Breaking news on Sky.....

[handleturning]

I would very much doubt the Turks are firing AIM 120 into that environment. Do they even have war rounds?

[The Civil Civillian]

Nutloose: "First off, my sincere condolences to the crew who lost their lives and their families and friends, regardless of their Country of origin they did not deserve to be murdered like that."

The aircrew were dropping ordinance on the men below and jagged metal doesn't exactly tickle when it meets flesh.Shooting at a helpless man in a parachute is on par with an aircraft dropping a munition over a man with an AK47 ... both are helpless at fighting off their attacker.P.S. my reading of the incident is the Russian aircraft is dropping munitions on the Turkmen below and to do this the attack run went over an area of Turkey that projects into Syria. The Turks are simply protec.ting their men below.

[NutLoose]

CC,
I think you will find the Geneva Convention ( not that they are signed up to it though ) states one should not fire upon those abandoning an aircraft...... paras are fair game, but crews are not. You are not protecting anyone shooting at what is in effect an unarmed man, true he may have a side arm, but would probably not be in a position to use it..

see

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/e.../v2_rul_rule48

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by handleturning

I would very much doubt the Turks are firing AIM 120 into that environment. Do they even have war rounds?

Ehh? It would be pretty daft to do a QRA type sortie with training rounds.

Anyway, they managed to put an AIM-120 shot through a MiG last year, so they seem to know how to do it.

[Wageslave]

Overreaction? Really?

Ten warnings in five minutes?
Returned for a blatantly inflammatory (double-entendre intended) second pass through Turkish airspace.
What the heck would you expect the Turks to do? Just grumble about it like we lily livered Westerners and let the world know you're a toothless, gutless pussy? They're made of sterner stuff than that in Turkey and Russia has clearly been taking the p!ss unmercifully in Turkish airspace for weeks. About time they had their arse spanked and the thug in the kremlin reminded he isn't Lord of All. Russia has been blatantly been attacking Western supported factions since their arrival in theatre in a deliberate attempt to goad the West. Their behaviour in Syria has been well out of order.

And what's the hit occurring in Syrian airspace got to do with it? That's an emotive treehugger red-herring line like which way the Belgrano was pointing - irrelevant. They'd intruded, there was every likelyhood they'd do it again, they'd been warned multiple times and were conspicuously ignoring it. Open season fairly declared, I think.

Are you not allowed to stop a burglar after he's left your property? Strewth!

[Willard Whyte]

I think it most likely this was trolling on the part of the Russians, part of a 'Grand Plan', if you will. Test NATO defences, lets Putin to indulge in a spot of faux outrage.

The jet(s) were warned numerous times to alter their vector, they didn't, they got what was coming to them (not the subsequent braying mob of pig-f****rs of course).

(The Belgrano comment ^ is most apt)

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by Civil the Civillian

Shooting at a helpless man in a parachute is on par with an aircraft dropping a munition over a man with an AK47 ... both are helpless at fighting off their attacker.

The two actions are very different. One is an act of war (legitimate and/or legal under the appropriate circumstances), the other contravenes Article 42 of the Geneva Convention (Protocol I - important as I shall explain in a moment), which states, 'No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.'

All three nations are signatories to the Geneva Convention, but note that Russia and Syria ARE signatories to Protocol I whilst Turkey is NOT.

However, International Law of Armed Conflict also covers this in the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration, which allows for whatever reasonable force is necessary, lawful and operationally justified in combat to make your opponent submit. ILAC specifies that who are out of action, such as surrendering combatants, air crew parachuting from downed aircraft, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, prisoners of war and other captives and detainees, must be identified as such and treated humanely.

International Law of Armed Conflict applies to conflict between and within nations even when there has been no formal declaration of war.

I'm not sure if you are questioning the morality of air attack or trying to distinguish that from attacking military personnel who are hors de combat. To me the difference is clear, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[SkyHawk-N]

(The Belgrano comment ^ is most apt)

I don't think it is. The Belgrano was in international waters when it was attacked, it seems that the SU-24 was over sovereign territory. That is a large difference.

[The Civil Civillian]

"CC,
I think you will find the Geneva Convention ( not that they are signed up to it though ) states one should not fire upon those abandoning an aircraft."

I too abhored the images of the dead pilot but my outlook was tempered by the fact that 5 minutes earlier they were trying to kill those below. I'm very sympathetic to the aircrew but they were on a bombing mission and this time they happened to have got caught.

[Courtney Mil]

Back to technical issues.

Handleturning, yes, they have a good stock of live AIM-120 rounds and the ability to use them.

BEags, I'm not sure, but I thought it was the Turks that stated it was an AIM-9 shot, the Russians said it was a SAM initially. The TuAF have Lima, Mike and Papa (and I think some early models) so all aspect with reasonable range. If their intent was to set what looks like an ambush with the intention of shooting one down (which appears possible if not likely to me) a visual AIM-9 shot without radar lock would seem a good way of doing it. That said, yes, a slammer would have been safer and equally effective in this situation.

[Courtney Mil]

I too abhored the images of the dead pilot but my outlook was tempered by the fact that 5 minutes earlier they were trying to kill those below. I'm very sympathetic to the aircrew but they were on a bombing mission and this time they happened to have got caught.

And it is exactly that type of retribution that the GC and ILAC articles were designed to prevent.

[Postman Plod]

I'd disagree that the Belgrano comment is apt in the other direction. There is no state of war or conflict, or potential state of war or conflict between Turkey and Russia. In fact, is there one between Turkey and Syria?? There would be no reasonable expectation that Russian (or in fact Syrian) forces would be attacking Turkey, so using force seems disproportionate - other than an airspace incursion, there was no threat.

This could, and should, have been handled through further diplomatic action. Pussyish "Western" response? Yeh, well I guess the Western response would be to avoid conflict, rather than try to find any and every excuse to get ourselves into an all out war!

Which leads on to the fact that, just as it seemed everyone was finally getting on the same page with regards to CystISIS, just as East and West find some common ground, something monumentally stupid happens to push everyone even further apart. Almost as if some people want conflict...

[Postman Plod]

and with the best will in the world, I'm pretty damn sure that if it was CystISIS (or some moderate group not on "our" side) shooting "our" downed aircrew out of the sky, the response wouldn't be "well they deserved it"... would it?

[The Civil Civillian]

C Mil "I'm not sure if you are questioning the morality of air attack or trying to distinguish that from attacking military personnel who are hors de combat. To me the difference is clear, but I'll leave it at that for now."

I thought I was clear: dropping a bomb on a guy from 10,000 ft is on par with shooting a man strapped into a parachute.

Both are helpless at defending themselves against their assailant.

You may say the pilots were 'hors de combat', I'm sure those on the ground would say they lost their advantage when they lost their aircraft. I'll leave it at that for now.

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by The Civil Civilian

The Turks are simply protec.ting their men below

The Turks have, up to now, been careful not to directly intervene in Syria. Funding and arming rebels, as they and the US have been doing inside Turkey, can be achieved without tripping over the line into state-on-state war. However, if your conclusion is correct, then this was an act of war by Turkey against the Syrian state, which is engaged in civil war with those men inside Syria, and also against Russia, which is acting on behalf of the Syrian state with its sovereign authority. I really and truly hope that your conclusion is wrong, but have my doubts.

Originally Posted by handleturning

I would very much doubt the Turks are firing AIM 120 into that environment.

If they had used anything else (AIM-9 or gun) then, based on the reported information so far, the shot must have been taken when the Russians had already left Turkish airspace. And it would be very likely that the shot itself would have been fired in Syrian airspace. For those reasons, I hope it was an AIM-120, otherwise we're looking at an act of war again.

If you are inferring that it would be utterly reckless to fire AIM-120 into an air environment densely populated with unidentified or friendly tracks, I would agree with that... but given that the non-Russian players are more interested in ISIL than Turkmen rebels, I suspect that there weren't many other tracks in the area in question.

Originally Posted by TBM-Legend

Do the Ruskies monitor "Guard"?

Don't know. But I suspect the momentary transgression was an aircrew error - from the radar track it is pretty clear that their intent was to orbit just south of the border, and it looks to me as if they failed to notice the tiny southward protrusion of Turkish territory. With this in mind, it is perfectly possible that they would have been listening on Guard and hearing the warnings from the Turks, and giving them a stiff ignoring. Many of us have done the same thing near various international boundaries in response to air defence broadcasts like "Coalition aircraft near xxxx, identify yourself, you are approaching xxxx airspace, blah blah blah" - depending on policy, we would either ignore them or give a canned response to the effect of "we are operating under xxxxx authority and remaining in xxxxx airspace". As long as the Russians thought they were staying in Syrian airspace, they would have been justified in doing the same. Their mistake was crossing into Turkey for 17 seconds....

Originally Posted by Willard Whyte

The jet(s) were warned numerous times to alter their vector, they didn't, they got what was coming to them

They were orbiting near the border, and by rights they could do so all day provided they stayed on the right side of the line. This means their vector was changing continuously, which makes the significance of the warnings rather different - "move away from the border" as much as "don't cross the border". The Russians were pointing at Turkish airspace for at the most a minute or so prior to the engagement.

Originally Posted by WageSlave

Are you not allowed to stop a burglar after he's left your property? Strewth!

You're not allowed to violently attack him. Retribution seems to form a big part of your thinking, what your comments on downed aircrew, but even in war, the only place it can be delivered while complying with international law is in a courtroom! And your reference to the Belgrano is off the mark - the UK and Argentina were at war, which Turkey and Russia are not. Neither are Turkey and Syria in strict legal terms. That might change!

[BATCO]

Over-reaction?

Wageslave

I'll go with over-reaction. As the Greeks have been heard to mumble, "the Turks are themselves guilty of many such airspace infringements - despite repeated warnings - over the Aegean Sea. But we don't shoot them down."

Batco

[Geordie_Expat]

Originally Posted by The Civil Civillian

I thought I was clear: dropping a bomb on a guy from 10,000 ft is on par with shooting a man strapped into a parachute.

Both are helpless at defending themselves against their assailant.

You may say the pilots were 'hors de combat', I'm sure those on the ground would say they lost their advantage when they lost their aircraft. I'll leave it at that for now.

Complete and utter nonsense.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Clueless Civilian

What are you talking about?!

By your logic, no combatant should ever be able to surrender!

And if you are going to talk nonsense here, at least get your facts straight: the rebels are armed with MANPADSs and AAA, so most certainly have the ability to defend themselves. There are quite a few dead Syrian MiG pilots to prove it.

[The Civil Civillian]

Easy Street: "Civil Civilian,

The Turks have, up to now, been careful not to directly intervene in Syria. Funding and arming rebels, as they and the US have been doing inside Turkey, can be achieved without tripping over the line into state-on-state war. However, if your conclusion that "They're protecting their men below" is correct, then this was an act of war by Turkey against the Syrian state, which is engaged in civil war with those men inside Syria, and also against Russia, which is acting on behalf of the Syrian state with its sovereign authority. I really and truly hope that your conclusion is wrong, but have my doubts."


It seems a bit elementary to think Turkey downed a Russian plane for a simple 5 or 10 second over-flight of a Turkish istmus? I suggest there's more to it.

Who are the Turkmen that are reported to have killed two Russian pilots? - Telegraph

"Who are the Turkmen that are reported to have killed two Russian pilots?

/snipped/

In Syria the Turkmen, who are linguistically and ethnically Turkish, live alongside Arabs and Kurds, but have mostly aligned with non-jihadist anti-Assad rebel groups.

/snipped/

"In recent days, thousands of civilians have fled over the border, saying they feared Russian bombing raids in support of regime forces in the area. ..."

[ORAC]

if your conclusion is correct, then this was an act of war by Turkey against the Syrian state

Since they've been shooting each others aircraft and helos down for at 2 years I think that's a somewhat belated recognition. As such, the Russians were knowingly putting themselves in harms way.

However, I doubt very much that the Russians will do more than protest, they dont want a war with Turkey.

I note the Russians have advised that the Moskva off the coast has been given new ROE to enable them to protect their aircraft, and are deploying SAM. They should be wary of any engagements, I believe that their airfield is within long large artillery/rocket range of Turkey, and they would invite retaliation.