aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:38 pm

Here's a link to what seems to be a typical tit-for-tat reaction on Iran's part:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5471983

"This morning we got news that a number of foreign vessels entered Iranian waters without permission. Three boats were guided to Iranian shores and more than five crew were arrested," Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri said.

"As far as we know they are British and we are negotiating to know why they entered the waters," he added.

[...]

Britain's Ministry of Defense said it was checking the report.

Britain has small naval ships in the area helping to train Iraqi police, the British spokesman said. "We do have smaller craft which frequently go up and down the Shatt al-Arab around the area of Basra."

The spokesman described as "rubbish" a report that the vessels seized were warships. "We haven't got any large vessels in that area," he said.


"Tit for tat" mainly because Britain recently joined other UN member nations in complaining about Iran's failure to cooperate fully with IAEA inspectors. I hope, and expect, that this will be solved in a civilised way.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:52 pm

Probably a few inflatable assault craft with a handfull of Royal Marines...

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:57 pm

Reminds me of the Chinese seizing of a US military aircraft not too long ago.
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:43 pm

"Reminds me of the Chinese seizing of a US military aircraft not too long ago..."

You mean the one that was hit by the Chinese aircraft damaging it enough to force it to land? Hardly what I would call "seizing".
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:04 am

Tit-for-tat? Not necessarily.

Remember, one of the last times a foreign ship illegally entered Iranian waters it resulted in the deaths of over 200 people when an Iran Air Airbus A300 was shot out of the sky.

They may not have been 'warships', but they could very well have been spy vessels or could have had a host of other uses.

These British ships are military vessels, and therefore, should be even more mindful about crossing into territorial waters of another nation. That nation then has the right, and the duty, to impound the vessels and investigate why they were in waters they weren't supposed to.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:18 am

Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988. The Vincennes was not in Iranian waters (unless you count the eez, which places Oman in their territorial waters). It was leading a chase of Iranian gunboats that had been raiding civilian ships and causing serious damage, which is why we were there in the first place. The genuine possibilty of a repeat of the previous years missile attack on the Stark by one of the two combatants in the war going on there was real. Iranians had and have the air capability to launch an attack on ships at sea, and one has to wonder why the Iranians would send an aircraft over the US ships engaged in a running battle without IFF, and why this aircraft did not communicate with the fleet nor turn away when warned, as it was several times on guard frequency...
Incidently, the US accepted responsibility for the tragedy and compensated the families of each of the 291 victims, even though we are terrible people and have no diplomatic relations with Iran, nor was there any force on earth capable of making us do so. I guess we just wanted to do the right thing. I wonder when the SOviets made restitution for the shootdown of KAL007?
Try reading up on ALL of the facts the next time, so your points will be valid instead of simply inflammatory.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:31 am

They are 'Rigid Raider' fast boats, used for patrolling and insertion, used here on anti-terrorist/anti-smuggling patrols.
The actual border in this area is the middle of the waterway, however it is being seen as sending a signal, not to the UK or US, but to Iraq as June 30th nears.
Remember the long war between Iran and Iraq over this area, with WW1 style casualty figures.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9079
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:47 am

DIO21
About the shooting down of the A300. It was not diving, it was not an F14 & not making aggresive manouvres but just following a normal & predictable climbing flight path as later followed from investigation. It was simply a stupid mistake. As you said the US has made public excuses for it & paid damages to the family involved. No need defending it.

About the vessels, they obviously were in the wrong place at the wrong moment the rest is politics.



"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:18 am

DI021, what I wrote was NOT inflammatory, and what you have written could not be further from the truth (parts of it are true, but it is very much skewed information).

I suggest that you read the results of a Newsweek investigation from some years ago

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html

And was the Vincennes in Iranian territorial waters? Who to believe? You? Or Admiral William Crowe?

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/920721-236044.htm

"He stressed that the fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters was disclosed in the official classified report to the Congress"

Also, the American PBS TV network also did a very informative doco with interviews of crew on the Vincennes and the Montgomery, which showed Rogers to be an outright lier. And how did Washington punish him? By giving him a promotion.

Also, this happen in 1988. The US government at no time took full responsibility for the shooting down -- this requires the truth to be told you see. In addition, GWB Sr. made the following statement in regards to the Vincennes incident:

“I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

The US did eventually compensate non-Iranian passengers on the aircraft to the tune of around US$3 million. Iranian passengers did not receive a cent from Washington until some 8 years later. This was because the Iranians took Washington to the International Court. When compensation was made in 1996 to the Iranians, it was only $60 million -- approximately $300,000 per wage earner and $150,000 per non-wage earner -- which is a far cry from the $2 billion Libya agreed to pay for Lockerbie -- on a sidenote, I still firmly believe that Iran had a hand in Lockerbie as a "payback's a bitch" action.

Compensation for the actual aircraft was never, and never has been, paid.

