As far back as the Falklands War I was led to believe you never make a second pass in a target. The first time they are the target, the second time you are. As to the engagement, as I said it depends on the ROE.
If the ROE only approved engagement in self-defence then once the SU-22 had cleared the target then the rationale for engagement had gone. It's the same rationale which allowed a trooper to legally 5 rounds at an approaching car in NI which he considered a threat - then convicted him of murder in court when he continued to fire at the back after it had passed and killed someone inside.
If the Pentagon statement had said the SU-22 had commenced a second attack run, then engagement was again permitted, but it doesn't. If the ROE allowed engagement of a Hostile aircraft and the attack fulfilled the criteria, then again engagement was justified; but again the statement does not make that claim.
The USA and Syria are not at war, so I doubt the ROE covered anything but self-defence, and on the evidence as presented no grounds for justifiable self-defence are given.
I am in no way anti-American or USN/USAF, but in the present circumstances the ROE must be, and be followed, meticulously.
At which point I will leave the matter.
Last edited by ORAC; 22nd Jun 2017 at 18:33.
Reason: Sp