Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Russian SU-24 CVR

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Russian SU-24 CVR

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Dec 2015, 02:24
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry Russian SU-24 CVR

Looked around R&N & Mil Av for comments on statement by Russians that they have recovered 'black box' (pictures of CVR) but isnt news !! They also invited West ie Nato to examine it in conjunction with Russian specialists- but none have been forthcoming

Thought crossed my mind :
a Unusual for military a/c to have CVR fitted as std ?!
b Would it reveal voice tx over final minutes of the engagement ?
c Why are we being so coy ?
Lower Hangar is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 03:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Russian tactical aircraft FDR's.........
Flight data acquisition, control and recording systems
In 1997 year in “Aviaavtomatika” named after V. Tarasov” JSC Design Bureau in association with GosNIIAS first time in Russia was created integrated flight data recording system “KARAT-B” on basis of solid-state protected recorder, functioning as airborne crash recorder and airborne automated control system.
Today development and manufacture of solid-state airborne flight data acquisition, control and recording systems (“black boxes”) – one of the enterprise priority directions of activity.
Recording systems for military aviation
High-technology flight data recording systems and recorders for military aviation are developed and manufactured: KARAT-B-25, KARAT-B-29K, KARAT-B-29K-01, KARAT-B-29K-02, KARAT-B-220, ZBN-T. Systems, conforming to the international standards, are installed on aircraft of Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Yliushin companies. A range of systems is batch manufactured. Protected airborne recorder ZBN-K is installed on sea craft manufactured by “Almaz” Design Bureau.

Last edited by SKS777FLYER; 12th Dec 2015 at 04:00. Reason: Aviaavtomatika.com
SKS777FLYER is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 07:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 224
Received 15 Likes on 5 Posts
Or maybe NATO suspects that it is fabricated misinformation from the Ruskies and don't want to give them any credibility.
Bleve is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 14:08
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or maybe NATO suspects that it is fabricated misinformation from the Ruskies and don't want to give them any credibility.
Ahhhh...gotta love those whiter-than-white unbiased opinion, right? George Junior and Bigotted Tony docet...

PZ
papazulu is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 16:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Even some fast jets, Lower Hangar. We had a CVR in the Tornado F3. ADRs or FDRs standard fit across the board. And, yes, if Su-24 has a CVR, it will have recorded cockpit voice and RT.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th Dec 2015 at 16:47.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 17:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Offer total BS,

Would have to offer encryption keys to West for voice data.

Go figure.

gr
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 21:51
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Something I still haven't been able to find out is if the SU-24, whose original electronics date back to the Cold War, may still have had radios that blocked 121.5/243.0. My information is that the Soviets filtered NATO guard channels to make it harder for pilots to defect. That might explain both the lack of response to repeated warnings, and Russian denial that warnings were given at all.

Any old SU-24 drivers out there?
PersonFromPorlock is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 06:41
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Comrade, I tell you after flying Su-24, all of us old! Na Zdrovye!
27mm is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 07:35
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,819
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
Perhaps there'll be the Russian equivalent of "Stitch that!" on the CVR....
BEagle is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 09:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Something I still haven't been able to find out is if the SU-24, whose original electronics date back to the Cold War, may still have had radios that blocked 121.5/243.0. My information is that the Soviets filtered NATO guard channels to make it harder for pilots to defect. That might explain both the lack of response to repeated warnings, and Russian denial that warnings were given at all.

Any old SU-24 drivers out there?
I have such information too, not that it was blocked but they didn't listen to that frequency at all because they didn't expect communication with turkish planes.

It was a routine bombing run, or supposed to be...
AreOut is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 11:43
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 735
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Or maybe NATO suspects that it is fabricated misinformation from the Ruskies and don't want to give them any credibility
It also gives credibility to the notion that the Russians accidentally crossed the border, that the Russians are our allies, 'partners' or peers.

The reality is the Russians repeatedly overflew the border on a regular basis and deliberately ignored radio and multiple diplomatic warning over a period of two months.

Nato and Russia, by mutual consent, are enemies and this event is part of Russia's hybrid war fare against Nato.

The contents of the CVR are irrelevant in that context.
peter we is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 12:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have such information too, not that it was blocked but they didn't listen to that frequency at all because they didn't expect communication with turkish planes.
My recollection (which is from almost forty years ago) is that Soviet-era radios were physically incapable of operating on the Western 'guard' channels. So it wouldn't matter if they wanted to monitor them or not, if the radios hadn't received a post-Soviet update.

But be aware that at this late date, I may be dealing with a false memory.
PersonFromPorlock is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 14:05
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a thought, might it be possible that Turkish radar presumed the SU 24 was a Syrian a/c?
dazdaz1 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2015, 16:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The reality is the Russians repeatedly overflew the border on a regular basis
any proof? The problem is that turkey has few months ago unilaterally "extended" its border some 5 miles into Syria as a buffer zone, they don't want any planes in that space while Russia still considers it syrian airspace (which it is).

