WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines
Thread Starter
WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines
"Russia’s long-range missile strikes against targets in Syria last week have prompted global aviation officials to issue safety alerts to airlines operating over Iraq, Iran, and the Caspian Sea amid heightened concerns about the risk to commercial flying near conflict zones."
Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines - WSJ
is there really a risk? If I got that right cruise missiles fly very low.
Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines - WSJ
is there really a risk? If I got that right cruise missiles fly very low.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The perceived risk will reduce once the airline beancounters realise it will cost more money to deviate around the hot spot(s).
MH17 springs to mind................
MH17 springs to mind................
EASA: "Before reaching Syria, such missiles are necessarily crossing the airspace above Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq, below flight routes which are used by commercial transport airplanes".
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be highly safe as the majority of Russian cruise missiles run on TERCOM navigation, a pre loaded highly accurate map of the terrain and altitude enabling it to fly VERY LOW to the surface and under radar to aid avoiding detection by enemy radar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level? The Caspian Sea is a long way from Syria, I can't see the missiles having that range at low level.
J
J
RT video suggests low altitude
Originally Posted by jack schidt
Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level?
RT propaganda video on initial Syria Cruise missile strike.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it clearly indicates pretty low altitude for the cruise portion of the mission
I understand they flew from launch in the Caspian to NW Iran, across the Kurdish territory of Iraq and on into Syria. Anyone know what the height of the mountain ranges they must fly over is?
Personally on a commercial airliner, I'd prefer not to have such fireworks fly beneath me.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones.
Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.
Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.
We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones. Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf50, when I said " someone" I did not meant necessarily the Russians.
Syria, Iran , Irak (and even possibly the rebels in Irak and Syria = stolen from the regular army ) all have Scuds in various variants as I understood..
Some airlines are already avoiding the area.
Syria, Iran , Irak (and even possibly the rebels in Irak and Syria = stolen from the regular army ) all have Scuds in various variants as I understood..
Some airlines are already avoiding the area.
A scud missile is a very crude weapon. It has (almost) no strike capabilites. You can bet that once "someone" starts using that weaponry, "they" have run out of all other options.
It was the same with Saddam in the '90s. He didnt fire them towards Tel Aviv until he was almost unable to do so.
I guess....that once the scuds are fired, someone is about to lose grip of their situation.
It was the same with Saddam in the '90s. He didnt fire them towards Tel Aviv until he was almost unable to do so.
I guess....that once the scuds are fired, someone is about to lose grip of their situation.
What I meant to say is, that you only have to wait for the scuds to be fired. Everyone has them. Someone is going to run out of military options sooner or later. Once they do, they would like to make a last statement. Therefore someone is going to fire those scuds.
Eventually.
Inevitably.
Eventually.
Inevitably.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuds are ballistic missiles which don't home in on aircraft, so the chance of getting hit by one is probably tiny. What we should really be worried about is the anti-air weaponry held by the Syrian and Iraqi militaries falling into the wrong hands.
@appleACE
While your big sky small CEP for the Scud to come down and hit an airliner in passing is remote, the prudent decision to avoid a certain airspace volume is risk management at work. Why tempt fate? Agree on the great unknown regarding Surface to Air weaponry in various hands with divergent motivations.
@ATC Watcher: OK, I see what you were after, thanks.
@BuenoHombre
When you are done grinding your axe, remember that there is more than one outside party to this mess in Syria. Your obsession with USA/CIA is a bit of a flag, amigo ... wait ... "is a bit of a flag, tovarisch."
EDIT: (avoka, bolshoe spasiba, corrected ... I am confused if it is a or o at the end of spasiba)
While your big sky small CEP for the Scud to come down and hit an airliner in passing is remote, the prudent decision to avoid a certain airspace volume is risk management at work. Why tempt fate? Agree on the great unknown regarding Surface to Air weaponry in various hands with divergent motivations.
@ATC Watcher: OK, I see what you were after, thanks.
@BuenoHombre
When you are done grinding your axe, remember that there is more than one outside party to this mess in Syria. Your obsession with USA/CIA is a bit of a flag, amigo ... wait ... "is a bit of a flag, tovarisch."
EDIT: (avoka, bolshoe spasiba, corrected ... I am confused if it is a or o at the end of spasiba)
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th Oct 2015 at 15:55.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final report document MH17
No Integrated risk management:
Under 11 Recommendations:
The report goes on to discuss airspace management in conflict zones.
The report also recommends
No Integrated risk management:
Most operators assumed that an airspace which is not closed must be safe. Operators adapted their flight plans to accommodate the airspace restrictions, but did not make a connection with the armed conflict taking place below.
Under 11 Recommendations:
Passengers travelling by air should be able to rely on the operator of their choice to have done all that is possible to operate the flight safely and that states have ensured that the airspace used for their flight is safe.
The report goes on to discuss airspace management in conflict zones.
The report also recommends
Ideally, operators should have to actively provide information about routes to be flown and routes recently flown, so that everyone can form a judgement, thereby increasing public attention for this issue. A first step towards this would be to require operators to provide public accountability on a regular basis for routes over conflict zones selected by them
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company has been dispatching flights through Iraqi, Iranian and Afghanistani airspace for several years. This may have changed recently, however, due to what transpired with MH17 and the recommendations of the various investigating authorities.
Until MH17, people might have forgotten what happened to IR655 in 1988 and might have assumed that even where a ground war is going on, no-one would have any motive to fire missiles at passing aircraft six miles up. MH17 proved that assumption mistaken. The Russians are on the ground in Syria themselves, and also have supplied the Assad regime with all sorts of weaponry, quite possibly including Buk missiles. It's dangerous to fly over or near any conflict at any level – there's too much risk of some trigger-happy idiot firing at an innocent civilian aircraft, as happened with MH17 and IR655.