Iran among top five drone technology owners

[mohsen]

Accidents happen, to suggest that Flight-655 was shot down knowing that it is a civilian plane with 274 Passengers and 16 crew members is Idiotic at best

no, it's not Idiotic, it's war crime, which always has volunteers in US military. even a fisherman can realize difference between a fighter jet and an Airbass, that warship can detect the difference even before take off.

 

[gambit]

no, it's not Idiotic, it's war crime, which always has volunteers in US military. even a fisherman can realize difference between a fighter jet and an Airbass, that warship can detect the difference even before take off.

I take it you speak from extensive personal experience in aviation?

Buddy, I doubt you even know what salt water taste like, let alone what goes on inside a warship.

 

[TheRafael00000]

Well done Iran. I wish you increase your support for Bangladesh and Pakistan.

 

[gambit]

it was shown the airplane is an Airliner when FOF signal clearly shown itself on vincense as airliner but the captain decided to not look at it. and again its not important . how many of mass murderers admit to their crime in court to expect this captain rogers admit to his crimes outside the court. and if it was not deliberate then why all the government and military started to lie about it . just for protecting the honor of a navy captain whom nobody really liked.?

So you have nothing definitive other than that the US tried to dispute the Vincennes actual location: international waters or not.

First...

Contrary to what many Iranians would like to believe, it is not enough, even today, to use only radar to determine friend or foe. Why do you think there is such a thing as IFF in the first place?

IFF modes 1 and 2 are 'military' and mode 3 is 'commair' or 'commercial airline'. These are responses to query, not detection results. This is one point in the system for error. What if the response is 'commair' when the true nature of the target is 'military'? Is this an error or of deceit?

Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mode 1 – provides 2-digit octal mission code. (military only – can't be changed in flight)

Mode 2 – provides 4-digit octal unit code. (military only – can't be changed in flight)

Mode 3/A – provides a 4-digit octal identification code for the aircraft, assigned by the air traffic controller. (military and civilian)

Do you see the highlighted? Is it possible for deceit? Absolutely.

IFF And Transponders — Military Forum | Airliners.net

The military transponder or IFF has 5 modes: Modes 1, 2, 3/A, 4, and C
Mode 1 is a 2-digit octal code
Mode 2 is a 4-digit octal code
Mode 3/A is a 4-digit octal code where the pilot can put in a squawk if ATC assigns one to the aircraft. This is the same mode that civilian pilots put into their transponder.
Mode 4 is an encrypted code
Mode C is the altitude in hundreds of feet
Mode 4 used to be the primary means of positively id'ing a friendly aircraft because if you had a valid Mode 4 then the only way you could get it was if you had the crypto loaded. But the crypto for Mode 4 has been decertified, so it's still available, but it's not the sole determining factor on determining whether this is a friendly aircraft or ship.
The pilot can't change Modes 1, 2, 4 in the cockpit, but he can turn them off so that he looks like a normal civilian aircraft squawking just modes 3 and C, just like you can turn off your transponder in your cockpit.

Standard civilian transponder code = USA military Mode 3.
Standard civilian transponder altitude reporting = USA military Mode C.

Do you see the highlighted? A military target can disable his 'military' response so that when queried, his response will be incomplete, showing a 'civilian' status.

This is not to say that Flight 655 was trying to deceive US in anyway, but to show fair minded readers the holes in the IFF system where mistakes and misunderstandings can occur.

Now...

If you want to say that the Vincennes' captain lied about knowing the true nature of Flight 655, then there must be contradictory physical evidences to support your argument. If the captain was not aware, then it is ignorance, not malice. Ignorance is a sign of incompetence. Malice is a sign of a crime.

So let us see...

Sea Of Lies - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

By standard practice, all planes carry a transponder that automatically answers the IFF query with Mode 1 or 2 (military), or Mode 3 (civilian). Anderson got a Mode 3. "Commair" (commercial airliner), he figured. He reached beside his console for the navy's listing of commercial flights over the gulf. But as he scanned the schedule, he missed Flight 655.

So Petty Officer Andrew Anderson received a 'civilian' response but because he missed Flight 655 on his schedule, he did not know who is this 'civilian' response came from.

Anderson turned to the petty officer next to him in Air Alley, John Leach, and wondered aloud if the blip could be an Iranian warplane--an F-4 or F-14 perhaps?

Anderson have a radar contact, he queried and received a 'civilian' response, he scanned his flight schedule and missed Flight 655, then he asked another person for advice/clarification.

You can call this chain of events 'incompetence' if you wish, but there is no malice here. This is the start of the tragedy.

Zocher decided to pass the chatter in Air Alley up the chain of command to his boss, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Lustig, the Vincennes's tactical commander for air warfare.

Lt. Clay Zocher was also uncertain, so he passed the buck, so to speak.

Lustig ordered Zocher to flash the incoming plane a warning: "Unidentified aircraft ... You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters." It was the standard challenge, broadcast over the international distress frequencies routinely monitored by military and commercial aircraft.

If the Vincennes knew the exact nature of the Flight 655, then why bother to have a MANUAL VOICE QUERY?

The Forrestal, too, had seen the blip pop on its radar screens. In the air, the F-14 pilots were itching to close in; a bogey out of Iran, heading for an American warship, was a rare opportunity for combat-hungry aviators. Aboard the carrier, Admiral Smith held them off. His staff was telling him that the blip was most likely a commercial airliner. But Smith stuck to the navy rule that the captain on the spot makes the decisions. He decided to let Rogers fight his own battle.

So here we have a second point of error in this tragedy. We have an on scene commander who is uncertain of a target that may pose a threat to his ship. We have a superior commander who is not on scene but believes something else and held the leash on his attack dogs. Smith's decision to defer to his subordinate is nothing new. It is logical and have plenty of historical support in warfare when immediate danger required the most knowledgeable person to take charge. We even have many instances of sergeants gave orders to officers in the heat of battle.

Aboard the Vincennes, it was now 9:49. Rogers was totally consumed with his fire fight against the gunboats. He was shouting for the five-inch-gun crew to load faster, and ordering hard-right rudder to bring his stern gun to bear. The ship shuddered and heeled to starboard.

So now the Vincennes is effectively engaged in combat against multiple small boats.

...a few seconds after 9:50, someone called out that the incoming plane was a "possible Astro"-the code word for an F-14. No one was ever able to find out who. In Air Alley, the operators thought the word came from the technicians in the ship's electronic-warfare suite. The technicians thought the warning came from Air Alley.

Not much difference between 9:49 and 9:50, is there? As the Vincennes maneuvers to fight the gunboats, someone called out a possible hostile attack aircraft.

Galvanized by this warning, Petty Officer Anderson again beamed out an IFF query. Ominously, the response he now got back was different. Up on his console flashed a Mode 2: military aircraft. Only much later did investigators figure out that Anderson had forgotten to reset the range on his IFF device. The Mode 2 did not come from the Airbus, climbing peacefully above the gulf, but from an Iranian plane, probably a military transport, still on the runway back in Bandar Abbas.

Why would Anderson performed another electronic query if the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655?

So now we have an electronic query, a voice query, and another electronic query. What is the point of all this if the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655? You can call Anderson's failure to reset query range as incompetence if you wish, but there is no malice here.

Rogers was not absolutely sure that his ship did face an enemy warplane. The plane seemed too high--some 7,000 feet-for an attack approach. At his rear, another officer, Lt. William Mountford, warned "possible commair. " Three more times, the warnings went out: "Iranian fighter ... you are steering into danger and are subject to United States naval defensive measures."

Aaahhh...So now we see that Rogers was himself uncertain of what was in the sky. He has to consider the history of the USS Stark that was hit by an Iraqi Exocet a short time before his current combat situation. One of his subordinates was telling him that the target is a high probable threat, another subordinate was shouting in his ears that it is not. You can call this incompetence if you wish, but there is no malice here, especially if the Vincennes sent another series of queries, electronic and voice, to try to determine the target's true nature.

Then something happened that psychologists call "scenario fulfillment"-you see what you expect. Petty Officers Anderson and Leach both began singing out that the aircraft, now definitively tagged on the big screen as an F-14, was descending and picking up speed. The tapes of the CIC's data later showed no such thing. Anderson's screen showed that the plane was traveling 380 knots at 12,000 feet and climbing. Yet Anderson was shouting out that the speed was 455 knots, the altitude 7,800 feet and descending.

Whatever the shrinks want to call it, this clearly fell into the category 'fog of battle' situation. You can call Anderson and Leach incompetent and too mentally deficient to keep their wits under pressure if you wish, but there is no malice here.

At 9:54:05, with the plane 11 miles away, Rogers reached up and switched the firing key to "free" the ship's SM-2 antiaircraft missiles.

So from engaging in a shooting fight with gunboats to the firing of the missiles at a perceived air threat, barely 5 minutes passed. Talk to anyone who has ever been in combat for five minutes and see what he can tell you about clarity.

Some 10 miles away, Captain Rezaian of Iran Air was calmly reporting to Bandar Abbas that he had reached his first checkpoint crossing the gulf. He heard none of the Vincennes's warnings. His four radio bands were taken up with air-control chatter. "Have a nice day," the tower radioed. "Thank you, good day," replied the pilot. Thirty seconds later, the first missile blew the left wing off his aircraft.

So Flight 655 could not respond to all queries because of excessive radio traffic. This is not to blame Captain Rezaian, but to show another factor that facilitated the tragedy.

But it begs the question: Would this tragedy occurred had Flight 655 was able to respond? Since you and others have already made up your mind that the Vincennes already knew the true nature of 655, the hypothetical question is irrelevant. Sort of 'Do not bother me with the facts, I already made up my mind.' If I wanted to be like you Iranians, I could have come up with all sorts of arguments to make Captain Rezaian share at least half of the blame. I could cast aspersions on his training, experience, soundness of mind, or even insinuate that Flight 655 was part of some Iranian plot to use a civilian airliners for military purposes.

No, I have no problems that based on whatever military experience I have, I will place the blame for this tragedy on US. But it was an accident and I will not allow the charge of murder to go unchallenged. Murder automatically assign willful intent, deliberate planning, and malice onto the defendant. All in equal measures. In any court, public opinion or legal, if one leg of that triad fail examination, the entire charge is reduced. So far, Iranian argument that it was a deliberate mass murder of Flight 655 -- FAILED.

I do not care if Rogers was a likeable person or not. Your bringing that up is pointless and a convenient distraction for the gullible. I used the same news source as you did and there is nothing that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655. I have no interest in changing your mind, but the beauty of an open forum is that anyone can read opposing arguments and make up his own mind.

 

[--,-'{@]

Well done Iran. I wish you increase your support for Bangladesh and Pakistan.

n I wish Iran goes back to respectful past b4 Islam.

 

[Hack-Hook]

So you have nothing definitive other than that the US tried to dispute the Vincennes actual location: international waters or not.

First...

Contrary to what many Iranians would like to believe, it is not enough, even today, to use only radar to determine friend or foe. Why do you think there is such a thing as IFF in the first place?

IFF modes 1 and 2 are 'military' and mode 3 is 'commair' or 'commercial airline'. These are responses to query, not detection results. This is one point in the system for error. What if the response is 'commair' when the true nature of the target is 'military'? Is this an error or of deceit?

Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you see the highlighted? Is it possible for deceit? Absolutely.

IFF And Transponders — Military Forum | Airliners.net

Do you see the highlighted? A military target can disable his 'military' response so that when queried, his response will be incomplete, showing a 'civilian' status.

This is not to say that Flight 655 was trying to deceive US in anyway, but to show fair minded readers the holes in the IFF system where mistakes and misunderstandings can occur.

Now...

If you want to say that the Vincennes' captain lied about knowing the true nature of Flight 655, then there must be contradictory physical evidences to support your argument. If the captain was not aware, then it is ignorance, not malice. Ignorance is a sign of incompetence. Malice is a sign of a crime.

So let us see...

Sea Of Lies - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

So Petty Officer Andrew Anderson received a 'civilian' response but because he missed Flight 655 on his schedule, he did not know who is this 'civilian' response came from.


Anderson have a radar contact, he queried and received a 'civilian' response, he scanned his flight schedule and missed Flight 655, then he asked another person for advice/clarification.

You can call this chain of events 'incompetence' if you wish, but there is no malice here. This is the start of the tragedy.


Lt. Clay Zocher was also uncertain, so he passed the buck, so to speak.


If the Vincennes knew the exact nature of the Flight 655, then why bother to have a MANUAL VOICE QUERY?


So here we have a second point of error in this tragedy. We have an on scene commander who is uncertain of a target that may pose a threat to his ship. We have a superior commander who is not on scene but believes something else and held the leash on his attack dogs. Smith's decision to defer to his subordinate is nothing new. It is logical and have plenty of historical support in warfare when immediate danger required the most knowledgeable person to take charge. We even have many instances of sergeants gave orders to officers in the heat of battle.


So now the Vincennes is effectively engaged in combat against multiple small boats.


Not much difference between 9:49 and 9:50, is there? As the Vincennes maneuvers to fight the gunboats, someone called out a possible hostile attack aircraft.


Why would Anderson performed another electronic query if the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655?

So now we have an electronic query, a voice query, and another electronic query. What is the point of all this if the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655? You can call Anderson's failure to reset query range as incompetence if you wish, but there is no malice here.


Aaahhh...So now we see that Rogers was himself uncertain of what was in the sky. He has to consider the history of the USS Stark that was hit by an Iraqi Exocet a short time before his current combat situation. One of his subordinates was telling him that the target is a high probable threat, another subordinate was shouting in his ears that it is not. You can call this incompetence if you wish, but there is no malice here, especially if the Vincennes sent another series of queries, electronic and voice, to try to determine the target's true nature.


Whatever the shrinks want to call it, this clearly fell into the category 'fog of battle' situation. You can call Anderson and Leach incompetent and too mentally deficient to keep their wits under pressure if you wish, but there is no malice here.


So from engaging in a shooting fight with gunboats to the firing of the missiles at a perceived air threat, barely 5 minutes passed. Talk to anyone who has ever been in combat for five minutes and see what he can tell you about clarity.


So Flight 655 could not respond to all queries because of excessive radio traffic. This is not to blame Captain Rezaian, but to show another factor that facilitated the tragedy.

But it begs the question: Would this tragedy occurred had Flight 655 was able to respond? Since you and others have already made up your mind that the Vincennes already knew the true nature of 655, the hypothetical question is irrelevant. Sort of 'Do not bother me with the facts, I already made up my mind.' If I wanted to be like you Iranians, I could have come up with all sorts of arguments to make Captain Rezaian share at least half of the blame. I could cast aspersions on his training, experience, soundness of mind, or even insinuate that Flight 655 was part of some Iranian plot to use a civilian airliners for military purposes.

No, I have no problems that based on whatever military experience I have, I will place the blame for this tragedy on US. But it was an accident and I will not allow the charge of murder to go unchallenged. Murder automatically assign willful intent, deliberate planning, and malice onto the defendant. All in equal measures. In any court, public opinion or legal, if one leg of that triad fail examination, the entire charge is reduced. So far, Iranian argument that it was a deliberate mass murder of Flight 655 -- FAILED.

I do not care if Rogers was a likeable person or not. Your bringing that up is pointless and a convenient distraction for the gullible. I used the same news source as you did and there is nothing that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the Vincennes knew the exact nature of Flight 655. I have no interest in changing your mind, but the beauty of an open forum is that anyone can read opposing arguments and make up his own mind.

well , It seems US navy is the only place in the world that they award their top medals for such excessive chains of incompetence .

as you open to the suggestion , can you answer me why the Vinscense answered to non existence help messages to enter there ?
where is the Stoval tanker that were supposedly under attack by Iranian boats ?
how captain rogers and his crew get so panicked against a single F-14A which US Navy better than anybody else knew has no ground attack capabilities at all ?

and why Vincsense started to violate Iranian territorial water .to engage Iranian boats while his orders was clear to stay away fro Iranian water ?

and look at this message

"Unidentified aircraft ... You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters."

vinscense was not in International water and also IranAir 655 was not unidentified , a flight Identity is its transponder and Iran Air flight 655 clearly set it's flight transponder correctly ,why not like everywhere else call it by its transponder so the pilot knew he is target of the communication . Vinscense in all of it's communication used UnIdentified or F-14 ,now answer me even if Captain Razaeian didn't use his radio (as a matter of fact Vinscense never used the correct frequency to contact the airplane)
by the way he was contacted never could understand it's him that the warnings are targeted at .
and about why ask manual voice Query , its clear its standard practice to do the warning to incoming plane as vinscense did that to Iranian P3 which was 60 mile away but that they did it correctly and received answer but for the commercial airplane for some reason they did it in a way so it was impossible to the plane to answer them.


by the way if it was a case of misunderstanding and some personnel incompetence why this

"I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are."
Vice-President George H. W. Bush, August 1988

is it the normal response to such tragic accidents in USA ?


and while its what US navy announced before incident

According to Iran, the U.S. had previously issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) warning aircraft that they were at risk of "defensive measures" if they had not been cleared from a regional airport and if they came within 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) of a warship at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet (610 m)

why then attack this unidentified plan as IR 655 had been cleared from a regional airport and was well outside those limits when it was attacked.


by the way Its Iran stance about the incident

According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.

Even if the aircraft had been an Iranian F-14, Iran argued, the U.S. would have had no right to shoot it down. The aircraft was flying within Iranian airspace and did not, in fact, follow a path that could be considered an attack profile, nor did it illuminate the Vincennes with radar. During the incident, the Vincennes had also covertly entered Iranian territorial waters without first declaring war, while aiding Iraq's (1980–1988) war against Iran. Furthermore, regardless of any mistakes made by the crew, the U.S. was fully responsible for the actions of its warship under international law.

and you still didn't answer why such amount of cover up to the extent of lying to your own senators ?

and I still ask why Vinscense must engage Iranian Boat in Iran territorial water.

and more importantly why till today official naval records of tat day are kept secret from the public ? whats inside them that US Navy so badly want to hide ?

 

[gambit]

well , It seems US navy is the only place in the world that they award their top medals for such excessive chains of incompetence .

as you open to the suggestion , can you answer me why the Vinscense answered to non existence help messages to enter there ?
where is the Stoval tanker that were supposedly under attack by Iranian boats ?
how captain rogers and his crew get so panicked against a single F-14A which US Navy better than anybody else knew has no ground attack capabilities at all ?

and why Vincsense started to violate Iranian territorial water .to engage Iranian boats while his orders was clear to stay away fro Iranian water ?

and look at this message

vinscense was not in International water and also IranAir 655 was not unidentified , a flight Identity is its transponder and Iran Air flight 655 clearly set it's flight transponder correctly ,why not like everywhere else call it by its transponder so the pilot knew he is target of the communication . Vinscense in all of it's communication used UnIdentified or F-14 ,now answer me even if Captain Razaeian didn't use his radio (as a matter of fact Vinscense never used the correct frequency to contact the airplane)
by the way he was contacted never could understand it's him that the warnings are targeted at .
and about why ask manual voice Query , its clear its standard practice to do the warning to incoming plane as vinscense did that to Iranian P3 which was 60 mile away but that they did it correctly and received answer but for the commercial airplane for some reason they did it in a way so it was impossible to the plane to answer them.


