|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 12065174)
The Iranian treatment of the US hostages 46 years ago was not exactly a model of compassion and kindness - and they were civilians.
Getting their military bombed out of existence on a daily basis is not exactly conducive to good treatment of captured enemy. The current circus act is in an environment that is far removed from 1979, although capping the leaders does add to chaotic response. In the case of the F-15E crew, the government asked the populace to apprehend, alive the crew, which is rather different to ISIS's mode of operation. All that may change with further escalation from those that are in charge of tweeting national policy at 2:00 AM, and certainly the language in todays missive from the fount of knowledge on all things, was rather impolite. It is a change to have a head of state that requires a bleep to his commentary.
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 12065221)
I think the more relevant question might be: What is the benefit to the moral of the troops to know the extent that the higher ups would go to implementing the rescue of a downed airman.
"Morals" is the other thing, observable in absence in some tweets of recent times. |
An interesting recap of recent Iranian history and consequences. Frankly, I was amazed to hear the U.S. propose the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, be made the leader of Iran. After the CIA interference in Iran in 1953 to overthrow an elected government to install the Shah why would Iranians want to support the son? My head is spinning...
And thanks for the spelling correction, it was really bugging me. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12065059)
So it looks like the additional aircraft flown in weren't more C-130s. Logical if both the previous C-130s got bogged down. C-295W not Dash-8 though.
Ties in with post 4847: https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...l#post12064825 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Is...oASAFQAw%3D%3D Bruce |
Israeli media source, unverified.
Channel 14* claims Hezbollah fired an anti-ship missile and damaged a British warship 112km off the Lebanese coast. @TomCotterillX reports that UKMTO says that no British vessels have been attacked. Reminder that Hezbollah fields a notable anti-ship cruise missile arsenal. They have access to Iranian Noor long-range ASCMs. The Noor is a reverse-engineered version of the Chinese C-802. Noor underwent numerous modifications, so its range spans from 30-220km. The improved Qader missile has a range of 300km, 200kg warhead, and a high-precision navigation system. Hezbollah has a small number of Yakhont ASCMs as well. Russia sent them to Syria and from there some were given to Hezbollah. The export version of the P-800 Oniks has a 300km range, 200-250kg warhead, and contains high manueverability, supersonic sea-skimming abilities, and inertial navigation-based guidance. Hezbollah also has the Nasr, an Iranian variant of the C-701 or 704, but it has a maximal range of 35km. Lastly, there are unverified reports that they possess Ra'ad subsonic sea-skimming ASCMs, an upgraded version of the Chinese HY-2. Potential British targets include the HMS Dragon, a Type 45 air-defence destroyer defending RAF Akrotiri, but UKMTO reportedly denied this. RFA Lyme Bay has also been mentioned, but its still docked in Gibraltar. Maybe a French vessel was struck, or perhaps nothing at all―\_(ツ)_/―. We published in the edition | Hezbollah launched a shore-to-sea missile toward a British warship about 70 miles from the Lebanese coast, after mistaking it for an Israeli one. An assessment in Israel that the ship was damaged. |
CRIPPLING ECONOMIC STRIKE AGAINST IRAN: Today, Israel struck Iran's petrochemical industry with massive strikes that will not only severely harm the Iranian economy, but also heavily degrade Iran's ability to produce material needed for ballistic missiles and other weapons. JUST IN from the NYT: Two senior officials in Iran's oil ministry said that Israel's attack on the largest petrochemical center in Iran caused a complete shutdown of all production in the complex. The attacks targeted two service facilities called Fajr 1 and Fajr 2, which provided more than 50 petrochemical plants operating in the complex with the basic services needed for their operation, including gas, electricity, and industrial water. The two officials said that the complete shutdown of the plants is a severe blow whose extent is difficult to assess for the already fragile Iranian economy. According to them, restoring the service facilities and returning the production lines to full operation may take about two years. |
Can someone please explain why it was necessary to land a couple of C-130s as part of the rescue. What was their purpose other than a rather large distraction to what may have been happening somewhere else.
|
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12065361)
Can someone please explain why it was necessary to land a couple of C-130s as part of the rescue. What was their purpose other than a rather large distraction to what may have been happening somewhere else.
Also with SFs to secure the LG. Probably with more troops than required as they didn't know what opposition they would be up against. |
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12065361)
Can someone please explain why it was necessary to land a couple of C-130s as part of the rescue. What was their purpose other than a rather large distraction to what may have been happening somewhere else.
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12065338)
The attacks targeted two service facilities called Fajr 1 and Fajr 2, which provided more than 50 petrochemical plants operating in the complex with the basic services needed for their operation, including gas, electricity, and industrial water. The two officials said that the complete shutdown of the plants is a severe blow whose extent is difficult to assess for the already fragile Iranian economy. According to them, restoring the service facilities and returning the production lines to full operation may take about two years." This would support the theory that Israel wants a failed state in Iran. |
Originally Posted by B Fraser Can someone please explain why it was necessary to land a couple of C-130s as part of the rescue. What was their purpose other than a rather large distraction to what may have been happening somewhere else. Too small a site for a larger helicopter such as a CH-47 which would also have been too vulnerable to attack*. So they had 4 armed MH-6s, one for the extraction the others for escort/covering fire. (* Remember there were a large number of Iranian ground forces in the area and 2 M-60 Blackhawaks had already been damaged by ground fire and an A-10C damaged and later lost when the pilot had to eject near Kuwait). The other reason is in the term FARP - Forward Arming and Refueling Point. An airborne tanker can refuel larger helicopters with probes, but it can’t rearm them, and the MH-6 is too small to have a probe anyway. Depending on the threat and the firepower needs to suppress it around the extraction point they may have needed to rearm as well as refuel. Lastly they carried a large number of SF as well as their equipment, both to defend the FARP whilst the MH-6s were assembled and the operation was ongoing and in case they were needed to be inserted to help locate the WSO and set up a defensive perimeter around the extraction site. |
LBC News report that a deal has been struck between Iran and the USA but no details of that deal have been released yet.
The deal could be in-place today with the Strait open. Deal being brokered by Pakistan. Deal still to be agreed by all parties. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12065230)
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
(Post 12065168)
The SF C-295 seen low flying in X videos yesterday managed to recover 2 of the MH-6M that would fit - that's why only 2 of 4 had to be destroyed.
Granted, the blades could be folded, but isn't the rotor mast height too great to fit in the C-295's hold? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12065391)
All 4 MH-6's now reported as destroyed, presumably no practicable way of recovering them.
|
Once the C-130's are destroyed, how do you get them out?
|
Originally Posted by BBadanov
(Post 12065366)
The C-130s carried the MH-6s, required to fly from the LG up the mountain to rescue the evader. Two MH-6s required so there would be a spare.
Also with SFs to secure the LG. Probably with more troops than required as they didn't know what opposition they would be up against. |
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
(Post 12065408)
Once the C-130's are destroyed, how do you get them out?
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12065391)
All 4 MH-6's now reported as destroyed, presumably no practicable way of recovering them.
|
Originally Posted by bcpr
(Post 12065315)
You would have thought that they'd have elected to reverse pitch and backtrack the 130's up the strip in reverse as far as they could in order to take off, once they'd unloaded the Little Birds...? Unless the whole strip was a lot softer than they expected, and it was more than the nose wheels that got bogged down? |
Originally Posted by bcpr
(Post 12065315)
|
Originally Posted by Andrewgr2
(Post 12065513)
For me this link is leading to a road in the centre of Isfahan town! Unlikely. Is it somehow getting redirected?
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5dca9b0c8b.jpg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.