Anyway, everything you have written has been debunked in what I have written, and what thorough investigations have uncovered.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:42 am

Russiophile, you want to back up that comment that the US payed out to the Iranians.

Because last time I checked the US governement did not recognize anything that Kangaroo court known as the ICC did, and if Clinton (He was in office in 1996) did pay out, then I have another reason to hate that particular administration.


Edit:not saying you are incorrect, but I really do hope that my taxmoney didn't go to pay off the Iranians, who I don't believe have ever offered any compensation to the Americans they held hostage for a year and a half. The Iranians simply don't deserve it, nor an appology from the US. It was a war zone, and that is that.

Edit: back to the original topic, Yeah, I suspect this mostly has to do with Iran's nuclear weapons program (Yes it has one) and the worlds comdemnation of it.

[Edited 2004-06-21 22:55:11]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:12 am

I´ve never heard of a CIVILIAN aircraft of ANY nation using IFF transponders, and I´ve been in the industry now for quite a few years (including avionics work). All they would have would be a normal ATC Mode A, C and maybe mode S transponder.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:13 am

Correct, I don't know of any either.

But the aircraft T-sponder should have had no problems being interrogated by the ships systems.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:19 am

Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988. The Vincennes was not in Iranian waters (unless you count the eez, which places Oman in their territorial waters). It was leading a chase of Iranian gunboats that had been raiding civilian ships and causing serious damage, which is why we were there in the first place. The genuine possibilty of a repeat of the previous years missile attack on the Stark by one of the two combatants in the war going on there was real. Iranians had and have the air capability to launch an attack on ships at sea, and one has to wonder why the Iranians would send an aircraft over the US ships engaged in a running battle without IFF, and why this aircraft did not communicate with the fleet nor turn away when warned, as it was several times on guard frequency...
Incidently, the US accepted responsibility for the tragedy and compensated the families of each of the 291 victims, even though we are terrible people and have no diplomatic relations with Iran, nor was there any force on earth capable of making us do so.


Wrong.

The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shooting, according to NEWSWEEK and ABC's Nightline. On the day of the shooting the ship hadn't responded to an Omani order to leave Omani waters - not exactly indicative of a good, non-arrogant crew is it?

The ship was fighting a running battle with Iranian boats throughout the whole event.

The Vincennes got a mode 3 IFF response - that is it identified the A300 as a commercial aircraft. The Petty Officer missed the flight number on the flight schedule for that day and so assumed it hostile.

Aboard the near-by carrier, airborne F-14s were told not to engage the aircraft, as the Captain of the carrier thought it was a friendly aircraft. He didn't bother to tell the Vincennes.

The Vincennes broadcast "Unidentified aircraft...You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters" on 121.5. Now, due to the war the A300 was meant to be monitoring 121.5. But would the A300 have assumed the message was aimed at them? After all, they're a commercial flight with a mode 3 transponder. They didn't even know the Vincennes was there.

Someone suggested the aircraft was an F-14 - no one ever discovered who. This was based on guesswork - it had nothing to do with the ship's $400m systems.

The ship once against sent an IFF to the aircraft. They got a mode 2 (military) - but the Vincennes hadn't reset the range of the IFF device - the mode 2 IFF response belonged to an Iranian military transport still on the ground - not the A300.

At 32 miles there was now some confusion. Someone suggested the aircraft was a possible commercial aircraft, as it was travelling slowly and only at 7000ft.

Another warning went out, "Iranian fighter...you are steering into danger and are subject to United States naval defensive measures" - why would the A300 think this message was directed at them?

At 30 miles the Petty Officer said the aircraft was at 7,800ft and descending at 455kts when the ship's own records said the computers said the aircraft was at 12,000ft and climbing at 380kts!

The F-14s Iran had didn't even have air-ground capabilities, let alone air-ship capabilities. This didn't bother the Vincennes.

At 9:54am the aircraft was 11 miles away and the ship's defences were armed.

At this time the Captain of the Iran Air A300 was talking to ATC, calming reporting his location on the standard route, Dl021.

When the A300 was hit, audio on the Vincennes included "Oh, dead!" "Coming down!" "We had him dead on!"



This comes from an old article I have from Newsweek in my bookshelf.

As for this incident? Given the tensions between Iran and Iraq, and Iran and the UK recently, if I were an Iranian soldier and I saw boats full of soldiers with guns, I'd want to stop them too.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:24 am

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.

As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:28 am

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.


God no. But I understand why the Iranians did what they did.

Hell, if I saw a bunch of armed Iranians in boats cruising up the Thames Estury, I'd be pretty worried too.

The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.

No systems in the Vincennes identified that aircraft as hostile. NONE.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:28 am

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.


Where did he ever say that? He only considered thinking about why the Iranians reacted (over-reacted, in my opinion) the way they did, and said he can understand it.

As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.

If it were a fact, Sir. If it were one, it couldn't be changed.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:32 am

No systems in the Vincennes identified that aircraft as hostile. NONE.

Correction, no system on that ship identified it as friendly/not a threat. So in absence of contravening info, the target was a threat. Otherwise, you might end up with an exocet up the side, see HMS Sheffield.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:34 am

777236ER,

I don't know about any other pilots here, but when you are in a war zone it's best to check and make sure that they aren't talking to you, not ignoring the message.

Mistakes were made by both sides, the Petty Officer for not resetting his equipment and not reading the display correctly, the CO of the Vincennes for not contacting the CBG you would have better control of the airspace. Now the Iranian Capitan should have responded to the call on guard.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:39 am

777236ER,

I don't know about any other pilots here, but when you are in a war zone it's best to check and make sure that they aren't talking to you, not ignoring the message.

ALL aircraft in the region were meant to monitor 121.5. Whether it was done or not is another matter...

Anyway, assuming the Iran Air A300 was listening, numerous references to 'Iranian Fighter' was bound to put them off - especially given they didn't know where the ship was. For all they knew it was two hundred miles away. Meanwhile they were having normal communications with ATC.

Correction, no system on that ship identified it as friendly/not a threat. So in absence of contravening info, the target was a threat. Otherwise, you might end up with an exocet up the side, see HMS Sheffield

Impossible, given that the F-14s that the US sold to the Shah didn't have the capability for air-ship missiles. The most the (lone) F-14 could have done is straffed the ship.

And a correction to YOU: the ship IDENTIFIED the A300 as mode 3, commercial aircraft. This was DISREGARDED, and when the IFF range wasn't reset, the mode 2 (military) wasn't from the aircraft. Two huge errors.

Your bone's got a little machine
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:51 am

Impossible, given that the F-14s that the US sold to the Shah didn't have the capability for air-ship missiles. The most the (lone) F-14 could have done is straffed the ship.

Nor were the Argentinians supposed to be able to launch the Exocet, the Royal Navy found out the hard way, it's better to assume that your enemy could hit you than to assume otherwise.

For all they knew it was two hundred miles away. Meanwhile they were having normal communications with ATC.

I would have responded to this broadcast, just in case:
The Vincennes broadcast "Unidentified aircraft...You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters" on 121.5.

With "American Warship Iranian Air Flight XXX was that for us? Turning 90 North for verification." But that's just me.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:58 am

Nor were the Argentinians supposed to be able to launch the Exocet, the Royal Navy found out the hard way, it's better to assume that your enemy could hit you than to assume otherwise.

The Royal Navy knew there was an Exorcet threat. The US Navy knew there was no air-ship threat from an Iranian F-14.

With "American Warship Iranian Air Flight XXX was that for us? Turning 90 North for verification." But that's just me.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, don't you think the burden was on the Vincennes to make sure it knew what it was shooting, not on all the aircraft on 121.5 to make sure the Americans weren't going to shoot them?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9079
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:05 am


Some here are so patriotic they loose it

If under the same circumstances an AA 300 out of MIA was shot down by Cubans, would you still be so understanding ? I doubt this ..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:37 am

"As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact."

Hey, come on now, it's not as if the US military makes a habit of hitting the wrong target......oh, hang on a minute, yes they do. I forgot we lost more troops to friendly fire than to Iraqi forces in Gulf War I


With regard to them marines, they should be fine, at least Jack Straw, for all his faults has some dialouge with Iran, so we should be able to reach a political solution, without the SAS having to go in.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:40 am

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, don't you think the burden was on the Vincennes to make sure it knew what it was shooting, not on all the aircraft on 121.5 to make sure the Americans weren't going to shoot them?

I was always taught, better to err on the side of caution, the Petty Officer, and the CO (though they made the wrong decisions) of the ship did that on their end.

The Iranian air should have also, erred on the side of caution, even if it wasn't them, it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner.

Now there were some faults in the weapon system, the panel also recommended changes to make it easier to read the system and settings.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:46 am

better to err on the side of caution, the Petty Officer, and the CO (though they made the wrong decisions) of the ship did that on their end.

Given that a. the Airbus was identified as a commercial aircraft b. the IFF range wasn't reset c. commercial traffic was known to be in the area d. F-14s can't attack ships e. it wasn't even known to be an F-14 f. the captain's brash behaviour g. the fact that the Iran Air A300 was NEVER identified by any systems as being a military aircraft and h. the petty officer gave completly false information about the height and speed of the A300, I don't think they erred on the side of caution.

it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner

Clearly this is not the case. 290 died.

Now there were some faults in the weapon system, the panel also recommended changes to make it easier to read the system and settings.

There were indeed changes, but no problems were present to explain the gross negligence that lead to the deaths of those 290 people.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:10 am

it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner

Clearly this is not the case. 290 died.

If the Iranian air has responded to the calls on guard the CO would have known that there is an airliner that might be the inbound bogey.

As far as the CO knew at that point, from the Petty Officers readings, and lack of response it was a hostile aircraft, and he acted on the same.

h. the petty officer gave completly false information about the height and speed of the A300

Being a new weapon system at the time, it's highly unlikely that the CO would have been able to read the read outs as well as the Petty Officer, so there would have been very little way for him to know that the data the Petty Officer was incorrect.

d. F-14s can't attack ships e. it wasn't even known to be an F-14.

You're tripping yourself up here, so if they didn't know it was an F-14, for all they knew the Iranians could have acquired aircraft that could attack ships, or have made an electronics change to their F-14's, that would allow it to also fire on ships. Technology rarely stays the same, in Iraq, Mig 25's were dug up that had French and Chinese equipment on it.

Ok first we have this,

b. the IFF range wasn't reset

Then we have this,

g. the fact that the Iran Air A300 was NEVER identified by any systems as being a military aircraft

Was it or wasn't it identified once as a hostile aircraft by the IFF, it was though incorrectly. If I were in the CO's position, I am not sure what I would have done, on one hand there is a chance that it could be an airliner, but on the other hand it hasn't responded yet, and my Petty Officer is telling me that it's doing an attack dive.

Regardless it's over 30 years old, the Iranians are getting uppity probably in an effort to try and show the new Iraqi government who's the boss.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:16 am

Its amazing how what happens to British troops automatically becomes an anit-American thread, but its always the same wackjobs that find a way to turn every issue into something to bash the USA.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:18 am

You're tripping yourself up here, so if they didn't know it was an F-14, for all they knew the Iranians could have acquired aircraft that could attack ships, or have made an electronics change to their F-14's, that would allow it to also fire on ships. Technology rarely stays the same, in Iraq, Mig 25's were dug up that had French and Chinese equipment on it.

There was never any mention of this confusion on the ship. It was like this: they were sure it was an F-14 - there was never any doubt. They therefore must have known it couldn't attack the ship. They were wrong about it a. being an F-14 and b. about an F-14's abilities.

Was it or wasn't it identified once as a hostile aircraft by the IFF, it was though incorrectly.

No, it was never identified as a hostile aircraft. It was POSITIVLY identified as a friendly aircraft. Another aircraft was identified as a military aircraft, after the petty officer didn't reset his equipment.

Let me ask you this, do you think this accident that resulted in the death of 290 people was as a result of negligence?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:29 am

Let me ask you this, do you think this accident that resulted in the death of 290 people was as a result of negligence?

Yes, but on the Petty Officer's part. Though the CO has the ultimate responsibility, he was in no way negligent. We saw what happened in Yemen when the order to fire on an approaching craft isn't given 20 years later.

The ship once against sent an IFF to the aircraft. They got a mode 2 (military) - but the Vincennes hadn't reset the range of the IFF device - the mode 2 IFF response belonged to an Iranian military transport still on the ground - not the A300.

The Petty Officer screwed up. As far as the CO could tell, he got one response that said it was a commercial flight, but the PO told him that it doesn't match a known flight, he gets no response on guard, and then he gets an IFF that says it's a hostile aircraft.

There was never any mention of this confusion on the ship. It was like this: they were sure it was an F-14 - there was never any doubt. They therefore must have known it couldn't attack the ship. They were wrong about it a. being an F-14 and b. about an F-14's abilities.

Knowing whether or not an aircraft is an F-14 or a Mig 29 doesn't matter if it's a hostile aircraft. During WWII many Japanese Army Aircraft were misidentified as Zeros (an aircraft that pretty much only the Navy had), but it didn't matter if it was a Zero or not if it killed you, it was still hostile.

As far as the CO could tell it was hostile and he acted upon it.

[Edited 2004-06-22 01:30:57]

Edit: You know I wish we could turn this acronyms off. In case anyone is confused CO = Commanding Officer, not Continental Airlines.

[Edited 2004-06-22 01:32:12]
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:33 am

Yes, but on the Petty Officer's part. Though the CO has the ultimate responsibility, he was in no way negligent.

If the CO is responsible then he is the negligent one.

Knowing whether or not an aircraft is an F-14 or a Mig 29 doesn't matter if it's a hostile aircraft

It matters a great deal! What if it wasn't an F-14, but a C-130? They both give out the same IFF response. Would shooting down an unarmed C-130 be just as acceptable as shooting down an F-14? The F-14 was a guess, made on no judgement whatsoever. Indeed, had instruments been read correctly - and they were not mis-reading, it would have been obvious the A300 was just that.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:51 am

777236ER,

You know most foreigners say that we Americans lack prospective, so you should be able to get into the eyes to the CO better than I can.

Picture you are the CO of one of the Navy's newest Cruisers, quite an honor, the lives of nearly 400 crew members are your responsibility. Your current mission includes chasing down hostile Iranian gunboats.

