Eye in the sky
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eye in the sky
Best military aviation film for quite some time! Constant explosions and machine gun fire? ...Nope, but edge of seat all the way. If I say it's about the difficulty of obtaining and using political authority for military action that probably won't get you in. But go anyway!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eye in the Sky.
ShotOne,
Sounds worth a look. Daughter will go to see it. Will wait for the DVD.
From what I read (Wiki), it points up that there are no good solutions in war - you have to choose the least bad one. The innocent must suffer with the guilty - it was ever so.
You can be excessively cautious - I make no apology for telling this true story again:
(Reported by Daily Telegraph 9.1.15):
Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon.
You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing). So that he can come back later and try again ? (Better luck next time ?)
Danny42C.
Sounds worth a look. Daughter will go to see it. Will wait for the DVD.
From what I read (Wiki), it points up that there are no good solutions in war - you have to choose the least bad one. The innocent must suffer with the guilty - it was ever so.
You can be excessively cautious - I make no apology for telling this true story again:
(Reported by Daily Telegraph 9.1.15):
"The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket" (RPG ?) "attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010. There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket at their accommodation block. They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb. The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues. The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground ".
You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing). So that he can come back later and try again ? (Better luck next time ?)
Danny42C.
Danny42C.
For better or worse warfare has changed a lot since your day. We could spend all day arguing about whether it's better or worse.
If the military (and UK based security services) were allowed to neutralise (I'll let you use your imagine to decide what that means) everyone they knew to be a scumbag I for one think the world would be a safer place. Sadly (in my personal opinion) that is not the way of the world.
One case like that of Menezes in the UK or one bad press article like Sgt Blackman in Afghanistan gives oxygen to the other side of the argument.
That's enough of BV's philosophical ramblings for one day. Back to my lemsip now.
BV
For better or worse warfare has changed a lot since your day. We could spend all day arguing about whether it's better or worse.
If the military (and UK based security services) were allowed to neutralise (I'll let you use your imagine to decide what that means) everyone they knew to be a scumbag I for one think the world would be a safer place. Sadly (in my personal opinion) that is not the way of the world.
One case like that of Menezes in the UK or one bad press article like Sgt Blackman in Afghanistan gives oxygen to the other side of the argument.
That's enough of BV's philosophical ramblings for one day. Back to my lemsip now.
BV
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
25 years ago a PaveWay was being guided towards a road bridge. Moments before impact a civilian vehicle drove on to the bridge arriving at the impact moments after the bomb.
There might have been time to guide the bomb off the bridge. The crew didn't. Would they have been pilloried today?
There might have been time to guide the bomb off the bridge. The crew didn't. Would they have been pilloried today?
PN - if they had been cleared for only 'military vehicle' collateral damage, I suspect they would face questions today.
However, given the current 'enemy' use of 'civvy' pick-ups it would now perhaps be seen as acceptable collateral damage? The difference is that it is unlikely the bridge would now be the target, more likely the vehicle itself...
Very different times but the same end result and the same responsibility to get the ROEs right (before the action starts). Looking forward to catching the movie at some stage.
However, given the current 'enemy' use of 'civvy' pick-ups it would now perhaps be seen as acceptable collateral damage? The difference is that it is unlikely the bridge would now be the target, more likely the vehicle itself...
Very different times but the same end result and the same responsibility to get the ROEs right (before the action starts). Looking forward to catching the movie at some stage.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
If the military (and UK based security services) were allowed to neutralise (I'll let you use your imagine to decide what that means) everyone they knew to be a scumbag I for one think the world would be a safer place. Sadly (in my personal opinion) that is not the way of the world.
see
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/israeli-soldier-charged-manslaughter-killing-160418140715564.html
WARNING film link below shows the killing and the incident
http://gawker.com/graphic-video-show...pal-1766929222
...or one bad press article like Sgt Blackman in Afghanistan
For better or worse warfare has changed a lot since your day.
Melmoth. I clearly didn't construct my post very well since you have bitten off on something that was not my point at all. Still it's not worth getting annoyed about.
BV
BV
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And indeed the Belgrano, by any military measure was an entirely legitimate target and look at the fuss over that.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to get embroiled in the philosophical argument that may be starting on this thread - I'd like to remark on the title of the film. I remember seeing many years ago (50?) a film about flying L-19 Bird dogs in Korea that I think was called 'Eyes in the Sky'.
Can anyone else recall seeing this? I have been told that the title was (or could be) changed in various countries.
Can anyone else recall seeing this? I have been told that the title was (or could be) changed in various countries.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAT 21 was indeed a great film, but was a total work of fiction.
The real story is much more remarkable, but involved rescue by boat so wouldn't be quite as dramatic for film purposes. Consider the film as accurate as 'The hunt for red October'.
The real story is much more remarkable, but involved rescue by boat so wouldn't be quite as dramatic for film purposes. Consider the film as accurate as 'The hunt for red October'.
