US F-15E Fighter Jet Crash Lands in Libya; Pilots OK

Rate this post


Exclusive Telegraph picture shows locals inspecting an American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet that crashed in a field
Exclusive Telegraph picture shows locals inspecting an American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet that crashed in a field 
American jets have been flying over Libya as part of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over the country
American jets have been flying over Libya as part of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over the country 
A man inspects part of the American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet
 A man inspects part of the American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet 

Libya: US fighter jet crash lands in field near Benghazi

A US warplane has crash landed in a Libyan field in the area around Benghazi, The Telegraph can disclose.

By Rob Crilly, James Kirkup and Rob Winnett – The Telegraph – march 22, 2011
The two crew members on the F-15E fighter jet both ejected and are said to have minor injuries. One has already been recovered by US forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other. [UPDATE: both pilots ejected and are reported to be safe.]
It is understood that at least one of the crew members was initially rescued by rebel Libyan soldiers after ejecting from the aircraft. The crashed plane was discovered by a Telegraph journalist reporting in and around Benghazi, the rebel-held city. It is thought the F-15E fighter jet came to ground after suffering a mechanical failure.

The US military confirmed that one of its jets had crash landed but said that it had not been shot down. Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the US military’s Africa Command, said that one crewman had been recovered and one was “in process of recovery”. Both crew members suffered minor injuries. Crawley said the crash occurred “overnight.” He declined to give the location of the incident and also would not say how the rescued crewman was picked up.
This is the first coalition aircraft to have crash landed during the Libyan conflict following the third night of air strikes.
[Meanwhile, Obama’s undeclared war on Libya is becoming a keystone cops operation as no one seems to know what exactly is the purpose of the  “Coalition’s” and the U.S.’s attacks on Libya. ~Eowyn]
The developments comes after British ministers yesterday contradicted senior military commanders by suggesting that coalition forces in action over Libya can legitimately target Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, flatly insisted that seeking to hit the Libyan dictator was not allowed under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. But after Defence Secretary Liam Fox suggested over the weekend that Col Gaddafi could be a “legitimate target”, No 10 sources insisted it was legal to target anyone killing Libyan civilians….
At a Ministry of Defence briefing, Gen Richards’ spokesman, Major Gen John Lorimer, stressed that the international military intervention was in support of the UN no-fly zone. “It is very clear that, in support of the United Nations Security Council, we are there to implement and enforce the no-fly zone,” he said. “The targets we are attacking are command and control facilities and the integrated air defence system. They are legitimate military targets.”
Earlier however, Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule out an attack on the Libyan leader. “I’m not going to speculate on the targets,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “That depends on the circumstances at the time.”
James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Cameron had agreed in the House that the aim of protecting Libya’s civilians could not be achieved without the removal of Col Gaddafi. “We accept that the aim of the resolution is to protect civilians and not to change the regime,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One. “Nevertheless we won’t be able to protect the civilians in my opinion – and obviously the Prime Minister’s and that of most leaders of the countries in the region – while Gaddafi remains in place.”
In a statement, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We are not going to go into operational details on military targets. “Our clear aim is to implement UNSCR 1973 – that means saving lives and protecting the civilian population of Libya.”
The talk of targeting Col Gaddafi also appeared to alarm the Americans, with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warning that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone. “If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,” he said. “I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.”
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said Dr Fox’s comment was “irresponsible in many ways” and could harm efforts to harness Arab opinion in favour of the military effort. “I support the Government’s decision on Libya but I think Liam Fox’s comments are irresponsible in many ways,” he wrote on his blog. “His view that the aim of our military effort is to bring about regime change is outside what is a very broad UN resolution. It is wrong but also counterproductive at a time when we are trying to maintain a broad coalition, including Arab opinion, to talk in such a way. I agree with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said, ‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem’. Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government. Our government needs to have one clear policy on this.” He confirmed that he was the Labour figure who told a Sky News reporter that Dr Fox should be “put back in his box”….
Meanwhile, Downing Street published a note on the legal advice given by Attorney General Dominic Grieve which concluded there was “a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s objectives”….
~Eowyn & Steve
Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “US F-15E Fighter Jet Crash Lands in Libya; Pilots OK

  1. Glad the crew didn’t wind up in the hands of Col. Daffy.
    That could have been really messy.

  2. “Why do I feel this is just a harbinger of things to come.”
    Same here.
    And I think there is far more going on here than just lobbing some cruise missles in the direction of Tripoli.
    I think we are seeing the beginnings of a systematic removal of Arab leaders who are not sufficiently anti-Israel enough to suit the hardcore true-believers – the ones who actually buy all that BS in the Qur’an, and who may have now reached sufficient numbers to actually affect changes in the leadership of more than a few Arab countries.
    It is no secret that the true-believing Islamists have long been unhappy with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other Arab nations ruled by “moderates.” They have been calling for a united front against Israel, but haven’t been able to get it due to certain leaders being unwilling to cooperate.
    Iran was their first victory back in the 1970s, as the shah got the boot and was replaced by the real deal.
    Now they have gotten rid of Mubarak, and are looking to do the same with Col. Daffy.
    There is also upheaval currently underway in many other Arab nations in the region, and everybody knows who is behind it – or who is at least happily exploiting it. The true-believing Islamists want people in control of these countries who think like they do, which means going along with their stated goal to destroy Israel outright.
    They have tried several times since 1948, but have gotten their asses kicked each time. Israel has survived, and that is simply not acceptable to them.
    They might not get control of every Arab nation in the region, but unless something is done, they might get just enough of them to cause some serious problems for the Israelis down the road.
    Traditionally, real American presidents would side against the true-believers in these situation, but not this president.
    Obama has been kissing up to the hardcore Islamists since the day after he took office, much like he has been kissing up to the real commies of the world – Chavez, Hu, etc.
    Many seem to want to attribute this to Obama’s ignorance and inexperience. I’m not so sure.
    In in the case of the Middle East uprisings, there is no way Obama does not know who is agitating things behind the scenes, and if he isn’t actually in on it, he is at least a willing enabler.
    He wasted no time in throwing both Mubarak and Daffy under the bus. We don’t yet know who will replace the former and who may replace the latter, but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts they will be more in line with what the true Islamists are looking for.
    It will be very interesting to see which side Obama takes when the next “moderate” Arab leader is in trouble.
    I think we may be witnessing the birth of what could ultimately become a regional caliphate – one that will eventually unite and align against Israel.
    Yeah, I know this is a little out there, some might even call it a little crazy, but given our juxtaposition at this point in history, it’s the only thing that makes any sense.
    And what do we really know about Obama, anyway, as five years ago, nobody outside of Chicago had ever even heard of him.
    Now he is POTUS and CiC.

    • I think choice 2 is a very real possibility, given that Israel has given up so much land that it’s defense via conventional means is going to be extremely difficult, and depending on what is arrayed against, perhaps even impossible.
      Even with todays smaller battlefields, you still need room to maneuver a conventional force effectively.
      Should that fail, and national survival is on the line, there is only one choice left.
      And Israel’s nuclear arsenal is nothing to be sneered at.
      Funny how Israel’s detractors never seem to consider this.

  3. cool pic steve how the heck did you ever get an x-ray of what is between obama’s ears?

  4. Iran,was behind the recent attack on Israel-I hope they make glass out of the entire Mid-East. [problem solved] there at least.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *