Israeli f-16 shot down...?

[IglooDame]

Yup. Only 17 since 1990 were attributed as "combat" losses. The rest were accidents or pilot error. Please note that the 17 lost as combat losses also covers the ones lost in Bosnia in the late 90s.

So... got cite?

CNN's take:
Coalition Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Coalition Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

 

[McManus]

*shrug* Training didn't specify only helicopters as targets, we were taught to shoot anything in the air So I guess even that theoretical chance is enough then... and don't helicopters also usually have less armor? Don't really know... just sayin' thats what we trained..

 

[The Last Conformist]

So... got cite?

CNN's take:
Coalition Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Coalition Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

I was assuming that refered to combat aircraft (as opposed to transports, etc), not combat losses.

 

[nonconformist]

*shrug* Training didn't specify only helicopters as targets, we were taught to shoot anything in the air So I guess even that theoretical chance is enough then... and don't helicopters also usually have less armor? Don't really know... just sayin' thats what we trained..

Yeah, the Afghans shared that sentiment agaisnt the Soviets.

The tactic was usually to wait until the chopper landed, before unleashing hell, usually with RPG-7s.
Bonus points if they were picking troops up, and were just about to take off.

 

[MobBoss]

So... got cite?

CNN's take:
Coalition Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Coalition Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

Was only waiting for someone to ask: http://afhra.au.af.mil/short_studies/USAFMannedAircraftCombatLosses1990_2002.pdf

Most likely is a possible discrepancy of what a "combat" loss is or what is exactly a "combat" aircraft.

 

[carlosMM]

Remember, you classifed me as a expert in this field. I will leave the beakers to you, but this is my area of expertise.

Yeah, right, you're a paralegal after all........

I anin't gonna do **** all to teach you the military history of your country and its enemies - you oughta know it by now

Depends on your location and visability. And for what its worth, considering the speed of such aircraft, you wont hear it coming anyway, regardless of the terrain visibility. Your points here simply give more weight to my arguement than it does yours. In that, small arms fire isnt going to shoot down a modern combat aircraft, regardless of your "statistical chance".

tsk tsk, you simply are clueless about statistics, right?

Close enough to zero that for all intents and purposes (and statistically) it is zero.

tell that to the widow of the poor chap who GETS shot down one day

 

[carlosMM]

There have only been 17 combat aircraft lost in battle since 1990 for the USA. 13 due to Radar Guided missiles, 3 to AAA batteries and 1 due to a aircraft lost due to the pilot thinking he was under enemy attack. None lost to "unknown causes".

What took down that Hercules gunship, whose pilot radioed 'I can't leave now, there's so many targets'? AFAIK, it is STILL not known.

Also, if you had read what I posted and quoted, you'd know I was talking about Tornados, some of which WERE lost to unknown causes.

None lost to small arms fire.

I do not give a piece of feces - I was not talking about US aircraft

 

[JerichoHill]

Okay, I am no mod, but Carlos, you need to calm the heck down

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, right, you're a paralegal after all........

Are you a scientist who researches rude by chance? It would seem so as you practice it so thoroughly.

So what if I am a paralegal? I am taught the same basic skills that every infantryman is. I am taught the same leadership skills. I know how to clear a building. Do you? I know the capabilities of the enemy and the equipment he employs. Do you? The military has been my life for the last twenty years...its my business to know such things. Its no suprise that I know little facts like your average Vietnamese farmer didnt carry an AK as you would allege. You want to talk out of your butt regarding things military, just be prepared for soldiers like myself to call you on them.

I anin't gonna do **** all to teach you the military history of your country and its enemies - you oughta know it by now

Its something I am far more intimate with than you are.

tell that to the widow of the poor chap who GETS shot down one day

/shrug. People can get shot down in combat. Its one of the risks involved. But I can pretty much safely say he wont be shot down by small arms fire.

 

[MobBoss]

What took down that Hercules gunship, whose pilot radioed 'I can't leave now, there's so many targets'? AFAIK, it is STILL not known.

Also, if you had read what I posted and quoted, you'd know I was talking about Tornados, some of which WERE lost to unknown causes.



I do not give a piece of feces - I was not talking about US aircraft

Couple of things. A hercules gunship is indeed a "US aircraft"...so I guess you are talking about them, feces and all.

Secondly, what do you mean unknown? It was widely reported it was shot down by a surface to air missile as in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1602000.stm Sounds pretty "known" to me, so I am not sure where you are getting the "unknown" theory.

How about you do the scientific thing and post up some links to back up your "unkown" claims. Might help a bit.

 

[MobBoss]

So... got cite?

CNN's take:
Coalition Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Coalition Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

Btw, I think I found the discrepancy. The paper I linked only has Air Force losses and doesnt include Navy and Marine aircraft losses. I looked further, but still cant find any reports of combat aircraft (Air Force, Navy and Marines) that may have been shot down by small arms fire. The majority were by Surface to Air missiles with a handfull by dedicated AAA platforms.

 

[woody60707]

I don't get what the point is? Wasn't it not a F-16 that was shot down.

 

[IglooDame]

Btw, I think I found the discrepancy. The paper I linked only has Air Force losses and doesnt include Navy and Marine aircraft losses. I looked further, but still cant find any reports of combat aircraft (Air Force, Navy and Marines) that may have been shot down by small arms fire. The majority were by Surface to Air missiles with a handfull by dedicated AAA platforms.

Well that's easy to explain: Navy and Marine Corps aircraft don't get shot down, they make expedited landings for damage inspection after superficial contact with enemy ordnance.

 

[MobBoss]

Well that's easy to explain: Navy and Marine Corps aircraft don't get shot down, they make expedited landings for damage inspection after superficial contact with enemy ordnance.

Heh heh. Right on!

 

[Norlamand]

If Vietnam also shot down B52 with an obsoleted MiG 21, why wouldn't it possible?

Shooting down a B-52 with a jet fighter is like shooting a big fat lardass with a musket. Not sexy but easy. Now shooting one down with a Spad? that would be impressive.

 

[koondrad]

Shooting down a B-52 with a jet fighter is like shooting a big fat lardass with a musket. Not sexy but easy.

Except that the "fat lardass" shoots back.

 

[MobBoss]

Slight update to this. I just saw the film of the item in question coming down and the film taken of the wreckage. There is no way it was a F-16...nor was it likely a UAV. It definitely looked like a rocket of some type. So, Hezbollah, either has their own missile misfire, or gets one blown up, and then claim they shot down an Israeli F-16. Their propaganda mill is definitely working overtime.

 

[CruddyLeper]

In the first gulf war the tornados were getting shot with small arm when they were dropping runway busters that required flying low, slow and steady. Remember footage of jets with small arms sized holes, and speculation as to if some of the losses from these missions were the result of the same.

Moot point since as I understand it there is now a new generation of such weapons and in any event such missions are not being flown.

4 Tornado losses. Reasons where;

1) 2 of them flew into the ground. Not surprising given evasion of flak at 100 feet altatude. Average height of course.

2) 1 was lost when it's ordnance exploded immedietely on release.

3) 1 was lost to a medium (battery based) SAM.

Many of them were hit with small arms fire, but none were lost due to that cause.

Source was DLB's memoirs, Storm Command. If anyone knows, you think he would.

Thing is, usual Israeli tactic is to bomb from 20,000 feet. No way a small arms round is going to go that high. Even 25mm cannon wouldn't reach that high.

As for no combat losses due to small arms fire since 1990... 3 words.

Black. Hawk. Down.

Might have been rotary winged, still classifed as aircraft.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Slight update to this. I just saw the film of the item in question coming down and the film taken of the wreckage. There is no way it was a F-16...nor was it likely a UAV. It definitely looked like a rocket of some type. So, Hezbollah, either has their own missile misfire, or gets one blown up, and then claim they shot down an Israeli F-16. Their propaganda mill is definitely working overtime.

I don't recall the Party of God claiming that.

That's what Hizbollah really means.

 

[MobBoss]

As for no combat losses due to small arms fire since 1990... 3 words.

Black. Hawk. Down.

Might have been rotary winged, still classifed as aircraft.

I got three words for you. Modern. Jet. Aircraft.

I never alleged that helicopters were not shot down by small arms.

In fact, I even said its pretty easy to shoot one down earlier in the thread.

Please read carefully. I was referring to jets...not helicopters.