Jlaw
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,693
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
True, but I admire Iranian for forcing the US ship off course, showing who the boss of strait of Hormuz is
Iranian Vessels Harass U.S. Destroyer, Forces It To Change Course
- Thread starter mohsen
- Start date
mohsen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,710
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
American's reaction reminds me of one of our neighbor countries. whining and condemning the violation of their sovereignty by Americans!
but anyway, the level of frustration among some Americans who are used to listen to other's whining is really interesting!
This one is literally tearing his arse:
Blow these GD boats out of the damn water! -Mark Levin on Iran HARASSING US Destroyer [VID]
and this one even has a solution, shoot one of those boats and the rest will run away
:
but anyway, the level of frustration among some Americans who are used to listen to other's whining is really interesting!
This one is literally tearing his arse:
Blow these GD boats out of the damn water! -Mark Levin on Iran HARASSING US Destroyer [VID]
and this one even has a solution, shoot one of those boats and the rest will run away
:
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
I guess so, mr 'all of 97 bs posts'. I never asked anyone for a TTA designation. Forum management invited me to move here from elsewhere, back in the day when this forum first started. Ask around before you seek trouble again.
Last edited:
Fafnir
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
A very interesting article from Al-monitor
Does Iranian law green light encounters with US warships?
TEHRAN, Iran — Tensions appear to be mounting again in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen in a video released by the US military Aug. 23. The footage shows four patrol boats operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) approaching a US destroyer in the narrow waterway. US military officials say two of the patrol boats came within 300 yards of the destroyer USS Nitze. A series of similar incidents were reported the following day with one encounter resulting in the US ship firing warning shots. Earlier, on July 12, US media had reported five IRGC speedboats coming within close proximity of a US ship in the Persian Gulf.
The Pentagon has described the actions of the Iranian naval vessels last month as “unsafe and unprofessional.” Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, however, defended the movements of the IRGC patrol boats, stating, “Preserving the country’s security at sea and in the Persian Gulf is our responsibility. It is natural that these boats would be continuously monitoring the traffic of foreign vessels in Iran’s territorial waters.” Were the Iranian boats, however, acting in accordance with domestic and international laws?
The United States considers the Strait of Hormuz to be international waters, and as such, an area where its vessels are allowed to move freely, without interference from littoral states. This attitude is evident in the messages transmitted by the US vessels to the Iranian boats. Indeed, the Transit Rights of Passage under the Law of the Sea says that the littoral state, in this case Iran, has no right to interfere in the passage of foreign ships, whether military or civilian. The Iranian government, however, citing a series of legal arguments, rejects this position.
In 1993, Iran approved the Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea. The statute extends Iran’s sovereignty beyond the “Strait of Hormuz and the Oman Sea, to a belt of sea, adjacent to the baseline, described as the territorial sea.” It also declares that the passage of foreign vessels is subject to the principle of innocent passage so long as it is not prejudicial to good order, peace and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Moreover, Article 8 states, “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inspired by its high national interests and to defend its security, may suspend the innocent passage in parts of its territorial sea.” In addition, Article 9 states, “Passage of warships, submarines … through the territorial sea is subject to the prior authorization of the relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Submarines are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.”
Iran's logic is based on the Strait of Hormuz being divided into three respective northern, central and southern zones. Ships crossing the northern zone must pass through Iran’s territorial waters, with the ones crossing at the extreme end of the northern zone being forced to enter the territorial waters of the Iranian islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Faror. The Sultanate of Oman, the southern Strait of Hormuz littoral state, has subjected the passage of foreign warships to prior notification in a similar vein.
Iran continues to abide by Article 16 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the first part of which states, “The coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.” Moreover, based on Articles 14 and 16 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the coastal state may engage in certain measures in its maritime waters for security reasons. This includes stopping the passage of ships, requesting information from foreign military vessels or calling on vessels to vacate the waters immediately.
Considering that part of Iran’s political establishment views the United States as an enemy and believes the main reason for the US military presence in the Persian Gulf is to threaten Iran, Tehran maintains the right to monitor the movement and passage of “enemy ships” and views any restrictions placed on military ships of enemy countries as self-defense.
Another relevant matter is that in December 1982, one day before Iran signed the UNCLOS, Tehran officially stated, “It seems natural and in harmony with Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein including the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation.”
Although the United States has yet to sign UNCLOS, it views the document as a reflection of customary international law and has tried to benefit from it. Iran, however, considers this unacceptable. Indeed, Tehran's view is that because the transit rights of passage were first proposed in the 1982 convention, they cannot be considered customary international law. Regardless, Iran has been what is described as a persistent objector on the issue of customary international law, and Washington has no right to impose it on Tehran.
Ultimately, while tension over the passage of US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz is occurring in the shadow of broader political tensions between Tehran and Washington, one should not overlook the different legal interpretations each of these countries has regarding military law in the strait. In other words, Iran’s coast guard and military see their actions as being in line with their legal duties in their territorial waters, as set out by Iranian law, the Law of the Sea and the United States’ not having signed the 1982 convention.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...gc-patrol-boats-us-vessels.html#ixzz4JjpFfoEl
Does Iranian law green light encounters with US warships?
TEHRAN, Iran — Tensions appear to be mounting again in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen in a video released by the US military Aug. 23. The footage shows four patrol boats operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) approaching a US destroyer in the narrow waterway. US military officials say two of the patrol boats came within 300 yards of the destroyer USS Nitze. A series of similar incidents were reported the following day with one encounter resulting in the US ship firing warning shots. Earlier, on July 12, US media had reported five IRGC speedboats coming within close proximity of a US ship in the Persian Gulf.
The Pentagon has described the actions of the Iranian naval vessels last month as “unsafe and unprofessional.” Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, however, defended the movements of the IRGC patrol boats, stating, “Preserving the country’s security at sea and in the Persian Gulf is our responsibility. It is natural that these boats would be continuously monitoring the traffic of foreign vessels in Iran’s territorial waters.” Were the Iranian boats, however, acting in accordance with domestic and international laws?
The United States considers the Strait of Hormuz to be international waters, and as such, an area where its vessels are allowed to move freely, without interference from littoral states. This attitude is evident in the messages transmitted by the US vessels to the Iranian boats. Indeed, the Transit Rights of Passage under the Law of the Sea says that the littoral state, in this case Iran, has no right to interfere in the passage of foreign ships, whether military or civilian. The Iranian government, however, citing a series of legal arguments, rejects this position.
In 1993, Iran approved the Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea. The statute extends Iran’s sovereignty beyond the “Strait of Hormuz and the Oman Sea, to a belt of sea, adjacent to the baseline, described as the territorial sea.” It also declares that the passage of foreign vessels is subject to the principle of innocent passage so long as it is not prejudicial to good order, peace and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Moreover, Article 8 states, “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inspired by its high national interests and to defend its security, may suspend the innocent passage in parts of its territorial sea.” In addition, Article 9 states, “Passage of warships, submarines … through the territorial sea is subject to the prior authorization of the relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Submarines are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.”
Iran's logic is based on the Strait of Hormuz being divided into three respective northern, central and southern zones. Ships crossing the northern zone must pass through Iran’s territorial waters, with the ones crossing at the extreme end of the northern zone being forced to enter the territorial waters of the Iranian islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Faror. The Sultanate of Oman, the southern Strait of Hormuz littoral state, has subjected the passage of foreign warships to prior notification in a similar vein.
Iran continues to abide by Article 16 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the first part of which states, “The coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.” Moreover, based on Articles 14 and 16 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the coastal state may engage in certain measures in its maritime waters for security reasons. This includes stopping the passage of ships, requesting information from foreign military vessels or calling on vessels to vacate the waters immediately.
