Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Ok - do you think the pilot really intended and meant to shoot down the rivet joint? launching only one missile (the second dropped off the pylon and never engaged so i'd question if that was an intended fire rather than something out of a panic button jam) that didn't seem have lock to my mind anyway doesn't suggest 'a serious effort' to destroy the other plane as a serious effort to do that would have meant full on engagement with all available firepower (ie remaining missiles and/or cannon). that clearly didn't happen.
But had their been a Typhoon or F35 in the area when the SU27 accidentally loosed 2 missiles towards the Rivet, What would have happened then ?Hence why its not a good idea to have them operate over Ukraine to stop drones/missiles, All it takes is one slip/bad choice and its full on Conflict
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
Ok - do you think the pilot really intended and meant to shoot down the rivet joint?
Yes. It's a bit like Nible Archer. A load of gung ho Pilots managed to contrive a way to go way beyond what was ordered whilst sticking to the letter if the orders.
isaldiri said:
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
Ok - do you think the pilot really intended and meant to shoot down the rivet joint?
Yes. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
Ok - do you think the pilot really intended and meant to shoot down the rivet joint?
Yes. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
None of that cancels out the first two missiles which missed by chance not by intention.
I fear we're feeding trolls here.
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
borcy said:
isaldiri said:
Ok - do you think the pilot really intended and meant to shoot down the rivet joint?
Yes. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
borcy said:
I'm guessing he realised he hadn't been authorised to actually shoot it down.
That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
Well I personally don't agree that I would call a 'serious attempt' to down another aircraft was one that made a hash of the first missile launch and an even worse mess of the second (assuming it was meant to be launched) and then not followed up but I suppose you disagree. fair enough. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
isaldiri said:
borcy said:
I'm guessing he realised he hadn't been authorised to actually shoot it down.
That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
Well I personally don't agree that I would call a 'serious attempt' to down another aircraft was one that made a hash of the first missile launch and an even worse mess of the second (assuming it was meant to be launched) and then not followed up but I suppose you disagree. fair enough. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and s
t Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that. aeropilot said:
isaldiri said:
borcy said:
I'm guessing he realised he hadn't been authorised to actually shoot it down.
That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
Well I personally don't agree that I would call a 'serious attempt' to down another aircraft was one that made a hash of the first missile launch and an even worse mess of the second (assuming it was meant to be launched) and then not followed up but I suppose you disagree. fair enough. That doesn't mean his first two attempts weren't serious or genuine attempts.
The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and s
t Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that. If we'd lost 30 men I'm pretty sure both sides would have agreed it was a technical malfunction and there was no need to have a nuclear war.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 19th April 15:38
aeropilot said:
Are you being serious..?
The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and st Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that.
I think a 'serious attempt' by a su-27 to bring down a rc-135 would have meant the latter would have been shot down. Which isn't quite the same as a clearly 'serious situtation' with a bungled attempt at doing 'something' (whatever it might have been that the pilot was thinking and he probably was going to be rather a lot of trouble when back at base later) which resulted in a missile launch and another being ejected from it's pylon. If you want to disagree with that - fair enough. The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and s
t Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that. 
isaldiri said:
aeropilot said:
Are you being serious..?
The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and st Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that.
I think a 'serious attempt' by a su-27 to bring down a rc-135 would have meant the latter would have been shot down. Which isn't quite the same as a clearly 'serious situtation' with a bungled attempt at doing 'something' (whatever it might have been that the pilot was thinking and he probably was going to be rather a lot of trouble when back at base later) which resulted in a missile launch and another being ejected from it's pylon. If you want to disagree with that - fair enough. The pilot launched the missile, that constitutes a serious attempt at bringing down an aircraft. By luck and s
t Russian equipment, if the thing hadn't malfunctioned, the RAF would have lost a 135, and who knows what would have happened after that. Evanivitch said:
According to the intercepted communications reported by the Rivet Joint aircraft, the Russian aircraft thought he had permission to fire and launched two missiles with the intention of shooting down the aircraft.
Didn't the intercepted comms also suggest it was also possible after his wingman started having a go at him, the missile lock was abandoned by first pilot that fired which led to the failure of both missiles? It could obviously also have just been the rivet joint also had pretty neat electronic countermeasures that caused the miss of the first (although how it might have stopped the 2nd missile is less clear) or that poor russian equipment just didn't work and the pilot didn't immediately follow up firing other missiles after the failure of the first 2. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff