Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Ambassador of Death not such a good ambassador after all

Israel Matzav recently posted that Time magazine says the Iranian bomber drone is, in fact, a fraud. Apparently the drone is
"More like the 'ambassador of minor damage to unintended target,'" says Richard Aboulafia, a veteran analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace-consulting firm just outside Washington, D.C.
because...
Iran lacks the ability to guide its drone over long distances, nor does it have the sensors — both on the aircraft and at the ground stations controlling it — to make it any kind of a threat 
So the purpose of the announcement...
Iran isn't concerned about reality, just making the right impression, especially among its home audience
 because...
"Iran has no defense against an Israeli or U.S. first strike," John McCreary, a veteran U.S. intelligence analyst, said in his NightWatch blog Tuesday. "The leaders want to camouflage that fact by showing off weapons, without admitting that they have little value in protecting Iranians." Tehran also knows that the idea of an unmanned aircraft packs an insidious kind of punch. With no pilot at risk, the visceral reaction is that they can go anywhere to spy or destroy. But that's due to the success the Pentagon has had in recent years with those Predators and Reapers over Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. That success is not guaranteed simply because a country possesses drones.
However, Israeli Matzav neglected to mention that the Times article doubts the capabilities of unmanned aircraft as weapons period. It also says in this article
The battlefield history of drones — armed or not — has largely been spent flying over territory that the U.S. or its allies control. Fly them into contested airspace — where foes on the ground or in other aircraft are trying to shoot them down — "and they'll start falling from the sky like rain," says U.S. Air Force Lieut. General Dave Deptula, a longtime airpower advocate who will soon end a 34-year career. The U.S. proved that in February 2009, when it claimed a pair of manned fighters shot down an Iranian drone hanging out over Iraq. The Iranians may have proved it themselves. According to a piece by Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal, the Iranian air force securing the site of the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactor recently shot down what it thought were three enemy drones. The drones had been deployed by another sector of the Iranian military — but no one had bothered to tell the country's air force about the project.
Of course, the article explains why a US or Israeli drone may actually succeed in an attack.

 Hidden are the complicated technologies — ranging from satellite communications and navigation to sophisticated surveillance systems and miniaturized weapons — that get the drone within striking distance of its target, and then guide its warhead home. 

Israel Matzav ends with the statement:
Now, if only the US would undertake that first strike so that Israel won't have to.
 I quite agree. However, I do also feel, that though it may very well be that this drone is worthless, we should fear more about underestimating Iran's weapon than overestimating it. What if the drone does have the capabilities Iran advertises? We need to be prepared for all possible cases.
 You can read the full Times article here.

Note: Israeli Matzav neglected to mention that the Times article doubts the capabilities of unmanned aircraft as weapons period. It says

The battlefield history of drones — armed or not — has largely been spent flying over territory that the U.S. or its allies control. Fly them into contested airspace — where foes on the ground or in other aircraft are trying to shoot them down — "and they'll start falling from the sky like rain," says U.S. Air Force Lieut. General Dave Deptula, a longtime airpower advocate who will soon end a 34-year career

No comments:

Post a Comment