A petty officer gets on the horn to you saying that we have an inbound aircraft from Iran (who you are currently having hostilities with), it's reading commercial, but it's not on the list of acceptable aircraft, and is not responding to calls on guard.

You tell the crew man to check the IFF again, he does this time it comes up as hostile, you tell him to warn the aircraft away. The aircraft is in an attack dive (according to the PO, and as far as you know correct). And is still not responding.

You think shit an F-14 (the only aircraft that you know that they have), at this point you have to make a choice, don't fire and put your crew of 400 at risk if it's indeed hostile, or fire and take the chance that it's airliner.

If the CO is responsible then he is the negligent one.

Just because he is responsible doesn't mean that he was negligent.

Would shooting down an unarmed C-130 be just as acceptable as shooting down an F-14?

Yes it would be if it's in an attack posture.

Indeed, had instruments been read correctly - and they were not mis-reading, it would have been obvious the A300 was just that.

Tell that to the Petty Officer.

[Edited 2004-06-22 01:52:46]
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:56 am

You know most foreigners say that we Americans lack prospective, so you should be able to get into the eyes to the CO better than I can.

Picture you are the CO of one of the Navy's newest Cruisers, quite an honor, the lives of nearly 400 crew members are your responsibility. Your current mission includes chasing down hostile Iranian gunboats.

A petty officer gets on the horn to you saying that we have an inbound aircraft from Iran (who you are currently having hostilities with), it's reading commercial, but it's not on the list of acceptable aircraft, and is not responding to calls on guard.

You tell the crew man to check the IFF again, he does this time it comes up as hostile, you tell him to warn the aircraft away. The aircraft is in an attack dive (according to the PO, and as far as you know correct). And is still not responding.

You think shit an F-14 (the only aircraft that you know that they have), at this point you have to make a choice, don't fire and put your crew of 400 at risk if it's indeed hostile, or fire and take the chance that it's airliner.


In that case it's simple.

I should know the only thing an F-14 can do is straff the ship. Sound general quarters and wait for a visual sighting, given all the confusion.

Yes it would be if it's in an attack posture.

An unarmed C-130?!

What is the A300 was in 'attack posture'?!

Tell that to the Petty Officer.

If the instruments were unreadable then the manufacutrer was incompetent.


Would you say the burden of guilt of this incident was on the Iranian crew or the American crew?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13639
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:17 am

The US Navy knew there was no air-ship threat from an Iranian F-14.

Did the CO have time to get out his latest copy of Jane's to verify this? An inbound enemy fighter is an inbound enemy fighter - their armament is irrelevant.

What if it wasn't an F-14, but a C-130? They both give out the same IFF response. Would shooting down an unarmed C-130 be just as acceptable as shooting down an F-14?

How could one assume that the F-14 is armed, but the C-130 isn't? Both are capable of carrying offensive weaponry. Of course if they used the aircraft as a missile, a fully-loaded C-130 transport would pose considerably more danger to a naval vessel than an F-14 would.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:20 am

Did the CO have time to get out his latest copy of Jane's to verify this? An inbound enemy fighter is an inbound enemy fighter - their armament is irrelevant.

The guy was a COMMANDING OFFICER OF A WARSHIP IN THE REGION! Surely it's his job to know what type of weapons the enemy has?

How could one assume that the F-14 is armed, but the C-130 isn't? Both are capable of carrying offensive weaponry. Of course if they used the aircraft as a missile, a fully-loaded C-130 transport would pose considerably more danger to a naval vessel than an F-14 would

You missed my point. He said it doesn't matter what the enemy aircraft is, it should always be shot down. Do you agree with this?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13639
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:41 am

The guy was a COMMANDING OFFICER OF A WARSHIP IN THE REGION! Surely it's his job to know what type of weapons the enemy has?

Not to the degree you're suggesting, though. The CO should know what general types of weaponry the enemy may bring to bear, but knowing something as specific as whether or not a certain platform could possibly be configured to carry a specific type of stand-off weapon is something even the CO would have to check on with his resources at the DoD.

You missed my point. He said it doesn't matter what the enemy aircraft is, it should always be shot down. Do you agree with this?

Yes. If the enemy aircraft has not acknowledged repeated warnings and is still on an intercept course, the most prudent course of action is to take defensive measures.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:01 pm

Wow, you miss an afternoon and you miss alot. OK

1. The boats evidently were on patrol, and it is not proven anywhere that the Iranians with their long history of gunboat meddling (see the 1980's) did not themselves go over the line and seize the RN boats.

