Super Hornet shoots down Syrian SU-22

[82Whitey51]

1 hour ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Not necessarily. The Navy and Marine Corps aren't as anal as the Air Force when it comes to crew names on the jets. A quick perusal through the images on Navy.mil, as well as DVIDS will definitely show that isn't a current trend with Naval squadrons currently deployed.

 

 

 

 

 

This whole thing about OPSEC is a bit comical. Nothing that's been posted in this thread has come close to violating OPSEC, especially when the Navy itself is providing up to date news on its current operations via the Navy.mil site and their official Facebook pages! And yeah, the actual BuNo of the shooter isn't going to be shrouded in secrecy either.

Look'it them ordies hard at work!

[Murph]

6 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

The information in the article about the AIM-9s being spoofed by flares was something I'd heard before, and had happened a long time ago, so I am not sure it would apply to current missiles and design practices.  But it was an article discussing the event, so I posted it in case anyone found it worthwhile.

 

The article is inherently self-contradictory.  It says that missiles weren't effective against Soviet flares because they couldn't be tested against Soviet flares.  And they found this out by... wait for it... testing them against Soviet flares.

 

Regards,

Murph

[tosouthern66]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

 

The article is inherently self-contradictory.  It says that missiles weren't effective against Soviet flares because they couldn't be tested against Soviet flares.  And they found this out by... wait for it... testing them against Soviet flares.

 

Regards,

Murph

To me they designed them with our flares for tests, but when the Soviet flares became available for testing they found out that hey had an issue. The missiles were already designed and issued to the fleet so it is bound to have those miss issues..

[Murph]

38 minutes ago, tosouthern66 said:

To me they designed them with our flares for tests, but when the Soviet flares became available for testing they found out that hey had an issue. The missiles were already designed and issued to the fleet so it is bound to have those miss issues..

 

I'm addressing the article which posits two things:  That if an AIM-9 was fired in the Syrian incident he says it was decoyed by flares, and that it was decoyed by those flares because it couldn't be tested against them. But in order to back up that position the article then references the fact that the U.S. reportedly had access to Soviet/Russian flares 30 years ago, in 1987.

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited June 26, 2017 by Murph

[GW8345]

9 hours ago, 82Whitey51 said:

Roger that...as are crew/squadron patches when flying in theater etc. ...and they will treat ANYONE they capture the same, regardless of if they think it was you who splashed they're friends aircraft or not...for we are all (or mostly) infidels.

OPSEC be damned...the Navy has already commended VFA-87 with a BZ...it's not a secret, nor are aircraft BuNos.

 

5 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

This whole thing about OPSEC is a bit comical. Nothing that's been posted in this thread has come close to violating OPSEC, especially when the Navy itself is providing up to date news on its current operations via the Navy.mil site and their official Facebook pages! And yeah, the actual BuNo of the shooter isn't going to be shrouded in secrecy either.

Please provide links where the Navy has posted the squadron, BUNO, ordnance used, seems my search skills are seriously lacking.

 

And I guess you guys haven't done "Uncle Sam's OPSEC" training this month, might want to jump on that, you have until the 30th to get it completed.

[82Whitey51]

9 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

 

Please provide links where the Navy has posted the squadron, BUNO, ordnance used, seems my search skills are seriously lacking.

 

And I guess you guys haven't done "Uncle Sam's OPSEC" training this month, might want to jump on that, you have until the 30th to get it completed.

I'm good til the end the end of the year...I think???

[picknpluck]

19 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

 

Please provide links where the Navy has posted the squadron, BUNO, ordnance used, seems my search skills are seriously lacking.

 

And I guess you guys haven't done "Uncle Sam's OPSEC" training this month, might want to jump on that, you have until the 30th to get it completed.

Took mine today, as a matter of fact. But the way this thread is going, I'm not sure if it's this

Or this

Edited June 27, 2017 by picknpluck

[CJ Martin]

13 hours ago, 82Whitey51 said:

Look'it them ordies hard at work!

 

Towbar connected to tractor and jet = hands off if you are a maintainer. So you wait until respot or whatever is over, meanwhile the clock is still running to the next launch...

 

Life on the roof, baby!

[TaiidanTomcat]

11 hours ago, GW8345 said:

 

Please provide links where the Navy has posted the squadron, BUNO, ordnance used, seems my search skills are seriously lacking.

 

And I guess you guys haven't done "Uncle Sam's OPSEC" training this month, might want to jump on that, you have until the 30th to get it completed.

 

I'm on the Hill Dog program, my maid handles all my classified material and email is done on private server. Let the plebians take their little tests. 

