The 2nd crew member of the F15E shot down over Iran has been successfully rescued. The Pentagon has released that he is a colonel and was the Weapons Systems Officer on board the aircraft. He has suffered 'minor injuries' but is otherwise reported to be in good condition.
A large operation involving over a 'dozen' aircraft was mounted and he was recovered from high ground in a mountainous region. The rescue was conducted under fire from Iranian forces. No casualties have been reported.
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
2nd Crew Member of F15E Has Been Rescued.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, @07:03AM (2 children)
No veedjo, it didn happen.
(Score: 5, Funny) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @10:44AM (1 child)
Can you not get ChatGPT to hallucinate one for you like everyone else?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday April 06, @04:18PM
No, everyone was using Sora and now it is gone. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w3e467ewqo [bbc.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by namefags_are_jerks on Sunday April 05, @07:35AM (27 children)
Why is this being spammed and making it as a leading story /literally/ on every news service I follow (including the Community Radio station that plays mostly techno that I'm listening too and until now didn't care for war reports in its hourly news update). Rescue and fighting withdrawals are continuous things during warfare; "no one" outside of the USA landmass heard about the first guy.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday April 05, @08:03AM (19 children)
It was widely reported in both the UK and France. I imagine it has been reported elsewhere too.
It has not replaced our normal output - it is an extra item that might be of interest to many. It will also influence how Trump/USA will respond next, and that has implications that are very relevant to this site (oil, fertilisers, helium, hydrogen, etc) and many in our community.
You don't have to read it, or even see it. You have my permission to change your personal preferences so that such stories do not appear on your screen.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 4, Touché) by pe1rxq on Sunday April 05, @09:09AM (17 children)
We get it:
- One US crew member is very relevant and deserves immediate attention
- Those he was dropping bombs on are not. (Was it because those are considered 'naughty' or because they were school children?)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @11:22AM (13 children)
That refuelling tanker was apparently shot down by a Russian missile. You'd think they'd give the crew parachutes. The airliner that Putin had shot down took ages to hit the ground. People were still alive. Russian anti-aircraft missiles are apparently very effective.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @11:25AM
I say "apparently" I mean "probably." Iran has Russian SAMs.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday April 05, @02:01PM (1 child)
There are plenty of military aircraft that do not have parachutes for the crew or passengers. Large aircraft and most helicopters do not have ejection seats either. The Russian made Ka-50 (and Ka-50-2, and Ka-52 derivatives) helicopter has ejection seats (ES)- the main rotors were explosively jettisoned as part of the ES system. This aircraft has been used in the war against Ukraine.
Departing a conventional (non-rotary) aircraft by the forward doors (or ES) (i.e. where the crew are usually situated) is not recommended as there usually are rather large mechanical mincing machines aft of that door.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @02:36PM
They need to do something about that. It's unacceptable.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Monday April 06, @07:50AM (9 children)
They used to give the crews parachutes. However, they were removed in 2008 as they cost a lot of money and time to keep up with, both from a maintenance and training perspective.
The crews were reportedly not sorry to see them go as they saw little use for them. If the aircraft is flyable then staying with it all the way down is the better option, and if it isn't then the chances that anybody would be able to safely egress and actually use their parachute were deemed slim to none.
https://www.940arw.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-View/Article/169673/air-force-pulls-parachutes-from-kc-135s/ [af.mil]
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday April 06, @08:31AM (6 children)
Well, I'd buy my own parachute and take it with me.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Thursday April 09, @09:47AM (5 children)
Yes, well, knowing the military, I'm not sure the air force would let you. And if the seats aren't adapted for wearing a parachute, then you'd have to put it in a locker or similar, and then you're back at square one. You need time to don it and find a way out of the aircraft. That requires a very special set of circumstances that will probably not arise.
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday April 09, @09:58AM (4 children)
Note to self: never sign up for military duty.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Thursday April 09, @10:24AM (3 children)
"Join the Army they said... See the world they said..." ;)
That's not an unreasonable conclusion. However, there is often some good with the bad. As with everything.
Now, growing up in Sweden during the cold war, we didn't have a choice in the matter. Mandatory conscription is mandatory. Well, we could chose to go to prison for a month or two of course, and I know one or two who made that choice (it's not a career killer here in Sweden as it is in the US), but that was basically the extent of the available options.
