raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
In what range?accuracy? is it you indigenous made & designed radar? against whom?
Tension escalate as IRGC shoots down US Spy Drone
- Thread starter mohsen
- Start date
JohnWick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 3,085
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
What are you trying to say .... I can't understand this type of language....
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Yes all radars should do their job 24/7. But this was not any radar. It was Iran's OTH Radar Ghadir.
Not every country has them and not every country can develop them.
JohnWick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 3,085
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Iran's OTH Radar Ghadir .....Please tell something more about this radar.....
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
There is whole thread about it here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-ghadir-1100-km-range-and-360-degree-coverage-radar.535973/
JohnWick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 3,085
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Thanks bro....
mohsen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,710
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Trumps says he appreciates Iran for not shooting down the P-8 aircraft which was flying close to the downed drone:
Iran Did Not Target A Manned US Navy Plane in Their Airspace When They Hit The Drone, Trump Says He 'Appreciates That They Didn't Do That'
From big mistake to appreciation, Iran taught this spoiled kid how to behave!
There is no such a thing as limited conflict between U.S and Iran, Iran will answer any strike with immediate greater response and that means either U.S should prepare for a full war or do nothing.
The whole story of planned strike and Trump's last-minute reversal is fake and the goal is for U.S (not just Trump) to save face, just see Nancy Pelosi's comment which says he wasn't heard of any strike during their meeting in white house:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Friday they were not informed by the White House of President Donald Trump's plan to stage a military operation against Iran in retaliation for shooting down a U.S. drone.
“I did not receive any heads up that there was a strike that was in the works,” Pelosi told reporters. “Maybe the other leaders did on the Republican side, but I did not receive any of that.
"And that would be a departure,” she added. “The president has informed us, for example in Syria, before we went there.”
Pelosi said that during Thursday’s White House Situation Room briefing for a select few members of Congress, there was bipartisan agreement that the president should de-escalate the situation with Iran.
-------------------
A more detailed map which shows U.S drone was within Iranian waters:
As general Hajizadeh pointed, maybe one of American Generals have made a mistake!
PressTV- 'A general', 'operators' could be behind US intrusion: Iran
Iran Did Not Target A Manned US Navy Plane in Their Airspace When They Hit The Drone, Trump Says He 'Appreciates That They Didn't Do That'
From big mistake to appreciation, Iran taught this spoiled kid how to behave!
There is no such a thing as limited conflict between U.S and Iran, Iran will answer any strike with immediate greater response and that means either U.S should prepare for a full war or do nothing.
The whole story of planned strike and Trump's last-minute reversal is fake and the goal is for U.S (not just Trump) to save face, just see Nancy Pelosi's comment which says he wasn't heard of any strike during their meeting in white house:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Friday they were not informed by the White House of President Donald Trump's plan to stage a military operation against Iran in retaliation for shooting down a U.S. drone.
“I did not receive any heads up that there was a strike that was in the works,” Pelosi told reporters. “Maybe the other leaders did on the Republican side, but I did not receive any of that.
"And that would be a departure,” she added. “The president has informed us, for example in Syria, before we went there.”
Pelosi said that during Thursday’s White House Situation Room briefing for a select few members of Congress, there was bipartisan agreement that the president should de-escalate the situation with Iran.
-------------------
A more detailed map which shows U.S drone was within Iranian waters:
As general Hajizadeh pointed, maybe one of American Generals have made a mistake!
PressTV- 'A general', 'operators' could be behind US intrusion: Iran
That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
This is technically correct, the best kind of correct.
The biggest issue I have with this is that o disagree that the US military systems aging are becoming a problem.
The massive budget was precisely made to maintain and replace older equipment, but even then, there has been little operational effect on the ground, due to aging equipment.
Though, everything else you said, 100% correct
skyshadow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 5,056
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
well Iran is just getting started wait for more surprises.
