What's new

US coast guard opens fire on an Iranian fishing boat

WTH is US Coast Guard vessel doing in Persian Gulf!!!???
iran navy should sink that F***ing coast guard vessel for their action in the region were USCG have no jurisdiction. coast guard is for guarding the cost of their own country not for shooting fishermen in half way across their country.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces and one of the country's seven uniformed services. The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the U.S. military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It operates under the U.S> Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be transferred to the US Department of the Navy by the U.S. President at any time, or by the U.S. Congress during times of war. To date, this has happened twice, in 1917 and 1941, during World War 1 and World War 2, respectively
The service has participated in every major U.S. conflict from 1790 through today, including landing troops onD-Day and on the Pacific Islands in in WW2, in extensive patrols and shore bombardment during the Vietnam War , and multiple roles in Operation Iraqi Freedom . Maritime interception operations, coastal security, transportation security, and law enforcement detachments have been its major roles in recent conflicts in Iraq.
.United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats a targeting radar not a search radar designed to search all altitude and direction for finding target..
using that radar for finding target is like a sniper want to find its target throw the scope of his gun without any prior knowledge of were is the target and whats his distance. or a better comparison is to install a satellite dish for your TV without prior knowledge of which direction you must target the dish
It can do independent sector search iirc (not ideal but possible)
 
Last edited:
Do you have any proof that Saddam bought chemical weapons from the U.S.? Because its pretty much BS. Thats why I ignored that. Considered that Saddam's military forces composed of Russian made weaponry, you should look at that source. And as I said again, the U.S. Navy intervened because you attacked U.S. flagged ships.

First of all nothing could justify shooting down a civil crafts within its own country territories in its usual flight path.


The first phase of the Tanker war began in May 1981, when Iraq declared that all ships going to or from Iranian ports in the northern zone of the Gulf were subject to attack. Iraq used its air power to enforce its threats, primarily Super Frelon helicopters, F-1 Mirage and MiG-23 fighters armed with Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles[ii]. Between 1981 and 1983, Iranian forces generally held their fire at sea.

Iraq began to repeatedly bomb Iran's main oil export facility on Khark Island, causing increasingly heavy damage. After these attacks, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker carrying Iraqi oil near Bahrain on 13 May 1984, as well as a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on 16 May. Because Iraq had become landlocked during the invasion, they had to rely on their Arab allies, primarily Kuwait, to transport their oil. Iran attacked tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait, later attacking tankers from any Persian Gulf state supporting Iraq.

Operation Earnest Will

In December 1986, Kuwait's government asked the Reagan administration to send the U.S. Navy to protect Kuwaiti tankers against Iranian attacks. U.S. law forbade the use of navy ships to escort civilian vessels under a foreign flag, so the Kuwaiti ships were re-registered under the U.S. flag. Even before Earnest Will formally began.​



Iraq started the war, during war Persian gulf states were helping Iraq by their ports, soldiers and oil $ (Iraq's main financial backers were the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia ($30.9 billion), Kuwait ($8.2 billion), and the United Arab Emirates ($8 billion). In all, Iraq received $35 billion in loans from the West and between $30 and $40 billion from the Persian Gulf states during the 1980s) ... you were giving Saddam intelligence and political support ... Soviet union by weapons, CW and training Iraqi solders, France by giving Mirages and Exocets.

We as a nation just defended ourselves.
 
It can do independent sector search iirc (not ideal but possible)
yes but still remain the problem that who told the rebel that a plane at the exact time will be deviated from its usual path by more than 200km and will be at that altitude and fly exactly over your head ?
don't forget their window of attack was not even 10min.
 
yes but still remain the problem that who told the rebel that a plane at the exact time will be deviated from its usual path by more than 200km and will be at that altitude and fly exactly over your head ?
don't forget their window of attack was not even 10min.
Yeah, well, perhaps they were expecting another type of plane...