Considering that part of Iran’s political establishment views the United States as an enemy and believes the main reason for the US military presence in the Persian Gulf is to threaten Iran, Tehran maintains the right to monitor the movement and passage of “enemy ships” and views any restrictions placed on military ships of enemy countries as self-defense.
Another relevant matter is that in December 1982, one day before Iran signed the UNCLOS, Tehran officially stated, “It seems natural and in harmony with Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein including the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation.”
Although the United States has yet to sign UNCLOS, it views the document as a reflection of customary international law and has tried to benefit from it. Iran, however, considers this unacceptable. Indeed, Tehran's view is that because the transit rights of passage were first proposed in the 1982 convention, they cannot be considered customary international law. Regardless, Iran has been what is described as a persistent objector on the issue of customary international law, and Washington has no right to impose it on Tehran.
Ultimately, while tension over the passage of US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz is occurring in the shadow of broader political tensions between Tehran and Washington, one should not overlook the different legal interpretations each of these countries has regarding military law in the strait. In other words, Iran’s coast guard and military see their actions as being in line with their legal duties in their territorial waters, as set out by Iranian law, the Law of the Sea and the United States’ not having signed the 1982 convention.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...gc-patrol-boats-us-vessels.html#ixzz4JjpFfoEl
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
Close encounters with Iran show need for rules of behavior -U.S. Navy
by Reuters
Monday, 12 September 2016 16:03 GMT
By David Brunnstrom
WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - A series of close encounters between the U.S. navy and Iranian combat vessels in the Gulf show the need for Iran and the United States to agree rules of behavior to avoid risky miscalculations, the head of the U.S. Navy said on Monday.
Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. chief of naval operations, said agreements of this type between the United States and Russia and China had helped reduce such risks.
"These are some of these potentially destabilizing things, where a tactical miscalculation, the closer you get to these sorts of things, the margin for error gets smaller and the human error can play a bigger and bigger role," Richardson said
"So it's very important that we eliminate this kind of activity where we can. There's nothing good can come from it ... it also advocates the power of a sort of leader-to-leader dialogue."
Years of mutual animosity between Tehran and Washington eased when Washington lifted sanctions on Iran in January after a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions.
But serious differences still remain over Iran's ballistic missile program, and over conflicts in Syria and Iraq and these are reflected in the tense encounters at sea.
Richardson told a seminar at Washington's Center for American Progress think tank it was important for commanders from both sides to have a means through which they can discuss incidents.
"We have the practices to prevent incidents at sea with the Russians ... (and) this Code for Unplanned Encounters with the Chinese ... has been very, very useful," he said.
"Getting some kind of a rule set like that ... with the Iranians, would also be helpful, so that we can have these frameworks for behavior that would guide us more to the useful types of encounters at sea, rather than these 'close aboard' types of demonstrations that really don't have any positive benefit."
U.S. officials say there have been more than 30 close encounters with Iranian vessels in the Gulf so far this year - more than double the amount from the same period last year.
On Sept. 4, a U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship changed course after a fast-attack craft from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came within 100 yards (91 meters) in the central Gulf, at least the fourth such incident in less than a month.
The head of U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel, said last month that unsafe maneuvers in the Gulf were part of Iranian efforts to exert its influence in the region. (Reporting by David Brunnstrom)
http://news.trust.org/item/20160912160516-umwi4/
by Reuters
Monday, 12 September 2016 16:03 GMT
By David Brunnstrom
WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - A series of close encounters between the U.S. navy and Iranian combat vessels in the Gulf show the need for Iran and the United States to agree rules of behavior to avoid risky miscalculations, the head of the U.S. Navy said on Monday.
Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. chief of naval operations, said agreements of this type between the United States and Russia and China had helped reduce such risks.
"These are some of these potentially destabilizing things, where a tactical miscalculation, the closer you get to these sorts of things, the margin for error gets smaller and the human error can play a bigger and bigger role," Richardson said
"So it's very important that we eliminate this kind of activity where we can. There's nothing good can come from it ... it also advocates the power of a sort of leader-to-leader dialogue."
