Doesn't stop RAAF ops in Iraq...Govt said Syria...

Gutless, short-sighted, sh**t-headed, etc. politicians should find a solution because finding a military solution becomes too dangerous. Lock them in a room and not allow to get out until they come to a (compromised) agreement.

E.g., IMHO all sides should admit that division of the Syrian territory is inevitable nowadays. It already happened de-facto.

"Former dentist" (Assad the son) is unable to regain the whole territory after the coalition started military support to rebels (no matter who they are and how they are organized). Conversely, all those rebel groups cannot defeat the governmental forces, especially as they are supported by Iran and Russia.

So, the separation line(s) should be drawn and agreed upon.

Then, the entity controlling each zone should keep fighting ISIS, Al-Qaeda and likes, but not in the fashion like it sometimes happened in Mosul and Raqqa when special corridors were arranged for jihaddists streaming them to fight governmental forces.

Maybe in the future, the country could re-unify within the former borders, but some skepticism obviously exists because we all know/read how these borders were established after WWI.

So Oz decides that the risk of one of their aircraft being shot down over Syria and the pilot being captured by one of the groups that might not be friendly is too great. Who would blame them as the possibility of a internet death would I imagine bring the whole idea of Australian involvement in war zones far away from home to an end.

I'd also be interested if Mrs May thinks the same event might just be the straw that brings her down ?

Who backs down now, Trump or Putin/Assad ? Do we get a post Turkish shoot down fudge or do we find out how good S400 is ? And that would lead to ? Slowly the options for a sensible outcome are falling away. This is a cluster*uck cubed.

"Heroically" staying out of Syria.

Australian politicians, content with token/virtue signalling commitments over the last decade and a half, have systematically been making cowards of the ADF.

Avoiding the politics, I do find it was interesting that a Super Hornet got the kill, as I am sure there are other fighters in the area that would have been keen to get in on the action. Perhaps shows some relevancy to carrier borne aviation and that positioning is often key. Somewhere there is an E driver that won't have to buy a beer at the club in Oceana. So Super Hornet joins the kill club before F-22, Rafale, F-35, Typhoon, PAK FA, J-20....

Good thing most civilian air traffic stays well clear of Syria or there could very easily be another MH17...

According to most internet reports it took two missiles to take down the Syrian jet, first one missed!

@downsizer
I suspect that's why they carry more than one. ;)

And another...(ish)

US jet 'downs drone' near Jordan border - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40344534

I believe an RAF F4 claimed a kill in Germany, unfortunately the kill was an RAF Jaguar.

Indeed. I was Chf Tech i/c a small 431MU party tasked with finding and plotting the locations of the wreckage, some of which came down in dense woodland. We were particularly instructed to note (but not touch) pieces of electronic equipment, circuit boards etc... An interesting period.

Do these reports specify AIM-9 or 120? Just curious.

sandiego89: I'll be surprised if BVR was the engagement criteria. Most likely a VID needed. Speaks to a Fox 2, but I'm ready to be wrong.

Apparently a Cloggie F104 driversaw it happen and came up on Guard with the immortal line:

"I am going home now, the Brits they are playng for real!"

I'd wondered if Australia suspended operations thinking that while the Russians might not want to shoot down a US jet, they might not be so hesitant in shooting down a RAAF jet.
Even though an attack on one is an attack on all - in the world of real politick - I would have thought a shoot down of a US aircraft is a more butt clenching moment in the Kremlin than a shoot down of an Oz one.
But presumably unless you get a visual ID (and even then, all jets now are grey with low vis markings and you'd never get that close anyway these days) all coalition US and Aussie Hornets look alike to an opposing shooter in terms of flight profile, tactics, electronic signature etc.
In situations like this, is the call to suspend flights made by a uniformed RAAF liaison officer on the ground, a VVSO back in Australia or would that have been a political directive from Canberra?

I wonder if it is an admission of our Classic Hornets are not equiped EW wise to enter highly contested airspace? I understand this was the reason they were not committed in GW1 (they were at Diego Garcia) and in GW2 they flew after air dominance achieved.
It is one of the reasons RAAF now very much advocate keeping our more recent US purchases updated "in lockstep" with US.

Interesting insight rjtjrt.

We have form. During the Vietnam conflict the RAAF Huey squadron was directed that they were not to expose themselves to hazardous conditions.

Such was the order that when the troops at the Long Tan battle needed ammo to avoid being totally decimated the senior RAAF bod in HQ refused to supply support, but the US volunteered to go. The senior RAAF bod in HQ offered that he would have to get a thumbs up from Canberra prior to committing. It took a junior pilot to bite the bullet and say "I'm going", and he did, saving the troops. Was a RAAF decision re the hazardous conditions stipulation, not political.

I think you'll find they were at Diego Garcia in 2001/02, and didn't leave Australia in GW1.

Given that 1 Sqn operate F models - and are in theatre - that shouldn't be a factor?