BBC: Iran drones 'can attack US ships'

[Bhaisahab]

Iran drones 'can attack US ships'
By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran

An Iranian website close to the Revolutionary Guard has said they have drones that can launch attacks on American warships in the Persian Gulf.

This comes as the US has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in a move it says is intended to warn Iran that it intends to have a regional presence.

Both sides have increased the talk of war readiness in recent weeks.

This comes as concerns mount internationally about Iran's nuclear programme and its involvement in Iraq.

The Baztab website quotes the acting commander of the Revolutionary Guard's land forces as saying that Iran has unmanned aircraft that can fly long distances and launch attacks on American warships.

The commander reportedly said this would make the Americans leave the region in shame.

CONTINUED http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/6356971.stm

[SteppingRazor]

1. Yeah, and Saddam Hussein had drones that could attack the U.S. n/t

[denverbill]

24. Actually, unlike the Saddam case, in this case, I believe the report.

Hezbollah hit an Israeli warship with a drone during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. All it takes is a model air plane, some plastic explosives, and a video camera. It would obviously have to be a pretty big model airplane to carry enough explosives to do any significant damage, and the ships could probably not be very far offshore, but it doesn't exactly take high-tech to build a drone capable of hitting a ship.

[adigal]

35. I believed about drones last time - never believe these people again

Ever.

[saigon68]

49. EMERGING NEWS--- Sadam alive eating hot dog at Nathan's

Flying to Miami Beach later today.

[Andrushka]

53. Booga booga!

Yes, I remember "it" well...

[yurbud]

59. can you imagine the damage that thing would do if it hit your windshield? It could put out an eye!

[adigal]

65. Remember the Drones!!! I remember that fear-mongering

that went on before the Iraq invasion.

History does repeat itself with this crowd, no???

[BayCityProgressive]

2. Anyone

still think we aren't going to attack Iran? This is the same thing they said about Iraq...North Korea watch out...you were third on the list!

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. North Korea has no oil, only Kimchee.

Bush has lied about oil; I'd love to hear some lies about Kimchee.

[Jack Sprat]

46. You are correct

Thus, there is no need for the neocons to invade N Korea with democracy.

[Kagemusha]

8. I'm trying to resist the urge to scream right now...

These are the IRANIANS talking, not AMERICANS!!! Or is everyone gonna cry false flag web sites now? UGH!

Iran actually HAS drones by the way!

[The Stranger]

18. Go ahead and scream. I heard they were defenestrating Kuwaiti babies too.

They found some yellowcake on the way to Iran, but it wasn't uranium, it was actually a yellow cake.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. There is a good band name somewhere in that post...

Or album title.

[daleo]

3. Drones of Death!

It's amazing how exactly the same propaganda roll-out is being used as was used before the Iraq invasion.

[muryan]

11. yes, we all know how much bbc is in the pocket of the bushes

i mean it makes complete sense to me that a british news agency reporting on an iranian website is right wing propaganda, thats not a stretch at all...

[daleo]

42. The BBC is owned by the British government (crown corporation)

The British government invaded Iraq. The British government will probably become involved in an attack on Iran, if only by providing bases and/or logistical support. Based on history, they will send at least a token force of troops, naval support and/or aircraft as well.

Entities like the BBC (or CBC in Canada) are complex and multi-faceted. They aren't necessarily government propaganda arms, but that doesn't mean they don't cooperate with their governments of the day, by and large.

[Ghost Dog]

43. Yes. The enormous shame that is Diego Garcia,

for a start.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Then move the ships back to the U.S. n/t

[Purveyor]

5. Why would they use drones when they have the 'sunburn missile'? n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

55. LOL

probably because the Iranians know the Sunburn missle is quite ineffective. The US Navy uses them for target practice.........There is a thread on DU somewhere that debunks the sunburns once and for all........

[Capt_Nemo]

61. Sorry but you have your info wrong

The US military bought for studying and training purposes early versions of the Kh-31
(NATO designation AS-17 Krypton) anti-radar missile.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/as-17.htm
It has a similar propulsion system but is an altogether different missile from the
sunburn http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm
As for it's ineffectiveness, I quote from the same site:

"The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery."

[jpak]

6. Iranian drone plane buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf (from 2006)

http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

TEHRAN, May 30 (RIA Novosti) - A pilotless Iranian reconnaissance plane circled for 25 minutes over a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf before returning safely to its base, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"Our pilotless reconnaissance plane flew over the USS Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf unnoticed to the Americans for 25 minutes," the official said, according to Iran's Fars agency.

<more>

[Amonester]

9. Their next LIE will have a few words like "forty-five" and "minutes"

in them...

Mark my word. :eyes:

[underpants]

13. This is ridiculously right out of the same playbook

It would be funny if it weren't so crazy.

[Beetwasher]

62. Seriously

Amazing. Every piece of propoganda they are pulling out and merely tweaking and re-using it.

[raebrek]

54. I agree completely n/t

[Lerkfish]

10. in other news, hair gel can bring down a plane, tweezers can pluck us all to death!

just wanted to get that off my chest

[demnan]

12. If we don't impeach Bush now

there may not be a 2008 election left to argue about.

[Zhade]

23. There may not be a 2008 left.

NT!

[Lerkfish]

26. they've already engineered a blank check martial law clause

I don't anticipate elections in 2008

[Ghost Dog]

29. Engineered? You give them too much credit. Just slipped in

surreptitiously.

[Lerkfish]

33. good point. I stand corrected.

[jaksavage]

14. We create our reality

In a world of war any excuse is used to excersize our muscles.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. So not only missiles but drone planes could cause the next Gulk of Tonkin.

[Kagemusha]

20. I thought you use drones to aim the missiles.

My point is, Iran actually has stuff that can hurt US forces IF US forces go poking their noses in there, unlike Saddam who was a declawed kitten in 2003. The fact a lion can bite your head if you stick your head in its mouth isn't any fault of the lion's though, it's the fault of the dumb human.

[sanskritwarrior]

56. Exactly what stuff

not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that the Iranian AF is a joke and aside from Iran's three subs their Navy is even more laughable. Their real power is their Army.....If that's what you meant disregard......

[MGKrebs]

16. Yeah, but can they attack non - US ships? Huh? Huh?

Did they make the classic mistake of setting their guidance systems to target the "USS" on the sides of our ships?

But it doesn't matter. They shouldn't be allowed to have drones that can attack US ships anyway. We must attack first.
:silly:

[Amonester]

17. "No! No! No!"

"They don't have the right to defend themselves. Niep. They don't haveth the right to defend their oil also... hey-hey-hey-hey" - awolying pissypant$

[BluePatriot]

21. aw, geez, not the drone thing again (nt)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eugene]

25. Baztab? Iran's new justice minister ordered it shut down.

Iran cracks down on web critics

Robert Tait in Tehran
Tuesday February 20, 2007
The Guardian

An Iranian website fiercely critical of the president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, has been shut down in an apparent fresh crackdown
on anti-government dissent on the internet.

Baztab, a fundamentalist site which has previously accused Mr
Ahmadinejad of betraying the Islamic revolution by attending a
female dance show, has been closed for acting against the
constitution and undermining national unity.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2016960,00.html

Baztab is backed by one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's loudest critics
inside Iran, Mohsen Rezai. At the very least, Baztab is not
an official or authorized source.

[Ghost Dog]

28. Well spotted! BBC psyops infiltration at 3 o'clock, Biggles!

Oh, well, time for a cup of tea, then.

Who needs drones in a world so full of desperate worker-bees?

Over and out. :silly:

[Union Thug]

27. So what? Iran doesn't have the right to defend itself? n/t

[TexasLawyer]

30. Yes. If my country was surrounded

by heavily armed Americans beating the war drum and actively trying to incite hostilities, I would be wanting to know what kind of defenses my country had if we came under attack.

[reprobate]

31. Someone with a brain needs to tell the idiot monkey about the straights of Hormuz.

The official Village Idiot of Crawford. He's making strategic military decisions again. This is not something he's been shown to be particularly adroit at.

Although I guess the MSM would praise him for the success in Iraq, and the Talliban and Al-CIAda have certainly been defeated once and or all in Afghanistan. There are, however other considerations to account for.


The Straights of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf has one of the busiest and narrowest shipping lanes in the world. In addition, there are places in those lanes that are also very shallow. These shipping lanes could be closed by sinking one or two tankers in strategic spots.

Do you reckon that anyone has mentioned to either Bevis W. Bush or Butthead Cheney the utter idiocy of bottleing up two of our aircraft carrier battle groups behind these choke points? And if so, what are the chances that this person is still working for the administration.

One of the first points of naval warfare is that a navy that can't maneuver, can't fight. A carrier battle group that is limited to the shallow, limited waters of the Persian Gulf can't maneuver. It becomes on of those caged fowl called 'sitting duck'. It can be taken out at the leisure of the enemy.

So it appears that what we are about to have is the imminent destruction of a good portion of our naval power. Which not not totally a bad thing, unless you consider the loss of American lives a bad thing.