Lost due to hostile fire included: 10 helicopters (five Mi-8s and five Mi-24s), six combat planes (one Su-24, two Su-25 and two MiG-29) and three transport planes (a An-26, a An-30 and an Il-76).

Su-25 damaged on 1 July 2014, landed safely
Su-24 damaged by MANPAD on 2 July 2014, landed safely
2 Su-25 shot down on 23 July 2014, near the village of Dmytrivka, east of Donetsk
MiG-29 shot down near the village of Zhdanivka, 40 kilometres northeast of Donetsk, on 7 August 2014
Su-25 shot down on 16 July 2014, either by a Russian MiG-29 using a R-27T missile or by a SAM.
Second Su-25 damaged same day (16th) by MANPADS and forced to land
[MiG-29] shot down near Luhansk on 17 August 2014
Su-24 shot down Luhansk region 20 August (initially reported as Su-25), pilots ejected
Su-25 1 shot down on 29 August 2014

More here List of Ukrainian aircraft losses during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those alleging MH-17 was shot down by a Ukrainian mig-29, consider that of 45 MiG-29s aircraft were captured by the Russian Army at Belbek Air base, only 37 were handed back to Ukraine by late May 2014. Not saying I agree with the alleged intent to use them for provocations but it cannot be ruled out.
Tymchuk: Ukrainian aircraft seized in the Crimea is going to be used for provocations | Info Resist
 
The 9S35 Fire Dome provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR's gas turbine generator. A shared antenna is employed for two X-band transmit/receive channels. These respectively provide a pulsed mode for search and track functions, with linear chirp for compression, and a CW mode for illumination. Monopulse angle tracking is employed for jam resistance. For target tracking the antenna and feed system provide a mainlobe with 2.5° width in azimuth and 1.3° in elevation. For CW illumination the antenna and feed system provide a mainlobe with 1.4° width in azimuth and 2.65° in elevation.
Operating autonomously, the 9S35 will take 4 seconds to sweep a 120° sector, with an elevation of 6° to 7°. When cued to acquire and track, with will take 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle. Average power output in pulsed tracking modes varies between 0.5 and 1 kiloWatt, with CW illumination at 2 kiloWatts. The search and monopulse angle tracking receivers are both rated at a Noise Figure of NF=10 dB. The range error is cited at 175 metres, the angular error at less than 1°. The radar can switch from standby mode to combat operation in twenty seconds.
Engagement and Fire Control Radars (S-Band, X-band)
9K37/9K37M1/9K317 Buk M1/M2 / SA-11/17 Gadfly/Grizzly /Cамоходный Зенитный Ракетный Комплекс 9К37/9К317 Бук М/М1/М2

each launch vehicle with its own X-band multi-mode radar, under a radome on the front of the rotating launch platform. The vehicle is defined as a transporter/erector/launcher and radar (Telar). Similar to a fighter radar, the Telar radar (known to NATO as Fire Dome) has search, track and illuminator functions and can scan through a 120-deg. arc, independent of the movement of the platform.
This feature may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17. The Fire Dome radar’s main job was to permit simultaneous engagement of more targets – one per Telar – under control of the battery’s 9S18M Snow Drift. But the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event the Snow Drift was shut down or destroyed by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles.
The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery command vehicle. According to an experienced analyst of Russian-developed radar, the automatic radar modes display targets within range. The operator can then command the system to lock up the target, illuminate and shoot.
Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes. The IFF system uses a separate interrogator located above the main radar antenna and most likely will have been upgraded to current civilian standards.
The 9S18M introduced new NCTR processing technology, according to a 1998 interview with Buk designer Ardalion Rastov. NCTR techniques are closely held, but one of the most basic – jet engine modulation, or the analysis of beats and harmonics in the radar return that are caused by engine fan or compressor blades – should easily discriminate among a 777 with high-bypass turbofans, a turboprop transport or an Su-25 attack fighter.
There is no sign of an IFF interrogator on the Buk Telar’s Fire Dome radar or elsewhere on the vehicle. In normal operation, it would not be necessary since the target’s identity would be verified (according to the prevailing rules of engagement) before target data was passed to the Telar. Other GBADS also leave identification to the main search radar and the command-and-control center; however, the launch units cannot engage and fire without central guidance. The Buk’s combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique.
Buk Missile System Lethal, But Undiscriminating | Defense content from Aviation Week

