Syria Shoots Down Turkish Fighter Jet

[Twain]

No it isn’t. Because the type of engagement you suggest is so compelling is extremely difficult with even the most advanced gun system. And BTW 500 mph is 450 knots which is actually really fast. 450 knots, 2-3 miles and 5,000 feet altitude is incredibly hard shot for a gun system. If the target is crossing it’s almost impossible. Coming straight at you is a lot more possible.

Please correct me if I get something wrong with the numbers here.

Syria is claiming that they shot the RF-4 down while it was crossing in front of the coast. A 30mm gun has a muzzle velocity of about 1000m/s, The RF-4 was flying at 450 kts, So even if we assume no loss in projectile velocity (which is not correct) that is a 1-2 seconds from firing to possible impact, that works out to about 200 meters that the RF-4 traveled. if we take into account decreasing projectile velocity, it is more like 4 seconds at a 1-2 km range or up to 4-500 meters of travel for the RF-4. I don't buy that story. Both sides are lying here, but hitting an F-4 at that range with 30 mm fire is highly unlikely. (this also assumes a 1-2km range, it appears the RF-4 was farther out than that)

 

[ADMk2]

It seems to me that most people posting on this thread are completely clueless about how things work in that region of the world, especially when it comes to Turkey. So let's get some facts straight:

1) What the pair of Turkish RF4's were doing in Syria, is what they are doing practically every other day over Greek (or Cypriot) air defenses, i.e. getting as close as possible to photograph installations of interest. Anything else you hear about what they were doing (e.g. "testing Turkish air defences and accidentally straying in Syrian air space " is a bunch of Turkish hogwash. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Bosporus to sell you, and you are probably too naive to understand geopolitics and should refrain from reading further - period.).

2) In this case, the pair of RF4's got REALLY close, trying to test the Syrian AA defences in order to assess the feasibility of setting up a NATO-imposed no-fly zone (a la Libya), and/or photograph the Russian installations especially with regards to the P800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missile (in case of imposing a naval blockade on Syria)

3) The pair of RF4's were flying no more than 2 to 3 miles from the Latakia coast (some sources say even less, 1-2 km), at low speed (no more than 500 mph) and low altitude (5000 ft). The largest piece from the wreck of the RF4 (a tail section) was found only 2 miles from the shore.

4) The RF4's were engaged with AA cannon fire. They were not engaged with SA-5, S-300, or any other missiles. END OF STORY. One RF4 was brought down and the other made it back to Turkey with apparently little or minor damage.

5) The question is what AA fire brought the RF4 down. There are two candidates: the ZSU-23mm or the Pantsir S-1. Evidence points out that the RF4 WAS TRACKED BY AND BROUGHT DOWN BY CANNON FIRE FROM the Pantsir S1's 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns. This is supported by the best detective work on the subject, carried out by the greek defence website, defencenet.gr, in which they compared the sound from the cannon fire from the amateur video of the incident, with cannon fire from the promotional video of the Pantsir S1 firing its 30mm autocannon. The sound is exactly the same (and different from ZSU-23mm cannon fire). This damn website will not let me post links to this so please search for it.

6) If you have a better theory with corroborating evidence I am all ears, but please do not insult my intelligence with official Turkish statements.

I'm still waiting to see a fact. Someone you don't know, listened to a bogus youtube video in which you can't see the gun and they apparently then listened to another online video which does feature some sort of air defence gun and the noises sounded "the same"?

This passes as "detective work" in a region of the world that is "so" complex none of the rest of us could have a clue about it?

Ah yeah, sure...

 

[swerve]

The Syrians claim to have shot the RF-4 down with gunfire while it was 1-2 km from the coast & flying at 100 metres altitude or less They also claim that it crashed 10 km west of Om al Toyour, which is on the coast. Their plot shows it being shot down while heading towards the coast.

It's hard to reconcile these.
Russian-reported Syrian version -
http://en.rian.ru/images/17425/53/174255335.jpg

The Turks say it was shot down 13 nm offshore at 7400 feet, & veered into Syrian waters before crashing. They admit it had previously entered Syrian airspace & flown close to the shore at low altitude, but their plot shows it leaving Syrian airspace 10 minutes before it was shot down.

