Turkish F16 shoots down unidentified aircraft in their airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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/
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.
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
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
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/
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mt. Olympus
Age: 59
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
international Law, NATO, and common sense
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."
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."
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 10th floor
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
warning recording
Here is a recording of the warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGu-zCvURCo&t=35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGu-zCvURCo&t=35
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Here is a recording of the warning
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?
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 ?
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 ?
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the bases in Syria, why not?
As for point 3, you are advised to study the geography and variety of the armed groups in Syria.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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.
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.
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.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border.
Other than that, enjoyed your post.
I'd like to applaud kirks gusset 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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Nov 2015 at 16:26.