Military AviationA forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
0497's picture of an LGB is, I think, a PW2-class weapon, probably on a 1000lb bomb. The Paveway IVs are much more slender in appearance and are light grey all over - the weapon pictured has a dark-coloured warhead.
PW4 as shown below:
Compared to the weapon in question:
Last edited by Easy Street; 9th Apr 2011 at 17:17.
In this case, if the rebels were using vehicles thought to only be used by loyalists, and these vehicles weren't engaging civilians, why were they attacked?
I wasn't there, but I do have intimate knowledge of the way the RAF apply RoE in Afghanistan and I hope you can believe me; if they were attacked by RAF ac, the cockpit recording will have been pored over ad infinitum at multiple levels to double & triple-check that the RoE were adhered to.
Just because we, here, cannot see why, doesn't mean there wasn't good and just reason.
BRUSSELS: NATO warplanes intercepted a MiG-23 fighter jet operated by a Libyan rebel pilot on Saturday and forced him to land after he violated a UN-mandated no-fly zone, a NATO official told AFP.
The jet had taken off from a rebel-controlled airfield near the eastern city of Benghazi in the morning and was intercepted within minutes, the official said on condition of anonymity. No weapons were fired by either side.
"No aggressive action was displayed by the MiG-23 and the NATO fighters proceeded to force it to land back at the Benina airfield," the official said.
The official added that the rebels had not warned NATO that one of their jets was going to take off.
It was the first time that any aircraft violated the no-fly zone since NATO took command of the mission from a US-led coalition on March 31.
"A request to fly by anybody in the no-fly zone would be scrutinised and there would have to be very compelling reason for an aircraft to be flown," the official said.
The UN Security Council put in place last month a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Muammar Gaddafi from using his air force to kill civilians after the Libyan leader violently cracked down on pro-democracy protests.
NATO has also conducted air strikes against Gaddafi's ground forces under the UN mandate to use "all necessary measures" to protect the population.
Following normal procedure, NATO jets were scrambled to intercept the MiG-23 after it was detected by an AWAC surveillance aircraft, the NATO official said.
Two NATO planes flew alongside the MiG and made visual contact with the Libyan pilot, using international signals to indicate that he should land. The signals are usually made by hand or by tipping the plane's wing.
"He complied and the aircraft landed very quickly after take off," the official said. "It was only in the air a few minutes."
"In this case there was no aggressive behaviour, which meant no lethal force was required," the official said.
A rebel Hind was also noted active today. Sky News have a video. Still image of the Hind.
Apologies if it's already been covered in this thread but can anyone tell me what those peculiar "launchers" mounted on the pick-up truck cab roofs are? Don't recognise them at all.
However, they do remind me of a bizarre Astazou-powered car which was build by a bunch of crazy Cloggy F-16 drivers at Gilz-Rijn. They fired it up in the hanger during the pre-air show PU in approx 92 or 93. Nearly deafened the assembled masses.
The rebels have Hinds?! I must pay more attention.
If the struggle continues, and if the majority of the ground forces on both sides transit via the coast road then that road needs to cut with a 10 mile buffer zone, anything on wheels/tracks in that zone would be examined closely (UAVs? Apache?) and then dealt with accordingly.
Perhaps a UN solution? If the UN can keep the Greeks and the Turks apart in Cyprus then separating the opposing forces in Libya shouldn't present too much of a problem ...?
Surely this cannot end up in yet another political mess where the effectiveness of military ops is compromised by general political incompetence? Too depressing for words
.... the men who fire them have little idea of how far these rockets fly, a limited ability to change their elevation, and, (depending on the makeshift mount), often have no ability to traverse them left or right. Often times, those who fire them fire them this way: They point the front grill of their truck in the rough direction of the intended target, and commence launching a barrage. The result is obvious even before the first rockets whooshes into the air. Those involved can make their high-explosive rockets go up. They have only the faintest sense of where the rockets will come down.
.... No one can reasonably dispute that this is indiscriminate fire, and there is already a small undercurrent of anger among the rebels at some of those who fire them. The rockets have often landed near other rebels .... some credible accounts, it was an errant barrage of 57-millimeter rockets from another pod like this one that killed Dr. Salah al-Awami last week.
BAE Systems Responds to An Urgent Operational Requirement For Frontline UK Tornados
Warton, UK. BAE Systems is responding to an urgent operational requirement to equip the UK Tornado fleet with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). Work starts immediately on the £8m contract to integrate the system on to the aircraft.
Tornado crews in-theatre currently provide close air support, tactical reconnaissance and convoy support to land forces. The Helmet Mounted Cueing System will project visual targeting symbols on to the visor of the pilot’s helmet, in front of one eye.
On the video that jwcook posted, post number 1044 I think, the symbology looks different from the first pass to the second pass. On the first pass, the legs were flashing and on the second pass, where the tank is destroyed, there is no flashing symbology on the targetting pod display. Is there any reason for this?
Martin Taylor, BAE Systems’ Combat Air Support Director says: “BAE Systems is proud to be awarded the contract to integrate the system, which had already been developed and deployed on the Harrier GR9 aircraft. BAE Systems recognises its responsibility to support the men and women of our armed forces with the best possible equipment particularly when they are operating in-theatre.”
Something the Harriers had that GR4 did not and why is costing £8million. What happen to the Helmet's that Harriers used use?