Iran Shoots Down RQ-4 BAMS-D $150m Drone near Persian Gulf Watch

fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report 3 weeks ago
#81
Its a crazy world we live in, where a country with literally 50x less financial resources and a fraction of the military budget or capability can provoke the larger power, knowing that the larger power can't really do anything back, or at least any action taken back would hurt the larger power far more.

Its a very unusual position historically to be in, but its where we are. Obviously there will be some american's who will think 'well, in all out war, we will crush them!' and they would be right, but all out war is an impossibility, it doesn't exist like it used to, and likely never will.

American can't use their nuclear dominance for obvious international reasons..
They can't use their dominance in numbers/population, because the value of human life has, for the first time, vastly exceeding the value of war/conquest in the past century (in western nations)
They can't use their military and technological superiority, because you can never truly win against an opponent who would die before giving up, and eventually it will become too costly in terms of life/money to keep going (see basically every US war since WW2)

All, the absolute most they could do is send in a few strikes, bomb a few targets.. but for what? A show of force? Its not going to threaten a nation like Iran away from actions, it will provoke them to do more.. so why bother?

There is no positive path forward for the US here, and they know it. Iraq/Afghanistan were the last straws.. they showed that even against incredibly week opponents, you can't win if they are prepared to die, and they showed that the US population really doesn't have the resolve to handle prolonged conflicts. There is no desire for war with Iran among the American people, and any president who started one would become the most unpopular president of the past century, given the costs that it would incur.

Its a crazy time we live in.. in the previous era, Iran would be finished by now, it would be defeated and occupied (as it was), but in this era.. Iran actually has the advantage over the larger nations in conflict situations like these.. and it seems to fully know it, and is prepared to act on it.
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#82
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Its a crazy world we live in, where a country with literally 50x less financial resources and a fraction of the military budget or capability can provoke the larger power, knowing that the larger power can't really do anything back, or at least any action taken back would hurt the larger power far more.

Its a very unusual position historically to be in, but its where we are. Obviously there will be some american's who will think 'well, in all out war, we will crush them!' and they would be right, but all out war is an impossibility, it doesn't exist like it used to, and likely never will.

American can't use their nuclear dominance for obvious international reasons..
They can't use their dominance in numbers/population, because the value of human life has, for the first time, vastly exceeding the value of war/conquest in the past century (in western nations)
They can't use their military and technological superiority, because you can never truly win against an opponent who would die before giving up, and eventually it will become too costly in terms of life/money to keep going (see basically every US war since WW2)

All, the absolute most they could do is send in a few strikes, bomb a few targets.. but for what? A show of force? Its not going to threaten a nation like Iran away from actions, it will provoke them to do more.. so why bother?

There is no positive path forward for the US here, and they know it. Iraq/Afghanistan were the last straws.. they showed that even against incredibly week opponents, you can't win if they are prepared to die, and they showed that the US population really doesn't have the resolve to handle prolonged conflicts. There is no desire for war with Iran among the American people, and any president who started one would become the most unpopular president of the past century, given the costs that it would incur.

Its a crazy time we live in.. in the previous era, Iran would be finished by now, it would be defeated and occupied (as it was), but in this era.. Iran actually has the advantage over the larger nations in conflict situations like these.. and it seems to fully know it, and is prepared to act on it.
Don’t agree with everything you wrote but overall very agreeable, +1
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#83
Report 3 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Palmyra)
So what did the US do against Iran when 307 US (and French) soldiers were killed in Beirut in 1983? Nothing and withdrew from Lebanon.
To be honest i'm still somewhat confused as to why the Yanks call that a terror attack, i mean a military barracks is kind of the definition of a legitimate target..
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#84
Report 3 weeks ago
#84
Apparently trump nearly launched a war...
http://nzh.tw/12242786
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 3 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by Napp)
To be honest i'm still somewhat confused as to why the Yanks call that a terror attack, i mean a military barracks is kind of the definition of a legitimate target..
As far as the Americans were concerned they were there as peacekeepers - not invaders. They were operating under rules of engagement deemed appropriate for peacekeepers which made it difficult for them to deal appropriately with a truck bomber.

If they'd got their invasion hats on they'd probably have chosen a more defensible and hardened barracks and a robust set of RoE.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#86
Report 3 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by Joinedup)
As far as the Americans were concerned they were there as peacekeepers - not invaders. They were operating under rules of engagement deemed appropriate for peacekeepers which made it difficult for them to deal appropriately with a truck bomber.

If they'd got their invasion hats on they'd probably have chosen a more defensible and hardened barracks and a robust set of RoE.
Maybe to start with, thats before they sided with one of the militias though at that point they became just another party to that quagmire.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 3 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Palmyra)
The reality is that the US has imposed economic warfare against Iran but cannot afford to go to war with Iran. Thus Iran feels it has greater leeway to assert itself in the Persian Gulf region because it knows the Pentagon and Trump are both opposed to war with Iran.


1) A few days ago the Houthis launched a cruise missile strike against a water desalination facility in Saudi Arabia.
2) A few weeks prior the Houthis launched an armed drone attack that pierced 500km deep into KSA without being detected and successfully attacked a PG-Red Sea (East-West) oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia, designed to enable it to export oil via other avenues than the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.
3) Just the other day the operational offices etc of ExxonMobil and other US oil companies were hit by a rocket in Iraq, forcing them to evacuate.

I could go on. People who follow military and political affairs will understand what each of those attacks are in response to and the signals they are designed to send to deter US aggression against Iran.


Persians invented chess and luckily for Iran brash overconfident illiterate businessmen rarely make for good chess players. Tempest II
4.9% recession? Ouch.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oi...n-In-Iran.html

And it's only going to get worse.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#88
Report 3 weeks ago
#88
"Keep in mind, BAMS-D, like the Global Hawk and the MQ-4C to a degree, has a zero penetration mission. It doesn't fly into contested airspace. It is literally a sitting duck. The only reason it would do so would be if it was off the leash or there was a major navigational malfunction. It is far more likely Iran just shot it out of international airspace as the Pentagon states."

As I've been saying.

Source -
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...bal-hawk-drone

Of course, Iran has a history of attempting to shoot down US RPAS in international airspace:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-phantom-59522
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#89
Report 3 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Its a crazy world we live in, where a country with literally 50x less financial resources and a fraction of the military budget or capability can provoke the larger power, knowing that the larger power can't really do anything back, or at least any action taken back would hurt the larger power far more.

Its a very unusual position historically to be in, but its where we are. Obviously there will be some american's who will think 'well, in all out war, we will crush them!' and they would be right, but all out war is an impossibility, it doesn't exist like it used to, and likely never will.

American can't use their nuclear dominance for obvious international reasons..
They can't use their dominance in numbers/population, because the value of human life has, for the first time, vastly exceeding the value of war/conquest in the past century (in western nations)
They can't use their military and technological superiority, because you can never truly win against an opponent who would die before giving up, and eventually it will become too costly in terms of life/money to keep going (see basically every US war since WW2)

All, the absolute most they could do is send in a few strikes, bomb a few targets.. but for what? A show of force? Its not going to threaten a nation like Iran away from actions, it will provoke them to do more.. so why bother?

There is no positive path forward for the US here, and they know it. Iraq/Afghanistan were the last straws.. they showed that even against incredibly week opponents, you can't win if they are prepared to die, and they showed that the US population really doesn't have the resolve to handle prolonged conflicts. There is no desire for war with Iran among the American people, and any president who started one would become the most unpopular president of the past century, given the costs that it would incur.
What makes you think the Iranians are suicidal exactly...?
Its a crazy time we live in.. in the previous era, Iran would be finished by now, it would be defeated and occupied (as it was), but in this era.. Iran actually has the advantage over the larger nations in conflict situations like these.. and it seems to fully know it, and is prepared to act on it.
Doubtful. There's a good reason the strategists cautioned America against going near Iran with a 10 foot barge pole at the turn of the millennium.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 3 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by Napp)
What makes you think the Iranians are suicidal exactly...?

Doubtful. There's a good reason the strategists cautioned America against going near Iran with a 10 foot barge pole at the turn of the millennium.
which bit of my post detailing why they can do this and get away with it, makes you presume that I think they are suicidal?

+ "Previous Era" is a lot longer ago then a the turn of the millennium. I would describe the previous military era as either before Vietnam or the Korean war, I can see arguments for both.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#91
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#91


Excellent morning entertainment! :rofl:
0
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#92
Report 3 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Tempest II)
Another reason why I very much doubt the RPAS was in Iranian airspace. Despite what Hollywood and the press may sometimes think, armed forces can be rather risk-averse; if you c*ck up a something big, your career will pretty much be over, at the very least.

No way is anyone signing off such as expensive asset flying over Iran when an MQ-1/MQ-9 could have caused a similar incident. Whereas if the Yanks were trying to spy on Iran within their airspace, they'd use a VLO aircraft.
I would like to say that the SAM that Iran used has a operational range of 50km which extends beyond Iran's airspace.

It is entirely possible that Iran shot it down by mistake as they thought they probably thought it flew into their airspace when in reality it was it was very close to Iranian airspace. (but not inside it).

I don't think the US was expecting the Iranian army to take such measures.

I really doubt that the US would want to risk loosing their UAV like that (which costs more than an f35 btw). It is very likely that it never entered in Iranian airspace.
Last edited by stoyfan; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#93
Report 3 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by stoyfan)
I would like to say that the SAM that Iran used has a operational range of 50km which extends beyond Iran's airspace.
An interesting problem arises there though. If the only criteria for shooting down an enemy unit was it being in your airspace war would be a tricky thing. That is to say, this unit is a spy plane which, 50mi or greater, is going to be able to look at you and thus should be able to give you the ability to shoot them down if you so wish.
It is entirely possible that Iran shot it down by mistake as they thought they probably thought it flew into their airspace when in reality it was it was very close to Iranian airspace. (but not inside it).
Define mistake?
I mean i imagine the RCS is quite unique on such craft and unless the Iranians radar is complete crap or the Americans are lying about the flight path (both seem to be equally believable) it would seem to be highly questionable a 'mistake' in the traditional sens eof the word, had been made.
I don't think the US was expecting the Iranian army to take such measures.
It isnt without precedent. Although for clarity I believe they the IRGC were the ones pulling the trigger werent they? A decidedly different organisation from the army.
[/quote]
0
reply
LittleX
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#94
Report 3 weeks ago
#94
As far as I know, Iran wanted to take the dron to UN as evidence against the US, but the US wanted to start another war with them, but hey... at least we are a part of 'civilised society', right?

Anyway, the US motto is 'the whole world will obey our orders and let us do whatever we want otherwise we may just start a war with you over the night. Love, yours United States'
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#95
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#95
Iran has shown parts of the RQ-4 wreckage it recovered from its territorial waters (when will the US show the wreckage they find in 'international waters'?):

0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#96
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#96
Update: Iran said that a P-8 Poseidon was flying alongside the RQ-4 and that it deliberately did not shoot the P-8 down because it wanted to avoid loss of life and just send a signal about its ability and determination to defend its borders/airspace.


Good move - if they shot down the P-8 Poseidon too (there were 35 US passengers on board) there would almost definitely have been US retaliation.


Iran also said that it issued two warnings to the RQ-4 before it shot it down.
Last edited by Palmyra; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
t.r.a.c.e
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#97
Report 3 weeks ago
#97
Well that's not good at all..
0
reply
LittleX
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#98
Report 3 weeks ago
#98
Just wondering what the US would do if Iran's spying drone would be spying on Americans around their borders
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#99
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#99
President Trump has commented on the fact that Iran chose not to down the P-8 jet carrying 38 US passengers flying alongside the downed RQ-4, saying "we appreciate" that Iran didn't shoot it down:

"President Trump said Saturday Iran was “very wise” not to shoot down a manned plane when it decided to down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone.

“There was a plane with 38 people yesterday, did you see that? I think that's a big story. They had it in their sights and they didn't shoot it down. I think they were very wise not to do that. And we appreciate that they didn't do that. I think that was a very wise decision,” Trump told reporters Saturday."

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...n-manned-plane
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#100
Report 3 weeks ago
#100
As much as I loathe to use Fox as a source, Gen Jack Keane makes some good points.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ne-iran-strike

The Pasdaran, or at the very least, one of its commanders, operated without the backing of the Iranian government against the RPAS.

And now the Iranians are trying to claim a USN P-8 (basically a 737 airliner designed to track ships and subs) was also in its airspace? I smell a massive amount of BS; no way would the pilot of that aircraft or their chain of command sign that off. Especially if the 38 POB total is correct.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/06/...eadly-attacks/
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (122)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (352)
56.41%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.74%

Watched Threads

View All