F-18E Downes Syrian Warplane

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post27 Jun 2017, 12:52

boilermaker wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
juretrn wrote:That's often the case with lazy reporters; don't bother fact-checking, just hit the magic retweet button. Boom, report done.
Kind of reminds me how Solomon (yes, he again) reposted a "story" from Fars that Israelis sent a squadron of fightersm a couple of EW planes and a couple of tankers to Saudi Arabia or some sh*t. Fact check much?
Speaking of the devil, just went to check what he posted on this, and yep. He jumped the "-9X is sh*t " train as well.



That's funny since the F-35 is terrible since it doesn't have 9X internal


I thought the F35 was the only one with full 9X cueing capability internal or external. Block II has lock on after launch capability.

Does the Super Hornet really carry the 9X? The F22 just barely got wired to carry it but not yet cueing capable. In any case it cannot use its full cueing capabilities. Again, talking about BlockII, which is quite different than Block I in terms of aiming.


F-35 will not get internal AIM-9X or ASRAAM but will carry these externally (at least for now). It seems like the disadvantages of carrying them externally are not very big compared to costs and time needed for developing them for internal carriage.

F-22 got AIM-9X capability later than other jets as it was mighty effective even without them and other platforms needed it more urgently. Super Hornets and even classic Hornets have carried -9X for years now.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post27 Jun 2017, 23:29

SHs have carried AIM-9X for about 10 years now, at least.
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 505
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post28 Jun 2017, 02:28

Vietnam veteran (Combat Engineer) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post28 Jun 2017, 03:33

Always nice to read an article that doesn't have an author listed, let alone sources.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post28 Jun 2017, 04:10

hythelday wrote:Always nice to read an article that doesn't have an author listed, let alone sources.


I love how the internet has sped up news cycle speed so much reporting has now evolved into guessing and outright making sh*t up.

These guys have no idea is an AIM-9 of some sort was used, if used whether that's a 9X, if the 9X under what circumstances the pilot shot the 9X and why. Yet, here are all and sundry rushing to make pronouncements, this one quoting the "great Bill Sweetman". REALLY???

Let's say it was an AIM-9X. For all we know the pilot could have shot it way outside optimal parameters to scare the Su-22 off its attack run. Or the missile had a fault. Or someone forgot to set the right setting, or... a bazillion different things. :bang:
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post28 Jun 2017, 06:08

mixelflick wrote:Would love to know if it was an AMRAAM, 9x etc? Also would love to know if this bird was configured for air to ground or was flying a CAP/otherwise configured for air to air..


I read one news account that stated they fired a Sidewinder which missed. The SH dropped back about 2 K and fired an AMRAAM which hit the target.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post28 Jun 2017, 06:31

MD wrote:
PhillyGuy wrote:
In any case, they can't target what they can't see or engage. And besides, that attitude goes both ways, we can also treat any fire control lock on originating from a Russian emitter as an imminent threat as well. Two can play this game.



Any aircraft, including planes and drones of the international coalition, detected in the operation areas west of the Euphrates River by the Russian air forces will be followed by Russian ground-based air defense and air defense aircraft as air targets,” according to a Russian Defense Ministry statement.

I'm sure the statement is deliberately vague for a reason. Notice it doesn't say "....will be shot down", only "...will be followed". I'm thinking that they have no desire to escalate anymore than the US has any desire to.

But this shootdown does raise the question of what is the US endgame in Syria? By shooting down a Syrian government aircraft or attacking their positions (unless they are attacking us), are we not doing ISISs job for them, as an ad hoc ISIS air force....essentially part-time ISIS allies? While Iran makes missile attacks on ISIS targets in Syria?

Fred Thompson's famous line from The Hunt for Red October comes to mind...



I don't think you are understanding the real situation. The Syrian government forces are not making a major effort against ISIS, they were bombing the U.S. allied troops who are fighting ISIS. The regime is hoping they can pick up the pieces when ISIS loses it's capital. The regime calls all the groups fighting them terrorists. In effect it's the Syrian AF that is acting as ISIS AF. They want the ISIS war to continue, because when ISIS is defeated all factions will join the fight against Assad.

Even with Russian, and Iranian help Assad is running out of men. He needs to make a deal very soon to partition the country. Russia is too economically weak to sustain this war indefinitely, and Iran's war effort is very unpopular at home, and Hezbollah's isn't popular in Lebanon. Syrian desperately needs peace. The U.S. needs a coherent policy to bring this awful war to an end.
Offline

MD

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2004, 11:25

Unread post30 Jun 2017, 22:10

tincansailor wrote:
I don't think you are understanding the real situation. The Syrian government forces are not making a major effort against ISIS, they were bombing the U.S. allied troops who are fighting ISIS. The regime is hoping they can pick up the pieces when ISIS loses it's capital. The regime calls all the groups fighting them terrorists. In effect it's the Syrian AF that is acting as ISIS AF. They want the ISIS war to continue, because when ISIS is defeated all factions will join the fight against Assad.

Even with Russian, and Iranian help Assad is running out of men. He needs to make a deal very soon to partition the country. Russia is too economically weak to sustain this war indefinitely, and Iran's war effort is very unpopular at home, and Hezbollah's isn't popular in Lebanon. Syrian desperately needs peace. The U.S. needs a coherent policy to bring this awful war to an end.


I'm understanding the situation fine, in that, it's a complete mess over there, what with competing interests of many different players at stake, as well as competing problems. Assad is indeed doing whatever he needs to in order to maintain his power, and if it takes piecemeal attacks against ISIS or against other factions to do so, it would make sense that he is. Desperate measures for him and all. And it likely is just a matter of time for him. Iran, while the situation may lack some domestic popularity, they do realize they need to keep someone they know as one of the very few allies west of the Gulf that they have. How much Russia will continue to be able to sustain that, will be anyone's guess. Time will tell what the jumbles mess of this moves to, but its too early yet to tell any end state. Indeed the US needs some kind of policy, the question is what will we come up with.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 22:00

Asked if it was a straight Sidewinder shoot down, Tremel admitted it took 2 missiles. The infrared guided AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile missed, apparently lured away by decoy flares from the SU-22.


Read more: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clos ... perations/

So it seems it was a 9X after all?

Of course a sample size of 1 makes it impossible to draw any conclusions -- however if the next 9 AIM-9X missiles all score hits then the Pk will be 90%... if not, it will be less.
Offline

trpilot6

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013, 07:04

Unread post01 Aug 2017, 00:59

loke wrote:
Asked if it was a straight Sidewinder shoot down, Tremel admitted it took 2 missiles. The infrared guided AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile missed, apparently lured away by decoy flares from the SU-22.


Read more: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clos ... perations/

So it seems it was a 9X after all?

Of course a sample size of 1 makes it impossible to draw any conclusions -- however if the next 9 AIM-9X missiles all score hits then the Pk will be 90%... if not, it will be less.



What were the missiles the Turkish F-16's used to down the Russian SU-24 in 2015 and the Syrian Mig-23 in 2014?? I could have swore I heard they were both downed by the AIM-9X. I'm sure in both cases the pilots deployed flares, yet the missiles still hit. If that's the case then the AIM-9X could be batting over 66%.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post01 Aug 2017, 02:58

loke wrote:
Asked if it was a straight Sidewinder shoot down, Tremel admitted it took 2 missiles. The infrared guided AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile missed, apparently lured away by decoy flares from the SU-22.


Read more: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clos ... perations/

So it seems it was a 9X after all?

Of course a sample size of 1 makes it impossible to draw any conclusions -- however if the next 9 AIM-9X missiles all score hits then the Pk will be 90%... if not, it will be less.

Given what was written, everyone should be careful NOT to leap to conclusions, and smack down such leaping wherever it will happen lest we continue the disinformation cascade that has followed this 'shootdown'. There's quite a bit of info yet to be divulged from authoritative sources, and there's nothing in the article about the LTCDR stating it was an AIM-9X. Personally, I think it most likely (statistically) was, but that is still just my opinion at this time. To recap, this 'civilian'-run advocacy web page did not say the LTCDR said it was a -9X. The web page intimated the LTCDR told them it was an all-Sidewinder affair, and given -9Ms are still in the inventory and forward deployed, without explicit statements otherwise, I see the version as still being 'undefined' (and just not that important in the scheme of things).

But let's do what should be the unnecessary work from that point forward...
1. Whatever version it was, was the first missile launched inside it's optimum envelope or was it launched outside?
2. Was there a solid lock-on at time of launch?
3. Whether or not it was launched inside or outside the envelope, was the objective of the controllers (since the pilot was possibly/apparently not in the discussions on the AWACS etc.--depending upon credibility of reporting) more about getting the SU-22 to break off the attack by presenting it with a threat than they were about shooting it down? This is kind of a side issue, but one that could have influenced the initial set-up for the launch.
4. Was there a malfunction of the missile? Seems there's been a headlong rush to explain what is possibly the inexplicable by simply assuming the Su-22 countermeasures were all that effective.
5. And if the Su-22's CM was so effective on the first go, why not against the second missile? It could have been it was out of flares, but we the public don't really know.

NOW, we would get around to what SHOULD be the obvious, but to too many ...isn't.(not talking about anyone specific here)

IF we had all the answers to these question and more, AND we could definitely state that the first missile was a properly functioning weapon launched with solid lock-on inside its optimal launch envelope but the Su-22 CM worked well enough to break an AIM-9X lock and the second missile was also an AIM-9X, and it successfully engaged the Su-22, THEN we could say that under the given conditions of engagement on that day and that time, the AIM-9X had a SUCCESS RATE of 50%.

"Pk" is a statistical value given for a set of scenarios and is arrived at/derived through extensive test under quantifiable conditions and analysis of test data. As a side note, the set of scenarios are rarely experienced in the real world and more often than not because-- going back to the early days of guided missiles-- combat ops launch discipline (or lack thereof) works under the assumption that if one missile launch is good, two is better. Hopefully, with the age of the F-35 being able to snipe at targets out of nowhere and increased opportunities to take second shots out of nowhere as well, there will be changes in attitudes to go along with the changes in opportunities.

You are absolutely correct by stating:
Of course a sample size of 1 makes it impossible to draw any conclusions

And you could have stopped right there, letting it stand as a cliff for the innumerate to throw themselves off of. But even if the next '9 launches' were hits, or misses, it would still have zip to do with Pks, and the success rate of 'x in 10' missiles yesterday, today, tomorrow has no direct correlation to later success rates. Events may inform but not define the future. Assuming otherwise would be a definite form of "Gambler's Fallacy".
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Aug 2017, 06:26

trpilot6 wrote:What were the missiles the Turkish F-16's used to down the Russian SU-24 in 2015 and the Syrian Mig-23 in 2014?? I could have swore I heard they were both downed by the AIM-9X. I'm sure in both cases the pilots deployed flares, yet the missiles still hit. If that's the case then the AIM-9X could be batting over 66%.


AIM-120, and it appears the Su-24 did not know it was being targeted
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 16:29

From Tailhook 2017:
https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162478715

Pilots talk about said engagement, specifics about intercept @17:30. Confirms it was AIM-9X, says "I have no idea what happened to the missile" after it left the rail properly. Apparently video also exists, albeit not public.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23084
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 21:51

Already posted on another thread and mentioned above the ORIGINAL Tailhook 2017 video however this video will become unavailable at some future point whilst these two videos (one only excerpt of shoot down) are 'originals' of that video. It seems to me that the Hornets released flares in front of the Su-22 as a warning several times - no flares from it though.

Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain TAILHOOK 2017 Excerpt (7 minutes0


Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain ALL at TAILHOOK 2017 (47 minutes)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 02:31

It would have been nice if during Q&A somebody asked if the Su-22 had been deploying flares - given that the Super Hornet had made multiple aggressive passes, I'm not sure if the Su-22 pilot would have known to deploy countermeasures at the time of the AIM-9X launch.

He might have initially in the climb (in the event that his targets had MANPADs, etc), but given the fact that he knew he was well outmatched in the air and still had the gall to drop those bombs, I figure that he thought the F/A-18E was only bluffing (maybe he didn't understand the severity of his situation / wasn't exactly told that there were US personnel on the ground [rather that there was just "friendly" / "allied" forces; or maybe "US forces" was misunderstood as US-backed forces, etc]). Or who knows, maybe the Su-22 pilot was under pressure to take out those targets and either was willing to eject, or thought he was enough of a hotshot to escape somehow.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests