Iran vs the US Thread

[Scomagia]

And what about Germany?

What about them? I have the crew who were there. I'm not really concerned with unsubstantiated conjectures being made by third parties. You can find any number of people who were not there to make any number of claims about it you like. Does not alter the core point that the US claim is contradicted by the statements of the crew who were there. I don't really give a rats ass how many third parties may go along with the US claim. A lie does not become true simply because more people repeat it

Ah yes, eyewitnesses. Known for their reliability.

[Novus America]

And what about Germany?

What about them? I have the crew who were there. I'm not really concerned with unsubstantiated conjectures being made by third parties. You can find any number of people who were not there to make any number of claims about it you like. Does not alter the core point that the US claim is contradicted by the statements of the crew who were there. I don't really give a rats ass how many third parties may go along with the US claim. A lie does not become true simply because more people repeat it

So you are saying Germany is lying too? And why would they?
And people who are there make mistakes too.
In the confusion they might remember something different than what happened.

A third party backing a claim makes that claim stronger.
And if it was not Iran, why has nobody presented evidence of someone else doing it?
Who did it then?

[The New California Republic]

Does anyone have any info about what missile was used to shoot it down?

[Novus America]

Does anyone have any info about what missile was used to shoot it down?

I am curious about this too.
I have not heard what missile was used.

[The New California Republic]

Does anyone have any info about what missile was used to shoot it down?

I am curious about this too.
I have not heard what missile was used.

The reason I suspected the S-200 was due to the range involved, but now it's been confirmed that it may have been within range of some shorter range systems than that:

Lt Gen Joseph Guastella, Commander of US Air Forces Central Command, later said the drone had been operating at high altitude and was about 34km from the nearest point on the Iranian coast when it was shot down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48711229

[Scomagia]

What about them? I have the crew who were there. I'm not really concerned with unsubstantiated conjectures being made by third parties. You can find any number of people who were not there to make any number of claims about it you like. Does not alter the core point that the US claim is contradicted by the statements of the crew who were there. I don't really give a rats ass how many third parties may go along with the US claim. A lie does not become true simply because more people repeat it

So you are saying Germany is lying too? And why would they?
And people who are there make mistakes too.
In the confusion they might remember something different than what happened.

A third party backing a claim makes that claim stronger.
And if it was not Iran, why has nobody presented evidence of someone else doing it?
Who did it then?

They almost certainly remember it differently than it happened.

[The South Falls]

Does anyone have any info about what missile was used to shoot it down?

I am curious about this too.
I have not heard what missile was used.

It could be a range, between long-and short.

[Chestaan]

Regrettably at this point I think we have to seriously consider a limited on time strike on a Iranian SAM site. While risky, if we do nothing it is certain Iran will launch another attack.
They are not going to stop if there are no consequences.

"Regrettably". Yeah you seem so against a confrontation with Iran, sure...

In any case I don't see why you think attacking Iran would make them less likely to attack.

[Fartsniffage]

Wiki is saying it was a Sayyad-3 missile.

Pentagon and Iranian officials confirmed on June 20, 2019 Sayyad-3 has successfully downed an American RQ-4A Global Hawk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyad-2

No link to confirm though, so take it as you will.

[The New California Republic]

Wiki is saying it was a Sayyad-3 missile.

Pentagon and Iranian officials confirmed on June 20, 2019 Sayyad-3 has successfully downed an American RQ-4A Global Hawk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyad-2

No link to confirm though, so take it as you will.

I thought so. I said it would be the S-200 system because of the range involved, and Sayyad-3 is an Iranian produced missile for the S-200 system. I'll wait until it is actually confirmed, but the S-200 system still seems the most likely candidate due to the range involved.

[Novus America]

Regrettably at this point I think we have to seriously consider a limited on time strike on a Iranian SAM site. While risky, if we do nothing it is certain Iran will launch another attack.
They are not going to stop if there are no consequences.

"Regrettably". Yeah you seem so against a confrontation with Iran, sure...

In any case I don't see why you think attacking Iran would make them less likely to attack.

I not against confronting them.
Confronting them is necessary to address their behavior and actions.

Confrontation does not always require war of course though. War should only be a last resort.
And Iran is already attacking so we have no choice but to do something.

Ideally a very limited and proportional response, which could be but would not necessarily have to be a physical attack with explosives (cyber, economic and EW options should be considered) but might be a physical attack if other options are not enough.

[The New California Republic]

Ideally a very limited and proportional response, which could be but would not necessarily have to be a physical attack with explosives (cyber, economic and EW options should be considered) but might be a physical attack if other options are not enough.

A few HARMs fired at the S-200 site would send a message. Either they turn off the Square Pair radars or they get knocked out.

