PDA

View Full Version : Turkish F16 shoots down unidentified aircraft in their airspace.


RHINO
24th Nov 2015, 07:12
Reporting on Sky news.

Kitbag
24th Nov 2015, 07:18
Link to story such as it is (http://news.sky.com/story/1593241/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-syria-border)

rjtjrt
24th Nov 2015, 07:27
Video

http://youtu.be/s9xhOkQf8JU

https://mobile.twitter.com/sakirkhader?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://t.co/lSaHCCPWCc

Eclectic
24th Nov 2015, 07:35
SU-24?
Pilot captured by Turks?

Update: Russian media confirm plane shot down by Turkey is Russian. One of the pilots captured -

LOL. Now Russian media changing the "facts" to suit their agenda: Russian media claims that a Syrian MIG-23 was shot down by Turkey, not SU-24
https://twitter.com/SaadAbedine/status/669074242978213889

me myself and fly
24th Nov 2015, 07:36
Russia confirms the plane shot down by Turkey is Russian.

https://twitter.com/GazetaRu/status/669063568281743360

СРОЧНО. Упавший в Сирии самолет был российским
: , - .Ru | (http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2015/11/24/n_7926857.shtml)

URGENTLY. The fallen aircraft was Russian in Syria : , - .Ru | (http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2015/11/24/n_7926857.shtml)

me myself and fly
24th Nov 2015, 07:52
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUkC4EgUEAAkIuR.jpg

Eclectic
24th Nov 2015, 07:53
OOPS!:
"Turkey called this week for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss attacks on Turkmens in neighbouring Syria, and last week Ankara summoned the Russian ambassador to protest the bombing of their villages.

Ankara has traditionally expressed solidarity with Syrian Turkmens, who are Syrians of Turkish descent."

Russian propagandist liars now claiming there was no intrusion of Turkish airspace: https://www.rt.com/news/323215-warplane-crash-syria-turkey/

This looks like it is going from warm to hot.

Eclectic
24th Nov 2015, 08:11
Turkey downs Russian fighter jet near Syrian border after violation of airspace - Daily Sabah (http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2015/11/24/turkey-downs-russian-fighter-jet-near-syrian-border-after-violation-of-airspace)

"The downed fighter jet was warned 10 times in 5 minutes according to a statement released by the Turkish Armed Forces."

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 08:18
Plane crash site and both pilots are on Syrian territory, BTW. Controlled by Syrian turkomans, fighting against Syrian government. So?

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 08:23
Turkish President Erdogan confirmed that the Turkish military was shot down Russia's Su-24 over Syria.

UPD: Plane fell at Yamady turkoman refugee camp in Latakia. Pilots held hostage by turkomans, who open fire at helicopters sent to rescue operation.

AFTA
24th Nov 2015, 08:49
This one should be easy. I am sure both Nato and Russia will have the complete air picture and recordings. But will it agree?

alwayzinit
24th Nov 2015, 08:51
Would suggest that all who fly around the ME turn up 121.5 mhz and wear headsets so as not to miss any calls!!!:eek:

Kitiara
24th Nov 2015, 09:05
This is a real wild card right now. If the plane crashed at Latakia, then it is nearly 40km inside Syria, which would tend to cast doubt on claims it was violating Turkish airspace.

How Putin will react is the key thing though. It could be as restrained as diplomatic protests, though unless his pilot is released promptly and unharmed, that level of restraint is unlikely.

At the other extreme, he could react by providing the Kurds with air-defense systems to assist them in resisting the Turkish bombing campaign that is targeting them. It would be easy to justify doing so on the basis that they were fighting against IS before Turkey started targeting them.

RexBanner
24th Nov 2015, 09:07
At 500 mph the aircraft would be doing 8 miles a minute, three minutes to fall depending on height takes it 24 miles (roughly 40km) and that's just back of fag packet maths. The aircraft doesn't fall straight down.

Slow and curious
24th Nov 2015, 09:08
Quote:
"I am sure both Nato and Russia will have the complete air picture and recordings."

Are you suggesting it's Nato vs Russia?

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 09:16
Are you suggesting it's Nato vs Russia?
Don't think so. Nobody knows what's the role of Erdogan in this "game". Erdogan proofed that he has his own agenda. And his agenda might be totally different.....

ShotOne
24th Nov 2015, 09:18
He didn't say that, slow but obviously Turkey is in NATO. As with the Israeli shootdown of a Syrian aircraft, IS must be laughing their socks off!

Hawker 800
24th Nov 2015, 09:19
BBC reporting one pilot killed.

Sokol
24th Nov 2015, 09:22
At 500 mph the aircraft would be doing 8 miles a minute, three minutes to fall depending on height takes it 24 miles (roughly 40km) and that's just back of fag packet maths. The aircraft doesn't fall straight down.

Simple maths of course. If the Pilots had pulled the Ejection Seat at 800km/h IAS (not Gspd.!)there would be less diplomatic trouble.
Betting would be more exact if the last Course of the Airplane is verified.

Hawker 800
24th Nov 2015, 09:23
Exactly.

NATO Vows Military Support If Turkey Goes To War With Russia (http://www.mintpressnews.com/nato-vows-military-support-if-turkey-goes-to-war-with-russia/210311/)

silvertate
24th Nov 2015, 09:27
The downed fighter jet was warned 10 times in 5 minutes according to a statement released by the Turkish Armed Forces


In what language?

One presumes in English, as that is likely to be the only common language. But in my experience the Turkish military English is as bad as Russian military English. In which case, there is ample room for confusion, especially when a military pilot is very busy planning an active sortie.

If the Turks are so jumpy that they cannot realise the potential problems, and observe rather than engage, then they are not very clever. Did they really think this aircraft was about to attack Antakya? Frankly, the initial analysis suggests that trigger-happy Turks have (predictably) precipitated an unesessary international incident.

ST

JCviggen
24th Nov 2015, 09:28
If the plane crashed at Latakia, then it is nearly 40km inside Syria, which would tend to cast doubt on claims it was violating Turkish airspace.

If you google maps Yamadi, Latakia (the closest thing to the site apparently) it's right on the border with Turkey. Turkey's border is anything but a straight line down there though.

It's probably close enough to the border that we can't tell from the crash location which airspace it was in when it got hit.

Meanwhile, Russian media actively discussing the possibility of the plane coming down from a MANPAD while Turkey has been saying it did it all along :suspect:

beamender99
24th Nov 2015, 09:29
Turkey 'shoot down warplane on Syria border' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34907863)

Video clip shows two chutes

Tourist
24th Nov 2015, 09:31
Frankly, the initial analysis suggests that trigger-happy Turks have (predictably) precipitated an unesessary international incident.


Or B. The Russians finally managed to exhaust the Turks patience for repeated incursions by a known bully who has a habit of messing around inside other people's countries whilst issuing denials......

AFTA
24th Nov 2015, 09:36
Quote:
"I am sure both Nato and Russia will have the complete air picture and recordings."

Are you suggesting it's Nato vs Russia?

I am not suggesting anything. I would just assume both sides of this situation will probably know what happened. As both parties will probably have air picture recordings that i will assume at least one of them will release to the media.

AlphaZuluRomeo
24th Nov 2015, 09:38
If the plane crashed at Latakia, then it is nearly 40km inside Syria, which would (...)
It was said "Yamadi, Latakia" as in "Yamadi, region of Latakia".

Here it is: https://goo.gl/maps/QipzQZVymNk

rightstuffer
24th Nov 2015, 09:46
Here's the link to the radar plot
http://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669098577524822016/photo/1

marchino61
24th Nov 2015, 09:48
Whichever side of the border it was on, last week Turkey protested to Russia about their targeting of Turkmen (ethnic Turks in Syria).

One way of interpreting this is that Turkey is telling Russia "Hands off the Turkmen".

Mozella
24th Nov 2015, 10:04
Quote:
The downed fighter jet was warned 10 times in 5 minutes according to a statement released by the Turkish Armed Forces
In what language?

One presumes in English, as that is likely to be the only common language. But in my experience the Turkish military English is as bad as Russian military English. In which case, there is ample room for confusion, especially when a military pilot is very busy planning an active sortie.
Transmitting a warning is not the same thing as that warning being received and ignored, no matter what the language in use. I've got 153 combat missions under my belt and there were plenty of times my side was unsuccessful when trying to communicate with me while on a mission.

I've also made a number of non-combat intercepts of Russian bombers and not once were they able to make contact with me (and vice versa), although they were able to hold up the latest issue of Playboy magazine for my viewing pleasure.

The press may assume the Turkish warning was received and ignored, but we pilots, especially those with combat experience, should be more prudent and not jump to conclusions.

AmuDarya
24th Nov 2015, 10:09
Based on that radar plot and the Google maps scale, each of two overflights was over
a 2.5-3.5km spur of Turkish territory.

That's a 10 second overflight at Mach 1.

rightstuffer
24th Nov 2015, 10:14
Based on that radar plot and the Google maps scale, each of two overflights was over
a 2.5-3.5km spur of Turkish territory.

That's a 10 second overflight at Mach 1.
...but it's still an overflight. Twice by the look of it.

Hasherucf
24th Nov 2015, 10:19
I'm sure Turkey wont be happy if Russia puts a ban on Turkish holidays. Would certainly hurt the tourist industry. Interested in Putins response !

ILS27LEFT
24th Nov 2015, 10:23
From LiveLeak:

Syrian rebels release a video of a dead Russian pilot, video is on LiveLeak.

First time a NATO member has downed a Russian or Soviet military aircraft since the 1950s: this could turn really nasty indeed. Past major wars and conflicts (including World Wars) have often been triggered by similar accidents.
From below: "My personal opinion is that Putin will mostly take this one on the chin, and not react in a way likely to escalate a confrontation with the forces of NATO countries." The entire planet is hoping for the same.

Let's hope pilots are still both alive and video is not genuine (unfortunately video looks real). :(

AmuDarya
24th Nov 2015, 10:28
Horizontal distance traveled : 7.8kmBased on the Turkish radar plot (if accurate) and overlaying on Google maps, the SU-24 was at no point further than 2.5-3.5 km from getting back into Syrian airspace. See my post above.

JCviggen
24th Nov 2015, 10:32
...but it's still an overflight. Twice by the look of it.

It's not unreasonable to think after those warnings a few weeks back that the Turkish military was under pretty strict guidelines. Turkey doesn't like what has been happening right outside its borders so that doesn't help.

(could one imagine the opposite scenario where a NATO mission is doing bombing raids a few miles from the Russian border and "accidentally" crossing into Russia's airspace for a few moments every now and then? Russia would never in a million years accept what it is doing to Turkey now)

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 10:37
I'm sure Turkey wont be happy if Russia puts a ban on Turkish holidays. Would certainly hurt the tourist industry. Interested in Putins response !
Sure, but it would hurt the "normal russian citizen" too. Crimea is more expensive and less quality then the turkish 4-5* all inclusive offer and Egypt is currently not an option.

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 10:37
It was suggested earlier the reason for this may not be the minor incursion of their airspace but the fact that russia is bombing the turkmens.

How ever Turkey has been bombing the most successful on th ground anti ISIS fighters namely the kurds. Going to be "interesting" next time Turkey invades syrian airspace to bomb the kurds.

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 10:40
Treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Not a chance. Not with those nutters.
Yepp, like the Jordan pilot a couple of months ago.

Kitiara
24th Nov 2015, 10:41
If you google maps Yamadi, Latakia (the closest thing to the site apparently) it's right on the border with Turkey. Turkey's border is anything but a straight line down there though.

It's probably close enough to the border that we can't tell from the crash location which airspace it was in when it got hit.

Meanwhile, Russian media actively discussing the possibility of the plane coming down from a MANPAD while Turkey has been saying it did it all along



Fair enough. All I'd seen when I posted was Latakia. Given this, anything could be true about where the plane was during the flight prior to the shoot down and unfortunately it's near impossible to trust statements on that point made by anyone involved.

In political terms though, the truth is less important than the ability of the various participants to dictate the narrative.

My personal opinion is that Putin will mostly take this one on the chin, and not react in a way likely to escalate a confrontation with the forces of NATO countries.

AmuDarya
24th Nov 2015, 11:07
Pilots with combat experience can perhaps enlighten?

How does a pilot stay inside friendly airspace when conducting a combat mission near such a convoluted border with only a few seconds margin of error?

Is the navigation instrumentation capable of showing a finely delineated border accurately? And is it at all feasible to keep within the border?

ThinkRate
24th Nov 2015, 11:22
(assuming videos are genuine)

Since both pilots (seem to have) ejected safely and one ends up dead, in a gloating video showing a crowd cheering around him, one could deduce that the unfortunate pilot was mobbed and did not die in his plane or due to him ejecting. If true, this would further escalate the incident...

Nasty video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVJ7Q097gXM)

Nasty video 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cdkf3Xx3nw)

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 11:23
Turkish statement along the lines

" we didn't shoot down any particular nation's aircraft, we just protected our airspace."

Turkey has called for emergency Nato meeting %pm to explain what happened

Putin has called for emergency UN security council meeting and cancelled RF foreign minister meeting with Turkey tomorrow

silvertate
24th Nov 2015, 11:43
This is apparently a plot of the Russian aircraft (in red) just cutting the very tip of Turkish airspace (to the north) as it was shot down. If this is a true image of what happened, then Turkey looks as if it is being highly unreasonable and irresponsible, as I said previously.

If this was Turkey shooting at a Syrian aircraft I would say it was deliberate provocation. But prodding the Russian bear for no good reason is bordering on the insane.

I see that popcorn futures are rising again....

.

(The map is of NW Syria, on the coast, right on the border of the Antakya 'peninsular' that reaches down into Syria.)


http://s30.postimg.org/7100m3p2p/turkey.jpg

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 11:51
"Rebels" or "moderate terrorists" celebrates that they managed to kill both pilots while they tried to land on chutes. They also (unconfirmed) downed resque helicopters. ISIS will mark this day in red in their calendars.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 11:54
This is apparently a plot of the Russian aircraft (in red) just cutting the very tip of Turkish airspace

Is this the sea at the left? Then it must be Sarma beach. And how accurate are google maps then: https://www.google.ru/maps/@35.9125088,35.9478896,8665m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

There seems no "appendices" here...

UPD: Found it. It's less than 3 km in the widest part... https://www.google.ru/maps/@35.8221567,36.2270325,34700m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 12:00
But the death of the crew doesn't necessarily escalate the situation, provided Russia holds to the SAM story.

How can Russia hold it if Turkish insist that they do it intentionally?

Putin just named this "Stabbing in the back" from someone who claims that he is against terrorist in this fight.

Tourist
24th Nov 2015, 12:01
The whole thing beautifully makes the Russians point for them.

There are no such thing as good guys or "moderate" rebels in Syria.

They are all bad guys, not just ISIS and Assad.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 12:07
There are no such thing as good guys or "moderate" rebels in Syria.


There no discussion about Syria now. Now NATO must choose side in this game. Welcome back to 1950th - Korea and Vietnam... :ugh:

Andy_S
24th Nov 2015, 12:08
There are no such thing as good guys or "moderate" rebels in Syria.

The trouble is, if the Russians bomb the hell out of all rebels, not just ISIS, then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 12:42
Is my calculation right, but taking gmap measurement and Turkish radar map, both occurrences of "boundary violations" takes about 20 sec? Which also raises the question if plane was shot down in Turkish airspace?

Kitiara
24th Nov 2015, 12:48
Is my calculation right, but taking gmap measurement and Turkish radar map, both occurrences of "boundary violations" takes about 0,6 sec? Which also raises the question if plane was shot down in Turkish airspace?


At this point, no one is claiming that it was in Turkish air space. Only that it violated Turkish airspace and was then shot down over Syria.

TEEEJ
24th Nov 2015, 12:51
DaveReidUK

.. provided Russia holds to the SAM story

Putin has already stated in video interview that it was an air-to-air shoot down by F-16.

Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian territory 4km from Turkey.

Putin calls Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists' after Russian jet shot down - live updates | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates)

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 12:54
Also claims they downed a russian rescue copter

Russian Search Helicopter Downed Near Syrian Border By US-Made Anti-Tank Missile, Rebels Claim | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/russian-search-helicopter-downed-us-made-anti-tank-missile-rebels-claim)

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 13:14
Turks just removed themselves from further participation in airstrikes

Do they participate earlier except that provide airbase for coalition?

PashaF
24th Nov 2015, 13:25
Eh. Russia can destroy Turkey without any military involvement. The obvious option is to drop one hundred manpads for Kurds to "fight ISIS reconnaissance drones". Then, take popcorn and watch Turkish planes and helicopters go down in flames on daily basis.

Then, tourist industry will collapse because no one will want to fly there because of the risks, etsetra etsetra.

They are literally on Putin mercy.

Gilles Hudicourt
24th Nov 2015, 13:25
Do they participate earlier except that provide airbase for coalition?

Turkish planes bomb ISIS targets in Syria for 1st time - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/middleeast/turkey-syria-isis-violence/index.html)

Denti
24th Nov 2015, 13:43
They are literally on Putin mercy.

Nah, why would they? Can russia hurt them? Of course, as can all other countries that have commercial ties with them. Can it destroy them? Far from it. As one of the bigger NATO partners and the most important in the middle east they are not weak on the military side, and commercially they do have quite a tourism industry, but they do have a lot of other industries as well which are mostly aimed not at russia but rather at other markets.

But nice try, seems putins cyber trolls are hard at work already.

PashaF
24th Nov 2015, 14:05
Sure, such a scenario is possible. Also there is a possibility that Erdogan will give all the caucasian fighters a safe route back home. Think about the scenarios in Russia. Also the Kurds rely heavy on western support. Don't think that they will jeopardize this.

Oh, no tourists will fly to Chechnya.

Also, don't hit my fake drama THAT hard. We all know that Kurds are well organized, there are many of well trained Kurdish combatants, they are highly motivated fighters and they hate Turkey.

From any point of view, Kurds can use additional military equipment with much greater efficiency than ANY militarized organization opposing Russia at the moment.

So, we can safely classified this option as "on the mercy". The amount of possible military and economical damage to the Turkey is immense.

207592
24th Nov 2015, 14:12
It may be that the solution to the Middle East is a re-drawing of boundaries to reflect the indigenous population, not the views of past colonial diplomats.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 14:16
It may be that the solution to the Middle East is a re-drawing of boundaries to reflect the indigenous population, not the views of past colonial diplomats.

It's best way to make Hell go loose...

Andy_S
24th Nov 2015, 14:21
So, we can safely classified this option as "on the mercy". The amount of possible military and economical damage to the Turkey is immense.

As it is to Russia.....

paully
24th Nov 2015, 14:46
The economic bit seems to have started..Russians have now been advised not to visit Turkey as its unsafe. To reinforce it Natali, their equivalent of Thomson Holidays has pulled all Turkish holiday packages off their market....BBC reporting that Russians were the second biggest group visiting Turkey after the Germans and ahead of the British....

Looks like Valdivostok might be busy next year at this rate

FullWings
24th Nov 2015, 15:01
I dont think well see WW3 erupt from this. A military aircraft on a military mission gets shot down - it happens. Civil transports flying on airways have been taken out without starting an immediate conflict between nations.

At what level was the decision to fire taken? Behind the scenes the Turkish government is likely furious but equally dont want to lose face with a frantic apology. How would poking the Russian bear, as another poster put it, advance Turkeys interests? It doesnt make sense from a premeditated standpoint.

Also, although they are a longstanding member of NATO, little things like human rights, the invasion of Cyprus and the unfortunate fact that not many in the EU want them any closer may play against the Turks. The Ukraine gave up nuclear arms in exchange for western support and look what good it did them...

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 15:07
The Ukraine gave up nuclear arms in exchange for western support

Correction: all ex-USSR republics gave up nuclear weapon in exchange for RF obligation solely bear all debts of USSR. "Western support" which was at any instance different from one received by RF can be counted for Ukraine not earlier than since first "Orangade" i.e. 2004.

silvertate
24th Nov 2015, 15:30
Russians have now been advised not to visit Turkey as its unsafe. To reinforce it Natali, their equivalent of Thomson Holidays has pulled all Turkish holiday packages.

Russia would have to do this, before taking action. They have about 50,000 holidaymakers in Antalya and Alanya, and would have to evacuate them first.

Once they are all out, Putin can act at will. Russia is not dependent on Turkey for anything, and Turkey is not exactly strategically important. The US has a large airbase in the east of Turkey, but they are hardly the best of mates, and could always relocate to Cyprus. The EU regarded Turkey as a possible member, but came under a barrage of opposition and has effectively shelved that proposal. Turkey is a NATO member, but always on the fringe. I cannot see NATO comming to the aid of Turkey, especially when they were responsible for the problem in the first place.

The result is that Russia will only back down if Erdogan grovels an apology. But anyone who knows Turkey will realise that Erdogan cannot and will not apologise for anything. There is no such word in the Turkish language. So there will be a diplomatic and military stand-off that will simmer and escallate for a few weeks or more, before things turn sour. And Turkey will eventually regret its intransigence. It will lose out economically, and military, but Erdogan will still revel in the deteriorating situation and portray himself as the victim (as they always do) - with an uncaring world against him.

As I said, popcorn futures are rising rapidly.

ST

AlphaZuluRomeo
24th Nov 2015, 15:34
Russia is not dependent on Turkey for anything, and Turkey is not exactly strategically important.
Ahem... what about straits? Bosphore & Dardanelles. When you want to resupply an expeditionnary force sent to... say, Syria?

I'm not saying it can't be done in another manner, I'm saying it's not "unimportant".

Andy_S
24th Nov 2015, 15:55
You don't understand Andy.

Actually, I believe it is you who doesn’t understand.

I don’t know how serious your suggestion of dropping Manpads to the Kurds was, but do you really believe the world will just look the other way? Such provocations are never just one way. Even a more conventional military response by Russia will have consequences, definitely economically, probably military as well.

The more sensible of us recognise that escalating this incident will have unpleasant consequences for both sides. I hope and believe that wiser counsel will prevail, and that whatever is said for public consumption, behind the scenes the situation is being diffused.

Turkey is not exactly strategically important. .....Turkey is a NATO member, but always on the fringe. I cannot see NATO comming to the aid of Turkey, especially when they were responsible for the problem in the first place.

I would say that Turkeys geographical position, on Russia's southern flank, the Mediterrainean coast and adjacent to the Middle East is highly strategic.

Turkey responsible for the problem in the first place? Perhaps you missed the bit where Russia compromised Turkeyish airspace (not for the first time). NATO are obliged by treaty to come to the aid of Turkey if requested. (Quite what form that would take is another matter).

Gilles Hudicourt
24th Nov 2015, 15:59
Turkey downs Russian jet - Live Blogs - Al Jazeera English (http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Turkey_downs_Russian_jet/207503335)

http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/11/24/749f9a60-bf6e-499b-bf74-f2613eb63eed.jpg

http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/11/24/58809c85-1f77-4198-9324-d4099406053e.jpg


....for 17 seconds....

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 16:01
this video purports to be the shooting down of the rescue chopper however it is already on the ground why? don't think it is genuine chopper blown up yes but different occasion?

Syrian Rebels Destroy Russian Helicopter With US-Supplied Anti-Tank Missile | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/caught-tape-syrian-rebels-destroy-russian-helicopter-us-supplied-anti-tank-missile)

llondel
24th Nov 2015, 16:03
It seems to me that Putin has been ignoring the "keep off the grass" warnings with a "what are you going to do about it?" attitude and the Turks decided to show them. They may come to regret it, or Putin might decide that this is one he doesn't want to inflame at this stage and be more careful in the near future.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 16:07
1,36 miles and 1,15 miles

How precise are their radars?

Also now it's again "in Turkish airspace".

Simplythebeast
24th Nov 2015, 16:12
The original story was the Russian helicopter had been forced into an emergency landing due to groundfire. It looks like having done so they have had time to pick it off with a missile. Then again it could be a totally different incident...who knows.

peekay4
24th Nov 2015, 16:13
Turkey is one of the largest buyers of Russian gas, second only to Germany. (And on the flip side, Turkey heavily depends on Russian gas).

Putin has to project a tough response for domestic consumption, but neither side will want to escalate this incident out of proportions.

Simplythebeast
24th Nov 2015, 16:18
Watching those 'American backed and armed' rebels shooting up at the aircrew on their parachutes and screaming Allahu Akbar as they did so was chilling. No different to IS screaming the same. Just religious extremism from both sides.They were screaming the same over the dead bodies later. Seems to me that theres no such thing as friendly rebels. West and East should leave them all too it instead of fighting a proxy war.

