Russian Surveillance Aircraft lost at sea off Syria

Apart from the F4E, of course.
BB was being sarcastic (if you look at the previous bit of the sentence about the F-35's gun).

USN and USMC Phantoms rarely had gunnpods on board: they used the Mk4 pod for ground attack, but it was a temperamental system. VMFA-122 (I think it was) had an armourer who was regarded as a genius with the pod, and the squadron endured far fewer problems with it than others. The USMC/USN didn't use the SUU-16/SUU-23.

As for USAF use, the pod took up at least one station ( the F-4E nicknamed Chico, had a SUU-23 on each outboard pylon for the night interdiction role, plus CBU inboard), so decisions on when to carry it were fairly nuanced. ISTR that there were initial doubts about whether the pod would be of any use in the air to air role because of the flexing of the pylon and the recoil, but a couple of shredded MiG-17s later...
 
And then the ultimate, Chico the gunfighter, F4E with 4 gun pods fitted for defence of the airfield in Vietnam.
Sorry - that hadn't popped up on my phone when I was typing my last. It was a two pod fit though - the four pod fit was largely an airshow load, although there is photographic evidence of one flying, contrary to the claims that the load wasn't taken into the air.

Edit: a few photos are here, from a thread when this issue was discussed last year.
 
Last edited:
.......RAF F4J(UK)s FGR2s and FG1 all carried gun pods in the Air-to-Air Role (You can call them F-4K, F-4M and Phantom F-3 if you're weird)

Charlie fits IIRC, Though you could technically have an Alpha fit with a centre-line gun
 
Last edited:
Yes - but Charlie fit wasn't standard - that's my point. For longer range, the three-tank fit (Delta?) was the norm and as I recall, there was someone from 74 Sqn somewhere online who noted that their F-4J(UK)s only usually carried the pod when they were out at Deci on APC.

The USN did a study in the 70s - it is online somewhere in the DTIC site - for conformal weapons carriage on the F-4B and F-4J; this had two options for guns. The first was a bit like the Lightning F6's tank mounted weapons, with the guns in the front of the fairing used to enable conformal carriage, while the second was for a pod, although this was on a pretty rigid mounting. The idea was that the Oerlikon 30mm (the GAU-9, if I recall the designation correctly) would be the weapon of choice. Obviously, nothing came of it; I suspect that the fear that the new, improved F-4 would have been a threat to F-14 funding, and that would have never done...

Edit: For the spotters amongst us, links to the conformal weapons programme can be clicked through here and here
 
Last edited:
......we worked with Charlie fits quite a lot and they were preferred for QRA(I) because it gave the option to fire warning shots.....note I said option, I can't think of a single time live Q did.
 
Yes actually, because it's nothing new. The Russians tried it on before with the Israelis. They got their posteriors handed to them on a plate as I recall.

Operation Rimon 20 - Wikipedia
Thanks, never heard of this action before. For me, the salutary lesson to take from it is that Russians tend only to learn from a forceful lesson. Anything less just slides off; something our Government needs to keep in mind when dealing with the Bear.
 
......we worked with Charlie fits quite a lot and they were preferred for QRA(I) because it gave the option to fire warning shots.....note I said option, I can't think of a single time live Q did.
Apologies; we are, I think,arguing the same thing from a different angle- the point I'm (badly) making is that Charlie fit wasn't one seen on every QRA flight, with the lack of an internal gun leading to choices having to be made as to what to carry.

The Lightning F3 had led to much chin-stroking over the question of how to warn aircraft, since Firestreak and Red Top weren't necessarily the best option ('you could have guaranteed that the one time you didn't want it to hit the target...'). Although used for the A-G role for the main in its early career, it's notable how the RAF procured the SUU-23 from the outset, whereas the FG1's didn't carry gun pods during their FAA service (as soon as they were turned over to the RAF, they were fitted for them ASAP).
 
Winning, in case you've forgotten. Despite all the "Assad must go" talk from various western powers, Assad is still sitting in Damascus, the western and Gulf Arab backed FSA are irrelevant and nearly forgotten, most of the Islamist rebels such as al Nusra are either dead, on the run, or crouched in Idlib wondering how much time they have left.


Russia's goals and objectives?
1) Defeat and destroy Islamist radicals who have connections to counterparts in Russia.
2) Ensure that these Islamist radicals do not have an ungoverned chaotic territory in which to shelter. This means leaving a functioning mostly secular state standing, unlike Libya, and unlike the likely near future of Afghanistan.
3) Prove that Russia is still a power to be reckoned with and capable of affecting world events.
4) Show that Russia won't abandon an ally in their hour of need.
5) Maintain a useful footprint on the edge of the Gulf oil bearing region.
6) Maintain influence in one of the states on the potential routes for natural gas pipelines from the Persian Gulf to Europe. This will help ensure that Gazprom will have influence over the terms and conditions under which gas is sold in Europe.
And all of this is why Moscow is not likely to throw it all away in a fit of pique over trouble caused by the Israelis. The Kremlin have a record of keeping their eye on the chessboard and not getting distracted by minor issues.

