C-17 Hit by Missle on Take-Off from Baghdad Airport

[CaptnKirk]

USA Today

These have a ton of Defensive Avionics onboard, suprising that they are that
vulnerable when compared to the Civilian CargoJets like the DHL last week.
There appears to be a window of vulnerability before the Defensive Avionics are
functional, especially just after take off - low, slow, & easy to target then flee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A high-level Pentagon source said a U.S. Air Force transport plane that was forced into an emergency landing at Baghdad airport when an engine caught fire had been hit by a surface-to-air missile.

The guerrilla strike on the C-17, which took place on Tuesday, injured one of the 16 passengers and crew and highlighted the danger to air traffic at Baghdad's airport, a key entry point where last month a ground-fired missile hit a DHL cargo plane, which also landed safely. Just as in the DHL strike, the C-17 had just lifted off from Baghdad airport before dawn when its engine exploded and it was forced to land.

 

[squirrel dog]

Those third world missiles must be past their born on date , stale or what . Military aircraft may be armored now .

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Those third world missiles must be past their born on date , stale or what . Military aircraft may be armored now .

Good thing. If we can't even secure the area around the Airport how the fsck do we think we can bring stability to Iraq? Even though we the American people were mislead by the Neocons into supporting this "Excellent Adventure" we are there now and we must do what we can to make this a successful situation. If we need more troops (as Gen Shishinski suggested) then let's send them over there and do this right! No matter if the Bush Neocons screwed the pooch by convincing our gullible President into BS'ing us to gain the public's support we still have to think about the brave Servicemen over there and we should not put them at risk by waging this "Occupation" on the cheap! Let's don't let this misadaventure turn into another Viet Nam!

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
USA Today

These have a ton of Defensive Avionics onboard, suprising that they are that
vulnerable when compared to the Civilian CargoJets like the DHL last week.
There appears to be a window of vulnerability before the Defensive Avionics are
functional, especially just after take off - low, slow, & easy to target then flee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<P class=inside-copy>A high-level Pentagon source said a U.S. Air Force transport plane that was forced into an emergency landing at Baghdad airport when an engine caught fire had been hit by a surface-to-air missile.

The guerrilla strike on the C-17, which took place on Tuesday, injured one of the 16 passengers and crew and highlighted the danger to air traffic at Baghdad's airport, a key entry point where last month a ground-fired missile hit a DHL cargo plane, which also landed safely. Just as in the DHL strike, the C-17 had just lifted off from Baghdad airport before dawn when its engine exploded and it was forced to land.

I hate to break it to you Capt Kirk, but this isnt Star Trek and a C-17 is not the Enterprise. Just because it has military avionics doesnt meant it can suddenly make a 90 bank turn in 1/2 a second and evade a missile.

 

[Spencer278]

How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Iraq's U.S.-appointed interim government established a war crimes tribunal Wednesday to try former members of Saddam Hussein's regime, and two U.S. soldiers were killed and four wounded in a northern city.

Anyone else read that wondering why two Us solders were going to the war crimes tribunal.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles have a range of about 3 miles. Care to calculate how much land area that would be.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Didn't say that it could make 90 degree 'UFO' type manouvers, I said it has a bunch of Defense Avionics -
the best the lowest bidder can provide, I know just a little bit about this aircraft.
(maybe just a bit more than you think)

I was pointing out a 'Window of Vulnerability' that exists for any aircraft - whether it's a large military cargo jet,
a Tactical Fighter like an F-16 (know a little about them too), or an F-15 (Hmmm, know them too)
or even AirForce-1 which was brought in during a 'Blackout' to minimize detection.
The first 60 seconds after takeoff is a liability due to proximity, speed, and vehicle configuration.
As they get wiser, we become more succeptable to damage from all groundfire, especially from the IR seeking missles
where the flares and chaffe don't have a chance to be deployed before the crew is aware that they have been compromised.

Angel Decoys

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles have a range of about 3 miles. Care to calculate how much land area that would be.

Iraq is about 600km by 600km with some cutout areas. Care to calculate how much land area that would be? If the US can not secure an airport how is it going to secure a country?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Iraq is about 600km by 600km with some cutout areas. Care to calculate how much land area that would be? If the US can not secure an airport how is it going to secure a country?

We don't need to secure the country. Within a matter of months, elite Iraqi units . . . with two weeks of training . . . will secure the borders, streets, and vital infrastructure of Iraq.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Iraq's U.S.-appointed interim government established a war crimes tribunal Wednesday to try former members of Saddam Hussein's regime, and two U.S. soldiers were killed and four wounded in a northern city.

Anyone else read that wondering why two Us solders were going to the war crimes tribunal.

Baghdad international is not in the "middle of the desert". It is on the outskirts of Baghdad near built up areas. It is virtually impossible to prevent MANPAD missile teams from getting within the 3-5 mile range of the missiles being used here. You would have to use thousands of troops just to try and do that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles have a range of about 3 miles. Care to calculate how much land area that would be.

~28.26 sq miles?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
How hard can it be to secure an air port in the middle of a dessert? On another note where did the USA today find the writers for that piece heading.

Shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles have a range of about 3 miles. Care to calculate how much land area that would be.

~28.26 sq miles?

Quite a bit of area to ensure that no one is carrying such a weapon near the airport.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Those third world missiles must be past their born on date , stale or what . Military aircraft may be armored now .

Good thing. If we can't even secure the area around the Airport how the fsck do we think we can bring stability to Iraq? Even though we the American people were mislead by the Neocons into supporting this "Excellent Adventure" we are there now and we must do what we can to make this a successful situation. If we need more troops (as Gen Shishinski suggested) then let's send them over there and do this right! No matter if the Bush Neocons screwed the pooch by convincing our gullible President into BS'ing us to gain the public's support we still have to think about the brave Servicemen over there and we should not put them at risk by waging this "Occupation" on the cheap! Let's don't let this misadaventure turn into another Viet Nam!

I agree. Seems like now we are trying to have "just enough" military over there to bring peace while not be overwhelming. Like it's some kind of balancing game.

Bullsh!t. Double our forces. Whatever it takes but bring stability to the region.

And we can start out by securing the damn airport.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Those third world missiles must be past their born on date , stale or what . Military aircraft may be armored now .

Good thing. If we can't even secure the area around the Airport how the fsck do we think we can bring stability to Iraq? Even though we the American people were mislead by the Neocons into supporting this "Excellent Adventure" we are there now and we must do what we can to make this a successful situation. If we need more troops (as Gen Shishinski suggested) then let's send them over there and do this right! No matter if the Bush Neocons screwed the pooch by convincing our gullible President into BS'ing us to gain the public's support we still have to think about the brave Servicemen over there and we should not put them at risk by waging this "Occupation" on the cheap! Let's don't let this misadaventure turn into another Viet Nam!

I agree. Seems like now we are trying to have "just enough" military over there to bring peace while not be overwhelming. Like it's some kind of balancing game.

Bullsh!t. Double our forces. Whatever it takes but bring stability to the region.

And we can start out by securing the damn airport.

Double the forces, double the logistics and targets.

It is a balancing act. Having too many can be as bad as having too few.

 

[Crimson]

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aren't you the same jackasses that said that said just a few scant weeks ago that Bush's plane was in absolutely NO danger by landing at the airport?! Which is it? Is the airport safe or isn't it?

Hypocrits.. all of you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Who said that?

 

[AndrewR]

Two missiles striking two aircraft, and neither crashed. Tends to disprove the argument for putting multimillion dollar anti-missile devices on all civilian aircraft, doesn't it?

These have a ton of Defensive Avionics onboard...

Like what?

Those third world missiles must be past their born on date , stale or what . Military aircraft may be armored now.

Or maybe, as I said in previous threads, MANPADs aren't the biggest threat to large aircraft because of the size of the missile versus the size of the aircraft. They are still a threat, obviously, but too many people have equated a hit with instant destruction. The DHL and C-17 crews have proved otherwise.

A close friend is flying into Baghdad next week. Hopefully they'll find a security solution before she does.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aren't you the same jackasses that said that said just a few scant weeks ago that Bush's plane was in absolutely NO danger by landing at the airport?! Which is it? Is the airport safe or isn't it?

Hypocrits.. all of you.

Funny I don't recall anybody saying that Bushes plane was in no danger, if they did they were nuts.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Crimson
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aren't you the same jackasses that said that said just a few scant weeks ago that Bush's plane was in absolutely NO danger by landing at the airport?! Which is it? Is the airport safe or isn't it?

Hypocrits.. all of you.

Who said that?