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 16:27
Strong rumours that NATO is abt to tell Turkey ( at the meeting Turkey called) you are on your own

As I understand it article 5 only applies if someone attacks a Nato member 1st, if the NATO member is the aggressor article invalid.

Wonder if the turks realised that?

sb_sfo
24th Nov 2015, 16:30
Unless Turkey can sell the original violation of airspace by an armed Russian fighter as an "attack"

Simplythebeast
24th Nov 2015, 16:37
That would be music to Putin's ears. NATO falling apart over a military aircraft shootdown. Not a bad price to pay unless you happen to be family of the dead aircrew.

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2015, 16:44
At what stage did the missile hit the aircraft?

Was it during the 17 seconds (when it was, allegedly, in Turkish territory) - or afterwards?

At what stage were the warnings issued?

Was it during the 17 seconds (when it was, allegedly, in Turkish territory) - or afterwards?

If you confront an intruder, are you entitled to shoot them after they have left your premises?

AR1
24th Nov 2015, 16:51
Given that there isn't any joined up policy as to what to do about what and who's fighting who, then its inevitable that a blue on blue-ish will continue to be a possibility.
The sooner people sit around a table and work out who the enemy really is, the better. Our own (UK) government pulling the financial bunny out if the hat to increase military spending is a prime example - we all want/need to be seen to be doing something, but actually don't know what it is.

Time to stand back and have a think.

ILS27LEFT
24th Nov 2015, 16:55
Quote: "Unless Turkey can sell the original violation of airspace by an armed Russian fighter as an "attack" "

17 seconds and just over a mile on a very tiny stretch of airspace at high speed and high altitude: Turkish aviation and PM knew this was not a hostile incursion but possibly human error during real operations close to border, it can happen and it does happen. 17 seconds is nothing.
Totally unnecessary.
Nobody can blame the Russians for 17 seconds. At high speed this means nothing, it was probably involuntarily and one Russian plane immediately went back in fact.
This was clearly not a Russian air-attack on Turkey, massive mistake made by the Turkish in my opinion.
NATO will have to agree with Putin this time.
There have been other cases of incursions that went well beyond 1 mile and beyond the 17 seconds and planes have not been shot down unless the intruder was at war with the shooter...maybe Turkey considers itself at war with Russia hence the unprecedented reaction of today :mad:

peekay4
24th Nov 2015, 17:00
Just in.

Statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

"We stand in solidarity with Turkey, and support the territorial integrity of our ally, Turkey"

He calls for calm and for all parties to contribute to de-escalating the situation.

PersonFromPorlock
24th Nov 2015, 17:15
"The downed fighter jet was warned 10 times in 5 minutes according to a statement released by the Turkish Armed Forces." Back in the Cold War, Soviet military aircraft didn't have the same Guard frequency as Western planes, supposedly to make defections by their pilots harder. Given the power of inertia and the cost of equipment upgrades, does anyone know for sure that Russian military planes now monitor the frequencies the Turks would have been transmitting on?

Karel_x
24th Nov 2015, 17:15
At what stage did the missile hit the aircraft?
Russians told that plane was hit by missile 1 km inside Syrian airspace. I am very disappointed by Turkish action. The plane cross Turkish airspace for 17s - how can they warn him many timed during 5 minutes? If really, how could he understand that the warnings are targeting to him if he was at this time deep in Syrian airspace?

peekay4
24th Nov 2015, 17:16
Full NATO Secretary General statement below:

The North Atlantic Council has just held a meeting, an extraordinary meeting. And we have been updated by the Turkish Ambassador on the recent events. I have also spoken to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Turkey informed Allies about the downing of a Russian Air Force plane violating Turkish airspace.

I have previously expressed my concerns about the implications of the military actions of the Russian Federation close to NATOs borders.

This highlights the importance of having and respecting arrangements to avoid such incidents in the future.

As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO Ally, Turkey.

We will continue to follow the developments on the South-Eastern borders of NATO very closely.

I look forward to further contacts between Ankara and Moscow and I call for calm and de-escalation.

Diplomacy and de-escalation are important to resolve this situation.

Good backgrounder / history of the situation from Al Jazeera:

Analysis: Downing of Russian jet hardly a surprise - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/analysis-turkey-downing-russian-jet-151124163107795.html)

skridlov
24th Nov 2015, 17:19
It's worth pointing out that when the insurgency against the Syrian regime began Turkey was one of the first countries to pour gasoline on the flames. A high proportion of the foreign jihadis charging into Syria did so via Turkey, which imposed no limits as far as I'm aware. Indeed Turkish taxis were kept very busy ferrying them to the Turkish/Syrian border. From the reports published in UK news media just about all of our home-grown - ie second or third generation British - recruits to the self-styled Islamic state travelled to Syria via Turkish airports. Despite which we're now offering Turkey relaxed EU visa restrictions in exchange for their "assistance" in controlling the exodus of migrants leaving Syria, the ingress of further jihadis and their provision of facilities such as those at Incirlik. This is a pretty good illustration of the insane contradictions in play within this situation.

Yet another is the Kurdish paradox. Up to now the main effective opposition to Daesh has come from the Kurdish militias (note the plural), a military force whose previous experience has primarily been gained in decades of internecine fighting - far more than against the Turkish military. The Turks would rather see almost any outcome that doesn't include increased military capability for the Kurds who have been playing a very long game for decades and who are the only likely beneficiaries of this crazy conflict.

Meanwhile we keep hearing about "supporting the moderate opposition" in Syria - as if this chaotic patchwork quilt of competing loyalties and objectives could be neatly sub-divided into "good guys" and "bad guys". This reminds me a bit of the Thatcher government's support of the "moderate Khmer Rouge" seat at the UN. Given the extremely long term relationship between Russia (and previously the USSR) and the successive Syrian Baathist governments it's hardly surprising that they have chosen to offer their support to the current regime. You don't have to like Putin's gang of robber-barons to see this as rational self-interest and foreign policy consistency.

We hear a great deal about how the brutality of the Assad regime is solely responsible for the chaos in Syria as if, even if correct, this was something new. Recall that in 1982 Bashar Assad's father and uncle confronted a previous insurgency by the Muslim Brotherhood by comprehensively exterminating it - killing more than 20K of its adherents in the city of Hama. End of Islamic insurgency with about 10% of the fatalities already incurred in the current conflict. And the West's response at that time? To allow Rifaat Assad (Hafez's brother and head of the security services) to set up home in London. He now lives in Paris; it would be interesting indeed to hear his opinion of the current catastrophe.

The great thing about the West's standards is that we have so many to chose from.

DH_call
24th Nov 2015, 17:40
Maybe the Putin just needed a reminder that Turkey is not the Ukraine or Georgia and that when they say stay off our property they actually have the means and the fortitude to follow up on it. :ok:

Staller
24th Nov 2015, 17:44
Russia says patrols near UK airspace were 'routine' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31053371)

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said there had been a sharp increase in the number of times Russian planes were intercepted by members.
He said: "Last year, allied aircraft intercepted Russian planes over 400 times. Over 150 of these intercepts were conducted by Nato's Baltic air policing mission. That's about four times as many as in 2013. So we are staying vigilant."

It was only really a matter of time.

silvertate
24th Nov 2015, 17:45
Turkey responsible for the problem in the first place? Perhaps you missed the bit where Russia compromised Turkeyish airspace.

The Russian jet was quite obviously circling a target well to the south of the Turkish border. In doing so, it inadvertently passed through a small pimple of Turkish airspace. (See the map, a couple of pages back.) And the Russian crew did not hear the Turkish warnings, which were either spoken in Turkish or terrible English (not met a Turkish military pilot yet, who spoke clear English.)

Quite clearly, the Russian jet was not a threat to Turkey or the Turkish F-16. What did they think it would do - suddenly turn right and bomb Antakya? Frankly, this act is such a violation of common sense and logic, that Turkey deserves whatever it gets from this - which will probably involve an unavoidable break in gas supplies from Russia during January, due to 'technical problems'.

.

As to Turkey being 'strategic', just who are the real allies of Turkey? Who will come to their aid, if they are in trouble?? The Greeks to the west dislike them. Russia to the north now dislikes them. Kurds to the east dislike them. Arabs to the south east have long regarded the Turks as inferior. Cypriots to the south dislike them. Israelies to the south dislike them. Assad in Syria has long distrusted them. Most of Europe is wary of them and distrusts them.

So why is Turkey in any way strategic? Who would come to their aid, if they got into trouble? Who would worry, if they fell on hard times?

ST

Hotel Tango
24th Nov 2015, 17:45
Mr Putin hasn't been my flavour of the month for a long time, however, in this particular case I believe the Turkish authorities completely overreacted. The Russian aircraft was not targeting Turkey. What's now even more shocking is that NATO is defending Turkey when they should in fact be telling them not to be so bloody stupid ever again!

angels
24th Nov 2015, 17:52
Russia was only targeting the terrorists. Period.

Nonsense. When they started the bombing campaign the Russian Defence Ministry said, "Warplanes targeted eight ISIS positions, "including arms, transportation, communications and control positions."

They lied.

No ISIS positions were targeted. The Syrians themselves gave the game away by saying, the Russians bombed, "ISIS dens in al-Rastan, Talbeisa, al-Zaafran, al-Tolol al-Humr, Aydon, Deir Fol and the area surrounding Salmia..."

None of those areas were remotely under ISIS control. All of them were under rebel control. The same rebels who ISIS have been attacking since they were formed. The Russians were bombing the rebels to keep Assad in power. And ISIS were helping keep Assad in power by attacking the rebels!

It soon became obvious to anyone what the Russians were doing so they started flinging a few dumb bombs at soft ISIS targets. But because the Russians were attacking the rebels ISIS actually took a lot of ground around Aleppo.

And then Metrojet happened and Putin started hitting ISIS hard.

So what was today's plane doing so close to the Turkish border in Latakia? It wasn't bombing ISIS, it was attacking people who are fighting ISIS. Why? Turkey has complained of svereal violations of their airspace during the bombing campaign. What would Russia do if a Turkish plane flew into Russian airspace following a series of other airspace violations?

The Kremlin keeps changing it's stories to fit whatever agenda they are trying to pursue. Do you really think they wand to give up Tartus?

West Coast
24th Nov 2015, 17:56
I know its human nature, but there's an awful lot of conjecture here from people armed with nothing more than press reports trying to unravel things they don't have a full grasp of.

This is why pprune is for entertainment purposes only.

just a pax
24th Nov 2015, 17:57
How does the rules and regulations applies to this map which BBC publishes?
A 17 sec intrusion of Turkish airspace and then a missiles hit over Syria/Russian controlled space?

Would it be ok if it was fired within Turkey territory but hit the Russian Su-24 outside?
Or could that be seen as a hostile action from Turkey?


http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D395/production/_86856145_russian_plane_shot_down_624.png

c53204
24th Nov 2015, 18:03
With Russian military aircraft frequently skirting close to several countries airspace, it was only a matter of time before this happened.

Maybe Putin might call a halt to these flights - hopefully that will happen, rather than the other option.

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 18:06
None of those areas were remotely under ISIS control. All of them were under rebel control.

You mean "moderate terrorists"? What is the difference between ISIS and "rebels"?

Also I don't really like Kaddafi, but similar "rebels" win over him in Libya, now it's happy and profitable democratic country contrary to what it was then.

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 18:08
As to Turkey being 'strategic', just who are the real allies of Turkey? Who will come to their aid, if they are in trouble?? The Greeks to the west dislike them. Russia to the north now dislikes them. Kurds to the east dislike them. Arabs to the south east have long regarded the Turks as inferior. Cypriots to the south dislike them. Israelies to the south dislike them. Assad in Syria has long distrusted them. Most of Europe is wary of them and distrusts them.

What about the US ? Incirlik is one of the important airbases for them. At the end of the day, Turkey is a NATO member and that counts a lot, they trust Erdogan much more then Putin.

16024
24th Nov 2015, 18:08
@ West coast, above.
Well Quite, but the Ne in PPRuNe relates to "network", and as a collation point for a diverse set of facts it can be useful.

@ G-CPTN
If you confront an intruder, are you entitled to shoot them after they have left your premises?

Worth pointing out that here in civilization, you aren't entitled to shoot intruders at all.

Photonic
24th Nov 2015, 18:18
"So why is Turkey in any way strategic?"

One reason Russia is involved here at all, is to preserve its one Naval base in Syria with access to the Med, and its one airfield in Syria.

Those planes need fuel. The way fuel gets there is on tankers from the Black Sea, through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, smack dab in the middle of northern Turkey. Russia's options are limited if they want to preserve those bases in Syria, and not have to send oil tankers around the long way from its North Fleet bases in the arctic.

JCviggen
24th Nov 2015, 18:27
You mean "moderate terrorists"? What is the difference between ISIS and "rebels"? Well quite a few of the rebel groups consider ISIS an enemy, for a start. However Assad would consider them all terrorists as they are all against him.

There is definitely a different point of view of who is a terrorist depending on who you ask, the Turks would definitely disagree on the Turkmen being terrorists but would probably call the Kurds terrorists while the US and Russia would not. It's one big mix and the label "terrorist" is really more about who is on whose side than on what they are actually doing.

Anyway, Syria is a big country with lots of baddies to bomb. Without detracting from the fact that Turkey was completely in the wrong to shoot down this plane, why does Russia feel the need to do things which it knows Turkey is very very annoyed about already? The Turks protested incursions weeks ago, and just this Friday complained about the targeting of people it considers on "their" side. Did Russia take any of that into account, or did they simply carry on as always and fly right on top (and probably just across) of a country that has shown itself to be too trigger happy already. Why the need to ignore Turkey's anger and put trust in them not to overreact? How hard is it to stay a couple miles further away?

angels
24th Nov 2015, 18:39
What is the difference between ISIS and "rebels"?

Quite a lot actually. You're an intelligent man (your posts on Metrojet were invaluable), so you work it out. Here's some differences for starters.

One group plants bombs on Russian planes, the other doesn't.

One group launches attacks in Paris, Beirut, Ankara and other places, the other doesn't.

One lot were in cahoots with Assad (he let them into the Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus) and the others aren't.

And one group fights the other -- quite a large difference that.

Do you wish to deny any of the above?

Also, I repeat,

So what was today's plane doing so close to the Turkish border in Latakia? It wasn't bombing ISIS, it was attacking people who are fighting ISIS. Why? Turkey has complained of svereal violations of their airspace during the bombing campaign. What would Russia do if a Turkish plane flew into Russian airspace following a series of other airspace violations?

AreOut
24th Nov 2015, 18:47
Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast, ordered to destroy any target posing danger

https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/

just what we needed now... couple of F16s shot down and this could go down the drain pretty fast...

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 18:51
"So why is Turkey in any way strategic?"

One reason Russia is involved here at all, is to preserve its one Naval base in Syria with access to the Med, and its one airfield in Syria.

Those planes need fuel. The way fuel gets there is on tankers from the Black Sea, through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, smack dab in the middle of northern Turkey. Russia's options are limited if they want to preserve those bases in Syria, and not have to send oil tankers around the long way from its North Fleet bases in the arctic.

easier for russia to do that than for Turkey to stop its citizens freezing to death this winter, they supply 57% of Turkey's gas- looks like they may be a bout to do it.

Russia Declares Warplane Downing A "Hostile Act" But Will It Cut Turkish Gas Supplies? | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/russia-declares-warplane-downing-hostile-act-will-it-cut-turkish-gas-supplies)

Different point I think Nato response to Turkey was wrong and probably from top politicos outside immediate Nato structure.

It should have at least mentioned the duration of said excursion and fact missile hit was outside Turkey and said something along the lines a bit of a hasty reaction

West Coast
24th Nov 2015, 18:52
Why not share the full grasp of things with the rest of us?

Or better yet, why not simply follow the news and government releases rather than draw conclusions and rush to post them here.

silvertate
24th Nov 2015, 18:56
Strategic importance of Turkey.

What about the US ? Incirlik is one of the important airbases for them.


You have obviously not been to the region often.

The US has a large airbase in eastern Turkey, Incirlik, but the Americans are widely despised and mocked among the locals for being there. Everyone knows that the only reason the base is there is because the US pays $2 billion a year for it to be there, and most of that goes directly into the pocket of King Erdogan. And King Erdogan uses this money to build his new royal palace in Constantinople, and to 'persuade' the more gullible sharia electorate in the east to vote for him. Nice little freebies are on offer, like free fridges, free coal and free potatoes - just what the rural unwashed want.

So Incirlik is a nice little earner that keeps King Erdogan in power, no more, no less. As their special book says: "you can enter into an aliance with the non believers if you are not in a position of strength, but it can be broken after ten years or when the situation changes". King Erdogan observed something similar when he said: "Democracy is like a train. You can get on an off it whenever you want.". Anyone who fully trusts King Erdogan needs to think again. The Americans know this, or should know this, and have plans to relocate to Cyprus at short notice.

As to the Russians needing oil from the Black Sea, that is not true. While Syria is not exactly overflowing with oil, it has enough to supply Russian needs, both in the port and the airbase near Latakia. The oil fields south of Homs are still in government hands, and still working, although at a reduced output. So Russia has no immediate worries about oil supplies to its forces.

As to Turkey controlling the Bosphorus, that may be a bit of a worry for Russia. Would they have to force their way though? Not yet a while. They have enough ships in the Black Sea (taken from Ukraine) and Med not to worry at present, and they can always bolster the Mediteranean fleet via Gibraltar. That is something to think about many moons from now. So does Russia have any worries about the strength of their position in the region? None at all.

ST

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 19:06
One group plants bombs on Russian planes, the other doesn't.

One group launches attacks in Paris, Beirut, Ankara and other places, the other doesn't.

The question only - which group?

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 19:10
easier for russia to do that than for Turkey to stop its citizens freezing to death this winter, they supply 57% of Turkey's gas- looks like they may be a bout to do it.

The pipeline from the Azerbaijan/caspian sea is in operation since 2006. So no need for freezing.....

angels
24th Nov 2015, 19:22
The question only - which group?

I rest my case.

I pointed out that the Kremlin had lied when it said it was targeting ISIS when it wasn't. You then tried to muddy the waters by saying all anti-Assadists were terrorists -- which doesn't address the original lie.

You ended up by asking me a rhetorical question to which I actually gave several answers.

You have not answered any of my questions.

Neutrals can draw their own conclusions.

peekay4
24th Nov 2015, 19:24
"Russian marine killed during operation to rescue pilot whose warplane was shot down by Turkey, reports state-run agency RIA Novosti." -CNN

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2015, 19:24
What are the ROE WRT 'paratroops'?

Do you have to wait until they land before you can attack them?

(Of course, we know that some rebel groups are not bound by ROE.)

Attacks on parachutists while descending by parachutes from disabled aircraft is considered by most militaries around the world to be inhumane, barbaric, and unchivalrous.
However, it is not prohibited under this Protocol to open fire on airborne troops who are descending by parachutes, even if their aircraft is in distress.

lomapaseo
24th Nov 2015, 19:25
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder if the tipping point here for the Russian public, was the intentional killing of the pilots. That to me, was a point that didn't need to be made towards defending soverign territory.

ExDubai
24th Nov 2015, 19:31
You have obviously not been to the region often.
I spent most of my time at the Hodja Lakes GC

No need to teach me about the Sultan. I don't trust him, neither I trust the Zar

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2015, 19:38
That to me, was a point that didn't need to be made towards defending sovereign territory.
But weren't the aviators downed in Syria, rather than in Turkey?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/141C7/production/_86857328_russian_plane_shot_down_624.png

AreOut
24th Nov 2015, 19:49
russian version

Untitled :: Mycity-Military.com (http://www.mycity-military.com/slika.php?slika=190353_111415099_Untitled.jpg)

that border pocket certainly looks a bit smaller on russian map, no?!

Kulverstukas
24th Nov 2015, 19:55
that border pocket certainly looks a bit smaller on russian map, no?!

BBC card (or Turkish if it's it so) is nowhere near real scale. Look google maps yourself.

TowerDog
24th Nov 2015, 20:03
Yes, it was a matter of time.
Putin has been flexing muscle and showing "strength" by flying too close to, and violating sovereign borders numerous times over the last few years.
Perhaps the Turkish fighter jock overreacted and was trigger happy, or he had clear instructions to blow any Russian plane out of the sky if it crossed the boundary?

I was going to mention KAL 007 but somebody beat me to it.
There was also a Korean 707 forced down on a frozen lake by the Ruskies because of a border incursion.

Not sure if the Russian pilots over Turkey failed their navigation classes, or if they intentionally violated Turkish airspace on orders from Kremlin, but either way it was a bit reckless and they payed the price.
Now diplomacy has to clean up the mess, or Putin has to take on NATO to show strength and to save face. :sad:

Svejk
24th Nov 2015, 20:16
Maps of the incident provided by Russian DoD:

http://img.vz.ru/upimg/p_7/p_780053.jpg

The blue line is F16. The red line is SU24. SU24 doesn't cross the border. F16 crosses a bit into Syria.

Closer look. Point of AA hit (below):

http://img.vz.ru/upimg/960/960647.jpg

SU24 crash site (below):

http://img.vz.ru/upimg/960/960636.jpg

Turkish Map. Turks claimed that they didn't cross but Russians did. This map was claimed to be produced by the Turkish DoD but then they said that the map was produced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the political department).

http://img.vz.ru/upimg/960/960638.jpg

angels
24th Nov 2015, 20:37
The Turks have issued tapes which show (allegedly) the warnings were in English and were directed to the plane as it approached Turkish airspace.

The recording I've heard says, "This is the Turkish Air Force. You are approaching Turkish air space. Turn south immediately." And it's repeated twice, not 10 times on the recording I heard but of course it could be truncated.

AreOut
24th Nov 2015, 20:41
this might be the source of the problem...apparently turkish border is "moved" some 5 miles into syrian territory after their jet got shot down in 2012

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-violated-turkish-airspace-because-turkey-moved-its-border/5480430

next time they should tell Russians to update the maps before firing the missiles, might save them from harsh consequences that inevitably will follow...

Yankee Whisky
24th Nov 2015, 21:48
Makes absolutely no sense as does the Russian reply. They are both experts in the practice of lies.............................

Lonewolf_50
24th Nov 2015, 22:21
Makes absolutely no sense as does the Russian reply. They are both experts in the practice of lies.............................
A few points:

Erdogan like Putin has to put on a strong front. He's got his pride too. If he felt that the Russian play was screwing the Turkish play -- in Syria -- the "what are you gonna do about it" issue becomes political for him eventually.

For anyone in doubt, the chances that the Turkish F-16 engaged without considerable radio contact with his controllers on the ground is remote.

This means that there is probably an audit trail of orders from Ankara to whatever fighter wing is patrolling southern Turkey that defines some engagement criteria and some RoE. The Turks have been in NATO long enough to know how to do that sort of thing. That audit trail most likely classified Secret or something like it.

What happened after that plane got shot down .... :mad: Then again, given who these people are, any surprise?

I suspect that the Sixth Fleet is on alert and heading for the coast of Syria. It's 1982/1984 all over again, a few miles north. Back then, it was :mad:ing Lebanon.

Question for PPRuNe: what does all this do to flights into Istanbul?

Less important question for PPRuNe: the missus is thinking of us visiting the Holy Land with a group in our church, in August. I need to make the decision soon. Flight is Houston to Istanbul, then to Tel Aviv. I had my doubts before, as I've been to Israel and am not all that enthusiastic to go back. Got other places I haven't been.

The ripple effect of this will take a week or two to play out, but the longer term issues are beginning to concern me.

AreOut
24th Nov 2015, 22:34
Putin will likely do nothing before Russians are back home from holidays in Turkey, he certainly doesn't want thousands of Russians as hostages...last info I got is that russian tourist agencies are ordered to stop making any deals with turkish hotels

but after 10 days or so I wouldn't want to be in Turkey or anywhere close for that matter

glad rag
24th Nov 2015, 22:43
but after 10 days or so I wouldn't want to be in Turkey or anywhere close for that matter

Why is that?

AC560
24th Nov 2015, 22:50
Any word on what missile was used for the shoot down?

PAXboy
24th Nov 2015, 23:10
Perhaps a video of pilots being shot, whilst parachuting to 'safety' was considered unkind and cruel? Just because the video is available on other sites, does not mean that a pilot's discussion forum wants to host it.

AreOut
24th Nov 2015, 23:19
Why is that?

because there certainly will be some kind of military retaliation, it likely (and hopefully) will not be a full-scale war but I can't see Putin backing off, especially because they state the plane didn't violate turkish airspace at all(personally I think it did for a couple of seconds but it's important what they state not us here on R&N) which would mean they have a casus belli...

_Phoenix
24th Nov 2015, 23:31
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/669204928984915968/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Is there enough time for intercept, lock and missile travel (at M2.5), all inside Turkey's airspace?

Standard Toaster
24th Nov 2015, 23:33
Analysis of the Turkish behavior by Gen. Tom McInerney on Fox News, calling the action overly aggressive (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4630118119001/radar-track-shows-russia-jets-path-over-turkish-territory/?intcmp=hpbt2#sp=show-clips)

If a former NORAD commander interviewed by Fox says the action was unjustified, it surely was...

What will Putin do? He has to do something in order to maintain his image of "strength and power" at home and abroad.

oldoberon
24th Nov 2015, 23:34
by Photonic http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/571040-turkish-f16-shoots-down-unidentified-aircraft-their-airspace-6.html#post9190645

Bosphorus is a free international waterway, turkey preventing its use by anyone would be illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters


Several international treaties have established freedom of navigation on semi-enclosed seas.

The Copenhagen Convention of 1857 opened access to the Baltic by abolishing the Sound Dues and making the Danish Straits an international waterway free to all commercial and military shipping.

Several conventions have opened the Bosporus and Dardanelles to shipping. The latest, the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits, maintains the straits' status as an international waterway.

Other international treaties have opened up rivers, which are not traditionally international waterways.
The Danube River is an international waterway so that landlocked Austria, Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia can have secure access to the Black Sea.

G0ULI
24th Nov 2015, 23:55
I fail to see how Russia will not gain enormous political advantage from this shoot down incident. Russia has been mounting air strikes in Syria in support of President Assad and the official Syrian Government Forces. NATO has been selectively arming various rebel groups fighting against President Assad as well as ISIS and has actively been trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

So whatever way you care to look at it, by shooting down a Russian fighter, Turkey (or Turkish supported rebels) have lost any moral high ground they might have claimed. They have to all intents and purposes shot down an allied aircraft in the fight against ISIS, which makes them, and any supporting NATO countries the bad guys.

Whatever the truth of the incursion into Turkish airspace, the missile that brought down the aircraft was fired from within Syrian airspace and the crash site was within Syria.

The Turks have asserted their authority over their airspace, but made themselves look very bad in doing so. Russia has tragically lost two pilots, but in the overall scheme of things have come out massively ahead in terms of political kudos.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2015, 00:05
Analysis of the Turkish behavior by Gen. Tom McInerney on Fox News, calling the action overly aggressive (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4630118119001/radar-track-shows-russia-jets-path-over-turkish-territory/?intcmp=hpbt2#sp=show-clips)

If a former NORAD commander interviewed by Fox says the action was unjustified, it surely was...
Really? Who pays his check? What is their motivation? He's a retired general. Make sure to add a grain of salt to such utterances.

I am a retired Commander. Likewise add a grain of salt to mine, but I have less to gain as Fox won't pay me thousands of dollars for my two bits.

Question to PPRuNe: what is the impact of this uncertainty to air travel in the region?
Discussion of that is surely on topic.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2015, 00:07
by Photonic http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/571040-turkish-f16-shoots-down-unidentified-aircraft-their-airspace-6.html#post9190645

Bosphorus is a free international waterway, turkey preventing its use by anyonne would be illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_watersPlease cite the Montreaux Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits) to complete your thought, as it applies to the Turkish Straits in detail. I've been through them a few times on ships of war.

oldoberon
25th Nov 2015, 00:28
It is in my quote but now in bold and red, those wishing to read it should use the link within the wiki link

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2015, 01:56
It is in my quote but now in bold and red, those wishing to read it should use the link within the wiki linkA direct cite is far more appropriate, since it is Turkey who is now involved, so I provided one in my post. That convention is of a similar vintage to the various lines on the map that left the Middle East in the strange situation that it is in to this day.

That convention, however, doesn't apply all that much to air power and flying beyond how it applies to aircraft embarked on ships that transit the straits.

For PPRuNe purposes, we might be better off addressing the influence on air operations, air travel, and the airspace in the region as matters of interest to the intended audience.

Just a thought.

RYFQB
25th Nov 2015, 03:49
If a former NORAD commander interviewed by Fox says the action was unjustified, it surely was...
For what it's worth, a Commander with the media group of the Norwegian Defence University College said something similar on national TV (https://tv.nrk.no/serie/aktuelt-tv/NNFA50112415/24-11-2015) Tuesday night. More precisely his comment was that "many would say it was an overreaction" to shoot down an aircraft transiting a tiny bit of airspace with no hostile intentions. He also said it has to be regarded as a Turkish action more than a Nato action. He also said Russia has been provoking Turkey for the past month and a half, but this incursion may well have been a mistake. Hardly a Nato spokesperson, but I wouldn't think the Secretary General's home country put a dissenter on the screen either.

Sunfish
25th Nov 2015, 05:29
lone wolf:

The ripple effect of this will take a week or two to play out, but the longer term issues are beginning to concern me.

the long term issues are frightening. Turkey has declared itself a supporter of ISIS. Russia is now going to go after turkeys child -ISIS even harder.

Whatever one says about sovereignty, the russian aircraft vectors were never pointed at a Turkish target, in fact whichever map you use, the russian aircraft was exiting Turkish airspace when it was hit.

If Turkey tries this again, then watch out.

As an aside, Erdogan's son had better have a good bodyguard.

magari
25th Nov 2015, 07:21
They have to all intents and purposes shot down an allied aircraft in the fight against ISIS, which makes them, and any supporting NATO countries the bad guys.


I registered just to refute this.

(1) Russian planes have been striking Turkmen targets in Latakia province near the Turkish border.
(2) Turkmen have been fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army (the "moderate" rebels), not ISIS.
(3) Nor is ISIS at all operating along that stretch of the border.
(4) Russian maneuvers in this area are entirely about protecting Assad's rear, not about the fight against ISIS.
(5) Turkey's strike is politically motivated indeed, but intended to deter Russia from attacking their ethnic kin.
(6) Conclusion, this attack had nothing to do with ISIS, one way or the other.

mm43
25th Nov 2015, 07:25
Hardly a NATO spokesperson, but I wouldn't think the Secretary General's home country put a dissenter on the screen either. The point you made is genuine, and Turkey's response was "extreme" to the slight invasion of their [territorial] airspace which was very minor. The aircraft concerned transgressed by about 1.5NM but at no time could this be deemed as aggressive. The aircraft entered from the east and departed to the west in less than 30 seconds, i.e. a small miscalculation in the scale of things.

The Russian Federation would also be wise to accept that right and might are not necessarily the best of bed-fellows.

umitatl
25th Nov 2015, 07:27
Guys ,

Short and simple, no isis military groups are existing at that vicinity( north syria) , just el nusra (syrian turkish sunni group armed by usa and turkey ,offically known by nato against esad regime) and pyd ( kurd groups) are positioned there. Russia has been carried out air strikes to them last one month and violated Turkey's border dosen of time or more.. It is clear that Turkey as Nato member wont shoot down a Russian Fighter without States confirmation.

So for the ones who mention that Turks are trying make shield to protect Isis is :mad: ...

Try to be more sphecific...

Turkey is not over-reactive ; remember that syria shoot down Turkish fighter 2 years ago because of same reason. there is no squawk code of fighters to identify its russian or syrian, even doest not matter...

de facto
25th Nov 2015, 07:48
I have heard on 121.5 at least two/three times in last few months ,flying into Istanbul ,military crew speaking in English asking for an aircraft to change its course or action will be taken.
My 2 cents.

Boeingrestricted
25th Nov 2015, 07:49
absolutely correct umitatl, a good response to Sunfish's whitewashing of NATO from its relation to ISIS/IS or wharever f#@$.

ISIS has emerged out of nowhere in February 2014 just because the battle for Syria got stuck/stalemated, in concert with Ukraine "crises" directed by Victoria Nuland. A "casus bellum" was required to continue the battle in a more covert manner hence ISIS's emergence to provide that cover.

This attack together with the metrojet's attack's beg's for a response from Russia. And so they will deliver this , see history.

A possible scenario I can think of is 1 response to Turkish airforce/ground troops and 1 to the participating ME airliners (including ISisrael).

Certainly very interesting times ahead. Poking a bear or even a cat for that matter is not a good idea. The reaction will be in direct proportion to the size of the animal.

G0ULI
25th Nov 2015, 08:02
The Russians play Chess while the rest of the world are playing Checkers (Draughts).

The Sultan
25th Nov 2015, 08:14
Second crew member alive and handed over to the Syrians.

The Sultan

AreOut
25th Nov 2015, 08:18
For PPRuNe purposes, we might be better off addressing the influence on air operations, air travel, and the airspace in the region as matters of interest to the intended audience.

Russians are now deploying S400 in Lattakia.

I wouldn't want to fly anywhere near trigger-happy russkies behind a long range SAM. Even if they don't have intention to shoot down civilian aircraft those systems are still not well tested and known to lock on wrong targets. See what happened with that Siberia flight when Ukrainians fired an older S200 rocket...

angels
25th Nov 2015, 08:32
AreOut -

The Growlers have been in Latakia for some time -- essentially since the base was established.

They are there to protect the Russian air force base from ISIS ground attack aircraft....:eek:

Svejk
25th Nov 2015, 08:48
Some more info from Russian media.

The second pilot, the navigating officer, was rescued by Syrian Army (special forces). He is back now at the Russian base. The commander was awarded posthumously.

The Russian minister of defense has said that they are planning to send S-400 SA system to the Russian airbase of Khmeimim to secure the area in all directions. The president has approved it.

The Russian minister of defense has said that they have already taken certain counter measures against such hostile activities. In particular the missile cruiser Moskva (Moscow) has already taken its position in the sea westwards Latakia. Moskva is equipped with the Fort system (analogue of S-300) and ready to destroy any target recognized as threat.

DirtyProp
25th Nov 2015, 09:11
Second crew member alive and handed over to the Syrians.The second pilot, the navigating officer, was rescued by Syrian Army (special forces). He is back now at the Russian base.Finally some good news.
Let's hope this will help to cool down the heat.

PashaF
25th Nov 2015, 09:20
I wouldn't want to fly anywhere near trigger-happy russkies behind a long range SAM. Even if they don't have intention to shoot down civilian aircraft those systems are still not well tested and known to lock on wrong targets. See what happened with that Siberia flight when Ukrainians fired an older S200 rocket...


As far as i know, it was not the case. Two rockets was launched, the first destroyed the target (drone), so, when second arrived (s200) it was nothing to do in the sky. They designed to operate in two modes "self destruct if no one there" or "Go find someone else". Because of negligence the rocket was set to operate in second mode.

FullWings
25th Nov 2015, 09:21
On a practical note, this has the potential to make airliner transits of the Middle East and surrounding area even more complicated than it is now.

Weve got Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and now possibly Turkey on the list, as fingers get closer to the triggers on all sides.

If Turkish airspace becomes too risky, then there will be an effective block from Kiev down to Kuwait, which is quite an inconvenience to a lot of traffic...

oldoberon
25th Nov 2015, 09:36
Turkey has spent years allowing jihadist groups to flourish - so beware its real reasons for shooting down a Russian plane | Voices | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-spent-years-allowing-jihadist-groups-to-flourish-so-beware-its-real-reasons-for-shooting-a6747161.html)

Bertie Bonkers
25th Nov 2015, 09:50
If you confront an intruder, are you entitled to shoot them after they have left your premises?

I'm sure Turkey say the missile was fired while the Su was in their airspace but it does seem a bit "Tony Martin".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

RVF750
25th Nov 2015, 10:51
A. I do detect a touch of racist anti Trkish feeling from some posters here.

B. Trke Military pilots I have had the pleasure of flying with speak quite acceptable technical English. ATC also can communicate in English perfectly well.

Unless you deviate to colloquial non standard English, they keep up and understand just fine.

C. Some of you have very little understanding of just how big the Trkish military forces actually are.

From their point of view watching those SU24s targeting their ethnic brothers must have been very irritating.

Antalya is indeed full of about 1 million Russians in mid Summer. By now nearly all will have left. They own a fair bit of property in the west of the City so boycotting the area will not go down well with the Middle Classes in Moscow.


It's all very messy, granted. all we can do is keep 121.5 turned up and pay attention.

Fly safe everyone.

ShotOne
25th Nov 2015, 11:13
It's hardly racist to highlight the difficulty of military pilots communicating in what for both is a foreign language, RVF. Even if the Turkish crew spoke perfect English, who's to say the Sukhoi crew spoke any? For most of the period these warnings were being made, even by the Turkish account, it was outside their airspace. What frequency was used? A USN warship issued repeated warnings to the Iran Air Airbus before shooting it down...on UHF which it could never have received.

Svejk
25th Nov 2015, 11:20
Some more info (probably already well-known) on the story.

Shortly after SU-24 was downed two Russian SAR birds were launched to extract the pilots. These were Mi-8 helicopters, a toy helicopter comparatively to Mi-17 or Mi-24. One of the birds was seriously hit by the ground machine fire from ISIL or so called moderate opposition so it had to land; one of the SAR team onboard (a marine) was killed.

The second helicopter took all crew and SAR members from the first helicopter. The first helicopter was abandoned on ground. Soon it was destroyed with the US-made TOW rocket launcher by ISIL or so called moderate opposition (the video of this can be found on youtube).

So there are two casualties: the attack plane commander and a SAR marine.

RVF750
25th Nov 2015, 11:36
Shotone,

Several posters have accused Turks of poor English which is ignorance as it is just not true. Virtually all Turkish Military crew will have gone to a Military High School and studied English extensively- in an American style. That much is obvious by pronunciation of some words.

The comms go on 121.5mhz VHFand I and other civilian airliners hear them all the time, and also on 243mhz UHF.

If the Su-24 did not listen to this, or they couldn't, they really had no place being in the air in this part of the world!

SLFguy
25th Nov 2015, 11:40
If the Su-24 did not listen to this, or they couldn't, they really had no place being in the air in this part of the world!

Well that's the point right there!

Andy_S
25th Nov 2015, 11:48
The Russians were careless either with their navigation skills or being provocative.
The Turks completely overreacted. Its not like the Russian jet was going to straff downtown Ankara.

Sensible comments.

The whole incident was regrettable and avoidable on both sides. Some of the sabre rattling and aggression shown on this board is completely inappropriate. I don't think it's in the interests of either side to escalate the situation.

ThinkRate
25th Nov 2015, 11:57
It should be obvious by now that the Russian bomber was not shot down for violating Turkish airspace. This was a tactical move by both sides, each for their own strategic reasons (better explained in many posted analyses in the international press, from all sides) that has been brewing over for the past few weeks.

Turkey has been violating Greek FIR, as a matter of daily routine for as long as anyone can remember. In all cases, sometimes several times a day, Greece scrambles F2000s or F16s to intercept and identify. This is based on a different type of dispute (one over territorial water and continental shelf rights, EEZs and so on). Most of the intercepts end uneventfully, with the Turkish jets leaving the area, once identified. Some result in dogfights (in the good old sense) and FOX3s before the Turkish jets leave the area. And (fortunately not often) some have resulted in tragic misshaps with loss of life on both sides.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i194/greg1_photos/CKh0VcX-1_zpsybmmrzss.jpg

ShotOne
25th Nov 2015, 12:47
Are you telling us for a fact transmissions were made on both VHF and UHF, RVF? Genuine question: this was a factor in both Iran Air and Korean007 shootdowns.

Tourist
25th Nov 2015, 13:04
Thinkrate


That is an entirely different situation, since the Greek/Turkish spat is down to the fact that they disagree over the sovereignty of the airspace. Without getting into an entirely unrelated argument, the Turks would state that the greeks are the ones in the wrong place.

Boeingrestricted
25th Nov 2015, 13:11
It looks like a calculated attack ,simply because the 5 minute 10 x warning started 30 miles out. Simple as that.

Tourist
25th Nov 2015, 13:11
Anybody who has been military aircrew knows that this is part of the game.

You fly over somebody else's territory, no matter how briefly, you get in the poo (friendly nation) or risk getting shot down (unfriendly nation)

The Russians have done it, the Americans have done it, the Turks have done it, The Syrians have done it, the Greeks have done it, the Isrealis have done it, and I'm sure we have done it.

I have no doubt that in Russian military headquarters there are some pragmatic conversations going on about it.

It is part of the game. Pushing limits to see who is weak and who has a pair. It may seem childish, but the reality of international geopolitics generally is.

In the last few years, the Syrians have shot down a Turk. The Turks have shot down Syrians. It is a hot war zone.

We all know.
You don't cross the line, and if you do, then beware.

p.s. The whole "which side of the line were they when hit?" discussion is just cr@p. What do you think this is? Tag in the playground?

Tourist
25th Nov 2015, 13:12
It looks like a calculated attack ,simply because the 5 minute 10 x warning started 30 miles out. Simple as that.

I have no doubt it was.
The Turks are very disciplined. I suspect that the order to fire went all the way up the chain hence the wait till the second orbit.....

Calculated is good.

The bit that I suspect that nobody had considered is the captured/beaten to death bit.

A_Van
25th Nov 2015, 13:17
Some "IMHOs"

1. The commanders of the Russian AF group in Syria along with foreign ministry bureaucrats were stupid and irresponsible enough to not listen to the Turkish warnings (and not duly briefing the pilots, supposedly) that they (turks) were going to open fire "the next time". No matter who entered into whoever's airspace (looks like both did) one should be careful enough and pay great attention to situational awareness in the presence of such a "nervous and armed neighbor". In particular, the bombers should be accompanied by fighters, electronic warfare aircraft should also be in the air during operations, etc. Rescue teams should be better prepared than in this case when only two conventional transport choppers were sent and could not do much facing a strong fire from the ground.

2. The Turkish did it on purpose, were prepared for that and fired from an ambush, shame. Explanations such as "we were warning them 10 times" are inadequate. First, flying through this small "peninsula" of the Turkish territory into the Syrian one requires just some 15 seconds. It was clear that there was no other intention except for just making a quick short-cut. No matter who speaks or does not speak English, the Russian pilots might indeed not know who was addressing who even if they had a 121.5 MHz receiver up. Moreover, the Turkish did not join the MOU (or whatever was the document format) agreed between the Russian and US AFs to prevent incidents in the Syrian sky. Third, considering the situation more globally, an opinion of a NORAD general makes sense (well, it's Fox, I know, but the general is real), sorry for putting this URL again:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/24/lt-gen-mcinerney-turkey-shooting-down-russian-plane-was-very-bad-mistake (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/24/lt-gen-mcinerney-turkey-shooting-down-russian-plane-was-very-bad-mistake)

3. Sad to see foolish propaganda here that the Russians are not attacking the ISIL. E.g., the damage they made to the ISIL oil facilities is more severe than the whole "coalition" made.
The same for various groups of terrorists and rebels. The picture is not black and white. There are so many groups with different goals (absolute majority are just hungry for killing each other). You can't say that if anybody is against "baby Assad" (who is not a good guy himself, for sure) he is a good guy. Similarly, you can't say that all the "turkmen" are untouchable just because Turkey (Erdogan's regime) is supporting them or just because they got some weapons from the US. Thousands of criminals all over that place.

4. Some businesses of the Erdogan kids.

His son appears to be the main buyer and beneficiary of the ISIL-delivered oil:
http://sayyidali.com/home-page-slider/erdogans-dirty-dangerous-isis-games.html (http://sayyidali.com/home-page-slider/erdogans-dirty-dangerous-isis-games.html)

His daughter is managing healthcare and medical services for the ISIL thugs in Turkey:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/21/erdogans-daughter-joins-isis/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/21/erdogans-daughter-joins-isis/)

Looks like recent damages to the ISIL-controlled oil facilities and transportation routes made some family members pretty angry.

And in general, don't you find it paradoxical (if not idiotic) when a "coalition" + Russia are bombing various groups of terrorists while the latter can easily infiltrate and find a nice and solid shelter in a country, which is a NATO member state and formally supports this coalition. No chances to get rid of ISIL in this situation.

ThinkRate
25th Nov 2015, 13:18
Tourist

I see your point, although you are wrong. An FIR has nothing to do with any dispute between two countries. An FIR is an ICAO recognised jurisdiction and rules must be obeyed by all signatories of the Chicago convention. The Greek FIR is being violated since rules are not being obeyed in these cases.

P.S. I tried to be careful and a-political in my original wording, as I was only trying to demonstrate that FIR violations these days are not uncommon.

WillowRun 6-3
25th Nov 2015, 13:31
No long discourse on the several principles of international law called into play by the intercept and shoot-down, but a few points should be noted and kept in mind. The first of these is that the use of force most generally depends upon whether an "armed attack" has taken place. A quarter-of-a-minute incursion into a State's sovereign airspace, by itself and in and of itself, most probably does not fall within the widely accepted definition of the concept of an "armed attack." Second, even where the use of force is approved (or at the least, not disapproved) by applicable international law, such action generally is required to be both proportionate, and taken only where necessary. Each person may draw their own conclusions as to the question of necessity here, and similarly as to proportionality (though the reasons or factors relevant to those two standards may be different; "prior warnings" count for something, but how much?). Third, the fact - if (and I do mean, "if") it is one - that Turkmen were on "the receiving end" of Russian air-to-ground weaponry certainly makes the point better than any pedant could: where military commanders see vital or significant national interest at stake, what international law says about their range of actions may be, well, pedantic.
Thus it was unsurprising - from a legal standpoint - that NATO fairly rapidly issued a wish list often summarized, after the fact, as "cooler heads prevailed."

guided
25th Nov 2015, 13:32
Here is a recording of the warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGu-zCvURCo&t=35

Kirks gusset
25th Nov 2015, 13:44
If you work in Turkey and monitor the guard frequencies you will hear intrusions and attempted intrusions almost every hour. The other day it was an american crew, can't say if BJ or not at FL 45. The controllers simply said " unidentified aircraft squawking XXXX you are about to enter Turkish Airspace, turn heading XXX immediately. The crew were then arguing that they had permission to enter the airspace and were telling the ATC controller to "stand by" Eventually the controller said " if you do not turn we will scramble" and at that point the aircraft advised it was turning and holding. With tensions running high the thought is that this incident will harden, not soften the attitude of the Turks and the government has not " ruled out" further incidents. In the context of commercial aviation this subliminal threat when operating in these regions and the Russians now moving in sophisticated anti aircraft systems is pushing the game to new levels. Some airports with commercial pax are less than 6 KM from the boarder..even the MAP states " caution border is X miles".. its a nightmare waiting to happen..and the brinkmanship dick waving has to be stopped, but that means one side climbing down and it looks like that isn't going to happen. Considering this is meant to be a joint effort against ISIS, the " joint trust" is patently low

beamender99
25th Nov 2015, 13:55
BBC report

The surviving pilot of a Russian plane shot down by Turkey on the Syrian border has said no warning was given.
Cpt Konstantin Murakhtin told Russian television there was "no way" the jet could have violated Turkish airspace
Russia said Cpt Murakhtin was rescued in a 12-hour operation involving special forces.

It is not clear what happened to the body of his co-pilot, who was killed by gunfire as he parachuted from the burning plane.

ETOPS
25th Nov 2015, 14:42
Here is a recording of the warning


The Turkish airforce warning - according to this clip - includes the phrase "...on Guard" which we will probably take to mean 121.5. If the Russian crew were not on that frequency then they will not have heard it. Also it was transmitted in English and I'm not certain that all Russian mil pilots have a complete command of English.

The questions are therefore did the crew have the equipment and knowledge to receive this warning and did they knowingly cut through the tiny piece of Turkish airspace?

GrahamO
25th Nov 2015, 14:42
Out of interest, and irrespective of the 'who said what' bit, how exactly would the shooting down have happened?

Would the Turkish aircraft have 'locked on' (excuse my incorrect use of terminology) for a period of time, leaving the Russian in no doubt they were in the crosshairs and then let a missile loose ?

Would a Russian pilot in such a position simply ignore any warnings regarding said lock on, and once a missile were fired, what could he have dome ? One receiving warnings, would the Russian naturally have taken evasive action to try and get out of danger or would he have most likely tried to bluff it out ?

