US warplane found crashed in field (Libya)

reply to post by Danbones


I think the UK Tornados are using a standoff weapon called the Stormshadow, which is basically a cruise missle that can be launched miles from the target. In the first gulf war brit tornados were using JP223 weapons which required them to fly over enemy airfields at 100ft releasing small mobs to destroy runways. It was a much riskier operation that what they are doing now.

It's a 15 E with limited range.
Pilot probably was late disengaging ran out of fuel and tried to land in a short field..

thanx Woodward that was informative
honestly I'm thinking gas too

Someone on the BBC live updates had a Tweet published suggesting that it seems a good reason to put boots on the ground. i.e a CSAR operation.

If the aircraft is mostly intact - that suggests to me that it was landed, and the pilot/co-pilot didn't just punch out. So if you land in a hostile environment, you'd assume the pilot/co-pilot would stay together right? Seems a bit strange one of the crew is safe and the other missing, don't you think?

EDIT: Typically - just as I post this they announce the co-pilot is now safe. So much for my pondering

reply to post by Kalby


They are pretty stingy about how much fuel they use for these missions. Israel would be very upset if some rogue pilot took a detour and shot up Tel Aviv. Once the low fuel alarm sounds pilot saw no safe place to land so co pilot would have ejected. Pilot stays with plane as long as he could apparently tried to land in short field if plane is mostly intact. Otherwise he would have bailed at the last minute before impact.

reply to post by Bordon81


Ahh I see. I always assumed if one bailed, it'd fire the ejection charges for the other automatically. A sort of failsafe in case they were too incapacitated to do it themselves. That makes a lot more sense though

reply to post by Kalby


Looks like the F15E uses a 2 part canopy for that purpose but I may be mistaken.

reply to post by Kalby


Call me jaded, but I was thinking the same thing too.

Is the cost of a F-15 Strike Eagle worth the ability to put those boots on the ground?

I suppose we will soon know, logically, they'll do what another poster said and blow it up if they are worried about stolen technology etc.
If they put a retrieval team in, it will look a bit sus.

Doesn't seem like there are many usable parts left, if the pic in the OP's link is it.

Originally posted by Bordon81
It's a 15 E with limited range.
Pilot probably was late disengaging ran out of fuel and tried to land in a short field..

Nah, no way would a pilot expect to land an F15 in that field in any successful way - looking at those photo's that are up in that link now by 'in tact' they are talking about the airframe and wings, all the various main parts still being attached, it's a burnt out wreak - the pilot chose a place to ditch, weighed up the options tried not to kill anyone on the ground and if he had the info land in the right place by the friendliest people possible.

There is no massive gouge in the ground I can see, it really looks like he brought it in under as much control as possible, got it slow and low and ejected... Maybe that explains the separation of the pilot and co pilot... Pilot says you pop off now, I do the best I can and pop out at the last second.

reply to post by Now_Then


I finally bothered to go look at the pictures on the UK site.
Can't add much too your explanation, my assumption of "in tact" was a little short of the mar.

reply to post by Now_Then


I'd agree, the question is, what caused them to ditch it?

Note, I had a feeling when looking at the pics on the Telegraph web site, something made me think they looked funny.

The people in the pics sort of look out of place.
There is one pic there with a guy, looks like a minister or something holding a bible like he's reading last rights or something.

The link is here atm, they will probably change the pics in the headline soon...

www.telegraph.co.uk...
(Click the right arrow 3 times on the big picture on the page when it loads.)

Maybe I am looking through westerners eyes?

Simple fact is that these planes are 20 years old & have been pushed to their limit through countless missions in recent years. We've been wearing out our airframes in the middle east & have no money to buy new ones. Not only have these conflicts been draining our monetary resources but now we're seeing their impact on the men and materials we're supposed to have for defense.

Originally posted by afaik
reply to post by Now_Then

 

Note, I had a feeling when looking at the pics on the Telegraph web site, something made me think they looked funny.

The people in the pics sort of look out of place.
There is one pic there with a guy, looks like a minister or something holding a bible like he's reading last rights or something.

I noticed that too. It seems like they wouldn't just walk up to the wreck. If I was there I would be worried about getting an airstrike dropped on my head. Another thing that seemed off was the environment around the plane. Though the grass immediately around the plane may be brown, just about 30 feet (~9M) away or so, the grass seems relatively fine. Another thing that I noticed was the lack of debris surrounding the crash site. It seems like if a plane crashes, there would be more debris away from where the plane came to rest (in the background, for example). However, it's hard to really tell from these three pictures on the Telegraph website. Hopefully more pictures become available soon.

Appears whatever the cause be it mechanical or hostile fire the crew had plenty of time and opportunity to get the aircraft into a nice stable descent before ejecting due to the fact the aircraft impacted right side up and wings level. Possibly the aircraft holds that attitude after ejection so hopefully whatever safe course its pointed to is maintained. Also, to note a mechanical malfunction on a two-engine fighter jet that results in a total loss are pretty rare. They have occurred with F-15's before but only with catastrophic structural failure and that was in earlier C model builds.

It was asked above about the type of canopy. It is a one piece assembly. Under normal ejection the pilot starts the ejection sequence and then the aft crew member goes first followed by the forward seat.

Also, I just caught video on BBC and the tail number is 91-0304.

Some photos of that aircraft from airliners.net

I'm confident fuel status wasn't an issue considering how totally the aircraft burned. That would account for the difference in the grass coloring you see in the pictures that have been released in my opinion. The E-model carriers plenty of fuel and you can bet refueling aircraft are on station considering the amount of aircraft in the area.

Plus, you'd not find me walking or even breathing around a burned crash like that considering the amount of composites that are used in building them. I'm sure there is plenty of other nasty stuff in there, too.

Soul

Originally posted by Soulwarrior
Plus, you'd not find me walking or even breathing around a burned crash like that considering the amount of composites that are used in building them. I'm sure there is plenty of other nasty stuff in there, too.

A few news agencies have reported there is a spare unfired guided missile (AGM-130 perhaps?) by the wreckage.

I would not be chilling out there for pictures at all.

reply to post by Kalby


Yes, I saw that in the video released a short while ago, too. It was an AIM-120. Its safely survived the crash and the fire that followed, but i totally agree with you on no way would I be kicking around in the wreckage.

There is also the seeker head of an AIM-9 and a GBU guidance head in the debris shown on the video. Literally, tons of fun still in that pile of plane.

Soul

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e38793f24bb.jpg[/atsimg]

looks like a hole in the wing/side of that fighter plane..

reply to post by snapperski


The wing is actually kinda far back in that picture. I'm thinking you may be referring to the prominent hole in the surface a couple steps in front of the two men on the right of the photograph?

That bit of surface is actually the top of the variable ramp intake for the left motor if I'm not mistaken.

What I'd seen of the wings in the released video didn't show anything that looked like they'd suffered weapons damage, but I only got a good look at the left wing. The verticals on the tail are definitely snapped above the rudders probably from the impact with the ground.

Soul

Originally posted by snapperski
looks like a hole in the wing/side of that fighter plane..

That's the top side of the port engine intake isn't it? I'm gonna call crash damage personally, but I guess technically it could be AAA damage.

reply to post by snapperski



seems like AAA brought it down to me .