Not sure about that, said to currently be Classic Hornets. Was F model at first, but then later rotation was Classics.

Megan

That chap who saved the troops with the ammo drop, was he honered or did he face a court marshall for disobeying orders?

Flt Lt's Cliff Dohle and Frank Riley were the pilots if I recall, Riley was awarded a DFC and Dohle a Mention in Despatches. Subject to correction.....

The Ruskies can't even tell a military jet from a civilian Boeing 777-200ER with clear markings, radar squawk et al so what you are talking about is definitely well beyond their capabilities.

@1978: that's a bit unfair to the Russians, I think. I doubt the SAM crew (be they Russian or Ukranian) were trying to get a visual ID of their target. Last I checked, SAM RoE don't include a visual identification of a target. (I will be happy to be corrected if someone knows better). Whether or not that shot should have been taken has been covered in other threads, obviously, so let's not derail into that tragic screw up.


This thread is covering an air to air shot (I'll wager more than beer money that VID was required for the engagement) not a SAM engagement. On the other hand, ample opportunity is present in that area for screw ups on multiple sides which informs a previous observation up thread about most commercial carriers avoiding Syrian air space. (Wise choice, I'd say).

@Lonewolf: Are you sure MH17 was a SAM and not a Ukranian SU-25 as one of the many Russian fabrications is saying? (Why should I be fair to the Russians if they are not?)

I would say some sort of attempt to ID the target is always required be it visual or otherwise, there should at least be a minimal level of awareness of what is going on in the theatre of operations. With the track-record of the Ruskies I can quite understand the Australians rather be safe than sorry again. Indeed ample opportunity for screw ups on multiple sides and fuel for many future conflicts and some more terrorism.

This source claims the E was from VFA-87 (Oceana based), flying off the BUSH.


"Furthermore more details about the engagement were revealed by the word famous modern military aviation author Tom Cooper on Facebook. In fact it seems that the Su-22 kill was scored by an F/A-18E Super Hornet from VFA-87 Golden Warriors that apparently fired two missiles: one AIM-9X Sidewinder from a range of just 0.6 miles which missed the Sukhoi; and then an AIM-120 AMRAAM which shot down the Su-22."

http://theaviationgeekclub.com/break...r-find-answer/

Geachte heer 1978,

This thread is about air-to-air ops in Syria. There is another thread about that very tragic accident with Malaysian plane shot in Ukraine where many Dutch people died, and I am really very sorry about that. I do have a lot of friends in the Netherlands and understand what a terrible shock was it. BTW, the technical investigation on the Russian side made an official conclusion that the plane was hit by a SAM (an early version of Buk), thus all those MiGs and Su-25 were only mentioned in some early rumours and then lined out. Russian SAM manufacturer submitted a detailed tech. report to the Dutch body concerned with investigation confirming about SAM. Who launched a missile - Ukrainian army orUkrainian rebels - is yet unclear. But there were about a dozen of Buk batteries in the region on the Ukrainian army side and only one broken launcher that (Ukrainian) rebels took from the retreated army. Anyway, this thread is about another topic.

Your remarks about Russian capabilities with regard to SAM sound strange. Russian C-400 and even latest versions of C-300 outperform Patriot in some aspects and well represent state-of-the-art in this domain.

@A Van
(We all know how the Russians constantly change their story so please spare me their lies and false sympathies. You fail to mention the most probable scenario of a Russian BUK being moved across the border.)

Maybe there is some truth to your claim that on paper Russia has some very capable systems but they are only as good as the monkeys that operate them and the rules of engagement that govern them; most Russian systems are outdated and poorly maintained. It is also very dangerous when Russia gives such systems to their "friends" such as in this case Assad, just as I find it undesirable that the US supplies its "allies" in the region.

This reminds me the words used in Germany some 80 years ago.





Sorry for disappointing you, but it is not true. Leave such statements for laymen, I do have a first-hand knowledge.




Agree.

Oh no, no, no , no, no. I'm not letting you get away with slipping that one in there A_Van. It is very clear as to who launched the missile.

That's all.

I think we can agree that is was an American Jet that launched the missile in the Air to Air engagement that is the topic of this thread. What concerns a lot of us is the prospect of SAMs coming into play after the amount of effort put in by the Russians/Americans/Allies to de-conflict.
That red phone between two particular capitals could stand to see a bit more usage.

The prospect of Russian SAMs isn't just exercising Americans/Allies minds Paris Air Show 2017: Rafael driven by 'guillotine' of Russian air defences on Israel's border | Jane's 360

The guillotine sharpens the mind.
Nice quote.
Like the old fighter on the kibbutz.
"Ravi was a nice guy - but he was a lousy shot."

Interesting account of what happened from a Pentagon spokesman.

Now the Pentagon has previously claimed the engagement was in self-defence of the forces they were protecting. Which would be a valid defence if the SU-22 was clearly manoeuvring to drop bombs of strafe them and the actions were taken to prevent the attack.

However this account makes it clear that the engagement took place after the SU-22 had attacked and was now clean winged and egressing the area - the justification of self-defence no longer applies. It doesn't mean it was wrong - if the SU-22 was now considered a Hostile having committed a hostile act and if the current ROE authorised engagement - but the rationale of self-defence cannot hold.

New details on US shoot down of Syrian jet - CNNPolitics.com

Seems Oz is flying again.

ORAC

Not how I read that article at all. You're making assumptions that aren't there.

It states the SU22 was wings dirty, tipped in for an attack and dropped munitions. It doesn't say it had dropped all its stores, was clean at the time of attack or was leaving the area. Other reports suggest he was repositioning for a second run before being engaged. Still very much valid inside self defence ROE.

