en.rian.ru a very trusted source ;)

Yes sirreeee, I trust the Ruskies....

Actually, it is true, this happened either yesterday or the day before while the Reagan was moving out of the Gulf through the strait. I haven't seen much blogging on it, but it was picked up by a few private lists. By international law, the Reagan couldn't do anything, couldn't sortie a plane, nothing. Warships have high restrictions while in transit of chokepoints like teh strait. Iran was in violation of international law only if the UAV was armed, which the UAV was not. Had the Reagan done anything, it would have been a major incident.

And by true I mean the UAV was there from what I have seen on other sources, not that the US didn't see it. I have no idea if the US saw it or not, but even if they did, they couldn't do anything by law unless attacked which is probably why the USAF had to respond.

I suspect they had it well and truly painted though - probably a few dozen times over. You may get close, but the chances of managing to try anything are low.

If Iran had not claimed the flight, could the drone have carried something 'heavy' enough to seriously damage the carrier, and done so under the guise of 'the terrorists did it'? Can we see where it is being controlled from? Finally, would it not be legal to shoot it down over the deck (deck being our territory and all that)? TJrob

"Finally, would it not be legal to shoot it down over the deck (deck being our territory and all that)?" Erm, I don't think international waters really work like that. Your deck space isn't actually your terrirory, it is just given passage through international waters.

According to the United Nations, Iran, Oman, and the UAE have legal authority to protect the straits on behalf of the international community. That is not a joke, that is legit. It is the same reason Indonesia has told China, India, and the US to back off the strait of Malacca, because according to the laws of the Sea, they have the legal authority to do so.

I'm sure the iranians wouldn't exaggerate or anything Question: How would the Iranians know that the fleet didn't see the drone. Maybe they just didn't care all that much. It's not like the straits aren't filled with commercial shipping stacked bow to stern. It isn't like the ships don't know that they can be observed by anyone on either shore since you can see all the way across the straits. Question: How many Phalanxes, Sea Sparrows and RAMs does it take to shoot down a small unmanned drone? Somehow, I don't think anyone in the CSG felt threatened. Question: Why would the the Air Force scramble fighters for a small unmanned drone? An unmanned drone would not be much intimidated by the fly-bys. Question: Why does the picture in the article show Su-37s (they have canards) and Kamovs on the deck, indicating it is a picture of a russian ship?

Meanwhile, the navy denies that any of this ever took place: A news item that an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle loitered over the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf was refuted by Navy officials this week. “It was an erroneous report,” said Lt. Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon. ... The news item also claimed that the Reagan dispatched four fighter aircraft and two helicopters but the UAV got away. ... Mann said 5th Fleet officials in Bahrain “categorically denied” the event took place and “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.” So...