Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

I think it waw the timing of it. If Abe wasn't in Iran at that time, then the tankers wouldn't have been hit. Abe partially went as a mediator but also as a conveyer for POTUS as Trump has stated that he fully supports Abe's trip to Iran. So the hit on the tankers was as much of a signal to Abe as it was to Trump. Well my view anyway.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 605
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which Iran? Because there is the Iran of the Ayatollah, the Iran of the People, and the Iran of the Revolutionary Guard Corp whom have their own view of whats best for Iran. Thats just 3 different Irans, im sure there are many others.

 

I can see a situation where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp is doing this off its own bat, to try and get Iran away from rebuilding the deal, and hence a closer relationship with the decadent western nations. That is of course 180 degrees from what the Iranian Government want. But its not even unheard of in America for a 'deep state' to have its own agenda against the wishes of the Government. Its not unreasonable exactly the same thing is happening in Iran too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So RQ-4 has a RAM surface ? Seems to be a double layered skin with what looks like nomex honeycomb interlayer.

 

I think whatever it is made of is for the sake of light weight, not low RCS. I could be wrong, but nothing else about the vehicle is particularly low RCS.

 

ETA: assuming that is actual wreckage. That would be pretty impressive for a land recovery, which even the Iranians aren't alleging. If they roped in those parts from the ocean where they said they shot it down, damned impressive.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like bullshit to me. There is no way the UK would act without the US, and if you get the US to act, why would you give a fuck about the UK? Just more bullshit from a non news source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small point but the US allies and friends could also be letting the US play bad cop. We can take the problems that Iran tries to dish out. Japan doesn't have the force protection to easily get much of it's JMSDF forces to the Persian Gulf. We can go their easily, kick in doors, break things and leave without barely trying.

 

There's an article floating around the idea that if the situation in the Persian gulf gets worse, then in order to protect sea lanes, the JMSDF could send destroyers to go on escort missions, like what the JMSDF has been doing at the Golf Aden for the past few years, although the article notes the danger it may pose to the escorting destroyers isn't like with the Gulf of Aden. Just an imagined scenerio, no government statement. Just putting it out there.

https://www.jiji.com/sp/article?k=2019062101415&g=soc

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So RQ-4 has a RAM surface ? Seems to be a double layered skin with what looks like nomex honeycomb interlayer.

 

I think whatever it is made of is for the sake of light weight, not low RCS. I could be wrong, but nothing else about the vehicle is particularly low RCS.

 

ETA: assuming that is actual wreckage. That would be pretty impressive for a land recovery, which even the Iranians aren't alleging. If they roped in those parts from the ocean where they said they shot it down, damned impressive.

 

It looks like (from base to skin) carbon fibre reinforced epoxy, aramid honeycomb, and then some other fibre reinforced resin for the skin

 

If the outer layer is glass fibre, there would be some RCS reduction. But I agree this would not seem to be the objective.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesnt strike me as much point in having a stealthy airframe, when you are going to have a ground surveillance radar on all the time. Its like building a Stealthy AWAC'S or JSTAR'S, what would be the utility in it?

 

 

Its apparent reading all the sources, Global Hawk isnt built with penetration missions in mind. I wouldnt say there arent any super sneaky versions that cannot of course. But this surely wasnt one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He went beyond purposely missing the point.

 

He deliberately ignored that countries who export oil may pay more for imports, but also get higher revenue for exports when the oil price rises. A roughly oil self-sufficient country such as the U.S. doesn't suffer from nor benefit from oil price changes much. There are different costs and income effects domestically, but the nation as a whole wouldn't notice much.

 

Sure, short-term the GDP effects probably even out. Fuel consumers pay more, oil companies earn more. But rising fuel cost increase production and transportation cost and thus prices across the board. That goes from agricultural harvesting to interstate commerce to international airline and shipping business. Airlines are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing - every oil price hike in recent decades has resulted in a downturn of aircraft sales. Boeing isn't going to like that on top of their 737 MAX trouble. The car industry is another sensitive business. Not talking of the political pressure by the voter base rising gas prices tend to exert in the US.

 

You could argue that this would merely be a correction back to normal for oil prices which have dropped from ca. 100 to 60 dollar per barrel since the shale oil boom. Environmentalists might even welcome an end to outrageously cheap flights, in the name of CO2 reduction. Renewable energies and electric vehicles might get another boost, providing long-term economic opportunities. Certainly it will provide an incentive for refineries to modernize IOT be able processing oil from domestic sources, achieving true self-sufficiency in the US.

 

There are definitely countries which will profit short-term from rising oil prices, too, namely those with an economy largely based upon fossile fuel exports not going through the Persian Gulf - Russia, Saudi Arabia with its Red Sea ports, possibly even Venezuela if they can keep the facilities running. But I have yet to see a developed differentiated national economy that wasn't negatively affected by oil price spikes in the last half-century, including major oil producers like the US or UK themselves. If you're willing to take that, there are long-term upsides; you just have to ignore the immediate political backlash by voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesnt strike me as much point in having a stealthy airframe, when you are going to have a ground surveillance radar on all the time. Its like building a Stealthy AWAC'S or JSTAR'S, what would be the utility in it?

 

 

Its apparent reading all the sources, Global Hawk isnt built with penetration missions in mind. I wouldnt say there arent any super sneaky versions that cannot of course. But this surely wasnt one.

No doubt. I was just a little surprised to see the construction. But it is near optimal for weight saving, so that answers it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From all ive read, its really a replacement (or more accurately, supplement) for the U2, which is similarly value engineered in weight. In fact, the only time they tried to hang stealth on a U2 (Salisbury Screen IIRC) it lost about 15 thousand feet, and the aircraft crashed in an accident. I dont think they tried seriously again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines of clobbering some of their oil infrastructure, but that will do nicely.

 

If they hit Iranian refineries, can they protect the allied refineries? Also, would the US want to implement a targeting strategy whose primary benefactor is the Russian oil industry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banshee, airlines tend to have long-running contracts for oil. They need not pay attention to short-term oil prices.

Lots of businesses and sectors have reduced their vulnerability to oil price fluctuations with deals since 1973.

The long term oil price changes matter to large businesses, while medium term oil price hikes hurt developing countries badly.

Short term oil prices are little more than nonsense infotainment. A miniscule share of the oil production gets sold when the oil price spikes short term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was thinking more along the lines of clobbering some of their oil infrastructure, but that will do nicely.

 

If they hit Iranian refineries, can they protect the allied refineries? Also, would the US want to implement a targeting strategy whose primary benefactor is the Russian oil industry?

 

 

The US might not, but Trump might.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain what Iran has to gain from attacking Japanese tankers?

Good question, as Japan and Japanese are looking at themselves and asking the same.

 

The direct and embarrassing manner in which Abe was rebuffed in Tehran may provide an answer, as the tanker attack accentuated it.

 

There was contempt and disappointment inherent to Irans dismissal of Abe, as a good deal of vicarious near eastern respect for Japan is based on the modern Japanese history of waging war against Great Powers, not carrying water for them.

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an article I posted the other day about 'Irans Japan Dream', which illustrates Japan for the Iranians have long been a talisman. Not a particularly lucky talisman, but an example of a large nation that can remain independent in the age of Colonialism and the following age of Pax Americana. Looked through this perspective, the slighting of Japan may be a message, and one that basically say's Iran is not going to be subject to American manipulation, as they clearly believe Japan is.

https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1777721/amir-taheri/death-iran%E2%80%99s-japanese-dream

 

Of course it might be they want to fight Ninja's. So there is that. :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Iranian professor I once studied under was the first exposure I had to the strength of Iranian sentiment toward Japan expressed in that article. The difference was that in that time frame, Japan was considered to be waging a continuation economic war against Pax Americana and Britannia out of the ashes of defeat by them.

 

Well worth reading, and relevant to this week's events in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You playing dumb doesn't change history, and I will not play along with this trolling.

We all know very well that you wouldn't accept evidence anyway.

Your dissatisfaction with my answer is not going to be relevant, for you are asking in bad faith.

 

Anyone who could understand that the mentioned bunch of hacks have a terrible track record could find the evidence in a few minutes of searching anyway. keywords like kudlow always wrong or stephen moore famous idiot work just fine.

Playing dumb? No. Just exposing your lazy intellectual cowardice yet again. None of the men you named or alluded to had anything to do with the collapse of demand for residential housing in 2007 which caused the housing bubble to burst. Of course when asked why asked why consumer demand for housing collapsed in 2007 you chickened out by claiming "disinterest" which was an obvious dodge just like your post above. Your repeated refusal to delve into the background facts proves how fearful you are about historical realities that would disprove the lies you spout here.

 

JackNicholson.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is all that is known about the air strikes that werent.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28629/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-u-s-strikes-on-iran-the-never-came

 

This in particular is interesting.

 

'There are separate, unconfirmed reports, that Trump had received some additional information about the situation that ultimately swayed him not to launch the strikes. This includes possible intelligence that portions of Iran's leadership were infuriated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) decision to shoot down the drone, pointing to potential friction within the country's various governing bodies over how to respond to American policies.'

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...