The deaths of the crewman of the aircraft is tragic, but in the grand scheme of things it is a minor tragedy.
1) It is the declared (by Moscow) objective and very doubtfull one from my point of view. The situation in Iraq was exactly the same and without Russia's help jihadists/islamists/terrorists were defeated. I'm sure that if Assad lost power then pro-US political forces, so called 'moderates' would come to power and with US/Western support (maybe even including troops on the ground) eventually would eliminate all terrorists.
2) Russia did not interfere during years and the job could be done by US/West. The main cause why US/West were rather passive in Syria has its name - Assad. Active military operations against terrorists in Syria would help Assad to remain at power.
3) Yes, Russia demonstrated strong and weak points of its military planning, hardware, aviation, navy. Yes, Russia is now regarded not just as a regional power but as a serious geopolitical player. But it itself is not so valuable thing. Geopolitical profits should be converted in economical or/and financial ones. And it is not clear how it can be done.
4,5,6) Relations between Putin and Assad are not cloudless. While mr.Netayahu immediately made a telephone call to Putin, Assad hasn't done such an obvious step. He merely sent a telegram with condolences 2 days after the incident. Assad is smart, educated person and apparently Western leaning by his preferencies. He merely uses Putin, Russian military might. For him (I'm sure) Russia is just a temporary ally. So why he didn't bring condomences and apologies to Putin immediately? There are some possible explanations.
- it is a message to the West - Putin is no so valuable ally and Syria could close all Russian bases being accepted as US/Western ally. In this case Assad would receive money for the reconstruction of the country and he would remove also Iranian forces along with Hezbollah. Thus Israel would not have any reasons to bomb Syria.
- it is a message to Putin - No doubt, Assad asked him to supply Syria with modern weapons - AD systems, missiles, fighter-jets. But he received only old almost useless hardware. Assad probably asked to make propper steps to stop Israeli air-raids. Putin hasn't done anything.
- Assad is disappointed in the decision that Russia and Turkey have done without his participation - to postpone the Idlib operation.
- Moscow plans a palace coup to change Western-leaning Assad for ... gen.Suheil for example. Assad could be aware about the plan and reduced his contacts with Putin to absolute minimum.
 
Last edited:
Israel ALSO has the capability to hit russia. Instant sunshine over jerusalem or Tel Aviv would be answered by instant sunshine over Moscow, St. Petersburg. Something the Nashi Jugend and Vlad need to consider as Vladdy and bois will lose the money they rape russia of....
russia is at the end of a tenuous logistical line, without a viable fleet in the med or ground forces to hold terrain. Unless russia is willing to start world war 3 over its own stupidity of selling the Syrians the system which killed russians these threats are all mastabutory fantasy for Vlad bois
Imagine moscow a smoking hole in the ground for the next century, because the Israelis aren't Georgians, they can hit back
Let's regard imaginary scenario (God forbid).
A new Russian leader demands that Israel must stop all air-raids in Syria. Israel doesn't agree. Russia using its long range bombers, its fleet in the Caspian sea, its long range cruise missiles hit Israeli military air-ports with complete destruction of air-strips. IAF uses Ben Gurion airport as an alternative. After propper warning and after 2 days delay Ben Gurion is ruined. It would be unacceptable damage for Israel.
What really Israel and the USA could do in the context of this scenario? Only unleash WW3 or agree to stop all air-raids in Syria. I suspect that Israel would agree to stop them just after propper threat with detailed plan of actions.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, it means Never Served Civvy Çunt, which is almost indistinguishable from NDHC.
That's brilliant. A Financial Adviser who once had a hobby as a never deployed retired Reservist Infanteer who has a glorious history of trolling and a track record in Anti-Semitic posts is pontificating on the finer points of "Dog Fighting", Air Combat, EW, Russian Nukes, Syrian Air Defences and IDF FJ.

I've got to hand it to him, when @Bravo_Bravo goes on a fishing trip, he takes a big boat and reels loads of you in.
 
Let's regard imaginary scenario (God forbid).
A new Russian leader demands that Israel must stop all air-raids in Syria. Israel doesn't agree. Russia using its long range bombers, its fleet in the Caspian sea, its long range cruise missiles hit Israeli military air-ports with complete destruction of air-strips. IAF uses Ben Gurion airport as an alternative. After propper warning and after 2 days delay Ben Gurion is ruined. It would be unacceptable damage for Israel.
What really Israel and the USA could do in the context of this scenario? Only unleash WW3 or agree to stop all air-raids in Syria. I suspect that Israel would agree to stop them only after propper threat with detailed plan of actions.
Total and utter bollocks. I take it you believe Israel just sits back and watches the Russian forces closing in and does nowt?

Since when does Russia demand anything of anyone unless they either already dominate it by threats or by cutting off fuel? Russia doesn't respond well to threats why should Israel and as for unleashing bombs, bombers, missiles, as you've already been told, Israel is supported not only by the USA but also, if threatened, by many other countries too.

Get it into your extremely blinkered head (all of you in the collective that is, not just the one on duty today), not only is Russia not in a position to threaten Israel, it also is actually quite friendly with it. Plus, being a nuclear state, Israel would be one of the few countries to be willing to defend itself by launching against specific targets in Russia, something Putin and his cronies are all too aware.

Israel isn't Cambridge.
 
I've got to hand it to him, when @Bravo_Bravo goes on a fishing trip, he takes a big boat and reels loads of you in.
......if you say so - from the Holy Book of Arrse

Arrse excuse number 3 - it was a fishing trip......
Arrse excuse number 4 - it was a wind-up
Arrse excuse number 5 - Faith and Begorrah, top 'o the monrnin, I'm Bugsy
Arrse excuse number 6 - It's a joke, really, can't you see?
etc etc
 
......if you say so - from the Holy Book of Arrse

Arrse excuse number 3 - it was a fishing trip......
Arrse excuse number 4 - it was a wind-up
Arrse excuse number 5 - Faith and Begorrah, top 'o the monrnin, I'm Bugsy

etc etc
Mate, it's his MO. Note how he deliberately phrases certain things ambiguously to try and catch people out, then ad-hominems the response to make their argument appear weak.

He's a classic troll, and as much as he runs down the other "armchair experts", none of his information or arguments are more than one step removed from Wikipedia, it's just that he does a better job of concealing his sources rather than a lazy cut and paste job.

But do carry on feeding him, chin chin.
 
Let's regard imaginary scenario (God forbid).
A new Russian leader demands that Israel must stop all air-raids in Syria. Israel doesn't agree. Russia using its long range bombers, its fleet in the Caspian sea, its long range cruise missiles hit Israeli military air-ports with complete destruction of air-strips. IAF uses Ben Gurion airport as an alternative. After propper warning and after 2 days delay Ben Gurion is ruined. It would be unacceptable damage for Israel.
What really Israel and the USA could do in the context of this scenario? Only unleash WW3 or agree to stop all air-raids in Syria. I suspect that Israel would agree to stop them only after propper threat with detailed plan of actions.
That scenario show a lot of dead russian aircrew shot down by the IAF, and Israel is not without its own abilities like the Jericho III (Which has Nuclear capability) which could hit the caspian bases or naval units. See its not as easy for russia as you think considering the Israeli's can hit back. A LOT different when you dont have Air Supremacy and the locals are also armed as well as you and with better combat experience....

So far russian air force units have not shown any ability to beat a world class air force like the IAF
 
Total and utter bollocks. I take it you believe Israel just sits back and watches the Russian forces closing in and does nowt?

Since when does Russia demand anything of anyone unless they either already dominate it by threats or by cutting off fuel? Russia doesn't respond well to threats why should Israel and as for unleashing bombs, bombers, missiles, as you've already been told, Israel is supported not only by the USA but also, if threatened, by many other countries too.

Get it into your extremely blinkered head (all of you in the collective that is, not just the one on duty today), not only is Russia not in a position to threaten Israel, it also is actually quite friendly with it. Plus, being a nuclear state, Israel would be one of the few countries to be willing to defend itself by launching against specific targets in Russia, something Putin and his cronies are all too aware.

Israel isn't Cambridge.
First of all - it is only imaginary scenario - God forbid.
Suppose that Russia is hitting Israeli military airports using long-range cruise missiles. It continues for weeks and months. Civil air-ports also could be targetted.
Israel reserves its right to bomb Syria at will. So Israel should be ready to see the other side of the coin. It could be bombed as well. The only condition to stop it is to stop Israeli air-raids in Syria.
And what exactly Israel could do?
What Washington could do?
What your numerous friends of Israel could do?
Nothing or unleash WW3.
Just try to answer my questions.
 
In tests over the Pacific Test Range in 1971, a remotely pilotted Firebee bested F-4s in simulated dogfights.
Quite the expert on air warfare - for an career civilian Admiralty office clerk
Do tell us more...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top