Gaza Air War
FJ in Afghan took small arms rounds during shows of force and had to have BDR carried out.
Last edited by downsizer; 13th Oct 2023 at 06:14.
Not sure how much of a threat they pose to modern fast jets but certainly more than just AK-47's
Hutch
Was surprised to actually see an IAF jet ( couldn't tell if it was F16 or F15 ) on the Reuters Live feed over Gaza. Popping lots of flares before climbing away. Intrigued to know what the air defence threat is from Hamas. I believe they do have SA7 (Grail/Strela) and 9K38 Igla manpad systems.
Not sure how much of a threat they pose to modern fast jets but certainly more than just AK-47's
Hutch
Not sure how much of a threat they pose to modern fast jets but certainly more than just AK-47's
Hutch
Hezbollah, and more importantly Iran's IRGC/Quds, work with and support Hamas. The odds that they have supplied them with up-to-date kit is pretty good.
FWIW: an SA-7 will hurt you if you aren't wary (provided that the person firing it knows what they are doing).
Naive question - in terms of engaging using air power, how difficult would it be for an IAF fast jet to engage a Hamas powered paraglider in an area where there are lots of manpads?
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
Flying low enough to engage with guns would put you in range of manpads - right?
Assume an Apache cannon engagement would be more effective and practicable.
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
Flying low enough to engage with guns would put you in range of manpads - right?
Assume an Apache cannon engagement would be more effective and practicable.
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
Also, they have land borders abutting countries filled with people who want to kill them all.
The UK is lucky that they are not in that situation.
Assume an Apache cannon engagement would be more effective and practicable.
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
So we have sent one P-8 to the Eastern Med, which represents more than 10% of the fleet. Meanwhile the Faroes Gap, UK waters, the Baltic and the Black Seas still need monitoring. Another example that the UK is now an asset-light military. (Did we hear much about defence at the two major party conferences in the last month?)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have sent one P-8 to the Eastern Med, which represents more than 10% of the fleet. Meanwhile the Faroes Gap, UK waters, the Baltic and the Black Seas still need monitoring. Another example that the UK is now an asset-light military. (Did we hear much about defence at the two major party conferences in the last month?)
Anyway, back to Israel and Hamas.
So we have sent one P-8 to the Eastern Med, which represents more than 10% of the fleet. Meanwhile the Faroes Gap, UK waters, the Baltic and the Black Seas still need monitoring. Another example that the UK is now an asset-light military. (Did we hear much about defence at the two major party conferences in the last month?)
Sending two Royal Navy ships which"....are.not warships, but "ships that can assist with hospital facilities". seems a better idea.
Naive question - in terms of engaging using air power, how difficult would it be for an IAF fast jet to engage a Hamas powered paraglider in an area where there are lots of manpads?
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
Flying low enough to engage with guns would put you in range of manpads - right?
Assume an Apache cannon engagement would be more effective and practicable.
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
Flying low enough to engage with guns would put you in range of manpads - right?
Assume an Apache cannon engagement would be more effective and practicable.
Reason I ask is it actually seemed like a pretty cunning way to infiltrate from the air.
Low cost, slow, probably hard to pick up against ground clutter and very STOL.
Of course the easiest way to kill them would be to just shoot at them using an SLR from the ground...
Naive question - in terms of engaging using air power, how difficult would it be for an IAF fast jet to engage a Hamas powered paraglider in an area where there are lots of manpads?
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
Assume an F-35 or F-16 would easily be able to get a lock on the paragilder to engage from higher altitude I would imagine, but a missile engagement would be very wasteful in terms of $$$.
A distributed drone force placed close to the border fence might be a better option to engage these kind of threats in future. If I were in Israels shoes I would ask our Ukrainian Friends for advice...
Was surprised to actually see an IAF jet ( couldn't tell if it was F16 or F15 ) on the Reuters Live feed over Gaza. Popping lots of flares before climbing away. Intrigued to know what the air defence threat is from Hamas. I believe they do have SA7 and 9K38 Igla manpad systems.
Not sure how much of a threat they pose to modern fast jets but certainly more than just AK-47's
Hutch
Not sure how much of a threat they pose to modern fast jets but certainly more than just AK-47's
Hutch
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
As for the para gliders a drone in the face might work.
Somehow I suspect that a paramotor or similar would be an almost impossible target for a FJ unless it used jet blast/wake to upset it, and that would be quite a trick. Well trained helicopter pilots can evade a FJ with wase unless multiple jets act as a team.
Thread Starter
Meleagertoo
Whilst we obviously don’t discuss tactics and the intimate details of modern weapons systems on this forum, I fear your statement that a helicopter can avoid an attacking FJ with ease may be a tad outdated. Whilst that may once have been true I’m not so sure that is still the case. I feel sure that a helicopter that is engaged outside of their visual scan by a FJ equipped with a weapon of similar abilities to an ASRAAM is probably not going to live to tell the tale.
Also, I’m not sure that FJs against paramotors is a great use of assets. I’m also not sure that Hamas would have quite so much luck as they did during their first attacks. Now their tactic has been revealed I feel sure that anyone suspended beneath a large paraglider that crosses from Palestine into Israel in the present climate will likely be faced by a hail of gunfire from which they will probably not emerge unscathed.
BV
Also, I’m not sure that FJs against paramotors is a great use of assets. I’m also not sure that Hamas would have quite so much luck as they did during their first attacks. Now their tactic has been revealed I feel sure that anyone suspended beneath a large paraglider that crosses from Palestine into Israel in the present climate will likely be faced by a hail of gunfire from which they will probably not emerge unscathed.
BV
They may only need 100 crews.
Whilst we obviously don’t discuss tactics and the intimate details of modern weapons systems on this forum, I fear your statement that a helicopter can avoid an attacking FJ with ease may be a tad outdated. Whilst that may once have been true I’m not so sure that is still the case. I feel sure that a helicopter that is engaged outside of their visual scan by a FJ equipped with a weapon of similar abilities to an ASRAAM is probably not going to live to tell the tale.
I may be off base in mentioning the lack of difficulty (a quarter of a century ago) that a couple of F-15's had in knocking a couple of Blackhawks out of the air ... the Blackhawks were obviously unalerted and not in a combat state of mind. There is the adage from Von Richtoffen and others about "whomever sees the other first tends to win the air-to-air engagement" which I think applies here. Given the advances in low light cameras, visual sensors, various high tech targeting pods, IR sensors, etcetera (I will only speak generically here) the "I see you first" weapons engagement of a target that doesn't know that it's been spotted tends to favor the FJ in many cases.
Caveat: I've been out of the business for a few years, so take all of that with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Oct 2023 at 14:54.