More of an incompetent of the crew of USS Vincennes and the gungho attitude of the CO of the ship who defy top level SOP that results the mishap.. Basically the Iranian airlines did nothing wrong!

The Iranian airliner was 3+ nautical miles outside of an assigned 10 nautical mile flight corridor, and it was flying nearly a half hour behind schedule.

Iranian patrol boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes, and an Iranian P-3 was flying nearby – an indication that an aerial attack was an imminent possibility.

After the events of September 11, 2001, it is hard to argue that the USS Vincennes was even at fault in the shootdown of the Iranian A300. Suicidal small boat attacks were used by Iran during attacks on civilian shipping during the so-called “Tanker War,” while suicidal “human wave” attacks (involving ten of thousands of conscripts) were frequently used by the Iranians in the 1980-88 war.

The bottom line is that the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment. The same cannot be said of the captain and crew of the USS Stark, which had been attacked the previous year.

Ah, but could a commercial hull withstand the stresses of constant takeoffs and landings? You can’t just put a flat top on a boat, throw a few wires across the back, tilt the front up, and call it a carrier.

Actually, yes.

It wouldn’t be terribly difficult to convert a very large container liner into a viable STOBAR carrier.

The “stresses of constant takeoffs and landings” are fairly localized on the flight deck of a carrier.

The main disadvantage is that most existing large container ships have a single diesel powering a single shaft. A single 95,000 horsepower, 12-cylinder diesel can propel a 90,000+ ton container ship at a constant 25 knots. However, there is fair amount of underwater noise and a single shaft/single engine arrangement isn’t a good idea for a warship.

The United States recently build an entire fleet of twin shaft 24 knot roll on/roll off ships, and there were proposals to use the same basic hulls as a large Marine STOVL aviation platforms – among other things. Remember the Sea Base concept?

I don’t like that attitude that you hold here. First you assume Iran would use this weapon as a attack on airlines. Yet which airline do you suppose they can attack with a MANPAD? A plane carrying iranian citizens?

Are you going to deny that Iran supports just about every Islamic terrorist organization on the face of the earth?

For the record Iran has never shot down a commercial airline, while the US have already downed an Iranian airliner killing all onboard.

In the period between 1984 and 1988 Iran launched a series of attacks against neutral flagged civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf. The USS Vincennes was deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will to protect civilian vessels.

The USS Vincennes shot down a non-compliant aerial target that with a flight profile which resembled that of an Iranian F-14 on an attack run. The USS Vincennes had recently engaged Iranian gunboats – vessels which often employed suicide tactics.

Viewed from the perspective of September 11 attacks, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the Iranian Airbus A300 might have been engaged in a suicide mission.

In any event, the whole incident would never have occurred if Iran hadn’t been attacking innocent civilian targets.

Lol The defence ministery said they going to export that kind of missles!!

Export?

Does the world “export” mean the same thing as “give to to terrorists?”

Perhaps it does in Iran?

on average 1 worker a day dies in Alang. semi literates with no training are given welding tools and rough directions on how to cut up large ships. many deaths are from sections collapsing prematurely due to improper sequencing, gas cylinders blowing up or people without safety harnesses working on internal structures 20m above the deck or bottom of hold.

I have seen the films…its a hell on earth.

Forget about Alang.

The ship breaking business is finished in India – killed by regulation and increasing wage scales.

Only 15 out of 173 available plots at Alang are currently occupied.

Well, that’s understandable. The way this is dragging out, all the candidates will have retired from service before a decision is made. I reckon the best plane to offer is one which hasn’t actually been designed yet, on the grounds that it’s the only way to offer something that isn’t totally obsolete by the time deliveries begin.

My idea that India should make do with upgraded second hand aircraft for now, & look to buy something of a later generation than M2K, Mig-29, F-16, etc, looks more & more like the only way to select something where the tooling hasn’t been junked. And I thought our procurement system was a mess! Sign a contract in 2009 or 2010 for a plane which entered service 30 years earlier?

The only problem with your very reasonable suggestion is that even a used aircraft purchase would take far too long.

India should streamline its defense authorization and procurement process.

There is no reason why negotiations to purchase of 66 BAe Hawks should take a decade or so. Now there is more dithering over whether to buy all 8 RN Sea Harriers on offer, or only 6!

The French have made the right move. If India wants the Mirage 2000 in 2009-2010, there is no reason why India shouldn’t be able to fund restarting the Mirage 2000 production line in 2009-2010.

Sure you can shoot them down. That’s the whole purpose of the MiG-31 FOXHOUND. The trick is finding them. Locating a Tomahawk is one thing, finding a stealth AGM-129 ACM is another thing entirely.

I wouldn’t worry very much. The MiG-31 was largely unproven in the role of intercepting low flying cruise missiles. The MiG-31’s failure to secure a single post-Soviet export order indicates that even 3rd world rogue regimes view its capabilities with extreme skepticism.

From what I’ve seen, the MiG-31 is one of the most overestimated airplanes in history.