Breaking news on Sky.....
BBC now showing where the Russian aircraft was hit by the missile:
Based on the reported 17-second length of the incursion, the SU-24 must have been back in Syrian airspace for about 40 seconds when it was hit. That's way longer than the time of flight of a visual missile shot, which means that either:
A) The Turkish aircraft fired a visually-aimed shot when the Russians had already left Turkish airspace. Very, very bad. Especially if fired in Syrian airspace (Newsnight just described the missile as a Sidewinder... if true, then its limited range makes that quite likely).
B) The Turkish aircraft fired BVR when the Russians were in their 17-second transgression. Raises serious question of proportionality as it would have been blindingly obvious that they were heading straight out again, meaning the shot could not possibly prevent or terminate incursion, but merely punish it. Bad.
If the Turkish intent was actually to protect the Turkmen rebels from Russian air strikes, using a minor infringement as a pretext, then it can reasonably be characterised as an aggression by Turkey - after all, Russia is in Syria at the sovereign's request. Neither of the defensive explanations above stacks up for me. And the warnings over 10 minutes are weakened in significance by the evidence that the Russians were orbiting - and only pointing at the border for a minute or so before the shot.
I always thought NATO would be desperately challenged by a Turkish request for assistance in a situation of marginal or negative interest to the other members. If Putin is looking for any consolation, he might find it in the ructions undoubtedly going on at NATO HQ tonight.
Hang on.... he wouldn't have set this one up, would he? Where's my tinfoil hat!
Edited to add: Must agree with a previous poster that for Obama to hail the "moderate opposition" when we've just seen them shooting at parachutes and Allah-akhbaring over dead bodies simply exposes the utter folly of Western policy.
Based on the reported 17-second length of the incursion, the SU-24 must have been back in Syrian airspace for about 40 seconds when it was hit. That's way longer than the time of flight of a visual missile shot, which means that either:
A) The Turkish aircraft fired a visually-aimed shot when the Russians had already left Turkish airspace. Very, very bad. Especially if fired in Syrian airspace (Newsnight just described the missile as a Sidewinder... if true, then its limited range makes that quite likely).
B) The Turkish aircraft fired BVR when the Russians were in their 17-second transgression. Raises serious question of proportionality as it would have been blindingly obvious that they were heading straight out again, meaning the shot could not possibly prevent or terminate incursion, but merely punish it. Bad.
If the Turkish intent was actually to protect the Turkmen rebels from Russian air strikes, using a minor infringement as a pretext, then it can reasonably be characterised as an aggression by Turkey - after all, Russia is in Syria at the sovereign's request. Neither of the defensive explanations above stacks up for me. And the warnings over 10 minutes are weakened in significance by the evidence that the Russians were orbiting - and only pointing at the border for a minute or so before the shot.
I always thought NATO would be desperately challenged by a Turkish request for assistance in a situation of marginal or negative interest to the other members. If Putin is looking for any consolation, he might find it in the ructions undoubtedly going on at NATO HQ tonight.
Hang on.... he wouldn't have set this one up, would he? Where's my tinfoil hat!
Edited to add: Must agree with a previous poster that for Obama to hail the "moderate opposition" when we've just seen them shooting at parachutes and Allah-akhbaring over dead bodies simply exposes the utter folly of Western policy.
Last edited by Easy Street; 24th Nov 2015 at 22:27.
Does he not remember the Russians shooting down an unarmed Korean Airlines '747 killing hundreds of innocent civilians?
A ridiculously extreme over-reaction from the Turks
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Proportionality? Perhaps the Russians should have been more aware of the hard floor/wall rules being applied in the area. The Turkish F4 has been mentioned. The Syrian helicopters engaged are also relevant. This is not the North Sea, this is a hot combat zone. The Russians seem to have thought the rules don't apply to them.......
Turkey Shoots Down Syrian Helicopter - WSJ
Turkey Says It Shot Down Syrian Helicopter
Turkey Shoots Down Syrian Helicopter - WSJ
Turkey Says It Shot Down Syrian Helicopter
It may well be a hot combat zone, but Turkey isn't the target and there was no need to take the shot. Both powers need to take responsibility for deconflicting the airspace, but Turkey know whats going on over the boarder and need to excercise some self control. Having the F16s in the area is fine but they need to evaluate the threat not beat thier chests over some air.
What do you think the Russians would have done had the roles been reversed? Putin only understands strong arm tactics. He pushes and pushes and pushes thinking that no one will stand up to him.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
there was no need to take the shot.
Putin may have originally have seen this as an easy flag waving exercise to help any ally in Assad whilst rubbing Obama and Europe's noses at their irrelevance. Suddenly he is on the point of being sucked into a major confrontation he can't afford economically or politically.
He also has little chance of persuading Saudi or any of the other Gulf OPEC states to help get the price of oil back up. Nice one Vlad........
Some hopefully good news:
"One of the downed Su-24 pilot found 'safe & sound', taken to Hmeymim base: Russian Defense Minister"
"One of the downed Su-24 pilot found 'safe & sound', taken to Hmeymim base: Russian Defense Minister"
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC graphic seems to show that the SU24 went through Turkish airspace twice before being shot down. Approached from the East, then did a left hand orbit and retraced it's track.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question I haven't seen asked yet. As the Russians were shot at by 'moderate forces', killing one of their pilots and a naval infantryman, and destroying a Mi-8 helicopter being used in the rescue, does that now make them a legitimate Russian target?
To back up Easy Street's map, this is the one from Newsnight last night. Although the aircraft probably did fly through a couple of kilometres of Turkish airspace, it was actually hit after it had left. Probably too far outside the border to account for time of flight of the missile. In the screenshot image below the aircraft was hit at the position marked 9:24. They reported that it was a Sidewinder.
If the purple (F-16) track is anything to go by, it looks like a stern shot. Even at max range for 20,000' the rule-of-thumb time of flight would have put the target well outside the border at launch. If it was a beam shot or hotter, as other versions suggest, the time of flight is even less so the target was even more likely to be in Syria.
All the above assumes the map and positions are reasonably accurate - but who knows, eh? The Russian version of events suggests a front sector shot, but that version shows the target never entering Turkish airspace so is pretty much a moot point.
I agree with Easy Street. This would appear to be a shot taken in Syria. Turkey are either telling Russia to stop intruding their area or they are protecting the Rebels in Northern Syria. Probably both in my opinion.
If the purple (F-16) track is anything to go by, it looks like a stern shot. Even at max range for 20,000' the rule-of-thumb time of flight would have put the target well outside the border at launch. If it was a beam shot or hotter, as other versions suggest, the time of flight is even less so the target was even more likely to be in Syria.
All the above assumes the map and positions are reasonably accurate - but who knows, eh? The Russian version of events suggests a front sector shot, but that version shows the target never entering Turkish airspace so is pretty much a moot point.
I agree with Easy Street. This would appear to be a shot taken in Syria. Turkey are either telling Russia to stop intruding their area or they are protecting the Rebels in Northern Syria. Probably both in my opinion.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 25th Nov 2015 at 09:40.
A question I haven't seen asked yet. As the Russians were shot at by 'moderate forces', killing one of their pilots and a naval infantryman, and destroying a Mi-8 helicopter being used in the rescue, does that now make them a legitimate Russian target?
I find it pretty tiresome that US and UK politicians use every sound-bite opportunity to portray Assad as a brutal tyrant who "murders his own people" while clearly - as in all civil wars - all sides are driven to equal levels of brutality.
Head sector AIM-120, perhaps?
You are far more up to speed on such triggernometry, Courtney me old, but perhaps the Russians don't wish to publicise the Su-24's lack of radar warning capability against an AIM-120 shooter?
You are far more up to speed on such triggernometry, Courtney me old, but perhaps the Russians don't wish to publicise the Su-24's lack of radar warning capability against an AIM-120 shooter?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some big ripples from this; hopefully cool heads will prevail but they haven't so far. Even if the Sukhoi did briefly enter Turkish airspace as the Turks claim, their own violation in shooting it down in Syrian airspace was much more flagrant. Does this drag us in, Turkey being a NATO member?Perhaps it's time for a serious think on the implications of an expanded NATO. It was our bastion during the dark cold-war years. Is there a danger now that membership will encourage members on the periphery to a more rash action than they would otherwise?