IDAF F-16I Sufa shot down over Syria...

[MattP]

Did anyone see the pix of the IDAF Sufa shot down over Syria?

Anybody notice anything 'odd'... There appears to be some kind of "pods" on the horizontal stabilizers...

MattP 

Edited February 13, 2018 by MattP

[erik_g]

That´s part of one of the missiles that were fired at it, not the tail end of an F-16.

[Mfezi]

Are you sure you posted the right picture? You seem to ask a question about the Sufa that crashed, but the picture appears to be the tail section of a S-125 / SA-3 (minus the discarded first stage). Or are you asking about the missile?

[MattP]

Yeah. I've found the pix of the crashed F-16I. Sorry for the confusion.

 

MattP

[Mr Matt Foley]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Did anyone see the pix of the IDAF Sufa shot down over Syria?

Anybody notice anything 'odd'... There appears to be some kind of "pods" on the horizontal stabilizers...

MattP 

 

Looks like a scene from the movie "Hot Shots".

[cag_200]

It isn't the first sufa being downed over syria.  Lots is kept "to a minimum" of info.

 

Guess Israel can't send in the F-35 yet, if that gets lost....that would hurt...

 

 

 

 

 

[Gene K]

53 minutes ago, cag_200 said:

 Lots is kept "to a minimum" of info.

 

It's very impressive that you apparently have such  unrestricted access to guarded intelligence. 

 

Gene K

[IAGeezer]

This must be some kind of gag thread... right?

[airmechaja]

Are we sure that isn't a clip from a B rated sci fi  movie? 

[Mr Matt Foley]

9 hours ago, Gene K said:

 

It's very impressive that you apparently have such  unrestricted access to guarded intelligence. 

 

Gene K

 

I was about to say the same thing......

[B2Blain]

To my knowledge the IAF does not use the HARM missile for SEAD.  Perhaps they should reconsider.  You can JDAM and other guided weapons for a hard kill.  But perhaps a weapon a faster reaction time might be a good idea.

[11bee]

18 hours ago, B2Blain said:

To my knowledge the IAF does not use the HARM missile for SEAD.  Perhaps they should reconsider.  You can JDAM and other guided weapons for a hard kill.  But perhaps a weapon a faster reaction time might be a good idea.

IAF has some very novel approaches to SEAD / DEAD.   Pretty sure they know what they are doing and if they aren't using HARM, I'm guessing it's because they don't need it. 

[B2Blain]

There was a time when combat experience in the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, and Lebanon made the IAF and its pilots the premier air force in the world.  I don't think that is the case anymore.  There is not an air force in the world that is better equipped to take down an IADS than the USAF.  Its ISR assets, stealth platforms, EA/cyber attack capability, precision munitions, and training gives its a decided advantage.  There was a time - 1982/Bekaa Valley - when the US needed to look to the IAF for how to approach SEAD/DEAD.  That is not the case any longer.

 

The IAF's main advantage is that they just need to focus on the air defense of one country - Syria.  They have a good idea of the Syrian order of battle and the location of their systems.  But they are not infallible.  Perhaps, as the threat changes with the deployment of new air defense systems in the ME, the IAF should also change.  Unless they have an Israeli version of the HARM, the IAF does not have a weapons that can quickly respond to air defense radars.  In light of the recent shoot down it might be wise to add it to their arsenal.  It doesn't appear they have some magic cyber weapon kill switch or ECM that makes their fighters immune to enemy air defense systems.
 

[11bee]

No one has a “magic” whatever that makes their aircraft immune to SAMs.  

 

I assume you are aware that many (most?) of the high end Russian SAMs have the ability to acquire and target incoming HARM’s?   

[GW8345]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

No one has a “magic” whatever that makes their aircraft immune to SAMs.  

 

I assume you are aware that many (most?) of the high end Russian SAMs have the ability to acquire and target incoming HARM’s?   

I'd like to know how a SAM can acquire and target a passive guided Mach 2 missile?

[11bee]

1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

I'd like to know how a SAM can acquire and target a passive guided Mach 2 missile?

 

LOL..  Ask the Russians.

 

Not sure why you think this is such a challenge?  Israel's Iron Dome has demonstrated that it can routinely take out passively guided rockets, mortars / artillery shells, etc.  Many nations have SAM's that can acquire and target ICBM re-entry vehicles which are moving much faster than Mach 2.   

 

Doesn't sound like intercepting a HARM is really pushing the state of the art any more.  That's why I wondered in a previous post if the US had any stealthy anti-radar weapons in the works.  

[GW8345]

4 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

LOL..  Ask the Russians.

 

Not sure why you think this is such a challenge?  Israel's Iron Dome has demonstrated that it can routinely take out passively guided rockets, mortars / artillery shells, etc.  Many nations have SAM's that can acquire and target ICBM re-entry vehicles which are moving much faster than Mach 2.   

 

Doesn't sound like intercepting a HARM is really pushing the state of the art any more.  That's why I wondered in a previous post if the US had any stealthy anti-radar weapons in the works.  

Intercepting a rocket/mortar/artillery round and ICBM's isn't the same as intercepting a HARM, far from it.

 

Rockets, mortars, artillery rounds are ballistic weapons, they basically follow a ballistics trajectory so intercepting them isn't that hard since you can predict it's flight path if detected early enough. A HARM is a guided missile, it's flight path is unpredictable so it's almost impossible to predict it's flight path. Also, since it uses passive guidance there is no radar emissions that can be used to track and lock onto it, plus given it's small cross section it's RCS (radar cross section) is extremely small and most SAM radars are not tuned to track something that small. Given my knowledge and experience with ordnance, I highly doubt the Russians (or anyone else) has a SAM that can intercept and bring down a HARM.

 

As for intercepting ICBM's, those are easy to intercept since they are; ballistic weapons, the size of a car, have a RCS that is easy to see and have a long flight time/path. They are like a softball going about 50 mph and taking 5 minutes to get to you.

 

Also, just because the Russian's say they have something that can do something doesn't mean they actually do have it. And just because Israel has an iron dome that can intercept ballistic weapons doesn't mean anyone can intercept a guided weapon that is traveling 1400 mph with a flight time of less than a minute, you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

[11bee]

Ok. I’ll defer to your knowledge and experience with ordnance.  

[habu2]

11 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I'd like to know how a SAM can acquire and target a passive guided Mach 2 missile?

 

Seriously?  I can think of a couple of ways.

[spejic]

On 2/27/2018 at 4:37 PM, B2Blain said:

Unless they have an Israeli version of the HARM, the IAF does not have a weapons that can quickly respond to air defense radars

 

 

HARM's can't quickly respond to air defense radars either, at least if the SAM site operators are smart and well trained. The west launched over 700 HARMs against Serbia and it doesn't look like they knocked out a single weapon.

 

[Winnie]

5 hours ago, GW8345 said:

As for intercepting ICBM's, those are easy to intercept since they are; ballistic weapons, the size of a car, have a RCS that is easy to see and have a long flight time/path. They are like a softball going about 50 mph and taking 5 minutes to get to you.

 

 

An ICBM traveling at several times the speed of sound, an ICBM would be VERY difficult to intercept. The AEGIS system can catch them on radar, but the intercepts are difficult because of the velocities involved. VERY high velocities...

 

So saying that it is easy because they are big would be a mistake. Only the warhead returns after the travel, and it is small... VErY small...

[11bee]

9 hours ago, spejic said:

 

HARM's can't quickly respond to air defense radars either, at least if the SAM site operators are smart and well trained. The west launched over 700 HARMs against Serbia and it doesn't look like they knocked out a single weapon.

 

Not sure I agee with your sources but by all accounts, Serbia did a decent job against NATO.    Just don’t get to focused on kill rates.   If the SAMs are shut off to avoid getting hit by a HARM, the outcome is the same-   The strike force can hit their targets relatively unimpeded.  

[Red Dog]

Suppression does not mean Destruction

hence why there is a distinction between Sead and Dead

 

 

 

 

[MoFo]

19 hours ago, GW8345 said:

As for intercepting ICBM's, those are easy to intercept since they are; ballistic weapons,

 

LOL.  Your timing is impeccable.    (though it's just as timely re: the first sentence of your last paragraph)

[B2Blain]

On 2/28/2018 at 6:21 PM, spejic said:

defense radars either, at least if the SAM site operators are smart and well trained. The west launched over 700 HARMs against Serbia and it doesn't look

 

I am not arguing that the HARM is a wonder weapon - that you only need the HARM for SEAD. You actually illustrate my point.  The IAF cannot count on the incompetence of adversary air defense units.  Smart tactics along with more advanced systems than the SA-5 which supposed shot down the Sufa makes it imperative that the IAF or the USAF for that matter have a large bag of tricks - both soft kill and hard kill weapons, weapons that suppress or can produce a hard kill.  The mere presence of the HARM in Bosnia forced the Serbs to adopt creative tactics.  The HARM also forced the Serbs to limit their use of radars.  This tactic might increase the survivability of their search and missile engagement radars, but it also negatively affects their ability to defense itself from enemy fighters.