The Ministry of Defence stress that this was the first operational air-to-air engagement conducted by a British Typhoon jet and also the first RAF air-to-air missile firing during Operation SHADER.

A British Typhoon jet has shot down a hostile drone over Syria after the aircraft was deemed to “pose a threat to Coalition forces in the area”.

According to a Ministry of Defence news release:

“This unprecedented event was the first operational air-to-air engagement conducted by an RAF Typhoon, and also the first RAF air-to-air missile firing during Operation SHADER – the UK’s contribution to the Global Coalition against Daesh.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was quoted as saying:

“This strike is an impressive demonstration of the RAF’s ability to take out hostile targets in the air which pose a threat to our forces. We continue to do everything we can alongside our Coalition partners to stamp out the terrorist threat and protect our personnel and our partners.”

The Ministry of Defence say that the engagement took place when drone activity was detected above the At Tanf Coalition base in Syria.

“As the drone continued on its track, it became clear it posed a threat to Coalition forces. RAF Typhoons conducting routine patrols in the area were tasked to investigate. Despite the small size of the drone making it a very challenging target, it was successfully shot down using an Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the threat eliminated – a tribute to the skill and professionalism of Royal Air Force pilots.”

The engagement took place on the 14th of December.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
165 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Max Jones
Max Jones
1 month ago

Damn that’s big news. Doesn’t happen too often these days.

When was the last conventional air-to-air engagement with an RAF aircraft?

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Max Jones

In the 1980s a Phantom shot down a Jag (by accident).. That’s it apart from RAF pilots flying FAA Sea Harriers in 1982.

Nick C
Nick C
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Don’t forget there were FAA pilots flying the Sea Harriers as well! For those who haven’t read it I recommend David Morgan’s book Hostile Skies. He was on secondment to the SHAR’s at Yeovilton, I forget which squadron, and came back with four kills. A very well written account and definitely gives a good look at the esprit de cours that ran through that small group of pilots.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

Yes of course the majority of SHAR pilots were FAA, I was referring to the last time the RAF shot anything down – FAA has had far more success than the RAF since WW2, and the carriers have had more opportunity for combat.

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Max Jones

Correct me if I am wrong, but the RAF, have never shot down an enemy aircraft before using a missile. They have never shot an enemy aircraft down using a jet, and never shot an enemy aircraft down since World War 2. Am I right?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

See above. It depends what qualifies as RAF the aircraft or the pilot. If aircraft no. If pilot yes.

Julian1
Julian1
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Harrier GR3s shot down helicopters in falklands with sidewinder. That’s the closest I can think of.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Julian1

Aah never heard that before. Thanks.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Julian1

Not true – all air to air kills in the Falklands were by SHAR.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
BobA
BobA
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

The last RAF kill was in 1948 – they shot down an Israeli Spitfire

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
1 month ago
Reply to  BobA

Hi BobA
Until this recent engagement, I believe the last confirmed RAF air-to-air kill was May 22 1948, during the withdrawal from Palestine, when RAF Spitfires shot down four Egyptian Spitfires attacking the Ramat David airbase.
The RAF did not shoot down any Israeli aircraft during this campaign, indeed it lost three Spitfires, one Tempest V and a Mosquito to the activities of the embryonic Israeli Air Force (flying Spitfire IXs and P-51s).

julian1
julian1
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

i may be wrong about the sidewinder, but im pretty sure GR3 shot down helicopters with cannon. according to the 1983 published analysis of the air war i have recently read anyway

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  julian1

A CH-47 Chinook was destroyed on the ground by a GR3 with cannon, but no air-to-air kills.http://www.naval-history.net/F64-Falklands-Argentine_aircraft_lost.htm

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  julian1

They definitely have them and have used them in action – as reported by UKDJ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typhoon-uses-cannon-combat/

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
1 month ago
Reply to  julian1

Hi julian1, You might be confusing this with a manoeuvre kill achieved by Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan (RAF) when flying a Sea Harrier on an exchange tour with the Fleet Air Air.
During the Falklands Conflict, on 23 May 1982, the turbulence from his jet-wash as he passed a few feet overhead caused an Argentinian Army Puma to spin out of control and crash on West Falkland.
As James states below, the GR3s saw no air-to-air combat – but destroyed a number of Argentinian helicopters on the ground in cluster bomb and strafing attacks.

PeterDK
PeterDK
1 month ago
Reply to  julian1

Hi Julian,
True, several Argentine helicopters were destroyed by Harrier GR3s. But I believe they were all destroyed on the ground. RAF sqn ldr Jerry Pook has written an interesting book on his experiences in ’82, himself having strafed ground targets.

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

RAF Spitfires were in combat during the withdrawl from Israel and I believe shot down one Egyptian Spitfire and one Israeli Spitfire, for the loss of at least one of their own.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
1 month ago

Hi BdtP, I agree the RAF was engaged in air-to-air combat during the withdrawal from Palestine – but it did not shot-down an Israeli aircraft. See my other post on this thread for more details.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

Hi Jay In answer to your questions – (1) RAF had never shot down an enemy aircraft before using a missile. Correct. (2) RAF had never shot an enemy aircraft down before using a jet. Correct. (3) RAF had never shot an enemy aircraft down since World War 2 – Not Correct. On May 22 1948, during the withdrawal from Palestine, RAF Spitfires shot down four Egyptian Spitfires attacking the Ramat David airbase. As a service, this day marked the RAF’s last air-to-air kill (until this new engagement). However, it should be noted RAF pilots serving with the USAF in… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Good summary!

Carlos Games
Carlos Games
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

Exactly

Last edited 1 month ago by Carlos Games
Jonny
Jonny
1 month ago

Had a small heart attack reading the headline, at least it’s only a drone

Mike O
Mike O
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonny

Likewise, a lot of dangerous scenarios ran through my mind for a few seconds.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonny

why?

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Because if the RAF had shot down a Russian aircraft in Syria it could have seen an escalation in hostilities in multiple areas.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonny

Troll??

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

?

davetrousers
davetrousers
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonny

Yes the headline was on the clickbait side. It could have read “RAF aircraft shoots down hostile drone”

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
1 month ago

What size/type drone is the question. Impressive kill if it was a small prop driven item, or should it have been gunned down? Saving an expensive missile.
AA

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago

Something like air-launched (sonobuoy tube) Coyote expendable drones maybe?

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Meaning that’s what the UOR should be for.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

Be interesting to find out whose drone it was. Syrian, Iranian or Russian are most likely. Whoever it was we’ve let them know we are willing and able to look after our selves and our friends. Whatever congrats to the pilot.

Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Al Tanf sits right on the Iraq/Syria/Jordanian border and forces the Iranians to route their arms supplies to Hezb-allah up the road to Deir-ez-zur which is why they have built huge underground storage bunkers on the border with Iraq and why the IDF has been hitting them on a regular basis. it is in Tehran’s interest to remove the Yanks, so as to afford them access to a much shorter route to Lebanon, The Yanks have a 55 km (do not enter zone) and when the Iranian militia tried to take the place by force in 2017, the Yanks hit… Read more »

5946ebd3e592ed83018b50aa.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Farouk
James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Excellent

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

👍

Mike O
Mike O
1 month ago

For any who have read World War Z, this really brings back to mind ‘Resource to kill ratio’.

Andy ardron
Andy ardron
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike O

Yep with drones in future some one should send MOD a copy. Western military and all its tech brought to its knees!

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike O

A misunderstanding here – you are not killing the drone for the sake of it, you are killing it because if you don’t the drone will kill and maim your comrades and allies. The cost ratio is their lives versus the cost of an ASRAAM. And of course it is worth it.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Mike O
Mike O
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

I mean no offense and I am not trying to start an argument, but there was no misunderstanding. The necessity of the kill is not in doubt. The value of the kill is not questioned. The phrase ‘Resource to kill ratio’ from the book I mentioned refers to a tactic of using the minimum amount of resources to achieve a kill in order to enable a maximum amount of kills to be achieved with what is a finite amount of resources. The use of a high end weapon suggests there was no other option available to achieve a kill that… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike O

An engagement with guns would have had too high a risk of failure. The main AA weapons are either ASRAAM (which is relatively cheap) and Meteor (which is not). The choice was correct in my view.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Mike O
Mike O
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Yes I am sure they made the best choice they could. Well done to all involved. Small drones, loitering munitions and other threats like this are a fact of life now. Hopefully appropriate solutions are being developed.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike O

I think they are looking a very small hypersonic missiles and DE weapons for Tempest.

Mike O
Mike O
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Very small hypersonic missiles? That is interesting. Operational DE weapons on aircraft must be a long way off. Will be a game changer once they work though.

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Very small and hypersonic don’t go together.

James F
James F
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

they do if they are short ranged – hypersonic is Mach 5+

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Why high risk of failure? Drones are generally slow things, attack with guns and if that fails use missiles. But guess it depends on range between the fighter and the drone and between the drone and friendly forces.

MH
MH
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

If a typhoon had gone with gun the whole mission would’ve been a failure… there is no canon on the jet

James F
James F
1 month ago
Reply to  MH
MH
MH
1 month ago
Reply to  James F

It has the ability to be fitted with a cannon… as far as I am aware – no frontline Typhoon operated by the RAF has this fitted. (It would be housed in the Starboard side wing root) and that has been blanked off in every jet I have ever seen/photographed.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  MH

They definitely have them an have used them in action – as reported by UKDJ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typhoon-uses-cannon-combat/

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  MH

They definitely have them and have used them in action – as reported by UKDJ. There was some nonsense about deleting them way back when, but it was overturned. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typhoon-uses-cannon-combat/

Rudeboy1
Rudeboy1
30 days ago
Reply to  MH

Incorrect. There was a proposal to delete the cannon at one point, following 2008, as a cost saving measure. However to do so would cost a fortune, developing a replacement mass, flight testing it etc. to replace the 27mm Mauser onboard so as not to upset the delicate centre of gravity of the aircraft was going to cost more than leaving them in. So the RAF left them in, albeit they stopped training on using it. This decision was rapidly reversed however and all Typhoon pilots are now trained in their use.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  MH

They definitely have them and have used them in action – as reported by UKDJ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typhoon-uses-cannon-combat/

Julian1
Julian1
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike O

I understand. A lot of low cost drones could deplete the stores of high end missiles. For the very finite resources of MoD anyway.

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  Julian1

Agree

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Exactly. Drones are potentially a forthcoming menace that can be deployed fairly cheaply, and after Salisbury, who knows what the payload is or intention is.

Mr Mark Franks
Mr Mark Franks
1 month ago

Drone? If so who’s was it? Has the MOD put out a statement?
Am I pig ignorant? I thought ASRAAM had been withdrawn.

PaulW
PaulW
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

ASRAAM is the primary IR AAM. AMRAAM is being replaced by Meteor on the Typhoon.

Mr Mark Franks
Mr Mark Franks
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulW

Just looked it up, I have been out of the loop for a while.

Mr Mark Franks
Mr Mark Franks
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

How do I get rid of my avatar? It has my ex wife in it.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

😂

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

😆

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

It was a long time ago, but I think I got mine by going to gravatar.com. No idea otherwise.

Mr Mark Franks
Mr Mark Franks
1 month ago

Thank you avatar changed.

Tony
Tony
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

How do you even get an avatar

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Tony

What’s an Avatar(says he still reluctant to abandon his slide rule!)

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Morning geoff.

See my Gandalf/Mithrandir image. As opposed to your symbol. It is a silly visual ID really, nothing more. Once you have one it remains with you when using various internet forums.

My limited understanding of it.

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

Morning Daniele

Thanks for that and promise I am not laying it on-difficult to keep up when one gets older😀 if you get a chance look at the comments on the Mail regarding this incident-I am under geoff49. There are some that will make your jaw drop!

Kind Regards Geoff

Mark franks
Mark franks
1 month ago
Reply to  Tony

Sign into word press.

P Fennell
P Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

Divorce it. Won’t be cheap.

Mark F
Mark F
1 month ago
Reply to  P Fennell

It’s cost £21.000 so far for financial resolution and family matters.
I thought getting married was expensive.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

Probably Iranian – on course for a US FOB.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Mark
Mark
1 month ago

Will he get a sticker to show a kill under his cockpit.

Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago

So just had a butchers on the internet and apprantly the take down took place on the 14th and the UAV was heading towards a US base which housed 200 troops. So at a quick guess I would say it was the Iranians who have become somewhat bold in hitting the Yanks with the sniffer in cheif in charge.

Max Jones
Max Jones
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Seems strange for them to target Syria, though. There are enough US forces in Iraq which does require such a long and presumably vulnerable flight.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Max Jones

Supposedly this US base has previously been attacked by suicide drones, thats why they ordered an intercept.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Max Jones

Could be IS – they have drones based in Syria.

Gary
Gary
1 month ago

ASRAAM is a IR heat-seaker type missile. Does this mean the drone had a jet engine, or do small petrol engines produce enough of an IR signature?

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Gary

It simply means the drone was hotter than the air around it, even sunlight reflecting off it. This is enough for the aircraft’s and the missile sensors to lock on

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Gary

ASRAAM uses a imaging infrared (IIR) seeker. This operates slightly differently to traditional IR seekers. Rather than looking for and homing in to a hot spot. It operates more like a thermal camera. So “sees” the spectrum of heat the body is giving off, which it then compares with the skies colder background contrast. This means ASRAAM and similar IIR guided missiles can be fired at the front of an opposing aircraft, giving it a definite all aspect attack capability. These types of sensors are so sensitive that they can see heat generated by chemical batteries, when they are being… Read more »

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Remember reading once they can program a cockpit shot…meaning the heat profile of a human heart!

Rudeboy1
Rudeboy1
1 month ago
Reply to  Pete

It doesn’t mean that. The algorithms in the targeting system recognise an aircrafts shape from the image produced by the IIR. It then specifically targets the front of the shape for impact, thats usually where the cockpit is….no homing in on a heart…

pete
pete
29 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy1

cheers

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Russian,Syrian, Israeli, Iranian, Isis or Hamas drone?

BBC reporting today the first USAF F35A’s arriving at RAF Lakenheath.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank62
James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

IS most likely, maybe Iranian. It was on course for a US FOB in Iraq, the second turned back, so they will know from where.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Geoffi
Geoffi
1 month ago

Hardly a SU-33, was it ?

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

And your point is?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Anything to find fault. Anything.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago

Exactly – if that drone had attacked a US base lives would have been lost. An ASRAAM well used.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I would say that’s good news Geoffi 😮

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

And we are all pleased about that because that would have some very nasty ramifications to peace,stability and the chance of everyone getting vaporised, burned or irradiated to death in a nuclear war.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan
James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

We are pleased about it becuase no-one was killed by a drone strike. No-one is going to be irradiated by legitimately shooting down a rogue aircraft – what nonsense – and if they were we would irradiate back, I beleive 16 Trident D2 with 144 warheads are aimed at Moscow and in the mid Atlantic right now..

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Hi James I think your miss understanding me, the poster seemed to think was nothing that a drone was shot down, because it was not a SU-33 flanker. My meaning was if we had got to a situation that an RAF fast jet needed to shoot down a Russian aircraft, in the present climate we would be a very big step closer to a war with Russia and a war between nuclear powers has never happened for the very good reason. The nuclear deterrent has been proven to be a great way to keep the peace duing peace time, BUT… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan
James F
James F
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well if you believe Putin is a suicidal maniac then your point might hold water – only an suicidal maniac would press the button over this.

Defending yourself is not risky – and this incident was defensive, to prevent a drone strike inside Iraq. Failing to defend yourself is risky.

Putin wants to consolidate his claims to the old Russian Empire- to Ukraine and Georgia. Syria is about access to the Med and cutting off Ukraine from Western Naval power.

Putin does not want nuclear war, that would ruin all his plans.

Last edited 1 month ago by James F
Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  James F

No I don’t think Putin would push a button over one fighter , that was not my point. my point is I’m please this was not a Russian jet being shot down as that would put us closer to war with Russia and what sort of person would want that to be the case, so I’m pleased it was a mystery drone being shot down. I did not say our forces should not defend themselves, I was pretty clear I was happy they did not have to defend themselves against “Russia” because that means we are heading one step closer… Read more »

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Morning Jonathan. The simple truth is that it just takes one madman, one micalculation or nowadays one bit of fake news, one Nuke finally obtained by a fanatic, one Nuclear strike to unleash Armaggedon. Sadly I think it is inevitable

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Well it’s been 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the looser security of the nuclear weapons during that time, and we still have managed to avoid Armageddon…. I think your being just a bit pessimistic about things….

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Hopefully

Meirion x
Meirion x
1 month ago
Reply to  James F

Yes, a life of luxury in palaces, with access to hookers!

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

So you let a bully win! At least with a manned aircraft, the Typhoon pilot would have tried to call him on Guard, thereby trying to make them turn away from the Yank base. However, if the jet ignored the warning, this would have been escalated by firing a warning shot (burst from 27mm Mauser) in front of the jet. The next step would be a missile up the chuff, regardless. If the jet was posing a risk to life, then by international law having expended the other avenues, the Typhoon would be well within its rights to bring it… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Davey, did I every say our forces should not defend themselves, nope read what I wrote. I’m glade that a british jet and Russia jet did not end up in conflict and the RAF had to shoot it down. Because that would mean we would be heading closer to a war with Russia and personally I would consider that in the realms of “ fucking nightmare I would never want to happen”. This rational thought process does not mean that I think we should be weak in our foreign policy and Not defend ourselves and our allies ( as weakness… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Copy. But at some point deterrence can no longer be relied upon, if the other side keeps pushing the boundary.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I know and that’s what really worries me, I think Putin is starting to lose understanding around how far the West can be pushed and I think he’s going to push to far at some point. It’s a nasty dangerous mixture of what happens to all authoritarian absolutists, (in that after a time they believe their own mythology) and the Western powers both cutting military to the bone and Showing levels of weak and incompetence foreign policy. Is a deadly mix.

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I think it will come to a head sooner rather between the West and East sooner than later sadly! This is because a certain Mr Putin is now 69 years old, so age and time will be going against him. He has already mentioned publicly about the Russian speakers genocide happening in Ukraine and that something must be done about it. If the rhetoric increases then we know for sure something is going to kick off! Especially when you consider that his speech was on National TV and held in the Parliament, who then gave a rousing applause once he’d… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

To be honest I think Putin is aware that if he pushes into Ukraine the limit of western intervention will be sanctions, after all our blindingly brilliant western leadership removed at strategic ambiguity buy publicity announcing such on TV ( they should have simply said “ramifications would be significant and Universal from the family of western nations And the west would not stand for the invasion of a sovereign state. But now he knows his key concern, military Intervention is off the table. All he has to do is consider if he is willing to take the sanctions and what… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Mate, I think a few folk have misunderstood your original point.

Agree with you!

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

I thought the RAF refused to fit the gun and had concrete balast in its place or did they see science and had it fitted???????

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

Don’t quote me, but I believe they found it cheaper to retain the gun then fit concrete ballast.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Yes pretty much. The Tranche 1s without the weight of the gun upset the center of gravity and the flight control software has issues trying to compensate for it. Thankfully sainer heads prevailed and sense got through the dogma, so the gun plus ammo was refitted. This was about the time of 9/11. Someone finally realized that having a gun that fired warning shots would be a good idea in a similar situation.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

History repeating itself – broadly speaking. Believe the USAF discovered that in Vietnam when they introduced the F4 Phantom negative gun!!

James F
James F
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Yes – it was more expensive not to have them – thank God.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

UKDJ reported Typhoon’s using cannon against ground targets some years ago.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

No matter what it was- It was hostile, so the Typhoon destroyed it. The Su-33 would of suffered a similar fate.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

👍

MikeB1947
MikeB1947
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

Russian aircraft do fly regularly in Syrian airspace against those groups opposing the Assad government (whether or not we agree with them being there). So if the Typhoon had indeed come an Su-33, there should have been no reason to suspect it was hostile to NATO forces in the region.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  MikeB1947

There’s a demarcation line between where both sides can fly. It was agreed by all sides with the aim of preventing such a situation. When the Yanks pulled back from Eastern Syria the line was moved.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Is there much syrain Airforce left ?

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

About 150 fighters and 100 attack helicopters left now, they suffered a high attrition rate during the civil war but since it mostly ended Russia has been supplying them with a lot of parts and the number of aircraft that are actually combat ready has gone up substantially.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Cheers Watcherzero

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

That’s a good thing. I don’t particularly like siding with Putin on anything but a stable Syria is surely good. What on earth the US and UK were thinking trying to destabilise it I will never know, our politicians have clearly learned nothing from the Iraq war

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago

You need to read some stuff. Op Shader is defending Iraq from Islamic State. https://www.forces.net/news/three-years-op-shader-1500-airstrikes-against-islamic-state

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Who said anything about Operation Shader? I know exactly what I am talking about, thank you, and I was referring to the blatant Western support for groups like the FSA.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

You mean the Syrian Kurds who were the ground force relied on by the west to destroy IS. Certainly and rightly blatant.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

No, I mean groups like the FSA with links to extremist groups, but just like Libya, who cares as long as they cause chaos and disruption for the Syrian government, right? All we did for the Kurds was turn our backs on them once Turkey became increasingly involved.

James F
James F
1 month ago

The drone was most likely from Islamic State, it was destroyed because it was entering Iraq on course for a US FOB. The Typhoon is part of Op Shader. Western support is for groups who oppose Islamic State and wish to have a democracy and don’t want to be ruled by a murderous tyrant. Russia has propped up an unwanted autocrat for their own strategic ends.

Last edited 1 month ago by James F
Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago
Reply to  James F

Actually it was most likely from Iran or Iranian-backed rebels, the base is near a road used to link Tehran and Southern Lebanon.

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
1 month ago

Thank god it wasn’t Russian or otherwise this might’ve been the last news story I ever read

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

I doubt it – the Turks shot down a Su-25 in 2015 when it strayed too near their airspace. This drone was on course for a US base and 300 military personnel.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

No, there would be several escalating incidents. Putin won’t launch nukes because a UAV has been downed! He would lose like we lose. So what would be the point.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

Perfect job for a laser to undertake to save on costs in the future.

Tempest should receive a version of Dragonfire so I wonder if Typhoon will become a testbed for it at some point?

A job well done nonetheless.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Nothing really to congratulate. A simple air to air engagement.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

What was simple about it in your opinion, technically speaking that is?

Saving coalition forces is a job well done in my opinion.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

I guess you carry out these every day on your laptop, right?

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

Agreed, Nigel. It is a commendable job in my view as well, it saved the lives of 300 Americans from a potential attack as well as demonstrating air to air capability, the latter being far less important

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

Absolutely eclipse, even one life. Hopefully, the cost per shot compared to a laser will get things moving a little bit faster if that’s possible! “The first laser will undergo user testing onboard a Royal Navy Type 23 frigate by detecting, tracking, engaging and countering unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), announced the MOD. Meanwhile, a “Wolfhound” armoured vehicle will host a laser demonstrator that will investigate capability against UAVs and other airborne threats for the British Army. The RF weapon demonstrator will also be used by the British Army, hosted on a “MAN SV” truck to detect and track a variety… Read more »

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

No no you get me wrong. The RAF, pilot and crews would not accept praise, nor get anything from it. They are just doing thier job as simple as that , routine.

Andy Tribble
Andy Tribble
1 month ago

In the last few wars lost by us, we didn’t need an Air Superiority fighter. The other side didn’t compete in the air. Looked like a waste of money. In the war in Yemen, one side has air superiority and it’s still a stalemate. In the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Azerbaijan won by using drones. This looked like two strikes against the whole Typhoon programme. You can have air superiority and still lose. And if you really want air superiority, it’s easier and cheaper to do it with drones. At last, a Typhoon shoots down a drone. Almost… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

You have to wonder if at some point we will be looking at having anti drone drones Your not really not going to be wanting your fast jets chasing after drones all the time. Especially when drone swarms become more of a reality. So I could se a reason for cheap loitering air defence drones.

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If an asraam had been used, it must have been a drone of some size I should think. A mini-brimstone type missile with a mw radar would be useful to fire at drones from aircraft. No great range required, carriage in good numbers….?
Or even LMM perhaps, as this is a weapon “in being”, targeted by the aircrafts designator.
AA

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago

You would be shock at what the imaging infrared sensor in ASRAAM cab see and track. As part of the mid life upgrade, this sensor is getting an even better one, with significantly better resolution.

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Naff spelling is due to my dyslexic right thumb.

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If a drone is controlled via an external source then it’s control signal could be jammed bringing it to the ground. If it is on a pre set course (ie a cruise missile) you need to kill it in flight. For that, at present, you need a manned interceptor. W

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

I jay, I’m thinking more autonomous swarms over more traditional ground controlled drones.

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yeah you would think for swarming drones a phalanx type system would be effective

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In essence, you could have that tomorrow. One of the weapons available to Reaper is the unguided Hydra 70mm rocket. However, strap on the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) package, it turns it into a guided rocket using a semi-active laser seeker. Trials have been done where the APKWS was used to take out a small reconnaissance drone (believe the target was a Predator drone). The Reaper has a very good electro-optical turret that includes a laser designator. This would be more than adequate for guiding the APKWS at a drone. However, the Predator would need either an infrared… Read more »

Matheus S
Matheus S
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The drone exists, the MORFIUS.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago

According to NBC, there were two drones, the surviving one turned back.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna8954

Whoever responsible, Iranians I bet, certainly got the message.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago

Quite significant – according to US sources ‘A British Typhoon jet shot down the incoming drone, according to a US defense official, using an advanced short-range air to air missile (ASRAAM), becoming one of the first times a heat-seeking air-to-air missile was used in a combat situation to take out a threatening drone.’

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

Of course if Typhoon had a gun it could have just shot it down for a few quid rather than firing a £200,000 missile.

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

I thought this as well, however it might place the aircraft at a disadvantage when manoeuvring for a gun shot in some circumstances. A smaller cheap missile is required….LMM for instance if it were to be able to be launched from a jet aircraft
AA

Jay R (Putins Lovechild)
Jay R (Putins Lovechild)
1 month ago

I am totally unqualified to understand why a missile was used and not a gun. But I don’t think the RAF think about cost when executing a mission. Also cost is irrelevant, unused missiles are disposed of anyway. And they are not replaced like for like. They are ordered in batches. The Typhoon and most interceptors are designed to destroy the enemy BVR and the gun is last resort.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Most odd.

The gun has been used on operations before, so it’s fairly safe to say that they have guns.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

Agree mate, they’ve always had a gun, fitting the concrete ballast proved too expensive, so the gun was retained.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

A 27mm Mauser Cannon is fitted to Typhoon.

air-weapons.png
James F
James F
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob
Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago

Slightly off the main topic, the Saudis have become quite proficient in knocking out of the sky UAVs heading their way, this turn about started when they took delivery of the F15SA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsnoS4WaNIE&t=25s

Jay
Jay
1 month ago

This is where a laser based weapon would have been ideal, I hear something similar is being integrated into Tempest.

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

Sometimes one really does not know whether to laugh or cry. In this mornings Mail Online, the paper I love to hate, one bright spark in the comments section says after the billions we have spent on jets and missiles since 1982, all we have managed to shoot down is a 200 dollar Chinese drone!! The posts are worth a read😁

Last edited 1 month ago by geoff
Bob
Bob
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

So it IS true, those who hate the Mail are the ones reading it! 😉

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob

Not necessarily Bob. Some like myself have a perverse attachment to ignorance and stupidity which exists in abundance on the comment pages of said journal! I think most of their readers like it for it’s content stuffed with entertainment and pictures of curvaceous ladies that”set pulses racing and temperatures soaring” as they display their”ample assets”. Vis-a- vis our shared interest in defence matters and the UKDJ I am truly stunned at the base ignorance of the masses not only on military issues but life in general. Winston Churchill was spot on when he said that the best argument against democracy… Read more »

PRJ
PRJ
1 month ago

congrats to RAF, testament to great training and capabilities, and demonstrating RAF role to control the airspace through offensive action. RN needs to learn from RAF and understand there will instances where they need offensive capabilities to control their domain.

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing
1 month ago

Yes, but does the pilot get to call it a kill? :)I