And all brought to you by the people who gave you Baghdad and Fallujah.

[Amonester]

32. herr bu$che certainly does not consider the loss of American lives

a bad thing. I can hear his "hey-hey-hey-hey-hey-hey-hey..." while he pedals all the way to the bank...

Remember New Orleans.

[Pavulon]

39. It is a bad thing

I consider the loss of American, or any one else's, lives a bad thing. I would consider the megadeath that ensued in our response to an attack a bad thing. The air force would strip all their soviet/russian air defense away and reduce targets at will. If a major loss of life ensued we would attack nuclear facilities, potentially releasing nuclear material. Any response by iran other than conventional would be met with asymmetrical use of nuclear force.

This is serious shit. None of it will happen because this topic runs its course all the time and nothing ever happens.

Not advocating war, just pointing out the reality that the failure of CI warfare does not degrade out ability to destroy an nation conventionally or otherwise from the air.

[Ghost Dog]

45. Yes. But, if you pay attention, you will see that right now the main naval forces

are outside the Gulf, and the Straits, in the Sea of Oman.

[Porcupine]

48. And all the OIL is on the inside.

Six months of stoppage of that oil and the world economy goes down for the count. Without that oil all the goodies from China stop.

The Iranians CAN block the straights. Have no doubt about that. It doesn't take sophistication to block a channel that is within easy artillary range of the shore. As we know from the Lebanon experience that Israel has just had air power does not eliminate all means of hiding weapons.

[Big Pappa]

50. I

don't think a Carrier would need to enter the Straights. Not with Fighter/Bombers that can Air refuel. Why would they need to be so close. BTW how wides are the Straights? Sinking a couple of tankers at most would only be at the most 1500 feet. Are the Straights not hundreds of miles wide?

[Marie26]

34. Well, duh.

How is this news?

[orleans]

36. bush & cheney are a couple of old fucking drones! n/t

[Pavulon]

37. US has subs

that can eliminate life in Iran...Iran has zero interest in attacking the US. Iran has no chance in a conventional war. Not talking insurgency war, just open warfare that would ensue from attacking a us naval ship. Someone would dust off the air plan and thousands of target would be destroyed.

Note this is not a backing of war, and in no means do I support any war with iran...

[RL3AO]

38. What do these drones do?

Drop rocks on the runway?

[Pavulon]

40. They are saber rattling

Iran has no reason to start a open war.

[sarcasmo]

41. Beating the war drums. Kick to the top.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

47. US blows up a ship, says "IT WAS A DRONE OMG OMG OMG!"?

gulf of dronedum?

[Big Pappa]

51. Dronedum! I like it.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

64. What do you mean "good for them"?

[Trajan]

57. This is silly: Iran has WAY more than mere drones ....

Why bother about drones when they clearly have MUCH more significant firepower in the marine theater ....

Iran has the RAAD, Noor, Kosar and other types of anti-ship missiles in its arsenal: WHY would anyone focus so much on jerry-built model planes when sophisticated anti-ship missile technology is known to be in it's possession ? ....

Iran is NO Iraq ... and anyone pretending Iran will be a 'cakewalk' is seriously deluding themselves ....

[Thothmes]

58. Drones

These drones may have a more useful purpose than dropping ordnance. Depending on the range of the drones, they could be very useful in visually distinguishing a U.S.Navy warship from a merchant ship. Something that radar alone cannot not do. A super tanker radar blip, looks like a Carrier radar blip. The drone could also provide targeting coordinates for their missiles.

[yurbud]

60. Yeah, remember the Sunburn missile? Russian surface skinning, potentially nuke tipped

aircraft carrier sinking missile?

[hack89]

66. No evidence that Iran actually has them, nt

[saigon68]

67. K & R

[yurbud]

68. won't matter if they did or didn't if a hole shows up in the side of one of our ships, or...

the Maine II sinks.

[lovuian]

63. Its the Drone Wars not the Clone Wars I did a video on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINzQtvjnH8

Its the Drone Wars not the Clone Wars

[yurbud]

69. we should have a weekly contest to see which country we can make look like a threat

the winner gets a job at a right wing think tank.

Take Costa Rica. They have NO military. Do you think that's really possible? Isn't more likely that they have a vast complex of tunnels where they are developing WMD, and digging a tunnel to Harlingen, Texas? What if their world-reknowned hookers are infecting red-blooded American johns with biological warfare agents? God knows what those festively colored blankets people bring back could be laced with. Further, the people there don't even speak English. They conduct all their government business in some language god-fearing Americans can't understand. Why would they do that if they have nothing to hide?