|
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
(Post 12065195)
If indeed the recovered WSO is a full colonel (US O-6), it isn't the 48th FW Commander - that is an O-7 post.
https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/ |
If there were to be a temporary cease fire the Iranian mosaic command and control protocol might make enforcement difficult: Captain X, having lost wife and sons to bombing, might well turn a Nelsonian blind eye and launch.
As an aside, can POTUS only talk with head tilted right and a screwed-up mouth? |
I’m giving up on this topic. It’s the usual suspects from jetblast digging new rabbit holes. Maybe it helps drives advertising revenue, but it just makes for the same ruining of topics by the tinfoil-hatted collective.
Hat. Coat. Door. |
I have a little concern about why the WH or DoD said that one of the pilots was recovered during the initial hours after the aircraft was lost.
Surely then when they let slip that it was an F15, the Iranians knew full well that it is two crew. So they would have gone into overdrive looking for the second crew member. Surely there should be ongoing silence from the US and Israelis as to what is happening in the war, only releasing a careful narrative with say a 2 day delay. The continuous nonsense from Trump, WH briefings etc are keeping the markets and the oil price in a spin. While the OPSEC on the second crew member nearly cost him his life. FWIW could us Brits have carried out a rescue. Probably but it wouldn't have been quite so stunning. It would likely have involved 4 Operators in a taxi with a local guide, a lot of tea, a great deal of walking and some backhanders to some local dignitary. |
Originally Posted by artee
(Post 12065370)
"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." This would support the theory that Israel wants a failed state in Iran. |
Can anyone explain why the HH-60's or V-22's weren't towed into and out of the the area by the MC-130's, the distance from Kuwait doesn't seam to warrant the establishment of a FARP, deployment of MH-6's etc.
|
Maybe there was a requirement for a lot more men and equipment inbound.... and men and cargo outbound ??
Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center only 40 km away from the FARP ... https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....95d6c68d0a.jpg |
Sounds more reasonable, use the recovery of the WSO as a cover for the raid to recover the bigger prize! did it go FUBAR and are the claims of POTUS and the Gang a cover for a cluster of epic proportions?
|
Originally Posted by GeeRam
(Post 12065443)
No wonder the nose wheel's got stuck when they were attempting a turn around at one end, looking at the length/width of that strip.
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? It was no Khe Sanh approach. We flew from Salisbury at about 200 - 400 feet lined up on the runway with full flap and my recollection is that reverse pitch was selected as we went over the threshold. The landing was firm, no bounce. Brakes on. Nose wheels dug in and there was an almighty noise as stones hit the underside of the fuselage. The aircraft pitched forward. My first thought was that we had lost the front gear. We stopped rapidly. The troops evacuated out the side parade doors and ramp. There was not enough room to turn the aircraft so we backed down the runway with the loadie giving directions. The engine oil temps were an issue, I recall. A little lighter we took off and flew back to Salisbury. On leaving the choppers behind, I suspect that was always the plan given that it was a hot LZ. You really don't want to faff around stowing rotor blades, winching 2 choppers onto each Herc with incoming. Much better to plan on running away bravely. |
What's the white 'thing' (I assume it's hot temp), that bounces off - 5 sec into the clip...
Post 4959
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12065588)
Iranian aircraft being wiped out...... again..... Is this the 3rd time they've been wiped out or the 4th? I lost track.
|
Originally Posted by DIBO
(Post 12065731)
Maybe there was a requirement for a lot more men and equipment inbound.... and men and cargo outbound ??
Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center only 40 km away from the FARP ... Ive read ideas of moving excavators, 250+ men, several days to exploit it. |
Very possibly, but I also don't buy why they didn't sanitise the route and fly HH-60's in and extract the WSO, this mission is two complex and I don't think it was far enough behind the lines to justify the assets involved, there are many other reasons why they might want to have a look in Isfahan or to extract evidence/individuals etc.
|
Originally Posted by General Dogsbody
(Post 12065729)
Can anyone explain why the HH-60's or V-22's weren't towed into and out of the the area by the MC-130's, the distance from Kuwait doesn't seam to warrant the establishment of a FARP, deployment of MH-6's etc.