[11bee]

2 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

I'm on the Hill Dog program, my maid handles all my classified material and email is done on private server. Let the plebians take their little tests. 

Given recent liberties taken with sensitive info, may want to see about signing up the big guy to take that test.  

 

Just sayin....

[Dave Roof]

16 hours ago, GW8345 said:

 

Please provide links where the Navy has posted the squadron, BUNO, ordnance used, seems my search skills are seriously lacking.

 

And I guess you guys haven't done "Uncle Sam's OPSEC" training this month, might want to jump on that, you have until the 30th to get it completed.

 

Do not twist my words. That is not what I said, nor was it implied. What I did say was that while you're giving grief to the members here about OPSEC, the Navy itself is providing up to date information on its own web site and Facebook pages about current operations. Anyone with a computer and the most basic search skills can find out which squadrons are deployed, on which carriers they're deployed, and which area of operations they're deployed in. An image search on navy.mil or DVIDS will provide anyone with a plethora of photos showing which ordnance loads are being carried, they can see crew names on jets, modex numbers, make out BuNo's, etc.

 

Knowing any of the above is not an OPSEC violation, which is why the Navy puts the information out there.

 

Regarding the Su-22 killer, it is only a matter of time before everyone knows the actual modex/BuNo of the aircraft that got the kill. It isn't going to be shrouded in secrecy and to state that it is somehow an OPSEC violation to know which aircraft it was is absolutely absurd.

 

Now, if someone on this forum knew the mission details of a specific air strike, that was going to take place on a specific date, at a specific time, to hit specific targets, flown by a specific squadron and aircrew, launching from a specific carrier and started to share the information here........THAT would be an OPSEC violation.

[picknpluck]

Dave, Gerry...hug it out, we're on the same team!

[B2Blain]

I think the VFA-87 pilot has little to worry about.  Killing the SU-22 was like clubbing a baby seal.  The skippers of the Ross and Porter - which fired 59 Tomahawks at Syrian airbase - have a much higher profile.  Anyway, the Bashar Assad is more interested in killing women and children.

[11bee]

1 hour ago, B2Blain said:

I think the VFA-87 pilot has little to worry about.  Killing the SU-22 was like clubbing a baby seal.  The skippers of the Ross and Porter - which fired 59 Tomahawks at Syrian airbase - have a much higher profile.  Anyway, the Bashar Assad is more interested in killing women and children.

The truly crazy thing is - by shooting down the Syrian jet, it's indirectly benefiting ISIS.   Not that they would give our pilot a hero's welcome but it just goes to show you how totally f-d up that region is.  

[Murph]

4 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

Now, if someone on this forum knew the mission details of a specific air strike, that was going to take place on a specific date, at a specific time, to hit specific targets, flown by a specific squadron and aircrew, launching from a specific carrier and started to share the information here........THAT would be an OPSEC violation.

 

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

 

 

 

 

LOL this thread is delivering

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

6 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Do not twist my words. That is not what I said, nor was it implied. What I did say was that while you're giving grief to the members here about OPSEC, the Navy itself is providing up to date information on its own web site and Facebook pages about current operations. Anyone with a computer and the most basic search skills can find out which squadrons are deployed, on which carriers they're deployed, and which area of operations they're deployed in. An image search on navy.mil or DVIDS will provide anyone with a plethora of photos showing which ordnance loads are being carried, they can see crew names on jets, modex numbers, make out BuNo's, etc.

 

Knowing any of the above is not an OPSEC violation, which is why the Navy puts the information out there.

 

Regarding the Su-22 killer, it is only a matter of time before everyone knows the actual modex/BuNo of the aircraft that got the kill. It isn't going to be shrouded in secrecy and to state that it is somehow an OPSEC violation to know which aircraft it was is absolutely absurd.

 

Now, if someone on this forum knew the mission details of a specific air strike, that was going to take place on a specific date, at a specific time, to hit specific targets, flown by a specific squadron and aircrew, launching from a specific carrier and started to share the information here........THAT would be an OPSEC violation.

 

 

its a brave new world. The military and social media are still in the learning phase. It really is like Murphs' airplane Reference. 

 

On one hand the USN is like "we don't talk about things" and on the other its "Hey you know who killed UBL using SEAL Team 6 and some pretty snazzy stealth helicopters? yeah Remember us come budget time!"

 

 

 

Its the USN's first air to air kill in over 25+ years, and they were not exactly quiet about the last time they got Su-22s...

 

 

Hey lets all get in the way back machine huh?

 

Quote

By JAY A. STOUT 
The Virginian-Pilot, 
December 15, 1999 

I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service --I am a Marine-- doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Su per Hornet. 

Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to over come any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the air craft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational air craft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet. 

The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a re placement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars. 

Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven per former, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to "put one over" on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet. 

The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance. 

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of "wing drop" - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a "band-aid" fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the air craft is slow -- slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft- uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that "Speed is Life", this deficiency is alarming. 

But the Super Hornet's wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dog fight, superior maneuverability al lows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today. 

"But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter", its proponents will counter, "it is a bomber as well". True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it. 

The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, ex pensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict. 

Further drawing into question the Navy's position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the air craft, are the Air Forces' specifications for its new - albeit expensive - fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no ri vals in the foreseeable future. 

The Super Hornet's shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: "We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots". These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the "Super-Slow Hornet". 

What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet's shortcomings? The standard reply is, "Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you're going to make it work". Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy's leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers? 

Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy's current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the cur rent aircraft - what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess. 

Our military's aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of billions of dollars, should be an easy one". 

 

 

 

Dont worry guys the same author changed the names but not the argument and now goes after the F-35. 

[GW8345]

7 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Do not twist my words. That is not what I said, nor was it implied. What I did say was that while you're giving grief to the members here about OPSEC, the Navy itself is providing up to date information on its own web site and Facebook pages about current operations. Anyone with a computer and the most basic search skills can find out which squadrons are deployed, on which carriers they're deployed, and which area of operations they're deployed in. An image search on navy.mil or DVIDS will provide anyone with a plethora of photos showing which ordnance loads are being carried, they can see crew names on jets, modex numbers, make out BuNo's, etc.

 

Knowing any of the above is not an OPSEC violation, which is why the Navy puts the information out there.

 

Regarding the Su-22 killer, it is only a matter of time before everyone knows the actual modex/BuNo of the aircraft that got the kill. It isn't going to be shrouded in secrecy and to state that it is somehow an OPSEC violation to know which aircraft it was is absolutely absurd.

 

Now, if someone on this forum knew the mission details of a specific air strike, that was going to take place on a specific date, at a specific time, to hit specific targets, flown by a specific squadron and aircrew, launching from a specific carrier and started to share the information here........THAT would be an OPSEC violation.

Wow, talk about getting in a huff.

 

I asked for links where the Navy has officially released the info that is being put out in this thread, I'm not concerned what they are putting out on Facebook. Now a lot of people are speculating, jumping to conclusions and putting 2 & 2 together and getting 5 and if the Navy wanted the info made public they would have put out a press release.

 

As far as what is OPSEC and what is not, trust me, I KNOW what is OPSEC, I deal with everyday. The information everyone wants has not been officially release and until it does lets not try to speculate and possibly put out some sensitive info that shouldn't be released.

[habu2]

1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Dont worry guys the same author changed the names but not the argument and now goes after the F-35. 

 

I did a search on Jay Stout to see who he was. Google then told me:

 

People also searched for: Adolf Hitler

 

People are strange....

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

47 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

I did a search on Jay Stout to see who he was. Google then told me:

 

 

 

 

People are strange....

 

....DAAAANG......

[dnl42]

11 hours ago, 11bee said:

Given recent liberties taken with sensitive info, may want to see about signing up the big guy to take that test.

No administration's elected--or appointed--officials have a lock on this.

 

That said, SomeBody's phone should be replaced with an Etch A Sketch...just sayin'

Edited June 28, 2017 by dnl42

[echolmberg]

11 hours ago, GW8345 said:

Wow, talk about getting in a huff.

 

I asked for links where the Navy has officially released the info that is being put out in this thread, I'm not concerned what they are putting out on Facebook. Now a lot of people are speculating, jumping to conclusions and putting 2 & 2 together and getting 5 and if the Navy wanted the info made public they would have put out a press release.

 

As far as what is OPSEC and what is not, trust me, I KNOW what is OPSEC, I deal with everyday. The information everyone wants has not been officially release and until it does lets not try to speculate and possibly put out some sensitive info that shouldn't be released.

 

Guys, you know we just put plastic toys together, right?

Edited June 28, 2017 by echolmberg
spacing

[boom175]

Has any one seen a kill marking? Are they just using a Syrian flag or a A/C silhouette?

[Collin]

In before the lock.

 

1.  Build models, make decals...

 

2.  Get in the vault, watch the video(s) and read the de-briefs.  If not/can't, don't Monday morning quarterback, see #1.

 

This back and forth...out here...is embarrassing. 

 

Collin

[Devo]

18 hours ago, Collin said:

In before the lock.

 

1.  Build models, make decals...

 

2.  Get in the vault, watch the video(s) and read the de-briefs.  If not/can't, don't Monday morning quarterback, see #1.

 

This back and forth...out here...is embarrassing. 

 

Collin