Why not respond. If there are planes in your airspace that you do not want there, try and shoot them down. I guess a courtesy might be to go up and identify them first, in case they are one of yours.

Thats what i say! but Iran doesnt want to give US a reason to attack! as you can clearly see Iraq! basically no need to go to war! but bush still went so if iran does shoot down a american plane then.....

Shooting down a US plane in Iranian airspace is not going to cause much of a fuss. As long as it's done in Iranian airspace, I can't see what the US would have to complain about.

#1. Iran would not be able to shoot own a U.S. warplane. #2. Iran could shoot down a UAV, but then the United States would know everything there is to know about Iran's air defenses. And turning your radar off isn't the smartest thing to do (even though its Iran's only option) because then you simply detect anyone in your air space. In addition, the United States already has a reason to attack, its just a question of when.

Can someone please educate me about this 'radar mapping' thing I keep reading about? I understand if the radars are 'switched on' then the radar sites can be mapped and later targeted. What I don't understand is that are these radar sites fixed? Can't they be mobile? If so why or why not?

"for a few weeks now its been on the news that us planes have been going in abd back to scan for IRanian radars and sams. Iran is playing it smart by keeping the sams off so the planes will not dectect the locations! An f-16 when deep into IRan the other day all the way to Ahwaz a western city. And man drones have been flying over! i heard one got shoot down not too sure! any ways what you guy think about this? and do you think IRan should respond? with sam or interceptor " -- P3rsian ---- "Why not respond. If there are planes in your airspace that you do not want there, try and shoot them down. I guess a courtesy might be to go up and identify them first, in case they are one of yours." -- EW3 ---- "Thats what i say! but Iran doesnt want to give US a reason to attack! as you can clearly see Iraq! basically no need to go to war! but bush still went so if iran does shoot down a american plane then..... " -- P3rsian ---- "Shooting down a US plane in Iranian airspace is not going to cause much of a fuss. As long as it's done in Iranian airspace, I can't see what the US would have to complain about." -- EW3 ---- "#1. Iran would not be able to shoot own a U.S. warplane. #2. Iran could shoot down a UAV, but then the United States would know everything there is to know about Iran's air defenses. And turning your radar off isn't the smartest thing to do (even though its Iran's only option) because then you simply detect anyone in your air space. In addition, the United States already has a reason to attack, its just a question of when." -- IAFBest ---- "Can someone please educate me about this 'radar mapping' thing I keep reading about? I understand if the radars are 'switched on' then the radar sites can be mapped and later targeted. What I don't understand is that are these radar sites fixed? Can't they be mobile? If so why or why not?" -- MD ===== I doubt any American aircraft have been overflying Iran. I highly doubt any manned American aircraft have been overflying Iran. I extremely doubt any American F-16s have been overflying Iran. Flying military aircraft uninvited over Iran would, in and of itself, be an act of war. F-16s are a poor choice in general due to short range and inferior self-defense capabilities compared to F-15s, and any fighter is a poor choice for reconnaisance compared to something actually equipped for reconnaisance like a U-2R or an RQ-4 Global Hawk. I'd say EW3 is right on the money: shoot it down with whatever you can, because it is violating your airspace. Rather than starting a war, or even not causing much of a fuss, such an action in fact is likely to trigger a very strong backlash in America against the Bush administration and get the CENTCOM commander fired for sending American aircraft over Iran, a highly provocative action, without Congressional authorization to commence hostilities. It might be just about the best hope you have of not getting the snot bombed out of you within the next year. Word to IAFBest: America **already** knows everything there is to know about Iranian air defenses. We certainly don't need to make some overflights--manned or unmanned--to find that out. MD: As you deduced, few air defense radars are completely immobile. Yes, they can move them about, and Iraq often did move them around in an attempt at survival. One problem is that while moving the antenna it's obviously out of service. A bigger problem is that the command and control facilities need to be moved, too. This means packing up the equipment for travel (typically multiple vans linked by communications and power lines), moving to the new spot, setting them back up, re-establishing communications links to higher echelon, re-calibrating your radar to your new location vis-a-vis the greater air surveillance network, depending on the radar in use maybe re-establishing things like where all the false targets (mountains, etc.) are, and probably other things I'm not aware of or have forgotten. This takes a while. Many systems are "mobile" but require fairly developed support facilities (pre-surveyed, communications links established, etc.). These can be prepared in advance, but it's more like a shell game with a finite number of possible redeployment locations, rather than truly "mobile" as in can go anywhere anytime. Tactical SAMs are typically just used as point defense of a facility or designated area (e.g., the 10 acre headquarters compound or the armor brigade you're assigned to protect), and as such probably aren't particularly tied into any network with more than just an echelon or two of command and control above you. Unfortunately this means working with a set of "information blinders" on; you don't get much of the big picture of what's going on. Among other problems, this is more likely to lead to fratricide. Strategic SAMs are part of an integrated network typically comprising air surveillance radar (and/or occasionally

displacedjim, thank you for the thoughtful response. I have orders of magnitude better understanding now of the technicalities.

DJ - " F-16s are a poor choice in general due to short range and inferior self-defense capabilities compared to F-15s, and any fighter is a poor choice for reconnaisance compared to something actually equipped for reconnaisance like a U-2R or an RQ-4 Global Hawk." You're giving away trade secrets. Next thing you know, you'll be advocating the use of the aircraft kept in Roswell.

"You're giving away trade secrets. Next thing you know, you'll be advocating the use of the aircraft kept in Roswell." -- EW3 ---- Right after I sent that, I reconsidered slightly. I still think the supposed overflights are not happening, but there could be an advantage to sending F-16CJ with the wild weasel pod over another fighter aircraft not equipped for reconnaisance. Not that they'd carry any HARMs or engage the Iranians in any way, but I'm guessing they have pretty good capability to direction find and record various air defense related signals, so they could perform a certain amount of intelligence collection. Still, I maintain the whole idea that we are conducting overflights at this time is loopy. Displacedjim

I suspect that only UAVs are flying over Iran now. Using a manned plane would invite a shootdown, and having a pilot show up on TV.