“We shall not stand idly by if signatory countries will not find a way out for Iran to regain its trade, energy and commercial position in the international market. If sanctions are not lifted one way or another, we are only at the beginning of the crisis. Much more can be expected. Iran will never accept to be disarmed of its missiles because they are a guarantee for its security and that of the region. Today Iran is much stronger, enjoying the support of the population and harmony between the political and military leadership. We shall not submit and no negotiation with Trump can be expected as long as sanctions are hovering over our heads. The world should expect more surprises in the coming days because Iranians refuse to starve. Therefore, we are no longer afraid of any war, even more significant against a superpower country”.
https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/23/ho...owly-averted-war-by-sparing-another-us-plane/
“We shall not stand idly by if signatory countries will not find a way out for Iran to regain its trade, energy and commercial position in the international market. If sanctions are not lifted one way or another, we are only at the beginning of the crisis. Much more can be expected. Iran will never accept to be disarmed of its missiles because they are a guarantee for its security and that of the region. Today Iran is much stronger, enjoying the support of the population and harmony between the political and military leadership. We shall not submit and no negotiation with Trump can be expected as long as sanctions are hovering over our heads. The world should expect more surprises in the coming days because Iranians refuse to starve. Therefore, we are no longer afraid of any war, even more significant against a superpower country”.
https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/23/ho...owly-averted-war-by-sparing-another-us-plane/
vi-va
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Before 2003 Iraq invasion, US military equipment is champion, for sure.
Now the best destroyer is type 055, IMO. Some may say Burke-class III, but it's under construction.
F-35 is known for low readiness, it's maneuverability is just so so.
AIM-120D may not be the best in the market, Meteor developed by MBDA has longer range(100 km+ No Escape Zone), Chinese PL-15 is as deadly as AIM-120D, PL-21 has much longer range.
M1A2 is good, but not superior. There are peer competitors in the markets.
M109A6 Paladin is 155 mm L/39, you can easily find L/52 in the market.
US weapon not just aging literally, the technology is not as superior as before. Check out how many average serving years of US warship, old, very old.
Right way to go. Bow won't bring peace, bow bring humiliation and slavery.
mohsen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,710
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Iran Had Every Right to Shoot Down That Drone - truthdig.com
On June 19, an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. The White House claimed that its drone was at least 20 miles from Iran, in international airspace, while Iran maintains the drone was in Iranian airspace. Iran presented GPS coordinates showing the drone eight miles from Iran’s coast, which is inside the area of 12 nautical miles that is considered Iran’s territorial waters under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Iran has the legal right to control its own airspace. The United States has no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack on Iran.
Both the U.S. and Iran are parties to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which provides “that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”
Iran’s sovereignty over its airspace includes the right to shoot down an unmanned drone present without consent. “Although there is no black letter law on the question, state practice suggests that a state can use force against unmanned drones that have entered its airspace without consent,” Ashley Deeks and Scott R. Anderson wrote at Lawfare.
“Assuming that for once Washington is telling the truth” about how far the U.S. drone was from Iran when it was downed, “it is still undeniable that Iran has the right to demand identification from any aircraft flying this near its territory,” H. Bruce Franklin, former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer, wrote on Facebook. U.S. Air Defense Identification Zones extend 200 miles from the U.S. border. “Any unidentified drone” which flew that close to the U.S. “would most likely be shot down,” Franklin added.
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, wrote to the Security Council that the drone did not respond to several radio warnings before it was shot down.
A U.S. Attack on Iran Would Not Be Lawful Self-Defense
If the United States attacks Iran, it would act in violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval.
The International Court of Justice held in the 1986 Nicaragua case that an “armed attack” only includes “the most grave forms of the use of force.” No one was injured or killed when Iran shot down the U.S. drone since it was unmanned. Indeed, Trump told reporters it made “a big, big difference” that a U.S. pilot was not threatened.
Iran did not carry out an armed attack against the United States. Under the Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” There is no imminent necessity for a U.S. military attack on Iran.
