# U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drone Flying Over Iraq



## ToughOmbre (Mar 13, 2009)

From FOX News

Friday, March 13, 2009 

An American fighter jet took down an Iranian drone over Iraq last month, U.S. military sources told Wired.com.

The U.S. has long accused Tehran of supplying militant groups in Iraq with weapons and training, Wired reported. While the flow of Iranian weapons into Iraq has slowed, Shiite militias have fired Iranian rockets at U.S. troops and Sunni militias reportedly use Iranian bombs to destroy U.S. military vehicles.

Iran has supplied the terrorist group Hezbollah with several models of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Iran's deputy defense minister claimed in February that the country's latest UAVs can fly as far as 600 miles. If true, the Iranian drones could fly over any U.S. military installation in the Middle East, including Iraq, Wired reported.

Multi-National Corps would not confirm or deny the previously unreported incident to Wired.com.

The alleged incident comes at a particularly sensitive time, when the Obama administration is looking for ways to reach out to Iran diplomatically and trying to spark renewed relations.

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 13, 2009)

Soon we will have a drone vs drone dogfight.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 13, 2009)

Fire away! I find it hard to believe they're seriously looking for a way to "spark renewed relations" while sending drones out. Sounds more like the Japanese continuing to persue peacetalks while simultaneously planning for and launching the attack on Pearl Harbor.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 13, 2009)

Hmm, I agree with principle of shooting the drone down, but shouldn't the Iraqis have being doing the shooting, as the US prepares to pull out and let them take responsibility for their own security? 

Either way, this incident shouldn't lead to the closure of talks with Iran, the future stability of the ME largely rests in the hands of this difficult and frequently aggressive nation. The Iranian govt has a choice before it, and pointing a gun at their head isn't likely to bring about the best result, i.e the one where the US/UK doesn't go to war with Iran. To say 'fire away' makes the fear of war with Iran virtually a self-fullfilling prophecy. The lesson that has been learned and ignored countless times in the ME since 1948 is that if you point a gun at the Arabs, they will shoot first and ask questions later. Diplomatic channels should and must be kept open, while the use of force should and must be kept as a last-ditch option.

Before I am accused of being an appeaser or worse, let me say that I am categorically not pro-Iranian, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, anti-American, anti-Israeli or anything else of the sort. As far as I am concerned, these labels are at best meaningless in the discussion that needs to take place in the ME. The present situation in the ME springs at least partly from an 'Us and Them' mentality on both sides, which dictates that the region is only big enough for one or the other faction to exist in. Previous solutions for 'peace' in the ME have mainly consisted in finding ways in which one side can exist at the expense of the other without fighting. What needs to be found now, and what I believe the US is moving towards is a solution for sustainable peace which acknowledges the needs of all parties and tries to meet them in an equitable manner. Iran is absolutely critical to any such solution, and whether we like it or not, they must be admitted to the discussion as a partner, not held at gunpoint and told to co-operate. That is why dialogue must continue with Iran. It won't be easy, but it must at least be tried before committing the US and most likely the UK to yet another Middle Eastern war and the implications of human, social and financial cost that come with it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2009)

BombTaxi, that's a good point of view you presented, and I wish it would work.

One of the main problems with Iran at the moment is thier president, ahmanutjob, who beleives that he's some sort of mystic and has repeatedly said nothing but unconditional death to both the U.S. and Israel.

It seems to me that if the leaders of those countries would discourage the readiness of the people to kill themselves and others, and be a little bit more relaxed, perhaps progress would be made towards a lasting peace.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2009)

... and what would the Iraqi's have shot down a UAV with? So without anti-air assets, should the US have let the Iranian UAV go?


----------



## Bill G. (Mar 13, 2009)

How do you score that? A full kill, half kill, or no kill?

Iraq has no fighter aircraft yet. From what I read just helos and transports.

I wonder what weapon was used to shoot it down?

Bill G.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 13, 2009)

My point is Matt, if the Iraqis are supposed to be looking after themselves in the very near future, why do they not have the equipment to defend themselves? Who is going to shoot Iranian UAVs down for them after the US forces leave? I'm glad the US forces were on hand to deal with this situation, but they won't be around much longer. It would seem that Iraq will be very vulnerable very soon...

GG, agree totally that the current Iranian leadership is not the best to try and negotiate with (putting it mildly). At least they have shown willing to get round a table with the US and talk. A tiny step in itself, but a million miles forward from where the two parties were just a year or so ago. It won't be easy, but it is a start.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 14, 2009)

Good points Bombtaxi.


----------



## Amsel (Mar 14, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> From FOX News
> 
> Friday, March 13, 2009
> 
> An American fighter jet took down an Iranian drone over Iraq last month, U.S. military sources told Wired.com.


Sweet!


----------



## Golladay (Mar 15, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Fire away! I find it hard to believe they're seriously looking for a way to "spark renewed relations" while sending drones out. Sounds more like the Japanese continuing to persue peacetalks while simultaneously planning for and launching the attack on Pearl Harbor.



 

Our Drones probe Iranian Airspace all the time.


----------



## Golladay (Mar 15, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> One of the main problems with Iran at the moment is thier president, ahmanutjob, who beleives that he's some sort of mystic and has repeatedly said nothing but unconditional death to both the U.S. and Israel.



 

The President never once threaten Israel or the U.S., you like many have fallen for the lie that he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

This is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." 

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). 

Ahmadinejad has nothing against Israeli people, his beef is with the Israeli Government who has the blood of innocent civilians on its hands as it continues to wage genocide against the Palestinians.

Nor is Ahmadinejad a nut job for asserting Iran's right to enrich uranium, which under the NPT they have every right to do so and the U.S. is obligated to help them achieve this.

If Iran wants it can even go to the U.N. and demand the U.S. be sanctioned or it can simply cut Oil Production along with Venezuela and cause prices to spike.

This overlooks the fact that Ahmadinejad doesn't actually run the country, lives in an apartment in the poor part of Tehran, and when his car doesn't work, he takes the bus.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the man you should be keeping an eye on in Iran. By his word and his alone does Iran function. 

By concentrating on Ahmadinejad, you are playing into Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hands, while he laughs and makes fun of you behind your back as he goes about his business unnoticed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2009)

Golladay said:


> Ahmadinejad has nothing against Israeli people, his beef is with the Israeli Government who has the blood of innocent civilians on its hands as it continues to wage genocide against the Palestinians.



And the Palestinians are just innocent...???

Yeah okay, tell that to the Israeli civilians that are blown up by a suicide bomber while at a street cafe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2009)

Golladay said:


> The President never once threaten Israel or the U.S., you like many have fallen for the lie that he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
> 
> This is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
> 
> Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).


So he NEVER made these quotes...

""Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." 

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations." 

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." 

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated." 

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed." 

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." 




Golladay said:


> :
> Ahmadinejad has nothing against Israeli people, his beef is with the Israeli Government who has the blood of innocent civilians on its hands as it continues to wage genocide against the Palestinians.


Islamic rhedoric bullshit


Golladay said:


> :
> Nor is Ahmadinejad a nut job for asserting Iran's right to enrich uranium, which under the NPT they have every right to do so and the U.S. is obligated to help them achieve this.


Really? Then maybe Iran should sell oil on the open market for $10 a barrel!


Golladay said:


> :
> If Iran wants it can even go to the U.N. and demand the U.S. be sanctioned or it can simply cut Oil Production along with Venezuela and cause prices to spike.


Go ahead during this world wide recession! Right now the Iranian and Venezuelan governments are in a lot worse shape than the US.


Golladay said:


> :
> This overlooks the fact that Ahmadinejad doesn't actually run the country, lives in an apartment in the poor part of Tehran, and when his car doesn't work, he takes the bus.


Perhaps, but he is still the mouth piece of the Iranian government and the one the west focuses on .


Golladay said:


> :
> Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the man you should be keeping an eye on in Iran. By his word and his alone does Iran function.


