US kills Iran's General Soleimani

C.R.A.Z.Y · 9 Jan 2020 at 18:40

Nasher said:
They didn't accidentally take down an airliner or let off old missiles in random directions though.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 18:42

Oh look, crazy is being a broken record again.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 9 Jan 2020 at 18:46

Then stop implying that the US aren't stupid enough to blow up a innocent commercial airliner when they have done exactly that in 1988 in FAR worse circumstances :rolleyes:

thenewoc · 9 Jan 2020 at 18:54

Nasher said:
But people with brains wouldn't be aiming anti-air weapons across a commercial airport's air space. Or would have grounded flights until it was over.

But that doesn't happen in the middle east, it's just chaotic.

not to mention a commercial flight blipping away with its' credentials on radar.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 18:58

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Then stop implying that the US aren't stupid enough to blow up a innocent commercial airliner when they have done exactly that in 1988 in FAR worse circumstances

I never implied anything of the sort. Crazy reading fail comprehension number 1.
The incident was over 30 years ago with worse radar technology. Crazy intelligence fail number 1. Iran air flight 688 was flying in the approximate direction of the US vessels and failed to respond to 10 prompts. Crazy intelligence fail number 2. A helicopter from the fleet had just been attacked by Iranian targets. Crazy intelligence fail number 3.
UAI flight was flying away from Tehran. Iran had not just been attacked. Iran has more up to date surface to air tech than the US did 30 years ago.

gizmoy2k · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:00

https://twitter.com/chawshin_83/status/1215344868056162304

Fairly conclusive if that's authentic footage

Buckster · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:04

Anyone else think this has been sat on as yesterday it would maybe have been too sensitive ?

Press has been unusually quiet and non speculative - I've not seen the normal experts rolled out and interviewed etc just seems odd

Completely different to news when the incident in Ukraine happened etc

StriderX · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:07

Dis86 said:
I never implied anything of the sort. Crazy reading fail comprehension number 1.
The incident was over 30 years ago with worse radar technology. Crazy intelligence fail number 1. Iran air flight 688 was flying in the approximate direction of the US vessels and failed to respond to 10 prompts. Crazy intelligence fail number 2. A helicopter from the fleet had just been attacked by Iranian targets. Crazy intelligence fail number 3.
UAI flight was flying away from Tehran. Iran had not just been attacked. Iran has more up to date surface to air tech than the US did 30 years ago.

First point is relevant, second point not so much, still high-tension environment with twitchy fingers/systems the expectation of an attack is similar in both scenarios, quality of anti-air tech isn't that important, as the main issue is identity, except where it might be possible to cancel it (which is doubtful at such speed and the issue of identity still being there).

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:09

StriderX said:
First point is relevant, second point not so much, still high-tension environment with twitchy fingers/systems, quality of anti-air tech isn't that important, as the main issue is identity.

The quality is entirely relevant as it allows you to determine the nature of the target. Is it a single seater small plane, is it a multi-engine, is it a large cargo aircraft? All can feasibly be determined from radar signature.

StriderX · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:10

Dis86 said:
The quality is entirely relevant as it allows you to determine the nature of the target. Is it a single seater small plane, is it a multi-engine, is it a large cargo aircraft? All can feasibly be determined from radar signature.

And there are technologies to obfuscate radar signature, it could have been a B2 for all the operators knew. Iran is after all facing a far more advanced threat to themselves. Anyway, it's still incompetence, but it's understandable, even if unreasonable.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:12

StriderX said:
And there are technologies to obfuscate radar signature, it could have been a B2 for all the operators knew.

Generally you try and reduce radar profile...

StriderX · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:18

Dis86 said:
Generally you try and reduce radar profile...

A deadly assumption in war/conflict I'd hazard, enough of me going through the paces about the operators and their mindspace, the real problem is that Tehran allowed flights whatsoever when it was 'retaliating'.

Just downright stupid with no justification.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:19

StriderX said:
A deadly assumption in war/conflict I'd hazard, enough moaning about the operators and their mindspace though, the real problem is that Tehran allowed flights whatsoever when it was 'retaliating'.

Just downright stupid with no justification.

Not really, hence why the B2 is a STEALTH bomber. It aims to REDUCE its radar profile. F35's etc do the same. They don't try and make themselves more obvious.

StriderX · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:24

Dis86 said:
Not really, hence why the B2 is a STEALTH bomber. It aims to REDUCE its radar profile. F35's etc do the same. They don't try and make themselves more obvious.

And you don't survive thinking like that in Iran's position, they have to be ready for all eventualities, including perfidy.

Efour · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:25

Slick moves Iran but if the USA let it go, it seems like its going that way, then 2 wrongs do make a right for the USA and they have got away with it at the cost of 200ish civilian lives... lol wtf...
THey should let Iran keep burning off their stock of joke rockets. No big deal... seems more luck based.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:26

StriderX said:
And you don't survive thinking like that in Iran's position, they have to be ready for all eventualities, including perfidy.

Tell you what, find a single aircraft which intentionally increases its radar profile as a defensive measure.

StriderX · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:31

Dis86 said:
Tell you what, find a single aircraft which intentionally increases its radar profile as a defensive measure.

I don't need to, this has nothing to do with what is true, but what could be true, we're talking about military personnel who see their enemy as sub-human, they're not concerned with the fact that the West tries to act civil even in war, because they see that as a lie from the outset.

Minusorange · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:32

Seems like a lot more videos of the crash are beginning to surface

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215346221616979970

RoboCod · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:32

MookJong said:
Unless things escalate the Iranian response seems nothing more than theatrics to propogandise to their own people.

My pet tinfoil theory is that the Iranians gave Solemani up and were ok for him to be killed while on foreign soil. He must have been a threat to the Mullahs in some respect and at a time of infighting and demonstrations inside the country, removing a populist who could have rallied support for a military coup might not be a bad idea.

It isn't tin foil hat territory, that kind of back room antics happens. I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians gave him up as he had become so powerful. Sorts two problems out and then all the Iranians had to do was retaliate with this show of force on Al Assad. The number of decisions made based solely on public opinion and political sway as a result of the action is incredible. Politics drives all military decision process. After all, war is just diplomacy by other means

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2020 at 19:34

StriderX said:
I don't need to, this has nothing to do with what is true, but what could be true, we're talking about military personnel who see their enemy as sub-human, they're not concerned with the fact that the West tries to act civil even in war, because they see that as a lie from the outset.

Course you do, you made a claim that what I'd said was incorrect because they could have made a fighter look like a passenger yet. I'm saying back up your assertion. Come on. Do it.