F-18E Downes Syrian Warplane

Well Well Well. This NAN Naval Aviation News 21 Mar 2018 report on the shoot down says...

Super Hornet Pilots Recall Downing of Syrian Aircraft
21 Mar 2018 Naval Aviation News Staff

Following behind the Syrian jet, Tremel armed an AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile, and fired. The Syrian jet’s defensive flares diverted the missile. “It came off the rails quick,” Tremel said. “I lost the smoke trail and I had no idea what happened to the missile after that.”

This still sounds rather strange. If a target aircraft releases flares and missile is decoyed by them, the missile still flies very much towards the aircraft. The flares burn (and thus are able to decoy the missile) only for some seconds and the jet and the flares would not be that far apart no matter what. Of course with sidewinder the smoke trail would be present only for few seconds and the pilot would likely not see the missile itself. But I doubt there is any way of knowing whether the missile was diverted by flares or if there was some malfunction.

For my interest it is not clear what 'an M4 version' is. Is it an AIM-9M and how do you know the version of Sidewinder? TAH.

Su-22M4, one of a more recent updates of the venerable Fitter. IIRC it was confirmed by earlier reports AIM-9X was used.

OK thanks. Now where is it stated an AIM-9X used? I could try to find that but where do you say that info may be found?

I'm with the DRAGON on this. The pilot explaining at TAILHOOK did not mention Su-22 flares; no one asked after them also. 'hornetfinn' has a good overview as well. These missiles disappear real quick - pilot will see flares and note them.

In the live briefing, the pilot never mentioned flares. That appears to be added by the writer.

What I found watchful during his video on the encounter, was the time lag from firing the aim-9 to switching and firing the aim120. He made comment on it.

I think the flairs being the cause wasn't said by the pilot and is possibly a jurno additive to spike the story. To paraphrase the pilot, the missile was a fizzer. AFAIK the modern aim9's are image targeted and flair resistant, like the asraam.

In the live briefing, the pilot never mentioned flares. That appears to be added by the writer.

This is indeed the impression I get too. Especially since the rest of the pilot comments are between quotes.

since not all missiles are the same, its possible to coin that on countermeasures as well, Some countermeasures do work better than other.

So when we say "flare resistant" the question becomes, "against which type?". And used in combination with other flares which offer a different signature can also confuse the missile further.

here is just one example of advanced IR countermeasures.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... flare.html

The flare is a specialized, multi-spectral, countermeasure device used in combination with other flares on vulnerable, low-, slow-flying aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed-wing transport/cargo aircraft. The M212 works by releasing an infrared signature that mimics the infrared signature of the aircraft, so if a specialized weapon is used, the flare will decoy the missile to it -- protecting the aircraft.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t- ... itches-did

The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [Su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21."

That proved to be a very important test. "In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'.

"Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.

"I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."

http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did

The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [Su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21."

That proved to be a very important test. "In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'.

"Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.

"I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."

What does a 40 year old -9P have to do with the -9X?

What does a 40 year old -9P have to do with the -9X?

The last line

"I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/lcdr-tr ... 22-fitter/

Moreover LCDR Tremel also admitted that the shoot down required two missiles, an AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile that was deceived by flares deployed from the SU-22

So has it become an accepted fact that the 9X was deceived by flares. Those words were apparently from the Lieutenant himself.

I'm pretty reluctant to believe that that's what Tremel said; the source for your link doesn't directly attribute the notion to Tremel, but just says "The infrared guided AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile missed, apparently lured away by decoy flares from the SU-22."

That article also came out in July 2017; before his talk at Tailhook 2017 where he stated that he lost track of the missile almost immediately after it came off the rail, and wasn't sure what happened to it.

So either:

1. Tremel went on stage and lied.
2. Tremel or someone else watched the tape and said it was lured by flares, but then Tremel was later correcting the record at Tailhook, or
3. The article was basing that claim on the various speculative articles that were coming out at the time.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/lcdr-tremel-explains-shot-syrian-su-22-fitter/

Moreover LCDR Tremel also admitted that the shoot down required two missiles, an AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile that was deceived by flares deployed from the SU-22

So has it become an accepted fact that the 9X was deceived by flares. Those words were apparently from the Lieutenant himself.

Not from the speech he gave. No citations have been given, as to when he said that flares lured the AIM-9X away.

I'm pretty reluctant to believe that that's what Tremel said; the source for your link doesn't directly attribute the notion to Tremel, but just says "The infrared guided AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile missed, apparently lured away by decoy flares from the SU-22."

That article also came out in July 2017; before his talk at Tailhook 2017 where he stated that he lost track of the missile almost immediately after it came off the rail, and wasn't sure what happened to it.

So either:

1. Tremel went on stage and lied.
2. Tremel or someone else watched the tape and said it was lured by flares, but then Tremel was later correcting the record at Tailhook, or
3. The article was basing that claim on the various speculative articles that were coming out at the time.

I totally agree. That Tailhook 2017 description fits missile malfunction perfectly and doesn't fit being lured by flares at all. I really doubt that flares were any factor at all in this engagement. They might not have been even used by the Syrian pilot as I've not seen or heard them mentioned.

The inside story of how a US Navy pilot shot down a Syrian jet
11 Sep 2018 Geoff Ziezulewicz

"RENO, Nev. — He sipped coffee at nearly 700 miles per hour, 20,000 feet above the Earth, roaring toward the battle of Raqqa. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael “M.O.B.” Tremel had a hunch the day’s mission would be different than the others he had flown into the gut of war-ravaged Syria, dropping bombs to protect friendly forces in the fight against the Islamic State. But the Pennsylvania native carried no inkling that this operation on June 18, 2017, would secure his own place among naval aviation icons.

“Defending guys on the ground is what I’ve done my whole career,” the F/A-18E Super Hornet pilot told Navy Times last week at the Tailhook Association’s annual convention, where he received the Distinguished Flying Cross for becoming the first American pilot to shoot down an enemy plane since 1999.

Tremel didn’t want to talk too much about those troops on the ground, but according to his medal citation they included an Air Force Joint Terminal Attack Controller, or JTAC, who was calling in strikes for Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State militants in their Raqqa stronghold....

...“A couple guys who took off on an earlier wave from the boat had done a couple shows of force down low to try and stop (Syrian military forces) from employing weapons on our partners,” Tremel said. His radar soon picked up an unknown aircraft closing fast on the U.S.-allied Kurdish and Arab militias bannered as the Syrian Democratic Forces. It was a Syrian Su-22 Fitter. Tremel said he tried to prod the pilot to move south and away from the friendly forces he was shepherding below.

Last year at a Tailhook panel, he told fellow Navy and Marine Corps aviators that he realized they would need to execute a “head butt.” He flew close overhead to the Syrian jet and fired out flares. “At any point in time, if this aircraft would head south and work its way out of the situation, it’d be fine with us,” Tremel said. “We could go back to executing (close-air support).”

That didn’t happen. “He ended up rolling in, dropping ordnance, two bombs on those defended forces,” Tremel said. Tremel went for the Sidewinder missile. “It was really crazy, swinging that master arm for the first time in combat with an air-to-air missile selected,” he recalled. But it didn’t work.

“Real time, I thought I might have been too close,” Tremel said. “I thought maybe I hit (the jet) but it didn’t fuse in time.” So Tremel turned to the AIM-120, an advanced medium-range missile. “That got the job done from about half a mile,” he said. It sliced into the Fitter’s rump and pitched the jet right, then down.

Tremel had flown through a debris cloud after destroying a drone during air-to-air training as a junior officer, so he knew to veer left. He watched the Syrian pilot eject. The entire skirmish, from detecting the Syrian aircraft to shooting it down, took about eight minutes, Tremel said.

Krueger received an Air Medal last week not only for helping Tremel but also for putting his jet between the American aircraft and other threats after the Syrian jet fell to the ground....

...Last week, Tremel played down his actions and instead credited the sailors on the carrier who work hard, often in obscurity, to make sure even the rarely used missiles are ready to go when they are called upon. “For the one day we need them,” he said, “it works!”"

Source: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... yrian-jet/

“At this year's Tailhook Association reunion, Lt. Cmdr. Michael "Mob" Tremel received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions last year in Syria. The award was presented to Tremel by the Navy's Air Boss Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, Commander, Naval Air Forces.” https://www.facebook.com/NAEready/photo ... =3&theater

It's a ****** embarrassment that MOB didn't get a silver star........and by that, I mean the admirals who downgraded his citation to a DFC should be embarrassed of themselves.