 
Last edited:
well it seems BUK have an IFF Interrogator embedded so how can rebel mistake the airplane with a military one. By the way its interesting because the writer don't knew were is the iff on this system he conclude that it only had the system on the main radar
then what's the use of hitting a civilian air plane for the rebels.
 
Last edited:
IFF is a misnomer. Doesn't identify friend or foe.

IFF is about not shooting your own side. IFF essentially asks the target for a code. If the target has the code of the day, you know not to shoot. If it doesn't, you only know that it is not broadcasting the friendly IFF signal of the day. Could be hostile, neutral, or an out-of-date friendly. No magic identification here. Could be spoofed to cause the IFF user to think a target is friendly when it is not, this is the realm of electronic warfare and SIGINT.

In other words:
If IFF says friendly, don't shoot.
If IFF says "not-friendly", you still have to decide whether to shoot or not, still (could still be friendly, neutral, hostile)

Further, an enemy IFF could try to spoof the target, getting it to broadcast (and thus be more electronically visible). Aircraft need to be smart enough to not try to talk to every IFF transmitter, or not at all if trying to be non-obvious.

In the BUK case, presumably the operator interrogated, determined the target was "not friendly" (as it was not broadcasting a Russian military ID), and fired (presuming it to be Ukrainian). Or, the operator was sloppy and didn't even do that at all - just jumped straight to the assuming and shooting.
 
And by the way that 2second 10x7 degree is still a lot if you want search all the horizon and even that they could clearly see the flight pattern is not an attack one.

In the BUK case, presumably the operator interrogated, determined the target was "not friendly" (as it was not broadcasting a Russian military ID), and fired (presuming it to be Ukrainian). Or, the operator was sloppy and didn't even do that at all - just jumped straight to the assuming and shooting.
or not a BUK at all or it was deliberately done to frame the rebels when the Ukraine army was under the. Pressure or simply the case of drunk buk operators which some satellite photo released by Russia imply .

Also you wonder why while USA while having evidence of who did the attack could not publish the evidence .


But we don't need to wait longer if I'm not wrong today is the day that dutch committee that is in charge of the investigation is supposed to publish its preliminary findings and they can rule out many of theories that have proposed for the incident .
 
Last edited:
But we don't need to wait longer if I'm not wrong today is the day that dutch committee that is in charge of the investigation is supposed to publish its preliminary findings and they can rule out many of theories that have proposed for the incident .

Let me make a prediction: the Dutch report won't change your mind about what happened. If you are convinced the US somehow did this, you'll still be convinced no matter what the Dutch say.
 
Let me make a prediction: the Dutch report won't change your mind about what happened. If you are convinced the US somehow did this, you'll still be convinced no matter what the Dutch say.
who is convinced the USA did it ,well there is some theories that us navy shootdown mh-370 but I never heard somebody claim that US also shootdown MH-17. All the debates are based on if Ukrain army did it or Novorussia separatist .and as far as I'm concerned there is a lot of doubt about the case and we need more information .
 
well it seems BUK have an IFF Interrogator embedded so how can rebel mistake the airplane with a military one. By the way its interesting because the writer don't knew were is the iff on this system he conclude that it only had the system on the main radar
then what's the use of hitting a civilian air plane for the rebels.
Pls at least bother to read the post.:hitwall:

>>
"The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery command vehicle. According to an experienced analyst of Russian-developed radar, the automatic radar modes display targets within range. The operator can then command the system to lock up the target, illuminate and shoot.
Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes. The IFF system uses a separate interrogator located above the main radar antenna and most likely will have been upgraded to current civilian standards.
...
There is no sign of an IFF interrogator on the Buk Telar’s Fire Dome radar or elsewhere on the vehicle. In normal operation, it would not be necessary since the target’s identity would be verified (according to the prevailing rules of engagement) before target data was passed to the Telar. Other GBADS also leave identification to the main search radar and the command-and-control center; however, the launch units cannot engage and fire without central guidance. The Buk’s combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight MH17 - What You're Not Being Told | Page 3 (post 32)
Flight MH17 - What You're Not Being Told | Page 3 (post 35)

In the above thread, I've posted links to the English preliminary report of the Dutch Safety board and excerpts.

