Feeds

back to article Iran unveils 'robot bomber'

The Iranian government has unveiled what it claims is a robotic bomber with enough range to - almost - reach Israel. The announcement came amid a flurry of statements promising dire retribution in the event of any attack on Iran. "The Karar bomber drone has numerous capabilities, namely having a long operational radius", defence …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

buh buy

"The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval forces also stated that his ships were "twice as fast on average" as American warships"

Cardboard ships may well be faster for a short while, but then they sink

0
0
Bronze badge

Obvious Result

Clearly the Iranian government has the wrong idea of how to avoid being attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

If they don't want to be attacked, they should be showing that they have no military capabilities which threaten Israel or Europe or the United States, and are not going to acquire any, with inspections verifying that fact. Anything else will cause an attack, and that attack should come sooner rather than later to ensure their capacity to make war is destroyed before anything could reach Israel from the resulting conflict.

If the Iranian regime hadn't been responsible for the taking of American diplomats hostage, and for the support of the terrorist Hezbollah organization, and if their politicians hadn't been talking about getting rid of Israel, they might not have been in the position of being perceived as a threat, so as to be allowed to provide for their national defense in a normal fashion.

6
13

Better a meritocracy than titles

John Savard

"Clearly the Iranian government has the wrong idea of how to avoid being attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

If they don't want to be attacked, they should be showing that they have no military capabilities which threaten Israel or Europe or the United States, and are not going to acquire any, with inspections verifying that fact."

Paranoid, much ?

I think we heard all the scenery chewing BS about Saddam.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

other way round

Err no, the best way to avoid being attacked by the US is to make sure you *do* have the capability to fight back and inflict serious losses on your attackers. This is particularly important if your land contains oil or other valuable resources not readily available in US territories.

Alternatively you could take the Saudi route and carry out major attacks on the US via terrorist groups, or the Syrian route and blow up planes over Lockerbie, both of which also seem to be proven ways to avoid US attacks.

5
1

This post has been deleted by a moderator

FAIL

Ha.

Until the US and israel man up and do something about it, its all talk.

Iran dont trust the US because of its long support of Saddam Hussain's attempts to invade them, and decades of history of US interference dating back to the 1950's, starting with the overthrow of the democratic regime with the Shah's Monachy. Lets not forget this, Iran was originally a DEMOCRATIC regime, that the US didnt like.

the US doesnt trust Iran because there controlled by a bunch of nutters who hate them loudly, and if they had any chance at all probably would take the opportunately to strike at the US and Israel.

In some ways Israel is caught in the middle, although they have to take their own share of the blame.

Sadly, there are no clean hands here, and neither the US, the UK, or the current Iranian regime come close.

4
1
FAIL

Of course...

Yes of course, all they have to do is proove a negative, after all it worked for Sadam.

Oh wait....

4
1
Anonymous Coward

@Obvious Result

I see some hardcore selective memory/history at work there, maybe if the west hadn't interfered in the iranians internal affairs in 1953 to benefit big biz there wouldn't be a problem with them now.

As for attacking Iran sooner rather than later, hopefully the Americans have more sense than that after the fiasco in Iraq, Iran doesn't have a military crippled by 20 years of sanctions and attacks as the Iraqis were.

7
2
Thumb Down

Are you serious?

"If they don't want to be attacked, they should be showing that they have no military capabilities which threaten Israel or Europe or the United States, and are not going to acquire any, with inspections verifying that fact."

Afganistan had no nukes - Got invaded

Iraq had no nukes - Got invaded

North Korea had nukes - Got round table talks and a gentle rebuke.

If anything the opposite is true.

6
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Two things for the various AC's

1) Australia doesnt have nukes. Never has, never will. You may be thinking of Pine Gap which is one of the worldwide US military bases which has some control over the US nuclear wepaons profile. However, this is a US base and not an Australian base. And just to make it perefctly clear - there are ZERO nukes on Aus soil.

2) The Lockerbie bomber was Libyan not Syrian. Pretty big difference there... Should i draw you a map?

4
4
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Lockerbie bomber

ITYF there's quite a lot of at least circumstantial evidence (to say the least of motive) pointing to Syria, Iran or the Abu Nidal group as the origin of the bombing effort. Quite a few of the families of those killed think that the Libyan was just a fall guy (excuse the pun).

