Is this war with Iran?

[dimreepr]

scavengers, the last hope of corporate thinking.

[Airbrush]

Has anyone noticed that the recent explanations from Trump, about the "imminent threat" make it seem LESS imminent?  If Soleimani WAS preparing an attack on 4 US embassies, as "D-day" and "H-hour" approaches, for the attack on 4 embassies, the leader would be less engaged.  The plot is well-planned and the leader is not an operator.  The operators would have been rehearsing and every operator involved in the attack would be engaged in review, questioning each other, showing they had all memorized their roles, and Soleimani would be not engaged.  So killing Soleimani would NOT disrupt the plot, but more likely motivate the operators to carry out the attack they were rehearsing, to avenge the death of their leader.  There was no such attack, so such an attack was probably not planned on 4 US embassies.  For this reason, IMO, Soleimani, on the scale of imminence, seemed like less an "imminent" threat, and Trump's action less legal.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Airbrush

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

But I've also read that Iran has asked the NTSB ( American ) for help with the crash investigation; that seems like a good sign.

 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed, but it also seems that nearly none of the parts of the plane nor the area were secured and essentially all have been gathered and removed from the site by scavengers. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but what else was left to investigate of much importance? I mean, I get it, it's always useful to have evidence to examine and learn from. But we know how the plane went down, that there were zero survivors, and I'm struggling to understand what more there is, even if the wreckage materials were still there, for the Americans to come investigate.

 

[MigL]

The NTSB investigates every crash, no matter the cause; and they, along with Boeing ( who will also be helping ) have the expertise to recover data even from badly damaged Black Boxes. Even if they need to remove the individual memory chips and decode them individually.

Root cause analysis can help prevent, or, more importantly, help put procedures in place ( for the aviation industry, not warring armies ) which may minimize further incidents of this type.

[zapatos]

Without a detailed investigation we really don't know exactly why the plane went down. Why was the jet targeted? Was the transponder code entered properly? Why was the airfield open? What are the regulations regarding the operation of commercial flights near a military installation.

Primary outcome of the NTSB investigation is enhanced safety in the future. Without knowing what happened in the thousands of systems operating at the time, the NTSB can make no recommendations.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

what else was left to investigate of much importance? I mean, I get it, it's always useful to have evidence to examine and learn from. But we know how the plane went down, that there were zero survivors, and I'm struggling to understand what more there is

Good point. This thought actually crossed my mind while posting that comment, and I think you raise a good observation here. It was a missile. Why bother with more investigation, right? I’m with you on this. 

Though both MigL and Zap both also raise good points, as well. 

[StringJunky]

I would guess the Iranians don't have radar systems that can discriminate between friend and foe as well as the US systems and made an operator interpretational  error.

[CharonY]

On 1/11/2020 at 8:30 AM, MigL said:

IIRC, John, Ronald Reagan unequivocally apologized for the USS Vincennes shootdown if the Iranair flight in 1988, compensation was paid, and a full accounting was eventually released to the world.

My recollections is a little bit different (especially with the equivocally part), but to be honest, I was very young and my memories are likely to be colored by articles on the incident I read over the years. But I am fairly sure that while the US has expressed regret, they did not consider to be at fault (i.e. considered it a regular wartime incident). What I am quite certain about is that compensation was paid under Clinton after a lengthy court battle and that the settlement included on admission of wrongdoing.

[MigL]

From the Wiki entry for IranAir Fl655...

"In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement"

"Informally, on July 5 of 1988 President Ronald Reagan expressed regret; when directly asked if this statement was intended as an apology to Iran, Reagan replied "Yes." "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

But you are correct the US never formally apologised to Iran.
( yeah sure, rub it in, I was in my late 20s in '88 )

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

( yeah sure, rub it in, I was in my late 20s in '88 )

Ontario schooling?

[MigL]

Yes, of course.
Laura Secord Secondary School, followed by Brock University.
But I was out of school 6 years by then and working at a little chemical plant in Niagara Falls ( Mancuso Chemicals ).

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yes, of course.
Laura Secord Secondary School, followed by Brock University.
But I was out of school 6 years by then and working at a little chemical plant in Niagara Falls ( Mancuso Chemicals ).

Was just "rubbing it in" as per request...

My next door neighbour in Niagara Falls, 1970/71, worked for Cyanamid. 

[MigL]

Cyanamid was mostly shut down by the late 80s, except for a small pilot plant which worked with Phosphine specialties.
That plant was acquired by American Cyanamid, which subsequently became Cytec.
Cytec was acquired 5yrs ago by Solvay ( Belgian ), mostly for composite materials for aerospace structures.

The Solvay plant where I work is the much expanded pilot plant, still making Phosphine specialty products.

Small world, isn't it ?

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

An off-topic discussion of impeachment has been split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121003-impeachment-split-from-is-this-war-with-iran/

 

 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

In the late 80's I became close friends with a guy that fled Iran after the revolution.  After becoming a citizen he has consistently promoted Democrat candidates including Hillary in 2016.  But, judging by his social media posts, he has gone all in for Trump.  For economic reasons for sure, but he is definitely in favor of the Administration's treatment of Iran, including recent military actions.  I know it's just a single case, but it's a fascinating perspective to consider in light of recent controversies.

[MigL]

Expatriates are usually very critical or their country of origin, if they were forced to leave because of persecution.
One only needs to look at how critical Cuban expats are/were of the Castro regime.

It would be great if the 'unrest' happening currently in Iran leads to the overthrow of the Mullah regime.
Unfortunately I foresee much bloodshed before, and IF, that happens.

[John Cuthber]

On 1/11/2020 at 8:27 PM, MigL said:

Root cause analysis

In this case, do you consider the root cause to be Trump, his Iranian counterpart, whoever "pulled the trigger" or what?

 

It's not clear what the aviation industry can do about this.

It's not as if the Iranians had announced that they were going to attack an air base and (more or less) consequently,  power up their anti- aircraft  weaponry. 

 

If you are not careful, you get into the realms of "victim blaming".

You can take your pick about whose" fault" this massacre was, but it's not the airline.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 hours ago, MigL said:

It would be great if the 'unrest' happening currently in Iran leads to the overthrow of the Mullah regime.
Unfortunately I foresee much bloodshed before, and IF, that happens.

What are the chances the regime change, after all the bloodshed you mention, results in any better government and freedom for their country?

I guess we can hope.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

You can take your pick about whose" fault" this massacre was, but it's not the airline.

 

No chance they could have erred with their transponder codes? Wouldn't make them 100% at fault but it could have contributed. And how do you know until you investigate?

[rangerx]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No chance they could have erred with their transponder codes? Wouldn't make them 100% at fault but it could have contributed. And how do you know until you investigate?

A misreported squawk code would make them 50% at fault.

[MigL]

Civil airliners 'squawk' only on mode 3.
Military planes 'squawk' on IFF mode 2.

If the Iranian missile radar interrogates only on mode 2, and receives no reply; what is the operator to do ?
Further, he tries to contact his superior, but unreliable Iranian comm. systems make it impossible; what is the operator to do ?
He only has 5 -8 seconds to make up his mind; what is he to do ?

IIRC the USS Vincennes interrogated Iran Air Fl655 seven times on mode 2 because they thought it was an Iranian F-14, after receiving a couple of spurious signals on mode 2. I don't recall if they interrogated at all on mode 3.
And it led to the same bad decision and large loss of innocent lives.

One of the root causes, John, would be improving identification of military versus civilian aircraft.

[J.C.MacSwell]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

Civil airliners 'squawk' only on mode 3.
Military planes 'squawk' on IFF mode 2.

If the Iranian missile radar interrogates only on mode 2, and receives no reply; what is the operator to do ?
Further, he tries to contact his superior, but unreliable Iranian comm. systems make it impossible; what is the operator to do ?
He only has 5 -8 seconds to make up his mind; what is he to do ?

IIRC the USS Vincennes interrogated Iran Air Fl655 seven times on mode 2 because they thought it was an Iranian F-14, after receiving a couple of spurious signals on mode 2. I don't recall if they interrogated at all on mode 3.
And it led to the same bad decision and large loss of innocent lives.

One of the root causes, John, would be improving identification of military versus civilian aircraft.

Somewhat naive question...but what stops a less than fully scrupulous military aircraft/drone/missile from squawking mode 3 as if a civil airliner, assuming they are checked mode 3?

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Somewhat naive question...but what stops a less than fully scrupulous military aircraft/drone/missile from squawking mode 3 as if a civil airliner, assuming they are checked mode 3?

ATC assigns a squawk code then tracks the aircraft using that code. It's pointless to merely enter an unassigned code because no one will see it.

And different modes means a different frequency and signal parameters as to be distinct from each other.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

ATC assigns a squawk code then tracks the aircraft using that code. It's pointless to merely enter an unassigned code because no one will see it.

And different modes means a different frequency and signal parameters as to be distinct from each other.

Thanks

[rangerx]

I should add to "nobody will see it". Actually ATC will see it, just not under any assigned code.

When they assign the code, the aircraft returns the assigned code for ID purposes as well as carrier/flight number/course/alt/speed info (from radar).

This where incorrect codes or inoperative transponders on civil airlines can get into trouble. You have to go out of your way to change the settings, because the moment a pilot confirms a squawk code, ATC requests affirmation of the position as they see it on radar before completing a flight following.

Let's say the pilot turned off the transponder. I'm not sure you can actually do that on a modern jetliner. I'm pretty sure it comes on with the flight computer as opposed to a separate unit in the radio stack of a small plane. Okay, perhaps it failed to transmit kind of scenario. ATC would still see the plane as a blip, but no ID parameters. They'd likely already know the ID and ask accordingly for a failure or incorrect setting.

I suppose, if the 737 transponder operated correctly through the after takeoff checklist then failed shortly thereafter, they could have inadvertently deceived the SAM site. If there were flaws or errors in that system, heaven forbid...

Interesting thought.

I'm going to run this scenario on the flight sim. When departures transitions me to flight center, I'll shut down or otherwise alter the squawk code (to anything other than 1200)

We'll see what center has to say about that?

Edited January 15, 2020 by rangerx