DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Terror Tech » F-16 Shoot-down Mystery

F-16 Shoot-down Mystery

F16-dive.jpg

Well it looks like the most recent F-16 crash might not have anything to do with camel spiders, but something much more serious.

Tactical Report blog reports that there are indications the F-16 that crashed four days ago was shot down. This is a disturbing development if true, since the U.S. military had seemingly gotten its arms around the spate of crashes and shoot-downs of helicopters.

The indication that the shoot-down occurred during the aircrafts takeoff is also alarming because it points to the possibility that MANPAD teams are able to get close enough to U.S. air bases to launch in the opening moments of an aircrafts flight.

The Tactical Report article follows:

Another US F-16 aircraft crashed on 15/7/07 during takeoff at Balad air base, 80 kilometers north of Baghdad. This was the second F-16 aircraft crash in just a month, as a crash had taken place on 15/6/07 shortly after taking off from the same base.

While the pilot of the first crash was killed, the pilot of the second one survived. But what caused both crashes remains under investigations by the US Air Force.

Reports from Baghdad suggest that hostile fire caused both crashes.

According to these reports, it is not just a coincidence that both aircraft crashed during takeoff.

Circles close to the Iraqi Defense Ministry suspect that a shoulder-held anti-aircraft missile might have been fired at both aircraft from an area not far from the air base.

These circles add that it is too difficult for any aircraft to maneuver and avoid a missile during takeoff.

According to these circles, the Iraqi insurgency has different types of anti-aircraft missiles, including SAM-7, SAM-8 and SAM-11, which can hit an aircraft during taking off or flying at low altitude.

UPDATE: Astute readers pointed out that while the SA-7 is a MANPAD, the others listed are not. It would be pretty unlikely for the USAF to not notice a truck-mounted system parked close by its air field, which casts even more doubt on the authenticity of this report. But it’s still worth keeping and eye on what MNF-I determines might have been the cause of the crashes.

(Gouge: NC)

– Christian

Share |

July 19th, 2007 | Terror Tech | 362561 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/07/19/f-16-shoot-down-mystery/F-16+Shoot-down+Mystery2007-07-19+15%3A43%3A15Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « New Tech for Wounded Warriors | War Costs Reach Deeper Into Your Wallet » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Nelson says:
    July 19, 2007 at 10:40 am

    SA-8 and SA-11? I highly doubt it. Those are both vehicle mounted systems. SA-7 yes. SA-16 maybe. I don’t know about trusting those “cirles” you are getting your info from.

    Reply
  2. esmoore5 says:
    July 19, 2007 at 11:18 am

    SA-8 is a vehicle-mounted SAM, not a MANPADS. See:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​8​.​htm
    SA-11 is an even larger vehicle-mounted system:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​1​1​.​htm
    The SA-7, however, is man-portable:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​7​.​htm
    as is the SA-14:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​1​4​.​htm
    and the SA-16:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​1​6​.​htm
    There’s also a more-advanced MANPADS system called
    the SA-18:
    http://​www​.fas​.org/​m​a​n​/​d​o​d​-​1​0​1​/​s​y​s​/​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​r​o​w​/​s​a​-​1​8​.​htm
    I’m pretty sure the Insurgents/Guerrillas in Iraq
    and Afghanistan have access to SA-7 and SA-14,
    But I’m not sure about SA-16 or SA-18.
    Can anyone out there provide more info?

    Reply
  3. Logan Hartke says:
    July 19, 2007 at 11:46 am

    This site is in dire need of an additional editor to check the facts before stories/articles get posted. One set of eyes is always going to be insufficient, no matter how good they are or how knowledgeable the brain behind them is. A lot of these are just silly mistakes, but the sillier the mistake, the dumber you can look.
    At least this article is the subject material it should be. No more of the Paris Hilton crap.

    Reply
  4. campbell says:
    July 19, 2007 at 11:54 am

    MANPADS? hmmm, why not a simple .50 sniper rifle?.…from far enough away not to be found easily.…more than just a “golden BB” shot, perhaps many shots attempted, but if only a few take effect… thats all it takes.
    far more likely than advanced manpads.

    Reply
  5. Foreign.Boy says:
    July 19, 2007 at 11:58 am

    Logan Hartke -
    I just read that both pilots were reading Stuff just prior to takeoff which contained an article related to Paris Hilton… sorry man…

    Reply
  6. Christian Lowe says:
    July 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Thanks dear readers for the MANPADS catch…You’re my “extra set of eyes”…

    Reply
  7. Logan Hartke says:
    July 19, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    In response to OceanMinded,
    Just because something is worth reading doesn’t mean that isn’t capable of being improved. I have a lot of books in my personal collection that are worth owning but chock full of errors and typos. As far as me trying my own hand at it, I only wish I had the time to.
    Nowhere did I say that Christian is doing a bad job, nor that I or anyone else could do a better job. I just think that having another set of eyes to say “that doesn’t look quite right” would benefit the credibility of this blog and the readers of it.
    Obviously, it’s the editor’s prerogative to take the suggestion or leave it, but I’ve performed the role of editor a few times, and it’s always better when you’re not the only one performing quality control.

    Reply
  8. Anon USAF member says:
    July 19, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    You all need to be more careful in claiming facts or making suppositions that may or not be true in dealing with people’s lives, especially those in combat. I’ll claim nothing more than betting no one here really knows all of the facts–perhaps even any of them, other than a jet went down. The USAF Safety Investigation Board process is a trusted agent system, and is meant to limit conjecture and rumors–like this. That’s why the USAF has the lowest aviation mishap rate in the armed forces.
    Manpads bringing down Vipers? Not impossible, but I don’t think so…

    Reply
  9. Grandjester says:
    July 19, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Can we kill off the MANPADS acronym? Sounds like a masculine hygene product.

    Reply
  10. diablotakahe says:
    July 19, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    if this is the first it won’t be the last.
    if the usa is gearing up to bug out, this would be the right time to pass some SAM’s to the partisans, make it that much more of a sporty course.
    which means a deal is that much closer with iran.
    gonna git messy.

    Reply
  11. sglover says:
    July 20, 2007 at 12:20 am

    So if I understand some of the (apparently) more informed comments in this thread, our boy Christian is at it again, eh?
    Still, gotta give him a little credit: At least he isn’t rushing to imply that it’s the nefarious Tehran connection.

    Reply
  12. George says:
    July 20, 2007 at 4:20 am

    It’s obvious that a SAM-7 cannot hit an aircraft that takes off since it can only FOLLOW a heat trail. Presumably the launcher is somewhere ahead of the aircraft (if it was on the side it wouldn’t have the range)Other models aren’t shoulder-launched. You should have at least a basic understanding of the weapon systems before going around posting this kind of stuff.
    It would have to be a more sophisticated weapon and if it were then we would have heard it by now, maybe seen the footage on youtube. You don’t go around wasting good missiles on jets, they would shoot large helos carrying troops to increase the shock value.

    Reply
  13. Ward says:
    July 20, 2007 at 7:19 am

    We’re just posting the info, George and sglover. No need for ad hominem BS. If you have some intel, bring it.
    And anyone who knows anything about IR guided missiles knows you don’t have to be behind the target to “get a tone.“
    Thanks for being part of the DT community.

    Reply
  14. Lugo says:
    July 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

    Why are we not filming every single take-off? As with the camera in the bank or the 7–11, you only keep the film if something bad happens.
    It is hard to believe that the air traffic controllers or someone on the base wouldn’t notice if a missile started climbing into the sky right outside the wire.

    Reply
  15. Foreign.Boy says:
    July 20, 2007 at 10:04 am

    “You don’t go around wasting good missiles on jets, they would shoot large helos carrying troops to increase the shock value.…“
    Novemeber 2003 — Iraq
    http://​www​.michael​-forman​.com/​g​a​l​l​e​r​y​/​d​h​l​.​h​tml
    A DHL Freight Jet was hit by a SAM missile.
    Given, it’s a bigger target and lacks anti-SAM equiptment, but they managed to clip this bird while apaches circled the Baghdad airport

    Reply
  16. George Skinner says:
    July 20, 2007 at 11:27 am

    A couple of misconceptions to correct: an IR-guided missile does not follow a “heat trail” — it tracks hot metal such as the exhaust nozzle of a jet engine. I also don’t see why it’s obvious that such a missile couldn’t hit an aircraft taking off, as long as the aircraft overflies the launcher. Once the aircraft flies past, its engine is now exposed to the seeker on the SAM.

    Reply
  17. esmoore5 says:
    July 21, 2007 at 3:02 am

    Hmm, the article at:
    http://​nationaldefensemagazine​.org/​i​s​s​u​e​s​/​2​0​0​7​/​A​u​g​u​s​t​/​A​r​m​y​H​e​l​o​s​.​htm
    includes the following:
    “A few days later, an SA-16 missile took down an
    AH-60 Black Hawk, which resulted in the deaths of
    four crewmembers and two passengers.“
    So it looks like the SA-16 HAS been used in Iraq
    against an AH-60 helo, and perhaps other targets
    as well.
    In case you’re wondering what an “AH-60″ is. See:
    http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/​a​i​r​c​r​a​f​t​/​a​h​-​6​0​l​.​htm

    Reply
  18. esmoore5 says:
    July 21, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    More on the AH-60 at:
    http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/​a​i​r​c​r​a​f​t​/​m​h​-​6​0​l​-​d​a​p​.​htm

    Reply
  19. Jeff says:
    August 6, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    All i wanna know is who packed the chute that the pilot used when ejecting. The reason for wondering is i am stationed at Misawa and the jet that crashed was a 13th jet. I am in the Survival Equipment shop which used to be part of Fab.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Not completely true-remember the Navy can be very picky...
      Chops
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I think by the end of the year some of those flags are...
      Tom
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I am not advocating non use of F22s&F35s in daylight...
      Chops
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Guys this platform is about CAS but not in the...
      ANGRYTACP
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Blaming the contractors for a development system created...
      G Lof
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      'Nor really stealthy'? LOL! – Only in...
      SMSgt Mac
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      That is not a 120mm mortar please check it out. My was 11C...
      Jim
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      With the exception of his Boeing Tanker blindspot ;-) ...
      SMSgt Mac
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      i heard recently that rules of engagement in...
      mad mike
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Would I be correct in assuming that means a noise or...
      bduff509
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage