|
Originally Posted by 2805662
(Post 9808161)
Given that 1 Sqn operate F models - and are in theatre - that shouldn't be a factor?
|
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.....
|
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 9808097)
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? |
@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. |
Originally Posted by 1978
(Post 9808716)
... on paper Russia has some very capable systems but they are only as good as the monkeys that operate them .... This reminds me the words used in Germany some 80 years ago.
Originally Posted by 1978
(Post 9808716)
... most Russian systems are outdated and poorly maintained. Sorry for disappointing you, but it is not true. Leave such statements for laymen, I do have a first-hand knowledge.
Originally Posted by 1978
(Post 9808716)
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.
Agree. |
Who launched a missile - Ukrainian army or Ukrainian rebels - is yet unclear. 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. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 9809121)
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 US military aircraft calling for self defence in....Syrian's airspace and as a result shoot down a....Syrian military aircraft. :confused: |
Originally Posted by XFC
(Post 9809262)
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. 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.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.