Iran shoots down a U.S. drone

[KingScorpio]

Iran shot down a U.S. drone today according to reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/iran-shoots-down-u-s-military-drone-in-gulf-region-idUSKCN1TL07P

Surely U.S. will respond Militarily what do you think?

the iranian islamists regime is openly hostile against the monarchy in saudi arabia,

i personaly can't estimate these "governments" since i am no middle east expert, continous threats of the west because of their nuclear programs are getting mad.

financial soverignty is today still defined by geographically exclusive banking cartels

[PrimeNumber7]

The whole point of a transponder is it allows identification of an aircraft, so by default any aircraft without an active transponder is a potential threat regardless of the airspace it occupies.

That is ridiculous. Any US military aircraft is a threat to Iran, because the US and Iran are enemies.

Planes can do what they wish in international airspace. Unless the aircraft is provoking another aircraft, creating the need for it to be defended, it is unacceptable to attack the aircraft under freedom of navigation laws.

 

[Juggy777]

Iran shot down a U.S. drone today according to reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/iran-shoots-down-u-s-military-drone-in-gulf-region-idUSKCN1TL07P

Surely U.S. will respond Militarily what do you think?

Iran’s action will prove fatal for them in the long run as they’re openly asking for a war, but for now USA is not going to respond. It has been claimed that Trump ordered a military strike on Iran, but cancelled it before it could be executed. Trump is playing mind games with Iran, and instead of striking now he’ll let this situation calm down and then attack Iran.

Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/trump-approved-strikes-iran-abruptly-canceled-report-190621042657387.html

[Spendulus]

...
If the drone had it's transponder on, the track is easily available.  If it had the transponder off, it was up to no good and a threat which should not be tolerated.

The nation who was flying a drone without a transponder .....

Says who? You?

Says anyone who cares about the safety of people using the airspace.  That's what transponders are for.  What kinds of activities would one be doing with their transponders turned off?  How long would a transponder-less spy craft be permitted to buzz around over the U.S.....

Depends on where it was, what class of airspace it was it, and what altitude.

...
If the drone had it's transponder on, the track is easily available.  If it had the transponder off, it was up to no good and a threat which should not be tolerated.

The nation who was flying a drone without a transponder .....

Says who? You?

Says anyone who cares about the safety of people using the airspace.  That's what transponders are for.  What kinds of activities would one be doing with their transponders turned off?  How long would a transponder-less spy craft be permitted to buzz around over the U.S. before it was neutralized (assuming it wasn't part of a self-inflicted false-flag operation like 9/11?)

Some people we know in that region are totally cool with switching off their transponders and hiding behind U.S. aircraft, Russian aircraft, and general civilian aircraft in order to get into position to launch an attack.  Some people consider that to be a cowardly tactic which puts innocent lives at risk while the perps seem to feel that it is a demonstration of their superior intellect.  They think, I guess, that nobody else would be 'smart' enough to think of such a thing.

No, your assumptions regarding purpose, intent, and typical usage of transponders are all wrong.

Government owned aircraft are not bound by regulations covering manned aircraft.

Second, regulations concerning transponder use is changing, with ADS-B being required by year end, and regulations regarding UAV have been in a constant state of change for twenty years.

Third, your assumptions regarding Mal-intent being a reasonable assumption if a transponder was off is nonsense.

Fourth, the obvious use of high altitude surveillance in that area is to observe and record any more ship attacks, such as the recent unprovoked attack on the oil tankers. Apparently Iran does not want that. Of course, they can't stop it, and after this we'll likely double down on observation.

[Spendulus]

The whole point of a transponder is it allows identification of an aircraft, so by default any aircraft without an active transponder is a potential threat regardless of the airspace it occupies.

That is ridiculous. Any US military aircraft is a threat to Iran, because the US and Iran are enemies.

Planes can do what they wish in international airspace. Unless the aircraft is provoking another aircraft, creating the need for it to be defended, it is unacceptable to attack the aircraft under freedom of navigation laws.

 

Seems to me that in a place where mystery people attack oil tankers, some eyes in the sky are definitely in everyone's interest.

Oh, wait. Iran doesn't want those eyes in the sky, do they.

[tvbcof]

As for who's territory the drone landed in, it looks like Iran possesses a lionshare of the drone wreckage of this one.  That (and basic logic) adds credibility to the story that the drone had crossed into Iranian territory when the IRG popped it.

Of course it is possible that the drone either drifted into Iran's territory as it fell to earth, or that it was retrieved by Iran from international waters, but the fact is that Iran has quite a collection of U.S. (developed) drones which almost certainly were invading their territory and paid the price.  They are fairly proud of their collection so it seems.

The U.S. will always claim that the drone was attacked in 'international airspace' and drifted into Iran from the North Pole or whatever.  It's 'how they roll.'  As a result, their declarations about locations of this and that are almost totally valueless.  The sad thing is that a healthy percent of the American peeps will believe anything reported on mainstream TV.  Oh well.

[otrkid1970]

As for who's territory the drone landed in, it looks like Iran possesses a lionshare of the drone wreckage of this one.  That (and basic logic) adds credibility to the story that the drone had crossed into Iranian territory when the IRG popped it.

Of course it is possible that the drone either drifted into Iran's territory as it fell to earth, or that it was retrieved by Iran from international waters, but the fact is that Iran has quite a collection of U.S. (developed) drones which almost certainly were invading their territory and paid the price.  They are fairly proud of their collection so it seems.

The U.S. will always claim that the drone was attacked in 'international airspace' and drifted into Iran from the North Pole or whatever.  It's 'how they roll.'  As a result, their declarations about locations of this and that are almost totally valueless.  The sad thing is that a healthy percent of the American peeps will believe anything reported on mainstream TV.  Oh well.

from the looks of it they have a recycled car not a drone.