Congress Has Not Authorized a Military Attack on Iran
A U.S. strike on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution, which lists three situations in which the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities:
First, after a declaration of war by Congress, which has not occurred since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The loss of a U.S. drone does not constitute a “national emergency.” Third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
In 2001, Congress adopted an AUMF that authorized the president to use military force against individuals, groups and countries that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In the past 18 years, three presidents have misused the 2001 AUMF to justify multiple military interventions.
This is happening again. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has mounted a campaign to link Iran to al-Qaeda in order to make a case that the 2001 AUMF would allow the U.S. to attack Iran. But, as Johns Hopkins professor Bruce Riedel told Al-Monitor, “Rather than being secretly in bed with each other as some have argued, al-Qaeda had a fairly hostile relationship with the Iranian regime.”
On June 19, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1 trillion appropriations bill that includes a provision repealing the 2001 AUMF within eight months. Introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), it says the AUMF “has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.” But the GOP-controlled Senate will not pass the bill with the AUMF repeal provision in it.
by Marjorie Cohn
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She wrote "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," co-authored …
On June 19, an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. The White House claimed that its drone was at least 20 miles from Iran, in international airspace, while Iran maintains the drone was in Iranian airspace. Iran presented GPS coordinates showing the drone eight miles from Iran’s coast, which is inside the area of 12 nautical miles that is considered Iran’s territorial waters under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Iran has the legal right to control its own airspace. The United States has no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack on Iran.
Both the U.S. and Iran are parties to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which provides “that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”
Iran’s sovereignty over its airspace includes the right to shoot down an unmanned drone present without consent. “Although there is no black letter law on the question, state practice suggests that a state can use force against unmanned drones that have entered its airspace without consent,” Ashley Deeks and Scott R. Anderson wrote at Lawfare.
“Assuming that for once Washington is telling the truth” about how far the U.S. drone was from Iran when it was downed, “it is still undeniable that Iran has the right to demand identification from any aircraft flying this near its territory,” H. Bruce Franklin, former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer, wrote on Facebook. U.S. Air Defense Identification Zones extend 200 miles from the U.S. border. “Any unidentified drone” which flew that close to the U.S. “would most likely be shot down,” Franklin added.
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, wrote to the Security Council that the drone did not respond to several radio warnings before it was shot down.
A U.S. Attack on Iran Would Not Be Lawful Self-Defense
If the United States attacks Iran, it would act in violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval.
The International Court of Justice held in the 1986 Nicaragua case that an “armed attack” only includes “the most grave forms of the use of force.” No one was injured or killed when Iran shot down the U.S. drone since it was unmanned. Indeed, Trump told reporters it made “a big, big difference” that a U.S. pilot was not threatened.
Iran did not carry out an armed attack against the United States. Under the Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” There is no imminent necessity for a U.S. military attack on Iran.
Congress Has Not Authorized a Military Attack on Iran
A U.S. strike on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution, which lists three situations in which the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities:
First, after a declaration of war by Congress, which has not occurred since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The loss of a U.S. drone does not constitute a “national emergency.” Third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
In 2001, Congress adopted an AUMF that authorized the president to use military force against individuals, groups and countries that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In the past 18 years, three presidents have misused the 2001 AUMF to justify multiple military interventions.
This is happening again. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has mounted a campaign to link Iran to al-Qaeda in order to make a case that the 2001 AUMF would allow the U.S. to attack Iran. But, as Johns Hopkins professor Bruce Riedel told Al-Monitor, “Rather than being secretly in bed with each other as some have argued, al-Qaeda had a fairly hostile relationship with the Iranian regime.”
On June 19, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1 trillion appropriations bill that includes a provision repealing the 2001 AUMF within eight months. Introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), it says the AUMF “has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.” But the GOP-controlled Senate will not pass the bill with the AUMF repeal provision in it.
by Marjorie Cohn
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She wrote "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," co-authored …
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
This is a blanket figure which conceal lot of business-side of these operations (military industrial complex; rebuilding contracts) and economic realities.
For instance, do you know how much it cost your parents to bring you up including clothing, schooling and vice versa? They were not justing spending but earning.
US had its reasons to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and introduce reforms in both. Long-term benefits outweight the costs incurred in both, this will become apparent in time.
Do not think shortterm, but try to see and analyze longterm.
Americans continue to improve their equipment from time-to-time (electronics/sensors/avionics/barrels). Of-course, frames have a limited life-span and become costlier to maintain over time. Therefore, replacements become due after decades.
If American equipment is aging then China and Russia have a great deal to worry about on their respective ends.
Read the report with title "PLA Weaknesses and Xi’s Concerns about PLA Capabilities"
And this: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/r...ut-its-navy-is-a-shrinking-won-1832805856/amp
And this: https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/russian-performance-in-the-russo-georgian-war-revisited/
And this: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734
Some people have bought into cosmetics, and fail to see deeper realities.
@That Guy
sammuel
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2017
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I think you Ignored a few facts - like total budget - where no one comes close to the budget of America , ability to deploy and supply forces and other issues.
It is also important to note that though some of the platforms have aged ( like the destroyers ) , but the systems inside are nothing like those used in 2003.
You also ignored some areas where the US has a clear advantage like attack helicopters.Where US not only has some of the best models like the Apache Guardian and the The AH-1Z Viper , but also has lots more of them.
This is also true for the entire air force , where US has thousand more aircrafts than any other country.
~
Last edited:
vi-va
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
About the cost of wars, see below links.This is a blanket figure which conceal lot of business-side of these operations (military industrial complex; rebuilding contracts) and economic realities.
For instance, do you know how much it cost your parents to bring you up including clothing, schooling and vice versa? They were not justing spending but earning.
US had its reasons to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and introduce reforms in both. Long-term benefits outweight the costs incurred in both, this will become apparent in time.
Do not think shortterm, but try to see and analyze longterm.
Americans continue to improve their equipment from time-to-time (electronics/sensors/avionics/barrels). Of-course, frames have a limited life-span and become costlier to maintain over time. Therefore, replacements become due after decades.
If American equipment is aging then China and Russia have a great deal to worry about on their respective ends.
Read the report with title "PLA Weaknesses and Xi’s Concerns about PLA Capabilities"
And this: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/r...ut-its-navy-is-a-shrinking-won-1832805856/amp
And this: https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/russian-performance-in-the-russo-georgian-war-revisited/
And this: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734
Some people have bought into cosmetics, and fail to see deeper realities.
@That Guy
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/us-...n-middle-east-asia-wars-since-2001-study.html
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-11/15/c_129994511.htm
Iraq invasion created power vacuum. Turkey, Russia, KSA, especially Iran rush in to fill the vacuum. It created more trouble than Saddam for US.
Afghanistan is meaningless for US. If US can't maintain military power balance in East Asia and East Europe, what's the benefit of entering Afghanistan. US was beaten badly by Taliban, they lost the war already, just like Vietnam war.
US is super power, of course they have quite some superior stuff. But it doesn't mean US can project all the power to anywhere globally. China has no intention to initiate a war with US. But US has to maintain an equal power in first island chain. It's very costly.
China has advantage to deploy short range and mid range missiles at home, it's cost effective as well. US can only deploy on first island chain, it's fragile. That's the geographical advantage.
China has no intention to be super power. We limit our national core interest regionally. We focus on technology and economy. We grow more than 1 trillion GDP each year, we grow a Japan every 4 years. We have patience.
US can still be the most powerful player in international arena, but how long US are still super power is questionable.
All you said is true. I can't agree more.
I don't deny US has quite a lot of advanced stuff. But war is not just about comparing how much you have, it also depends your people, especially how much they want to sacrifice.
Israel budget is $18.5 billion (2018), Israel can survive because majority Israelis can sacrifice to defend Israel. KSA has much higher budget, look at the military performance in Yemen.
Pakistan has much less budget than India. Look at the performance between India and Pakistan on February 27th. Pakistan humiliated India internationally.
America is powerful, indeed. But how much ordinary Americans willing to sacrifice on invasion of Iran? Questionable.
Similar threads
