Pilot from CVN77 who shot down the Syrian SU-22

[NavyLookout]

Up close with a US super carrier and the pilots fresh from combat operations | Save the Royal Navy (http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-close-with-a-us-super-carrier-and-the-pilots-fresh-from-combat-operations/)


http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Tremel-1014x487.jpg

[just another jocky]

The US Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 2 have been in action in the Middle East for almost 7 months and there was a high tempo of operations with 99 days conducting combat sorties.So around 200 days "in action" but conducting combat sorties for only about half of that time. Not very efficient.Just saying like.

[Davef68]

(The UK uses the superior ASRAAM, although it shares some common components with the Sidewinder)

Not jingoistic at all ! :-) Reminds me of some of the wartime Pathe newsreels

[Aggamemnon]

Don't ASRAAM and AIM 9-X share a seeker head? ex-Hughes, now Raytheon?

[KenV]

So around 200 days "in action" but conducting combat sorties for only about half of that time. Not very efficient.Just saying like.Actually, that's pretty damn "efficient". To put this in perspective, in WW2 it typically took four to five months for a B-17 to rack up 25 missions, or roughly 1 mission per week. Further, a carrier battle group does far more than generate aircraft sorties. It is not idle when it is not generating sorties.

[just another jocky]

Actually, that's pretty damn "efficient". To put this in perspective, in WW2 it typically took four to five months for a B-17 to rack up 25 missions, or roughly 1 mission per week. Further, a carrier battle group does far more than generate aircraft sorties. It is not idle when it is not generating sorties.

So you're measuring the efficiency of a modern day carrier with a WWII land-based bomber?

To put a more modern perspective on it, 7 years ago in Kandahar, it was 7-days a week ops. Just saying like.

[KenV]

So you're measuring the efficiency of a modern day carrier with a WWII land-based bomber?

To put a more modern perspective on it, 7 years ago in Kandahar, it was 7-days a week ops. Just saying like."7-days a week ops" for 7 straight months is absurd. I deployed twice to the Persian Gulf aboard a carrier. Conducting combat operations for 7 months straight would be impossible and attempting or expecting a carrier to do so absurd. The fact that they conducted combat operations for about half their 7 month deployment period is damn impressive.

[just another jocky]

"7-days a week ops" for 7 straight months is absurd. I deployed twice to the Persian Gulf aboard a carrier. Conducting combat operations for 7 months straight would be impossible and attempting or expecting a carrier to do so absurd. The fact that they conducted combat operations for about half their 7 month deployment period is damn impressive.

I'm not lying, nor mistaken.


Units usually stood down 1 day per week but it was rotated so that the flying units covered those that were stood down.


So as a base, Kandahar operated 7 days a week, with only 1 or 2 detachments stood down per day, leaving all the other dets flying combat ops. Every day. Non-stop.


I wasn't asking if a carrier could conduct combat ops for 7 straight months, merely pointing out that carrying them out for less than 50% of the time was not very efficient when compared to modern land-based operations.


Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[sandiego89]

Both land based and carrier based aviation have advantages and disadvantages. I would fully expect the massive footprint at a place like Kandahar, with multiple units rotating though, during the heat of a major operation/war, to operate 7 days a week. That is all well and good as long as you have access to the airfield. And how many pilots, maintainers, host country folks, bottle-washers, donut makers, contractors, air and ground supply runs did it take to keep up the OPTEMPO? I suspect many folks and massive $ was involved.


99 days of combat ops from a carrier during a cruise is quite an accomplishment. Yes the carrier may go off line for a bit for R&R, resupply, other tasking, or there may have been days where there was no tasking, cease fires, politics etc. Syria is not Afghanistan.


Both take a massive amount of investment. Sure a land based airfield is usually going to have greater sortie ability (more efficient in your words). But how efficient would Kandahar be in a conflict in Syria, Africa, China, etc?


I say good on LCDR Tremel and the fine men and women in the BUSH battle group.

[biscuit74]

Carriers have to replenish their stocks of weapons and fuel, as well as allow crews to maintain the aircraft. After a short intense period of operations surely a pause to regroup is essential.