Agree


Golladay said:


> :
> By concentrating on Ahmadinejad, you are playing into Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hands, while he laughs and makes fun of you behind your back as he goes about his business unnoticed.


Perhaps, but at the same time Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must also know that Iran's financial survival still depends on dealing with the west, like it or not and if rhetoric from Ahmadinejad is allowed to continue, Iran may find itself another victim of the IDF in the same manner Iraq did in 1981


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 15, 2009)

I've heard the qoute was mistranslated as well ,I can't confirm this as my Farsi is pretty bad however the man is a twit one amongst many in that region on earth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> however the man is a twit one amongst many in that region on earth.


An understatement!


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 15, 2009)

It would be in everyone's interests, I believe, to engage Iran without resorting to violence yet again. Tehran have shown willing and come to the table - IMHO the US should do it's best to keep Israel on the leash until such time as those talks break down irretrievably. Tiny as it is, that willingness to talk is the first step towards any kind of dialogue, never mind peace, in may years. NOTHING should be allowed to de-rail this, including the IDFs penchant for unilateral action. If Israel wants to go around shooting the neighbourhood up, there will never be peace. Same goes for the Arabs too. It is all well and good saying that Hezbollah needs to lay down its arms, but that isn't likely to happen while the Israelis go around armed to the teeth. Neither side will disarm unilaterally - what is really needed is an international force to go in and oversee disengagement and prevent either side from doing anything stupid. And Israel needs to come to the table and hear the Arab side, instead of just shooting up anyone who disagrees with them. Like I said in my last post, there will have to be compromise if there is to be peace, and Israel and the US will have to listen to the Arabs instead of presenting them with a plan and threatening to bomb them if they don't comply. That, as far as I can see, is the only way any lasting peace can be achieved.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2009)

BT, again very sensible - I think the length of the leash will depend on the rhetoric being fielded from the Iranian President as well as any plans of the Iranians to manufacture nuclear weapons. You know Israel will not allow that to happen.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Israel needs to come to the table and hear the Arab side, instead of just shooting up anyone who disagrees with them. Like I said in my last post, there will have to be compromise if there is to be peace, and Israel and the US will have to listen to the Arabs instead of presenting them with a plan and threatening to bomb them if they don't comply


Persians
Iranians wouldn't take kindly to being called Arabs; Persian/Arab hostility is as historical as Arab/Jew


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Persians
> Iranians wouldn't take kindly to being called Arabs; Persian/Arab hostility is as historical as Arab/Jew


VERY CORRECT!!!! And despite the "unity" of the religion that seems to hold them together, that's the point many miss about the Iranians (Persians). Saddam Hussein once stated he hated only Persians worse than Jews!


----------



## Amsel (Mar 15, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BT, again very sensible - I think the length of the leash will depend on the rhetoric being fielded from the Iranian President as well as any plans of the Iranians to manufacture nuclear weapons. You know Israel will not allow that to happen.


I can't think of any ME country that the world should allow to have nukes. I think Iran especially. They have their hands in every violent act in some shape or form relating to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups. I don't understand how they are sending arms unless by ship unless there is some agreements going on between Turks, Kurds, and U.S. forces though. And they are traditional enemies of Iran. The politics in the ME are mind boggling. It should be worth military action to keep them from having nukes. With nuclear weapons they will immmediatly become very difficult to deal with.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 15, 2009)

Nukes are one of the biggest issues that will need to be dealt with. Again, it's a tough one. Iran wants to join the nuke club mainly as a power projection thing, IMHO. The problem with the US, Israel or even the UK dictating to Iran that they cannot have nukes is that it will simply look hypocritical when all three of those nations have nukes of their own. I completely agree with Amsel that the current regime in Iran cannot and should not be trusted with anything larger than a firecracker, but it will be very hard convincing them that they don't need nukes when the two nations they see as the greatest threat both have them. Having said that, disarming Israel might well be a positive step for the region. A country with a sixty year history of swift and unilateral violence ( and I'm not just talking about Pakistan  ), is not a prime candidate, IMHO, for membership of the nuke club, nor will that nation's status as the only nuclear player in the region do any good for regional stability.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2009)

Disarming Isreal? C'mon that's utter folly. What the hell does Isreal have to gain from disarming? Absolutely nothing.

Ask the same question of Britain in 1938. Or the US in 1940. BS. I'm sick and tired of pacifism being touted as a means of eliminating world strife. Name one world influencing country, regime or people who in the face of hostility threw up their arms and professed pacifism that has continued to exist in an historically influential manner.

BS.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2009)

.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Having said that, disarming Israel might well be a positive step for the region. A country with a sixty year history of swift and unilateral violence ( and I'm not just talking about Pakistan  ), is not a prime candidate, IMHO, for membership of the nuke club, nor will that nation's status as the only nuclear player in the region do any good for regional stability.



Disarming Israel would be a step toward their own annihilation, especially with Iran very close, if not already in the nuke weapons club. 

Let me ask you something, if I had a gun pointed at your head while yours was pointing at my head, would you drop yours and hope that I didn't blow your head off?

Israel is a tiny island in the middle of a bunch of people that want to see them destroyed. Remember the Six Days War, or Yom Kippur War. Israel has often faced numerically superior forces, and manages to survive. But the survive because of better weapons, better intel and better tactics. I would trust Israelis with nuclear weapons WAY more than some Islamic fundamentalist with an axe to grind against Israel or the west.

Besides that, asking Israel to give up any of it's weapons would be along the lines of me to ask you to stop breathing. Isn't going to happen.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 16, 2009)

Scary cartoon. 

I think the Iran shouldn't get mad if we shot down their drone. I'm sure the people of Iraq wouldn't want to have Iran spying on them, they aren't that happy with our presence there. 

But maybe they will at least realize that we don't want Iran in Iraq either, and regard us as an ally in that sense.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Nukes are one of the biggest issues that will need to be dealt with. Again, it's a tough one. Iran wants to join the nuke club mainly as a power projection thing...
> 
> The problem with the US, Israel or even the UK dictating to Iran that they cannot have nukes is that it will simply look hypocritical when all three of those nations have nukes of their own...


That could also play into the hands of the peace-makers BT, many Iranians have declared deep dissatisfaction at the way money is squandered on so-called prestige projects. Armored-dinnerjacket's more moderate predecessor is counting on that sentiment at the next Iranian presidential election for another term in office.

The US, UK and possibly the Soviet Union can hold that their nuclear arsenals have maintained peace for the last 60-odd years, rather than allow a wide-scale breakout of nuclear war. I doubt the same could/would be said of a nuclear Iran, not with Mr Dinnerjacket at the helm, anyway.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 16, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Disarming Isreal? C'mon that's utter folly. What the hell does Isreal have to gain from disarming? Absolutely nothing.
> 
> Ask the same question of Britain in 1938. Or the US in 1940. BS. I'm sick and tired of pacifism being touted as a means of eliminating world strife. Name one world influencing country, regime or people who in the face of hostility threw up their arms and professed pacifism that has continued to exist in an historically influential manner.
> 
> BS.


Remember 
if Israel is well armed there economy will tank as it it is they sell arms to anyone withy a dollar and they do very well at it


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> ...Armored-dinnerjacket's more moderate predecessor is counting on that sentiment at the next Iranian presidential election for another term in office


Oh well, maybe he isn't after all...

Iran's Khatami won't run for president, state news agency says - CNN.com


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 16, 2009)

I'm not suggesting that Israel disarm while Iran builds nukes - I'm suggesting that NO-ONE in the ME has any nukes at all, because no nation there can be trusted not to use them. And I'm definitely not suggesting conventional disarmament - that would be crazy for both sides. They both need conventional arms to protect their territorial integrity if attacked by the other.

Your argument works both ways Evan - do you really expect Iran to halt it's nuke program when they know the Israelis have nukes themselves? Both sides need to put the damn things away, IMHO. While Israel has viable weapons and Iran does not, you are going to have major problems convincing Iran that Israel will not attack them.

And Matt, I am not a pacifist. I wrote in my first AND second posts that the option to use military force should and must be reserved - but it should only be deployed after all diplomatic channels have failed. It is an essential part of the negotiating process, but IMHO it should not be a dominant one. 

Essentially, my logic boils down to this. Israel has spent the last six decades fighting it's neighbours. It has often won the wars, and while Israel still continues to exist as a nation, it is no more secure than it was in 1948. The enemy keeps coming back for more. Fighting just isn't working. Why carry on doing something that hasn't worked for sixty years? Long term security is only going to be gained by settling the disputes in the region and REMOVING the reasons for fighting. That won't be a speedy process, nor will it be a particularly pleasant one for either party. It may well turn out to be a lot harder and more painful than fighting a war. But the last sixty years have shown that Israel cannot secure lasting peace and security by fighting for it. 

Now I know I'm probably going to get called all kinds of things for suggesting such a thing, but so be it. I think there are many people who think a war with Iran is needed because it is the way things have always been done in this situation, and it is in some ways less demanding of society than an attempt to discuss and reach agreement with the Muslim polity might be. Is it really worth sacrificing thousands more lives (if not millions), just so we can avoid the hard work of sitting down with our enemies and forging a lasting peace?


----------



## Amsel (Mar 16, 2009)

I understand your ideas and concerns BT. I however feel that the goverment and leaders of the muslim countries in the ME have proven that they are the problem over there and will only rest when the jews are wiped out or run out of Isreal. The Arabs, Persians and other muslims have their own countries that they run into the ground; what is their obsession with killing the jews? I think that blaming Isreal for the problems in the ME is unfair and is missing the glaring truth. The muslims want the Isrealis gone. Isreal should not have to capitulate.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 16, 2009)

Golladay said:


> Our Drones probe Iranian Airspace all the time.



and shooting missles or is that pakistan?


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 16, 2009)

I'm not looking to blame Israel for everything, nor am I suggesting that they capitulate. But neither should the Palestinians lose their homeland, nor should Israel receive unconditional US support for military operations carried out with total disregard for civilian casualties. To blame the Muslim govts for all of the region's problems is to miss another glaring and extremely uncomfortable truth - the region was not like this prior to 1948, and the appearance of Israel has led to all manner of issues which no-one has ever tried to resolve except at gunpoint. That hasn't worked for sixty years, so why insist on continuing? To repeat the point in my original post, any peace settlement must address the concerns of BOTH sides and attempt to do so in an equitable manner. That cannot be done while Israel refuses to take any responsibility for her role in the region and is supported in that attitude by the US, which until recently has refuse to permit any criticism of Israel and her policies. While Muslim behaviour toward Israel is clearly unacceptable, there are elements of Israeli behaviour which are equally unacceptable (shelling UN held schools and causing massive civilian casualties, for example), and Israel needs to take responsibility for her actions and deal with those who have gone beyond the limits of what is acceptable. That is the only basis on which peace can be built.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 16, 2009)

The perfect weapon for shooting down a UAV:
Laser-equipped ground vehicle used to shoot down UAV

.

.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> They both need conventional arms to protect their territorial integrity if attacked by the other.
> 
> And Matt, I am not a pacifist. I wrote in my first AND second posts that the option to use military force should and must be reserved - but it should only be deployed after all diplomatic channels have failed. It is an essential part of the negotiating process, but IMHO it should not be a dominant one.
> 
> Essentially, my logic boils down to this. Israel has spent the last six decades fighting it's neighbours. It has often won the wars, and while Israel still continues to exist as a nation, it is no more secure than it was in 1948. The enemy keeps coming back for more. Fighting just isn't working. Why carry on doing something that hasn't worked for sixty years? Long term security is only going to be gained by settling the disputes in the region and REMOVING the reasons for fighting.



Honestly, BT... you think that Isreal is "no more secure than it was in 1948"? You are a fool. Exactly what hasn't worked for 40 years... defense? Surely you aren't that stupid. Removing the reasons for fighting means the destruction or "removal" of Isreal from the middle east.

Your statements are not worthy of response. I'm an cretin for even taking the time to respond to such nonsense.

BTW, do you even contribute to our forum other than the political section?


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 17, 2009)

I do contribute elsewhere Matt, in the aviation and modeling forums, although I will grant that these discussions have drawn me in over the past weeks. I should maybe do myself a favour and avoid them for a while, as I have tried to do in the past.

If you don't agree with my point of view fine - it is after all just a point of view, like yours. I regret that this discussion has suddenly come down to this level, as it seemed to be constructive and engaging, even though most of the posters are at the other end of the spectrum than myself. 

I'm not going to respond to the political points in your last post as it seems clear to me what kind of a response I will get from you. and I have no wish to see things go in that direction. I will remove myself from this discussion so that it can continue uninterrupted, and I will keep myself away from these discussions as it was honestly never my intention to cause disruption on the board, only to engage in an intelligent debate.

Cheers

BT


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 17, 2009)

Your response was much more respectable than my challenge. Apologies. BT, I (and the other mods) are frustrated with the political discussions. Most forum participants don't realize (and I'm likely giving away a secret here) that the Mods/Admins have their own sub-forums. In it, we too have divisive conversations that disturb us in their ability to separate, as opposed to bring us together.

While you may think otherwise, many of the Mods/Admin on this site are NOT right wing conservatives (yes, don't count me in that camp  ). I am not asking you to remove yourself (at a potential penalty to membership), but rather to refocus your obvious energy to the primary purpose of this forum's objective... WW2 aviation.

Cheers


----------



## Theo (Mar 18, 2009)

What sort of drone did the Iranians use? Any pics of it?


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 18, 2009)

Theo said:


> What sort of drone did the Iranians use? Any pics of it?


.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Your response was much more respectable than my challenge. Apologies. BT, I (and the other mods) are frustrated with the political discussions. Most forum participants don't realize (and I'm likely giving away a secret here) that the Mods/Admins have their own sub-forums. In it, we too have divisive conversations that disturb us in their ability to separate, as opposed to bring us together.
> 
> While you may think otherwise, many of the Mods/Admin on this site are NOT right wing conservatives (yes, don't count me in that camp  ). I am not asking you to remove yourself (at a potential penalty to membership), but rather to refocus your obvious energy to the primary purpose of this forum's objective... WW2 aviation.
> 
> Cheers



No worries Matt. I only intended to butt out of this thread to avoid any potential disturbance. Message received loud and clear, you'll find me over on the aviation board 8)


----------



## Theo (Mar 18, 2009)

Here is a picture of the drone, an Ababil3 I found here. It supposed to have "stealth" features.
Iran Ramps up Drone Production | Danger Room from Wired.com

Ababil (Swallow) Unmanned Air Vehicle [UAV]


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 19, 2009)

Yep. Very stealthy orange.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2009)

Anything made from plastic and paper under a 10' wing span would be stealthy anyway.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 20, 2009)

Apparently not stealthy enough. Anyone here what method was used to shoot it down? I understand it was an air-to-air. If so, please tell me it was destroyed with a M61 20mm and not a sidewinder.


----------



## ccheese (Mar 21, 2009)

Theo said:


> [Here is a picture of the drone, an Ababil3 I found here. It supposed to have "stealth" features.


What's it use for power ? Does it's power source generate heat ?
That's fodder for most missiles......

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2009)

ccheese said:


> What's it use for power ?
> 
> Charles



A rubber band...


----------



## ccheese (Mar 22, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A rubber band...



[email protected] !!

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2009)




----------



## fly boy (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> How do you score that? A full kill, half kill, or no kill?
> 
> Iraq has no fighter aircraft yet. From what I read just helos and transports.
> 
> ...



half kill maybe and i would think they used the guns to shoot it down


----------

