WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Prudent decision to avoid certain airspace.." Er, which airspace?
Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med, add that to entire corridor between Caspian and Med. Going back a bit, an airliner was brought down by a missile right off the Italian coast, and two over Ukraine. Best stay at home, eh?
Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med, add that to entire corridor between Caspian and Med. Going back a bit, an airliner was brought down by a missile right off the Italian coast, and two over Ukraine. Best stay at home, eh?
In the Italian incident, and both Ukraine incidents, the aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft missiles. As already mentioned, Scud is a ballistic missile that can't target aircraft, probably not even overhead, certainly not 800km away.
If the combatants in Syria start firing Scuds down the Med we've got more problems than just aviation.
If the combatants in Syria start firing Scuds down the Med we've got more problems than just aviation.
Last edited by OldLurker; 14th Oct 2015 at 17:48. Reason: Clarify
Exactly old lurker. I am not worried about the scuds per sé, but more about the fact that there are so many combatant groups out there, and one -or more- are bound to lose the war.
Some group is going to end up losing the battle. And when they do, they will have nothing to lose. They will start firing anything that they have at anyone.
Stinger missiles?
Manpads?
What ever. This conflict is different than the two gulf wars that we already had. Also different than the ousting of Ghadaffi. All those conflicts had a well-defined good guy-bad guy element.
This syria conflict has 84 (?) militia running around swaying weaponry, and no one can keep track. Not even the US or Russia.
Some group is going to end up losing the battle. And when they do, they will have nothing to lose. They will start firing anything that they have at anyone.
Stinger missiles?
Manpads?
What ever. This conflict is different than the two gulf wars that we already had. Also different than the ousting of Ghadaffi. All those conflicts had a well-defined good guy-bad guy element.
This syria conflict has 84 (?) militia running around swaying weaponry, and no one can keep track. Not even the US or Russia.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is exactly my point; if this was a simple matter of just avoiding a particular defined bit of airspace things would be straightforward, but that's not the case.
Look at the map which includes a lot of Syria and some of Northern Iraq, where the targets tend to be.
Actually, no, it isn't, the Med is much bigger than that. 
From 5 deg West to about 35 deg east Longitude at a latitude of 38 (in the middle, it is about 32-45 latitude in range) I crossed it a few times on warships. 800 Km takes you from about Damascus to not quite Crete.
As to covering most of the Eastern Med, sure, Depending Upon Launch Point.
Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med,
From 5 deg West to about 35 deg east Longitude at a latitude of 38 (in the middle, it is about 32-45 latitude in range) I crossed it a few times on warships. 800 Km takes you from about Damascus to not quite Crete. As to covering most of the Eastern Med, sure, Depending Upon Launch Point.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.
But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.
Caspian to Med corridor, are you talking about cruise missiles or ballistic missiles? As discussed before, the cruise missiles aren't a significant threat due to profile, unless the mission planners fly them through terminal airspace. Do you really think the Russians are that stupid? I don't.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corridors or no corridors, if there is any shooting going on, no matter what kind of ordnance is being let loose, keep civilian traffic well clear would be my recommendation.
In the case of MH17 the phase of how the aircraft was brought down and how to avoid a recurrence is now over. The next phase is the criminal investigation to try and discover who did it and why. Yes, there have been similar incidents before, the shooting down of the Iranian bus and the KAL f007. Whilst both were deliberate targets, nevertheless they were mistakes. In times of war and states of high tension, collateral damage is a common occurrence. Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace. I believe it highly unlikely that MH17 was the intended target. There were other civilian aircraft in the immediate vicinity. The question that must be in the forefront of the criminal investigators minds must be the identity of the intended target. MH17 was the unfortunate bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I hope that the perpetrators, whoever they may be, are soon brought to justice before an International Criminal Court for War Crimes. I must add that given today`s news about more suspects for the Lockerbie disaster, "soon " may be a vain hope.
It will soon be Halloween night and all and sundry will be launching all manner of ordnance into the sky. Even these are worrisome to those who are in their perilous seats in the skies above. How can it be that when there is real lead capable of reaching well into the stratosphere that we are happy to keep going in some kind of corridor. I just cannot see the sense in this. Those skies are strictly for the bang seat occupiers, those who have the option to get out of Dodge fast.
In the case of MH17 the phase of how the aircraft was brought down and how to avoid a recurrence is now over. The next phase is the criminal investigation to try and discover who did it and why. Yes, there have been similar incidents before, the shooting down of the Iranian bus and the KAL f007. Whilst both were deliberate targets, nevertheless they were mistakes. In times of war and states of high tension, collateral damage is a common occurrence. Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace. I believe it highly unlikely that MH17 was the intended target. There were other civilian aircraft in the immediate vicinity. The question that must be in the forefront of the criminal investigators minds must be the identity of the intended target. MH17 was the unfortunate bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I hope that the perpetrators, whoever they may be, are soon brought to justice before an International Criminal Court for War Crimes. I must add that given today`s news about more suspects for the Lockerbie disaster, "soon " may be a vain hope.
It will soon be Halloween night and all and sundry will be launching all manner of ordnance into the sky. Even these are worrisome to those who are in their perilous seats in the skies above. How can it be that when there is real lead capable of reaching well into the stratosphere that we are happy to keep going in some kind of corridor. I just cannot see the sense in this. Those skies are strictly for the bang seat occupiers, those who have the option to get out of Dodge fast.
Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
US officials knew they were bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital, report | Americas | News | The Independent
and many other examples.
[Both examples above refer to US military mistakes (let's call them that). By picking those examples I don't mean to infer that the US does this sort of thing any more than others.]
Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace
Red Herring, Strawman, non sequitur, and argument from emotion all rolled into one. You win Fallacy Follies for the week. You may pick up your prize from the receptionist on the way out. Have a lovely weekend.
Back to the matter of risk management: what are the real risks of which airspace volume near what area of conflict? That's a serious question not aided by rants.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.
But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.
But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.
Last edited by ShotOne; 17th Oct 2015 at 09:34.
Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.
But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.
But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian Air Strikes?
The Ruskies have - and will use far more than low altitude cruises if they wish. Yes, the civilian carriers remain at risk...but is money to be made. The only event that will begin limiting civilian flights over or to the areas of conflict is when their insurance carriers begin to withdraw coverage for operations into or over the high risk areas. As always, it is about the money.
