Conflicting word on U.S. drones over Iran

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Monday, February 14, 2005 Posted: 2:42 AM EST (0742 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. sources have given conflicting signals about the veracity of a Washington Post report that said America has been using unmanned flights for the past year to gather intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability.

Three senior U.S. military officials disputed the article Sunday, but two well-placed U.S. government sources confirmed it, saying that the overflights have indeed been taking place.

The newspaper -- citing three U.S. officials -- reported that Washington has been using drones to look for evidence of nuclear weapons programs and to "detect weaknesses in air defenses."

Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon would comment Sunday on the apparent discrepancy.
more...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/13/iran.intel/

[wolfgirl]

1. of course

we are spying on Iran....we have to come up with the "photos" to show the UN why we are going to attack. Everyone knows that!:nuke:
I wonder when Condi will go before the UN to do her dog & pony show - ala Powell? Now that's must see TV!

(I can't stand these people)

[cthrumatrix]

2. why isn't the UN cracking down on the US for this behavior?

If china was flying planes over the US ...what would happen?

[DistantWind88]

4. Well, it wouldn't happen after the first Chinese

plane got shot down.

[Roland99]

11. The UNSC is on a short leash held by the US

When the US says sit, the UN sits.

[DistantWind88]

3. Seems to me

that if we were flying UAVs over Iran's nuclear processing facilities,(especially Predators as the news showed all weekend), the Iranians would have no problem shooting them down. Global Hawks would be a bit more problematic (but we only have ACTD GHs right now, not production models), but the Iranian IADS should not have too much of a problem with them either.

[Ian David]

6. My un-substantiated theory

We're firing reconnaissance rockets over Iran that are either too high or too fast to shoot down.

And we've designed some of the rockets intentionally to be conspicuous, so that the Iranians will know they're being over-flown by something.

The idea would be to:
1) Make it clear we're watching
2) Keep making them chase after these UFO's, so when a real attack comes, they'll be complacent

In the weeks before we attack, we may have almost non-stop overflights by whatever these things are. This will keep the Iranian Air force constantly launching sorties that will put a strain on its men and machines. And it will make it harder to tell when the real attack begins.

This is a similar tactic to what Egypt used during The Yom Kippur War.

[DistantWind88]

7. What reconnaissance rockets?

What system or systems do you mean?

[Ian David]

9. We used to use reconnaissance missiles during The Cold War

A-5 Vigilante - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... The RA-5C Vigilante saw extensive service in Vietnam starting in August 1964, carrying out hazardous medium-level reconnaissance missiles. ...
www.netipedia.com/index.php/A-5_Vigilante


The Air Force is working on updated reconnaissance missiles right now:

The Future Combat System (FCS):
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
... The FCS will carry Reconnaissance Missiles (RM) that will be the natural evolution of to- day’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). ...
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/1fcs98.pdf
View as HTML

<snip>
The FCS Scenario - A Major
Digitized Battlefield Contributor
Operational requirements dictate that
the FCS should operate as a ‘combat
system’ while functioning and communi-
cating beyond the conventional rather
narrow tactical level. The FCS will be
an active node on the battlefield digit-
ized network. This is, in essence, a dra-
matic departure from the conventional
way tanks have been operated and de-
ployed since their inception. The FCS
will carry Reconnaissance Missiles (RM)
that will be the natural evolution of to-
day’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).
The RMs will be fired to assist the local
commander and crews in obtaining real-
time digitized information on the close-
area battlefield. This information will be
used by the local forces, but also will be
conveyed to the Greater Area War Man-
agement Center.
More:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:DPXV21GDtXEJ:www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/1fcs98.pdf+%22reconnaissance+missiles%22&hl=en



Apparently, there is some suspicion that we are using them already:

Daily Trojan OnLine
Bush said that he would never exclude any option if Iran "continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program" in an interview with NBC News.

This followed Pentagon criticisms that it was mounting reconnaissance missiles to identify potential nuclear targets.

More:
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2005/01/19/News/News-Digest-835298.shtml

Apparently, there are even civilian, recreational reconnaissance missiles:

The LONGGO batteries of the "S-class" (the "S" stands for Safe) have an integrated protective circuit, which effectively protects the lithium cells from the consequences of any incorrect handling. The LONGGO S series was specially developed for increased safety requirements (e.g. for drones and reconnaissance missiles) and therefore complies with the high demand for quality of EMCOTEC GmbH.

More:
http://www.rc-electronic.com/html/englisch/unten/longgo/longgo_safe/longgo_safe.html


And don't forget... We started to use the Predator Drone while it was still in Research and Development. And I think we also used the Stealth Fighter in Panama while we were still denying its existence.

[DistantWind88]

10. Not aware of any we currently use

Not Recce "misisles" anyway.

[Ian David]

13. We may have some from The Cold War. Don't forget, hobbyists use them

Since the government doesn't always tell us everything they make, I think it is likely we have something like this sitting in a hangar at Skunkworks.

[DistantWind88]

15. We'd probably use something

a bit more sophisticated, especially since the Iranians themselves have called them "drones."

[Ian David]

17. Of course they'd be more sophisticated. I was just showing how easy it is

If a bunch of bespectacled High School rocket-geeks can make them in their garage, then certainly our government could either design a very sophisticated one or slap one together with duct tape, a tricorder and a sonic screwdriver.

[DistantWind88]

19. You overestimate

the effectiveness of the military acquisition system!

[gbwarming]

25. Two of those are probably typos. 'missions' fits better than 'missiles'

In the FAS and USC articles it looks like a typo of the modern sort that passes a spellchecker. The really don't make sense otherwise.

...carrying out hazardous medium-level reconnaissance missiles...
...it was mounting reconnaissance missiles...

The "reconnaissance missiles" in the battery description comes from a German website. I think this is just a non=technical translation because on German part of the site the term used is "Aufklärungsflugkörper" which according to this german-english dictionary site means 'reconnaissance drone' http://odge.info/german/a/14000.html

There were drones used in Vietnam - Ryan Firebee was one. I don't think this would normally be called a missile.
http://www.blackbirds.net/uav/bixbydrones/

[oneighty]

27. Iran Plan 'B'

We do not give a rat's ass how many flights you Americans do over our territory. You will not find anything of interest and we will not be tricked into revealing our air defenses.

So there!

180

[DistantWind88]

28. That works too

Because if they don't turn on the IADS, they won't be able to stop a real air attack either. It's kinda a catch-22 for them...

[oneighty]

29. But

They would enjoy a few minutes of mayhem before they say goodbye.

But then I have been away from explosive ordnance since 1960. No telling what tricks are available today.

180

[NickB79]

30. Shooting them down would give away anti-aircraft emplacements

We're TRYING to get them to lock on and shoot down our relatively cheap drones so that we can get an idea of what and where their defenses are. They are (smartly) playing coy with us.

[DistantWind88]

31. Probably we aren't

We have a pretty good idea already of their IADS layout. And the problem with not turning your IADS on leaves you open to a surprise attack.

[Ian David]

5. That would surely explain the "mysterious" UFO sitings over Iran

Duh.

[TahitiNut]

8. Once upon a saner time ...

... the violation of another nation's airspace, particularly with such a recon vehicle, woud be regarded as an act of war. Francis Gary Powers anyone?

[Ian David]

12. Only if you get caught

One could create the false impression of UFOs maneuvering faster than any human creation possibly could.

Consider this:

Imagine a series of weather balloons spread out over a radius of say, 200 miles.

Equip each weather balloon with a high-power light source, a GPS locater and a radar transmitter. (The radar transmitter could be used to make it look bigger than it really is, or even simulate a "missile lock" to send the enemy's alerts ringing).

Now, think about your Christmas lights and the "chase mode."

You could independently control the radar transmitter and light-source to illuminate a series of balloons in a series of straight lines or curves.

It's possible that it would create the illusion of a moving object.

If you had 5 balloons in a relatively straight line from each other, each balloon 15 miles apart, you could make it appear the object was moving 75 miles per second.

I suppose you could even do it with with balloons scarcely bigger than a party balloon, or with very small UAVs. Or even manned vehicles flying in a very broad formation.

[DistantWind88]

14. I'm not sure it's an "act of war"

But the Iranians are well within their rights to shoot them down.

[Ian David]

16. And if a pilot was caught without a formal declaration of war...

are they bound by The Geneva Convention?

For that matter, since America has already broken The Geneva Convention, and The Uniform Military Code of Conduct, does that give them license to do what they please?

[DistantWind88]

20. Well since these

planes are unmanned, I think the "pilot" would be pretty safe...

[Ian David]

24. I was talking about if we actually used planes with pilots instrad of UAVs

I know that UAVs down't have pilots in them

Unless, of course, THIS is the pilot:

[DistantWind88]

26. Pilots and crew

Of peacetime recce missions OVERFLYING a sovereign nation (such as Iran) can be considered spies by the country holding them and may be punished as that country's laws allow. Just like FGP was by the Soviets.

[tkmorris]

18. Would it be an act of war

If it was an Iranian plane flying over Washington DC? If Bush claimed that it was and declared war in return would you argue he was wrong?

[Ian David]

21. Yes, he'd be wrong because he provoked them and he did it first

Now, if England did it (who we're at peace with) we'd have reason to be pissed.

But of course, if it did happen, we'd have air-strikes against Iran as soon as Bush finished reading My Pet Goat.

[DistantWind88]

23. I don't think pissed

is an accurate term. If the Iranians overflew the US with a recce vehicle, it'd never make it back to Iran. They're perfectly within their rights to shoot down the ones they say are overflying their sovereign territory.

[DistantWind88]

22. Absolutely

If it was an Iranian spy plan, we'd just shot it down. I see no reason for Bush to declare war over that, do you? he'd be TOTALLY wrong for declaring war over that type of incident.

Anyway, I'm not SURE if it's an act of war or not. I DO KNOW that it's a good way of getting your aircraft shot down.

[hvn_nbr_2]

32. Do 3 senior military officials trump 2 well-placed govt sources?

Some people say that they do. :crazy:

[DistantWind88]

33. LOL Good Question!