Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Iran Drone Stalks U.S. Carrier?

There's supposed to be a protective bubble around American aircraft carriers, both on the sea, and in the air. Come too close, and you will get smoked.

295354778_256816d03c.jpgOr, at least, that's the idea. But the Iranians are now claiming that they've punctured this bubble, with an robotic plane. Let's hope that the footage is fake, as some are saying.

Iran's Arabic language television station broadcast footage it claimed showed a US aircraft carrier cruising in Gulf waters it said was taken by an unmanned Iranian drone.

The brief minute-long film, which was shown on Al-Alam television's evening news bulletin, showed wobbly aerial footage of an aircraft carrier stacked with war planes as it sailed.

The television's anchor said the film, the property of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, showed a vessel from "the US fleet in the Persian Gulf".

"A source in the Revolutionary Guard said the drone carried out its mission without US fighter pilots reaching it," the television said.

It said there were 10 such films taken by the drone which showed "more precise information and details about military equipment, foreign forces, and their activities in the Persian Gulf."

The station did not name the vessel nor did it say when the footage was shot.

The broadcast comes near the end of Iran's latest 10-day war games, "Great Prophet II", which military chiefs have said were aimed at showing off Iran's defensive prowess and testing new military hardware.

UPDATE 12:37 PM: "Iran is sustaining the insurgency against British and American forces in Iraq by supplying terrorists with weapons and cash," according to the Daily Telegraph.

Latest Comments

Quick PolSci lesson twimc

Empires that do not integrate culturally experience sabotage, insurgency (assymetrical warfare), internal degradation, and general political and economic attrition until the ruling state is no longer able to support a presence in the conquered states. This is pretty much a given. You absolutely must integrate. This means your soldiers marry their women and open borders need to be established. In this respect, assymetrical warfare ALWAYS wins.

The alternatives, which many people are naively suggesting, are to ANNIHILATE or ENSLAVE the conquered people.

Historically, enslavement has been accomplished with only limited success (even the ancient Hebrews revolted, and received various amenities from the Egyptians, and were known before and after their enslavement as a warlike myrmidon-like people). The "modern" world also objects strongly to slavery, and modern weapons in the hands of a native resistance make the entire idea impractical anyway.

The other option (in the case of total war, that is), annihilation, is also nearly impossible, and again, has only been accomplished with limited success. While a nation or "pure" bloodline may be destroyed, the people themselves are spread far across the Middle East. This is not just Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc... this is Babylon, Persia, the Ottoman Empire... these are families and common histories spread from Africa to Tibet over thousands of years, and sometimes they take each others' side. We cannot NUKE the entire Mid-East. Nuking all of the population centers in Afghanistan alone would contaminate the Earth for centuries. We cannot continue to STEAL their oil whenever we need it, because we turn more and more of that part of the world against us.

Hate has been spread on both sides. This IS a snowball effect. The only way this is ever going to end is if enough people on both sides of the world say "enough" to our LEADERS and agree to disagree about religion. Slowly but surely this planet is going to integrate anyway; we might as well try to do it without incinerating each other.

Posted by: Armed Spectator at November 21, 2006 12:58 PM


Bill,

So the Iranians are tougher militarily than the Iraqis. Okay. But come on Bill, saying we can't win a war against Iran is idiotic. We could bomb them into the stone ages WITH EASE, wipe out their entire population, and take their oil. FORTUNATELY saner minds are now in control. There would be too much opposition from the U.S. population, and push-back from other countries. As far as Iraq goes, we should have never gone in, period. Reasoning was fabricated. We went in for the oil, period. There were much better ways of handling the situation. That said, IMHO our strategy now should be to concentrate solely on protecting the oil fields, boosting oil production which will generate income for the Iraqi government, have U.S. oil companies dramatically increase oil exploration in western Iraq, ship every drop of Iraqi oil to the U.S., and let the Shia and Sunnis duke it out in Bagdad. Sounds rude, but if they want to fight, let them fight. Andlet's face it, oil is the reason we're there, so let's cut the crap and get what we came for.

Posted by: Jack Trebac at November 15, 2006 3:30 PM


Asymmetric warfare is something that cannot be dismissed, the smaller more agile opponent always wins over the ponderous monolith. Large carriers are obsolete in real modern warfare; they are large targets that are not easily defended. Any future scaled-war involving carriers fleets will discover losses greater than expected.
The use of cheap EMP(electro-magnetic pulse)weapons will also show much of the US modern weapons systems as defective. Weapons guidance sytems can be easily made redundant with similar weapons taking out satellite guidance, and all of this fairly cheaply (especially when measured against the very expensive US machine). Mobile lasers (like the one the Chinese recently used to disrupt a US satellite) are also fairly cheap by comparison.
America cannot win a war against Iran, its pretty much that simple. Iran is not a pushover like Iraq - a war which America hasn't won yet, and is unlikely to.


Posted by: bill at November 15, 2006 8:57 AM


""Iran is sustaining the insurgency against British and American forces in Iraq by supplying terrorists with weapons and cash," according to the Daily Telegraph.
"

WOW better whatch out droping stories like that around here,, May get ya a WarMOnger tagline.

Hell man you may even be mistaken for letting the real cat out of the bag, the fact that "Iraq is merely one battlefield in a greater WAR the WOT" and the "axis of evil" actually is evil, Wow and if we dare to open our eyes and peak into history we may even find out we didn't start it and we even tried to avoid the WAR but after 9-11 and 3,000 US civilians splattered across Manhattan that was just impossible to ignore.

Posted by: C-Low at November 13, 2006 11:42 PM


Who cares?? They undoubtly were transiting the straits where they could be observed from Iranian airspace anyways, and you are not permitted to launch warplanes either while in transit because that is technically a act of war. I am also willing to bet that "drone" was on everyone's radar screen and locked up 10 ways to Sunday. If anything had gone down, it would have been smoked quicker than you could imagine. We can't force them out of the sky- particularily their own sky because it is technically international or Iranian waters, depending where they are. So, the Iranians send up some kind of aircraft- label it a "drone" to make it all sexy and "high tech" and try to provoke a response by A) provoking a defensive reaction, possibly one where they could pick up on our TTPs and B) then hailing it as a "Great Victory over the Great Satan" little bit of propaganda. Standard bating of the US really, and it goes along perfectly with how the Iranians want to style themselves. For all we know, the F-18 tailing it could have been edited out!!! But who cares? It means nothing- unless people make it out to in order to send a political message, which is the more interesting aspect of it.

Posted by: TZ at November 13, 2006 7:45 PM


» View All 10 Comments

» Post a Comment