Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marco9

Banned

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 14:27

Unread post03 Jan 2015, 11:06

triplea wrote:You do realize that ISIS can type up whatever they want and publish it along with a photo of the pilot, right?

For that matter, they can have the pilot say anything they want and film him.

Bottom line is that anything sourced from ISIS is suspect. To me at least, when evaluating the confidence level of what ISIS says against what RJAF or even US CENTCOM say, ISIS will lose out every single time. Which means that such a publication holds no value to me.


I would totally agree with you if:
1. What they report the pilot said is not exaggerated at all. They are not reporting a “spontaneous conversion” by the pilot, they are not reporting that he is crying for his government to suspend the raids and swap him of some hundreds of IS prisoners, they are not reporting that they downed the jet with some special Allah-driven AK-47 bullet (do you remember the story about that Apache shot down by the old Iraqi peasant with a bolt-action rifle in 2003?). What they say sounds quite realistic and not exaggerated.
2. The counterpart, US Centcom AND Jordanian Air Force actually disagreed at the beginning. Jordanians said it was shot down (and incredibly this version would perfectly match with IS version, when the pilot reports that his wingman radiod him about the engine on fire) just to deny later when a single, short comment by US Centcom said “no, it was not shot down, bybye”. So, to me… this is more childish. It sounds like “accept it because I said it and anyway our F-16’s are invulnerable”... “my dad is stronger than yours and his car is faster than yours’ “
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Jan 2015, 19:50

marco9 wrote: I just don't know why, in modern military aviation any involved party, always denies losses by enemy fire


Uhh what? You may want to do some research before making such a grand and sweeping claim. This may further alter your thinking on this whole scenario and the massive credibility gap between Centcom and ISIS. Your theories on this situation seemed to be evolved from the above false premise.
Choose Crews
Offline

marco9

Banned

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 14:27

Unread post04 Jan 2015, 13:17

XanderCrews wrote:
marco9 wrote: I just don't know why, in modern military aviation any involved party, always denies losses by enemy fire


Uhh what? You may want to do some research before making such a grand and sweeping claim. This may further alter your thinking on this whole scenario and the massive credibility gap between Centcom and ISIS. Your theories on this situation seemed to be evolved from the above false premise.


Nonono... you cannot deny that usually any party in any war (US included) tries to attribute air losses to incidents rather than enemy action. A case for all? Speicher's FA-18. Still attributed to unknown or a generic radar SAM. It seems pretty clear that the acceptance level is: 1. incident (accepted) 2. self-inflicted (still ok) 3. ground fire (mixed) 4.air to air action (to be always denied).
So US or any allied force has no access to the wreckage or the pilot and they easisly say "I won't tell you what it was, but it was NOT enemy fire", even after Jordanian Air Force initially confirmed the loss to enemy action. I call propaganda on this.

The reason is pretty simple. Historically, hitting a jet fighter usually means being able to overcome the apex of the technological level of a nation. Accepting that the enemy did it... well it can be a little bit frustrating.
Offline
User avatar

triplea

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2014, 09:36

Unread post04 Jan 2015, 13:19

marco9 wrote:It sounds like “accept it because I said it and anyway our F-16’s are invulnerable”... “my dad is stronger than yours and his car is faster than yours’ “


You seem to be assuming the US would rather the world think their planes fall out of the sky on their own than admit they can be shot down.

I am not sure how this makes sense or how you think it would be better, from the US PoV.

The initial "it was shot down. Oh wait! Upon further reflection, no it wasn't" seems perfectly reasonable to me considering the plane went down over hostile territory and neither it nor the pilot has thus far been recovered: the initial, reasonable, assessment was simply revised as more data came in.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2015, 01:56

Nonono... you cannot deny that usually any party in any war (US included) tries to attribute air losses to incidents rather than enemy action.


First off you said "always"

I just don't know why, in modern military aviation any involved party, always denies losses by enemy fire


Thats always a pretty strong word. You then switched it to usually, which in my mind is usually at least more than more than half:

January 17 – An F/A-18C Hornet (Bureau Number : 163484) was shot down by an Iraqi Mig 25 in an air-to-air engagement. The pilot (Lieutenant Commander Michael Scott Speicher) of VFA-81 was killed but his body was not found until July 2009.
January 17 – An A-6E Intruder (Bureau Number : 161668) was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Lieutenant Robert Wetzel) and navigator/bombardier (Lieutenant Jeffrey Norton Zaun) were captured. They were released on March 3.
January 17 – An F-15E Strike Eagle (Serial Number : 88-1689) was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). The pilot (Major Thomas F. Koritz) and WSO (Lieutenant Colonel Donnie R. Holland) were killed. Their bodies were recovered.
January 18 – An A-6E Intruder (Bureau Number : 152928) is shot down by anti-aircraft artillery two miles from the Iraqi shore after dropping mines on a waterway linking the Iraqi naval base of Umm Qasr with the Persian Gulf. The pilot (Lieutenant William Thomas Costen) and navigator/bombardier (Lieutenant Charlie Turner) are killed. Their bodies were recovered.[2]
January 18 – An OV-10 Bronco (Bureau Number : 155435) was shot down by surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Lieutenant Colonel Clifford M. Acree) and observer (Chief Warrant Officer Guy L. Hunter, Jr.) were captured. They were released on March 6.
January 18 – An F-4G Wild Weasel (Serial Number : 69-7571) crashes in the Saudi Arabian desert after attacking Iraqi air defenses. An investigation finds that a single enemy 23mm anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) round had punctured the fuel tank, causing fuel starvation. Both pilots eject over friendly territory and are rescued.[3]
January 19 – An F-15E Strike Eagle (Serial Number : 88-1692) was shot down by an SA-2E surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Colonel David W. Eberly) and WSO (Major Thomas E. Griffith) were captured. They were released on March 6 and March 3 respectively.
January 19 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 87-0228) was shot down by a SA-6 surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Captain Harry 'Mike' Roberts) was captured. He was released on March 6.
January 19 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 87-0257) is shot down by a SA-3 surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Major Jeffrey Scott Tice) is captured. He was released on March 6.
January 21 – An F-14A+ Tomcat (Bureau Number : 161430) was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile while on an escort mission near Al Asad airbase in Iraq. The pilot (Lieutenant Devon Jones) was rescued by USAF Special Operations Forces but the RIO (Lieutenant Larry Slade) was captured. He remained a POW until his release on March 3.
January 28 – An AV-8B Harrier II (Bureau Number : 163518) was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). The pilot (Captain Michael C. Berryman) was captured. He was released on March 6.
January 31 – An AC-130H Spectre (Serial Number : 69-6567) was shot down by a surface-to-air missile during the battle of Khafji. The entire crew of fourteen were killed. Their bodies were recovered.
February 2 – An A-6E Intruder (Bureau Number : 155632) was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). The pilot (Lieutenant Commander Barry T. Cooke) and navigator/bombardier (Lieutenant Junior Grade Patrick K. Connor) were killed. Only LTJG Connor's body is recovered as LCDR Cooke's body was never found (officially listed as KIA-BNR).
February 2 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 80-0248) was shot down by a SA-16 surface-to-air missile. The pilot
(Captain Richard Dale Storr) was captured. He was released on March 6.

February 5 – An F/A-18C Hornet (Bureau Number : 163096) was shot down. The pilot (Lieutenant Robert Dwyer) was lost over the North Persian Gulf after a successful mission to Iraq. Lieutenant Robert Dwyer served in Carrier Air Wing 8 (CVW-8). His body was never recovered (officially listed as KIA-BNR).
February 9 – An AV-8B Harrier II (Bureau Number : 162081) was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Captain Russell A.C. Sanborn) was captured. He was released on March 6
February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 78-0722) was shot down by a SA-13 surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Lt. James Sweet) was captured. He was released on March 6.
February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 79-0130) was shot down by a SA-13 surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Captain Steven Phillis) was killed and his body was later recovered.
February 19 – An OA-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 76-0543) was shot down by a SA-9 surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Fox ) was captured. He was later released on March 6.
February 23 – An AV-8B Harrier II (Bureau Number : 161573) was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Captain James N. Wilbourn) was killed and his body was later recovered.
February 25 – An OV-10 Bronco (Bureau Number : 155424) was shot down by surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Major Joseph Small III) was captured and observer (Captain David Spellacy) was killed. Major Small was released on March 6 and Captain Spellacy's body was recovered.
February 27 – An AV-8B Harrier II (Bureau Number : 162740) was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). The pilot (Captain Reginald Underwood) was killed and his body was later recovered.
February 27 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 84-1390) was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). The pilot (Captain William Andrews) was captured. He was released on March 6.
1995 (Operation Deny Flight)[edit]
June 2 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 89-2032) was shot down by a Serb 2K12 Kub SAM (NATO reporting name: SA-6 'Gainful') while on patrol over Bosnia. Its pilot (Captain Scott O'Grady) ejected and was later rescued by a USMC CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter on 8 June.
1999 (Operation Allied Force)[edit]
March 27 – An F-117 Nighthawk (Serial Number : 82-0806) stealth ground-attack jet was shot down by a Serbian SA-3 surface-to-air missile during the Kosovo War; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel Dale Zelko) survived and was subsequently rescued.
May 1 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 88-0550) was shot down by a Yugoslav SA-3 SAM. The aircraft crashes near Šabac, in a rural area of Serbia; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel David Goldfein) survived and was subsequently rescued.



Tell me more. F-16s have clearly never been lost before in combat either.


A case for all? Speicher's FA-18.


One case proves all the cases?


Still attributed to unknown or a generic radar SAM.


so enemy action?


It seems pretty clear that the acceptance level is: 1. incident (accepted) 2. self-inflicted (still ok) 3. ground fire (mixed) 4.air to air action (to be always denied).


As I recall there is still a lot of mystery about exactly what happened. If you know please let us know, inquiring minds want to know.

But I see your point. The US being murky about a ONE very mysterious cause of loss in a single case sure is suspicious...

So you tell me, is the Speichter loss a "usual" thing since it seems to have happened once, compared to the list above?

So US or any allied force has no access to the wreckage or the pilot and they easisly say "I won't tell you what it was, but it was NOT enemy fire",


Other aircraft in the area can debrief about what was encountered and about what was being fired, what they can't do is determine what mechanical or other failure caused the problem. That would require a thorough and detailed examination with special personnel, and are common in all investigations all over the globe.

even after Jordanian Air Force initially confirmed the loss to enemy action. I call propaganda on this.


conflicting initial reports? in a war?!

What madness!!

How do we know Jordan wasn't trying to claim it was shot down to cover up poor and embarrassing mechanical failure?

the coin has both sides

The reason is pretty simple. Historically, hitting a jet fighter usually means being able to overcome the apex of the technological level of a nation. Accepting that the enemy did it... well it can be a little bit frustrating.


You may want to study all the history, instead of the parts you think support your theories. I see a whole list of aircraft above that were openly and quickly identified as lost to enemy action. Airplanes crash all the time in peacetime as well keep that in mind. The apex of a 1970s fighter that has been shot down and crashed before (no offense Viper fans)
Choose Crews
Offline

marco9

Banned

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 14:27

Unread post05 Jan 2015, 07:43

triplea wrote:I am not sure how this makes sense or how you think it would be better, from the US PoV.


Everyone does it during a war. The idea behind it is simple "I can make mistakes or being unlucky, but definitively my opposing party cannot harm me". In case of war, propaganda works like this: look at any party that you can mention with a low credibility score: Syria, Russia, Yemen, Sudan, Serbia...
The side which takes the loss tries to attribute as more losses as it can to generic "incidents" rather than enemy action, while the offending party claims every single thing that comes down of the sky (or that is destroyed). Recently an Antonov crashed in Sudan. Guess what? Government says "technical failure", rebels say "shot down". Google the SyAAF losses in Syria. Government says "technical malfunction", rebels say "shot down".

Anyway, let’s take a small step back.
What is really a bit annoying in this story is the fact that the US came out with a short comment that reads like “whatever happened anyway it was NOT shot down”. This statement being said just few hours after the crash and without having access to the pilot or the wreckage.
Saying that, without further detailing… well, it sounds really over-fetching and annoying. I figure an annoyed general saying “oh f*ck, those goat-f*ckers cannot have downed one of our (coalition) F-16s”.

How can they rule out whether a single S-60 antiaircraft gun shell hit the engine? How can they rule out an IR guided missile as small as a MANPADS? As far as I know IR missiles use passive detection on the target, meaning they are silent on the defensive suite of the target till impact or seconds before.

Even in Iraq, November 2006, Gilbert’s F-16C was simply listed as “lost” for quite a while, before confirming the cause.
It would have been more credible a statement like “cause of the crash in under investigation, with enemy fire being only one of the possible causes”, as it is normally said, even in peacetime accidents.
This behavior, ruling out enemy fire without further detailing, just few hours after the crash and after denying the Jordanian Air Force original statement makes the whole thing dubious and hampers the credibility on this statement.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2015, 22:57

Everyone does it during a war. The idea behind it is simple "I can make mistakes or being unlucky, but definitively my opposing party cannot harm me". In case of war, propaganda works like this: look at any party that you can mention with a low credibility score: Syria, Russia, Yemen, Sudan, Serbia...
The side which takes the loss tries to attribute as more losses as it can to generic "incidents" rather than enemy action, while the offending party claims every single thing that comes down of the sky (or that is destroyed). Recently an Antonov crashed in Sudan. Guess what? Government says "technical failure", rebels say "shot down". Google the SyAAF losses in Syria. Government says "technical malfunction", rebels say "shot down".


The US Handles things differently obviously.

Anyway, let’s take a small step back.
What is really a bit annoying in this story is the fact that the US came out with a short comment that reads like “whatever happened anyway it was NOT shot down”. This statement being said just few hours after the crash and without having access to the pilot or the wreckage.
Saying that, without further detailing… well, it sounds really over-fetching and annoying. I figure an annoyed general saying “oh f*ck, those goat-f*ckers cannot have downed one of our (coalition) F-16s”.


I think you are projecting you own racism here.

How can they rule out whether a single S-60 antiaircraft gun shell hit the engine? How can they rule out an IR guided missile as small as a MANPADS? As far as I know IR missiles use passive detection on the target, meaning they are silent on the defensive suite of the target till impact or seconds before.


incorrect.

Even in Iraq, November 2006, Gilbert’s F-16C was simply listed as “lost” for quite a while, before confirming the cause.
It would have been more credible a statement like “cause of the crash in under investigation, with enemy fire being only one of the possible causes”, as it is normally said, even in peacetime accidents.
This behavior, ruling out enemy fire without further detailing, just few hours after the crash and after denying the Jordanian Air Force original statement makes the whole thing dubious and hampers the credibility on this statement.


I don't think they care about their credibility with you as you have clearly made up your mind already, and would rather focus on rare exceptions rather than the rule. There is such a thing as OPSEC so quick, terse, replies are going to happen in certain areas.
Choose Crews
Offline

marco9

Banned

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 14:27

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 05:47

XanderCrews wrote:incorrect.


Sure enough they will not detect a burst from an optically driven AAA gun and not 100% of the MANPADS. And anyway I am not sure if the Jordanian F-16s have the latest defensive suites.

XanderCrews wrote:There is such a thing as OPSEC so quick, terse, replies are going to happen in certain areas.

No... too easy closing the argument calling OPSEC here. Keep it simple. Cheap propaganda is way way more likely.

XanderCrews wrote:The US Handles things differently obviously.


Well, lately a bit less than usual. Look at the list in the previous page. There are few more recent listings missing.
Since 2003, US became a bit more foggy on air losses. I recall a downed A-10 during the invasion in April 2003. That is fairly confirmed as lost to enemy action. There are even pictures of the missile impacting close.

A F-15E, again in April 2003 and a F-14 again around the same period in Iraq, both remained unexplained.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 17:27

marco9 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The US Handles things differently obviously.


Well, lately a bit less than usual. Look at the list in the previous page. There are few more recent listings missing.
Since 2003, US became a bit more foggy on air losses. I recall a downed A-10 during the invasion in April 2003. That is fairly confirmed as lost to enemy action. There are even pictures of the missile impacting close.



Sources?

A F-15E, again in April 2003 and a F-14 again around the same period in Iraq, both remained unexplained.


Sources?

Now contrast that with the massive amount of losses and explanation including losses noted to enemy fire.

Again you are trying to use exceptions to prove the rule. You used words like "always" and then "usually" and now its "lately" And it not always or usua in the first place. Please explain, how you went from a grand sweeping assertion to a much smaller more specific claim.
Choose Crews
Offline

marco9

Banned

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 14:27

Unread post07 Jan 2015, 08:04

XanderCrews wrote:Again you are trying to use exceptions to prove the rule. You used words like "always" and then "usually" and now its "lately" And it not always or usua in the first place. Please explain, how you went from a grand sweeping assertion to a much smaller more specific claim.


I hope you do understand that English is not my native language... first of all. second I hope you do understand that the different words were used in different sentences above.

Here the sources, anyway all of them were wildly reported on the major newspapers at the time (2003):
Anyway this is getting boring and off topic. The bottom lines for me are:

1. US/West use propaganda tools too.
2. This F-16 was indeed shot down unless differently proven.

Over and Out
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1762
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post07 Jan 2015, 22:47

marco9 wrote:1. US/West use propaganda tools too.


Well yes correct - and all of this propaganda is sent out via the mass media - particularly in rags like the Daily Mail.... Okay not as bad as the Sun but apart from wiping my A on it I cant think of many other uses it has - certainly not a reliable source of information.


marco9 wrote:2. This F-16 was indeed shot down unless differently proven.


Don't lose too much sleep over it because currently no one can prove it one way or the other.............
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Jan 2015, 04:42

marco9 wrote:2. This F-16 was indeed shot down unless differently proven.




Based on what?
Choose Crews
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Jan 2015, 07:52

XanderCrews wrote:
marco9 wrote:2. This F-16 was indeed shot down unless differently proven.




Based on what?

Based on his experience... Apparently.

There have been a few cases of F-16s going down because of technical issues over a combat zone that didn't involve being hit by hostile fire. Correct?

The USAF had an F-15E depart controlled flight over Libya, and the crew ejected. Both crew were recovered safely. I wouldn't assume that just because a jet goes down over hostile territory, that the cause is hostile fire.
Previous

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests