America - The Official Thread

[Swagger897]

The military never gets a good deal when it comes to costs.... Because it just comes back ti the taxpayers anyways.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Pentagon has suggested that Iran ‘aimed to miss’ with its rocket attacks on US airbases in Iraq last night, perhaps in the knowledge that an attack resulting in US casualties would draw a severe response and ‘escalate’ the situation into a full-blown war.

However, experts have noted that the missiles used by Iran are ‘notoriously unreliable’ and could well have missed their targets by accident. In other words, Iran could well have aimed to cause US casualties but missed. Alternatively, it could be just pure luck that they ‘aimed to miss’ with notoriously unreliable rockets that could have accidentally hit targets (as opposed to deliberately missing them).

Perhaps the world would be safer if Iran had more accurate missiles that they could use to deliberately miss targets more reliably, as opposed to relying on luck to avoid hitting a target accidentally...

Hopefully Trump and the US will assume that Iran did indeed ‘aim to miss’ and that they got lucky and actually did miss. Whether this is better than ‘aiming to hit’ with missiles that are so bad that they are almost certain to miss is a matter of debate. Surely ‘aiming to miss’ with rockets that are going to miss their target is dangerous i.e. if your rockets are going to miss their target, and you don’t want to hit the target, shouldn’t you actually aim for the target...?

 

[Liquid]

Perhaps the world would be safer if Iran hamore accurate missiles that they could use to deliberately miss targets more reliably,

They didn't "miss". Might not have hit the intended target but if reports are to be believed, people still died. But it was Iraqis so that's fine.

 

[Touring Mars]

They didn't "miss". Might not have hit the intended target but if reports are to be believed, people still died. But it was Iraqis so that's fine.

Not according to the reports I have read, including one that reports that the Iraqi military suffered no casualties. There are also multiple reports that Iraqi authorities received warnings from Iran prior to the missile strikes, so it would be very surprising if there were Iraqi casualties.

I personally don’t believe that the Iranian missiles are so unreliable that they cannot hit a single target in 22 attempts - rather, I reckon it is very likely that they not only aimed to miss, but made certain that there would be no casualties.

 

[Liquid]

Not according to the reports I have read, including one that reports that the Iraqi military suffered no casualties. There are also multiple reports that Iraqi authorities received warnings from Iran prior to the missile strikes, so it would be very surprising if there were Iraqi casualties.

Conflicting reports are typical. I hope I haven't quoted the incorrect side.

I personally don’t believe that the Iranian missiles are so unreliable that they cannot hit a single target in 22 attempts - rather, I reckon it is very likely that they not only aimed to miss, but made certain that there would be no casualties.

Agreed. It would be great if they didn't have to fire missiles at all.

 

[dacc10]

The Pentagon has suggested that Iran ‘aimed to miss’ with its rocket attacks on US airbases in Iraq last night, perhaps in the knowledge that an attack resulting in US casualties would draw a severe response and ‘escalate’ the situation into a full-blown war.

However, experts have noted that the missiles used by Iran are ‘notoriously unreliable’ and could well have missed their targets by accident. In other words, Iran could well have aimed to cause US casualties but missed. Alternatively, it could be just pure luck that they ‘aimed to miss’ with notoriously unreliable rockets that could have accidentally hit targets (as opposed to deliberately missing them).

Perhaps the world would be safer if Iran had more accurate missiles that they could use to deliberately miss targets more reliably, as opposed to relying on luck to avoid hitting a target accidentally...

Hopefully Trump and the US will assume that Iran did indeed ‘aim to miss’ and that they got lucky and actually did miss. Whether this is better than ‘aiming to hit’ with missiles that are so bad that they are almost certain to miss is a matter of debate. Surely ‘aiming to miss’ with rockets that are going to miss their target is dangerous i.e. if your rockets are going to miss their target, and you don’t want to hit the target, shouldn’t you actually aim for the target...?

Is it known which missiles they used? They could be Russian or Chinese made missiles, more reliable than their own missiles. And if they used missiles that never hit the target, then they just need to aim at one point to ensure they don't hit it.

Still, I'm not familiar with the size of the airbases struck, but usually the sections for the barracks and such, are small in comparison to the airstrip, hangars, and "unhabited" zones of the base. So is not "hard" to miss the barracks. If the missiles have a margin of ~200 meters precision, it's still not much compared to a big airbase. But then again I don't know which missiles were used.

About the Ukranian plane, I doubt americans would do it, even if they have anti-air missiles with such long range. Also, if there is a fire in one engine (haven't seen the footage yet), it could have been a heat seeking missile, which target the engine, which is the biggest source of eat. I don't tink it's a coincidence, I mean, of all the planes taking off of all airports and airbases from all over the world, the only one (known) who falls in the last 24h is one that comes directly from Tehran? Could be the lack of maintenance or last minute checks before the flight, but it's still too much coincidence.

And what's up with the nationalities of the passengers? 63 Canadians? 10 Swedes? British and germans? Isn't that a bit weird? Some say the canadians were students on vacation. Of all the places in the world to spend a vacation, they would choose Iran? The canadians were more likely to be families visiting canadian troops in Iraq, could the swedes and british and germans be members ofan embassy? Or maybe press?

 

[Exorcet]

I don't want to speculate...but it could be any number of things. Would an engine fire really bring down an airliner so soon after takoff?

Any fire that spreads along the plane is a really bad problem to have. The 737 has fire suppression, but the fire might have been a secondary issue caused by something like an ejected fan blade which could damage the wing/fuselage/fuel tanks. Hard to say without more information.

 

[Joey D]

However, experts have noted that the missiles used by Iran are ‘notoriously unreliable’ and could well have missed their targets by accident. In other words, Iran could well have aimed to cause US casualties but missed. Alternatively, it could be just pure luck that they ‘aimed to miss’ with notoriously unreliable rockets that could have accidentally hit targets (as opposed to deliberately missing them).

The US loves to say this about virtually any country that isn't a really close ally or itself. Truth is, Iran probably does have fairly sophisticated technology. While not on the level of the US, they do probably get help from the Russians and Chinese. Also, if a country like North Korea that's starving and in some sort of dark age can build a nuclear weapon, I'm guessing Iran, a country this is reasonably put together, can develop ballistic missiles.

I have no doubt the Iranians aimed to miss. I think they wanted to so the US that it can hit its positions in Iraq with little effort. I think they also did it to see what the response would be. Killing Americans would've almost certainly sparked off a war, but blowing up a few unoccupied buildings or whatever the targets were brings in a whole bunch of questions. Is it appropriate to retaliate with, as Trump puts it, disproportionate force when no lives were lost?

Conflicting reports are typical. I hope I haven't quoted the incorrect side.

The American media last night was saying there were Iraqi casualties, now they are reporting no casualties. I think it was a case of one media outlet heard something in passing, reported it, and then everyone jumped on board. The media last night also reported a second wave of missiles too.

About the Ukranian plane, I doubt americans would do it, even if they have anti-air missiles with such long range

Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened if the US did have something to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

 

[dacc10]

Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened if the US did have something to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

But one was over the Strait of Ormuz, the other in the north of Iran. There's a big difference in distance. The only "real" possibility would it being shot down from Iraq using a Patriot, but even then, I'm not sure it would have enough range for that.

 

[Biggles]

And what's up with the nationalities of the passengers? 63 Canadians? 10 Swedes? British and germans? Isn't that a bit weird? Some say the canadians were students on vacation. Of all the places in the world to spend a vacation, they would choose Iran? The canadians were more likely to be families visiting canadian troops in Iraq, could the swedes and british and germans be members ofan embassy? Or maybe press?

It's quite likely that the Canadians had dual-nationality (Iranian/Canadian), or at least family ties to Iran.

 

[dacc10]

That's the only "normal" possibility I see, the same for the germans, brits and swedes, maybe they went there to mourn for Soleimani.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's the only "normal" possibility I see, the same for the germans, brits and swedes, maybe they went there to mourn for Soleimani.

-

It’s beyond credulity to believe that flight PS752 went down due to a technical fault... my guess is that it was either taken out accidentally by Iranian air defences or it was taken out deliberately, either as a provocation or, perhaps more likely, in a case of mistaken identity. Either way, I reckon it is very, very likely that the plane was attacked.

 

[TexRex]

The Pentagon has suggested that Iran ‘aimed to miss’ with its rocket attacks on US airbases in Iraq last night, perhaps in the knowledge that an attack resulting in US casualties would draw a severe response and ‘escalate’ the situation into a full-blown war.

However, experts have noted that the missiles used by Iran are ‘notoriously unreliable’ and could well have missed their targets by accident. In other words, Iran could well have aimed to cause US casualties but missed. Alternatively, it could be just pure luck that they ‘aimed to miss’ with notoriously unreliable rockets that could have accidentally hit targets (as opposed to deliberately missing them).

Perhaps the world would be safer if Iran had more accurate missiles that they could use to deliberately miss targets more reliably, as opposed to relying on luck to avoid hitting a target accidentally...

Hopefully Trump and the US will assume that Iran did indeed ‘aim to miss’ and that they got lucky and actually did miss. Whether this is better than ‘aiming to hit’ with missiles that are so bad that they are almost certain to miss is a matter of debate. Surely ‘aiming to miss’ with rockets that are going to miss their target is dangerous i.e. if your rockets are going to miss their target, and you don’t want to hit the target, shouldn’t you actually aim for the target...?

Isn't it also not impossible that Iranian soldiers have so much experience with unreliable missles that they can not only reliably not hit the unintended target but actually reliably hit the target that they didn't not intend to hit?

 

[Touring Mars]

Isn't it also not impossible that Iranian soldiers have so much experience with unreliable missles that they can not only reliably not hit the unintended target but actually reliably hit the target that they didn't not intend to hit?

Yes.

 

[Biggles]

It’s beyond credulity to believe that flight PS752 went down due to a technical fault... my guess is that it was either taken out accidentally by Iranian air defences or it was taken out deliberately, either as a provocation or, perhaps more likely, in a case of mistaken identity. Either way, I reckon it is very, very likely that the plane was attacked.

It also stretches credulity to believe that a civilian aircraft that had just taken off from Tehran airport was shot down in error by Iranian air defences. Sometimes **** just happens. Remember the American Airlines flight 587 crash in New York exactly 2 months after the 911 attacks?

 

[Joey D]

But one was over the Strait of Ormuz, the other in the north of Iran. There's a big difference in distance. The only "real" possibility would it being shot down from Iraq using a Patriot, but even then, I'm not sure it would have enough range for that.

True, but I was more pointing out that the US does have a history of doing these sorts of things.

Is it known which missiles they used?

They're Qiam 1 ballistic missiles which are a variation of the Scud designed by Iran. Apparently, their accuracy is +/- 500 m of a target. That's not super accurate, but accurate enough to cause damage.

 

[Swagger897]

Any fire that spreads along the plane is a really bad problem to have. The 737 has fire suppression, but the fire might have been a secondary issue caused by something like an ejected fan blade which could damage the wing/fuselage/fuel tanks. Hard to say without more information.

Fire suppression is very much a wishy-washy, “peace of mind” feature. Two shots of the propellent for each engine and there’s no guarantee that a relight of the fire won’t occur.

 

[Touring Mars]

It also stretches credulity to believe that a civilian aircraft that had just taken off from Tehran airport was shot down in error by Iranian air defences.

Though that could also suggest that it was not an error.

Sometimes **** just happens. Remember the American Airlines flight 587 crash in New York exactly 2 months after the 911 attacks?

Yes, but there are coincidences and then there are coincidences - this incident occurred just 3 or 4 hours after Iran launched a military assault on US bases in Iraq in a very deliberate show of force designed to be witnessed by the world.

Iranian forces - from the Revolutionary Guard to a variety of militias concentrated around the capital - would have been on the highest alert and, quite probably, on orders to shoot first and ask questions later.

In my view, it doesn’t stretch credulity at all that someone may have given an order to attack a civilian aircraft, hopefully in error, but quite possibly not.

 

[baldgye]

Iran plane crash most likely a ‘shootdown event’, aviation experts say
Ukraine initially said plane crash was result of technical failure, before retracting statement
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-plane-crash-shootdown-ukraine-boeing-latest-a9275051.html

 

[dacc10]

Trump just spoke. We may not have a war, fortunately.

His speech was more a political campaign, mostly firing shots to the previous administration than related to what happened last night.

 

[Dotini]

Iran has pounded sand and stood down. The immediate crisis is over and we can return to more fun and interesting questions.

 

[twitcher]

In 1998 an F14 would cost you $38million, $59.5 million today with inflation. An F35B is currently $122 million. It's astronomically expensive.

F35s are down to about $80 million.

Saab Gripen E is about $65 million

Typhoon is about $90 million

Raphael M is about $80 million

Block 70 F-16 Viper is about $70 million

Super Hornet is about $70 million


In 1998, an F14D with 1998 technology would cost about $60 million each in today’s money. If an F14D were to be upgraded to have internals on par with the planes I just listed, it would cost well over $70 million in today’s money.

I’m not trying to argue that an F35 is cheap, but no fighter is cheap, they never have been.

Edit: fun fact, the original F14 program got bogged down in Congress, and was going to be cancelled due to being too expensive. However, after a fly-off between the F14 and F15, the Shaw of Iran decided he wanted to purchase F14s (his decision was swayed by the bravado and machismo of the Navy air crews). The Navy then convinced congress that it would not be good for a “lesser” nation like Iran to have fighters more capable than their own, which is how the Navy ended up finally getting the F14s. It’s rumoured that the US then sabotaged the F14s that were sent to Iran, as the country was already on the precipice of revolt. Iran was also supposed to get F16s, but that shipment was cancelled, and eventually sold to Israel at a discount price. The Israelis then promptly used their new fighters to bomb Saddam’s nuclear reactor in Baghdad, to which the international community’s reaction was, “they did WHAT?!?!”

It's not complicated. You can't turn the reactor off so a nuclear submarine always makes noise. With a diesel electric you can turn the engine off. There is no noise. At all.

Ya, they can shut the diesel generator off and run on just electric power, which is when they get super quiet. They’re limited on how long they can do this for, and limited on what electric systems they can run at the same time.

With the nuclear subs, it’s not just that they make noise, like I said, the reactor emits a frequency that can be picked up on. From what I remember being told, the frequency from the reactor is almost like a finger print, in that each one is unique. When listening to these frequencies, not only can you tell what kind of sub you’re listening to, but in most cases you can ID the specific boat.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, but there are coincidences and then there are coincidences

Wrong.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Though that could also suggest that it was not an error.

Yes, but there are coincidences and then there are coincidences - this incident occurred just 3 or 4 hours after Iran launched a military assault on US bases in Iraq in a very deliberate show of force designed to be witnessed by the world.

Iranian forces - from the Revolutionary Guard to a variety of militias concentrated around the capital - would have been on the highest alert and, quite probably, on orders to shoot first and ask questions later.

In my view, it doesn’t stretch credulity at all that someone may have given an order to attack a civilian aircraft, hopefully in error, but quite possibly not.

If this plane took off from Tehran international, it likely means that other planes were taking off as well meaning it wouldn't have looked unusual on radar. It was also heading west, away from Tehran and towards the Iranian border. I don't see how Iranian air defenses could have possibly mistaken this plane for an enemy airplane. I also cannot fathom a legitimate strategic reason for downing a passenger airliner with, probably, almost entirely civilians of Iranian descent probably with family ties to the country. Maybe there was a high value target onboard?

I also cannot possibly see a scenario in which US forces down the airplane, mostly because it was so far within Iran's borders and certainly couldn't have been mistaken for a ballistic missile. Maybe, possibly, it was mistaken for a drone and proactively shot down...but do any ground based SAM systems have 250+ mile range? Can radar even track a target that low from that far away due to the curvature of the earth? I really, really doubt it.

Basically, I see no reason why Iran would have shot it down, even by accident, and I don't see a reason why or even how the USA could have shot it down, even by accident.

Despite the timing, mechanical failure seems to be the scenario with the least assumptions.

So, it was obviously Russia.

 

[Exorcet]

Fire suppression is very much a wishy-washy, “peace of mind” feature. Two shots of the propellent for each engine and there’s no guarantee that a relight of the fire won’t occur.

A fire suppression system doesn't provide complete protection against, right, but it should have at least bought the aircraft some time unless the entire thing spontaneously combusted.

I don't feel like a shootdown scenario makes much such. The US or other foreign power would have had to go out of their way to attack the plane. There is the possibility of a mistake being made by Iran, but I don't know how anyone shooting at the plane wouldn't quest why their target was flying out of the capital airport, presumably in the same manner as countless other airliners. Maybe a glitch in an auto firing system like has been experience in the Patriot, though I don't know if Iran's SAM's are as automated.

but do any ground based SAM systems have 250+ mile range? Can radar even track a target that low from that far away due to the curvature of the earth? I really, really doubt it.

The SA-5 (USSR origin, operated by Iran) potentially, but as you mention it wouldn't be able to track such a low flying target. The US Navy SM-6 might also have a chance, but again radar tracking and it would need a ship to be fired from.

 

[Imari]

In 1998 an F14 would cost you $38million, $59.5 million today with inflation. An F35B is currently $122 million. It's astronomically expensive.

They're also expensive to fly and maintain, topped only by the ludicrous operating costs of F22s.

F35s are down to about $80 million.

The F35A is ~$80 million. The B is still about $100 million.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29626363/f-35-cheap/

But as the article also says:

Although the cost to buy has come down, the cost to fly remains high. The F-35 costs $44,000 an hour to fly, or $44 million to fly for 1,000 hours, or $352 million over the 8,000 hour lifespan of the jet. That’s more than twice as much as other jets such as the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Lockheed Martin wants to get the cost per hour to $25,000 by 2025, but the Pentagon believes that number may be unattainable. The Air Force has warned in the past that if the cost per flight hour doesn’t go down, it could end up buying fewer F-35s.

The upfront cost isn't actually that big a deal, the real costs come with how expensive a plane is to operate. The military would gladly pay $200 million per unit for a plane that had sub-$10k per hour operating costs, because it would be very much cheaper in the long run.

 

[twitcher]

The SA-5 (USSR origin, operated by Iran) potentially, but as you mention it wouldn't be able to track such a low flying target. The US Navy SM-6 might also have a chance, but again radar tracking and it would need a ship to be fired from.

Bushehr, Iran is about the closest you can get in the Persian Gulf to Tehran, and it’s roughly 466 miles as the crow flies. Anything I could find about the Navy SM6 indicates it’s range is about 370 miles.

There’s places in Iraq that are closer to Tehran, but Tehran is still roughly 300 miles from the Iraqi boarder (338 miles from Tehran to Sulaymaniyah). The only info I can find about Patriot system indicates a range of about 100 miles.

The range of an F-35 with internal fuel is about 920 miles (800nm), above 30,000ft. Below that, it’s less. Still, in theory, an F35 that was refuelled over Iraq could make it to Tehran and back. I’m sure an F-22 could do the same, I didn’t look up anything for though. If F-35s had flown to Tehran to shoot down a specific passenger jet, I’m sure there would be reports of jet noises being heard, and I doubt Tehran would be trying to keep it hush hush.

I think the chances that the US shot that plane down are about as likely as the US causing that earthquake near Bushehr. I suppose it’s possible that US special forces or even private contractors in Tehran shot the plane down with a shoulder mounted SAM, but that’s getting into some Hollywood type scenarios.

They're also expensive to fly and maintain, topped only by the ludicrous operating costs of F22s.



The F35A is ~$80 million. The B is still about $100 million.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29626363/f-35-cheap/

But as the article also says:



The upfront cost isn't actually that big a deal, the real costs come with how expensive a plane is to operate. The military would gladly pay $200 million per unit for a plane that had sub-$10k per hour operating costs, because it would be very much cheaper in the long run.

No argument from me on the operating costs, it’s not cheap. To my understanding, a lot of that has to do with the stealth coating...the paint job

Still though, outrage over operating costs is nothing new. After all, the operating costs of the F-15 and F-14 are part of the reason why the Airforce got F-16s and the Navy got F-18s (and part of the reason they retired the F-14s in favour of Super Hornets).

 

[Liquid]

Given that the United States sold Iran its SAMs, it's only logical that Iran was trying to return them.

I bet Oliver North still has the receipts. But... he's too busy on Fox complaining about Iran having SAMs even though Reagan he sold SAMs to Iran.

 

[Dotini]

Given that the United States sold Iran its SAMs, it's only logical that Iran was trying to return them.

I bet Oliver North still has the receipts. But... he's too busy on Fox complaining about Iran having SAMs even though Reagan he sold SAMs to Iran.

Overnight BBC America radio is strongly pushing the #1 theory that the plane was shot down by a Russian missile.

 

[Liquid]

Overnight BBC America radio is strongly pushing the #1 theory that the plane was shot down by a Russian missile.

Which doesn't make North any less of a massive hypocrite.