2. Forgive my use of the term IFF, I should have referred to the aircraft transponders used to identify the planes to atc. I never said the aircraft was diving or taking hostile action. No, the F-14s were delivered as interceptors, but no one here really knows exactly how they were modified (heck, they have been shown at air shows carrying modified Hawk missiles as air/air missiles) during the Iran-Iraq war as many were used to deliver ground attack weapons along with the F-4's and F-5's we sent (I do know that F-14's were on the minds of Naval personnel simply because there was a fear they would be mistaken for our aircraft; and they were on the media's minds because they are so ignorant of military issues that the only airplane they recognized was the F-14...you know, sexy name and all that.)It was not in a normal air lane (as it was a Hajj charter) and the crew was in a firefight. The reports of Newsweek about the position of the ship and its actions are as reliable as any other report they publish, according to Admiral Crowe. BTW, the articles are contradictory and Admiral Crowe, whom you refer to as an authority here, was very derisive of the Newsweek article and it's lack of accuracy.

3. Yes, Russophile, your comments concerning the A-300 were inflammatroy ,and had nothing to do with the thread. You were trying to simultaneously deflect potential negative attention from the Iranians and justify the hostile actions of a government that has long called for the destruction of the US, UK, and every other western state. Your further comment concerning Lockerbie/PA103 is actually reprehensible, as it seems to justify the actions taken by Libyans who were supposedly taking revenge for the Tripoli bombing which were our answer to terror bombings in Berlin traced to Libyans. Tell us, do you condone terrorism? No facile answers that say nothing here, or counteraccuse. Are you saying there is an excuse or legitimization in your eyes for terror?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:25 pm

I just read an article that mentioned that the Europeans were the ones who invented Gunboat Diplomacy. The Royal Navy was particularly good at it. How did they managed to be captured by Iranians?



I should know the only thing an F-14 can do is straff the ship.

Well, they probably could be modified to carry bombs and also bomb a ship. Before missiles such as the Harpoon were invented, that's how the US Navy planned to take care of Soviet warships--have A-6s bomb them (which was pretty much suicidal, of course). An F-14 could certainly carry bombs.
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Iran

Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm

I would not call 3 small craft being delivered to the Iraqi Police in Basra 'gunboats'.
Most seem to think the Iranian's are trying to make a point, as these boats are hardly strangers in the area.

As for the A300, it was a disgrace, totally negligent on the part of the USN, how different was it to the USSR shooting down the KAL 747 which got the US so het up?
And you wonder why so many hate you in that region.
 
Gman94
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:56 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:12 pm

Wow, it's amazing how quickly a thread can go off topic.

Sounds like the Iranians are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Time for the SAS me thinks. How dare sailors make a mistake and go over an unmarked border in the middle of a waterway, nice to see the Iranians have got some common sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3828377.stm
British Airways - The Way To Fly
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:30 pm

Yes. If the enemy aircraft has not acknowledged repeated warnings and is still on an intercept course, the most prudent course of action is to take defensive measures.

But the A300 was never on an intercept course. It was climbing and maintaining 380kts.

No, the F-14s were delivered as interceptors, but no one here really knows exactly how they were modified (heck, they have been shown at air shows carrying modified Hawk missiles as air/air missiles) during the Iran-Iraq war as many were used to deliver ground attack weapons along with the F-4's and F-5's

So not only was the crew guessing it was an F-14, they were also guessing it could attack the ship?

Those guesses resulted in the loss of 290 innocent lives. It was the duty of the crew to ensure they weren't shooting at a civilian airliner - they didn't do that.

It was not in a normal air lane (as it was a Hajj charter)

Nevertheless, the Vincennes had a schedule of all the civilian flights that day. The A300 was on the schedule, with flight number, aircraft type, route, times and altitudes. It was missed when the schedule was looked at.

You were trying to simultaneously deflect potential negative attention from the Iranians and justify the hostile actions of a government that has long called for the destruction of the US, UK, and every other western state.

I don't think Iran has EVER said that. Iran usually has good relations with the UK.

The shooting down of the A300 was a disgrace. There were no system failures whatsoever. There were at least a dozen mistakes made by the crew.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:40 pm

But the A300 was never on an intercept course. It was climbing and maintaining 380kts.

The data reported to the CO, who makes the firing decision, said it was on an attack course.

Nevertheless, the Vincennes had a schedule of all the civilian flights that day. The A300 was on the schedule, with flight number, aircraft type, route, times and altitudes. It was missed when the schedule was looked at.

Once again blame the Petty Officer that missed it.

The shooting down of the A300 was a disgrace. There were no system failures whatsoever. There were at least a dozen mistakes made by the crew.

There was a system failure, it was the Petty Officer, he is part of the commands information system. They reported incorrect information and acted on it.

So not only was the crew guessing it was an F-14, they were also guessing it could attack the ship?

Those guesses resulted in the loss of 290 innocent lives. It was the duty of the crew to ensure they weren't shooting at a civilian airliner - they didn't do that.


First off the CO of the ship is most likely a life Surface Warfare Officer, he isn't an expert on aircraft. Also F-14's could do more than that, the difference between a fighter and a strike fighter (one able to drop bombs) these days is mostly software, which one doesn't need if you are doing a dive bombing run.