(Yes, you could apply for non-armed service, but being e.g a firefighter at an air force base, doesn't exactly put you out of harms way.)
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday April 09, @10:33AM (2 children)
They wouldn't have me anyway. I'm too old now and all of my medical issues would likely disqualify me anyway (asthma for starters). I do not envy you. The Cold War was a very tense time. Things aren't looking to good just now with Putin's current nonsense in your area. I occasionally look at the flight radar and the defence news. I have seen several occasions when Swedish fighter jets have had to chase Russian fighters away. They're not having much fun in the Baltics either. I often see the AWACS planes over Poland and so on plus the submarine hunters routinely fly up the coast of Norway and round the top. There's a lot going on off the British Isles too, in the Atlantic and the North Sea. Every so often the RAF chases away the Russian spy planes and the Royal Navy intercepts Russian vessels. Plus the submarine hunters go here and there and follow some decidedly interesting flight profiles, for example flying around lower than a Cessna for hours and hours.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Friday April 10, @08:03AM (1 child)
No, I of course also aged out myself many years ago now. But yes, it's with a mixture of nostalgia and trepidation we witness the current situation. For a child of the cold war the world suddenly makes sense again. Swedish fighterns should constantly be chasing Russian aircraft away testing our defences and resolve. So, everything is once more as it "should" be, well with the usual Swedish luck: Once we finally make the decision to call a spade a spade, and become an official member of NATO, the whole organisation seems to be on the verge of being shut down...
So I'd rather still be bewildered by the "end of history," myself, but needs must. We're back to square one.
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Friday April 10, @08:17AM
Mr Putin has been sending his loyal and patriotic sailors [ukdefencejournal.org.uk] and submariners [ukdefencejournal.org.uk] on all-expenses-paid cruises around the British Isles. Aren't they lucky? And our Royal Navy chaps have had the pleasure of their company. For many years the Internet was suspiciously busy with people telling us what a nice man Mr Putin is. They seem to have gone quiet lately.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Monday April 06, @03:07PM (1 child)
While that makes sense intellectually, the Hercs breaking in half mid-air would have give a chance to passengers if they were wearing it already and I want to 'but actually' even though I agree it's not worth it. (If a prop breaks the right way, it'll slice through the cabin as it departs)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday April 07, @01:53PM
The Hercs have a design flaw where a shed propeller blade can cause the whole front end of the aircraft to be chopped off.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, @12:41PM
Why not both?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday April 05, @02:05PM (1 child)
I'm was not taking sides - I don't think this war should ever have started. There has been no evidence provided to prove the 'imminent' threat.
However, If Iran had an American hostage then it would have applied additional (and unwanted) pressure on America during any future negotiations.
All 3 participants are ignoring the accepted rules of war, and can be proven to have committed war crimes. I only hope that they all get treated in the same way.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, @02:45AM
Thing is, by "not taking sides" you've taken a side. One side decided to drop bombs in the middle of diplomatic negotiations, and not apologize for a double tap on a school on day one. The other side was like "oh, so that's how it is. you fuckers. You and your material supporters deserve no trust or mercy." You'd be the same if in their shoes.
All participants are guilty of war crimes, but they are not remotely equivalent.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, @10:41AM
Meanwhile I've been watching State AI generated propaganda for laughs.
China:
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1ryjccp/chinese_state_media_airs_ai_generated_animation/ [reddit.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1s9gh9g/chinese_state_media_releases_episode_2_of_their/ [reddit.com]
Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QYX2fcZdw0A [youtube.com]
https://www.facebook.com/saerzulkarnain/videos/iran-has-taken-trolling-trump-to-a-diabolical-level-now-theyre-mocking-him-with-/25953145604307940/ [facebook.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by Ingar on Sunday April 05, @08:36AM
US War Propaganda, isn't that obvious?
Love is a three-edged sword: heart, soul, and reality.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday April 05, @01:13PM (1 child)
As mentioned before, it's US propaganda. And the reason is pretty obvious. The Trump administration needs to appear competent and in control of the war - at least for a US audience. Of course, there are drawbacks to the strategy, such as alerting the Iranian military that they can potentially bag several more US planes and helicopters, if they use downed airmen as lures.
