Iran Unveils Its First UAV Bomber 574
ms_gen writes "Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled today the first UAV bomber produced by Iran. The drone, named Karrar (farsi for Striker) can carry various types of bombs. It can reach up to 900 km/h in speed and has a range of 1000 kilometers (620 miles). The Iranian president mentions that 'Karrar is a symbol of the progress of defence technology in Iran.'"
Farsi?? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?
Re:wtf (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this falls under "Stuff that Matters".
You know, since this is yet another "antagonize the West" type of action by Iran.
Typical (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what I'd expect from Iran, the use of UnAmerican Vile Bombers. So unlike the Righteous Holy American Bombers used by our own beloved military. It's like how Iraq stooped to deploying weapons of mass destruction; something we'd never dream of doing. At this rate we're going to have to liberate the entire world.
Re:wtf (Score:1, Insightful)
More like "antagonize Israel and end up bringing a world of hurt upon oneself" or "how to commit suicide."
Our (America's) military fucks around because our moron leaders love to play politics and leach every bit of $$$$ out of defense-related conflicts, and not let the military do its job the way it should, because we're halfway around the world and our "enemies" can barely prick us from there.
Israel on the hand doesn't fuck around, since they are the primary target of jihadists, so there the politicians are very aware that it's a matter of survival. I'd say Iran is foolhardy in their nuclear and medium-range weapon efforts.
Limited Value (Score:1, Insightful)
I suppose if you're interested in terrorizing people in your own country it works, but military applications pretty much require that the user control the skies. Otherwise they'll just get shot down in short order.
And numbers only count if you can crank them out, something I suspect Iran might have a hard time with.
Re:wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?
OK.
But it's still not newsworthy.
Ok really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Left out the best part (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn straight. Heaven knows naming your UAVs something ominous is a sure sign of evil. Killing a few hundred innocent civilians per month with the lilly-themed "Predator" drones is something entirely different...
All of these anti-war people complaining about the tens of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan don't seem to understand: Iran has leaders who threaten violence, with really mean sounding words. How is it that they only seem to criticize America?
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, just to clear this up: the fact they've developed their own UAV bomber is purely to spite the 'West' whereas any similar defense technology development by a western nation should never be construed as antagonising the Middle East, let alone Iran. Furthermore, Iran should not by any means be allowed the same fear sodden defense industry that the West so covets and they should simply accept that.
OK, thanks, I think I've got it now - you're schlepping the same drag-and-drop late-night-international-espionage-TV-drama idiocy that practically defines the geo-political arrogance of our precious West in the eyes of others.
You ought to remember that many countries see the supposed leader of the West, The U.S, as a terrible and amoral aggressor, having willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons), continues to stockpile nuclear weapons munitions while chastising the rest of the world for doing so using trade and political embargoes, trades big-brother-style protection rackets to arm-bend smaller countries into accepting U.S military bases, has camps in which they not only 'disappear' but spiritually and psychologically humiliate the prisoners using methods not seen since Vietnam (the list goes on). This is the stuff they see in talk shows on their TVs, read in their opinion columns in their newspapers, talk about in political science classes at high-school, etc...
Just to point you to the other side of the coin where the opinions of 6 or so billion other people may differ from your picture of it all.
Re:wtf (Score:3, Insightful)
So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?
OK.
But it's still not newsworthy.
Oh my, yes it is. This particular UAV doesn't have the range to threaten Israel (that would require another 500km at least), but you can bet that Iran wants the world to think that the next one will. Militarily, a UAV would be an less-than-ideal delivery mechanism for a nuclear weapon, but it might prove viable if it were able to fly low-and-slow with a negligible radar profile.
Iran's closer neighbours, meanwhile, have all been served notice, too. This is Iran's way of saying, 'Don't fuck with us.' Remember that most neighbouring countries do not love the Shi'ite version of Islam, which is a majority religion only in Iran and Iraq, I believe. Think back to the European wars that accompanied the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Shias and Sunnis are kind of like Catholics and Protestants. Peaceful now, but often at odds with one another.