Years of mutual animosity between Tehran and Washington eased when Washington lifted sanctions on Iran in January after a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions.
But serious differences still remain over Iran's ballistic missile program, and over conflicts in Syria and Iraq and these are reflected in the tense encounters at sea.
Richardson told a seminar at Washington's Center for American Progress think tank it was important for commanders from both sides to have a means through which they can discuss incidents.
"We have the practices to prevent incidents at sea with the Russians ... (and) this Code for Unplanned Encounters with the Chinese ... has been very, very useful," he said.
"Getting some kind of a rule set like that ... with the Iranians, would also be helpful, so that we can have these frameworks for behavior that would guide us more to the useful types of encounters at sea, rather than these 'close aboard' types of demonstrations that really don't have any positive benefit."
U.S. officials say there have been more than 30 close encounters with Iranian vessels in the Gulf so far this year - more than double the amount from the same period last year.
On Sept. 4, a U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship changed course after a fast-attack craft from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came within 100 yards (91 meters) in the central Gulf, at least the fourth such incident in less than a month.
The head of U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel, said last month that unsafe maneuvers in the Gulf were part of Iranian efforts to exert its influence in the region. (Reporting by David Brunnstrom)
http://news.trust.org/item/20160912160516-umwi4/
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
US ‘tests’ Iran’s reaction to spy plane flyby, complains about ‘unprofessional’ shootdown warning
P-8A Poseidon © U.S. Navy photo by Greg L. Davis / Wikipedia
Two US spy planes have flown within a mile of Iranian airspace, and have received warnings of a potential shootdown should they breach it. US military officials said Iran behaved “unprofessionally” and “unsafe[ly]” during the stunt designed to “test” its reaction.
As confrontations between the two nations increase in the region, with Tehran allegedly threatening to shoot down US spy planes in the vicinity of its borders, the US navy also voiced the need to establish the rules of behavior between Iran and the US to avoid armed conflict.
A number of anonymous defense officials told Fox and CNN news that over the weekend the Iranian military warned the nine-member crew of the Navy Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft and a 24 member crew of EP-3 Aries not to enter Iranian airspace or they would run the risk getting shot down.
According to officials the September 10 warning was issued as both planes flew on a reconnaissance mission 13 miles off the coast of Iran, in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman. That is just one mile short of the 12 nautical miles that belong to Iran’s territorial waters.
One US official told Fox News that American planes ignored the warning and continued on their mission, but without infringing on Iran’s air space.
“We wanted to test the Iranian reaction,” the US official told Fox. “Anytime you threaten to shoot someone down, it’s not considered professional.”
Other officials also called Tehran’s threat “unprofessional” and “unsafe” despite the Fox report which cited the latest intelligence assessment, that said that there were no Iranian missile launchers in the area.
Earlier this month Brigadier General Abdollah Reshadi told reporters that Iran’s Air Defense Force constantly monitors the skies nationwide to observe and detect hostile activity.
“[Our] radar coverage of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman detects aerial traverse by [reconnaissance] aircraft,” Reshadi said. “We detect any flying activity in time and deliver tactical response in less than two minutes.”
The latest incident in the Persian Gulf comes as the US continues to insist that Iran is harassing its warships in the region. According to reports, there have been more than 30 close encounters with Iranian vessels by American ships so far this year. Just last week, US Navy ship changed course after Iran’s plane came within 100 yards (91 meters) of USS Firebolt in the central Gulf. That was at least the fourth reported encounter in less than a month.
On Sunday, Iran’s chief Armed Forces spokesman dismissed US claims of being harassed by the Iranian military, stressing that Iran’s actions are in line with international law.
“Vessels belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran are fully aware of international laws and regulations and have always acted based on stipulated standards, so the [US] claims are not only fictitious, but stem from their fear of the might of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s forces,” said Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces, Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri.
To avoid further close encounters between the US and Iranian navy in the Gulf, US Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, urged both nations to agree on rules of behavior.
“These are some of these potentially destabilizing things, where a tactical miscalculation, the closer you get to these sorts of things, the margin for error gets smaller and the human error can play a bigger and bigger role,” Richardson said. “So it’s very important that we eliminate this kind of activity where we can. There’s nothing good can come from it ... it also advocates the power of a sort of leader-to-leader dialogue.”
“Getting some kind of a rule set like that ... with the Iranians, would also be helpful, so that we can have these frameworks for behavior that would guide us more to the useful types of encounters at sea, rather than these 'close aboard' types of demonstrations that really don’t have any positive benefit,” the admiral added.
The Strait of Hormuz is a key maritime route, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. Bilateral encounters in the region intensified after Iran detained 10 US sailors earlier this year as they entered Iranian waters near the Farsi Islands on two military boats. The US claimed the incident was due to mechanical failure, with Iran later releasing all of the US servicemen.
Two US spy planes have flown within a mile of Iranian airspace, and have received warnings of a potential shootdown should they breach it. US military officials said Iran behaved “unprofessionally” and “unsafe[ly]” during the stunt designed to “test” its reaction.
As confrontations between the two nations increase in the region, with Tehran allegedly threatening to shoot down US spy planes in the vicinity of its borders, the US navy also voiced the need to establish the rules of behavior between Iran and the US to avoid armed conflict.
A number of anonymous defense officials told Fox and CNN news that over the weekend the Iranian military warned the nine-member crew of the Navy Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft and a 24 member crew of EP-3 Aries not to enter Iranian airspace or they would run the risk getting shot down.
According to officials the September 10 warning was issued as both planes flew on a reconnaissance mission 13 miles off the coast of Iran, in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman. That is just one mile short of the 12 nautical miles that belong to Iran’s territorial waters.
One US official told Fox News that American planes ignored the warning and continued on their mission, but without infringing on Iran’s air space.
“We wanted to test the Iranian reaction,” the US official told Fox. “Anytime you threaten to shoot someone down, it’s not considered professional.”
Other officials also called Tehran’s threat “unprofessional” and “unsafe” despite the Fox report which cited the latest intelligence assessment, that said that there were no Iranian missile launchers in the area.
Earlier this month Brigadier General Abdollah Reshadi told reporters that Iran’s Air Defense Force constantly monitors the skies nationwide to observe and detect hostile activity.
“[Our] radar coverage of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman detects aerial traverse by [reconnaissance] aircraft,” Reshadi said. “We detect any flying activity in time and deliver tactical response in less than two minutes.”
The latest incident in the Persian Gulf comes as the US continues to insist that Iran is harassing its warships in the region. According to reports, there have been more than 30 close encounters with Iranian vessels by American ships so far this year. Just last week, US Navy ship changed course after Iran’s plane came within 100 yards (91 meters) of USS Firebolt in the central Gulf. That was at least the fourth reported encounter in less than a month.
On Sunday, Iran’s chief Armed Forces spokesman dismissed US claims of being harassed by the Iranian military, stressing that Iran’s actions are in line with international law.
“Vessels belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran are fully aware of international laws and regulations and have always acted based on stipulated standards, so the [US] claims are not only fictitious, but stem from their fear of the might of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s forces,” said Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces, Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri.
To avoid further close encounters between the US and Iranian navy in the Gulf, US Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, urged both nations to agree on rules of behavior.
“These are some of these potentially destabilizing things, where a tactical miscalculation, the closer you get to these sorts of things, the margin for error gets smaller and the human error can play a bigger and bigger role,” Richardson said. “So it’s very important that we eliminate this kind of activity where we can. There’s nothing good can come from it ... it also advocates the power of a sort of leader-to-leader dialogue.”
“Getting some kind of a rule set like that ... with the Iranians, would also be helpful, so that we can have these frameworks for behavior that would guide us more to the useful types of encounters at sea, rather than these 'close aboard' types of demonstrations that really don’t have any positive benefit,” the admiral added.
The Strait of Hormuz is a key maritime route, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. Bilateral encounters in the region intensified after Iran detained 10 US sailors earlier this year as they entered Iranian waters near the Farsi Islands on two military boats. The US claimed the incident was due to mechanical failure, with Iran later releasing all of the US servicemen.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
They wanted to test our reaction so if we didn't do anything they'd fly closer and more often. Good that we threatened them. We're not taking any of their shit.
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
I think next time we should shoot down one of them without warning ....
VEVAK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 1
More like the U.S. Navy is trying it's hardest to create tensions!
They have been flying on the edge of Iranian airspace and navigating on the edge of Iranian territorial waters and then turn around and create propaganda about Iran's unprofessional behavior!!!
They are trying to be bullies!!
Iran, Russia & China should send a combined fleet with news cameras on the edge of Diego Garcia to see how they like it!
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
One is allowed to fly in international air space, even if close to a border.
What I find interesting, besides the choice for a threat, is the specific mention of use of surface to air missiles. Apparently, the normal procedure in an ADIZ - namely to send out an aircraft to intercept and visually inspect the approaching aircraft - was not followed. Where was the Iranian air force? Who controls the relevant surface to air missile systems?
_________________________________
US official: Navy aircraft threatened with shoot down by Iran
Aircraft were flying in international airspace
UPDATED 8:43 AM EDT Sep 13, 2016
(CNN) —Iran threatened to shoot down two US Navy aircraft over the weekend as they were flying just inside the Strait of Hormuz, a US defense official said.
The EP-3 and P-8 planes were in international airspace but "near Iranian airspace."
The Iranians made three radio calls to the two planes warning them not to enter Iranian airspace and risk being shot down with surface-to-air missiles, the official said.
"All three calls used threatening language," the US defense official said.
The US Navy crews knew they were flying "outside the known range of Iranian air defenses" and proceeded with their flight plans.
The American crews "responded in an appropriate and calm manner," the official said, adding that the crews identified their planes themselves as coalition aircraft flying in international airspace.
The two planes -- reconnaissance aircraft that routinely fly that flight pattern in the Strait of Hormuz -- were on separate flight plans, but close to each other.
Also, senior US military officials are trying to assess whether the number of incidents with the Iranians have increased or whether more incidents are simply being reported by US naval commanders in the region because of the sensitivity to Iranian incidents.
_____________________________________
http://www.wtae.com/politics/us-official-navy-aircraft-threatened-with-shoot-down-by-iran/41636806
What I find interesting, besides the choice for a threat, is the specific mention of use of surface to air missiles. Apparently, the normal procedure in an ADIZ - namely to send out an aircraft to intercept and visually inspect the approaching aircraft - was not followed. Where was the Iranian air force? Who controls the relevant surface to air missile systems?
_________________________________
US official: Navy aircraft threatened with shoot down by Iran
Aircraft were flying in international airspace
UPDATED 8:43 AM EDT Sep 13, 2016
(CNN) —Iran threatened to shoot down two US Navy aircraft over the weekend as they were flying just inside the Strait of Hormuz, a US defense official said.
The EP-3 and P-8 planes were in international airspace but "near Iranian airspace."
The Iranians made three radio calls to the two planes warning them not to enter Iranian airspace and risk being shot down with surface-to-air missiles, the official said.
"All three calls used threatening language," the US defense official said.
The US Navy crews knew they were flying "outside the known range of Iranian air defenses" and proceeded with their flight plans.
The American crews "responded in an appropriate and calm manner," the official said, adding that the crews identified their planes themselves as coalition aircraft flying in international airspace.
The two planes -- reconnaissance aircraft that routinely fly that flight pattern in the Strait of Hormuz -- were on separate flight plans, but close to each other.
