Iranian UAV orbits CVN-76 for 25 minutes

[Steve Wilkins]

What does a possible war with Iran have to do with Naval Operations and classified info?

Are you serious?

 

[TXHusker05]

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I was referring to this quote: "We don't expect you to have the same level of knowledge in the area of naval operations."

I wasn't talking about Naval Operations or classified info, I was just telling my opinions on the possible war with Iran. That was my bad Steve, sorry.

 

[Flash]

Yes war is a continuation of politics by other means, I've read the book. I am not talking about an all out war vs. Iran, because that would be a tough war indeed. Just a few warning shots to make sure no one screws with us. Heck, a CIWS shattering a UAV would do the trick too... just a little something to put a shadow of a doubt in their minds. A cruise missile strike on a facility that makes a component of a nuclear facility or weapons. Knock a few buildings down, insert a few SF teams and see what we can find out.

Yes, winning over the Iranian public will be hard. It is 89% Shi'a Muslim and that particular group of Muslims isn't exactly on our side with the war in Iraq. But Iran is only around 50-51% Persian with a very large mix of ethnicities including Kurds so it wouldn't quite be a lost cause to ruffle some feathers. The problem with a theocratic government though is that you can't go in and change it to something else or it will be a mess. However, I believe they would listen. The problem with Iraq is that the Iraqi population is 40% literate, they just don't understand what is happening and aren't smart enough to figure out the difference. 80% of Iranians are literate including 73% of women which is a record by far in the region where women are generally not permitted to be educated. If you explain it to them, they could understand. I'll admit the Iran situation is delicate but we need to be aggressive with it because Iran is one of those countries that may grow some balls one day and try something. A friendly little peace deal would work too, you don't screw with us... we won't screw with you.

*** I also wouldn't say we cleaned the clocks of the NVA and VC in Vietnam, we won pretty much every battle but it wasn't a blowout. 58,000 dead is not cleaning anyones clock, if it is... you might what to look at your definition of acceptable losses.

The first part I bolded shows that you didn't get the point. Iran is a country that was willing to take massive casualties in the Iran-Iraq War, sometimes to just make a point (mine clearing operations with teenage boys). From GlobalSecurity.org "The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Now sit back and think about that, do you really believe us shooting down a UAV (in international waters) or lobbing a few Tomahawks at "a facility that makes a component of a nuclear facility or weapons" is really going to change any Iranian leaders mind? That is assuming that we know where to hit (How many times do I have to point out that Iran learned a lesson from Osirak? Don't put al your eggs in one basket......). The only thing a small strike would do is to 1-Piss them off and 2-Unite the Iranian people around the clerics against someone who attacked them. Oh yeah, "insert a few SF teams and see what we can find out", this ain't Chuck Norris' Delta Force or Charlie Sheen's Navy Seals.

As for the second part I bolded, do you really believe that? This from a populace who overwhelmingly elected "The mayor of Tehran won 62% of the vote, nearly twice that of his rival, ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4622501.stm this nutcase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad as their president. Seriously, wake up.......

 

[HeyJoe]

Back to thread:

US Navy refutes report of Iranian claim that UAV buzzed Reagan


Navy officials refute notion that an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle operated near or over the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf this week. According to an official Navy spokesman, “It was an erroneous report,” said Lt. Bashon Mann. Mann also said 5th Fleet officials in Bahrain “categorically denied” the event took place and “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.”

The claim surfaced on Thursday in a United Press International wire story citing a report from Azerbaijan’s Trend news agency quoting Iranian officials and Iranian news service claims that a UAV flew over the Reagan for 25 minutes before returning to Iran. The wire report also claimed that the Reagan dispatched four fighter aircraft and two helicopters to intercept the interloper. The anonymous Iranian official quoted in the wire story did not say when the UAV allegedly flew over Reagan

 

[TXHusker05]

As for the second part I bolded, do you really believe that? This from a populace who overwhelmingly elected "The mayor of Tehran won 62% of the vote, nearly twice that of his rival, ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4622501.stm this nutcase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad as their president. Seriously, wake up.......

I believe we could get the right people to listen. Not all of them, just the ones we needed. The idea about putting Special Forces guys in country would be to gather intel, not going in there to single handedly take over the whole country. If any group can get in there to blend in with the locals and gather important intel it would be guys from the 5th SFG. Most of them speak the language or have people that can and they know the region better than anyone else.

Joe, I personally thought it was BS to begin with because it just didn't make any sense. Did the Iranians ever release any pictures or anything to prove they were actually there?

 

[HeyJoe]

Joe, I personally thought it was BS to begin with because it just didn't make any sense. Did the Iranians ever release any pictures or anything to prove they were actually there?

Just claims in the press...indeed, it would have more validity if imagery or stills from video feed were released. I hadn't jumped in earlier as I never saw that and presumed it was all propaganda to fuel the political fires or distract attention from other issues.

 

[Fly Navy]

Just claims in the press...indeed, it would have more validity if imagery or stills from video feed were released. I hadn't jumped in earlier as I never saw that and presumed it was all propaganda to fuel the political fires or distract attention from other issues.

Unlike how the Russians did it in 2000 with their overflights of the Kitty Hawk... pictures in Pravda... and I believe they also emailed the pictures to the CO too?

 

[HooverPilot]

What does a possible war with Iran have to do with Naval Operations and classified info?

I would just like to hear what you guys think about the Iran issue (even ignoring the UAV thing), I don't care about classified info or anything... just looking for some opinions.

Many of the people on here have developed their opinions through reading material that is classified. That means that in order to truly discuss their opinions, they would need a classified forum to divulge detail that would accurately back their discussion points. That is not AW.

Sometimes it's best to just keep your opinion to yourself.

 

[A4sForever]

Some people, especially the older guys, on this forum have a problem with not sharing there opinions but telling other people that theirs are wrong......That goes to all of you, including the two of you who gave me bad rep ...

Huh. Well, who could know? I thought I gave you my opinion. Recheck post # 47 for further clarification of "my opinion". And by the way ... you are entitled to yours, certainly ... it's just wrong.

And for the record, sports fans, I didn't give the boy negative rep. How could I?? He's living and breathing in Nebraska, and that's negative rep enough for now...

 

[Brett327]

I believe we could get the right people to listen.

Really? How do you see your plan playing out - seriously, I'm curious? So we get a few guys in the government on our side, then what? Are they supposed to single-handedly wrestle power away from the majority? Perhaps they'll just use persuasive oratory to convince everyone else that the US, sworn arch enemy for the last 27 years, is really their friend and regime change is really in their best interests. How is this thing supposed to work?

If any group can get in there to blend in with the locals and gather important intel it would be guys from the 5th SFG. Most of them speak the language or have people that can and they know the region better than anyone else.

Upon what do you base this statement? This flies in the face of our 27 year history with this regime. Penetrating the closed Iranian society has been something which we've historically been conspicuously bad at.

Please, stop the insanity

Brett

 

[TXHusker05]

Huh. Well, who could know? I thought I gave you my opinion. Recheck post # 47 for further clarification of "my opinion". And by the way ... you are entitled to yours, certainly ... it's just wrong.

And for the record, sports fans, I didn't give the boy negative rep. How could I?? He's living and breathing in Nebraska, and that's negative rep enough for now...

Hahaha, ouch. But not far from the truth at all. Anyone happen to catch the Husker baseball game today? #1 seed and we lose to Manhattan University and San Francisco University at home.

 

[HeyJoe]

Cvbg = Csg....

I think Brett's point is they're called CSFs now.

Try Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and Expeditonary Strike Group (ESG)*

*replaces Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and and adds "pointy" nose ships and a sub (so CSG and ESG look pretty similar in terms of escorts (just swap carrier and LHD/LAH + LPD and LSD). Of course supported COCOM/Fleet can "disaggregate" the _SG as desired....just learned that term on Friday at PHIBGRU 2 so ships can be used all over AOR as Fleet Commander dictates. Even so, it makes a lot of sense from DC programming/resourcing perspective and allows scheduling stability for OPS and PERSTEMPO just as USAF has now gone to Navy approach with their Expeditionary Air Force concept.

 

[A4sForever]

Try Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and Expeditonary Strike Group (ESG)*.......etc, etc. ..........

Or ... just call 'em all BOATS.

It works --- and annoys the Black Shoes something fierce. Trust me.....

 

[BigRed389]

Try Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and Expeditonary Strike Group (ESG)*

Aww...you're breaking my balls, sir, you're breaking my balls.

 

[Schnugg]

US Navy refutes report of Iranian claim that UAV buzzed Reagan Navy officials refute notion that an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle operatered near or over the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf this week. According ot an official Navy spokesman, “It was an erroneous report,” said Lt. Bashon Mann. Mann also said 5th Fleet officials in Bahrain “categorically denied” the event took place and “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.”

Sometimes I read these threads and want to chime in, but as stated earlier, my "real" information comes from places other than open source.

So I bite my tongue and lurk on issues that hit close to home for me.

Cheers,
G
"In Da Pond"