Here’s The Video Of The Syrian Su-22 Fitter Being Shot Down By A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet

Sep 21 2017 - 113 Comments

F/A-18E Super Hornet vs Su-22 Fitter near Raqqa, as seen through the Hornet’s ATFLIR.

On Jun. 18, F/A-18E Super Hornet belonging to the VFA-87 “Golden Warriors” and piloted by Lt. Cmdr. Michael “Mob” Tremel,” shot down a Syrian Arab Air Force Su-22 Fitter near the town of Resafa (40 km to the southwest of Raqqa, Syria).

The VFA-31 Tomcatters, also embarked on USS George Bush (CVN-77) supporting Operation Inherent Resolve from the Mediterranean Sea back then, have included footage of the aerial engagement, filmed with their ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infra Red) pod, in their 2017 OIR cruise video.

Here below you can see the relevant part of the cruise video, the one that shows the AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) hitting the Syrian Sukhoi (from two different angles – maybe because other Hornets filmed the scene) and then the Fitter crashing into the ground.

 

  • Sir Schadenfreude

    Indeed. Starting at :30 seconds, you can see the MIG is hit a second time by a second missile. If you watch closely, you can see the MIG is in a flat spin starting at about :30 seconds. That’s when another missile comes in and slams the failing craft. Superior kill.

    • John Whitehot

      it’s not a mig, even if one was to believe the USNavy narrative

    • John Whitehot

      it’s not a mig, even if one was to believe the USNavy narrative

  • nwoecb

    Better title would be: “US airforce in action in support of ISIS terrorists on the ground”. Anybody still in denial USA created and nurtured ISIS and Al Qaeda in order to do a regime-change operation in Syria?Now that the Syrian people bravely defeated this Satanic project against all odds; the deep state in the USA is pushing the Kurdish Rojava project in Syria. Notice that the Kurds are simply swapping ISIS territories WITHOUT A SINGLE FIGHT!!!! Can it be more obvious at this stage???!!

    Frankly, it’s pathetic to see people cheer a modern F/A18 shoot down an antiquated jet from the 1960s in a sovereign countries’ airspace. It’s like a 25 year old beating up on an old man; is this modern courage? Anybody then wonder why the country is going down the toilet? Where have our morals gone to?? Just like with World War 2, in the near future we may see international trials where people like Bush, Blair, Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Cameron etc. will face the death penalty for their crimes and destroying Western Civilisation.

  • Super Rhino

    The Syrian pilot was good enough to see the incoming missile from the left, turning to the right to deploy those 3 flares just in time to fool the missile. The flare was just in between the missile and the airplane. The IR signale of the flare was huge compared to IR signal of the fighter.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58d9433004a82e5d540eed5ba5f0e990f7544e2b59de76c1bdcaf2532cd11a14.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa1e518a9fd941da351c10a59433c09c257a7af059de5ea472ff2c2210b49444.jpg

    • John Whitehot

      the object you marked in red in the last pic is the “AIM-9X” exploding?

      • Super Rhino

        Yep, watch the video again in a big screen and you will see the missile paasing by the flare right after the Su22 turned to the right deploying the flares.
        Good pilot after all.

        • John Whitehot

          to me it’s an A-10 and the flares are dropped automatically by the MAWS connected device.

          The falling plane has straight wings (actually only one) and it’s nothing like a SU22.
          Moreover, the video has been edited to delete the shape of the hitting missile. Zoom it in front of the smoke trail and you’ll see it’s blurred.

  • rats123

    It’s strange how they pick and choose their sources.

  • John Whitehot

    Normally what ruins AAMs the most is the cycles of landings and takeoffs.
    Nonetheless, weapons that are mounted on planes are, or at least should be, always put through a series of tests (connected to a testing device) which confirm the weapon is able to function as intended.

  • Mali King

    That doesn’t change the fact it’s bullcr*p. Once again, What is the Bu Number of that downed F14? Who are the pilots? If you have no concrete answer…it’s bullpucky PERIOD. I also see you are citing warisboring… a site that gets everything wrong. Good going there…

    • Jon National

      So what makes your sources more reliable then someone else’s?

  • Mali King

    And vice versa….funny how the Rossiya Flanker that Lt Commander “Mob” Tremel was monitoring initially did diddly squat during the shoot down of the Syrian SU 22. The Rossiya Flanker pilots also know not to mess around with USN Super Hornets…which was a smart move.

    No one is going to argue that Rossiya would defeat Georgia eventually. The loss of a top Rossiya asset like a TU-22MR at the initial stages of that conflict was….embarrassing! Great Rossiya SEAD/DEAD/EW effort there. By a Buk no less…a system that Rossiya Air Force should know inside out!

    Rossiya fighter pilots are victims even when they are not deployed in real battle, look at the crash rate of the Rossiya aircraft in recent time…..that is also true too you know….

    • Black Eagle

      Quite funny story when you consider Russian Flankers don’t use to fly together with lone Syrian aircraft during their every day raids on ISIS targets. Fact remains, USN pilots would not be brave enough to mess with moden Flanker if it would be there instead of the dated Su-22.

      Tu-22M3 without upgrades wasn’t Russia’s top asset in 2008 at all. Losses of Russian aircraft during the war are actually comparable to what NATO forces lost in 1999 in Yugoslavia, but with an exception that Russia didn’t have to face to such embarrassment as was the shot down of an aircraft that was supposed to be invisible, especially for decades old air defense systems like the S-125.

      List of USAF/USN mishaps in recent time is much longer than list of Russian Air Force/Navy mishaps, but seemingly you are not aware of that.

  • This should be interesting, does that mean that Egypt won the 1973 war against Israel? Because that’s what Egyptians claim.

    Just because someone, with no actual evidence, says something, doesn’t mean it is true. That’s why I ask for sources, I don’t like to take anyone’s word for it.

  • Yet, and every time America used their equipment, they won the war, and by a considerable margin.

    Russians even copied the missile design when first used during the Vietnam war.

    • Jon National

      Buddy, you need to research a bit more on our war wins and losses

      • Uniform223

        It depends…

        The classic point that everyone likes to point is the Vietnam War. Though many US aircraft were shot down in Vietnam, the VAST MAJORITY of aircraft losses were not from air-to-air engagements but rather from ground defenses. Even in an air-to-air sense, the US still had the better kill ratio (though no-where as good as seen earlier in Korea). By the end the average US win loss ratio in air-to-air engagements over Vietnam was actually closer to 1:3.

        • Jon National

          Buddy, we lost over 10k aircraft in Vietnam. Something I’m still reeling from to this day. I went from grief to anger to muted respect for the opposition. This is why I don’t believe the bs a2a stats touted by our military these days.

    • Black Eagle

      You wanted to say, Americans win every time when they use their latest equipment for hunting some desert fighters with decades old military equipment. But still, somehow, after 3 years they weren’t able to won the war against ISIS. Oh of course, they won’t kill their allies.

  • Yet, at its peak it could still be downed by an American jet.
    Doubts? Vietnam War and 1973 War, then the Lebanon war.

  • Patrick

    Sources vary, but the true figure is closer to 5 to 1. Kill claims of the 1950’s depended almost exclusively on the verbal debriefs of the claiming pilot and his wingmen. The fighters of that time period could not rely on the radar/flight data recorders to help confirm kills that were readily available in the 70’s and onward.

    Moreover – while both sides can be prone to overestimating kills of enemy aircraft, Western sources are decidedly less likely to lie about losses of friendly aircraft. If an Israeli or American F-15 and its pilot failed to return from a mission, the voting public would demand why. If a loss was purposefully concealed and the public discovered the truth, then the opposition party and press would have a field day with the controversy which would ensue following such a revelation.

    Soviet and Soviet-allied governments during the Cold War, on the other hand, had no free press and no opposition party to worry about if they decided to conceal the loss of a friendly aircraft.

    • Jon National

      Not true at all. We are notorious for lying about our combat losses. The 5:1 ratio is bogus as well. True ratio was closer to 2:1 in our favor and closer to 1:1 against Soviet piloted MIGs. This was conclusively proven by the Rand corporation who independently researched and debunked 10:1 claim.

  • Black Eagle

    Nice try comparing a shot down of an aircraft to a publicly observable conflict such as a war whom result can be just hardly presented somehow differently than it really happened. You are not realizing how easily could be incident like the Libyan version of the clash, that moreover didn’t have any direct witnesses (except the pilots), covered if it would not fit to the U.S. scenario for any reason. It wouldn’t be the first time Americans tried to cover something what went wrong and what might harm their reputation.

    1960 U-2 incident
    1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash
    1963 A-12 crash

  • Black Eagle

    Russians didn’t get into any direct confrontation with Americans during the last decades, so you can’t know whether they lie or not about their superiority. Judging just by some events that occured in the Middle East has no sense because Russian equipment mostly didn’t face to its equivalent counterparts there.

    What makes them unreliable, being Libyan pilots? Sure it must be a good reason to think it’s just propaganda. Su-22 definitely wasn’t outdated in 70’s but since the Libyan Air Force owned just basic variant with downgraded avionics it was outdated against interceptors like the F-14 in 80’s.

    No one is denying that those two Su-22s were shot down, I’m just saying there might be something more in the background what according to Libyan claims and American obvious experiences in this, might be covered or classified.

  • Jon National

    Did you read what I wrote? Read the Rand corporation report of the f86 v mig15. This is the only independent research done in this subject.

    What exactly did we tell Speicher’s family after he was shot down? Ground fire? Mechanical issues? Took 10 years for us to acknowledge this shoot down. By the way, our official position is still 10:1 against the mig 15. Do yeah, we do lie a lot.

    • Patrick

      The system responsible for downing an aircraft is not always immediately clear. Once the truth of Speicher’s shootdown was clear to U.S. officials, it was admitted that he was shot down by a MiG-25.

      The 10:1 claim is still more credible than your 2:1 claim. A single uncited line in a powerpoint presentation by a Washington think-tank does not constitute a credible source.

      • Jon National

        This is the Rand corporation buddy.
        They’ve been around for 70 years. They are as reputable an organizations as can get. Just accept you cannot accept the truth. You pick and choose your sources and in the face of overwhelming evidence cry like a baby.

        • rats123

          LOL! You tell that kid!

        • Patrick

          RAND far from infallible and is not immune to crap research.

  • Jon National
    • Patrick

      Really? Really?! THIS is the famed RAND “report” people crow over?

      The 2:1 claim is buried on slide 85 (out of 90) of this powerpoint presentation. The source of this claim is UNCITED, and therefore not credible. The authors of this Rand PowerPoint cite Wikipedia as an official source for claims unrelated to the Korean War.

      The authors are neither historians nor Korean War experts. The entire thrust of this presentation is to convince members of Congress and Air Force leadership that current Air Force thinking on the future of Air Warfare is wrong. The Korean War air-to-air kill ratio they use in the report was probably the lowest one they could find on the internet, and was sought after in order to bolster their argument that pre-war assumptions about kill ratios are usually more optimistic than experienced in reality.

      Anyone who thinks this RAND PowerPoint presentation constitutes proof that the USAF only enjoyed a 2:1 or lower kill ratio in Korea is not being honest with themselves.

      • Jon National

        And what makes your sources credible? Have you ever served in combat? I was in Vietnam. I know the lies we were fed by the dod.

        You are embarrassing yourself by dissing the Rand corporation. They are as reputable as they come. They are a non profit organisation with nothing to gain by lying, like you are. Son give it a rest. Know when you’ve been beaten.

        • Patrick

          Combat experience has no bearing on the matter. But if you must know – Afghanistan.

    • rats123

      Why are you wasting your time arguing with this guy? Just block him and be done with it. He’s undoubtedly another Leroy clone.

  • Black Eagle

    “Sorry, there isn’t.”

    Sorry, you are not that one who is authorized to make any conclusions about this. (I’m not saying that I am.)

    Soviet MiGs in Korean and Vietnam Wars were quite good adversary to American fighters, this is where the most interesting part begins. The Korean War was the place where the first jet-vs-jet as well as first clashes between Soviet and U.S. fighter pilots occurred. This gave an opportunity to many skilled Soviet fighter pilots, among them many Russian origin and fighters aces of WWII, to participate in it and prove that Soviet aircraft are not technologically behind its Western counterparts. These claims are based on aerial victories of Soviet fighter pilots like Nikolay Sutyagin who is credited with 21 air victories, and is considered to be the top fighter ace of the Korean War. After him, the second most successful fighter ace became Soviet pilot Yevgeny Pepelyaev with 19 aerial victories, moreover one of the F-86s he downed was still in good condition brought to the USSR for evaluation. The third best fighter ace of the war was another Soviet fighter pilot Lev Schukin with 17 aerial victories. In comparison with the United Nation, the best fighter pilot on their side was Joseph C. McConnell credited with 16 aerial victories. Both Soviets and Americans claimed they downed about 600 aircraft during the war.

    http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/doc/soviet.union.claims.from.the.korean.war.1950-1953.pdf

    More details about the dogfights between Soviets and Americans as well as about another talented Soviet fighter aces of the Korean War can be found in this article http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html#sutyagin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Sutyagin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Pepelyaev

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Schukin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._McConnell

    The Vietnam War once again proved how lethal Soviet MiGs with well trained crews can be if they get in aerial confrontation with Western fighter jets, especially in close dogfights where MiG-21s same as the previous MiG variants had significant advantage over less maneuverable F-4s and F-105s. Though American aerial victories were higher (about 130 air-to-air kills) North Vietnamese pilots were still able to gained quite good results (about 90 air-to-air kills, of those 14 F-105s were downed in one day) what is admirable when you consider the fact NVAF might had just about 200 MiGs during the war compared to the USAF/USN, one of the largest Air Forces in that time. Still U.S. lost almost 10,000 various aircraft (this includes also helicopters) of those over 2,000 aircraft belonged to the USAF, more than anyone else lost in this or in further wars. Most of those losses were caused due to ground fire what also proves Soviet progress in development of air defense systems.