Also, senior US military officials are trying to assess whether the number of incidents with the Iranians have increased or whether more incidents are simply being reported by US naval commanders in the region because of the sensitivity to Iranian incidents.
_____________________________________
http://www.wtae.com/politics/us-official-navy-aircraft-threatened-with-shoot-down-by-iran/41636806
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
I was discussing this with a few members just a short while ago. It seems strange that they don't send up aircraft to visually inspect even a P-8 Poseidon. Even an F-5 could do that.
IRIADF, seperate air defence branch of the Iranian military.
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
I agree. The is the Bandar Abbas air base (TFB 9) and the Bandar Abbas naval field nearby the Stair of Hormuz. Tab 9 sees F-4E "Dowran" / Phantom II of 91st TFS.
ANy known rivalry with IRIAF?
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Not particularly. The reason Iran has been paying a lot of attention to the IRIADF is mainly because we couldn't make our own fighter jets, and after the S-300 cancellation, we poured a lot of resources into the Bavar-373 project.
A reason why Iran would use the IRIADF to call an intercept is mainly because the IRIAF is so downtrodden that its equipment are being kept at as little flying hours as possible in order to preserve them. This lack of use means that often the IRIADF are the fastest responding asset. Because Iran doesn't do CAP (reduce flying hours), a fighter can't be dispatched quickly, especially because the Persian Gulf is a hub of activity and everything is really close to everything else anyway.
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
Reduced flying times !?! ... that, plus aging equipment, will kill the effectiveness of an air force right quickly.
Reduced flying hours forces grounding of 17 USAF combat air squadrons
April 8, 2013
The Air Force will distribute 241,496 flying hours that are funded to squadrons that will be kept combat ready or at a reduced readiness level called “basic mission capable”
...the memo said.
“Historically, the Air Force has not operated under a tiered readiness construct because of the need to respond to any crisis within a matter of hours or days,” “The current situation means we’re accepting the risk that combat airpower may not be ready to respond immediately to new contingencies as they occur.”
Air Force officials had warned that mandatory budget cuts would lead to a reduction of flying hours by 18 percent, with readiness dropping to “sub-optimal levels,” according to information provided to Congress. The drop in flying hours would mean that it could take up to six months to repair the damage to readiness, the Air Force warned lawmakers in a February presentation.
Average aircrews lose currency to fly combat missions within 90 to 120 days of being grounded, and it takes from 60 to 90 days to conduct training to return aircrews o mission-ready status, according to Air Combat Command.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...ces-grounding-of-17-usaf-combat-air/78539120/
Air Force seeks more flight hours to recover from 2013 stand down
By: Brian Everstine, February 4, 2015
The Air Force is asking for a small increase in its flight hours as it still tries to dig itself out of a readiness hole dating back to a stand down of combat squadrons in 2013.
Seventeen combat squadrons were forced to stand down for three months, while additional squadrons faced reduced flying hours as a result of sequestration in 2013. More than 44,000 flying hours were cut. In addition, the Air Force was forced to cancel a weapons school pilot class and Red Flag exercises, leading to a drop in readiness and pilot proficiency that the service said would take years to recover.
The service's fiscal 2016 budget request, released on Feb. 2, calls on Congress to increase funding for flying hours to full capacity, along with ensuring Red Flag exercises and weapons school classes are up and running to focus "on full-spectrum combat readiness to succeed in a contested environment."
"Recovery is not a short-term fix and will take years to fully rebuild," the Air Force's budget summary states. "To recover readiness to the required levels, the Air Force must react to personnel and operations tempo as well as adequately fund readiness programs such as flying hours, weapon system sustainment, ranges and simulators."
To compensate for this increase, the Air Force is again trying to cut its A-10 fleet, along with divesting EC-130H aircraft.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/artic...-flight-hours-to-recover-from-2013-stand-down
... at least three years, that's how long it takes to recover!
Similar threads
- Article
- Locked
