PDA

View Full Version : Free Syrian Army firing at Iran Air Fore Boeing 747


1stspotter
2nd Feb 2013, 10:12
This video published at Feb 1 2013 shows Free Syrian Army people shooting with their AK-47 riffles at a landing Iran Air Force Boeing 747 on short final for Damascus Airport.

Clear proof of the Iran regime supporting the regime of Syria. Iran Air Force B747 have been frequent visitors to Damascus. Those aircraft are for sure not delivering tourists.

Recently one of the B747's was reregistered from a military registration to a civilian one. Wondering why.
Photo of aircraft
Photos: Boeing 747-131(SF) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131%28SF%29/2116698/&sid=a26334dfb878af14acd9f97f420b1ea8)

Syria: FSA Mercenaries Allegedly Firing At An Iran Air Force Boeing 747-131(SF) On 2/1/13 - YouTube

akerosid
2nd Feb 2013, 10:39
These aircraft are operated by the IRIAF (Islamic Rep of Iran AF), which has been operating 747s almost as long as Iran Air; it acquired a number of them secondhand from TWA in the mid 1970s.

WHBM
2nd Feb 2013, 11:10
Looks to me like one of the short-body Iran Air 747SPs, which they still operate.

green granite
2nd Feb 2013, 11:29
That video is a good example of optimism.

Road_Hog
2nd Feb 2013, 11:37
Yep, with an effective range of 400m (AK47), they're unlikely to do much, other than waste ammunition.

Facelookbovvered
2nd Feb 2013, 11:51
Yeah they need to get closer or let an Israeli sniper help them out

HalloweenJack
2nd Feb 2013, 12:14
so you think shooting at airliners is acceptable then??

dmwalker
2nd Feb 2013, 12:52
Somebody pointed out in a different forum that it doesn't seem to have any passenger windows so it couldn't be an airliner.

green granite
2nd Feb 2013, 13:08
so you think shooting at airliners is acceptable then??

If they are supplying arms or other military supplies to my enemy then yes.

Metro man
2nd Feb 2013, 13:23
I hope these guys have had some training in aircraft recognition. I wouldn't want to be flying in there just in case.;)

Sqwak7700
2nd Feb 2013, 13:46
I feel sorry for all the innocent bystanders killed by that barrage of stray bullets landing on their heads. What a bunch of amateur imbeciles. :ugh:

No_Speed_Restriction
2nd Feb 2013, 13:57
If they are supplying arms or other military supplies to my enemy then yes.

Spot on! :D

:ok: to the IAF & IDF!

Count Niemantznarr
2nd Feb 2013, 14:49
Small arms fire won't bring down an ex TWA 747, but maybe a missile might.

monkeytennis
2nd Feb 2013, 15:10
If the rebels come back next time with one of those pick-up truck mounted HMGs the result could be very different! :eek:

edmundronald
2nd Feb 2013, 15:18
Sure, go ahead and supply these saints with the tools and training to bring down civilian airliners. Just don't be surprised if they come back one day and reuse this training against the hand that trained them. Oh, and by the way, remember not to take a nail-clipper into the cockpit the next time you board as PIC.


JetPhotos.Net Aviation Photos-Registration Search: EP-AJT (http://mail.jetvideos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=EP-AJT&view=true)

aterpster
2nd Feb 2013, 16:07
If it is a 747-131, that is a former TWA 100 series 747.

TBSC
2nd Feb 2013, 16:56
Yep, with an effective range of 400m (AK47), they're unlikely to do much,
other than waste ammunition.


In theory... but you still don't want to be 410 meters from a dozen guys firing at you with FMJ.

ATC Watcher
2nd Feb 2013, 18:23
Yep, with an effective range of 400m (AK47)

That is I think the range at which you have target accuracy, not the range at which the bullet actually ends up , which is I believe much more than that.

Pali
2nd Feb 2013, 19:33
2400 m max range what I remember from my military training with lethal effect all the way against infantry targets but effective range is a different story.

Wirbelsturm
2nd Feb 2013, 19:46
Sure, go ahead and supply these saints with the tools and training to bring down civilian airliners. Just don't be surprised if they come back one day and reuse this training against the hand that trained them. Oh, and by the way, remember not to take a nail-clipper into the cockpit the next time you board as PIC.


Is it really a 'civilian' airliner?

Like the CIA and the mujahideen? Soviets couldn't shift 'em after all that 'training'.

Coming home to roost I suppose.

ATC Watcher
2nd Feb 2013, 21:20
2400 m max range what I remember from my military training with lethal effect all the way

Thanks for the precision Pali, that is more like it.
I know that my old small .22 long rifle "toy" was accurate to 150m but lethal up to 1000m.

Karel_x
2nd Feb 2013, 21:31
For my eyes it looks much more like Iraq Sniper Rifle Tabuk. Not AK-74.

DefenseImagery.mil | Find Imagery (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=e6d5185fd9725a5df00bd54ffc8cc3884615b0ec)

Free Syrian Army is not definitely armed nor supported politically by Russia.

Sunamer
2nd Feb 2013, 21:46
The Tabuk Sniper Rifle is an Iraqi designated marksman's rifle, made from a modified version of the Zastava M70 assault rifle, itself a variant of the AKM. The Tabuk Sniper Rifle, like all the AKM and Dragunov SVD derivatives made in Iraq, was manufactured at the Al-Qadissiya Establishments
Effective range 800 m

[wiki]

Brian Abraham
2nd Feb 2013, 23:11
We used to consider 1,500 feet as a safe altitude for small arms (AK47) fire. Flying home with the formation after a long, long day at 2,000 feet we suddenly had AK47 tracer whistling about our ears. Crew chief was sitting on the floor and let out a yelp. One round had penetrated the outer skin, but only had enough energy left to put a sizable dent where his buttocks had been.

Self Loading Freight
2nd Feb 2013, 23:52
At least they haven't got [email protected] pointers...

Machinbird
3rd Feb 2013, 02:15
At least they haven't got [email protected] pointers... Wouldn't matter. What matters is the bullet time of flight to impact. It is very hard for inexperienced gunners to lead an aircraft sufficiently. Saw this effect in combat frequently, even with the guys with 37 mm AAA, and larger.

We used to plan our bomb drops to bottom above 3000 ft to avoid the small arms envelope. As you go lower than 3000 ft, bullet density can increase dramatically (as can bomb fragments from your own weapons.).

atakacs
3rd Feb 2013, 06:47
Me thinks that the reference to laser pointer was more towards using them as distractions to the crew...

Road_Hog
3rd Feb 2013, 07:14
2400 m max range what I remember from my military training with lethal effect all the way against infantry targets but effective range is a different story

Absolute rubbish. It is 400m, please feel free to search Google and come back with factual links.

http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/AK47USArmyOperatorManual.pdf

There have only ever been three sniper kills of 2,400m or more and that is by using specialist equipment with extremely highly skilled people.

The range I should imagine is quoted for a horizontal shot. The range will be decreased when firing at 45 degrees due to gravity, plus the angle will increase the distance over the horizontal.

tommoutrie
3rd Feb 2013, 07:23
was that a Swiss explanation of a British humourous aside?

how european..

peter we
3rd Feb 2013, 08:56
Absolute rubbish. It is 400m, please feel free to search Google and come back with factual links.

Maybe that is an stupid attempt at humour, but anyone who has had the most basic weapons training should have it drilled into them that the lethal range of a .22 is around 1mile and the lethal range of a 7.62mm is around 2miles.

I take it you have never seen the 600yard and 900 yard ranges at Bisley for instance?

Mk 1
3rd Feb 2013, 10:21
Qualification: Ex infantry small arms master coach Australian Regular Army. IIRC Range safety danger template for 7.62 x 51 round was 7km (horizontal range).

Looking for some proof - this link here:

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p385_63.pdf

Indicates that the US military has determined a horizontal range of around 3.5km and a tad over 1km vertical range for a 5.56mm projectile(page 34) For a 7.62 x 39mm AK round (table 4-9 on page 35 the horizontal range was 4.1km - which would probably point to a vertical danger zone of a bit over a km.

Road Hog, feel free to fly about at 401m altitude - it's your butt.:E

RoyHudd
3rd Feb 2013, 10:24
What pathetic people, behaving like kids with toy guns, but trying to bring an airliner down. They make a good case for not supporting either side in this civil war.

AtomKraft
3rd Feb 2013, 10:40
There was one guy blasting away from the hip.

Now, THAT'S optomistic!

One magic BB is all it takes though...

captjns
3rd Feb 2013, 10:48
RoyHudd calls these people stupid idiots.

What pathetic people, behaving like kids with toy guns, but trying to bring an airliner down. They make a good case for not supporting either side in this civil war.

I'll take it one step further. Calling these people stupid or pathetic is an insult to those who truly are stupid or pathetic.

Octane
3rd Feb 2013, 11:27
The invincible Red Baron got downed by one bullet.....

TBSC
3rd Feb 2013, 11:31
@Road_Hog


Absolute rubbish.


You never fired one yourself, right? The docs of the AKM-63F we used in the army say the effective range is 800 m but it's lethal until 1500 m in case of an "accidental hit". With muzzle velocity of 715 m/s 400 m range would be just ridiculous even for a figure target let alone a 747.

Pali
3rd Feb 2013, 18:41
It seems that ultimate proof for truth is if it can be found on Google! LOL

I should add that 2400m was not mentioned as fighting distance but rather safety remark of our instructor to watch out during drill on shooting range.

MaydayMaydayMayday
3rd Feb 2013, 20:28
"What pathetic people, behaving like kids with toy guns, but trying to bring an airliner down. They make a good case for not supporting either side in this civil war."

I'm still not clear as to how an Iranian military 747 counts as an "airliner" in the sense of carrying commercial passengers or cargo.

My Syrian friends in the UK tend to be of the opinion that the side we seem to be supporting are just as bad as who they'd be replacing. Really not a great situation all round, to put it mildly. One of my mates just lost his dad (of natural causes) in Aleppo and has no chance of getting in for the funeral or, if he does, of certainly not getting back out. Poor chap.

Wannabe Flyer
4th Feb 2013, 04:14
Probably 500 rounds fired off in that clip and there were no signs of any evasive maneuvers by the 747, therefore safe to say in this case that none of the rounds touched the aircraft!

sb_sfo
4th Feb 2013, 05:42
In the case on this clip, how in the world would a pilot on approach have any idea whether he'd been shot at, let alone hit a hundred feet behind his seat?

Wannabe Flyer
4th Feb 2013, 05:56
Question better answered by someone who has been hit by small arms fire, but yes valid point if one of the 500 rounds only hit he would never know unless it took out something vital. Alternately if they started bouncing of his windshield... And knowing he is flying into a war zone one would assume he would plan for the worst.

mickjoebill
4th Feb 2013, 08:43
Here is the Free Syrian Army trying to achieve the same result, apparently with more success.
Syria, Homs - Helicopter shot Down in Idlib (8/Jan/20132) - YouTube

bubbers44
4th Feb 2013, 08:49
The TWA 800 incident should have told them missiles are the answer if they want to take out a 747. They must have believed the center fuel tank BS.

Grunff
4th Feb 2013, 13:05
If it takes a hundred of .50 cal bullets fired from (somewhat) stable platform to bring down a slow-moving Mi-8, I think it's safe to say that 747 probably never felt anything.

Dg800
4th Feb 2013, 13:56
Probably 500 rounds fired off in that clip and there were no signs of any evasive maneuvers by the 747, therefore safe to say in this case that none of the rounds touched the aircraft!

Other than performing a GA which would put them in the line of fire for an even longer time, what evasive action do you suggest the pilot should perform in a 747?
I think the pilots had already agreed during the briefing that the best course of action was to continue until touchdown no matter what, and then deal with any structural or systems damage while safely on the ground in a (still) protected area.

Mk 1
5th Feb 2013, 00:20
@grunff

There have been many aircraft brought down by the 'Golden BB' - it only takes one round in the right place...

The Ancient Geek
5th Feb 2013, 01:12
During WW2 many bombers returned home in a badly shot up condition. The damaged panels were replaced, often overnight, and a special report was sent to
the ministry listing the areas which were NOT damaged.
This was very important information because aircraft damaged in these areas were
not making it home and modifications were needed.

golfyankeesierra
5th Feb 2013, 07:14
I would say that a 747 would be the almost ideal plane for such a mission.
Quadruple redundancy in all systems. Also enough drag to fly a steeper then 3degr angle and high approach speed.
With gear and flaps out they would have take a lot of systems out to make it unflyable. The pilots would be critical, wonder if they had some extra protection?

Espada III
5th Feb 2013, 12:10
Strangely, the Palestinians probably had more chance of a peace agreement with Israel if all the 'dictators' had remained in situ. Not a cat in hell's chance now until Israel has worked out how to deal with the replacement regimes which are all less predictable and generally incompetent at running a country and more importantly an army.

Tourist
5th Feb 2013, 12:59
"the only real reason for intervention...money/oil/gas"


If only this were true.

We have generally been very good at this type of war in the past, the British Empire being a very good example of the fruits of commercial war.

Unfortunately, Iraq whilst having oil and gas will never begin pay us back for the money spent on the war even if we stay for a century.
Afghanistan has no oil, gas or money, and the natural resource contracts have all been won by China since we are unable to bribe.

Our mistake has been to get involved for reasons other than money/oil/gas.

FlexibleResponse
5th Feb 2013, 13:20
The Arab nations and tribes have been fighting each other for the last 4000 years of recorded history.

Just because the Western World has different ideals and values, doesn't mean that the Arab world is going to change their time-honoured habits anytime soon.

In any case, the Western World wasn't so different from them a few hundred years ago. Let them have their way and let them find their own feet. Why should we try and impose our values upon them and get caught in their crossfire?

If you want their oil, then go in and be prepared to be more brutal than their current leaders and subjugate them, or if that doesn't sit right with you, pay them whatever they ask for their oil.

Kulverstukas
5th Feb 2013, 15:31
where the best route for the pipeline to carry huge amounts of gas from Russia goes through


Where? From where (Afghanistan now has no borders with Russia) and to where (Pakistan may be?).

wozzo
5th Feb 2013, 16:24
The Arab nations and tribes have been fighting each other for the last 4000 years of recorded history.

Just because the Western World has different ideals and values, ...
Out of curiosity: What have the Western nations and tribes have been doing for the last 4000 years?

FERetd
5th Feb 2013, 17:20
wozzo, you ask "What have the Western nations and tribes have been doing for the last 4000 years?"

Not being a historian I cannot speak about the last 4000 years, however, over the last two hundred years this country was involved in numerous wars trying to prevent French and German domination of Europe.

Recent history has now shown that these were merely battles, the war ultimately being lost by this country's politicians.

Sadly, the greatest Generals will always succumb to the weakest politicians.

Apologies for staying with the topic drift.

Kulverstukas
5th Feb 2013, 18:06
Lone_Ranger
here you go....Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, still can not figure what connection it has with Russian gas?

PS: I know that some "western" people know that all inhabitans of lands east of polish border are "russkie". It's allways funny to read at bbc.co.uk that "police have arrested a Russian gang: two Lithuanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tajik and Georgian." :hmm:

Tourist
5th Feb 2013, 18:31
Lone Ranger

This has nothing to do with me believing in freedom and democracy.

Personally I would rather go to war for cash, and I may have fought there in the name of democracy but I'm not much of a believer in it. The problem with democracy is that it is based on the idea that stupid people get as much say in running the country as clever people.

Any pipeline will have sod all to do with the coalition forces, and we certainly wont see a penny from it even if the taliban doesn't blow it up.

Lonewolf_50
5th Feb 2013, 20:01
The Arab nations and tribes have been fighting each other for the last 4000 years of recorded history. Just because the Western World has
different ideals and values, doesn't mean that the Arab world is going to change their time-honoured habits anytime soon.
I presume that you are back on the Syria topic, rather than the Afghan pipeline sub topic, since the latter doesn't much involve Arabs. :hmm:

In any case, the Western World wasn't so different from them a few hundred years ago. Let them have their way and let them find their own feet. Why should we try and impose our values upon them and get caught in their crossfire?
Trade. It's an international habit.

Related to that, a four century trend toward greater and greater globalization led to the UN being set up, a club which then made the mistake of letting in any old bunch of folks. This membership imperative tends to make nations more interested in what one another is doing, not less -- for better and for worse.

I had a discussion the other day with someone on the internet about internecine wars. The US of A had a one such war 1861 - 1865. We managed to kill off a bit over a half a million of our selves, with slightly over half of that being non-combat deaths. (Disease got a lot of wounded, eh? )

The Syrians to date have killed off between 50 and 60 thousand so far. They are on track to lose less than half as many as we managed to in our civil war. To a certain extent, they are having a much nicer time of it than we did. :p
Lucky for them, a bunch of the aforementioned international "nosing into their business" and "assitance to refugees" club members are keeping the death toll and starvation bit down to a dull roar.
If you want their oil, then go in and be prepared to be more brutal than their current leaders and subjugate them, or if that doesn't sit right with you, pay them whatever they ask for their oil.
Syria has little to do with oil, as they are closer to a net importer than net exporter.

I am trying to puzzle out how "Arab" is the sobriquet you reach back 4,000 years to apply.
Perhaps "Semite" (in its original sense) would be more accurate.

Linguistically, the various semitic languages that predate Arabic (language forming a powerful pillar for any ethnic group in the olden days) didn't get supplanted until about 600 AD (CE) though, Northern Arabic seems to have evidence of written form as early as 300 BC and Sabaic a few hundred years before that.

Various tribal affiliations / linguistic groupings in the general region of the fertile crescent and the Arabian peninsula point to other Semitic languages being more common before Islam spread like the cancer that it was, is, and ever shall be, carrying the Arabic language with it.

As a common cant of the Beduoins, it seems that Arabic maybe reaches back 3000 years, but I imagine language scholars wrangle over that as part of their daily work. :8