Lastly, this is Iran thumbing its nose at US-sponsored economic sanctions. Effectively, they're saying, 'No matter what you do to thwart us, we can still acquire the technologies we want to be the threat you don't want us to be. So why not sit down and allow us to negotiate a better place for ourselves in the region?'
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Farsi?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, I just call Bostonese, Bostonese. I wouldn't call it English.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.
The UAV does seem to be the poster-child of US military power in the region. Whether or not the Iranian weapon system is effective on the battlefield probably isn't as important as the propaganda it will generate.
First Strike or Deadman Switch? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the BBC photos it looks either to be 1) a first strike weapon as its not designed for reuse or 2) is part of a deadman switch retaliation for a strike against the iranian homeland.
Nazi V1 inspired rocket powered sled drones need not be rail based (iran has a few lines) but could be launched from modified SEA containers off semi-trucks (the drone quite stubby in wingspan) or dropped the wheeled carriage after takeoff.
Tactically in a moving / shooting war I doubt these are useful as they are easily destroyed on the ground after satellites and enemy surveillance drones pick them out of the other targets.
Denying lengthy roads, rail lines and destroying trucking depots would be the "counter offensive"
Now back to starcraft II.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the Treaty of Versailles
The Rhineland will become a demilitarized zone administered by Great Britain and France jointly. German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished. Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years. German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 6 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included. The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited. Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited. Blockades on ships are prohibited. Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles).
Because of these restrictions, the Germans were pissed because they could not defend their country which was surrounded by hostile powers. Because of this, they turned to extreme nationalism and the Nazi party which lead to WWII.
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion. It was the deterrent threat of an unwinnable nuclear war that ended that horrible regime.
The Cold War was basically caused because the USSR managed to reverse engineer the atomic bomb which in turn scared the US based on an absurd notion of a huge Soviet Empire, of course ignoring the fact that Communism can never scale properly. So they fought a bunch of proxy wars to mask the problems of the Soviet economic system being nearly impossible to maintain in peace time because it all revolved around the government which needed war as a way to increase production without having to innovate which was nearly impossible in a communist state. Had the USSR never gotten the atomic bomb, why would the US really care that various third-world insignificant countries like Vietnam and Korea?
Why would Japan have attacked the west if it was allowed to defend itself with the proper amount of battleships? Why would Germany gone to extreme nationalism if it could maintain a proper armed forces? It wouldn't have, the results of WWI shaped WWII more than any socio-political differences ever could.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, in the fifty-five years since the two times they were used, we've managed to avoid sliding down that slope. So far, we've done something right; I just hope we can keep it up.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:1, Insightful)
Damn straight. Heaven knows naming your UAVs something ominous is a sure sign of evil.
Sure is, evil in a big way. Evil like naming attack helicopters after an indigenous tribe they wiped out and stole their land from. Those wicked bastards.
Anyone else note that when ever someone in Iran farts in a slightly evil way its news international headlines. Clearly some precursor propaganda to the war we have no choice but to declare for reasons that haven't been invented properly yet (though the economic warfare has already been declared). All must quiver in fear of their little plastic remote control planes with a cheap web cam on the nose, these evil Persians that we placed in power after murdering and replacing their previously elected government must be stopped so we can take their natural reso.... er so we can feel good about stopping them because they were the baddies in some films a while ago. Hey didn't we do that something similar with the Taliban too? I'm sensing a theme here.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of my defense would involve the army stripping down into civilian clothing the second the invasion hits and dispersing into the population with a plan, and giving everyone a (civilians included) gun.
Iran would never want their people to have weapons. The Iranian people would only use them to revolt against their own government.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably due to the fact that Iran has never invaded another country, while it found itself attacked by Iraq without any valid justification. Back then Iraq was supported by pretty much the entire western world. I won't even go into how the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government to replace it with a dictatorship(the Shah)
End result: Iran has every reason to build up its defences. History has shown Iran that the western world's propaganda about justice and fairness only applies to them, not to other countries, that the western world will support unjustified attacks on Iran and thus they need to be able to defend themselves.
