PDA

View Full Version : Emergency landing for C5 Galxy over Baghdad



He219
01-08-2004, 02:34 PM
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040108/thumb.sge.uhl10.080104163510.photo00.default-390x265.jpg
US cargo plane lands as a US Army Chinook helicopter flys overhead at baghdad International Airport. A US Air Force C-5 cargo plane declared an inflight emergency shortly after taking off from Baghdad.(AFP/File/Stan Honda)

Missile May Have Hit U.S. Jet Over Baghdad (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040108/photos_pl_afp/040108163515_2oc9uui4_photo0)

WASHINGTON (*******) - A big U.S. military cargo jet may have been hit by a missile before it made an emergency safe return to Baghdad airport with 63 passengers and crew on Thursday, a U.S. military official said.

"We have reason to believe that it may have been hit by a missile. But the investigation is continuing," the official, who asked not to be identified, told ******* hours after the four-engine Air Force C-5 jet landed at Baghdad International Airport.

The U.S. Air mobility command said earlier that the crew of the jet landed the plane safely after declaring an in-flight emergency because of excessive vibrations in one of its engines.

There were 63 passengers and crew members on board the aircraft. No injuries were reported.


Hmmm...

mustamato
01-08-2004, 02:44 PM
Like the large DHL-plane that was hit. Seems like the SA-7/16┤s have a too small warhead to be usable against large multi-engine aircraft really. Usually the doctrine in most countries that use SA-7/16/18┤s is to shoot two against every target, wonder if it would have been enough in this case if two of the engines would have been hit instead of one.

The insurgents are learning, the next time they will shoot two...

NcDeuce
01-08-2004, 02:47 PM
The C-5 is a big, big plane.

mustamato
01-08-2004, 02:51 PM
The C-5 is a big, big plane.

http://www.af.mil/media/factsheet/c-5.jpg

Yeah it is. But it still needs something that pushes it forward in the air. If two of the engines on one of the wings stops working, then it┤s doomed. Theoretically, if a IR-missile hits one of the engines the shrapnel and debris from the hit can take the other engine out.

duck
01-08-2004, 02:56 PM
Thank God, and pilot skill. Would it be possible to fly fighter-bomber CAPs over Baghdad for a quick response? Counter artillery radars and rocket launcher systems? Minefields around the airport? More patrolling?

NcDeuce
01-08-2004, 02:59 PM
Those damn cargo planes fly over my house, usually at night, to deliver some goodies over the pond...loud as hell.

Guttorm
01-08-2004, 03:05 PM
Thank God, and pilot skill. Would it be possible to fly fighter-bomber CAPs over Baghdad for a quick response? Counter artillery radars and rocket launcher systems? Minefields around the airport? More patrolling?

Well.. See, when the insurgents use shoulder launched weapons that they can hide in the backseat... That won't work...

But you coul declear the zone around the airport a nogo zone, no unauthorized people are alowed to enter. But I'm pretty sure that this allready is in effect.
I think the problem is that a plane like the C-5 take a LOOONG time before they get up high enough. :)

Please excuse the typos. :)

Guttorm
01-08-2004, 03:06 PM
Thank God, and pilot skill. Would it be possible to fly fighter-bomber CAPs over Baghdad for a quick response? Counter artillery radars and rocket launcher systems? Minefields around the airport? More patrolling?

Well.. See, when the insurgents use shoulder launched weapons that they can hide in the backseat... That won't work...

But you coul declear the zone around the airport a nogo zone, no unauthorized people are alowed to enter. But I'm pretty sure that this allready is in effect.
I think the problem is that a plane like the C-5 take a LOOONG time before they get up high enough. :)

Please excuse the typos. :)

Argyll
01-08-2004, 03:07 PM
not CAPS duck but ,CAS!
Trouble with CAS is it usually needs FAC's to direct the aircraft,and unless you can pinpoint exactly the target to avoid collateral damage then you're running a high risk response strike.
Also very hard to detect a missile that travels at mach 3 (SA7/14's),aslo altitude and attitude of the a/c is very significant too,if they attacked during take off as suggested this is when the a/c is at it's most vulnerable,it's working flat out to get airborne,it's full of fuel,and it's cumbersome.Indeed the crew did very well to return the bird to the ground,but I fear it's only a matter of time before something big gets brought down....but these types of attacks are getting more common!

duck
01-08-2004, 03:21 PM
Thanks for correcting, CAS it is. Could the Kiowas be used for FAC duties? I would expect them be used for perimeter surveillance anyway. Don't know that much about their ground radars or sensors.

usa320
01-08-2004, 03:27 PM
Using CAS assets against a single individual with accuracy is no practical for fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters could be used, but that is just putting more aircraft in danger. I think the best way to counter the threat is to 1)buy back as many SAMs as possible like we did in afghanistan with success. 2) Fly erratically and change flightpaths often. Also have aircraft depart steeper and faster than normal. and 3) increase ground patrols and have Quick response forces ready to go.

NcDeuce
01-08-2004, 03:27 PM
They were used to scout out in front of the Apaches...But ever since the Longbows came out, the Kiowas have been used more and more to support ground troops.

Kiowa will soon, eventually be replaced...

duck
01-08-2004, 03:30 PM
It's not a single indivdual but several guys with SAM tubes, drivers, more guys as guards, 2-3 pickups. A cluster bomb could have some impact, maybe.

Argyll
01-08-2004, 03:30 PM
you could have that place as secure as you like,but if these guys are determined to launch and see an oppoertunity to do so they will,the DF kit for Artilllery/Mortars I doubt would be any good for locating SAM's.
As for ECM on the A/C as active as it would be the time it takes to locate the SAM and strt deploying chaff and Flare is maybe too late,as I said the SA7 flies about Mach 3,an aircraft at 230kn x 1000 AGL has literally no time to deploy countermeasures

NcDeuce
01-08-2004, 03:35 PM
They were used to scout out in front of the Apaches...But ever since the Longbows came out, the Kiowas have been used more and more to support ground troops.

http://www.aircav.com/kosovo/oh58-005rs.jpg
Canadian aircraft?

Kiowa will soon, eventually be replaced...

http://www.aarcorp.com/manufact/images/comanche.jpg

Uncle Ch˘
01-08-2004, 03:48 PM
The last (and only ?) time a C-5 was lost was Vietnam, April 1975.

The Galaxy was taking off from Sa´gon (Tan Son Nhut), most of the evacuated passengers were Vietnamese orphans. It had its controls damaged after the accidental loss of part of the rear doors while climbing. 155 out of the 314 people aboard perished :(

aktarian
01-08-2004, 04:25 PM
The C-5 is a big, big plane.

Which means, it's much less maneuvrable than smaller planes, can take less Gs, slower. And easier to spot.

He219
01-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Theoretically it could also take more damage ....

Remember the images of B-17's with tails and Rudders blown away?


Big U.S. Jet, Hit by Groundfire, Lands Safely in Baghdad (http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=812287)
WASHINGTON (*******) - A U.S. Air Force cargo jet carrying 63 passengers and crew was hit by ground fire in Iraq on Thursday and made a safe emergency landing following an explosion in one of its four engines, the U.S. military said.

"Initial reports indicate the incident is the result of hostile action from the ground, but the type of weapon and other details are unknown," the U.S. Air Mobility Command said in a statement from Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. Another military official in Washington earlier told ******* that a missile might have struck the aircraft.

None of the 11 crew members and 52 other military personnel aboard the four-engine C-5 "Galaxy" jet were injured, the mobility command said, adding that a team of military experts had been dispatched from Europe to investigate the incident.


We'll know soon enough ...

Falco
01-08-2004, 10:07 PM
The C-5 is a big, big plane.

http://www.af.mil/media/factsheet/c-5.jpg

Yeah it is. But it still needs something that pushes it forward in the air. If two of the engines on one of the wings stops working, then it┤s doomed. Theoretically, if a IR-missile hits one of the engines the shrapnel and debris from the hit can take the other engine out.

Possible, I'm not sure if this is the case but some multi engined aircraft can fly with half of thei engines disabled. There is also the 3 to 1 rule : for every 1000 foot loss in altitude, an aircraft must be capable of covering three nautical miles. So even if it had all of it's engines knocked out, it could still land by gliding, just like the Air Transat A330 at the Ašores Island.

AFACadet
01-09-2004, 12:31 AM
Using CAS assets against a single individual with accuracy is no practical for fixed wing aircraft.

Heh, not for an AC-130 p-)

Tane Angle
01-09-2004, 10:24 AM
AC-130s are wonderful birds, to be sure, and it's very comforting having one overhead, but they can't be up there 24 hours a day, sorry to say. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

aktarian
01-09-2004, 10:59 AM
Theoretically it could also take more damage ....

Remember the images of B-17's with tails and Rudders blown away?

That was flak that was random hit, not missiles that home on your engines.


Heh, not for an AC-130

Just remember why that one in 1991 went down. p-)

pAt
01-09-2004, 11:05 AM
didnt a C-130 land on a carrier a long time ago? i saw a pic it might of been photo shopped

marktigger
01-09-2004, 12:03 PM
ar the C5's flying to Iraq not being fitted with DAS if not then its very very silly?

AFACadet
01-09-2004, 12:26 PM
Just remember why that one in 1991 went down.


AC-130s are wonderful birds, to be sure, and it's very comforting having one overhead, but they can't be up there 24 hours a day, sorry to say.

Closer reading would have shown this was the reason for bringing up the AC-130:

First post:


Using CAS assets against a single individual with accuracy is no practical for fixed wing aircraft.

My post:


Heh, not for an AC-130

All I was saying was its an incorrect statement.

aktarian
01-09-2004, 12:37 PM
All I was saying was its an incorrect statement.

I stand corrected. But still think using AC-130s would be bad idea.

Argyll
01-09-2004, 12:59 PM
I agree,the AC130 is better suited to area denial,it still need pinpoint info on target location.
These guys launching the SAM's are not hanging around to see what happens next,it is also damn near impossible to lacate the launch site unless it's spotted at launch ,but letting loose an AC130 becuae you "suspect" the target in the area/location is not good enough,pouring 10's o 1000's of rounds onto the ground where Innocent civilains live is a recipe for disaster.!

martinexsquaddie
01-10-2004, 12:02 PM
back in the 80's did a home defense exercise trying to deny simulated spetnaz teams the ability to shoot at incoming US reinforcements the area that needs to be secured is massive

Argyll
01-10-2004, 12:06 PM
Ex Brave Defender!!!
I also took part in that I think it was 85?