[Spendulus]

As for who's territory the drone landed in, it looks like Iran possesses a lionshare of the drone wreckage of this one.  That (and basic logic) adds credibility to the story that the drone had crossed into Iranian territory when the IRG popped it.

Of course it is possible that the drone either drifted into Iran's territory as it fell to earth, or that it was retrieved by Iran from international waters, but the fact is that Iran has quite a collection of U.S. (developed) drones which almost certainly were invading their territory and paid the price.  They are fairly proud of their collection so it seems.

The U.S. will always claim that the drone was attacked in 'international airspace' and drifted into Iran from the North Pole or whatever.  It's 'how they roll.'  As a result, their declarations about locations of this and that are almost totally valueless.  The sad thing is that a healthy percent of the American peeps will believe anything reported on mainstream TV.  Oh well.

As a US citizen, I really don't care whether it was in their airspace or international, and I doubt anyone does. It's clear what surveillance equipment is doing in that area, and why it's needed and useful.

Nobody's starting a war over a drone.

[tvbcof]

As for who's territory the drone landed in, it looks like Iran possesses a lionshare of the drone wreckage of this one.  That (and basic logic) adds credibility to the story that the drone had crossed into Iranian territory when the IRG popped it.
...

from the looks of it they have a recycled car not a drone.

That's what happens to a piece of kit which gets nailed by an SAM.  That's how it works.

Thankfully the Iranians choose not to pop the Poseidon with 30 crew-members.  As an American I do appreciate the IRG's restraint.

It's really not the fault of those American troops that Sheldon Adelson paid $100M to get Zionists running our military and the dudes sent up over Iran were not in charge of the mission.  Maybe some of them will resent being used as live bait by the Zio-cons to get the Iran war started and will be more and more inclined to turn whistle-blower.

[TooQik]

The whole point of a transponder is it allows identification of an aircraft, so by default any aircraft without an active transponder is a potential threat regardless of the airspace it occupies.

That is ridiculous. Any US military aircraft is a threat to Iran, because the US and Iran are enemies.

Planes can do what they wish in international airspace. Unless the aircraft is provoking another aircraft, creating the need for it to be defended, it is unacceptable to attack the aircraft under freedom of navigation laws.

What exactly are you saying is ridiculous? The use of transponders to identify aircraft? Or when an aircraft has no transponder it is a potential threat?

Contrary to your belief, aircraft can not do whatever they want in international airspace; read up on what the International Civil Aviation Organization does.

[PrimeNumber7]

The whole point of a transponder is it allows identification of an aircraft, so by default any aircraft without an active transponder is a potential threat regardless of the airspace it occupies.

That is ridiculous. Any US military aircraft is a threat to Iran, because the US and Iran are enemies.

Planes can do what they wish in international airspace. Unless the aircraft is provoking another aircraft, creating the need for it to be defended, it is unacceptable to attack the aircraft under freedom of navigation laws.

 

Seems to me that in a place where mystery people attack oil tankers, some eyes in the sky are definitely in everyone's interest.

Oh, wait. Iran doesn't want those eyes in the sky, do they.

It is obvious who is behind the attacks on the oil tankers. Iran wants the world to know they are behind the attacks, while denying them strongly enough so other countries will not be willing to take military action because of the attacks.

Iran knows Trump does not want to go to war with Iran, avoiding pointless wars was part of Trumps platform that got him elected. I believe Iran was hoping to show the world they can attack the US without consequence, so they can show the world they can also attack civilian ships of other countries without consequence in order to persuade other countries to evade US sanctions against Iran.

[AirdropNotifyer]

Yes thats true i think . Iran shutdown the dron of USA. Who said it's impossible?

[Spendulus]

Yes thats true i think . Iran shutdown the dron of USA. Who said it's impossible?

It's only impossible if the US wants to make it impossible.

[KingScorpio]

next chernobyl disaster will be in iran....

[Spendulus]

next chernobyl disaster will be in iran....

Shit happens.

[Helnkay1]

I think the question to ask is if USA has the right to fly a drone over Iranian territory. Besides, its only a drone that was dropped by Iran, in 80s America shut down an Iranian aircraft with 190 people or so on board.


I think Trump should trend with caution, already, Arabs are flooding every European country in the name of migrant because of problem created by past American president. Those immigrant will cause more problem in the future than what we are currently facing worldwide. So, president Trump should not add more migrant to already on ground.

[Spendulus]

I think the question to ask is if USA has the right to fly a drone over Iranian territory. Besides, its only a drone that was dropped by Iran, in 80s America shut down an Iranian aircraft with 190 people or so on board....

Quite a few passenger aircraft have been downed by trigger happy, over aggressive nations' military forces.

[countryfree]

I guess this was a test.
The US just wanted to know how good was Iran to protect its territory from air raids.
Now, they know.

[tvbcof]

I think the question to ask is if USA has the right to fly a drone over Iranian territory. Besides, its only a drone that was dropped by Iran, in 80s America shut down an Iranian aircraft with 190 people or so on board....

Quite a few passenger aircraft have been downed by trigger happy, over aggressive nations' military forces.

Civilian aircraft, in addition to being good shields to launch stand-off attacks against Damascus, also make great false-flag targets for nations who are into that sort of thing.  e.g., ones who 'by way of deception, shall do war.'

[tvbcof]

I guess this was a test.
The US just wanted to know how good was Iran to protect its territory from air raids.
Now, they know.

It was actually kind of impressive that the Iranians were able to identify the Poseidon and the drone and pick off the drone only.  And right inside of their airspace.  If the Iranian story is true at least.  I'll bet that it is, and I'll bet that that is the main reason why Trump called off the attack.  They probably had plenty of proof.