Their version has the virtue of internal consistency.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=206466&d=1341163379

 

[djpav]

First of all, I apologize for the tone of my previous post. It came out more combative than I wanted.

You can go ahead and ignore the amateur video as a prank, but my point is that all available evidence points to the RF4 getting hit by coastal AA cannon fire.

On Saturday an article in the WSJ upset Turkey when it said "U.S. intelligence indicates that a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials said, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey."

Also, "According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) wreckage from the jet, the tail end had been handed to the Turkish authorities with an official record which shows holes which had come from a heavy calibre machine gun." (Different article, can't post the link)


Why would the Syrians lie about handing the tail section of the aircraft back to Turkey? Can anyone point to any evidence that the RF4 was struck by a missile outside Syrian airspace?

What happened is a classic case of the bully getting overconfident. As others pointed out, Turkey has been carrying these kinds of missions routinely over Greece and Cyprus for years with total immunity, and thought Syria would be no different. Well, apparently the Syrians did grow a pair, and gave the Turks a lesson they will no soon forget.

 

[chris]

This is supported by the best detective work on the subject, carried out by the greek defence website, defencenet.gr, in which they compared the sound from the cannon fire from the amateur video of the incident, with cannon fire from the promotional video of the Pantsir S1 firing its 30mm autocannon. The sound is exactly the same (and different from ZSU-23mm cannon fire). This damn website will not let me post links to this so please search for it.

Don't make me laugh. Defencenet.gr makes some common conspiracy sites look as valid as encyclopedia Britannica in comparison. Don't forget that at the beginning of this incident, they claimed that the F-4 was shot down by upgraded S-300 missiles (and by coincidence it's defence magazine had an article about upgrading our S-300 to the same level).

 

[2007yellow430]

Don't make me laugh. Defencenet.gr makes some common conspiracy sites look as valid as encyclopedia Britannica in comparison. Don't forget that at the beginning of this incident, they claimed that the F-4 was shot down by upgraded S-300 missiles (and by coincidence it's defence magazine had an article about upgrading our S-300 to the same level).

If indeed the tail of the F4 was returned to Turkey, it should show the appropriate damage, i.e., anti-aircraft rounds, or burn marks from a missile. Since there is or should be definitive evidence, if Turkey shows the tail, then we'll know what is what. Remember the old adage, that one who withholds evidence, makes the point that they aren't telling the truth. Indeed, in California, there is a jury instruction to that effect.

Art

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You can go ahead and ignore the amateur video as a prank, but my point is that all available evidence points to the RF4 getting hit by coastal AA cannon fire.

What evidence? That a Phantom was shot down? That’s all we have to go on that is 100% credible.

On Saturday an article in the WSJ upset Turkey when it said "U.S. intelligence indicates that a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials said, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey."

As I said earlier in this thread it’s more likely that the Phantom was within Syrian airspace. What is crucial as to the type of system that shot it down was the flight path. If the Phantom was flying lateral to the coast as a crossing target to Syrian air defences then it pretty much had to be a missile. If it was flying at right angles to the coast to penetrate over Syrian territory then a gun is possible though a missile still more likely as 2-4km head on is still a long shot for a 23-30mm gun.

Also, "According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) wreckage from the jet, the tail end had been handed to the Turkish authorities with an official record which shows holes which had come from a heavy calibre machine gun." (Different article, can't post the link)

If it has what looks like bullet holes in the tail then that is just as likely to be the damage caused by a missile’s annular warhead. If it was a head on target then it’s even more likely that such damage is from a missile’s annular warhead than a gun. Of course you can always fish a Phantom tail out of the water then shoot it up to back a story. It could even be a Phantom tail circa 1973…

Why would the Syrians lie about handing the tail section of the aircraft back to Turkey? Can anyone point to any evidence that the RF4 was struck by a missile outside Syrian airspace?

They could lie for a range of propaganda reasons. As to evidence it was struck by a missile outside of Syrian airspace there is the Turkish claims, which shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand. Unless one is biased…

 

[2007yellow430]

What evidence? That a Phantom was shot down? That’s all we have to go on that is 100% credible. ...

If it has what looks like bullet holes in the tail then that is just as likely to be the damage caused by a missile’s annular warhead. If it was a head on target then it’s even more likely that such damage is from a missile’s annular warhead than a gun. Of course you can always fish a Phantom tail out of the water then shoot it up to back a story. It could even be a Phantom tail circa 1973…



They could lie for a range of propaganda reasons. As to evidence it was struck by a missile outside of Syrian airspace there is the Turkish claims, which shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand. Unless one is biased…

I'm sure that if the tail were looked at, it would be easy to ascertain whether the holes were caused by either a missile or a gun. Turkey has the tail. If they truly wish to prove their point, they need to come up with the tail for the proof. As long as they don't, we can only assume they are lying.

Art

 

[Twain]

If it has what looks like bullet holes in the tail then that is just as likely to be the damage caused by a missile’s annular warhead. If it was a head on target then it’s even more likely that such damage is from a missile’s annular warhead than a gun. Of course you can always fish a Phantom tail out of the water then shoot it up to back a story. It could even be a Phantom tail circa 1973…

FWIW Turkey is claiming that A. it's not part of the tail and B there is no damage to it consistent with 30 mm hits. I haven't been able to find any pictures of it though, which is surprising since if it supports the Syrian claims, you would think the pictures would be all over the place.

 

[2007yellow430]

FWIW Turkey is claiming that A. it's not part of the tail and B there is no damage to it consistent with 30 mm hits. I haven't been able to find any pictures of it though, which is surprising since if it supports the Syrian claims, you would think the pictures would be all over the place.

Or visa versa. If Turkey has it, they should provide pictures. They haven't. Why is a huge question.

Those tails have numbered parts. Pictures would prove its origin. Again, why no pictures, serial numbers? Doesn't make sense for Turkey to withhold unless they are spinning a story.

Art

 

[Feanor]

Just a note of sanity, please consider that to date only 12 Pantsyr-S1 systems have been delivered to Syria. It's highly unlikely that they're deployed independently and away from any significant installation. Most likely they are grouped together with the Buk-M2s, protecting important facilities. It's very unlikely that they were involved in the downing of the aircraft.

There is no such thing as a ZSU-23-2. There is a ZU-23-2 which is a primitive AA gun with very short range, and no chance of shooting down the Phantom in this scenario. There is a ZSU-23-4 which is a radar-guided quad-23mm AA gun, which would have had extreme difficulty in pulling this off.

Finally making definitive claims about the nature of a downing without providing any tangible evidence supporting them is awfully close to trolling. Either produce something more then your opinions, or stop making statements as a matter of fact.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Just a note of sanity, please consider that to date only 12 Pantsyr-S1 systems have been delivered to Syria. It's highly unlikely that they're deployed independently and away from any significant installation. Most likely they are grouped together with the Buk-M2s, protecting important facilities. It's very unlikely that they were involved in the downing of the aircraft.

According to this map, port city of Latakia (apparently the largest Syrian port and within several miles of the accident), is home to a naval base, plus an air force base some 25 miles south of it. This makes it a not so unlikely place to host the Pantsyrs...
Syrian Military Bases - CommunityWalk

 

[chris]

If indeed the tail of the F4 was returned to Turkey, it should show the appropriate damage, i.e., anti-aircraft rounds, or burn marks from a missile. Since there is or should be definitive evidence, if Turkey shows the tail, then we'll know what is what. Remember the old adage, that one who withholds evidence, makes the point that they aren't telling the truth. Indeed, in California, there is a jury instruction to that effect.

Art

I don't know if you accidentally misquoted me but my post had only to do with defencenet.gr as a credible source. Other than that, I just plead guilty of being Greek when it comes to Turkey. I feel they really screwed up and there is more merit in the Syrian version of the story.

 

[STURM]

In an interview, Assad has claimed that the Turkish Phantom was using a corridor that had been used by the Israelis before, that it did not appear on Syrian radar and that Syria did not now that the jet was Turkish until after it had been shot down.

Syria's Assad regrets downing Turkish jet - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

 

[swerve]

If indeed the tail of the F4 was returned to Turkey, it should show the appropriate damage, i.e., anti-aircraft rounds, or burn marks from a missile. Since there is or should be definitive evidence, if Turkey shows the tail, then we'll know what is what. Remember the old adage, that one who withholds evidence, makes the point that they aren't telling the truth. Indeed, in California, there is a jury instruction to that effect.

Art

Why would a missile leave burn marks? A SAM warhead is designed to bring down an aircraft with shrapnel (often like bullets) from an explosion triggered by a proximity fuse, not by impacting the aircraft & exploding. It can be hard to tell the difference between the holes. One would need enough of the airframe to be able to work out the pattern of the impacts, & thus how they were caused.

Where are the Syrian pictures of the tail, or whatever it was? If they were confident it proved them right, why didn't they photograph it thoroughly & publish the pictures?

You claim that the failure of Turkey to release pictures suggests that Turkey has something to hide, but you say nothing about Syria not releasing pictures. Double standards?

 

[2007yellow430]

Why would a missile leave burn marks? A SAM warhead is designed to bring down an aircraft with shrapnel (often like bullets) from an explosion triggered by a proximity fuse, not by impacting the aircraft & exploding. It can be hard to tell the difference between the holes. One would need enough of the airframe to be able to work out the pattern of the impacts, & thus how they were caused.

Where are the Syrian pictures of the tail, or whatever it was? If they were confident it proved them right, why didn't they photograph it thoroughly & publish the pictures?

You claim that the failure of Turkey to release pictures suggests that Turkey has something to hide, but you say nothing about Syria not releasing pictures. Double standards?

Actually what I'm saying is that Turkey has the proof that it's story is true, yet they have t produced it. Smells to me is what I'm saying. If someone accused
me of a crime (trespass) I'd use all my proof to show my innocence.

Art

 

[Gremlin29]

Not that this clears the story up but I did want to mention something regarding MWR indications. I have personally seen numerous emitters in search, track and acquisition mode along certain boarders. So much so that you don't pay alot of attention to them. The EM spectrum is very crowded in that part of the world.

Regarding wreckage, it is common for the empennage to depart the airframe with extreme yawing (happens when big pieces come off) and of course impact. That's usually the only big parts left in a crash sequence, if any parts are left at all. These pieces may or may not have battle damage but the presence or lack there of is no real indicator as to what happened.

 

[StobieWan]

Actually what I'm saying is that Turkey has the proof that it's story is true, yet they have t produced it. Smells to me is what I'm saying. If someone accused
me of a crime (trespass) I'd use all my proof to show my innocence.

Art

You're not thinking this one through, if the Syrians already handled the tail

a) if it proves their side of the story, why haven't *they* released images?
b) the chain of evidence is contaminated - Syria could have riddled the thing with 23 mm fire before handing it back.
c) doesn't matter what the Turkish state or release, the conspiracy nut jobs will continue talking trash. There's been a ton of stuff released about the lunar landings, or 911, the list goes on - the phrase "I want to believe" <anything except the official version>
d) the essential facts are a Syrian unit shot down a Turkish jet. No-one is disputing this. It's likely that both sides screwed up.

 

[swerve]

Actually what I'm saying is that Turkey has the proof that it's story is true, yet they have t produced it. Smells to me is what I'm saying. If someone accused
me of a crime (trespass) I'd use all my proof to show my innocence.

Art

Did you not read my post (& Abe Gubler's), or just not understand?

If Turkey only has one damaged part, as handed over by Syria, then it doesn't have proof one way or the other. Holes ripped in a bit of airframe by a 23mm or 30mm gun won't necessarily be possible to tell from holes ripped by a missile warhead. You either need enough of the airframe to work out the pattern of damage, or fragments of what hit it. And even with the whole aircraft, it may not be possible, depending on what part or parts of the aircraft were damaged, what missiles or guns may have been used, & the angle of strike.

This isn't a TV programme, where someone feeds a tiny piece of evidence into a computer & it comes up with a perfect match in seconds. Real life is messier & more complicated.

 

[Sampanviking]

Something in the Turkish account that I find "curious".

They say that their plane was hit in International Airspace and then turned into Syrian airspace before crashing. Does this sound credible?
Surely if you are aware of being attacked from a certain direction, the natural reaction is to turn away from it and run as fast as you can.

Another aspect is that even if the plane was hit in International Airspace, it would have been engaged by the Syrians inside Syrian Airspace and presumably chased out by the missile prior to detonation. In that case the plane would be heading out of Syrian airspace as fast and directly as possible. How likely then would a hit aircraft turn 180 degrees and head back towards danger?

Even to a humble layman, something here does not sound right.