Visit from the Iranians

[jimz66]

Seams the Ike had visitor recently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_..._iran_encounter

[F106A]

Yea, I just read this on Fox News too.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04...test=latestnews

Does "close encounter", "routine", and "interaction" mean they did or did not intercept this clown? Lots of unknowns in this story. Unarmed or not, I'm sure the Navy doesn't want an embarassing flyover incident again.

Mark

[Murph]

The ship and aircraft were both in international waters/airspace.

Regards,

Murph

[GreyGhost]

Not sure if the Ike had aircraft aloft ...

Sounds like they were just finishing up a replenishment ...

I'm sure they lit up the aircraft with SAM radars though just lto et em know they were watching too ...

Gregg

[madmanrick]

A U.S. military official says the Navy had a close encounter with an Iranian surveillance jet last week in the Gulf of Oman.

The official says the jet buzzed a Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Eisenhower, coming within about 1,000 yards of the ship.

To me this is the most interesting part of the article. The reason being in the article I read yesterday this is how they describe the aircraft that flew close:

The Iranian aircraft was a Fokker F27 that was unarmed, officials said.

An F27 ain't a jet! Here is the link to the CNN article, there is much more detail than the article posted above.

Iranian Navy plane flies near USS Eisenhower

[Phantom ordie]

Iran is like the Chiuawa nipping at the pit bulls heels. One day the pit bull will do his thing.

[jugjunkie]

I have to say guys, that sounds too close if one considers the suicide aspect. He may have been packed to the brim with explosives and to think what result that would have had! Sorry guys but if I was the US Navy i would not allow anything close to such a high value asset!

[Wayne S]

To me this is the most interesting part of the article. The reason being in the article I read yesterday this is how they describe the aircraft that flew close:

An F27 ain't a jet! Here is the link to the CNN article, there is much more detail than the article posted above.

That is the media for yah. They also do not say if the Airplane was in contact/communicated with the ship.

[11bee]

I have to say guys, that sounds too close if one considers the suicide aspect. He may have been packed to the brim with explosives and to think what result that would have had! Sorry guys but if I was the US Navy i would not allow anything close to such a high value asset!

What do you do though? Shoot an unarmed aircraft out of the sky because he "may" have been on a kamikaze mission? We've already got one downed civilian airliner on us due to a shoot first and ask questions later mentality.

I would hope that we had this guy locked up with the close-in defensive systems and if he abruptly turned towards the ship, the crew were already authorized to open fire but to preemptively decide to shoot him down because he was on a regular recon mission (the same type that we fly all the time) is a bit much.

With regard to the earlier statement comparing Iran to a harmless dog, take a look at how many American / British soldiers are dead or missing limbs from Iranian supplied EFP's over in Iraq. They really can't match us with conventional weapons but they definitely have the ability to hurt us through other means.

We need to be smart about how we deal with these people.

[RedHeadKevin]

Some unanswered questions I have about this:

a.) 1000 yards from the carrier: is that inside the perimeter of the CBG? Meaning, did the F-27 get between a frigate/destroyer/cruiser and the carrier?

b.) Was the CBG in radio contact with the aircraft? Did they give any kind of warning, "go away" message, etc.

c.) They'd been tracking the F-27 for 100 miles before it got near the ship: Did they launch fighters or have a CAP watching out?

d.) Will the Iranian Pilot have funny-looking kids from all the SAM radars targeted on him? Or, if it could have been an ELINT bird, would they keep the SAM radars turned off?

e.) If neccesary, can the CIWS be targeted to fire warning shots? Or is it automatic enough to only shoot-to-kill? I think a stream of tracers near an approaching aircraft would be quite a deterrent.

They'd been in contact with this aircraft for quite a while, and the pilot was being "professional and nonthreatening." This says to me that the USN had things under control and if Mr. Iranian decided to quit being professional and nonthreatening, he'd have been splashed really fast. However, I'm hoping that someone's finger was resting on the "SAM launch" button for quite a while. If the USN just watched this whole incident and wasn't ready to splash this airplane, then shame on them.

By the way, if they did splash this plane, you just KNOW that the headline would read "US Navy Kills Iranian Friendship."

Edited April 29, 2010 by RedHeadKevin

[Murph]

From talking to our token Squid here, his reaction was "Meh." Basically, the aircraft was in international airspace and got close enough to identify the ship type then left. His remark was this "stuff" happens all the time (he was actually fired upon by speed boats several times when he flew helos) and never makes the news.

Regards,

Murph

[Dave Williams]

I'm sure they lit up the aircraft with SAM radars though just lto et em know they were watching too ...

Gregg

Which is usually exactly what the recon bird wants to happen.

[Fishwelding]

Not news, really. These sorts of incidents happen all the time. Historically, rivals rattle each others' cages all the time. I am told the glares between North and South Korean troops at the border, as well as worse stuff that may or may not reported, are just daily examples of such tensions. It can be used for propaganda purposes by either side's government, which can be useful for the regime in power. On the other hand most Americans, who would be hard-pressed to identify Iran on a map, will be more interested in such gripping developments as Sandra Bullock's divorce, and Avatar's sale on Blue-Ray.

I propose a prize-fight between "Geological Theologian" Pat Robertson and that Iranian Cleric who suggested Earthquakes were caused by "promiscuous women" who dress provocatively.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Fishwelding

[madmanrick]

From talking to our token Squid here, his reaction was "Meh." Basically, the aircraft was in international airspace and got close enough to identify the ship type then left. His remark was this "stuff" happens all the time (he was actually fired upon by speed boats several times when he flew helos) and never makes the news.

Regards,

Murph

My thoughts exactly, US Navy CBG's face snoopers routinely, almost anytime they are within range of any Country that has the capability and desire to fly out and check them out. It is interesting that this Iranian plane was out and about in the Gulf of Oman, as that isn't a normal area for them to operate in. But, then again any chance the Iranians get to "prove" their military capabilities, they usually take them, since they have such a very strong national inferiority complex. Iran also tries to provoke incidents by doing these things, so that they can say to the world, "look at the evil Satan US and how they mean to destroy us at every opportunity." To me this is hardly news.

[frankv74]

I have to say guys, that sounds too close if one considers the suicide aspect. He may have been packed to the brim with explosives and to think what result that would have had! Sorry guys but if I was the US Navy i would not allow anything close to such a high value asset!

They where watching that aircrafgt like hawks they knew their intentions as it came in. Irans pilots are not Suicide drive like the marters are. They operate a little diffrently.

Frank

[frankv74]

Not news, really. These sorts of incidents happen all the time. Historically, rivals rattle each others' cages all the time. I am told the glares between North and South Korean troops at the border, as well as worse stuff that may or may not reported, are just daily examples of such tensions. It can be used for propaganda purposes by either side's government, which can be useful for the regime in power. On the other hand most Americans, who would be hard-pressed to identify Iran on a map, will be more interested in such gripping developments as Sandra Bullock's divorce, and Avatar's sale on Blue-Ray.

I propose a prize-fight between "Geological Theologian" Pat Robertson and that Iranian Cleric who suggested Earthquakes were caused by "promiscuous women" who dress provocatively.

SOOOOO TRUE!!!!!!!!

[Vpanoptes]

I propose a prize-fight between "Geological Theologian" Pat Robertson and that Iranian Cleric who suggested Earthquakes were caused by "promiscuous women" who dress provocatively.

[uNQUOTE]

When are tickets going to be available and how much? Do they take PayPal? Boy, just think of the possibilities if the mullah is correct. No need for B-2's, Israeli IRBMs, SEAL teams, penetrating nukes, etc. Just insert Paris Hilton into Tehran and level the place. Maybe with Nicole what's-her-face for backup.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[dylan]

how many planes do you think would be sent out if an iranian warship was cruising around off the coast of the U.S.?

[GreyGhost]

how many planes do you think would be sent out if an iranian warship was cruising around off the coast of the U.S.?

Probably a whole bunch to see what ship Iran has to make such a voyage ... :D

Gregg

[pollie]

Why all the fuzz and hostility? It was a Friendship..... a Friend ship. Need I say more? :D

[Isaac]

Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

[Fishwelding]

Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

As Gulf of Tonkin demonstrated, you need many more elements than hot-dogging by one side, or chasing phantom radar signatures by the other side. Like public officials looking to escalate a conflict in accordance with their particular national strategy. Even shooting Austrian archdukes needs a lot of added irresponsible public officials before you have hapless, multi-national mass murder.

Really, I'm more inclined to compare the incident to the opening scuffle in Top Gun. Can't go wrong with that comparison. I'll bet the two Iranian pilots are right now getting chewed by a short, bald, angry boss who's about to send them to Fighter Weapons School, in order to shape up their smirking, frat-boy attitudes. Of course there, they'll meet Val Kilmer who will make clear that he doesn't like hot-dogging daredevils, and...

...well, you know the rest.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Fishwelding

[Vpanoptes]

As Gulf of Tonkin demonstrated, you need many more elements than hot-dogging by one side, or chasing phantom radar signatures by the other side. Like public officials looking to escalate a conflict in accordance with their particular national strategy. Even shooting Austrian archdukes needs a lot of added irresponsible public officials before you have hapless, multi-national mass murder.

Really, I'm more inclined to compare the incident to the opening scuffle in Top Gun. Can't go wrong with that comparison. I'll bet the two Iranian pilots are right now getting chewed by a short, bald, angry boss who's about to send them to Fighter Weapons School, in order to shape up their smirking, frat-boy attitudes. Of course there, they'll meet Val Kilmer who will make clear that he doesn't like hot-dogging daredevils, and...

...well, you know the rest.

Can you imagine what "Danger Zone" sounds like in Farsi? Not to mention the unappealing notion of Kelly McGillis in a chador.... :D

Edited April 30, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[Spongebob]

This is interesting

Not really.

"Meh."

Concur. Happens often enough that it's pretty routine..even else where in the world. However, if it had been F-4's, they may have gotten a little more of a reaction, but maybe not. Depends on the admiral. My last one just chose to ignore the games they'd play. About the only thing that got our attention was when, while we were on a port visit, they towed a floating oil rig up and anchored it right into the middle of the carrier's preferred operating area. Launch off the cat the first day back and go zipping right by this oil rig...spent the next 5 hours debating whether it was there before or not with my 2P (he swore it was...and like a normal copilot was WRONG!).

Spongebob

Edited April 30, 2010 by Spongebob

[Sunliner]

I may be misinterpreting, but does "spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter," mean he didn't identify himself because he should have been keeping his trap shut?

Just curious...ya see that phrase all the time.

-Mike