Just one flaw in your logic: How is a UAV bomber a defensive weapon?
Re:Left out the best part (Score:2, Insightful)
Whereas, if this was American they would have used the key catch phrase "it'll save lives"
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all good and great, but it's not going to do much damage to the US forces. The REAL way to fight the US is from inside the US.
What you do is you buy a few nukes and disperse them in the most important cities and then blow half of them and promise to blow the other half if the US doesn't stop with its invasion.
That's the only true way to actually STOP an attack by US, nothing else will stop them, they can only be stopped from inside US itself.
The problem with US is that it is too far from the Middle East and it is separated by the ocean, and this allows the USA to attack anybody on the other continents without any real retaliation against their people.
Think why you said "Except Russia and China", that's because Russia and China can kill a lot of US non-military citizens by dropping nukes on them. That's the only way to stop the US is by scaring the non-military population. Everything else is just going to end up in a long protracted conflict on the territory of US choosing.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you tell me this: did Iran invade USA to 'free' US people after the US police shot students [wikipedia.org]? Should some country have invaded USA to free its people from its brutal government?
Can we just... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Limited Value (Score:3, Insightful)
They've succeeded in getting a nuclear reactor opened and unveiled a UAV bomber without making any explicit threats at all.
You mean other than promising to wipe Israel off the map as soon as they are able?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran Has Invaded and Occupied Lebanon (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ironic that when Iran was politically benign during the 1950s, it was subjected to foreign meddling. But now that Iran is in the grip of an irredentist ideology and trying to build nuclear weapons, the Left are suddenly arguing they pose little threat.
It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Left has become, when they scoff and sneer at some poor illiterate woman who's facing death by stoning, claiming that her case is over-hyped and overblown. That's not the kind of liberalism I was raised to respect - kids these days (sigh).
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, it's a cruise missle from the 60's with RTB functionality.
But lets look at who it will be used against.
1. United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan. No, They are theocratic, not stupid. Their war against the US is propaganda only. Even weakened, NATO could crush them like a paper cup if given any motivation.
2. Israel. No, aside from having the most advanced air defence network in the middle east, attacking Israel is stupid for political reasons. The Persians and the Israeli's get along like a house on fire, giving Israeli Persians a reason to liberate their former homeland is suicide for the Islamic Republic. So again their war is purely propaganda.
3. Remnants of Iraq. Quite possible if things get even more out of hand there, which is likely. If more extremist pro-Arab groups take root Iran becomes threatened (as does Saudi Arabia).
4. Syria, also possible. Despite getting along in the past, relations between Damascus and Tehran have become strained in recent years.
5. Pakistan, maybe. Pakistan is having it's own problems with extremist Muslim groups. Pakistan the state is no threat to Iran but if that state falls who is to say.
6. The other Stans (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), not likely, they dont have the money or organisation to strike Iran but still possible.
So this weapon was not designed to deliver righteous death to the western capitalist pig-dogs but rather to defend against Iran's real threats, Syria, Former Iraq and possibly the Stans. It is Iran's neighbours who have the capacity, motivation and gumption to draw Iran into a lengthy and costly conflict where such weapons will be needed.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the way to go, and beats suicidal gestures by conventional forces.
The US is sufficiently beholden to modern laws of war (whose goal is to outlaw effective war and whose outcome is frequently PROTRACTED war) that it can't fight unconventional wars without spending too much money. The US can reduce own-side casualties to historically trivial levels, and can stay as long as it will spend money, but it can't fight economically.
This wouldn't work against a genuinely unconstrained opponent (who could cheerfully destroy the whole country) but genuinely unconstrained nation-state forces haven't existed since WWII.
There IS a conventional bomb suitable for fighting urban warfare. The FOAB ensures Russia has a much nicer option than fighting in cities, which didn't work out so well. The best way to fight in urban areas is to destroy them and kill everyone in them, which until recently required inconvenient and embarrassing nukes. The US can't ever use such a thing, but it is impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Cpnq4wFx0&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re:lesson from argentina (Score:3, Insightful)
We shouldn't underestimate Iran, nor should we compare ourselves to the wonderfully brave but horribly under-equipped British.
In actual war with Iran, for example, those pre-positioned bases we built to defend the region against it might be used for their intended purpose.
They were built years before they were used in the Gulf War, with prepositioned equipment enough for a serious effort. They still exist, they are unsinkable, and (literally) generations of airmen and sailors have deployed to and fought from them.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the timing of this (Score:3, Insightful)
An Israeli attack isn't going to be a "war". It's going to be a hit and run attack like the attack on Saddam's Nuclear reactor. They will probably fly a few dozen planes into Iran and bomb the snot out of every facility they have intelligence on. Given Iran's preparations it will probably only destroy about 50% of the institutions in a best case scenario and likely have little to no effect other than a slight delay in production.
The solution to the Iranian problem is to bring their people to power and an attack on the Iranian nation would delay that solution.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:1, Insightful)
Who says the US is the target?
If the US attacks Iran, everyone knows who will win that conventional battle. But can the US overrun Iran quickly enough to keep Iran from sinking every tanker in the Persian Gulf, and going after every refinery on the other side of the Persian Gulf. Hint - there's a lot of them.
It's not really mutual assured destruction, i.e. no Americans would die in these strikes, but the world economy would suffer an enormous kick in the balls.
Now tell me half-assed cruise missiles don't have a role as a deterrent against foreign attack.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, UAVs can be used offensively against low technology targets. For example dropping missiles on Taleban targets in the middle of the night. You can't use it against Israel because they know how to use radar, and a UAV will be easy to shoot down.
What Iran needs is a terrain hugging cruise missile. It needs to be fast enough to get ahead of observations phoned ahead along the ground track. Ballistic missiles are less effective now that ballistic defense is more mature.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:5, Insightful)
> The Palestinians, a people screwed over for millenia, finally get to make their homes out of glass, where they can't throw stones!
Screwed over for millenia eh?
Is that a joke? Really. You go back millenia and there are other people to start playing violin over.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:2, Insightful)
All they need to do is vote differently if they actually felt their current government sucks.
You've been had again if you think Iran has anything like a democracy. The only ones you can vote for are those pre-approved by the mullahs and last I checked, they didn't like/let anyone run for office that might have a different viewpoint.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, I can make up shit too. Or can you link to anyone, anywhere in the Iranian government who has ever mentioned nuclear strikes against anyone, let alone Israel.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the movie 300? Xerxes was Persian.
Hollywood movies are not historically accurate, they are entertainment not education.
Besides Persians are Iranians in the same way Romans are Europeans.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:3, Insightful)
You are the worst person in the world. (Score:5, Insightful)
It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Left has become, when they scoff and sneer at some poor illiterate woman who's facing death by stoning, claiming that her case is over-hyped and overblown. That's not the kind of liberalism I was raised to respect - kids these days (sigh).
How about this for a liberal value: LEAVE SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALONE. If we have to invade Iran for stoning women, we've got about twenty other countries with worse human rights records - including some of our biggest allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan - that we'd have to invade. And those other allies I mentioned are far less democratic than Iran.
Hezbollah did not appear out of Iran's magic crystal ball. It appeared directly as a result of Israeli and American forces invading Lebanon in 1982. If you'll remember at the time, Iran was fighting an all out war against the US backed henchman Saddam Hussein, because we didn't like their chosen government back then either. I don't think they had time to form a commando unit and invade Lebanon while they were losing that war. (Gee, and that was around the time that Reagan and some current Fox News personalities were committing treason by selling weapons to sworn enemies, taking the money to Colombia, and playing the other side of the drug war to fund the unconstitutional CIA. Fascinating!)
We like destroying secular Arab nationalism and getting absolutely shocked when it turns into extreme islamic fundamentalism. We destroyed the Iranian government in 1953 and ended up with the Islamic Revolution in 1979. We destroyed the marxist government of Afghanistan and eventually got the Taliban. We destroyed the PLO and got Hamas. We destroyed Lebanese movements and we got Hezbollah. We destroyed Iraq and I'll guaran-fucking-tee you we're going to get some crazy Shia elements there as well. Amazing! It's like if you subject people with war and misery for decades, they come out the other side with some kind of chip on their shoulder.
Can we see a pattern here? Just like if you invaded South Carolina and took out their army, you'd have a bunch of fanatical Christians blowing themselves up trying to take just a piece out of whoever invaded. It's a rational response when you have no options left.
So, seriously, shut the fuck up about Iran. You can get all offended and moral about their religious laws when you stop Catholic priests from using their separate religious rules to rape children and get away with it. Oh, but I guess child-rape is morally sound in your sad, fucked up world, huh? Either that, or you think it's easier to go halfway around the world and start another war in the same spot for the third time this decade to stop some injustice.
If you really think that's the case, I have only one thing to say: go. fuck. yourself.
Sincerely,
A "Liberal" Who Has Values,
Including Calling A Spade A Spade
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to choose between a Shah run Iran vs that of an Islamic Republic, I would choose the Shah.
1. When the US intervened, it wasn't the choice between Shah and mullas. It was a choice between absolute monarchy and a true democratic republic. The US just didn't like that Iranians voted in a "socialist".
2. Unless you're Iranian, I don't see why your opinion on which choice is preferable should count. It's their nation, for them to run and to live in with consequences for their choices, good and bad.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree less! Iran will *never* be able to compete with US in air superiority. The most they can expect is to make things more difficult.
I live in Australia. Our airforce will never be able to compete with U.S. air superiority either but I'm not worried about being bombed by the U.S. That's because as a country we're on good terms with most of the western world and my government doesn't do stupid shit like rattle its saber at the largest military force in the world. If Iran is worried about being threatened by nuclear powers then maybe it should seek out allies and build ties rather than trying to go toe to toe with vastly superior forces.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Unless you're Iranian, I don't see why your opinion on which choice is preferable should count. It's their nation, for them to run and to live in with consequences for their choices, good and bad.
Put it this way - if Iran or whoever had been the size of the U.S. and the U.S. had been the size of Iran, I'm pretty sure they would have intervened when Bush Jr. was elected. Although of course if they had, we wouldn't be having this debate now because they wouldn't just have interfered, they would have wiped the U.S. off the map. This 'lets try not to totally annihilate these other dudes' movement is a nicety that most of the States' opponents don't follow.
Re:You are the worst person in the world. (Score:1, Insightful)
How about this for a liberal value: LEAVE SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALONE.
I couldn't agree more. Democracy is for whites.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
It is insightful because it is an excellent example of US government turning against its people, it was done on command of the President, no less.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
Without an outside threat, the Iranian regime doesn't have a lot going for it. It's economic policies are more or less national socialism. It has a number of minorities but no political system to give them a voice and a sense that they aren't mere cogs in a wheel. Then their is the perceived threat that those naughty Sunnis will convert the Shi'ites and the Imams will be out of jobs. Without conjuring an outside threat, the Iranian regime is finished and they know it.
Re:Limited Value (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:620 Miles? (Score:4, Insightful)
And a range of 620 miles? Isn't that about the distance between Iran and Israel? How sweet of them.
(This "coincidence" is the surest sign to me that it doesn't have nearly the claimed range.)
"620 miles" is just the converted value from "1000 kilometers" which is a nice round approximate number. No coincidence is required. Just a lack of understanding of significant digits