The nearest V-22's were probably the Marine aircraft on the Tripoli out in the Arabian Gulf. The choice of MH-6 over HH-60 was likely made by the Delta Force, who probably know what they're doing, but the actual rationale I don't know. |
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...n9rgzPzTuB1dlg
UK will refuse Trump access to British bases for Iranian bridge strikes Britain will refuse to allow Donald Trump to use RAF bases for any strikes on Iranian bridges or power plants, The i Paper understands. The US President has threatened to unleash “Hell” on Iran’s key civilian infrastructure on Tuesday unless Tehran reopens the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. Sir Keir Starmer has previously made clear that American military access to UK bases must be restricted to the degrading of Iran’s defensive capabilities, such as missile silos or storage depots, that could be used to threaten British interests or its allies in the Gulf. The i Paper has been told that US targeting of bridges and power plants would not come under this definition and if Washington requests use of UK bases for such operations, it would be denied. Trump takes another swipe at Starmer The US requests permission to use RAF bases on a case-by-case basis, and it is understood that no such request has yet been made for the potential strikes on Tuesday – which Trump has called “Power Plant Day” and “Bridge Day”. Some international law experts have warned that targeting civilian bridges and power plants would constitute a war crime. While Starmer has not changed his position on the use of UK bases for defensive purposes, a refusal for assistance in the potential operations on Tuesday risks worsening the already icy relations between the Prime Minister and the President. In his latest comments on the war on Monday, Trump took another swipe at Starmer – saying the UK has a “long way to go” and compared the PM to his predecessor who appeased Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The President said: “We won’t want another Neville Chamberlain, do we agree? We don’t want Neville Chamberlain.” Trump also reiterated his threat towards Iran’s civilian infrastructure, saying unless Tehran gave in to his demands “they’ll have no bridges. They’ll have no power plants. They’ll have no anything.” He added that he “won’t go further, because there are other things that are worse than those two. If I had my choice, what would I like to do? Take the oil. Because it’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it. “Unfortunately the American people would like to see us come home. If it were up to me I’d take the oil, I’d keep the oil […] make plenty of money and I’d also take care of the people of Iran.” UK has given permission for defensive missions A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “The UK authorised the United States to use British bases for defensive missions to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities which are threatening British people, bases, and our partners in the region. “The United States is using British bases for specific defensive operations to prevent Iran firing missiles into the region, which is putting British lives at risk. This is alongside the defensive action the UK is taking to protect British people across the region. We won’t be providing a running commentary on our allies’ operations, including their use of our bases.” On 1 March, Starmer announced that the UK would give permission for the US to use British bases in Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, for defensive missions, saying: “The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source – in their storage depots or the launchers which used to fire the missiles.” He said this activity was part of “the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives” and was “in accordance with international law”. On Tuesday, British military chiefs will host a virtual conference in London to discuss planning to free up the Strait of Hormuz, alongside defence officials from more than 40 countries. It will explore “appropriate measures” for an international coalition to get merchant shipping through the strait, including the practicalities of making it accessible and safe once hostilities have ceased. ‘Rules of engagement exist for good reason’ A senior MP has raised concerns about the US refusing to adhere to rules of engagement and risking flouting international law. Richard Foord, a Liberal Democrat member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a former British Army officer, said: “Rules of engagement exist in war for very good reason. They link the tactical decisions made by soldiers on the ground to the operational intent of their most senior commanders. “Rules of engagement also serve to maintain the law of armed conflict, and stop disciplined use of force from becoming unmitigated blood-spilling, motivated by bloodlust.” Foord said without them, the US risked turning the Iranian people against them. He said: “When the bombardment stops, Iranians are less likely to see what the US has presented them with as an ‘incredible opportunity.’ Instead, there is a real risk that many Iranians will see the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – their enemy’s enemy – as their friend.” |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 12065745)
I kind of doubt that the professional CSAR and SOF units would have chosen less than the best available assets.
The nearest V-22's were probably the Marine aircraft on the Tripoli out in the Arabian Gulf. The choice of MH-6 over HH-60 was likely made by the Delta Force, who probably know what they're doing, but the actual rationale I don't know. How planner's came up with using a desert strip to land two C-130's and assemble and fly 4 MH-6's to recover a downed pilot with the use of Delta force or DevGru seams far fetched, the fact they had C-295's on standby as a contingency adds complexity that would to the untrained eye appear to point to a mission that had been in the works for a significant amount of time |
Seems someone isn’t waiting. I would guess his surname begins with an N….
Video BREAKING: Iranian sources claim that U.S. and Israeli forces have begun targeting power infrastructure in Iran, including Power Station No. 123 near Al-Masla Street in the city of Mashhad |
Originally Posted by General Dogsbody
(Post 12065750)
It would appear an overly complex mission to recover one individual 200nm from friendly territory, one would assume given the scale of the air campaign that the USAF would have CSAR assets in theatre that are available for exactly this mission, they would be normally be from the Air Force 24th Special Tactics Squadron and utilise MC-130's and HH-60's with significant air support.
How planner's came up with using a desert strip to land to C-130's and assemble and fly 4 MH-6's to recover a downed pilot with the use of Delta force or DevGru seams far fetched, the fact they had C-295's on standby as a contingency adds complexity that would to the untrained eye appear to point to a mission that had been in the works for a significant amount of time Edited to add - what experience do you have with respect to CSAR? |
Salute!
) Got my first "debrief" from the 130 (Combat Talon) troop, and he said there will be Purple Hearts and prolly more, as there was a "good" firefght at the pickup. Was first combat for the new 130J model and bugs still to be worked out. But now we hav first entry in the orientation book we all had to know when checkng out for that kinda mission. Do not forget the altitude of the survivor, so the Little Bird, aka Killer Egg, better up high than the big Jolly. He also was tickled about getting stuck in the sand, heh heh. And said the crews liked the Hawg for support. Will get more frm him when able. Remember I am living in the home of USAF special ops and Army 7th Special Ops has a big camp 7-8 miles north, plus Ranger training camp. Gums reports... |
Originally Posted by General Dogsbody
(Post 12065750)
It would appear an overly complex mission to recover one individual 200nm from friendly territory, one would assume given the scale of the air campaign that the USAF would have CSAR assets in theatre that are available for exactly this mission, they would be normally be from the Air Force 24th Special Tactics Squadron and utilise MC-130's and HH-60's with significant air support.
How planner's came up with using a desert strip to land to C-130's and assemble and fly 4 MH-6's to recover a downed pilot with the use of Delta force or DevGru seams far fetched, the fact they had C-295's on standby as a contingency adds complexity that would to the untrained eye appear to point to a mission that had been in the works for a significant amount of time |
Video
Iranian forces conducted a ballistic missile attack on Saudi Arabia's Jubail City tonight, reportedly hitting an industrial complex. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:17. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.