Land operations are different; other units may be more readily available, or can be made so. Not the case in carrier operations where an air group will be embarked and will go through a work up period before any operations can be undertaken.

(Thank you sandiego89 - you put that much better than I did. Our postings overlapped. I agree, excellent effort by the group.)

[Saintsman]

99 days of Operations is a bit misleading really. One flight one day, 2O the next maybe, so I suppose the number of sorties is more pertinent.

Still, it's not as if they were sunning themselves whilst afloat. I'm sure it would have been busy.

[KenV]

I'm not lying, nor mistaken....
So as a base, Kandahar operated 7 days a week, with only 1 or 2 detachments stood down per day, leaving all the other dets flying combat ops. Every day. Non-stop.

I wasn't asking if a carrier could conduct combat ops for 7 straight months, merely pointing out that carrying them out for less than 50% of the time was not very efficient when compared to modern land-based operations.Aaaah! I missed your point. You were comparing land based vs sea based operations. My bad.

May I ask, of those "dets flying combat ops", how many stayed in Kandahar for 7 months at a stretch? My guess is none. How many stayed in Kandahar three months at a stretch? Two months? I really don't know.

If you're going to be in one place for years operating combat aircraft, I agree that a land base is certainly more "efficient" than a carrier. But how long did it take to get the airbase in Kandahar combat ready? Weeks? Months? Years? A carrier can be on station, ready for combat, in days. Now suppose the fight moves elsewhere. An "efficient" base like Kandahar is utterly useless when the war is in Syria. How many bombs did aircraft from Kandahar put on target in Syria? None you say? That's miserable "efficiency." That's the advantage of a carrier. It goes where the war is, and can arrive at most any hotspot very quickly and ready for combat. If you're going to have a sustained airwar in one place, then by all means, take the time to build a land base there. But that's a pretty big investment that ends up being useless and gets abandoned when the war ends or moves elsewhere.

I agree that my WW2 example was less than ideal. But consider Vietnam and Yankee Station. Despite having "efficient" land bases in South Vietnam and neighboring nations, carriers were called on to support the ongoing sustained airwar against North Vietnam. To compare those days to what Bush just accomplished, consider that it took THREE carriers to maintain round the clock ops. One was assigned to provide air ops from noon till midnight, a second from midnight till noon, and a third provided additional coverage on an as needed basis during the more effective daylight hours. A single carrier today can generate the same number of sorties it took three carriers to generate and each sortie is much more effective than the Vietnam days. Now, please consider what happened to all those "efficient" land airbases in Southeast Asia when the war ended in 1973. They were lost forever. The carriers by contrast went home and continued to serve into the next century. The South China Sea is now an international hotspot. How "efficient" is Da Nang airbase in today's US operations in the South China Sea?

Bottom line: there are many ways to measure "efficiency." Be very careful how you measure.

[AGS Man]

Ken V
I'm sure that what the Ford Battle Group achieved was highly commendable and carried out to the best traditions of the USN. However your rant on carriers and fixed base ops is perhaps a little one sided. Let's be honest, one conventional ASM can stop or even sink a carrier. It takes an awful lot more or escalation to a Nuke to take out a land base.

[West Coast]

It often only takes the political winds of change to take out land base, no nukes needed.

[IcePaq]

My dad had one of those mig silhouettes on the side of his plane but they only wiped off enough dirt to spray it on.

I believe a few of the Vietnamese fighter pilots (south and north) are coming to the US to hang out with their former enemies next month.

http://vnafmamn.com/untoldpage/Mig17_killed6.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

Tks for posting the A-1 pic. Spad vs. Mig-17 was quite an accomplishment.

[glad rag]

"So you're measuring the efficiency of a modern day carrier with a WWII land-based bomber?"

It's what he does.

[stilton]

So carriers really pay off when you lose the war KenV ?!

[recceguy]

... shot down a Syrian Su-22 “Fitter”. The Soviet-era aircraft had been bombing US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces

And here we are again... Bad guys, good guys, like in a Hollywood movie.

Like in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Ukraine soon ... ?
No, Ukraine will be another set of gloves, and it will never happen - even with all the Brad Pitt, George Cloney and Tom Cruise in the shop....

[KenV]

Ken V
I'm sure that what the Ford Battle Group achieved was highly commendable and carried out to the best traditions of the USN. However your rant on carriers and fixed base ops is perhaps a little one sided. Let's be honest, one conventional ASM can stop or even sink a carrier. It takes an awful lot more or escalation to a Nuke to take out a land base.Let's be honest? The claim that a single ASM can hit never mind take out a carrier is not anything approaching honesty. And honestly, how many land bases have been "taken out" without a single shot fired? Essentially every US land airbase in Vietnam was "taken out" with the stroke of a pen in 1973. The same thing happened to all the US airbases in the Phillipines in 1991. Indeed Clark AFB was the largest oversees US military installation prior to its closure. And if memory serves, the land airbase on the Falklands was "taken out" by a single bomber and a single stick of bombs.

And on the subject of honesty, what would happen if the Russians lobbed several cruise missiles onto the Kandahar airbase the way the US lobbed several cruise missiles on the Shayrat airbase base in Syria? Probably the same thing. A lot of rhetoric and saber rattling, but precious little else. Now what would happen if the Russians lobbed those missiles at a carrier? By definition, that carrier is sovereign US territory. Do you honestly believe the US response would be the same? Honestly? If the US response would be different (and almost certainly be far more violent and forceful) do you think the Russians would think twice before doing it?

[KenV]

It's what he does.We can always count on glad rag to attempt a personal dig. :)

[KenV]

So carriers really pay off when you lose the war KenV ?!Gotta love it....."Lose the war." FYI, there was no war in the Phillipines and not a shot was fired when the US lost its largest oversees airbase with the stroke of a pen.

[sandiego89]

I do find it amusing Ken that folks so often forget that an airfield can be "lost" due to politics, and often limitations with the number and type of aircraft that can be on deck in certain nations. We have to play this game constantly even now, even in countries with fairly open basing rights.






Beside the Philippines, there used to be basing rights, or even essentially US bases, in places like Libya, France, Morroco, Viet Nam, Thailand etc. operating under the graces of the host nation. Others may recall the challenges of operating in places Turkey, certain Stans, Allied Force limitations, Equador, recent Iraq, etc. And it's not just a US thing- our UK friends may recall a few places that used to be under the crown that the UK military routinely operated from, but have been "lost".
I can think of few countries that would allow such a diverse and heavy contingent as we see in Kandahar- and as I recall Afghanistan didn't get much say in the initial vote.

[212man]

Gotta love it....."Lose the war." FYI, there was no war in the Phillipines and not a shot was fired when the US lost its largest oversees airbase with the stroke of a pen.

I think Mt. Pinatubo may have had something to do with it!

[Lonewolf_50]

Nope.

Mount Aquino. The volcano was a coincidence. The Philippine government had been making moves for some years to disinvite the US once Marcos was gone. President Aquino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corazon_Aquino)was in charge when the formal process was agreed and began.

[West Coast]

I do find it amusing Ken that folks so often forget that an airfield can be "lost" due to politics

Couple that with not having access to host nation facilities to begin with yet still having tasking in the area. Suddenly several acres of sovereign floating territory looks awfully useful even if the ops tempo can't match a land base.

[stilton]

Gotta love it....."Lose the war." FYI, there was no war in the Phillipines and not a shot was fired when the US lost its largest oversees airbase with the stroke of a pen.

I was referring to the US losing the war in Vietnam, as you were.

[just another jocky]

May I ask, of those "dets flying combat ops", how many stayed in Kandahar for 7 months at a stretch? My guess is none. How many stayed in Kandahar three months at a stretch? Two months? I really don't know.




I can't speak for other nations/aircraft, but the RAF roulement was 4 months for the Tornado. It was my experience from 20 years of ops in the desert that the USAF kept their people out there longer, much longer.


I agree, Kandahar would not be much use if the war was in the Far East.

[KenV]

I agree, Kandahar would not be much use if the war was in the Far East.
How much use was Kandahar when the war was in "nearby" Syria?! How many bombs were dropped on Syria by Kandahar based aircraft? If Kandahar's claim to fame is its "efficiency", just how "efficient" was and is Kandahar in supporting ops in Syria?

Make no mistake, we need bases like Kandahar and they are a tremendous resource. Just don't use the "efficiency" and the "hardness" of bases like Kandahar to justify getting rid of "inefficient" and "soft" carriers. That's just foolish.

[KenV]

I was referring to the US losing the war in Vietnam, as you were.Oh my. I wrote:
Essentially every US land airbase in Vietnam was "taken out" with the stroke of a pen in 1973. The same thing happened to all the US airbases in the Phillipines in 1991.

Please read what I wrote, not what you imagine/wish I wrote. And by the way, those are but two examples among many.

And finally, we did not lose those Vietnam airbases because we "lost" the war. We "lost" those airbases because we signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam. Google "Paris Peace Accords". That peace treaty ended the war. It is true that North Vietnam subsequently abrogated that treaty and successfully invaded South Vietnam. So if anything, that "second" war was "lost" because the US had "lost" all those airbases with a previous stroke of a pen and not the other way around as you claim.

[glad rag]

We can always count on glad rag to attempt a personal dig. :)

Well it IS your calling card Oh My....

[cynicalint]

When I t’were a lad, we’d win t’war before it started, lick flight deck clean wi t'tongues before breakfast, spend 70 years in t’military before we could join up and fly, take off before t’runway were built, drop bombs bigger than whar aircraft, get home arter tea and before medals and light webber first time to barbeque reconstituted meat in rain. Tell that t’servicemen of today and they jest wor’nt believe ya!

[racedo]

... shot down a Syrian Su-22 “Fitter”. The Soviet-era aircraft had been bombing US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces ...

How dare anybody bomb Al Qaeda / ISIS and all their friendly head hackers.

So when war is over will all these people be welcomed into the US ?

[Lonewolf_50]

@cynicalint
Yeah, but we really had it tough ...

[Airbubba]

Here's an excellent Tyler Rogoway article with details on the shootdown from LCDR Tremel and the other crewmembers from a panel discussion at the infamous Tailhook Association convention:

Here's The Definitive Account Of The Syrian Su-22 Shoot Down From The Pilots Themselves

We finally get the whole story straight from the Super Hornet and Hornet pilots who were there.

By Tyler Rogoway

September 14, 2017

The Tailhook Association's annual symposium wrapped up on Sunday and the event featured a special panel this year—the quartet of Hornet and Super Hornet pilots who were involved in the mission that resulted in the shooting down of a Syrian Su-22 Fitter. Their detailed account of the historic mission provides by far the most concise and thorough picture of not just the engagement itself, but what came before it and after. It also offers some unique insights into the complex air war over Syria.

Below is a summary and some of the takeaways based on the combined accounts of not just Lt. Cmdr. Michael "Mob" Tremel who shot down the Syrian Fitter, but also of his wingman from VFA-87 "Golden Warriors" and two pilots who flew a section of F/A-18Cs belonging to VFA-37 "Bulls" who were in the air alongside them during the mission.

Here's The Definitive Account Of The Syrian Su-22 Shoot Down From The Pilots Themselves - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14344/heres-the-definitive-account-of-the-syrian-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves)

Video of the panel presentation here:

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017/videos/162478715

[SpazSinbad]

Seven minute excerpt of the TAILHOOK 2017 video about the Su-22 shoot down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbxl_jxquo

[sandiego89]

Good links. Seems to dismiss the earlier talk that the AIM-9X was spoofed with flares.


Ohh, the Oceana Air show is on this weekend (16-17 September) in my neck of the woods. I wonder if "302" will be on prominent display in the static park. I'll keep my eyes open.

[SpazSinbad]

Because the original video will be gone at some point here it is again - all 47 minutes of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uston4gybSk

[glad rag]

Good links. Seems to dismiss the earlier talk that the AIM-9X was spoofed with flares.



The secrets in the seeker :)

[TEEEJ]

Video of the Su-22 shoot down.

The second clip is an F-15E Strike Eagle shooting down an Iranian made Shaheed 129 drone over Syria on 20th June 2017.

wW7dfFkUcNE&feature=related

[TEEEJ]

Ko2X34sN8BI&feature=related