TEEJThe Israeli did indeed loose a F-4 in 1982, the Pilot Gil Fogel was taken prisioner and returned to israel later while Aharon katz died
read the article
Flogger,
Read the thread link that I posted. If you had taken the time to read the thread then you wouldn’t be jumping in like a muppet. Kfadrat was claiming that it was an RF-4E (S) ‘Peace Jack’ that was shot down. That would make it one of those ‘undisclosed’ losses that the Syrians have not proved with any wreckage, photos, videos etc. Attention to detail and concentration isn’t hard.
TEEJGarry,
The ‘Evil West’ is really the bane of your life, isn’t it? ‘We can tell it is in the NFZ’ Make up your mind Garry? How do you know? Was it all staged over the Nevada desert? Did it take directly above Al Asad airbase? The ‘Evil West’ can do anything.
So what is wrong with the Coalition baiting the Iraqi Air Force? You seem to think that it was some kind of peace mission and that the pilots were all flying with blue helmets on. It was years of cat and mouse. The Iraqi’s refused to put fighter on fighter after the early 90’s. Even fighters patrolling up near the 32 and 33 parallel could not entice the Iraqis to go head to head.
The Iraqi’s always waited for lone UAVs or when they knew that Coalition aircraft could be no threat to them. The Iraqi’s fired upon Coalition aircraft from the ground and on some ocassions the Coalition would go above the 33rd to directly target Iraqi Air Defence networks. Above the 32, and later the 33 parallels, wasn’t some sort of no-go area. The pressure was maintained on the Iraqi’s to see that there was a consequence for firing on Coalition aircraft. They would either lose their fighters, or have their air defence network degraded. There was absolutely nothing wrong with goading those pilots/units that were violating the zones to go head to head. I personally would have gone further by degrading such airbases as Al Asad. A few well placed JDAMs and the plinking of HAS would have sent a clear message to the Iraqi units violating the NFZs.
TEEJwonder how others would feel if someone illegally inforced a no fly zone on their land, TEEJ; you DO know that the original no fly zone was NOT at the same coordinations as the Americans were inforcing, as a matter of fact I don’t even recal the UN aproving the expanding of that no fly zone by the US, I could be wrong but I simply don’t remember that.
anyway, you’ll be surprised with the quantity of hidden info in this matter which will soon be revealed by someone you know very well.
the Iraqis were simply defending their country, plain and simple and the protect Shia and Kurds excuse is even worse than the WMDs one, especially if we keep in mind who actually told the Shia to uprise then left them alone to be supressed :rolleyes: .
Kfadrat,
Stop whining. You still have not provided this forum with your photgraphs of shot down Israeli aircraft. You promised them, but they still have not appeared. Can you explain?
Remember your claims of Israeli RF-4E(S) loss during 82? Did you ever read the AFM article covering the retirement of those airframes? Any explanation? Hmmm.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=552237#post552237
Obviously you mean TC? The same guy who believes that Israeli F-15s took out two Syrian MiG-29s a few days after 9/11 and the whole event is being covered up. TC obtains info from very dubious and naive sources.
The 32nd was moved to the 33rd during 1996.
TEEJSomeone want to explain to me what role the preds were serving wrt enforcing the NO FLY ZONE?
Does it not strike anyone else as odd that the US would be using ground surveillance aircraft to enforce a no fly zone?
The zone was for ALL Iraqi air defence units operating in them. The Predators were primarily tasked with seeking out and monitoring Iraqi air defence units on the ground, for example within the Southern No Fly Zone. Those Iraqi Air Defence elements were not supposed to be there.
Many of those air defence elements did shoot and scoot tactics and then laid up in residential areas. The Iraqi’s knew that the Coalition wouldn’t strike if they put an anti-aircraft weapon, missile or radar unit in the grounds of a mosque or school. The Iraqi’s even used historical monuments of cultural importance to hide units in. Those historical monuments were strictly off limits for Coaliltion targetting.
In addition to monitoring, the Predators would also carry out strikes themselves on Iraqi air defence units using Hellfires.
TEEJThe grenade has been thrown. Unless you suspect he has another he is no longer the threat… the grenade is. Shooting him after the grenade is thrown does not deal with the current threat, it simply punnishes the man for his actions, and that is not the role of the peacekeeper. The correct procedure is to take action to minimise damage the grenade can make and then take the man who threw it into custody to face charges for his actions. If he tries to throw another grenade you could shoot him before he pulls the pin, but if he manages to release the grenade and the pin is released then again the grenade becomes the threat that you have to deal with. If you suspect he has further grenades and intends to use them you might be justified in shooting him but otherwise shooting him would be murder..
Garry,
Have you ever been trained in rules of engagement? It it clear that you have never operated in such conditions or scenarios or even trained for them. I have. This is very basic info. If the soldier see the grenade being thrown and identifies that person then that person can be fired upon. The grenade thrower is directly endangering human life. In that scenario direct return fire can be used because the grenade thrower has directly endangered human life. It is the human life factor that comes directly into play here. For UK forces if the target of the grenade was an empty vehicle and the soldier knew that vehicle to be empty then the soldier would not justified in shooting the grenade thrower. Why? This is because the soldier knows that no human life is being endangered. In that case the rule of minimum force comes into play. The soldier has to disable or halt the individual with appropriate minimum force. U.S. forces consider that property is also covered under rules of engagement and direct, including lethal force, can be used.
I’m afraid your scenarios of ‘If he tries to throw another grenade you could shoot him before he pulls the pin, but if he manages to release the grenade and the pin is released then again the grenade becomes the threat that you have to deal with.’ is totally laughable. It proves that you have never operated under any rules of engagement. That person has directly endangered human life and fire can be returned. Not a warning shot, not an intent to wound, but aimed shots directly at the body mass to neutralise the threat.
Sample U.S. rules of engagement operating under U.N. mandates can be found at the following link:
Note the ‘human life’ parts of the rules? UK forces operate under slightly stricter rules of engagement, under certain scenarios, in regards to property.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-23/fm100_10.htm
TEEJTHANK YOU, never mind these guys thier just wanna be’s and rude people,,thank you for comment on my pic,,i have lots more if your interested,,(every nut and bolt on the su-24)
cheers
But you aren’t supplying anything new! Those images that you presented are well known. Do you have anything that is unique that could be of interest? If all you can do is post well known images and provide no indepth insight then people are going to become suspect.
You have already been asked for the start-up procedure for the Su-24. Surely something that is completely benign and that you should be able to rattle off. What were the serial numbers of Su-24s that you flew? What was the serial of the one that you flew to Iran?
Other information that you can surely provide is your flight to Iran. Where did you take off from and where did you land? What was the reception like at the Iranian base and what was the fit of your aircraft? Did all the Su-24s land at the same base? Were you immediately repatriated to Iraq? Did the Iranians detain or question you?
All very basic info that you can surely supply? Nothing of that is classified.
TEEJHey was that an really Typoon which Crashed?
Is anyone have any Link of that.
’22 November 2002 – Eurofighter Typhoon DA6 Test Flight Incident/Accident Update’
http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Article/default.asp?NewsItemId=116
TEEJCould anyone tell me the opening times for Donna Nook especially this Thursday 22/03/07
already ukar and FC
Thanks
‘The range is open Monday to Friday from 0900hrs with night time slots being used on certain dates.’
TEEJIn a peacekeeping mission the rules of engagement are generally quite clear. In this case the RPV had no right to fire in the same way that a peacekeeper could not fire upon someone who has just thrown a grenade at them. Shooting the guy that threw the grenade would only be legitimate if they clearly had more grenades or other weapons and were preparing to use them, otherwise the threat is the grenade so shooting the guy who threw it would not be justified. Equally in the RPV case firing a missile at the Mig-25 wouldn’t stop the Mig-25s missile from hitting the RPV and would therefore not be justified under peacekeeping rules. If you claim war rules then Iraq is clearly allowed to fire on any US or allied equipment… that is what war means..
Garry what the hell are you on about? It is clear that you have never served in any armed forces. This is simple stuff. Rules of engagement obviously differ according to the situation.
In your scenario the peacekeeper would be perfectly in his rights to shoot the guy that threw the grenade if he directly witnessed it. The grenade thrower has shown intent to kill or endanger human life directly. In this case the peacekeeper, or his colleagues who witnessed the event, is perfectly within his/their rights to return fire directly. The same goes for a peacekeeper on his own who witnesses an event that is about to endanger human life directly. No warning needs to be given either.
The MiG-25 violated the NFZ. It fired first on the Predator and the Stinger was launched in an attempt to down the MiG. Even if the MiG had just conducted a visual on the Predator the UAV op would still have taken the Stinger shot in this case. The MiG was in the Southern No Fly Zone and was a legitimate target. Think about a scenario if Coalition aircraft came across an Iraqi Air Force group of aircraft within the Southern No Fly Zone? Do you honestly think that the Coalition aircraft would be waiting for the Iraqi aircraft to fire the first shots? The same went for anti-aircraft pieces discovered on patrols in the zones. Even Iraqi anti-aircraft units caught in transit were targets that were taken out. They didn’t need to fire to be targetted. If they were away from residential areas then they were dispatched accordingly.
TEEJYeah, it was on discovery, so ever word must be true… Gulf of Tonkin incident anyone?
So Garry what are you suggesting here? Are you saying that the coords have been doctored on the Predator footage by the ‘Evil Coalition’? Is everything a conspiracy to you?
TEEJOk – so the event was apparently within the NFZ. Again, we do not know what the extent of the preceding baiting was.
And I have no problem with such retaliation. This is well within the realms of their mandate. What I take issue with is the fact that they, over a number of days, lured the Iraqi’s into a very clever ambush (even if it did fail). This, I feel, lies outside the scope of their mandate. They were running the very real risk inflaming the situation – but then again, viewed through Dubya glasses, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing ;).
As for Iraqi’s dodging the patrols – why, the solution would seem to be obvious. Either improve the level of intel wrt their operations, so that you can catch the Iraqis and toast them in flagrante delicato, or make the patrols harder to predict, or step up the sortie rate. All of these I feel are perfectly acceptable alternatives and would lose no sleep if a/c were nailed while violating the NFZ – and yes, they would (in the long run) cost more and make for a less-impressive sound byte than nailing a MiG with a UAV!
The thing with the Iraqi’s is that they would never challenge Coalition aircraft directly. They learned that lesson in the early 90s the hard way. They only ever violated the zones when they knew that nothing was around to challenge them. They would only attempt to go after UAVs if there was no fighters in the vicinity. Why? Think about it? You are an Iraqi air defence commander and the last thing you want to do is start losing aircraft and pilots on a regular basis. The NFZs were not patrolled 24/7. When the AWACS went off station the Iraqi air defence commanders knew that they could go ahead with zone violations.
This usually consisted of MiG-25s making supersonic runs into and then back over the parallel. When they knew that unprotected UAVs were about they would send in MiG-29s and Mirage F.1s in an attempt to engage them. As stated before several UAV videos exist of these aircraft attempting to get to grips with Predators. If a Coaliton fighter was directed towards the engagement the Iraqi’s would recall the aircraft back above the parallel. They just refused to engage manned Coalition aircraft and who could blame them?
Imagine it from the Iraqi Air Force Chiefs and his staff’s position? He could then report to Saddam that he conducted X number of No Fly Zone challenges and that he scared off all the Coalition aircraft. Saddam goes to bed happy thinking that the ‘infidels’ have been forced from Iraqi skies. Everyone happy bunnies and the Iraqi Air Force Commander-in-chief keeps his job.
The same went for the Iraqi ground air defence units operating in the NFZs. Saddam was desperate to nail Coalition aircraft. It was well known that he put a bounty out to egg on these units to bring down aircraft. He would have dearly loved to have paraded captured downed aircrew. Those ground units were really waisting their time. If they operated radar guided weapons they got their heads handed to them on a regular basis. They quickly learned that all they could do was shoot and scoot. Knowing that radar guided weapons usage was really pointless they attempted various modified weapons. Again all they could do once firing those weapons was shoot and scoot. Where did they scoot to? Residential areas in an attempt to fight another day.
One Predator video that I have seen is hilarious. The operator discovered a large calibre anti-aircraft gun being set up in the Southern No Fly Zone. As the Predator cirlces the Iraqi’s are seen to acknowledge the Predator and the footage shows the Iraqis running about like madmen to get the gun up and running. The camera zooms in and the gun fires its first shell at the Predator.The op zooms in and the Iraqi’s are running about as the gun has apparently malfunctioned. The op zooms in closer.
From out of the shot runs in a furious gesticulating figure, with what looks like a pay stick, and start pointing up at the UAV and begins jumping up and down in pure frustration at the gun crew. Picture one very harrassed gun crew being berated by this stick wielding figure as they go into a frenzy in an attempt to clear the malfunction? After a long period they manage to get another shell off and the gun malfunctions again. The op zooms in and the stick weilding guy is going crazy at the gun crew. The Predator eventually has to terminate due to fuel and flies off unscathed. The retreating shot still shows the commander gesticulating skywards at the Predator and berating the gun crew. It really was like a scene from the Keystone Cops movies. It would be a classic with a suitable sound track on You Tube if it ever got released.
TEEJ2) Whether or not the actual shoot-down occurred in the NFZ (someone want to confirm the coords?) – who knows if the USAF trailed their coat outside the NFZ and inside Iraqi airspace?
Could you not have worked it out for yourself after watching the video?
Coords from the start of the clip – roughly 32 21 48N 46 03 18E
Coords from part of the clip during Stinger launch – 32 22 13N 46 03 03E
From 1996 the 33rd Parallel was the northern limit for the Southern No Fly Zone.
Did you not follow the years of cat and mouse games between the Coalition and Iraqi forces? On several ocassions the Coalition struck targets north of the Southern No Fly Zones in direct retaliation for firing on aircraft.
The Iraqi’s timed their fly zone violations so as not to come into direct conflict with Coalition fighters. They ramped up their air ops in the last couple of years prior to the invasion and were noted returning as many aircraft as they could back to operational status.
TEEJRubbish. For a start there should only be one NFZ as the northern NFZ was nothing to do with preventing a military buildup against Kuwaite. Second what evidence do we have that this incident even occured in the no fly zone.
Come on Garry. You wouldn’t be very good on jury service? Did you not watch the video? Basic stuff mate!
TEEJI think part of the issue here is not so much fairness, as the fact that this incident happened in Dec 2002, before the invasion of Iraq (i.e when everybody was technically at peace). What if the Stinger had hit the MiG, and killed the pilot? Or what if the wreckage of the MiG had landed on a school or a hospital? Would we see the pilot of the UAV in the Hague facing charges – or how about his superior officers?
What was also quite interesting was the CBS commentary – emphasising how mismatched the encounter was – good grief.
The behaviour was quite frankly irresponsible and criminal.If you ask me, this was somebody looking to start a war.
Not at peace at all. Air ops were quite intense. The Iraqi’s ramped up their No Fly Zone violations markedly during 2001 and 2002. The Iraqi’s tried everything in their book to target Coalition manned aircraft – especially in the Southern No Fly Zone, but without success. The Iraqi’s were even throwing up large calibre mortars and other modified missiles trying not to rely on radar guided weapons. Some of these were discovered during the ground invasion in 2003. One of them was AS-7 mounted on a crude mobile launch platform. All these modified weapons did was make large puff balls in the sky – totally ineffective.
The Iraqi air force made an intense effort to get their fighter fleet back in the air and actively challenge the NFZs. Even their MiG-29s were returned to service and noted active in the Southern No Fly Zones. The NFZs were not patrolled 24/7 and the Iraqi’s knew this. They timed their southern NFZ violations so as not to run into Coalition fighters. The Iraqi’s had attempted to engage lone UAVs before. I’ve seen several UAV videos of Iraqi aicraft trying to locate and engage Predators in the Southern NFZs without success.
Some of the ops recorded.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2002.htm
TEEJPicture 5.
Iranian battlefield rockets. Image from a recent military exercise. Zelzals etc
Picture 6.
Japanese Atago class – guided missile destroyer
Picture 12.
Looks like a Chinese HJ-9
Sign In
