www.ditl.org

lcpl seilicki wrote:Imo if we do a first strike on that facility it should be with either stealth aircraft, or the boys down at FT. Bragg/ Dam Neck.

With the aircraft you have plausible deniblity but you take the risk of spreading over a wide area.

With troops you still destroy the place but risk of being caught is increased by a factor of at least 50. All it takes is one radio broadcast or phone call and your f*cked

Why would the US want to destroy a UAV construction plant? For one, it has a high risk of causing a major international incident if proof of US involvement is aquired. Secondly, it's quite likely that Iran could simply begin building them at another factory with only a minor delay (they're not exactly state of the art pieces of equipment). Finally, it's just not worth it. These things are hardly going to cause any major invasion to grind to a halt. At best they could ground any Air Force units in Iraq simply by Zerg-rushing their airbases prior to any war, but that's not going to do much. Additionaly if any major combat operations are undertaken against Iran, these UAVs will be rendered useless by jamming.

During Vietnam we had these uavs called buffalo hunters, think a remote controlled plane that ran off of an on board program so it would just fly whatever the set program was. They were used for photo recon where it was deemed to dangerous for live pilots. With the upgrades in basic computing in the last 40 years it wouldn't be to difficult to program a modern uav for a set weapons release point should ground based comms be lost. So instead of losing a few tanks due to ground control, you could end up losing your c3

During Vietnam we had these uavs called buffalo hunters, think a remote controlled plane that ran off of an on board program so it would just fly whatever the set program was. They were used for photo recon where it was deemed to dangerous for live pilots. With the upgrades in basic computing in the last 40 years it wouldn't be to difficult to program a modern uav for a set weapons release point should ground based comms be lost. So instead of losing a few tanks due to ground control, you could end up losing your c3

Wouldn't most C3 facilities be located, firstly, far from enemy lines and secondly be heavily guarded by AA weapons?

I think more likely targets would be railways, ports, oil refineries, supply depots, bridges, airports, etc. Static targets whose loss could, if not stop, then at least slow a possible US advance and which can't simply be replaced quickly, like a command post could.

Even then I find it dubious that any government would consider the UAV production facility some sort of critical target that needs imminant levelling. No more so than the bases where Iran keeps its Sukhois, at least.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

lcpl seilicki wrote:unless I'm mistaken Israel launched a strike into Iran some years ago and destroyed a nuclear facility without sustaining any casualties. If that is true then I can see them doing the same thing to the factory that builds these uavs

That was Iraq in 1982.

And Syria, 2004 (5?)

Israel has an history of bombing neighbours if they feel like it.

Also, don't forget that such Drones could, off course, be deployed against U.S. troops in Iraq. But I'd be a lot more worried about what kind of havoc they could unleash on the Ormuz Strait. If Iran has a powerful weapon at its disposal, it'll never be the nuclear weapon, but the capacity to plunge the world economy into one of the greatest energy crisis it's ever gonna know via attacking/mining the Ormuz Strait.

Didn't the troops just pull out of Iraq? But your point sorta stands for kuwait. Until the USA burns Iran into the stone age for attacking US troops.

This thing is not going to do anything of significance. It can carry a single 500lb bomb. If you're lucky it could drop it in the right city. This thing isn't going to be making pinpoint attacks on troops.

Reliant121 wrote:Didn't the troops just pull out of Iraq? But your point sorta stands for kuwait. Until the USA burns Iran into the stone age for attacking US troops.

Don't let the 50,000 troopers still in Iraq hear that, or they will think you qualify them as "unperson".

And the USA won't retaliate against Iran directly in the case of an attack. They will simply try to contain the conflict into whatever force Iran is sending into Iraq to prevent escalation.

Escalation is the very worse thing you want about such a conflict.

Hum.. I guess Iran could also support the Talibans in Afghanistan with these drones. Or simply supply these drones to guerilla groups, like Hizbullah.

Oh, I'm sorry for 1) not being an American and only taking my news services word. i might be mistaken but I am sure the BBC recently reported the last troops pulling out of Iraq, although not Afghanistan.
2) not knowing the active deployments of the US military.

Reliant121 wrote:Oh, I'm sorry for 1) not being an American and only taking my news services word. i might be mistaken but I am sure the BBC recently reported the last troops pulling out of Iraq, although not Afghanistan.
2) not knowing the active deployments of the US military.

1) I am not an american either. And most news services I get mentionned that there will be a consequent contingent of soldiers remaining in Iraq until the Iraqi Army can really take cares of things itself (a.k.a. as long as the U.S. wants to stay). Technically, there isn't any "independant American army" in Iraq anymore, as all U.S. troop usage now has to be done at the same time than the Iraqi army. So the "U.S. occupation of Iraq" is technically over. Doesn't mean there aren't no more troops

2) I don't know that much meself. Just what I can scrape from STRATFOR and news services here and there. Which is kinda good regarding the countries that makes the news, but I couldn't tell you how many troopers the U.S. stationned in, let's say, Turkey, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea or Japan.

But I do know where are stationned their Carrier Fleets, and that is the U.S.'s main strenght. No country can hope to beat the U.S. without challenging those organisation of pure death and power.

Indeed. And these new drones aren't going to change the ballance of power in that respect.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And the USA won't retaliate against Iran directly in the case of an attack. They will simply try to contain the conflict into whatever force Iran is sending into Iraq to prevent escalation.

It strongly depends on what kind of attack it is. The US has already chased Iranian troops out of Iraq back to their own side of the border before. Minor incursions certainly aren't going to spark a full-out war.

Sending UAVs to bomb US bases and airfields, however, will. Not an invasion, but certainly a bombing campaign to cripple Iran.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Hum.. I guess Iran could also support the Talibans in Afghanistan with these drones. Or simply supply these drones to guerilla groups, like Hizbullah.

Iran isn't totally loony. They're not going to start giving new weapons they've just been showing off to the world to a bunch of terrorists. Iran may supply such groups, but the idea is to do it subtly, so they can't be conclusively fingered for it.

Also, I find it hard to imagine how terrorist groups would even make use of such things. It's a lot of effort to go through to maybe damage oen building. Particularly when the effects could probably be replicated (and with greater accuracy) by shoving a mortar into the back of a van.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Indeed. And these new drones aren't going to change the ballance of power in that respect.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And the USA won't retaliate against Iran directly in the case of an attack. They will simply try to contain the conflict into whatever force Iran is sending into Iraq to prevent escalation.

It strongly depends on what kind of attack it is. The US has already chased Iranian troops out of Iraq back to their own side of the border before. Minor incursions certainly aren't going to spark a full-out war.

Sending UAVs to bomb US bases and airfields, however, will. Not an invasion, but certainly a bombing campaign to cripple Iran.

You are totally right. My mistake, I was actually thinking about the probably reaction of Iran in case the U.S. attacks to neutralise their nuclear efforts, my thought process got carried away.

If anything goes by, I would guess the Iranian UAV will serve as recon units for the Iranian military mostly to track troop movements and ships in the Gulf, rather than use them to sneak attack anyone. Big problem the Iranian has against the U.S. is the intel gathering. you lucky bastards own the sky.

But in case the conflict escalates... prepare to see these drones strike at Supertankers.

Sionnach Glic wrote:conclusively fingered for it.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:You are totally right. My mistake, I was actually thinking about the probably reaction of Iran in case the U.S. attacks to neutralise their nuclear efforts, my thought process got carried away.

No worries. If the US did try to take out Iran's reactor, then there would indeed be the chance of Iran deciding to try to strike back with whatever means they had. Though I can't see the US trying to bomb the facility now that it's completed and fueled. Not to mention the fact that Russia would be very pissed off, given that their personel are running the plant.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:If anything goes by, I would guess the Iranian UAV will serve as recon units for the Iranian military mostly to track troop movements and ships in the Gulf, rather than use them to sneak attack anyone. Big problem the Iranian has against the U.S. is the intel gathering. you lucky bastards own the sky.

Heh, while I'd be quite happy if my own country did indeed rule the skies, I'm not a Yank.

From what's been revealed about the UAV, it seems more like a flying missile (think the V-1...which it actually looks quite a lot like) than a US-style recon craft. Fill it with enough fuel that it'll run out over somewhere important, then launch a whole bunch of them.

But in case the conflict escalates... prepare to see these drones strike at Supertankers.

To be honest I have my doubts that this craft could ever hit a moving target, even one so massive as a supertanker. Port facilities and oil refineries would be more likely targets, IMO.

Sionnach Glic wrote:
To be honest I have my doubts that this craft could ever hit a moving target, even one so massive as a supertanker. Port facilities and oil refineries would be more likely targets, IMO.

Why? Are they that unprecise?

How heave is a naval mine? could they use such crafts to lay random mines in the Strait?