Later in the article it mentions a second SU22 which was intercepted then seen to exit the area.

No matter what was really going on, it is kind of an oximoron anyway:
US military aircraft calling for self defence in....Syrian's airspace and as a result shoot down a....Syrian military aircraft.

:confused:

XFC I agree. ORAC you are not reading it correctly, or are trying too hard to make the US look bad. According to the article you linked The SU was in the process of attacking or had just delivered an attack and was shot down. It still had weapons. Clear self defense (remember self defense can be defense of others). The SU does not get a free pass just because it dropped it's load.


If a sniper shot at your comrades and then turned his back away from you, your ROE should still allow you to shoot back. We can't have armchair experts then saying "oh no the sniper was no longer hostile, how can you show he still had hostile intent?" He was hostile because he JUST SHOT AT YOU seconds ago.

I'm afraid I have to agree to a certain extent with ORAC's submission. For me the word SELF-defence means just that, defence of oneself.

ValMORNA Your personal definition is not what matters: there is a Law of Armed Conflict definition that is under discussion here. In this case, the self defense of your force (which is a group of people, not an individual) is what is either present or not. ORAC and the others are disagreeing about that.


Do I need to explain this further, or do you now understand the term under discussion?

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.

War is war. The Syrian governmental army was warned that in such cases US and others would open fire (and they did). So, it was OK with RoE no matter how clean was the wing of Su-22.


The only issue or problem that I see with all that is consistency of the position. Why call it self-defence when the subject of defence was a recently built so-called SDF consisting of Kurds (some 20K) and arabs (some 5K)? For their ground forces Su-22 was a threat indeed, but not for F/A-18 at all.


Say it clearly that you directly support rebels with your weapons and your staff (here, pilots) on the territory where you were not invited to.

Van, look at Lonewolf-50's reply. Under LOAC self-defence covers not only yourself but those you are assigned to defend, whether it is a guard on a compound or a convoy or a submarine captain in defence of a CBG. In this case the F-18 was assigned to defend the forces on the ground, so an attack on them was equivalent to an attack directly on itself.

Self Defence
 

In the UK, self defence is an inherent right under the common law, which applies in all circumstances to all people, not just in armed conflict. It's not an issue of LOAC, which deals with the use of force other than self defence. Of course LOAC deals with more than just force, and self-defence is just a shortened way of saying 'self defence and the defence of others'

The issue of re-positioning is, like most issues where force is used, a matter of interpretation of general context and of the specific situation.

So, in Northern Ireland, our adversaries extremely rarely re-attacked, preferring to engage and then escape as soon as possible afterwards. It'd be difficult, when self defence was the prevailing rule of engagement, to justify shooting them in the back as they were running away in the expectation that they would be expected to mount another attack immediately afterwards. The threat to life has passed, the use of lethal force would not be necessary to prevent further loss of life.

However, in Afghanistan, where our adversaries would routinely run away to immediately re-attack, then it would be more justifiable. The threat to life has not passed, so the use of lethal force might be necessary to prevent further loss of life.

With respect to the SU, it's conceivable that repositioning was judged likely - perhaps the Syrian AF undertakes multiple passes - and the presence of weapons may have been too difficult to judge in time limited circumstances. The possibility of an internal gun may have been a factor were no external weapons to have been visible. Additionally, the pilot of the SU might have been capable of directing other aircraft against the ground targets or the F18, even if it had expended all of its own weapons. If this were Syrian AF practice, the SU would likely be a legitimate target.

It's worth noting that US law takes a subtly different view of the imminence of a threat than does the UK law (English and Scottish law are the same on this for all intents and purposes).

As an aside, the term 'Rules of Engagement' is pretty unhelpful. Whilst the 'rules' delegate freedoms on the use of force (within LOAC), they seldom give absolute freedom and most still require interpretation of the situation.

How much time you spend in the service, sir? RoE matters. I've had to live with and work with it in real time, as have a number of contributors here. If you were in Afghanistan, you are fully aware of that, since RoE keeps your engagement decisions within the bounds of the mission. (And we can't help that the politicians make a buggery of the whole thing in the first place ...)

Iranian F14s, F4s & F5s certainly shot down a number of Iraqi Mirages during their lengthy spat... but that may be not quite what you meant?

Perhaps my meaning didn't come across to you; allow me to try again. Of course ROE are important. Indeed the 'licence to operate' they provide means that we behave in a way that both satisfies national law and international law, but also in a way that the population on whose behalf we act is comfortable with it. Essential in a democracy, I'd suggest. Furthermore, properly interpreted, ROE provide protection to individuals applying force, and those directing it, from prosecution. To some extent, it might help too with the risk of psychological harm that can arise from killing and injuring others by providing the psychological defence of 'I was acting lawfully'.

As to your question on time in Service: more than 30 years. My first operational deployment in a combat role was in 1988, three days after joining my first front-line unit. Since then, I've been operationally deployed in combat roles, including to Afghanistan, more times than I or my family care to remember. The employment of force, by me and the people under my command, and the associated ROE were the dominant feature of each those.

My point is merely that the term 'rules' is often taken to imply crystal clarity about what you can and cannot do, but the truth is that interpretation is required and must be done with an understanding of the law and a good grasp of context. I've always found Op Law lawyers very useful when planning military operations, and when conducting pre-training and in-theatre refresher training. The understanding they provide is almost invariably welcomed by all who have contact with them, usually because they help guide judgements and interpretation of ROE. The key point is in is guiding judgement and interpretation, rather than rigid application of 'rules'.

Aha, crystal clear, and see where you are coming from.
Thank you.
Amen.
*hand salute*