US Guided Missle Cruiser Shoots Down US F-18

[Snargfargle]

And you people say that ships' AA doesn't work.

No serious injuries, other than to the taxpayers' pocketbooks for using a million-dollar missile to shoot down one of our own $72-million-dollar warplanes.

https://apnews.com/article/mideast-wars-yemen-us-navy-pilots-houthi-95a792daae3b0120186bfc6c66e1b6fe

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Snargfargle

[Estimated_Prophet]

Oops...

You'd think the Navy would be more careful about such things in that region; especially after a certain incident a number of years ago.

[Snargfargle]

20 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Oops...

a certain incident

Actually, there have been several "incidents." When you are dealing with complex technology and multiple sources of oftentimes conflicting information that must be evaluated in real time it's a wonder that there are not more.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Ouch.
As Murphy's Laws put it, "Friendly fire, isn't."

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Actually, there have been several "incidents." When you are dealing with complex technology and multiple sources of oftentimes conflicting information that must be evaluated in real time it's a wonder that there are not more.

I'd say tensions always increase the likelihood of error.

[Asym]

5 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I'd say tensions always increase the likelihood of error.

Or, since heads will roll in this Blue-on-Blue event;  a serious lack of training;  a serious lack of Operational data;  a complete failure to outline Operational Ops; or, as is the case soooooo many times:  being in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing and paying the price.... 

Although, if you think about this - how were the launch interrupts bypassed: remember, this isn't a 2D game and that region is saturated with Eye's watching everything !?  A very large tech failure?  A crew failure in the layers of launch protocols?  A Mission failure or, just some really bad Karma....

In the end, the Ship Captain's responsible...........

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, Asym said:

Or, since heads will roll in this Blue-on-Blue event;  a serious lack of training;  a serious lack of Operational data;  a complete failure to outline Operational Ops; or, as is the case soooooo many times:  being in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing and paying the price.... 

Although, if you think about this - how were the launch interrupts bypassed: remember, this isn't a 2D game and that region is saturated with Eye's watching everything !?  A very large tech failure?  A crew failure in the layers of launch protocols?  A Mission failure or, just some really bad Karma....

In the end, the Ship Captain's responsible...........

Depends, would they be flying with their transponders on or off?

[Asym]

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Depends, would they be flying with their transponders on or off?

A large sigh.......  Gosh, anything is possible and we'll never know what really happened....

Anything is possible:  we are talking about "people" and, since they are Military people, Private Buckley always seems to find the "one thing" that never could happen....and, make that one bad thing happen as if it were an everyday occurrence....   Oh gosh, over the several decades I served on Tanks......"that can't happen" happened all of the time !  Technology dependence is a curse:  that,  always rears its ugly head when you least expect it..... 

That can't happen and Buckley's always seems to show up when, it's the worst possible time for things to go upside down... 

I vote that this was a Buckley event.....  In any case, a price will be paid !

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Asym said:

A large sigh.......  Gosh, anything is possible and we'll never know what really happened....

Anything is possible:  we are talking about "people" and, since they are Military people, Private Buckley always seems to find the "one thing" that never could happen....and, make that one bad thing happen as if it were an everyday occurrence....   Oh gosh, over the several decades I served on Tanks......"that can't happen" happened all of the time !  Technology dependence is a curse:  that,  always rears its ugly head when you least expect it..... 

That can't happen and Buckley's always seems to show up when, it's the worst possible time for things to go upside down... 

I vote that this was a Buckley event.....  In any case, a price will be paid !

Well, it is a conflict zone, so they might be off. Nonetheless, why were they so triggy happy, I mean it's not like it's hugely likely that there's a hostile force there with an actual intention of attacking the US Navy, or any navy for that matter. If, say, they had a radar confirmation on the target, you'd think they would be able to tell the difference between a 70+ million fighter jet and a 200 buck drone, wouldn't you?

[Snargfargle]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I mean it's not like it's hugely likely that there's a hostile force there with an actual intention of attacking the US Navy

The US Navy and the world's shipping it is there to protect, have been under constant attack by missiles and drones in that area since November 2023. There have been so many attacks that I can't even begin to compile them here so I'm just going to link this.

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

 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The US Navy and the world's shipping it is there to protect, have been under constant attack by missiles and drones in that area since November 2023. There have been so many attacks that I can't even begin to compile them here so I'm just going to link this.

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

 

 

 

Okay, I noticed I kind of skipped a little detail, what I meant was a hostile force capable of operating jet fighters. If there's a jet fighter in the air, is there some specific reason for them to interpret it as a possible hostile?

[Snargfargle]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

If there's a jet fighter in the air, is there some specific reason for them to interpret it as a possible hostile?

This video will explain it. This guy's not just "blowing smoke" either, he's an active-duty US Army missile defense systems instructor.

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

10 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

This video will explain it. This guy's not just "blowing smoke" either, he's an active-duty US Army missile defense systems instructor.

 

 

So... F/A-18 radar signature matches a missile, then?

[Snargfargle]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

So... F/A-18 radar signature matches a missile, then?

The F/A-18, which likely was returning from a bombing mission, may have looked to the ship's missile-defense software (and ship's anti-missile operators) like it was an incoming missile as it was on the same glide path that an attacking missile would take. The aircraft should have been squawking a friendly transponder signal but there obviously was a glitch somewhere in the system.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The F/A-18, which likely was returning from a bombing mission, may have looked to the ship's missile-defense software (and ship's anti-missile operators) like it was an incoming missile as it was on the same glide path that an attacking missile would take. The aircraft should have been squawking a friendly transponder signal but there obviously was a glitch somewhere in the system.

Why does all this sound so familiar, an aircraft mistaken for a missile.

[Snargfargle]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Why does all this sound so familiar, an aircraft mistaken for a missile.

Because it's happened before, several times. In WWII, all the navies involved routinely shot down their own planes, mistaking them for enemy ones. There are better and better systems in place but still "friendly fire" and "collateral damage" incidents happen. You have to realize too that it's not just the occasional missile that gets launched at the US warships and the ships they are escorting in the Red Sea either. There is a full-scale war going on down there.

Here are the attacks just last month:

• two unsuccessful attacks that didn't reach the target area
• eight drones, five anti-ship ballistic missiles, and three cruise missiles -- intercepted
• Multiple missiles, exploding off target
• three anti-ship ballistic missiles, one cruise missile, and three drones -- intercepted
• one missile that missed its target
• multiple drones and one cruise missile -- intercepted

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, it is a conflict zone, so they might be off. Nonetheless, why were they so triggy happy, I mean it's not like it's hugely likely that there's a hostile force there with an actual intention of attacking the US Navy, or any navy for that matter. If, say, they had a radar confirmation on the target, you'd think they would be able to tell the difference between a 70+ million fighter jet and a 200 buck drone, wouldn't you?

An article, that I read, mentioned that the missile-firing ship had recently fended-off incoming waves of Houthi drones and missiles.
Their crew had about 1.5 to 3 seconds to make decisions regarding incoming radar contacts, according to the article.

The "IFF" (Identify/interrogate friend-or-foe) systems' failure (to prevent the F-18 from being shot down) is something I'm curious about.
 

[Asym]

37 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

An article, that I read, mentioned that the missile-firing ship had recently fended-off incoming waves of Houthi drones and missiles.
Their crew had about 1.5 to 3 seconds to make decisions regarding incoming radar contacts, according to the article.

The "IFF" (Identify/interrogate friend-or-foe) systems' failure (to prevent the F-18 from being shot down) is something I'm curious about.

As someone I know and I were discussing, there is sooooo much energy being radiated 100 miles surrounding where that cruiser was, it could be detected on the surface of Mars.

You must realize, there are concentric electronic "bubbles" of detection systems in play, full time.  From space to subs that map subsurface contracts.  AWACS and Carrier launched Hawkeye's... et al...  Not to mention the CAP levels of Radar and patrol.  Nor, the strategic unmanned drones....  Layers and layers of "who the heck is that>?!" running 24/7/365....

What I am curious about are the launch interrupts....  Even without an Active IFF, a whole bunch of "eye's" were on that F-18....whose sensors, the second that missile was active, would "ping everyone !"   Now tell me that no one knew that jet was flying up there........yeah, that dog don't hunt..... 

Or, we just heard about an Operational Level "Buckley" that I can't wait to read what the press are allowed to tell us.....

break

Merry Christmas !  🎅

[Snargfargle]

The F/A-18 apparently was on a refueling mission, acting a tanker. The US Navy is currently testing refueling drones but none are in active service yet.

The stated primary purposes of the MQ-25 today are to help extend the reach of the carrier air wing and to eliminate the current need to use F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters in the tanker role. The Stingrays will also have a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and there have been discussions about further expanding their roles as strike platforms.

https://www.twz.com/air/supercarrier-uss-george-h-w-bush-now-has-first-of-its-kind-drone-control-center

[Snargfargle]

13 minutes ago, Asym said:

Or, we just heard about an Operational Level "Buckley" that I can't wait to read what the press are allowed to tell us.....

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

The F/A-18 apparently was on a refueling mission, acting a tanker. The US Navy is currently testing refueling drones but none are in active service yet.

The stated primary purposes of the MQ-25 today are to help extend the reach of the carrier air wing and to eliminate the current need to use F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters in the tanker role. The Stingrays will also have a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and there have been discussions about further expanding their roles as strike platforms.

https://www.twz.com/air/supercarrier-uss-george-h-w-bush-now-has-first-of-its-kind-drone-control-center