Knock yourselves out.

In the BUK case, presumably the operator interrogated, determined the target was "not friendly" (as it was not broadcasting a Russian military ID), and fired (presuming it to be Ukrainian). Or, the operator was sloppy and didn't even do that at all - just jumped straight to the assuming and shooting.

An individual telar (not the full SAM system, which includes radar and command vehicles) apparently has a backup automatic autonomous engagement mode and lacks an IFF.....

well it seems BUK have an IFF Interrogator embedded so how can rebel mistake the airplane with a military one. By the way its interesting because the writer don't knew were is the iff on this system he conclude that it only had the system on the main radar
then what's the use of hitting a civilian air plane for the rebels.
In the system, not in the individual TELAR
 
Last edited:
The context is the Persian gulf, not the China sea, So the difference is huge when you look at the distances that Americans can fight from. in the China sea they can stay far away enough, while in the Persian Gulf they can not, there is nowhere to hide, and they will be close enough to the Iranian shore...

the US has many bases in the middle east, a smaller area is not necessarily a disadvantage, if the area is small and simply too dangerous to be in they could just jets operate out of those bases, heck they will operate out of those bases, to neutralized the biggest threat prior to sending the navy in. in fact if a shooting war with iran does happen, well the us can always opt to go in via iraq and afganistan while keeping the straits open with land base planes and smaller ships as opposed to a full CBG, and more over, carrier striking power has quite a range (as does tomahawks which can come from ssbn making it invulnerable to small boats), no absolute need to be in the straits, why did you think china wanted a ASBM with ranges exceeding 1500km.

so in short the US can achieve its military objectives without being forced to be close to shore, even if it did it could clear the threats prior to having to go near the shore, and its options of invasion and war are numerous.
 
the US has many bases in the middle east, a smaller area is not necessarily a disadvantage, if the area is small and simply too dangerous to be in they could just jets operate out of those bases, heck they will operate out of those bases, to neutralized the biggest threat prior to sending the navy in. in fact if a shooting war with iran does happen, well the us can always opt to go in via iraq and afganistan while keeping the straits open with land base planes and smaller ships as opposed to a full CBG, and more over, carrier striking power has quite a range (as does tomahawks which can come from ssbn making it invulnerable to small boats), no absolute need to be in the straits, why did you think china wanted a ASBM with ranges exceeding 1500km.

so in short the US can achieve its military objectives without being forced to be close to shore, even if it did it could clear the threats prior to having to go near the shore, and its options of invasion and war are numerous.
I am sorry to disagree with you. No gulf country where American bases are will allow the US to use them, since that will be more catastrophic for those nations than for the US. It is their countries that will receive the Iranian's missile wrath not the Americans themselves apart from their military men and women manning those bases. Take for example SA or the UAE; if the Iranian Oil pipelines are hit , you can be sure that theirs too will be hit, so no Oil for the rest of the world while the US can still function on its own and the Canadian Oil. No wonder many experts have warned of a WW3, since most other nations and particularly China and India will be affected the most, alongside at least another 150 or more countries... Think about it.
 
Yeah, the US fracking boom is going to change things. Not sure the general public in the Mid-East has caught on to the significance. An oil-independant US might behave very differently, particularly when rising oil prices either do not affect them, or actually benefit them - in multiple ways. The US would become relatively more competitive if everyone else is paying higher prices for fuel.
 
Back
Top Bottom