Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 09:47
by triplea
Hello. I'm new here, so sorry if I inadvertently breach any etiquette or board rule.

I have a question regarding the RJAF F-16 that went down over Syria recently. Images supposedly released by ISIS show the pilot in relatively good health, so it's reasonable to assume he ejected -- which's also congruent with official reports at this time. But those images also show an intact canopy as part of the wreckage of the plane.

So my question is: would it be typical for the canopy to survive an ejection in such a state? Or can some conclusions be drawn from the fact of the canopy's survival? I tried to look up the canopy's terminal velocity without much success.

I would greatly appreciate any answers.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 11:23
by Boman
Canopies can remain perfectly intact following an ejection. This can be seen from the canopy of one of the 614TFS Vipers brought Down during DS1, and similarly the canopy of 89-2032 that is in the Belgrade museum.

So no, you cannot draw any conclusion from the state of the canopy alone.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 13:27
by triplea
Thank you very much for quick and clear response. Appreciated.

Any comments/observations regarding the incident in general?

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 15:38
by FlightDreamz
As always my thoughts and prayers are with the downed pilot and his family (seems especially tough during the holidays) :(

According to CNN
Although ISIS claimed it had downed the aircraft, the U.S. military rejected the claim.
"Evidence clearly indicates" that the terrorist group "did not down the aircraft," U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

The story doesn't seem to elaborate on how/why that conclusion was drawn however.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 18:49
by Lieven
Here's an image of the canopy that circulates on the web.

F-16-downed-in-Syria-706x399.png

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 19:28
by triplea
The Jordanian army has just confirmed that the aircraft was not downed by enemy action. They also did not elaborate on why they reached this conclusion, nor what they believe the cause of the crash was.

But I guess ruling out enemy action only leaves mechanical malfunction, really. Unless they have reason to believe it was pilot error, but I doubt they'd be able to draw such a conclusion without access to at least the wreckage or the pilot, preferably both.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 20:31
by Lieven
Can anyone confirm it was ex-Belgian Air Force jet #80-3569 (149/FA-78)?


RJAF F-16AM #149 seen landing at Aviano AB on March 19th, 2009, during a stopover before continuing onto Jordan. This aircraft is ex-BAF #FA-78. [Photo by Marco Sommacal]

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 21:14
by lamoey
If he flew high enough then any hand held missile or cannon would not reach him, so that excludes ground threats. One other option is accidentally (or not) downed by US or allied forces. In both cases they would know, but if the latter then they would choose not to elaborate.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 07:05
by Gamera
IMO, when an ejection seat (duh) ejects, it doesn't necessarily break the canopy.

ISTR when a F-16 pilot bails out, first the canopy ejects itself.

For comparison, IIRC, the F-15 ejection seat-top has a spike or some-such that breaks the canopy before the seat passes through the canopy, while some canopies (such as on RAF jet fighters) have explosive charges on them to (figuratively) break the glass before the seat passes through the canopy.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 10:30
by triplea
An F-16 canopy is jettisoned before the pilot seat is ejected. It would certainly be intact at that time.

What I was wondering about was if its survival might be used to deduce an upper limit on the plane's altitude at the time, since early reports seemed to indicate it was downed by a MANPAD of some kind. Since ISIS are known to possess such systems, it would have been odd for the fighter to be flying at low altitude in such a manner as to be targeted.

This was answered early on and events have, in any case, overtaken that line of speculation. The latest reports deny that the plane was downed by enemy action.

Regarding the friendly-fire speculation, and while we obviously cannot rule anything out with the limited information available, it seems unlikely to me that any friendly craft would have had reason to deploy any air-to-air munitions as that airspace is completely under allied control.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 09:38
by tbarlow
The canopy from 87-0257 which was shot down in Desert Storm is at Pima in Tucson.


Canopy from USAF F-16C #87-0257 which was shot down over Iraq on January 19, 1991 and put on display at the Pima Air and Space Museum in mid 2005. [Photo courtesy the Pima Air and Space Museum]

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2014, 01:09
by labrador
An "interview" with the pilot is published on this link:

THE CAPTURE OF A CRUSADER PILOT

Lots of religious bla-bla on pages 1-33. I don't understand a thing. The interesting part starts on page 34.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2015, 10:26
by marco9
He is confirming the downing by enemy fire... and makes sense.
I do not see any specific extorted comment, such as hate against US or requests to leave IS alone or swap him for thousands of IS prisoners or a request to the world to embrace IS view of Islam. Even the report on how the crash happened, overall makes it very realistic.
Enemy fire while flying over enemy territory, makes a lot of sense. I just don't know why, in modern military aviation any involved party, always denies losses by enemy fire like it was a tremendous shame to lose a jet against an enemy anti aircraft weapon. In this case, it would be a modern Igla or FN-6 MANPADS, not a big shame at all.

And we all know that in this type of conflicts, where the enemy is rather an infantry/insurgence force with less or no opposing air defense, military jets comes in low on several occasions: US jets over Afghanistan and Iraq engaged targets with the gun several times. Simply enough the threat is low enough to justify such a risk. Till now.

He says his flight was tasked with sweeping enemy air defenses and eventual fighter jets. I guess, the idea behind it, is that the coalition does not fully trust that Syrian Air Defense will not bother, plus they hunt for the AA-guns taken over by IS. I wonder what do the Jordanians use for that mission in that environment. GBU's or any missile?

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2015, 15:31
by triplea
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.

Now, the same publication will hold value to someone who knows what the disposition of forces actually is because it will tell them how much information ISIS have been able to extract from the captured pilot. It may also help them plug leaks that should not exist: what does the pilot know, that he should not know...?

And you can certainly safely ignore all the religious mumbo jumbo: that doesn't mean anything to anyone! :wink:

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2015, 18:29
by ghettobird
Also 88-0550's canopy survived the ejection/destruction process when she was shot down over Serbia in '99

The canopy, a very large portion of the vertical stabilizer, and a portion of the LMG are all on display in one of their wartime museums.


The remains of the tail of USAF F-16C block 40 #88-0550 which was shot down while performing combat operations during Allied Force. Displayed at the Museum Of Warplanes in Belgrade in 1999. [Photo by HazF16]


The remains of the landing gear of USAF F-16C block 40 #88-0550 which was shot down while performing combat operation during Allied Force. Displayed at the Museum Of Warplanes in Belgrade in 1999. [Photo by HazF16]

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 11:06
by marco9
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’ “

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 19:50
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2015, 13:17
by marco9
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2015, 13:19
by triplea
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 01:56
by XanderCrews
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)

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 07:43
by marco9
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 22:57
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2015, 05:47
by marco9
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2015, 17:27
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2015, 08:04
by marco9
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

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2015, 22:47
by basher54321
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.............

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 04:42
by XanderCrews
marco9 wrote:2. This F-16 was indeed shot down unless differently proven.




Based on what?

Re: Downed RJAF F-16 - Intact Canopy

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2015, 07:52
by neurotech
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.