RAF ready to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria

They should send Typhoon as top cover, sticking an asraam on a tonker is a bit token, actually probably shows the threat level, if there was a threat they would have Typhoons covering their ass.

Well all I say is if Britten NATO and he US do decide to go.They should go all out and none of this pussy footing around.Don't try to fight with the gloves on crap,just clean up this scum and no rebuilding.Let them do it their self.

a reply to: Forensick

There are F-22s playing AWACS/JSTARS on at least some missions, as well as actual AWACS in friendly airspace. They'll have plenty of warning to move.

I don't like the sound of this with all the talk of a proxy war being instigated and it's almost as if the suggested has been deliberately planted, I see no reason a Russian fighter would, deliberately, fire upon a UK war-plane and if that happened then of course the UK have to right to retaliate.

Seems a bit fishy to me though...

a reply to: Death_Kron

It's simply a reiteration of the standard rules of engagement that have been in place for many years. With the Russian aircraft locking on to Turkish fighters with radar it's just stating that they'll defend themselves if necessary.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Death_Kron

It's simply a reiteration of the standard rules of engagement that have been in place for many years. With the Russian aircraft locking on to Turkish fighters with radar it's just stating that they'll defend themselves if necessary.

Aren't all RAF fighters allowed to defend themselves anyway if they're in danger? Regardless of the current scenario?

a reply to: Death_Kron

Yes, which is why I said it's the current ROE. The difference is that now the air to mud guys are going to be carrying air to air as well as air to mud. They hadn't been until now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hadn't been? or we weren't told, possibly? You wouldn't send an Infantry soldier into a theatre without suitable ammunition, would the RAF send fighters over Syria where they know there's a chance of encountering Russian jets without A-2-A weapons?

Even presuming (doubtful) that they may not need such capability. It's akin to sending in a SWAT team with cap guns..

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bait for the media. Like you said, the rules of engagement don't change; if an RAF bird is fired upon anywhere in the world it's allowed to defend itself.

originally posted by: Death_Kron
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hadn't been? or we weren't told, possibly? You wouldn't send an Infantry soldier into a theatre without suitable ammunition, would the RAF send fighters over Syria where they know there's a chance of encountering Russian jets without A-2-A weapons?

Even presuming (doubtful) that they may not need such capability. It's akin to sending in a SWAT team with cap guns..

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bait for the media. Like you said, the rules of engagement don't change; if an RAF bird is fired upon anywhere in the world it's allowed to defend itself.

Yes but until now there hasn't been another aircraft capable of locking on to one, since Russian aircraft entered there now is, so the Tornado bombers now have been fitted with missiles to counter that new (but assume limited) threat.

a reply to: Death_Kron

Prior to last week there hadn't been a hint of an air to air threat. The Syrians had kept their aircraft away from the coalition. Between that and the Allied fighters flying with them they haven't carried air to air.

originally posted by: Forensick

Yes but until now there hasn't been another aircraft capable of locking on to one, since Russian aircraft entered there now is, so the Tornado bombers now have been fitted with missiles to counter that new (but assume limited) threat.

So really it's just a case of "I've got my guns" ... "We've got ours"

Nothings changed in that respect, I wouldn't want to be a RAF fighter pilot flying over there knowing there was any other jet flying around capable of shooting me down and I couldn't retaliate.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

There are F-22s playing AWACS/JSTARS on at least some missions, as well as actual AWACS in friendly airspace. They'll have plenty of warning to move.

And move they can! Mach 2.2 according to the web!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Death_Kron

Prior to last week there hadn't been a hint of an air to air threat. The Syrians had kept their aircraft away from the coalition. Between that and the Allied fighters flying with them they haven't carried air to air.

I suppose they're only covering their backsides, rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. The article sort of gives the impression that the UK wants to shoot down the Ruskies when really when you look closer that's not the case.

originally posted by: Death_Kron

originally posted by: Forensick

Yes but until now there hasn't been another aircraft capable of locking on to one, since Russian aircraft entered there now is, so the Tornado bombers now have been fitted with missiles to counter that new (but assume limited) threat.

So really it's just a case of "I've got my guns" ... "We've got ours"

Nothings changed in that respect, I wouldn't want to be a RAF fighter pilot flying over there knowing there was any other jet flying around capable of shooting me down and I couldn't retaliate.

Yeah but ISIS don't have any jets and as Zaphod pointed out Syrians were not flying where the RAF are (which is Iraq, they have not been cleared to bomb Syria although it might have happened). And Iraq are the ones who asked us to be there so they weren't a threat so why would you load A2A when there was no threat?

So everything's changed now the Russians are there locking on to Turkish, NATO aircraft.

originally posted by: Death_Kron

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Death_Kron

Prior to last week there hadn't been a hint of an air to air threat. The Syrians had kept their aircraft away from the coalition. Between that and the Allied fighters flying with them they haven't carried air to air.

I suppose they're only covering their backsides, rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. The article sort of gives the impression that the UK wants to shoot down the Ruskies when really when you look closer that's not the case.

I think that's the point, as Zaphod said, it's standard ROE and some in the media are sensationalising it to make it out to sound like what you said.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Death_Kron

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Death_Kron

Prior to last week there hadn't been a hint of an air to air threat. The Syrians had kept their aircraft away from the coalition. Between that and the Allied fighters flying with them they haven't carried air to air.

I suppose they're only covering their backsides, rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. The article sort of gives the impression that the UK wants to shoot down the Ruskies when really when you look closer that's not the case.

I think that's the point, as Zaphod said, it's standard ROE and some in the media are sensationalising it to make it out to sound like what you said.

Hold my hand up, I should of read the article a little slower, I'm with it now.

a reply to: Death_Kron

Sensationalism by a reporter or his paper. It's just like when Russian bombers fly near the UK or US. It's not a big deal and happens a lot, but from reading a paper you'd think they were about to launch a sneak attack.

originally posted by: Death_Kron
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hadn't been? or we weren't told, possibly? You wouldn't send an Infantry soldier into a theatre without suitable ammunition, would the RAF send fighters over Syria where they know there's a chance of encountering Russian jets without A-2-A weapons?

Even presuming (doubtful) that they may not need such capability. It's akin to sending in a SWAT team with cap guns..

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bait for the media. Like you said, the rules of engagement don't change; if an RAF bird is fired upon anywhere in the world it's allowed to defend itself.

Carrying air to air munitions when there's no threat to warrant them takes up space for air to ground weapons, which ARE needed.

They don't launch aircraft with one of every type of munition "just in case."

a reply to: Zaphod58

Slight bit of ignorance on my behalf, it's clicked now.

a reply to: Death_Kron

It's happened to all of us. No harm no foul.