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Sunday April 05, @02:46PM
So far we've just got Trump's say-so, I'd wait for more reliable sources like PressTV [presstv.ir] to confirm it first.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Sunday April 05, @02:40PM
Because the US needs at least one single good-news story from the global catastrofuck [*] they've created.
[*] Thankyou, Malcolm Tucker.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday April 05, @05:21PM (1 child)
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Monday April 06, @05:58AM
Well, sounds like he believes that is what is happening. I would suggest the Whitehouse or some group in the US military as the source of said spam. And of course, there's the repetitive posting as news stories. I think it checks the boxes here.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday April 05, @09:18PM
Operation Epstein Fury is supposed to be distracting by design.
Just like during the virus era, you can see which media outlets are cooperating with propaganda goals.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @11:29AM (10 children)
Given that this war on Iran is both immoral and illegal, I do wonder how many US service personnel have been brave enough to refuse to follow their orders to participate in the action?
I dare say Trump and Hegseth will have them thrown in the stockade meantime.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by pe1rxq on Sunday April 05, @12:03PM (4 children)
Most will probably claim 'Befehl ist Befehl", aka the Nuremberg defense.
They will still consider themselves 'brave' as these days the US definition of 'bravery' comes directly from the fascist playbook.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @12:10PM (2 children)
I've been following defence news recently, and I've seen a few senior US military types "relieved of their command" i.e. fired. A couple of them were black/brown. I do wonder given the current regime.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by epitaxial on Sunday April 05, @03:44PM
Nothing to wonder about. High ranking personnel are telling the drunk in charge of the "Department Of War" that a ground invasion of Iran is a bad idea.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday April 05, @05:32PM
I wish what ever MAGAT that's modding good comments like this one "troll" just because it's against King Donnie the Lyin'hearted would GTFO.
There are far better mods for posts you disagree with, but rather than moderating, why not simply respond with your own view? Because you know that your cult is more full of shit than a bull that is finished with his cud?
Oh, another hint, kids: bitching about moderation will get you modded down.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @12:12PM
This is one of my sources [ukdefencejournal.org.uk]. Obviously we must think critically and consider bias.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Informative) by driverless on Sunday April 05, @02:43PM (4 children)
Friend of mine, career military officer, refused an illegal order in Vietnam. He was threatened with court-martial and eventually kicked out of the military.
It's very easy to say in principle, very hard to do in practice.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mcgrew on Sunday April 05, @05:46PM (3 children)
Sorry, but I detect BULLSHIT. You're not removed from the military after being threatened with court martial, you must be court martialed, or pleaded down to an Article 15 before being kicked out.
If he was actually court martialed, if the order he refused was indeed illegal he would not have been disciplined, the superior who gave the order would have. I suspect that the actual discipline, if this even happened, would not have been a bad conduct discharge, let alone a dishonorable discharge, but rather a reduction in rank.
I was in the military during Vietnam, 1971-75 and stationed in south east Asia for a year. I suspect that you're simply not being clear, or the fellow thought a legal order was illegal. But as written, your comment is obviously untrue.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday April 05, @09:46PM (1 child)
Could have been a GOMOR thats kind of unique to the US Army. General Officer Memorandum of Record.
Essentially, if you highly piss off someone "extremely high in the chain of command" you get sort of shunned until you leave which will be pretty soon in some scenarios, depending on exact timing. Yeah, sure, technically a GOMOR doesn't kick anyone out but if it does essentially forbid upward mobility and its "up or out" for officers...
I will say you have to REALLY F up to get a GOMOR like at least make the evening news or the newspapers. Also the vast majority of officers are eventually kicked out because of "up or out" and the vast majority of officers failing the "up or out" did not fail it because of a GOMOR. Its a pretty rare thing.
The Army goes thru phases with drunk driving for example where running someone over while drunk is sometimes a civilian matter, sometimes they'll actively courtmartial, sometimes they'll passively GOMOR the guy.
Another way to look at it, which probably happened to OPs buddy, is sometimes the Army has more than enough evidence for an Article 15 but not enough for a courtmartial, and the accused can waive an Art 15 and demand a courtmartial which the Army would lose, so they GOMOR the guy to get rid of him. Its a "prevent falling thru the cracks" scenario.
Here's another classic GOMOR: At one time it was not illegal to sell synthetic THC to fellow soldiers because its not THC and whatever analog act some decades ago somehow didn't apply or wasn't invented yet. But if you're selling "technically totally not weed" to other soldiers on base, thats a very effective way to acquire a GOMOR.
On one hand GOMOR's push the limit of judicial fairness, in theory some rando general can just get super butthurt and kick someone out of the army all on his own with no review. On the other hand a General Officer can order people to do all kinds of stuff and a GOMOR essentially orders everyone associated with the guy to shun him until he quits. Compared to ordering the guy on a suicide mission or reassigning him to the middle of nowhere, ordering everyone around him to help him quit until he quits or is kicked out isn't really all that harsh...
In summary a general officer can fire lower ranked soldiers by filing a document. Its public so they never abuse it without getting caught and in theory being public is the checks and balances.
I don't think anything about the above has changed since the 1990s when I was in, other than its WAY more public due to social media and the internet. You have to really piss off a general officer to get a GOMOR. A lot of the hollywood stuff where you see a high ranking guy screaming in an office at a very low ranking guy would IRL be handled with a GOMOR.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 08, @12:57AM
The Army goes thru phases with drunk driving for example where running someone over while drunk is sometimes a civilian matter, sometimes they'll actively courtmartial, sometimes they'll passively GOMOR the guy.
Reminds me of a war story an old WWII Navy vet told me of shore leave somewhere during the war. Ralph Wiebe was a really interesting guy, born in Germany, parents moved here when he was six, fought for the US in WWII. RIP, died at age 87 in 2007.
The story ended with shore leave being cancelled for everybody on the boat. He didn't know if the civilian they ran over survived.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Monday April 06, @02:16AM
Since you're so knowledgeable about the case, perhaps you'd care to enlighten all the other readers by posting his name, military record, and the details of the orders he was given and what happened afterwards?
He was given an illegal order, refused it on that basis, things escalated until he was threatened with a court martial, he told them to go ahead since it'd be good to get it on the record, at which point they blinked. He was then... incentivised to leave the military. What do you think happens to someone in the US military who refuses an illegal order? "Congratulations, you spotted the illegal order we gave you and refused it while all the others just followed orders, here's your promotion"? That's why I mentioned he was a career military officer, it wasn't something he did lightly since he knew he'd never be able to serve in the military again after that.
I specifically said US military there because in at least some other militaries it's accepted and there are no repercussions. For example in Afghanistan some French pilots refused an order to bomb an Afghan village full of civilians. The US Air Force went in and flattened it instead. No traces of taliban were found among the bodies.
(Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @11:36AM (6 children)
Here's the report from Reuters [reuters.com].
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Touché) by jelizondo on Sunday April 05, @03:55PM (5 children)
Result from query to Gemini:
From your comment we can see you're a USAian and calling it "raving left wing" tells us you drank too fcking much of their Kool-Aid
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, @05:19PM (2 children)
And from your comment we can see you need to fix your sarcasm detector...
(Score: 3, Touché) by jelizondo on Sunday April 05, @05:56PM (1 child)
Not EVERYONE can detect sarcasm as first sight you insensitive clod!
That is why we have the <sarcasm> tag.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, @02:10AM
Please, it couldn't have been more obvious. I think you're just a bit high strung.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday April 05, @06:01PM (1 child)
Poe's Law strikes again!
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @08:28PM
I see a report from Reuters is now "Flamebait." Good, isn't it?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, @02:45PM (3 children)
I'll wait for it to get the Blackhawk Down treatment. Production will probably start soon ...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DadaDoofy on Sunday April 05, @04:10PM (2 children)
It would be a good fit for Apple TV.
But much like their fake-umentray fantasy about the Apollo moon landings, in which the Soviets landed first, it will take place in an alternate reality where the American pilot is taken hostage and tortured by the Iranians, after which Trump resigns in disgrace. *wink*
(Score: 4, Funny) by turgid on Sunday April 05, @08:29PM
after which Trump resigns in disgrace.
A man can dream, surely? I'd prefer to see him in jail, mind you.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, @02:20AM
No he won't. He'll call the pilot a "loser" for getting caught, like McCain. "Heads, I win, tails, you lose..."
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Sunday April 05, @06:31PM
I have no opinion. Don't need any.
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.