by the way if it was a case of misunderstanding and some personnel incompetence why this

is it the normal response to such tragic accidents in USA ?


and while its what US navy announced before incident

why then attack this unidentified plan as IR 655 had been cleared from a regional airport and was well outside those limits when it was attacked.


by the way Its Iran stance about the incident




and you still didn't answer why such amount of cover up to the extent of lying to your own senators ?

and I still ask why Vinscense must engage Iranian Boat in Iran territorial water.

and more importantly why till today official naval records of tat day are kept secret from the public ? whats inside them that US Navy so badly want to hide ?

I have no interest in addressing those issues. None of them proved that the shoot down of Flight 655 was done out of malice.

If you want an apology from this American about the US Navy violated Iranian waters, fine: I apologize on behalf of the US. But just because I trespass into my neighbor's yard does not mean I must rob him.

 

[mohsen]

I take it you speak from extensive personal experience in aviation?

Buddy, I doubt you even know what salt water taste like, let alone what goes on inside a warship.

anybody with lowest knowledge about radars knows An Airbass and a fighter have clear visual difference on the radar display, speed and height also confirms this.

Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles

(Fisk, 2005)Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet.".

when his confrere can't believe his words, you expect us to believe him?

if such a accident you call, happen in our military, if we don't execute the commander, if we don't put him in the jail, he will be fired, but you gave him medal which means he has acted according to orders. from where? the same place ordered to nuke japan, use chemical weapons in Vietnam, armed Saddam with chemical weapons. officially supported mujahedin-e-khalgh terrorism group till today.

 

[gambit]

anybody with lowest knowledge about radars knows An Airbass and a fighter have clear visual difference on the radar display, speed and height also confirms this.

Am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts, or rather rial to barbari, that I know more about radar than you do.

 

[A1Kaid]

Iran is not top five, they don't have a UCAV, they have some basic surveillance which even College students can put together. Every week this pos Defense Minister with a mark on his forehead comes out and announces to the world utter bs about what they have made. He boasts achievements like top 5 countries with drone capabilities, what a fool.

 

[shamiul]

Iran is not top five, they don't have a UCAV, they have some basic surveillance which even College students can put together. Every week this pos Defense Minister with a mark on his forehead comes out and announces to the world utter bs about what they have made. He boasts achievements like top 5 countries with drone capabilities, what a fool.

Have you spit out all the venom ? Against someone who did'nt harm you.

Typical behaviour for people of your background.

 

[SOHEIL]

Iran is not top five, they don't have a UCAV, they have some basic surveillance which even College students can put together. Every week this pos Defense Minister with a mark on his forehead comes out and announces to the world utter bs about what they have made. He boasts achievements like top 5 countries with drone capabilities, what a fool.

hater ! gonna burn !!!

 

[A1Kaid]

hater ! gonna burn !!!

What is there to hate? You have no UCAV, last time you said you have developed a stealth aircraft turned out to be a joke and you showed us a RC jet model flight video.

Where is the UCAV show it, show video, picture? If not shut your mouth.

 

[Mosamania]

What is there to hate? You have no UCAV, last time you said you have developed a stealth aircraft turned out to be a joke and you showed us a RC jet model flight video.

Where is the UCAV show it, show video, picture? If not shut your mouth.

Just leave them be guys. A day will come when reality will hit them in the face like a ton of bricks. Yeah we are haters løk at us burning wa wa wa, so angry Iran is so awesome wa wa wa. Just leave then be everyone.

 

[henaselakesan]

So there is USA, Israel, UK, China, Turkey, S.Korea, Japan and more

These countries. They are dependent on {regard} technology to America. So these countries are not in the list.for example,turkish uav copy of Israeli technology. ......