    Very good article about North Vietnamese fighter aces http://acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html#bay

    And here are some NVAF MiG-21s which participated in many dogfights during the Vietnam War and won most of them. Notice the red stars on the fuselage, it means how many aircraft these MiGs downed.

    (14 air victories)
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Vietnam_People%27s_Air_Force_MIG-21_%284324%29.jpg

    (13 air victories)
    http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/217/217344_800.jpg

    (12 air victories)
    http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4007/4691583812_8427ecd852_b.jpg

    (8 air victories)
    http://st.galaxypub.vn/staticFile/Subject/2015/04/27/292326/thanh-tich-cua-mig21-duoc-xep-hang-bao-vat-quoc-gia_272324371.jpg?w=568

    Ultimately, this was also the last place where the latest American and Soviet aircraft faced against each other in quite fair fights where better readiness and tactics were the key roles for the victory. If you want to still claim one side was technologically inferior, then you must be blind or not able to accept the obvious facts. Enjoy!

    • So, you are denying the 10 to 1 ratio of the Korean War in favor of the Sabres?

      I just want this to be very clear.

      Secondly, in the Vietnam war, the biggest mistake America did was to trust in early missile technology. That way they lost most of the edge, but in overall the planes were superior, and even with missiles that failed most of the time they won.

      You can’t forget how prone the MiG-21 are with pilot induced oscillation, or how inferior their radars were. There were also the advent of improved surface to air missiles. Thanks for meddling in a country, Soviet Russia! (Glad Russia had a small taste of it later on in other countries, including Afghanistan)

      Interestingly, even your own source, acepilots show a discrepancy on the downed planes.

      It is not in vain that the Phantom ahs received the wonderful distinction of being the biggest distributor of Mig parts over the world.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_aerial_victories_of_the_Vietnam_War

      • rats123

        The 10:1 ratio (or previously 14:1) has been debunked a number of times. Actual ratio was closer to 2:1 in favor of the 86.

  • rats123

    Not going to play your trolling games. GIYF.

  • Patrick

    Wrong.

    http://kronemyer.com/2007/07/15/uncategorized/my-days-at-the-bland-corporation/

    “While there are a handful of private donors, most of the non-governmental funding comes from large corporations, like insurance companies and institutional foundations – the people most vested in a particular outcome. Thus, all of the private money that comes in does so with a concealed agenda. That agenda is: make findings, or reach conclusions, in our favor. Put your imprimatur for accuracy and independence, on our point of view.

    And RAND invariably does so. Not explicitly, or with reference to a particular case – that would be far too obvious. Rather, the studies it authors are constrained by the “background” of the industry sponsoring whatever it is that’s being studied. This matrix of cultural practices offers up a disclosive space – a “clearing” – defining roles, context and significance. The “industry” in turn is made up of institutional players – not individuals, or claimants, or persons outside of the status quo, and especially not persons who are aggrieved. Rather, the institutions are the ones who establish the rules of the game, the terms of discourse, the length and width of the playing field. And this is how RAND gets itself co-opted, even with its eyes wide open. It simply can’t help it, given the way it’s structured its business affairs.”

  • Patrick

    Not on matters of national security or combat performance. They’ve made mistakes and been wrong before, but they haven’t lied to my face (yet).

  • Black Eagle

    Interesting or better say incredible is how you don’t know what certain things mean, even when they are fully explained in the article.

    Who said the parentheses contain the true number of downed aircraft? It is just a claim of Americans that doesn’t match with claims of other side, naturally. We known how Americans often used to purposely count some of their losses as crashes or losses due to ground fire, since this was less embarrassing way how to deal witch such high losses.

    “America did kick North Vietnam ass three times, and won the war.”

    America didn’t win anything in Vietnam, they withdrawn their forces after their Air Force/Naval Air Force suffered losses like never before, even when North Vietnam was highly outnumbered by U.S. forces. I know it is hard to deal with, but communists won in Vietnam by took control over South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. That’s also why Vietnam is now aly with Russia.

    “Remember, the Sabre had a radar, and had the all moving tail…”

    Those were improvements that for the first time had only the late version F-86E which was introduced in 1953, a year when the war was over. MiG-15s with their superior maneuverability owned the Korean sky over 2 years when fighting against the previous versions of the F-86.