Getting hot in the Gulf

[Boac]

Iran claims to have brought down a US drone.

"7 a.m.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency says the country’s Revolutionary Guard has shot down a U.S. drone. The U.S. military declined to immediately comment.

IRNA said Thursday the drone was hit when it entered Iranian airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province."

"10:25 a.m.

A U.S. official says that an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down a U.S. drone flying in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz."

Remind me where IR655 was flying?

[Boac]

Those pesky IIranians are getting very clever - now they are 'nailing' the mines to ships as they cruise along.

"Sean Kido, commanding officer of an explosive ordnance dive and salvage task group in the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), told reporters.

Small fragments said to have been removed from the Kokuka Courageous were on display alongside a magnet purportedly left by the Revolutionary Guard squad allegedly captured on video.

The Japanese company that owns the Kokuka Courageous had said its ship was damaged by two “flying objects”, but NAVCENT dismissed this account.

“The damage at the blast hole is consistent with a limpet mine attack, it is not consistent with an external flying object striking the ship,” Kido said, adding that nail holes visible in the hull indicated how the mine was attached to the ship’s hull.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think this stems from the Syrian chemical bombing which wasn't.
Are Iran, Russia, etc, hiding real actions under the 'yet another US false flag' banner? Quite possibly, but it's the US's own fault for doing such a half-@ssed job on other false flag incidents. Indeed, that is proving to be a double-negative. The US isn't just doing false flag ops, it's doing bad ones, so just about anything is a believable US false flag op. The CIA certainly seems to be employing some right bloody amateurs these days

[Undried Plum]

Remind me where IR655 was flying?

OK, I'll bite.

IR655 was a civilian airliner, on a scheduled flight, on a filed flight plan, communicating with civil ATC, flying within a well recognised airway. The Murricanes lied about that of course, but that is what happened

The Iranian version of the Global Hawk shootdown story claims that the US military aircraft was not flying with a flight plan, was not communicating with civil ATC and was illegally encroaching within the Tehran FIR. I suspect that they may be telling the truth, just like they did with IR655.

[Rwy in Sight]

Remind me where IR655 was flying?

OK, I'll bite.

IR655 was a civilian airliner, on a scheduled flight, on a filed flight plan, communicating with civil ATC, flying within a well recognised airway. The Murricanes lied about that of course, but that is what happened

The Iranian version of the Global Hawk shootdown story claims that the US military aircraft was not flying with a flight plan, was not communicating with civil ATC and was illegally encroaching within the Tehran FIR. I suspect that they may be telling the truth, just like they did with IR655.

It seems US Navy did mis-identify the flight as civilian. I shall check with the Newsweek special of July 1992 whether the vessel call IR655 on 121.5 and it was ignored or they thought it was an Iranian F-14 and called on 243.00.

[Undried Plum]

whether the vessel call IR655 on 121.5 and it was ignored or they thought it was an Iranian F-14 and called on 243.00.

It was both.

The airliner was working Bandar Abbas Twr and App frequencies and then Tehran ACC. A busy phase of flight, radiowise.

Most of the radio threats were made on 243. Three were made on 121.5 by Vincennes, but were expressed in such a way that an ordinary airline crew could not be expected to understand that direct death threats were being made against them. The crew, after all, were on a routine scheduled flight in Iranian airspace.

Neither Vincennes nor Sides made any attempt to contact civil ATC or to contact any airliners on the usual frequencies that are normally 'frequented' by civil airliners on departure and climbout on a very short haul flight.

Sure, the crew were aware of the extreme antipathy of The Empire against Iran's independence and democracy, but they could not possibly be expected to keep that known brutal aggression against the Iranian people at the forefront of their minds during what was actually a very routine and totally peaceful flight carrying pilgrims on a journey towards Mecca.

[Boac]

Iran's claim that the US Drone was flying over land should be easy to prove with the wreckage!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

One awaits evidence, or lack thereof, with interest.

[Rwy in Sight]

whether the vessel call IR655 on 121.5 and it was ignored or they thought it was an Iranian F-14 and called on 243.00.

It was both.

The airliner was working Bandar Abbas Twr and App frequencies and then Tehran ACC. A busy phase of flight, radiowise.

Most of the radio threats were made on 243. Three were made on 121.5 by Vincennes, but were expressed in such a way that an ordinary airline crew could not be expected to understand that direct death threats were being made against them. The crew, after all, were on a routine scheduled flight in Iranian airspace.

Neither Vincennes nor Sides made any attempt to contact civil ATC or to contact any airliners on the usual frequencies that are normally 'frequented' by civil airliners on departure and climbout on a very short haul flight.

Sure, the crew were aware of the extreme antipathy of The Empire against Iran's independence and theodemocracy, (a misspelling that escaped your atterntion) but they could not possibly be expected to keep that known brutal aggression against the Iranian people at the forefront of their minds during what was actually a very routine and totally peaceful flight carrying pilgrims on a journey towards Mecca.

My mother would love you because you made that visit to Rwy Pa imminent - I keep the Newsweek article there. Also let me correct a grammar mistake the vessel called the flight.

The crew did make those calls - I don't remember the phraseology used and the word threats is accurate. What I do remember is they tried to identify the aircraft in a complicated manner and I think that's were a miscommunication occurred (what I call warnings what I guess you call threats).

I still believe that in this part of the world enemies are needed for more reasons than friends are - I guess it makes sense.

BOAC and Fox you are both right

[Boac]

The first 'new' airspace 'closure' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKCN1TM02P

[Undried Plum]

Iran's claim that the US Drone was flying over land should be easy to prove with the wreckage!

Are they claiming it flew over land?

[Boac]

UP -based on what I understood was the initial news that it was 'over Iran', whatever that was. If the position

"At 00:14 US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace. It was targeted at 04:05 at the coordinates (25°59'43"N 57°02'25"E) near Kouh-e Mobarak,

We've retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down." (Iran's Foreign Minister)

was correct it apparently put the shoot-down at about 8 miles from the Iranian coast. I also understand that despite what the US says, there is no 'International Airspace' over the area, merely an FIR 'boundary' and the '12 mile territorial waters' line in an area which can be as narrow as 21 miles............ It is very difficult not to 'violate' airspace in that region either intentionally or unintentionally.

A propaganda war, and the US is not really winning it at the mo, leaving the Chump's only option to wave his willy around to boost his flagging polls.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The US states the drone was 21 nm off the coast, which would put it pretty much mid-Strait and therefore outside anyone's territory (i.e. 12nm limit). This would be the sensible routing. From my understanding, since the aircraft was unmanned, and it could reasonably be supposed that no drone is on "innocent passage", the shootdown would be legit if it was where Iran says it was, and not if it was where the US says it was.
The MQ-4's route would be quite close to the Northern limit of where it could operate without infringing someone's 12nm limit. I wonder if the Yanks have been in the habit of flying the whole Strait down the median line? Legally, one can only penetrate territorial waters or airspace on "innocent passage", but it is of course hard to establish whether a drone is ever on innocent passage.

[llondel]

Given Trump's tendency to accuse other of things he's either done or will do, Iran should be concerned by his remarks that they did it by accident. One wonders what he'll accidentally order in the next few days. He did seem to pull back on Thursday evening though, unless he was hoping that someone would accidentally not hear the cancellation order.

[Undried Plum]

The Septics do take the piss with this "innocent passage" bollocks.

Vincennes had been thrown out of Omani waters for taking the piss that way. A few tens of minutes later they went into Iran's territorial waters and shelled Iranian patrol boats which had not opened fire on Vincennes; and blew an airliner out of the sky.

Innocent passage? My arse!

It's a bloody good thing that Chump does that flip-flop thing on so many of his decisions. If he'd succumbed to the crazies last night and attacked Iran, there quite certainly would be retaliatory repercussions.

Remember that PA103 was a direct payback for IR655.

[Undried Plum]

There's something very fishy about the story of the British tanker being attacked by Iranian gunboats.

First the Septic version of the yarn said that five gunboats tried to stop the vessel. Then the Brits claimed that three gunboats had tried to impede the tanker's progress. The Iranians say the story is bollocks and point out that such tiny craft do not have the power to stop a tanker. Now Jeremy Rhyming-Slang is claiming in the Tory Dailygraph that the event shows that we should give the navy more warships.

I smell a rat.

A cargo of oil is worth many times the value of the tanker which carries it. A cargo of crude would be very expensive bait and practically impossible to insure. I think this one was nothing more than bait.

Interesting to see that this bait vessel was travelling outbound through Hormuz with no cargo at all, just ballast. Why do you think that might be?

Another failed Tonkin Incident, methinks.

[Pontius Navigator]

Did you see video of the British Heritage exiting the Gulf in ballast? The picture in the Telegraph could be stock footage.

[Undried Plum]

Did you see video of the British Heritage exiting the Gulf in ballast? The picture in the Telegraph could be stock footage.

No.

I used raw data, unfiltered by FCO/MoD.

Draft on passage through Hormuz was 9.5m. That's a ballast draft for her.

Laden with a normal cargo of 610,000bbl of Arabian Crude, her draft would have been about 17.8m. She's a SuMax.

She was in ballast. No doubt about it.

[ian16th]

Son is scheduled to fly as SLF on EK BCN - DXB - DUR next Friday, should he be thinking of re-routeing?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I read elsewhere that the British Heritage did not pick up its planned load in Iraq, and therefore would still be in ballast.
Perhaps she could not get insurance to make the passage loaded?