My recollection (which is from almost forty years ago) is that Soviet-era radios were physically incapable of operating on the Western 'guard' channels. So it wouldn't matter if they wanted to monitor them or not, if the radios hadn't received a post-Soviet update.
This is M2 version of SU24, they have updated radios but pilots still have to choose the frequency.

Just a thought, might it be possible that Turkish radar presumed the SU 24 was a Syrian a/c?
nope, it was only russian planes operating in that zone and turks were full aware of it
AreOut is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2015, 14:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,228
Received 414 Likes on 258 Posts
Originally Posted by PersonFromPorlock
My recollection (which is from almost forty years ago) is that Soviet-era radios were physically incapable of operating on the Western 'guard' channels. So it wouldn't matter if they wanted to monitor them or not, if the radios hadn't received a post-Soviet update.
When you go back to the Foxbat that V. Belenko flew into Japan, yes, its crystals/radio sets had but a few freqs available to the pilot.

Since the wall came down in 89, the Russians have had 25 years to put in dialable and frequency agile avionics. I won't guess at what they have chosen to do, but a decision to use more flexible kit would not be too hard to make.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2015, 15:12
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,228
Received 414 Likes on 258 Posts
OUCH!

More fun with Turks and Russians.
Russian Destroyer Fires Shots At Turkish Ship While Transiting The Aegean Sea

A Russian Kashin class destroyer seems to have made not bones about how to communicate with a Turkish vessel (reported as a fishing vessel?) due to being with in 2000 yard CPA(perhaps?). (I get the feeling that the Russian Navy has a similar concern to the US Navy when it comes to CPA and risk of collision). The shots were fired across the bow, reportedly, at 1800ft/600 yards range.

I can just see the conversation between the conning officer and the captain.

Sir, Turkish vessel CPA predicted at 400 yds.
That's a bit close LT, raise him on Channel 16
He's not answering sir.
Try the other frequencies on that card.
No reply, sir.
Flash the lights at him, ready mount 31, one practice round.
CPA now looks less than 400 yards sir.
That guy is either an idiot or up to no good. Ready mount 31. Keep calling him.
No reply sir, no change in course by the vessel.
Fire one across his bow and see if it gets his attention.
Mount 31, with one round, fire!
*BOOM*
Turkish vessel changing course to port, sir. CPA opening.
Good. Quartermaster of the Watch, mark the log, I expect to get some radio calls soon ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2015, 17:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is M2 version of SU24, they have updated radios but pilots still have to choose the frequency.
Even so, if the radio doesn't continuously monitor guard channel regardless of what frequency the radio is set to, for all practical purposes they do not have guard capability. This still explains how the Turks could have sent (I assume on guard) what the Russians didn't hear.
PersonFromPorlock is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2015, 20:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 735
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
any proof? The problem is that turkey has few months ago unilaterally "extended" its border some 5 miles into Syria as a buffer zone, they don't want any planes in that space while Russia still considers it syrian airspace (which it is).
The five times the Turks summonsed the Russian Ambassador and lodged an official complaint.

Also, shooting down the Russian aircraft was proof enough that the Turks were unhappy. A 10 mile exclusion zone was mentioned as normal to avoid incidents, the Russians obviously were not the slightest bit concerned about the consequences.

Turks could have sent (I assume on guard) what the Russians didn't want to hear.
Corrected.
peter we is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2015, 15:27
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The five times the Turks summonsed the Russian Ambassador and lodged an official complaint.
so?! it doesn't mean they were right any of those five times (though they possibly were couple of times), because of aforementioned exclusion zone Russians obviously didn't agree with

A 10 mile exclusion zone was mentioned as normal to avoid incidents, the Russians obviously were not the slightest bit concerned about the consequences.
they should set the exclusion zone in their own airspace, what right they have to tell the other country what to do with its airspace?! Syria has legitimate government which summoned Russians to help them, Russia has all the right to fly wherever they want in syrian airspace, other countries not so much.

Turks could have sent (I assume on guard) what the Russians didn't want to hear.
do you seriously believe Russians would go to provoke them with a practically defenseless bomber (even anti-IR pods were not present)?!
AreOut is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2015, 15:35
  #20 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 74
Posts: 3,698
Received 51 Likes on 24 Posts
There was some mocking of the transcript on a programme one watched recently, as the the transcript seemed to include the words "en garde" suggesting offensive intention.

Despite my shouting at the television, the BBC didn't realise it was (almost certainly ) "on Guard"! But hey, that's the BBC
teeteringhead is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.