intelligence to defuse the thing. The US had some superb information about the Soviet missile regiment, among many things, how long it took to make them operational. They had the manuals. While the USSR probably didn't want Kennedy to know that, the fact of the matter is that it made it possible for Kennedy to stall an attack and enabled him to seek a less dangerous sollution.

He didn't use intelligence to diffuse the problem, he removed the missiles in Turkey to diffuse the situation.

Both sides would have lost a nuclear war, even if there were no bomber gap and no missile gap (the US had much more than the Soviets at all times), the US would not emerge as the "winner" of a nuclear war.

Exactly. Both sides feared the other was insane and would attack anyway.

As for a conventional war, that's a lot harder to say. The technological advantages the US had by 1985 weren't that big in 1965, to put it that way. The weapons that made war with the US in the 80s impossible weren't there in 1965. I'm just using arbitrary years, by the way.

I think it would have been close, but it's a very hard call. A war in 1965 would be a much more old fashioned war, it would use more artillery, less use of targeted bombs, less real time intelligence, worse communications on both sides and much more missing what you were aiming at.

Good point, I am thinking later 20th century. An interesting topic, but unrelated to this thread.
Yes, you do plan to attack them. Well, at least you're making the plans just in case. Let's not forget that the US made plans for war against the United Kingdom (and Canada) as late as 1940, and were quite content doing so.

Obama doesn't want to go to war against Iran unless he has to. So he needs to know what, if any, is happening with the Iranian atomic program. If he can justify saying "They're not building a bomb right now", he can justify not going to war.

If Iran is building a bomb, that would be a different matter for the United States. I know it, you know it, Iran knows it and the member states of the UN knows it as well. Since I don't have codeword clearance, I'm not privy to US satelite overheads, I don't know what they're capable of, but I do know as a photographer, that the closer you are to something you're photographing, the easier it gets. So using drones to gather overhead intelligence a little closer to the objects to be photographed does make sense, it would be very suprising if drones in the atmosphere weren't capable of getting photos with a lot better detail than satelite overheads.

There is a difference between planning in the case they attack (which is a good idea) and sending a drone out. Think of it this way, if Iran flew a drone over Norway or the U.S. would you be okay with it?
 
He didn't use intelligence to diffuse the problem, he removed the missiles in Turkey to diffuse the situation.
Intelligence let him know there was another option than to invade Cuba or bomb the missile sites. Heck, it was intelligence that gave Kennedy proof of the blasted missiles in the first place.

Exactly. Both sides feared the other was insane and would attack anyway.
And both sides used intelligence so as to be sure they'd know something about it if a state of war was approaching.

Good point, I am thinking later 20th century. An interesting topic, but unrelated to this thread.
It's related so far as we can debate how both sides used intelligence to plan an attack, but yeah, I agree.

There is a difference between planning in the case they attack (which is a good idea) and sending a drone out. Think of it this way, if Iran flew a drone over Norway or the U.S. would you be okay with it?
I wouldn't be okay with it, that's just a natural response. But I wouldn't see it as enough of a casus belli to justify a war (although a military drone could easily be construed as just that, a casus belli).

I suppose it all depends on where you are. If Iran had security interests in Norway, I might understand it a little more. The use of drones to gather intelligence on Iran might help avoid a war. Obama don't want a war, but he might have to if there's uncertainty about wether or not the Iranians are making a nuke.

There's a reason almost every nation on earth partakes in legal espionage through military attach?s.
 
Intelligence let him know there was another option than to invade Cuba or bomb the missile sites. Heck, it was intelligence that gave Kennedy proof of the blasted missiles in the first place.

Even if the U.S. hadn't seen the missiles until later (the Soviet would have made it aware to the U.S. at some point) I'm sure the situation would have diffused.

And both sides used intelligence so as to be sure they'd know something about it if a state of war was approaching.


It's related so far as we can debate how both sides used intelligence to plan an attack, but yeah, I agree.


I wouldn't be okay with it, that's just a natural response. But I wouldn't see it as enough of a casus belli to justify a war (although a military drone could easily be construed as just that, a casus belli).

I suppose it all depends on where you are. If Iran had security interests in Norway, I might understand it a little more. The use of drones to gather intelligence on Iran might help avoid a war. Obama don't want a war, but he might have to if there's uncertainty about wether or not the Iranians are making a nuke.

There's a reason almost every nation on earth partakes in legal espionage through military attach?s.

It isn't a reason for war, but it doesn't encourage peace. It is unnecessary for us to blatantly fly an aircraft over someone else's sovereign soil. When you poke a lion enough, it will strike.
 
The title of this topic is misleading. NATO claims that it lost a drone in Afghanistan, not Iran.
Which does not at all change the fact that the loss of a drone in Iran has been confirmed, just not by NATO, but by the Pentagon.
 
Even if the U.S. hadn't seen the missiles until later (the Soviet would have made it aware to the U.S. at some point) I'm sure the situation would have diffused.
Of course, but getting rid of them then would be a lot harder. It's not just the element of what will Crutchev do, but what could the scared KGB guys in Cuba get up to? That's why knowing when the missiles were operational made the sollution possible. Knowing both the US and the USSR, Cuba could have been a new Berlin. Which might have destabilized the relationship between the US and the USSR for decades.

That's NOT safe.

It isn't a reason for war, but it doesn't encourage peace. It is unnecessary for us to blatantly fly an aircraft over someone else's sovereign soil. When you poke a lion enough, it will strike.
It's a military plane over a foreign country. It is a casus belli.
 
Top