4
1

@Ground Rush

The idea that the US overthrew the Iranian govermnet on its own is false. The US needed and had the tacit support of the mullahs. Those same mullahs that later used the US as a great satan to bring themselves to absolute power.

The iranian revolution was executed by intelectuals and religious fanatics working together. When complete the intelectuals put away their weapons but the religious fanatics did not leaving them in power.

The Iranian theocracy is far more guilty for the bad relationship with the world than the US.

5
2
Silver badge

Erm...

'israel and australia have nukes supplied by their "friends" in the U.S.'

Ummm...

Israel's bomb was home grown, although not without a lot of help from the French (the Dimona reactor and the reprocessing plant) and Britain (plutonium and lithium 6).

But the bit I'm trying to work out is - Australia? Apart from the British blowing up large chunks of the Outback, Australia has never had nuclear weapons.

As you point out (I think) Iran is perfectly within its rights under NPT to have a civil programme, mine uranium, perform enrichment and even reprocess plutonium. It does not have the right to militarise any part of that system. Unfortunately the NPT is pretty much toothless.

8
0
Headmaster

@easyk

Wrong era we are talking deposing a rightfully inaugurated Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 with the help of British and US involvement replacing him with a Western puppet that was unloved - the Shah. He was subsequently removed in the Iranian revolution of 1979.

1
0
Stop

Not true

Go lookup 'Operation Ajax' and see how the US was proud about it. It was repeated over and over since.

Whilst you're at it lookup 'Operation Gladio' for hijinxs closer to home.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

@easyk

Did I say the US was SOLELY responsible? No I didn't.

Try reading the post as is without putting your own interpretation on it.

2
2

Hmmm

Are you a Scandanavian?

1
0

@John Savard

"Clearly the Iranian government has the wrong idea of how to avoid being attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

If they don't want to be attacked, they should be showing that they have no military capabilities which threaten Israel or Europe or the United States, and are not going to acquire any, with inspections verifying that fact. "

Oh yes - great piece of advice. After all, that's what everybody does. All countries pretend not to have any sort of defense capabilities, or fire power, or military hardware. Look, it works so great. That's what UK and US is doing - not telling anybody they have nuclear deterrent, or any other type of military deterrent - and everybody is leaving them alone as a result. They sit quietly, invite everybody to inspect their facilities and have already disbanded their entire defense system. That's what keeps everybody safe - getting rid of guns - it works the wold over.

Hmm, let me think about that one. I might have been wrong. Probably the opposite is true. Ooops.

P.S. - Don't get me wrong - I'm not for the arms race or increasing military spending in general or in particular. But passing the above as a piece of advice to Iran when everybody else in the world is doing the opposite is either hypocritical or moronic.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

@easyk (again)

You also seem to think that I was talking about the Iranian revolution in the seventies, if you actually READ what I posted there is a fairly obvious clue I'm not , (hint 1953).

I also don't recall the mullahs having anything to do with putting the Sha back in power, though as I am not a scolar of iranian history I'm happy to be corrected on that.

Finally, the US is far more guilty for the bad relationship it has with the rest of the world than the Iranian theocracy, (corrected that for you).

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Libya vs Syria

Nope, I know the difference thanks - most of the Lockerbie evidence points to a Syrian group being responsible; certainly a lot more points that way than at any Libyan involvement.

3
1

The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

"military payload of rockets to carry out bombing missions"

Personally, I would have thought that a payload of bombs would be more appropriate for a bombing mission.

"seagoing Guard have "substantially boosted our deterrence and destruction capabilities"

So when they next capture some Royal Navy personnel, they can steal their iPads as well as their iPods

3
1
FAIL

"enough range to - almost - reach Israel."

Bad news for Israel's Arab neighbours then.

3
0

@Anonymous John

Good point there. Didn't spot the implications until your comment. Interestingly put :-)

0
0

does this mean..

that iran is facing a crippling shortage of suicide bombers and/or virgins?

5
0
Coat

The aircraft can gain altitude?!

one would assume its a rather basic requirement of an aircraft, getting off the ground an' all

5
0
Gold badge
Alert

"...a robotic bomber with enough range to - almost - reach Israel."

So it's no use for thumping the Israelis with, but they've built it anyway.

I see here that Iran has a border with Afghanistan.........

3
0

Getting Israel is probably not the reason.

Iran wants to be the strongest voice in the Middle east. To do this they have to have the strongest bite. While they probably consider the ability to hit Israel to be a nice to have, i doubt its absolutely top of their agenda at the moment.

However, once they have it in service, they have something to build on.

0
0
Thumb Up

Going up!

It's handy that their shiny new aircraft can "Gain Altitude".

1
0
Happy

ahem

Sexy Iranian Women Photos

Find your Iranian Soul Mate Today! Browse photos, send Flirts & more.

www.IranianPersonals.com

2
0
M7S
Bronze badge

"The jet-propelled unmanned plane can also gain altitude"

That's handy, particularly around the time of take-off.

Mind you, the way the UK defence budget may need to go, the flying elements of all three services may well be reduced to the odd "ground level interceptor", or a car as I'd call it.

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Can't believe you missed the latest Ahmadinejadballs, Beeb got it

"This jet is a messenger of honour and human generosity and a saviour of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind," President Ahmadinejad said after unveiling the Karrar at a ceremony with defence officials.

Classy. Can't wait for the Ahmadinejadballs Christmas special.

1
0
WTF?

Re: Enemies of Mankind

So, anyone that they point it at and pull the trigger are not considered a part of Mankind?

English and American education of Iranians is doing a great job - they already have media spin down pretty well. :)

0
0

Israel

I for one am happy that Iran is getting better at defending itself, maybe it will force Israel to talk, instead of its usually response of shoot first and deny later

6
2
Thumb Up

I do love "bigging yourself up" generals who are playing to a crowd.

"It can also gain altitude."

Ohhhh... Good job as there are mountains in the way. Need to able to fly over them.

"Payload of rockets"

Haven't heard that since the point and shoot rockets of WW2.

"Twice as fast as american ships."

Speedboats generally are.

However ships don't kill people. It is mach+ anti ship missiles, or tomahawks etc you have to worry about that get fired at you from 100's of miles away, or their plethora of subs which you can't see or target. Or the US version of robotic planes, which actually work very well. In fact anything the Americans stick on a boat should be worried about. How fast that boat goes is irrelevant. Fast boats still can't outrun missiles. And the Americans have lots of missiles, far more than the "Fast boats".

0
0
Grenade

@Avatar of They

How fast that boat goes is irrelevant. Fast boats still can't outrun missiles. And the Americans have lots of missiles, far more than the "Fast boats".

Stuff using expensive missiles to hit a attack boat just point your Goalkeeper GAU-8 30mm canon (yes that is the very same fitted to the A-10 Thunderbolt) at them if you can get it to tilt low enough (-25 degrees below horz.). Auto radar tracking 18 targets at once firing at up to 4,200 rounds per minute. It is normally employed as a anti missile defence but I bet it can be taught to select little boats.

0
0
Flame

@ John Savard - none so blind...

Clearly the British and American governments have the wrong idea of how to avoid being attacked by Iran and/or Al Qaeda.

If they don't want to be attacked, they should be showing that they have no military capabilities which threaten Islamic states, and are not going to acquire any, with inspections verifying that fact. Anything else will cause an attack, and that attack should come sooner rather than later to ensure their capacity to make war is destroyed before anything could reach Islamic states from the resulting conflict.

If the American regime hadn't been responsible for overthrowing the democratic Iranian government in the 70s, and for the support of the terrorist Mujahadin organization, and if their politicians hadn't been talking about getting rid of Iran, they might not have been in the position of being perceived as a threat, so as not to be a target for terrorists or other middle eastern nations.

7
1
Megaphone

Heres a thought

One thing I just realized.

We all assume that if the US had not overthrown the Democratic Iranian government (1953, not "'70's") that it would still be in power today.

The revolution in the 70's that created the current theocracy in Iran could still have happened.

However, the US did mess with Iran, it did support Iraq's war with them, it has titled them as part of "The Axis of Evil" and it's actions in that area of the world have made it an "enemy to Islam" in the eye's of the people there.

The Middle East is likely to end up the Balkans of the 21st Century. (WW1 for you non-history types). Its going to get ugly.

0
0
Happy

@ TimeMaster T

You mean as well as the Balkans as I don't think they will be quiet forever.

0
0
Thumb Down

Bluster, bluster...

A crappy little Iranian UAV armed with some bomblets, probably not very stealthy and probably doesn't fly very well, versus a Patriot missile (which the Yanks rather kindly gave to Israel)... That should be quite amusing to watch! The Iranians already have a means of delivering eplosives 1000km to Isreal - through ballistic missiles or via dumb suicidal terrorists, both of which have a more proven track record and better odds of gettng through.

As for the Iranian navy, it is nothing that can't be sunk with a bit of correctly applied effort. Their speedboats may be faster than conventional destroyers, but they still cannot outrun a helicopter or plane. Neither can the destroyer, but at least it can shoot back! Iranian swarm tactics are only of any use close to shore and when the other side doesn't just send up a load of heavily armed aircraft.

I don't think the Israelis are too impressed really, but then they have heard this sort of bluster before.

1
1

Crappy uav?

If it is really just a cheap UAV (Which I agree seems likely), How many do you think they can produce for the price of one Patriot missile (Which i remember saw quoted for about $1m a pop)

1
0

writing from occupied Britain

1967, Komar ------Styx-------> Eilat remember?

0
0
Boffin

Cheaper by the dozen!

They can probably produce lots of cheap UAVs, but then their aerospace tech quality control is pretty shocking thanks to the US (and other Western countries) banning the export of aerospace tech because the Iranians have the annoying habit of using it to enrich uranium! Never fly Iranian airlines if you value your life!

So maybe they can produce lots of these V1 like things, but the question to be asked is, "How many will reach their targets?" Isreal receives several billion dollars a year in military aid from the US, they can and will despatch $1m missiles for every drone heading towards the homeland. You just don't know what is in them before they blow up!

The average Iranian is pretty decent, articulate and possibly quite cultivated. The people at the top and the bunch in charge of the military, especially the Revolutionary Guards, are a bunch of utter nutters however! Assuming they will make rational decisions about military or nuclear tech is just naive. The Isreali military/leadership may be a bunch of harsh gits, but they are at least rational and are unlikely to give a nuclear warhead to a suicide bomber with instructions to incinerate all the evidence...

1
1
Grenade

Lol@patriot missle...

Look it up... How did they define a 'successful intercept'?

1
0
Grenade

It makes me sad.

All this posturing

NATO and the western allies could wipe Iran off the map in short order the same way they did Iraq.

Then all they would need to do is move into the the enrichment plants and reactor and hold them and let the rest of the country degrade into the stoneage.... Sorry more into the stone age :)

Of course this would be a disaster for the civilians but we would be safe.

2
3
Anonymous Coward

@It makes me sad.

"NATO and the western allies could wipe Iran off the map in short order the same way they did Iraq."

What reality is it that you are currently inhabiting?

The Iraq problem isn't solved, the Americans and cronies didn't win, just bought off the enemy so they could declare victory and leave.

As for the overwhelming force argument, that's worked out really well for them in Afghanistan hasn't it?

2
2
Silver badge

Read the news lately?

Last time I checked Iraq was still on the map and the American combat troops were legging it back home...

3
1
Alert

Ships of fools

"The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval forces also stated that his ships were "twice as fast on average" as American warships"

Faster than bullets and missiles is what you need.

Looks like Revelations will be right. WWIII starts in the Middle East. Soon to be cinder. Mr Dinnerjacket is not so stupid to try something, but Israel, well they will, and fight to the last American. Wonder what will happen if Iran gets the bomb. It has caused outbreaks of peace in the world when opposing forces have it.

I can't see any of this having a happy ending. Stupid Humans.

0
2

V1?

So they have bought the plans for a V1 from the internet and think they are onto a winner! No doubt Israel could shoot it down with their current defence system so the only threat would be if iran filled it with biological/chemical weapons in which case bye bye Iran.

0
0
WTF?

Get informed before posting

Looks like some of the commentards need to go read some history as to why Iran is such a prickly customer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men

Of course the usual suspects are at the root cause, the UK & the US, all in the name of oil and colonialism.

It also doesn't help that the US applies one set of rules to Israel and another set for the rest of the arab middle east when it comes to conflict settling.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Big elephant in the room

is the Russia part. OK, maybe more of a big bear, but nevertheless....

Do you really think Putin would let Israel get away with bombing their joint reactor? Apart from the obvious risk to Russian nationals working there and the insult to Russian integrity, there is a lot of money to be made through a working reactor, especially compared to a smoking, vaguely reactor shaped hole in the ground.

Conversely, can you see Obama allowing the Israelis to bomb it either?

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.