The Iranian crew should have also responded to the repeated calls on guard, they are both at fault, though I put more fault on the Petty Officer for providing the wrong information to the CO.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:26 am

GDB, normally not disagreeing with you, but have to make counterpoints here.

1. The difference between the two shootdowns was that the Iran Air incident was made in the heat of battle while the Iranian Navy was actually shooting at us (I know it was only some gunboats, but fire was being exchanged. You tend to call minor conflict a firefight when you are the one being shot at). The KAL007 flight was in visual range of the fighter that shot it down, was identified as a civilian transport and shot down by PVO Strany anyway. It was a political decision, not just a mistake.

2. I do think you are correct about the Iranians trying to make points in the face of coming sanctions about nuclear programs, but it is not about border control.

3. I do not wonder why so many in the region hate us. We represent everything their fundamentalist religious leaders fear and hate, so they portray us as evil satans and blame all the ills of their people on us. SInce many of these people only believe what comes from their religious leaders we have little counterprogramming that is effective. It is similar to another time about 70 years ago when a small group of political leaders seized power and kept their people happy by blaming a subset of their society made up of people people of a different religion that was considered poorly anyway for all the ills in the world, and got away with it because people are usually susceptible to their own religious prejudices anyway. Only when the people of the middle east are allowed to see what democracy and freedom can really be will they be free of the imams and mullahs who dictate their lives.

777236ER Yeah, the Iranian religious leaders love the freedom of religion and willingness to coexist they find in some governments. Ask one what they think of the US and its allies and see what answer you get. They wont allow it in their country, and the first chance they get to export it they will, but they are ok with it elsewhere...as long as it gives them the ability to exploit it for their own benefit. ALso...should a ship under attack assume that an unidentified aircraft is friendly or hostile? What would you do with the same information given to the the C.O. of the Vincennes? Ignoring hindsight...
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:42 am

So how come those that are complaing about the way the US is handling it's terrorist prisoners, are silent about the way inhumane way the Iranians are treating the Brits they are holding?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:38 pm

Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988.

It wasn't flying Hajj pilgrims. That would be an unscheduled charter flight to Saudi Arabia. IR655 was on a scheduled flight to the UAE from Bandar Abbas. This is a well travelled route -- described as a milk run -- it typically is full of Iranians who work in the UAE and who need to leave the UAE on a semi-regular basis to abide by visa rules. Foreigners working in the UAE also use these Iranian flights from time to time. Although these days, Kish Island seems to be the milk run of choice -- spend a few days on the beaches, etc.

Edit:not saying you are incorrect, but I really do hope that my taxmoney didn't go to pay off the Iranians, who I don't believe have ever offered any compensation to the Americans they held hostage for a year and a half. The Iranians simply don't deserve it, nor an appology from the US. It was a war zone, and that is that.

Firstly, the US never offered any compensation to the Iranians who they helped to murder for over 25 years. (Not directly murdered, but indirectly by supporting, funding and arming SAVAK).

Secondly, it was a war zone. It was the Iran-Iraq War. I never realised that it was the Iran-Iraq/USA war. Yes, Iran was attacking oil tankers which were destined Kuwait, for onward shipment to Iraq. Semi-legitimate targets in a war. Particularly as Iraq had the most to answer for in regards to attacking civilian maritime shipping (they also attacked one of the US Navy ships, said it was a mistake -- the incident was then used by the US to blame Iran for escalating the conflict, even though Iran had nothing to do with it).

Russiophile, you want to back up that comment that the US payed out to the Iranians.

Don't need to back it up Big grin

It was paid, and the figures I gave is what was paid in 1996. Check your own Senate and State Department websites. I am sure it is all on there. The US even claimed that Iran refused offers of 'humanitarian compensation' -- obviously it was a pittance, because even $61.8 million is a pittance in comparison to $2 billion by Libya

3. Yes, Russophile, your comments concerning the A-300 were inflammatroy ,and had nothing to do with the thread.

Were they inflammatory? Yeah? Well good. Because they have everything to do with the thread. A foreign naval vessel inside the territorial waters of another nation, without permission or knowledge, is just asking for trouble.

You were trying to simultaneously deflect potential negative attention from the Iranians and justify the hostile actions of a government that has long called for the destruction of the US, UK, and every other western state.

This is brilliant stuff right here!! I don't recall Iran ever calling for the destruction of the UK. Whilst they might not have close ties, there are still ties there. Iranian ties with the rest of the Southern world is very cordial and quite close. The only southern country with a problem with Iran is the US.

Your further comment concerning Lockerbie/PA103 is actually reprehensible, as it seems to justify the actions taken by Libyans who were supposedly taking revenge for the Tripoli bombing which were our answer to terror bombings in Berlin traced to Libyans.

Where exactly did I justify Libya taking down PA103 as payback? I said IRAN. Just in case, here it is again. I-R-A-N. There was overwhelming evidence that Syria attacked PA103 on behalf of the Iranians, in retaliation for IR655.

I believe that Libya was made the scapegoat, because at the time they were more of an international pariah than was Iran.

I also believe that Libya accepted the responsibility because it was much cheaper to take the heat, pay out a few billion, and then get sanctions lifted. A couple of billion dollars is a good price to pay when there is more money to be made -- how many billions did Libya lose whilst UN sanctions were placed on them?

Tell us, do you condone terrorism? No facile answers that say nothing here, or counteraccuse. Are you saying there is an excuse or legitimization in your eyes for terror?

I don't condone terrorism. This includes flying aircraft into buildings, troops acting against civilian populations, blowing up civilian buses, firing missiles into refugee camps, demolishing civilian housing and property, nations illegally (and immorally) invading other nations, taking hostages in theatres, etc, etc, etc. Can you say likewise?

So how come those that are complaing about the way the US is handling it's terrorist prisoners, are silent about the way inhumane way the Iranians are treating the Brits they are holding?

Hmmm. Let's see.

Compare this



with this



Compare this



with this



Compare this



with this



There is no comparison. Looks to me that the Iranians are treating the Brits very well.

Latest reports are that the Brits will likely be released after an investigation which will tell the Iranians exactly what they were doing in Iranian waters. If nothing untoward comes out of the investigation they will be released. The Brits were reported to be armed with light and heavy weapons, detailed area maps, GPS equipment and other things. This can be explained with 'training Iraqi police', but it is also possible that they could be SAS troops (or other) working inside Iran for more sinister purposes. Everything is a possibility, and the Iranians have a right to find out.
 
Gman94
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:56 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:11 pm

Latest reports are that the Brits will likely be released after an investigation which will tell the Iranians exactly what they were doing in Iranian waters. If nothing untoward comes out of the investigation they will be released. The Brits were reported to be armed with light and heavy weapons, detailed area maps, GPS equipment and other things. This can be explained with 'training Iraqi police', but it is also possible that they could be SAS troops (or other) working inside Iran for more sinister purposes. Everything is a possibility, and the Iranians have a right to find out.

They are Royal Marine Commandos which if you have seen the pictures were equiped with standard Royal Marine gear. All this is the Iranians flexing their muscle and not using common sense.
British Airways - The Way To Fly
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:45 am

They are Royal Marine Commandos which if you have seen the pictures were equiped with standard Royal Marine gear. All this is the Iranians flexing their muscle and not using common sense.

They may have been dressed as Royal Marine Commandos. Doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't doing something untoward.

The facts are the British boats crossed into Iranian territorial waters without permission. What it by error or on purpose? Iran catches them, seizes the boats, arrests the crew and instigates an investigation. The investigation shows that the crew did inadvertantly cross into Iranian waters -- and have since been released -- they have been flown to Tehran and were taking to the British Embassy there. The boats and equipment have been seized, and the Iranians say they are talking to the British about returning them -- although they are under absolutely no obligation to do so under international laws.

Iran did everything as they are entitled to under international laws (the British would have done the same), but somehow we see headlines such as "Iran has seized three "British" vessels", but not "British vessels enter Iranian waters illegally and are impounded".

But anyway, the Brits are used to entering other nations waters illegally (such as storming a Spanish beach by mistake), except on this occasion, they did so in a 'war zone', and were made to 'pay' for that mistake.

If anything has come out of this incident, it is that the Iranians aren't as fucked up as what some people like to make out.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:35 am

I onnly saw the standard personal weapons of British infantry soldiers in the TV pictures shown by Iranian TV (assault rifles, pistols, one or two light machine guns), nothing about heavy weapons.
Also there were two sets of pictures taken, one apparently shortly after the arrest, with the prisoners blindfolded (which is standard practice to disorient them to prevent them from escaping and/or fighting), but not tied up, and later pictures showing them without blindfolds in a room, which to me looked like a library (probably some barrack´s reading room), with armchairs and sofas.
It appears they strayed about 1 km into Iranian waters, which could be explained as an accident. Any country I know would react p*ssed off if they would find foreign armed soldiers within their territorial waters (this would include Germany, the US and Britain). The soldiers will probably be released shortly, though probably without their gear, and I assume that they have been treated properly (except maybe some scuffle during the arrest).

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:57 am

If they had been special forces, they'd have been operating at night, would not have a white boat with Iraqi Police markings all over it, and I guess if they had been seriously challenged by Revolutionary Guards, the end result would likely be some dead Iranians.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:13 am

GDB,

Along with air support, nothings better than have a 1,000 lbs hand grenade at your disposal.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels

Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:49 pm

The thousand pound hand grenade eh?

How about an atomic one.

The US was working on developing one in the 1950's until somebody finally realized that there was no way the thrower could toss if far enough.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bongodog1964, Majestic-12 [Bot], ogre727, Zaf and 27 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos