US F/A 18 Gets Syrian SU22 Kill,In Rebel Support

a reply to: face23785

Actually the truth is that a civil war began in Syria without any US or UN involvement and after a few years we decided to back one of the factions fighting to overthrow Assad.

Plotting gubment overthrows, manipulating state tun media and politicians as a precursor to protest, then hijacking that protest into violent revolution fed with arms and logistics, is standard covert CIA manual tactics, been done the world over numerous times in many nations.

You want to start the process at "some syrians don't like assad", thats the cover excuse for the masses back home. But thanks for repeating it anyway.

a reply to: tommyjo
I'm sorry, I missed the actual HUD cockpit footage and or radar display from the jet. Expecting me to believe the after acton press conference.... lulz

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: intrptr

It's unlikely that a tow missile could shoot down a fast jet. Also in the high resolution video from a different angle, it was pretty clear the missile was descending when it hit the Fitter.

I'll say it again, the camera angles are not from the attacking jet. If they have that why not show it? Its not proprietary, video games simulate every aspect of F18 air to air engagements .

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo
I'm sorry, I missed the actual HUD cockpit footage and or radar display from the jet. Expecting me to believe the after acton press conference.... lulz

LOL! I didn't expect anything else from you in reply. Even if the footage was shown you still wouldn't believe it! It is a mindset!

The Syrian Su-22 pilot ejected successfully and returned to his family. Explain why he nor any other party didn't report anything else other than a Coalition aircraft shooting him down?

Think about it? A full conference, identifying all the pilots and units involved in the operation and yet neither the Russian or Syrian Ministry of Defence dispute the facts?

Do you not think that it would be a huge propaganda coup for the Russians/Syrians to dispute the claim of the air to air shoot down? Do you not think that that Russians were monitoring the comms and the engagement? Explain why they are not even giving your version of events the light of day?

As a result of the air to air shoot down why did the Russian Ministry of Defence take the step to release the following statement? It is because they knew that the shoot down was by Coalition aircraft.

Statement of the Russian Defence Ministry concerning downing of the Syrian Su-22 near the town of Resafa On June 18, 2017 the American fighter F-18A belonging to the international coalition shot down the Su-22 aircraft of the Syrian Air Force, which was performing a combat mission supporting the government troops, which were conducting the offensive against the ISIS terrorists near the town of Resafa (40 km to the south-west of the city of Raqqa).

As a result of the attack, the Syrian aircraft was destroyed. The pilot baled out over an ISIS-controlled area, his status is unknown. The destruction of the aircraft of the Syrian Air Force by the American aviation in the air space of Syria – is a cynical violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. Numerous combat activities of the US aviation carried out under the cover of “fight against terrorism” aimed against the legitimate Armed Forces of a UN-member is a blatant breach of the international law and is in fact an act of military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic. Moreover, at that time the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces were also performing combat missions in the air space of Syria.

However, the Command of the coalition forces did not use the existing channels of communication between the Command of the Al Udeid Air Base (Qatar) and the Hmeymim Air Base Command to prevent air incidents in the air space of Syria. The Russian party considers those actions of the US Command as an intentional failure to fulfill its obligations within the Memorandum on prevention of incidents and providing of flight security during the operations in Syria dated October 20, 2015.

Since June 19, 2017, the Russian Defence Ministry has stopped the cooperation with the American party within the Memorandum on prevention of incidents and providing of flight security during the operations in Syria and demands a thorough investigation of the incident by the US Command with further providing of information on its results and the taken measures. In the combat mission zones of the Russian aviation in the air space of Syria, all kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets.

Russian Ministry of Defence Statement Link

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday it would treat U.S.-led coalition aircraft flying west of the River Euphrates in Syria as potential targets and track them with missile systems and military aircraft, but stopped short of saying it would shoot them down.

In a move that will fan tensions between Washington and Moscow, Russia made clear it was changing its military posture in response to the U.S. downing of a Syrian military jet on Sunday, something Damascus said was the first such incident since the start of the country’s conflict in 2011.

The Russian Defense Ministry said it was also scrapping a Syrian air safety agreement with Washington designed to avoid collisions and dangerous incidents with immediate effect. Moscow accused the United States of failing to honor the pact by not informing it of the decision to shoot down the Syrian plane despite Russian aircraft being airborne at the same time. “We view such actions by the U.S. command as a deliberate flouting of its obligations,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement. It said it expected the United States to now undertake an investigation into the shoot-down, to share the results, and to take corrective measures. .....

“In areas where Russian aircraft are carrying out military tasks in the skies above Syria, any flying objects, including international coalition aircraft and drones found operating west of the River Euphrates, will be tracked by Russian land and air-based anti-aircraft ground systems as targets,” the ministry statement said.

Reuters Link

If it had simply been a MANPAD then why the reaction from the Russians in relation to coalition aircraft west of the Euphrates? It is because they too know that the Su-22 was downed in an air to air engagement.

a reply to: tommyjo

Even if the footage was shown you still wouldn't believe it!

But its not, how can I have an opinion based in fact?

a reply to: intrptr

Read RIGHT media too,sometimes,it HELPS and the military is not activist style in fact anarchists want it gone.
We really don't know ZIP about any missions here so to say MY speculation is better than another mans is pompous.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

Read RIGHT media too,sometimes,it HELPS and the military is not activist style in fact anarchists want it gone.
We really don't know ZIP about any missions here so to say MY speculation is better than another mans is pompous.

Analyzing grainy footage is im-pompous-ible too.

a reply to: intrptr

I always wondered why no WHIZBAG video systems as small as they are?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo

Even if the footage was shown you still wouldn't believe it!

But its not, how can I have an opinion based in fact?

Even if the original footage from the F/A-18 isn't show can you explain the Russian Ministry of Defence statement? Can you explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence is not disputing the air to air shoot down?

The same goes for the footage of a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle downing an Iranian made Shaheed 129 drone over Syria on 20th June 2017. The footage shown is taken from a UAV monitoring the engagement.

Will you be making the same claims for this Shaheed 129 shootdown? Must have been one of those pesky TOWs again!

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

I always wondered why no WHIZBAG video systems as small as they are?

All combat aircraft have hi definition tracking telescopes in them for later analyzation. They stopped showing that after the Tomcat.

Partial of 'boresight' camera footage, in trail of Libyan Mig, at one point using evasive maneuvers to try and shake the Tomcat. Note the extreme closeup at :30 seconds into here...


This is what the kills looked like in the HUD recording of the Tomcats.Sorry about embed playback here. The important thing to observe in this composite video is the switching between the boresight and Hud cameras in the TomCat. Tracking is recorded with the boresight camera, the actual downing is from the HUD. The editor jumped between the two, making the above composite video.

This technology existed back in the 80s.

a reply to: tommyjo

Can you explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence is not disputing the air to air shoot down?

Nether side admits that stuff. "Not disputing" isn't the same thing.

a reply to: intrptr

Put it down with THE OTHER STUFF we are REALLY sure they have, that we don't see...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

Put it down with THE OTHER STUFF we are REALLY sure they have, that we don't see...

You mean like the whole mission to Regime Change Syria ? They're hiding that behind some Isis and 21 other flavors of insurgent.

Thats why they can't show it directly.

See?

a reply to: intrptr

They just can't back out NOW since HILLARY ran it..

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

I always wondered why no WHIZBAG video systems as small as they are?

All combat aircraft have hi definition tracking telescopes in them for later analyzation. They stopped showing that after the Tomcat.

Not all combat aircraft have such equipment fitted as standard. The F-14 had the long range trackers fitted as standard hence the footage. The likes of the Super Hornet that downed the Syrian Su-22 would have to have been carrying the new podded sensor for such detailed footage. If it wasn't fitted with the equipment made available in 2017 then you wouldn't see super close ups of the shoot down. Either the US Navy don't want to release imagery from this new sensor pod or it wasn't carrying it and they went for the more dramatic footage that they released.

Super Hornet test new podded IRST

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo

Can you explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence is not disputing the air to air shoot down?

Nether side admits that stuff. "Not disputing" isn't the same thing.

LOL. Of course they admitted it. Stop wriggling! The Russians don't dispute that it was an air to air shoot down.

It is just laughable that simply because the US Navy chose not to show the HUD footage you go into fantasy land with your claim. The Super Hornet was likely not carrying the new podded IRST sensor that was made available during 2017 so they went for the more dramatic footage of the tracking that they released. They did the same for the Iranian made drone shot down by the F-15E.

I bet that you didn't even listen to the US Navy pilots accounts in the video of the shoot down? No doubt you just hand waived it away.

Notice at 5:10 the pilot describes that he launched an AIM-9X that failed to guide. Seriously the first combat launch of an AIM-9X from a US Navy aircraft that resulted in failure and you think that he just made it all up in a pack with the other pilots? It does show the mindset that you operate under. Even if the Super Hornet HUD was shown you would be ranting about "NATO pilots and their illegal missions in Syria"

a reply to: tommyjo

All fighters have camera recorders attached to their HUD.

This footage exists if they shot down a MIG, in fact the pilot would want to be sure it was nice and clear footage so he can confirm his kill.

Problem wth showing it directly is that (if it exists) it becomes evidentiary in future war crimes trials. Since US has no mandate to be operating in Syria Airspace attacking Syrian military targets , the shoot down is otherwise a violation of International Law.

Thats why (if true) the footage released is inconclusive... thats why the US has so far mostly carried the military operations to regime change Syria and Make Assad Go as covertly as possible.

W'ere supposed to be there helping Syria fight ISIS, roiight? Shooting down Syrian jets kind of exposes the charade.

I love replying to you, thanks for the legal 'exercise'.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo

All fighters have camera recorders attached to their HUD.

This footage exists if they shot down a MIG, in fact the pilot would want to be sure it was nice and clear footage so he can confirm his kill.

Problem wth showing it directly is that (if it exists) it becomes evidentiary in future war crimes trials. Since US has no mandate to be operating in Syria Airspace attacking Syrian military targets , the shoot down is otherwise a violation of International Law.

Thats why (if true) the footage released is inconclusive... thats why the US has so far mostly carried the military operations to regime change Syria and Make Assad Go as covertly as possible.

W'ere supposed to be there helping Syria fight ISIS, roiight? Shooting down Syrian jets kind of exposes the charade.

I love replying to you, thanks for the legal 'exercise'.

Of course they do but you are claiming that the footage should be the same as from the Tomcat. Unless the Super Hornet was carrying the new pod then that close up footage wouldn't exist. They chose to show the more dramatic close up tracking just the same as the shoot down of the Iranian made UAV. It is a lot more dramatic than just a standard HUD camera video.

It wasn't a "MiG". It was a Sukhoi (Su-22). The kill is confirmed in the HUD but they chose to show the more dramatic tracking footage showing the close up of the Su-22. What part of that don't you understand? It isn't rocket science that the compiler for the presentation went for the more dramatic footage.

LOL! Your mindset is just all over the place. You do realize that the US Navy pilot is named and admits on camera that he engaged and shot down the Su-22. Lt Cdr Michael Tremel of Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-87. You do realize the implication for that and your so called laughable "War Crimes Trials" ?

It is just laughable and is as bad as claiming that the Syrian aircraft could have been brought down by a "TOW". The utter madness of the die-hard conspiracy theorist.

Even the Russian Ministry of Defence don't dispute the air to air kill of the Su-22. You just hand waive it away such is your mindset. Russia would be all over this to deny the US Navy the air to air kill if it had been a MANPAD or your laughable claim of a TOW. Also if it had been just a MANPAD why on earth would the Russians cite the Memorandum of Understanding and the air activity west of the Euphrates. MANPADs regularly bring down Syrian aircraft so why the specific challenge and reaction from the Russians in this event? It is because they too know that the Su-22 was brought down by an AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Statement of the Russian Defence Ministry concerning downing of the Syrian Su-22 near the town of Resafa On June 18, 2017 the American fighter F-18A belonging to the international coalition shot down the Su-22 aircraft of the Syrian Air Force, which was performing a combat mission supporting the government troops, which were conducting the offensive against the ISIS terrorists near the town of Resafa (40 km to the south-west of the city of Raqqa). As a result of the attack, the Syrian aircraft was destroyed. The pilot baled out over an ISIS-controlled area, his status is unknown. The destruction of the aircraft of the Syrian Air Force by the American aviation in the air space of Syria – is a cynical violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Statement from Russian Ministry of Defence

a reply to: tommyjo

Of course they do...

Thanks.

You do realize the implication for that and your so called laughable "War Crimes Trials" ?

Thanks again, you just signed hundred millions of american death warrants, in the name of spreading "Democracy" or some other BS.

'He she they said' is only hear-say. Unless you believe everything your gubment tells you, or you are the gubment...