I am simply interested in the apparent ease (no dogfight mentioned) with which the F16 downed a Russian front line aircraft and does this tell us anything interesting about their relative capabilities ?

angels
25th Nov 2015, 14:55
A Van -

1. You are saying there should have been fighters present to protect the bomber? Why? If the aircraft had stayed in Syrian air space there wouldn't be a problem and Turkmens don't have any fighter aircraft do they?

2. It was clear that there was no other intention except for just making a quick short-cut.

Blimey! That's okay then!

What would Russia do if a U.S. aircraft took a 'short cut' over part of it's territory? Also the bombers were using a 'short cut' over Turkey in the process of attacking Turkish speaking people who are fighting ISIS as well as Assad! Bit silly really.

3. Sad to see foolish propaganda here that the Russians are not attacking the ISIL

You mean 'were' not attacking ISIS.

You know perfectly well the first phase of the bombing campaign was aimed at the rebels -- who are fighting ISIS as well as Assad!!. The bombing campaign changed after Metrojet but is still aimed at keeping Assad in power. This is why the jet that was shot down was bombing Turkmens. You want to keep your lovely bases in Tartus and Latakia and don't want those nasty rebels taking them away from you!

4. I have no time for the Erdogans. They will get their comeuppance at some stage.

GlobalNav
25th Nov 2015, 15:02
The Turkish act against the Russian airplane was probably not wise, but it was reasoned. This and other Russian airplanes have both been violating Turkish airspace in spite of adequate warnings and bombing Turkish allies, rather than ISIL, on the ground in Syria near the Turkish border. Remember that Turkey is adjacent to all this violence and would naturally wish to influence events in favor of their own security. It doesn't really matter where the SU-24 was when hit by the missile. The airplane had already crossed Turkish airspace more than once and can be classified as "unfriendly". The airspace was not exactly under Syria control at the time either, so claims of violating Syrian airspace sounds a bit strange considering all the US, French and other air activity over the country.

Livesinafield
25th Nov 2015, 15:08
SU24 is a bomber primarily not an so much a fighter like the F16, remember the Russians are bombing they are not trying to secure the air and wouldnt have been expecting to what the turks did hence the upper hand

Livesinafield
25th Nov 2015, 15:24
The problem is, Turkey had been warning the Russians for months that if they keep doing it they will be shot down...we all know what happens if you make a threat and don't go through with it, i am not saying it was the right thing to do but we can see why it was done "to prove we can and will"

You cant just keep busting a nations airspace with bombers 1 mile or 100 its the same, because if nothing is done 1 miles after time becomes 5 miles then 10 and so on..Russia had been warned many many times about this

A_Van
25th Nov 2015, 15:29
Angels,

On point 2: you are probably far from military aviation. Such episodes as entering each other's airspace happened tens (if not hundreds) of times between the US and Russia in the years of the "cold war". If it were for a short time (absolute majority of the cases), nothing happened - just follow and watch. The intruder, having seeing a "counter-part", usually gets out.

Also, there is a de-facto "protocol" on how to behave in such situations. In brief, if there is no response on the radio, approach, establish a visual contact and give a sign ordering to get out. If the order is not obeyed, engage a gun and shoot along the route showing that you are serious. It is also a well-known practice to escort the invader to the airbase. Despegue addressed this issue between Greece and Turkey a few post above in a quite comprehensive way.

As for point 3, you are advised to study the geography and variety of the armed groups in Syria. Besides ISIS (or ISIL) there is, e.g. a so-called "Nusra front" who is a local Al-Qaeda branch. Nusra front is a sort of a buffer between the anti-Assad rebels in the north-west of Syria and ISIS, which is east of Aleppo. Thus, those US backed rebels (who are hardly distinguishable from other terrorists) are not fighting ISIS, they are simply not in touch. The main local force who is fighting ISIS (as well as the Turkish forces) are the kurds in the north and north-east part of the country.

Regarding the bases in Syria, why not? The US have several bases in Turkey, the UK has a base in Cyprus, that's life...

angels
25th Nov 2015, 15:45
Regarding the bases in Syria, why not?

At last. Now you're talking. Why go on about ISIS and all that and just not say you'd like to keep your bases on the Med? You have done. No problem, I fully agree with you, they are strategically invaluable. It's just the smokescreens the Kremlin keep putting up!

As for point 3, you are advised to study the geography and variety of the armed groups in Syria.

The Russian Defence Ministry said their mission was to target ISIS. They lied. The initial Russian bombing campaign helped ISIS as the rebels retreated in the face of the bombing.

As you have tacitly admitted, the mission is to keep Assad in power for the reasons you outlined previously -- you like your bases there and he'll let you keep them.

Not that it matters, but I was equally as critical of the second Gulf War when it was a (sizeable) minority view. It's not just the Kremlin that lies.

peekay4
25th Nov 2015, 15:46
Such episodes as entering each other's airspace happened tens (if not hundreds) of times between the US and Russia in the years of the "cold war".
The vast majority of those flights didn't (and still don't) involve border penetrations.

They may routinely fly near or into Air Defense zones (formal or informal ADIZ) but actual, deliberate penetrations by US or Russian armed military aircraft into each other's sovereign borders are not the norm and would be considered highly provocative.

stiglet
25th Nov 2015, 15:47
It surprised me how quickly the NATO response was that they standby Turkey. How much information had they received from Russia by then and how much time and effort was put into considering the situation before making that statement? Especially in view of the debate from all quarters.

Turkey and Russia are not at war so why so much haste to shoot the aircraft down? They say oral warnings were given but did they give or were they required to give any 'warning shots across the bows' of the Russian aircraft before they fired.

To me it appears a misjudged, extremely stupid over reaction by Turkey and inexcusible. Turkey was never threatened, neither was the Turkish aircraft, the incursion was very minor even if it was deliberate and the Russian aircraft was downed whilst leaving Turkish airspace which equates to being shot in the back!

One way or another Turkey will suffer heavily for this. I fear Russia will punish them and they will become personna non grata as far as the rest of the world are concerned. They are trying to become closer to Europe; this will not do that cause any favours at all.

Turkey are flexing their muscles but I think they are mistaken in thinking that their importance in the region will protect them from criticism.

Let us all hope for a measured response to this situation.

PersonFromPorlock
25th Nov 2015, 15:57
The question I still have is if Russian military aircraft radios monitor the same 'guard' frequencies as western ones do. Back in the Soviet days, they didn't.

G-CPTN
25th Nov 2015, 16:09
Regardless of the 'minor incursion', there remains the discrepancy of the location of the border as interpreted by Turkey (and Russia):-
Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border (http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-violated-turkish-airspace-because-turkey-moved-its-border/5480430).

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2015, 16:12
Guys ,It is clear that Turkey as Nato member wont shoot down a Russian Fighter without States confirmation.
I don't think you know as much as you think you do. Turks do not ask "mother may I?" to the Americans on a lot of issues, to include some of the strikes into Northern Iraq against Kurds in the past few years. I'll bet you a pint of the best that they didn't bother talking to the US on this one either: it's their airspace and their interest that they are protecting. They have NEVER needed NATO's permission to do that.

Other than that, enjoyed your post.

I'd like to applaud kirks gusset (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/571040-turkish-f16-shoots-down-unidentified-aircraft-their-airspace-9.html#post9191450)for spelling out how all of this plays into the matter of airways, air routes, and air travel/transport in the region. Good PPRuNe-ness there, thanks.

A_Van
25th Nov 2015, 16:26
Angels:
Why are so excited about the bases? Many countries have their presence abroad. A routine stuff... The UK has its base in Cyprus and I have nothing against - it's a bilateral business between the British and Cypriots, and while the latter are happy who else could (and have a right to) raise a complaint?
Anyway, looks like a constructive discussion with you is not possible, you are biased with your russophobia. Though nowadays the UK is a much weaker military power than Russia, I have a great respect to the UK including all people in the military aviation whom I knew and know.
Discussion on this topic in the military thread is even more constructive.

PersonFromPorlock:
It has been clearly explained by the Russian pilots that they did not listen to 121.5 MHz because it is an emergency channel for them and there was no state of emergency, and they were busy with the operation. They were using the "main" channel/frequency to communicate with the planes and ground. And there was no reason for them to switch to 121.5 because they did not cross the border. In the latest interview the survived flight navigator (or a weapon operator) of that Su-24M said that the visibility was great, he saw everything visually, he knew the landscape perfectly well and could even navigate in that area without a map. And he says they did not cross the border. Whatever the Turkish officials draw on the map, the Russians draw a little bit different curves. Who might be the judge? Nobody. Especially as there might be the "tricks" like the one addressed above when the Turkish unilaterally removed the border (see the URL in the post of G-CPTN).

peekay4
25th Nov 2015, 16:43
@G-CPTN
there remains the discrepancy of the location of the border as interpreted by Turkey (and Russia)

Actually there was no map discrepancy in that earlier incident you linked to. Russia has owned up to it, stating that the incursion was due to a "navigational error".

It was unclear if the Russian aircraft actually crossed the Turkish border or only partly into the 5-mile buffer airspace imposed over Syria.

Unfortunately such "navigational errors" may have directly led to yesterdays shoot down.

Russia says violation of Turkish airspace was ‘navigation error’ (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/russian-warplane-violated-turkish-airspace-near-syria-foreign-ministry.aspx?pageID=238&nID=89387&NewsCatID=352)

(Oct 5) Russia has informed Turkey that the violation of Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Oct. 3 was due to a “navigation error,” according to Russian sources.

Turkish military sources said a Russian SU-30 breached Turkish airspace for hundreds of meters in the southern district of Yayladağı in Hatay province for two minutes at 12:10 p.m., but returned to Syrian airspace after one warning.

The Russian authorities informed the Turkish military attach in Moscow about the error, Russian Embassy officials in Ankara told Hrriyet Daily News. ...

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu warned that Ankara would activate military rules of engagement irrespective of who violates its air space.

"Our rules of engagement are clear whoever violates our air space," Davutoğlu told HaberTrk television after the incident.

Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu has called his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to lodge a protest. ...

A Turkish security official reportedly said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Oct. 2 in al-Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked if it had crossed into Turkish airspace.

misd-agin
25th Nov 2015, 16:51
A. Van - Russian aircraft didn't overfly U.S. territory tens or hundreds of times. They entered U.S. controlled airspace which is completely different.

And the U.S. has entered Russian airspace and got shot at.

So overflight on a country by foreign military aircraft is generally not accepted, especially after several offiicial warnings to the offending country.

Linerider
25th Nov 2015, 16:55
This thread needs to be moved to Jet Blast. It's an embarrassment.

flowerseller
25th Nov 2015, 18:02
If some cannot resist injecting politics into this thread, take those comments to Jet Blast or they will be deleted.



And I thank you very much.

RetiredBA/BY
25th Nov 2015, 18:09
A Van,

Its a long time since I flew a military aircraft BUT if I recall correctly, in my time, RAF radios had a TR +G function, so we COULD monitor 243 Mhz at ALL times.
Operating close to a sensitive border (such as I did in Germany in my Canberra in the 1960s ) without monitoring a guard frequency does not seem to be a bright idea, regardless of the operational requirements !

...and to avoid exactly this situation we had a "buffer zone" ( 10 miles??) and if we heard a broadcast on 243 that someone was getting close to the EG border we ALL turned west to avoid the situation which occurred in Syria or Turkey ! Worked well for us.

PersonFromPorlock
25th Nov 2015, 18:17
PersonFromPorlock:
It has been clearly explained by the Russian pilots that they did not listen to 121.5 MHz because it is an emergency channel for them and there was no state of emergency, and they were busy with the operation.The point about guard channel is that it's normally on in RX mode, regardless of the radio's 'working' frequency. There is no need to switch to it. If they had guard channel off (possible, but not wise) then they have some small responsibility for the situation.

I'd still like confirmation that the Russian military guard frequency is now 121.5/243.0.

Chronus
25th Nov 2015, 18:32
If some cannot resist injecting politics into this thread, take those comments to Jet Blast or they will be deleted.



And I thank you very much.

And quite right too Flowerseller. So what should concern us about this incident. I would suggest it be airspace in that part of the world. Clearly the Turks are nervous with twitchy fingers on triggers. Accordingly anything overflying the Turkish main Eastbound needs to be extra cautious. Especially heading South East. According to news tonight the SU24 was allegedly 17 secs over Turkish territory. The F16 must have been released to engage well before the incursion.

oldoberon
25th Nov 2015, 18:51
Here is a recording of the warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGu-zCvURCo&t=35

the bits of the warnings by the pilot sound too clear and dubbed aircraft engine noise ?

anyone else.