[Gig em Aggies]

Ideally a very limited and proportional response, which could be but would not necessarily have to be a physical attack with explosives (cyber, economic and EW options should be considered) but might be a physical attack if other options are not enough.

A few HARMs fired at the S-200 site would send a message. Either they turn off the Square Pair radars or they get knocked out.

well we could export an attack by way of the Mossad or put Thaad & Patriot batteries all around them to shoot down missiles coming from the mainland to any aircraft in international airspace.

[The New California Republic]

A few HARMs fired at the S-200 site would send a message. Either they turn off the Square Pair radars or they get knocked out.

well we could export an attack by way of the Mossad or put Thaad & Patriot batteries all around them to shoot down missiles coming from the mainland to any aircraft in international airspace.

A combined HARM + Patriot approach would be interesting.

[The New California Republic]

Ideally a very limited and proportional response, which could be but would not necessarily have to be a physical attack with explosives (cyber, economic and EW options should be considered) but might be a physical attack if other options are not enough.

A few HARMs fired at the S-200 site would send a message. Either they turn off the Square Pair radars or they get knocked out.

Just a small update/clarification to this. I am assuming that the Sayyad-3 missile uses the Square Pair engagement radars from the original S-200 system for a few reasons: First, there is a pre-existing S-200 site at Bandar Abbas, which is within range to the north of where the drone was shot down, which would have two or three Square Pair radars. Second, there has been no information released regarding what engagement radars that the Sayyad system uses, but the emplacement of the Sayyad system at S-200 sites is likely for a very good reason, i.e. so that they can use the radars there (there is an assumption by Jane's that the new missile system actually uses legacy radars, which would include Square Pair):

Iranian television also broadcast footage of a Sayyad-2 being fired from a launcher and apparently successfully intercepting a target. The footage did not clearly show the associated radars, although a height finder may have been glimpsed in the footage, suggesting the missile was being used in conjunction with an old Russian or Chinese system rather than with a modern three-dimensional radar.

https://www.janes.com/article/29817/ira ... -range-sam

Square Pair is one of the only Russian engagement radars that Iran possesses that would be able to function at the ranges that the Sayyad system is capable of.

There is some more info and some nice pictures here if anyone is interested: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagem ... ocId824266

[Novus America]

well we could export an attack by way of the Mossad or put Thaad & Patriot batteries all around them to shoot down missiles coming from the mainland to any aircraft in international airspace.

A combined HARM + Patriot approach would be interesting.

That is what we probably need. Patriot missiles and a few destroyers armed with SM-6s.
Plus EA-18G Growler patrols right outside their legitimate airspace (ignoring any BS claims not founded in international law.

If Iran tries this shit again we shoot down the missile if possible, and the Growlers jam their radars, plus send a HARM in return.

[Gig em Aggies]

A few HARMs fired at the S-200 site would send a message. Either they turn off the Square Pair radars or they get knocked out.

Just a small update/clarification to this. I am assuming that the Sayyad-3 missile uses the Square Pair engagement radars from the original S-200 system for a few reasons: First, there is a pre-existing S-200 site at Bandar Abbas, which is within range to the north of where the drone was shot down, which would have two or three Square Pair radars. Second, there has been no information released regarding what engagement radars that the Sayyad system uses, but the emplacement of the Sayyad system at S-200 sites is likely for a very good reason, i.e. so that they can use the radars there (there is an assumption by Jane's that the new missile system actually uses legacy radars, which would include Square Pair):

Iranian television also broadcast footage of a Sayyad-2 being fired from a launcher and apparently successfully intercepting a target. The footage did not clearly show the associated radars, although a height finder may have been glimpsed in the footage, suggesting the missile was being used in conjunction with an old Russian or Chinese system rather than with a modern three-dimensional radar.

https://www.janes.com/article/29817/ira ... -range-sam

Square Pair is one of the only Russian engagement radars that Iran possesses that would be able to function at the ranges that the Sayyad system is capable of.

There is some more info and some nice pictures here if anyone is interested: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagem ... ocId824266

I looked up both the altitude range of the Sayyad-3 and the Triton drone and it appears that the US Navy Drone was flying within range of the missile since the max operational range of the missile is between 27-30 kilometers which is between 16-18 miles the US Navy Triton operates around 113,000 ft, 13,000meters which is roughly 21 miles in altitude.

[The New California Republic]

A combined HARM + Patriot approach would be interesting.

That is what we probably need. Patriot missiles and a few destroyers armed with SM-6s.
Plus EA-18G Growler patrols right outside their legitimate airspace (ignoring any BS claims not founded in international law.

If Iran tries this shit again we shoot down the missile if possible, and the Growlers jam their radars, plus send a HARM in return.

They would have no problem in completely jamming the radars associated with the system, as the technical aspects of it are well known in the West. The USA tangoed with the S-200 system (called SA-5 in the link) in Libya in 1986, and showed that the system was totally ineffective when dealt with correctly.

[Ifreann]

Does...does Trump not want to go to war?

Yes. It means Trump is being cautious here and trying to avoid escalation.
Which I am sure hurts you to admit.

It's surprising. He's the last man I'd expect to exhibit any sort of temperance, aside from not drinking.

[Vassenor]

Yes. It means Trump is being cautious here and trying to avoid escalation.
Which I am sure hurts you to admit.

It's surprising. He's the last man I'd expect to exhibit any sort of temperance, aside from not drinking.

Just waiting for Bolton or someone on Fox to mock him.

[Novus America]

That is what we probably need. Patriot missiles and a few destroyers armed with SM-6s.
Plus EA-18G Growler patrols right outside their legitimate airspace (ignoring any BS claims not founded in international law.

If Iran tries this shit again we shoot down the missile if possible, and the Growlers jam their radars, plus send a HARM in return.

They would have no problem in completely jamming the radars associated with the system, as the technical aspects of it are well known in the West. The USA tangoed with the S-200 system (called SA-5 in the link) in Libya in 1986, and showed that the system was totally ineffective when dealt with correctly.

Yes, given the old Prowler completely pwnd the S-200, the more capable Growler should be able to do so as well.

[The New California Republic]

They would have no problem in completely jamming the radars associated with the system, as the technical aspects of it are well known in the West. The USA tangoed with the S-200 system (called SA-5 in the link) in Libya in 1986, and showed that the system was totally ineffective when dealt with correctly.

Yes, given the old Prowler completely pwnd the S-200, the more capable Growler should be able to do so as well.

The only problem with the S-200 is that it has a rather nasty home-on-jam function, whereby the missile itself passively homes in on an ECM aircraft (using its own 5G24 homing seeker in the nose cone), and which allows Square Pair to be set to a non-emitting mode, meaning that HARMs won't be able to detect it. A few caveats: to my knowledge the Libyans didn't use that function during the 1986 engagement (I think the competency of the Libyan crews was questionable), so it isn't known how good that particular part of the system is. I also don't know if the Sayyad-3 missile that Iran has developed is home-on-jam capable like the previous missile the Iranian S-200 systems used (the V-880).

[Novus America]

Yes, given the old Prowler completely pwnd the S-200, the more capable Growler should be able to do so as well.

The only problem with the S-200 is that it has a rather nasty home-on-jam function, whereby the missile itself passively homes in on an ECM aircraft (using its own 5G24 homing seeker in the nose cone), and which allows Square Pair to be set to a non-emitting mode, meaning that HARMs won't be able to detect it. A few caveats: to my knowledge the Libyans didn't use that function during the 1986 engagement (I think the competency of the Libyan crews was questionable), so it isn't known how good that particular part of the system is. I also don't know if the Sayyad-3 missile that Iran has developed is home-on-jam capable like the previous missile the Iranian S-200 systems used (the V-880).

That is something we would have to watch out for.
The APG-73 radar on the Growlers, and the SPY on nearby destroyers should still be able to track a passive homing missile though.

[Gormwood]

It's surprising. He's the last man I'd expect to exhibit any sort of temperance, aside from not drinking.

Just waiting for Bolton or someone on Fox to mock him.

Or his ratings to plummet to where Bolton and FOX convince him a war would help him.

[Saiwania]

https://nypost.com/2019/06/20/trump-app ... nd-report/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/worl ... e=Homepage

The latest news is that Trump had approved of airstrikes against Iran earlier today, but called it off at the last minute. US Navy ships were in position and US Air Force planes were in the air, but no munitions were launched. If the order wasn't given to abort the mission, a state of war between the US and its allies and Iran could've been present. Your thoughts on this? Do you think a war should happen?

My belief is that its too late because of this incident in that Iran will know and the US either needs to commit either to peace with Iran or to go to war with Iran before Iran has enough time to prepare their defenses against attack. I'm more in favor of a war with Iran because, they don't seem capable of attacking the US itself. Worst outcome is that maybe the US loses materiel during skirmishes. I'm not in favor of any occupation but wouldn't mind a ground invasion if the ground forces can pull out right after Iran's capital of Tehran is overrun and the regime is deposed.

If Russia or China decided to intervene on Iran's side however, it does look like the entire theater would have to be cancelled. But I don't think Iran should be so sure that either will come rushing to assist them unless Iran cuts them a special deal like giving either of them exclusive access to their oil or markets and etc.