The Real Top Gun. Gulf of Sidra, 1989.

Roduga · 31 Jul 2006 at 17:32

Sleepy said:
They should ...

Yeap, they have an indicator to where the radar is coming from and it's threat level (SPO-15LM?). You can set it to ignore the less-important radar (things like AWACS), but it'd still ring the alarm bells.

I love LOMAC.

Indy500 · 31 Jul 2006 at 17:36

Visage said:
Except the warhead is made out of gunpowder, so will often cause no damage at all.

60kg of high explosives?

Iran is still keeping these in service IIRC.

Yewen · 31 Jul 2006 at 18:15

RaohNS said:
SORRY TO HIJACK IF ANY DONS/UNDERBOSS'S ARE ABOUT

AWAYBREAKTODAY <--- PERSONAL INSULTS, HAD A LOOK FOR A DON ON SC BUT NONE AROUND... HAS BEEN TOLD NOT TO REFER TO PERSONAL INSULTS HAS DONE 4TIMES

>| Raoh |<

Sorry again chaps

Added you to my MSN. Or drop me an email on [email protected] please.

big_white_dog84 · 31 Jul 2006 at 18:40

I didn't see any reason for the MiGs to be destroyed.
Under the Rules of Engagement you always have the inherent right to self defence - however there must first be hostile intent from the other guy. Flying towards someone is NOT hostile intent under ROE.
But who's going to tell Uncle Sam he's been a bit trigger happy?

ScarySquirrel · 31 Jul 2006 at 18:51

big_white_dog84 said:
I didn't see any reason for the MiGs to be destroyed.
Under the Rules of Engagement you always have the inherent right to self defence - however there must first be hostile intent from the other guy. Flying towards someone is NOT hostile intent under ROE.
But who's going to tell Uncle Sam he's been a bit trigger happy?

I thought they had a missile shot at them, you saw it just miss one of them, or did I get that completely wrong?

Kreeeee · 31 Jul 2006 at 18:57

I love how accurate stereotypes are..

big_white_dog84 · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:11

ScarySquirrel said:
I thought they had a missile shot at them, you saw it just miss one of them, or did I get that completely wrong?

In that case I stand corrected. I didn't see it.

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:17

Anyone notice the vice of the pilot sounds just like Denziel Washington?

Indy500 · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:17

smoove said:
Good video, but typical Gun-ho die 34554trhfg die attitudes.

I'm sure thats changed because of wars like Iraq. The myth of invincibility is no more.

Stolly · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:34

big_white_dog84 said:
I didn't see any reason for the MiGs to be destroyed.
Under the Rules of Engagement you always have the inherent right to self defence - however there must first be hostile intent from the other guy. Flying towards someone is NOT hostile intent under ROE.
But who's going to tell Uncle Sam he's been a bit trigger happy?

What, specifically, were the ROE in force at the time ?

Or are you just throwing acronyms around ?

Squark · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:57

robmiller said:
Chocks away! Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie!

Is that from something?

Jingo said:
Kinda agree about the language the pilots were using - I remember seeing a comparison video done after the 1st Gulf War where, on destruction of some Iraqi emplacement or armour, the british pilots calmly stated:

"Target Destroyed - returning to base" and that was that.

Cut to american A-10 - "Take that Saddam!", "Yeeha!" etc

Its the same with the ground troops

I remember on many occasions seeing videos on the news and whatnot ~march 2003 of the American grunts cheering and making comment like that after blowing up Iraqi buildings and such, where as you neaver hear that from the British troops
Plus the Americans seem a little too liberal with their firepower quite often

I much prefer the more reserved and more 'professional' attitude that seems prevalent within the British forces

Zefan · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:59

Squark said:
Is that from something?

Monty Python sketch.

Lopéz · 31 Jul 2006 at 22:55

I watched Top Gun before work this morning.

Looks like a typical stand-off situation with neither party wanting to back down. Surprised there were no warning shots across the bow, not as tense as I expected.

Will · 1 Aug 2006 at 00:16

big_white_dog84 said:
I didn't see any reason for the MiGs to be destroyed.
Under the Rules of Engagement you always have the inherent right to self defence - however there must first be hostile intent from the other guy. Flying towards someone is NOT hostile intent under ROE.
But who's going to tell Uncle Sam he's been a bit trigger happy?

At the time there was intense tensions between Libya and the United States - the latter accused the former of sponsoring terrorism, and in 1986 carried out air strikes (launched from the UK, Lakenheath to be precises) against targets in Libya. Relations continued to be sour, with the US Navy often sending carrier battle groups north of the Libyan coastline (near the Gulf Of Sidra) as a show of strength and something of a warning to the Libyans.

It became routine for the Libyans to send out fighter jets to probe US defences and test the US imposed 'zone of exclusion' around the carrier group, and when detected (by the RWR or radar warning receiver in their aircraft, which would detect the presence of US F-14s sent to intercept them) the Libyans would usually turn south, away from the carrier fleet.

This time though fighters the Libyans did not turn back when the USN F-14s intercepted them, and, given the political situation, the Libyans contined flight towards the US carrier group was considered sufficiently threatening an action (as they could carry weapons to attack the US warships and aircraft carrier) that warranted their shootdown.

I have read some suggestions that the shootdown was politically managed, in order to be a slap in the face for Libyan leader Muamar Qaddafi, and a show of US power, rather than a case of the US Navy merely following routine procedures for defending the carriers from approaching unknown/military aircraft - they wouldn't have normally opened fire, but as I've hopefully explained, Libyan fighters meant special circumstances as far as the US was concerned....

dbmzk1 · 1 Aug 2006 at 00:37

big_white_dog84 said:
I didn't see any reason for the MiGs to be destroyed.
Under the Rules of Engagement you always have the inherent right to self defence - however there must first be hostile intent from the other guy. Flying towards someone is NOT hostile intent under ROE.
But who's going to tell Uncle Sam he's been a bit trigger happy?

It was the MiG's that initiated the hostilities, not the F-14's. Plus if you fly towards a military aircraft when its radar is locked on to you then generally speaking that would be a good time to turn around, don't you think? Unless you want to fight them, that is... The Libyans ground control communications were intercepted by the US and they were telling the MiGs to engage...

If you have no knowledge of the incident or the reasoning behind it then don't bother posted pretty acronyms just to look good.

Burned_Alive · 1 Aug 2006 at 00:42

If you read up on the incident, an American intelligence plane was intercepting transmissions from the Libyan ground control telling them to intercept the F-14s, good enough reason to shoot them down for me!

Domo · 1 Aug 2006 at 00:55

Agreed that's real audio of an engagement, but possibly recorded over a montage of video clips.