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.'"
Re:Farsi?? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?
THANK YOU! Here's a PDF [iran-heritage.org] that lays out some of the arguments against calling the language Farsi. We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?
Re:Oh, the timing of this (Score:5, Interesting)
His behavior only appears to be irrational if you believe that either Israel would win a quick victory in a war with Iran by itself or that the US would quickly enter the fight to defend Israel in a war that it started against the express advice of the US. I don't think either is very likely to be the case. Iran clearly has a much higher tolerance for civilian casualties. They can accept casualties in the hundreds of thousands while the Israeli government could hardly survive if Israeli casualties reached the low thousands in an unprovoked war that it began without any immediate threat.
China is heavily dependent on Iranian oil. Both China and Russia would come out with uncompromising condemnations of Israeli aggression. The choice facing Obama would be to force an Israeli ceasefire or start World War 3.
it is a fairly obvious trap and it is highly unlikely that Israel is going to fall for it. The consequences would be catastrophic if it did.
Instead, Israel appears to be trying to invite a preemptive strike by Iran on Israel which would be disastrous for Iran for much the same reasons.
Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:5, Interesting)
This thing is a gimmick. It is a small cruise missile with remote capabilities. The bomb on it is a tiny little dumb thing that isn't going to hurt anyone unless it hits them directly, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that the avionics on that drone don't amount to much more than a camera bolted on. In defense against the presumed target, the US, this thing is a novelty. The US gets giddy over electronic warfare and this thing is asking have its connection severed. The fuel and explosives are better spent on a missile that doesn't bother to return home and doesn't need an operator to guide it in. This does nothing to help the defense of Iran against the style of combat the US uses.
If you are going to fight the US, and you are not China or Russia, you need to fight dispersed, hidden, and from cover. The only time it is worthwhile to fully stand and fight is if the victory you achieve is worth the destruction of the force you are having stand and fight. It is worthwhile to launch a massive simultaneous missile on a US carrier battle group with everything you have knowing that force will be destroyed. If you kill a carrier, the fact that you just destroyed your missile force is worth it. Outside of that though, you need to fight with the understanding that the US has the capability to glass the shit out of any arbitrary size of land using just conventional weapons. Your goal as the defender is to make it so that your forces are concealed and doing hit and runs, and so never standing around waiting to be glassed, or to fight from a position the US is unwilling to destroy. Namely, if you fight from a city the US won't level the city World War II style. They might knock down the buildings one by one trying to take out suspected military units, but the won't just level the place in one swipe like they could with a few MOABs. This glorified cruise missile doesn't help this style of fighting. It can't be launched by field units, and even if it could, it is going to lead the US back to your position assuming it even makes it back. You are better off to launch a missile that isn't expected to return or, even better, save the money to arm your city bound army with more and better RPGs.
Personally, if I had to organize the defense of Iran from the US, the only conventional forces I would bother with would be sea mines and easily concealed cruise missiles. The only point of those forces would be to try and sacrifice themselves in doing damage to the ocean going invasion force. 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. Train the army in guerrilla tactics, cache weapons and explosives all over the place, and never even make the pretense of fighting with uniforms on. Encourage the civilians to fight in their own amateurish way not to inflict any real harm, but to blur the line between military and civilian in the eyes of the enemy as much as possible. The only military tech worthwhile would be the kind useful to guerrilla forces. Bike bombs, all manner of concealed explosives, easily concealed weapons, concealed body armor, methods of communicating across cells and receiving orders, methods of smuggling, modified civilian vehicles (that still look civilian) with military applications, and that sort of thing are the techs worth developing in earnest. You still need the capacity to fight a conventional war against your neighbors, but the real threat, the US, is a fight you don't want to do standing up. The US loves nothing more than to see massive troop formations all lined up nice and orderly in a big open desert. See Iraq War part 1 for what happens to armies that stand.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:V-1 with turbojet (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh goody, so 60-70% of them will hit their target?
As for late 50s technology designed with CAD, doesn't that describe NATO planes these days? Has there been a major breakthrough since the jet engine? Apart from fly by wire guidance systems which they will certainly be using. .
Re:"Great" (Score:1, Interesting)
Based on your response, you seem to have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't claiming Iran (population approx 200000000) would have nothing left to lose, I was claiming *Israel* (population approx 8000000) would have nothing left to lose if they were nuked by Israel. Given the destructive capacity of a modern nuclear weapon and the relative density of both the population and infrastructure of the Israeli state, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a nuclear strike by Iran would leave Israel with nothing left to lose. Nuclear/Chemical/Biological retaliation would also not be unreasonable to expect from the hawkish elements (sadly the most likely to survive a first strike) of the Israeli populous.
Let me be clear that I'm not making a statement against Iran or for Israel (or the inverse). I'm merely commenting that Israel's stated policy is that they want to exist without state (or state-sponsored, or non-state) attacks on a constant basis. Iran on the other hand has stated that they want to exist without interference, and want to see another state (Israel) "erased from time".
Now, to address your concern about the US. A few points, regardless of what you want to say about the US's aggression record (which, as a student of history I will say is actual approximately comparable to Iran's, if in an isomorphic, rather than congruent respect). Additionally, in both cases "past performance is no indication of future success". US corporations do *not* announce armed UAVs daily. Reconnaissance drones yes, armed platforms are slightly less frequent, but that's a quibble. The important thing to consider is that most of the platforms developed by US companies are just that, developed by companies, not governments. And considering that the US is engaged in shooting conflicts at the moment (regardless of cause) this should be less troubling than a nation not at conflict, ostensibly with the stated objective of conflict (once again regardless of specific record), developing new armed platforms. Basically I find it more troubling that saber rattling parties are amassing arms than I do that actual combatants are continuing development on existing arms. Furthermore the US companies are often developing their platforms in competition to one another, going after the same narrow range of contracts. When one of them wins the contract the other designs are scrapped, regardless of the corporate fanfare at their introduction.
Lastly I'm going to reiterate that the truly disturbing issue, IMHO, is the timing of this in relation to Iran's opening of its first nuclear facility. While this facility is (currently) peaceful, there is no technical barrier to its military use, and given its history of development neither I nor the rest of the known world would find its conversion for military purposes even the least bit surprising. Even if I were to concede all of your other arguments this alone justifies concern. Even if the US is rolling out armed drones daily, we aren't simultaneously bringing online/rolling out whatever weapons systems come after nukes. (Sure we have nukes now, but we have for the past 60 years, when we haven't had UAVs, so the temporal relevance argument really doesn't come into play.)
In short, yes I am concerned about this and Iran's nuclear announcement and their relative timing. Yes I do think that they intend to make good on their threats against Israel (if they can't/won't yet). And I think that your attempt to draw parallels to the US is an absurdity of ivory-tower academic thought being perpetuated by someone without real understanding of the context, history, or issues.
(Sorry to post AC, but I am the same AC as above)
Re:V-1 with turbojet (Score:3, Interesting)
The Germans were impressed with the T-34, especially the gun and suspension. They were not impressed with the build quality and never did wrap their heads around volume over quality.
The Americans too built inferior tanks in greater numbers which overwhelmed them in Africa and the Western Front.
American tanks had better radios, higher speed and better engines. Germans had good guns, good optics and really good armor.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
They are using what looks to be a 500 lb bomb on an ordinary mounting hard point. This opens them up to using the same UAV for many different missions. There are literally dozens of different bombs, missiles, sensors, extra fuel tanks, and electronic warfare equipment that could likely be simply mounted to this UAV platform and sent up without complicated mission re-tasking. Using a common platform for UAV and cruise missile type operations seems sensible and reasonable.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:1, Interesting)
What you might call a dictatorship I call a stabilization and modernization of Iran in face of growing Islamic and Communist groups working against the Shah and his policies. There are two sides to every story and it seems that you have clung onto one point of view and readily dismiss the positives outcomes that the Shah brought to Iran.
If I had to choose between a Shah run Iran vs that of an Islamic Republic, I would choose the Shah.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:2, Interesting)
As an Iranian I wouldn't like to see the word 'President' precede his name. He's a murderer, He didn't win the election, He just stole our vote and killed and imprisoned a lot of people to stabilize the government. The way to stop such an idiot is to help people of Iran. We will be the first secular democracy in middle east, with or without others' help. I don't know why the hell should a country like that fall in the hands of a minority of neonazi-like hardliners who may exist in every country. Go deep back to Plato's time, go few decades back to Jim Morrison's rebellious generation, learn about history of algorithm, algebra, chemistry, etc. and you will see strong Iranian/persian roots all over. The greatest contemporary art collection of the whole asia is in undergrounds of museums in iran. A nation of long-time history won't become hardliners in just 30 years. A strong ideology like Islam couldn't conquer the country after 1400 years, I don't think that an idiot like Ahmadinejad can make it to end of his so-called presidency.
It really pisses me off that western media call the asshole 'President Ahmadinejad'. Didn't any of the reporters watch CNN? 3 million people in Tehran streets protested in silence, to tell the world that he's not our president.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a stretch to say that Iran is Persia, but it is accurate to say that most Iranians are Persians first. An Arab minority controls the country. But the military is mostly Persian, and does not support the Muslim government. It is a strange place. They are in the middle of a cultural war, as Persian culture (which bears more similarity to European culture than Arab) fights with Arab culture for influence. Considering Persia's cultural survival for thousands of years, it seems unlikely that the mullahs will win.
Has anyone ever studdied the Iran-Iraq War?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Iran's core military strategy is to send one guy with a rifle and ten unarmed guys behind him. The Iranians' grand military plan is to refight the Battle of Stalingrad. Even deploying this strategy, they basically fought Iraq to the ugliest stalemate since the trenches in France in 1915. A full-on war between the US and Iran would result in the equivalent of a one-sided Verdun every single week.
A couple missiles aren't going to mitigate the fact that Iran has no strategic petroleum reserve and zero refining capacity. Its transport would fail in the first week of any war and agriculture couldn't last a year. Probably less if the attacker(s) launched a prolonged ground war in late winter (as is US tradition in the region) before crops go in the ground.
A couple missiles are also not going to mitigate the fact that Iran would mostly depend on imported Hezbollah fighters to train its army how to fight a ground war the right way. And, frankly, you can't take a military modeled on the Red Army and convert it into a competent guerilla force like Hezbollah without years of advance planning. That planning hasn't happened. Iran doesn't have any commando force of any international reputation.
In short, Iran is not prepared to fight the war it would need to fight to take advantage of its rough terrain.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
our US UAVs have names like "Predator" for what's supposed to be an "unarmed" platform. Our missile blocking system is named "Patriot". Our troop transport is named "Stryker".... everybody does it. Don't get started on the names of recent Middle East US military operations... they're almost oxymoron.
Frankly, I think the announcement is specifically to get Israel to take a shot at them the US doesn't want them too. Everybody will claim this is "offensive technology" and Iran is picking the fight even though Israel has long range US made fighters and even nukes within striking distance and has already done unprovoked "preemptive" attacks on Iran before. The US already had egg on it's face trying to stick up for Israel last time they didn't ask before attacking Iran... do it again and Israel will be on the wrong end of most of our Nato partners that are tired of their lying to their allies.
620 Miles? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Left out the best part (Score:5, Interesting)
I dont know how people believe this.
Israel doesn't want to take a shot at Iran. Knowing a few Israeli's the average Israeli doesn't want any more war, the government knows it's political suicide to start another war after what went down in Lebanon, still going down in the Palestinian territories.
The only people who think Israel is even considering a strike at Iran are the extremist right wing parties of the US.
If by everybody, you mean Fox News.
Now lets look at what's really happening. The Iranian's developed a reusable 60's era cruise missile, useless against the sophisticated defences of Israel, US, NATO, Russia and so forth. But Iran knows that the US, Russia, Israel, et al. will do nothing. What Iran is afraid of are pro-arab extremist groups from their immediate neighbours as well as a growing rift between Tehran and Damascus (Syria). People who have armed forces that are less technologically advanced then Iran's but are capable of waging an extended conflict with Tehran.
They are developing UCAV technology because its a cheaper way to fight a technologically inferior but more numerous foe which does not endanger hard to replace vehicles and pilots... Shock horror, just like everyone else who have developed UAV and UCAV technology.
Re:Also (Score:5, Interesting)
The Taliban et al. have already figured all this out. So they don't play this game.
Instead of trying to defeat us by conventional means, they've chosen to give us an autoimmune disease, something like AIDS: First, they damage us slightly via one or more (usually few) terrorist vectors. The initial damage is not particular great, but it causes the rest of the body (i.e. the government and the public) to overreact.
All of the body's defenses (i.e. treasure) are focused on eliminating the agent, but the agent retreats into a place where the autoimmune system is ineffective (i.e. caves). The continuing effort begins to sap the body of energy necessary for maintenance of the rest of itself (education, infrastructure, etc.). Eventually, the body begins to decay such that the nervous system (government) begins to break down and the logical part of the brain begins to fail. Psychosis takes in as the body begins to give in to strong, vacillating emotions.
Eventually, other vital organs begin to fail, leaving it open to opportunistic diseases (massive debt and possibly graft). The final prognosis is not promising.
Re:Standing and fighting is for glass makers (Score:1, Interesting)
If you are going to fight the US, and you are not China or Russia, you need to fight dispersed, hidden, and from cover. The only time it is worthwhile to fully stand and fight is if the victory you achieve is worth the destruction of the force you are having stand and fight. It is worthwhile to launch a massive simultaneous missile on a US carrier battle group with everything you have knowing that force will be destroyed. If you kill a carrier, the fact that you just destroyed your missile force is worth it. Outside of that though, you need to fight with the understanding that the US has the capability to glass the shit out of any arbitrary size of land using just conventional weapons. Your goal as the defender is to make it so that your forces are concealed and doing hit and runs, and so never standing around waiting to be glassed, or to fight from a position the US is unwilling to destroy. Namely, if you fight from a city the US won't level the city World War II style. They might knock down the buildings one by one trying to take out suspected military units, but the won't just level the place in one swipe like they could with a few MOABs. This glorified cruise missile doesn't help this style of fighting. It can't be launched by field units, and even if it could, it is going to lead the US back to your position assuming it even makes it back. You are better off to launch a missile that isn't expected to return or, even better, save the money to arm your city bound army with more and better RPGs.
StarCraft tactics, anyone?
Personally, if I had to organize the defense of Iran from the US, the only conventional forces I would bother with would be sea mines and easily concealed cruise missiles. The only point of those forces would be to try and sacrifice themselves in doing damage to the ocean going invasion force. 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. Train the army in guerrilla tactics, cache weapons and explosives all over the place, and never even make the pretense of fighting with uniforms on. Encourage the civilians to fight in their own amateurish way not to inflict any real harm, but to blur the line between military and civilian in the eyes of the enemy as much as possible. The only military tech worthwhile would be the kind useful to guerrilla forces. Bike bombs, all manner of concealed explosives, easily concealed weapons, concealed body armor, methods of communicating across cells and receiving orders, methods of smuggling, modified civilian vehicles (that still look civilian) with military applications, and that sort of thing are the techs worth developing in earnest. You still need the capacity to fight a conventional war against your neighbors, but the real threat, the US, is a fight you don't want to do standing up. The US loves nothing more than to see massive troop formations all lined up nice and orderly in a big open desert. See Iraq War part 1 for what happens to armies that stand.
That would 1. Be against the rules of war (I know, sounds stupid, but that's how it is), if you do not properly distuinguish the fighting force from the civilian population you are a terrorist. And 2. It's a Total War-tactic, the very thing that led to deciding that bombing Japan with nukes was a more mercyful response bodycount-wise than a conventional invasion.
Re:You are the worst person in the world. (Score:4, Interesting)
The US has the highest percentage of it own population incarcerated of any country in the world (at a bit above 100 per 10000).
So either the US has a much higher percentage of criminals that the rest of the world or the US is blantanly breaking the rights of millions of it's citizens (like by incarcerating people for victimless crimes).
If invasion to defend human rights is justified, the US is one of the better candidates for being invaded.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
Israel and Iran are actually in quite similar positions. They are both surrounded by neighbouring countries that hate them and would happily invade if they perceive any weakness. The only way they survive is by looking sufficiently aggressive that no one attacks them.
Threatening each other works quite nicely for this, as a diplomatic strategy. Their neighbours would all be happy if both countries annihilated each other, so they won't take sides. Meanwhile, by focussing on each other, they don't look like a direct threat to anyone else, but they also don't look like an easy target.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
So the National Guard killing students for protesting against Nixon sending troops to Cambodia is propaganda?
Sure, the actual cops were sent by Governor Rhodes, I don't expect presidents to make calls to cops.
However the demonstrations started against Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and later the courts found nobody guilty of the murder, all this while Nixon was giving speeches about 'bums' causing trouble.
So this was done with knowledge and approval from the top level down, US government terrorizing and killing US citizens.
Obviously Mexico should have invaded and saved the country.
Re:Left out the best part (Score:3, Interesting)
> (you know, like the palestinian practice of throwing kids on the street just before an Israeli jeep just so they can claim the IDF murders children)
Source?
Re:Left out the best part (Score:2, Interesting)
Well actually Muslims *do* have a history where sanity prevailed. The problem is precisely that it is now only history...
Because, during the dark Christian Middle Age, Muslim Al Andaluz was an oasis of tolerance, reason and learning compared to the barbaric Christian nations of the rest of Europe. Then dogma and religious bickering took precedence and began a downfall that has not stopped yet. And they did not had an Enlightnment to begin the age of reason and put an end to the age of religion as we had.