Richard W
25th Nov 2015, 18:57
Would the Turkish aircraft have 'locked on' (excuse my incorrect use of terminology) for a period of time, leaving the Russian in no doubt they were in the crosshairs and then let a missile loose ?
It depends on the missile. If the missile were AMRAAM, the aircraft's fire control radar probably wouldn't have locked on, but continued in 'track-while-scan' mode, and the missile would probably not have locked on until after launch.

TLB
25th Nov 2015, 19:21
and to avoid exactly this situation we had a "buffer zone" ( 10 miles??) and if we heard a broadcast on 243 that someone was getting close to the EG border we ALL turned west to avoid the situation which occurred in Syria or Turkey !

Brass Monkey !

TEEEJ
25th Nov 2015, 19:48
Oldoberon wrote

this video purports to be the shooting down of the rescue chopper however it is already on the ground why? don't think it is genuine chopper blown up yes but different occasion?

Syrian Rebels Destroy Russian Helicopter With US-Supplied Anti-Tank Missile | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/caught-tape-syrian-rebels-destroy-russian-helicopter-us-supplied-anti-tank-missile)

The video is from the F-16/Su-24 shoot down.

The following is video from the Syrian side. The rescue Mi-8 Hip helicopter was hit by ground fire and abandoned with the crew seeking shelter in a nearby building. The helo was then destroyed by the rebels after the crew was rescued by the Syrians.

The segment at 3:20 (firing at parachutes) is not from this incident but from earlier in the conflict before Russian involvement.

ROgOqqeQAL4&feature=related

BGM-71 TOW video from your link showing the Mi-8 Hip at 1:40 in the above video being destroyed.

IschF-ihjS0&feature=related

Click on the following title for a liveleak copy of the first video with captions.

LiveLeak.com - EXCLUSIVE: Footage of Syrian Army Rescuing Second Russian Pilot and Helicopter Crew

AreOut
25th Nov 2015, 20:16
plot twist : Russia sends empty planes to pick up their tourists from turkish resorts

https://twitter.com/odatv/status/669608416323706881

now go and make your own conclusions, I'll just leave the message here...

GlobalNav
25th Nov 2015, 20:39
"plot twist : Russia sends empty planes to pick up their tourists from turkish resorts"

Hmm, Is a new access to the Mediterranean for the Russian Navy in the works?

glad rag
25th Nov 2015, 22:16
Odd same image used to announce Ukrainian BAN on Russian Aircraft today.

whodavethunkit.

edmundronald
25th Nov 2015, 22:36
Let's hope that after MH17 airlines have learnt to read the tea leaves and will stop overflights.

This at least is an issue which is relevant to this forum.

Edmund

_Phoenix
25th Nov 2015, 23:54
plot twist : Russia sends empty planes to pick up their tourists from turkish resorts
now go and make your own conclusions, I'll just leave the message here...

One reasonable conclusion, it is the time to deescalate all this bullsh:mad:, before is too late. Seriously, it's a shame for 21st century.
Remember MH17, it's so easy to push that button of anger:

https://youtu.be/ZMKo6KnFvy4?t=53

cappt
26th Nov 2015, 03:48
PersonFromPorlock:
It has been clearly explained by the Russian pilots that they did not listen to 121.5 MHz because it is an emergency channel for them and there was no state of emergency, and they were busy with the operation. They were using the "main" channel/frequency to communicate with the planes and ground. And there was no reason for them to switch to 121.5 because they did not cross the border. In the latest interview the survived flight navigator (or a weapon operator) of that Su-24M said that the visibility was great, he saw everything visually, he knew the landscape perfectly well and could even navigate in that area without a map. And he says they did not cross the border. Whatever the Turkish officials draw on the map, the Russians draw a little bit different curves. Who might be the judge? Nobody. Especially as there might be the "tricks" like the one addressed above when the Turkish unilaterally removed the border (see the URL in the post ofG-CPTN).

A-van does this mean Russian pilots in general don't monitor 121.5 or this specific crew involved in this incident? I recall a U.S. west coast flybye several months ago when the Bear pilots said goodmorning or something on 121.5 during 4 July.
I appreciate your insight and comments here, communication is key to understanding. Glad one crew made it back safely, what a cluster.

peekay4
26th Nov 2015, 03:49
BBC News: Turkey releases audio of 'warning' to downed Russia jet (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34929242)

mitrosft
26th Nov 2015, 06:58
Anyone has an approach chart to Latakia which you can post without making Jeppesen angry ?

I mean that if you approach from North even at 2.4 degree you have 42 km before you touch Turkish border appendix.
Su-24 landing speed 285-310 km/h so even half of that distance is more than enough to have stabilized approach in civil aviation manner, let alone military style which can do it in much shorter distance.

FlightDetent
26th Nov 2015, 07:29
http://i63.tinypic.com/2zjhttt.jpg

biddedout
26th Nov 2015, 08:56
If the transmissions were made on guard it will have been monitored and recorded by hundreds of units and (if on VHF guard) will be on the tapes of any civil aircraft within 200 miles. The truth will be out there and will be on record.

It wouldn't take much digging for a good journo to seek verification of these recordings. Why don't they do this instead of just recycling the propaganda from all sides.

DirtyProp
26th Nov 2015, 09:17
Now we have a Turkish convoy destroyed, and Russians refusing to meet with Turkish diplomats:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/669805247003500547

AreOut
26th Nov 2015, 11:51
Now we have a Turkish convoy destroyed, and Russians refusing to meet with Turkish diplomats

aand

@russian_market
#BOOM 39 businessmen from Turkey arrested at Agriculture Exhibition in Krasnodar and will be deported from Russia

things are quickly going downhill, and what's important - S400 has been deployed in Lattakia today and I don't doubt for a second Russians will use it the same moment any turkish plane touches syrian border

if things escalate further I hope authorities will quickly close the airspace wherever S400 reaches, they should learn the lesson from MH17

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/13/01/2E64D1E100000578-3316195-image-a-37_1447377841705.jpg

WHBM
26th Nov 2015, 13:10
I see the UK govt is today proposing strike missions in Syria, alongside what the Russians have been doing.

How can we be sure that the Turkish AF won't shoot those down either.

Regarding the Guard "tape" released, there must have been western civil aircraft within range at the time (a quick review of FlightRadar24 will indicate which ones) whose crews, even if their own tapes have been overwritten, will surely recall hearing this on 121.5 and can make statements of what they heard - or didn't.

ILS27LEFT
26th Nov 2015, 13:12
What are the chances of an S400 hitting by mistake a US, FR, UK, Canadian etc fighter jet in Syria?
Troubles ahead.

gsa
26th Nov 2015, 13:36
What are the chances of an S400 hitting by mistake a US, FR, UK, Canadian etc fighter jet in Syria?

Very little, no matter what you think the Russians aren't that daft.

G-CPTN
26th Nov 2015, 14:02
WRT Syria (and, specifically, the Russians with their missile system), what nationalities constitute the 'enemy'?

ie, who would Russia be targetting?

WHBM
26th Nov 2015, 14:12
WRT Syria (and, specifically, the Russians with their missile system), what nationalities constitute the 'enemy'?

ie, who would Russia be targetting?
I'll give a clue. Which nationalities have shown a propensity to shoot them down.

Spooky 2
26th Nov 2015, 14:50
All of us can speculate till the cows come home but one thing you can be 100% sure of is that some nations Air Force had an AWACS in the vicinity of this incident and knows exactly what happened down to the nano-second. Whether they divulge what they know is another story.

2EggOmelette
26th Nov 2015, 15:00
I never actually considered that Spooky, but I think you are absolutely dead on. You can also be 100% certain that any AWAC's aircraft in the vicinity would have belonged to a NATO nation. Somehow I very much doubt that anything will be said - publicly at least anyway.

peekay4
26th Nov 2015, 15:08
That is pretty much what the NATO Secretary General said on Day 1 (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_125052.htm?selectedLocale=en) during the Q&A session -- that they had additional intel from "Allies" which matched Turkey's version of events.

But of course, there is no way for us to verify any data or even any assumptions behind the statement...


Q (CNN): The Russians are saying the plane was shot down over Syrian territory and never went into Turkish territory. Are you convinced that it was shot down indeed over Turkish airspace and that Turkish airspace was indeed violate?

Secretary General: The Allied assessments we have got from several Allies during the day are consistent with information we have been provided with from Turkey. So the information we have from other Allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey.

Spooky 2
26th Nov 2015, 17:00
Turkey has at least four 737 AWACS Wedge Tails and it's pretty hard to imagine that they were not deployed and I would bet that the USAF had at least one if not more working the region on that day. NOTHING slips by these operators with out being tracked. Maybe not for public consumption but none the less it is covered.

AreOut
26th Nov 2015, 18:08
there is a chance both were right in that respect, turkish pilots issued warnings but russians didn't expect any communication on that channel and didn't listen to it at all

in such situation where you get no response from the other side it's sensible to assume they don't listen to that frequency and visually check with them before firing, not like they were going to attack turkey...

ExDubai
26th Nov 2015, 18:13
That small piece of airspace is getting crowded, today the germans decided to send Tornados for reconnaissance.

hunterboy
26th Nov 2015, 18:38
I'm sure Olympus radar will have some kind of trace and recordings of what went on too. I'm guessing we are sitting on this stuff as we don't want to give any capabilities away.As if the Russkies didn't already know.

TEEEJ
26th Nov 2015, 19:41
Hunterboy wrote

I'm sure Olympus radar will have some kind of trace and recordings of what went on too.

Olympus radar was withdrawn back in the mid 1990s. Mobile radars have been deployed over the years for extended periods, but I don't think there is one deployed on Cyprus at the moment?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/522335-threat-akrotiri-5.html#post8033157

Kulverstukas
27th Nov 2015, 07:20
The Turkish army has suspended flights over Syria as part of an ongoing joint military campaign with the United States against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) after it shot down a Russian jetfighter, sparking an unprecedented crisis between Ankara and Moscow.

Turkey suspends Syria flights after crisis with Russia - MIDEAST (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-suspends-syria-flights-after-crisis-with-russia.aspx?pageID=238&nID=91733&NewsCatID=352)

alwayzinit
27th Nov 2015, 08:41
Having listened to the 121.5 warnings recording I would suggest that even if the Russians heard it they would have found it impossible to understand!
I listened to the version in the Torygraph knowing what was being said and could barely understand what was being yelled.
If the SU-24 crew were on a target run they would have no chance to understand the warning(s) and disregarded it as background noise.
I am not taking a side here, I think both parties are at fault. Sadly both parties don't exactly have cultures where accepting any blame is the norm.
Fear it's going to get a lot worse shortly.:ugh:

Kitiara
27th Nov 2015, 12:27
Just to follow up on something in the article that Kulverstukas linked

Despite the agreement with Russia, the fact that both warplanes did not communicate through this channel caused Turkish pilots to profile these planes as Profile: Syria aircraft, and consider the situation a serious threat as part of the military rules of engagement. One of the aircraft returned to Syrian airspace but the other that insisted on heading toward Hatay was downed by the F16s, a source said.
(source: Turkey suspends Syria flights after crisis with Russia - MIDEAST (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-suspends-syria-flights-after-crisis-with-russia.aspx?pageID=238&nID=91733&NewsCatID=352), accessed 27/11/2015)

In the quote, which I do note was not attributed to an identifiable source, it is said that the plane that was shot down was on a heading towards Hatay.

Even taking the Turkish published maps, the plane they shot down was on a heading AWAY from Hatay, (Silvertate posted the image here : http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/571040-turkish-f16-shoots-down-unidentified-aircraft-their-airspace-3.html#post9190282)

I'm more than used to the stories being told by various participants in a situation diverging from each other, but it seems here that the story as presented by Turkey itself, without listening to the Russians isn't consistent with itself.

oldoberon
27th Nov 2015, 13:06
Once it had happened biggest mistake causing a ramp up of weapons in the area (russian ground to air missiles and the missile ship offshore) was made by Nato they shd have publicly told Turkey

A) if you are the aggressor article 5 does not apply
B) stop supplying ISIS with arms & people.

They haven't and the area is now even more fraught with danger, although I not Turkey now not flying over Syria (so no bombing of kurds or assad forces), so perhaps something good has come from it.