Syria Shoots Down Turkish Fighter Jet

[2007yellow430]

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.

I think that all of us are guessing. The only way to know is for them to produce the tail. Maybe you're right, it's inconclusive, but then again it may not be. Unless and until they show it, nobody knows. Having said that, the failure to show it stinks, and leads me to believe they aren't telling the truth.

Art

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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

It’s only curious because you’ve assumed that the Turkish pilots have the same god level perspective of all this that you do. Assumptions like: they knew they were being attacked by Syria, they were chased out, etc.

The Turkish account of events is that their aircraft was hit by surprise. They didn’t know a missile was fired at them and then suddenly bang their plane is thumped. Under such circumstances the pilot would likely try to fly towards the nearest piece of solid land so they could try to land or at least bail out over land.

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

It’s only because you are a layman that it doesn’t sound right. The high self-belief in uninformed opinions promoted by relativism is the great curse of contemporary society.

 

[Twain]

Setting aside the "he said, she said" part of this story. This whole mess seems to be

A. incompetence on the part of the Turks in allowing a reconnaissance jet to be shot down this easily and B. a dumb move by Syria in shooting it down. Syria is in the middle of at least a low level civil war and Turkey was already hostile to the present government. Now I am sure Turkey feels even more justified in intervening in Syria and will likely increase it's support of the FSA. Considering the mess the Syrian government is in, they hardly needed to further antagonize Turkey.

 

[Sampanviking]

It’s only curious because you’ve assumed that the Turkish pilots have the same god level perspective of all this that you do. Assumptions like: they knew they were being attacked by Syria, they were chased out, etc.

The Turkish account of events is that their aircraft was hit by surprise. They didn’t know a missile was fired at them and then suddenly bang their plane is thumped. Under such circumstances the pilot would likely try to fly towards the nearest piece of solid land so they could try to land or at least bail out over land.



It’s only because you are a layman that it doesn’t sound right. The high self-belief in uninformed opinions promoted by relativism is the great curse of contemporary society.

No need to get nasty.
I did indeed think about the "heading for the nearest land" angle, but had a problem with heading back towards the direction of attack. Surely at this point the pilot will have realised he will have been attacked and have a pretty good clue about where the attack will have come from, no?

You see the bit I can't quite understand and maybe you can explain, is how a heavily modernised recon plane, dripping with Israeli electronic goodies, apparently engaged in the testing of the capabilities of Radar, is incapable of detecting being locked on to by Syrian Air defences or that a missile has been launched against it?

 

[StobieWan]

No need to get nasty.
I did indeed think about the "heading for the nearest land" angle, but had a problem with heading back towards the direction of attack. Surely at this point the pilot will have realised he will have been attacked and have a pretty good clue about where the attack will have come from, no?

You see the bit I can't quite understand and maybe you can explain, is how a heavily modernised recon plane, dripping with Israeli electronic goodies, apparently engaged in the testing of the capabilities of Radar, is incapable of detecting being locked on to by Syrian Air defences or that a missile has been launched against it?

How much control do you think the pilot might have had with the tail shot away ?

 

[Sampanviking]

How much control do you think the pilot might have had with the tail shot away ?

I think without a tail, they would have fallen like a stone in the general direction in which they were travelling, which by the Turkish Account was away from land and not towards it.

 

[StobieWan]

I think without a tail, they would have fallen like a stone in the general direction in which they were travelling, which by the Turkish Account was away from land and not towards it.

Aircraft can do all sorts of things when hit, including entering uncommanded turns, rolling over on their backs, then looping into the ground. Add in the shock of an ejection and it's hard to say as that will change aircraft trim. If a chunk of the tail on one side or another came off, then the aircraft will automatically tend to start a slow circle.

Additionally, it's entirely possible the pilot simply pointed the jet in the direction of the nearest landmass under stress. If the pilot *did* have any warning of a missile on the way, a hard turn into the missile would be the first step in defeating it - which may well have put it on a course for land.



It's hard to say, and it's certainly not as black and white as you seem to suggest.

 

[swerve]

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.

It's entirely credible.

The turn shown on the Turkish radar plot is about 90 degrees, not 180. This could have been caused by the damage done by a missile, or by the pilot fighting to retain or regain control.

You're assuming the pilot (1) knew the direction of the attack, (2) in the shock & confusion after it, was coolly rational enough to take that into account, & (3) had a choice. None of these assumptions are warranted.

If the Turkish plot is accurate, the aircraft was engaged in international airspace, not Syrian. No evidence has been presented by either side that the aircraft was 'chased' anywhere, or made a 180 degree turn towards land. These are assumptions you have made contrary to the evidence we have.

Have you ever been in a car crash, or been driving a vehicle when something hit it? I have. You react reflexively, & afterwards don't necessarily remember what happened, or what you did. A fighter pilot is likely to be better at keeping calm & in control than I am, but would nevertheless be severely affected by the trauma.

A lot of the discussion of this matter seems to be badly affected by video gaming. It's assumed that those involved aren't emotionally involved, despite being seconds away from death. Some people need to get out more.

 

[Sampanviking]

I am actually quite aware of the possibilities and possible quite credible explanations. The precise circumstances are however not explained and the Turkish version is not convincing.

The whole narrative just sounds wrong.

Why would the Syrians engage a target outside of their airspace? Does Syrian AD have a reputation for being aggressive and provocative or simply nervous? do they regularly paint up other aircraft in International Airspace? I have not heard that they do and I cannot believe that the media would be keeping quiet on it if they were.

Why did the Turkish account change everyday for the first three or four days? The Syrian account has been consistent from day one.

Assad is not a Gadaffi or Hussain. No fiery speeches; before or after, about turning the Med red with Turkish blood. So why do something so provocative and then apologise for it straight afterwards and repeat the apology regularly?

The Turks seem to know a lot about the plane crews situational awareness during the attack, but no real evidence, such as voice recordings etc seem forthcoming into the public domain.

Finally I have had my fair share of spills and thrills on both 2 wheels and 4 over the last thirty odd years and I can say that during the event, I have always reacted coolly crisply and sharply as a result of training and experience. Only safely afterwards have I had the collywobbles.
PC shoot em ups have never been my bag!

Judging from some recent replies, I cannot help but wonder, that had this incident happened the other way around, that many here would be singing very different tunes, which is a shame as it rather detracts from the Professional image this site presents.

In conclusion I think it is a bit rich that people that have derided other members for "conspiracy theories" are supporting a version of events in which Syrian AD, out of the blue and wholly out of character attack a random none threatening aircraft in International Airspace, for no apparent reason!
Now that most definitely is a conspiracy theory (albeit a very poor one).

 

[StobieWan]

And now breaking news, the bodies have been found, on the seabed - which means they were most likely still with the aircraft or at the least, still strapped in their seats.

BBC News - Bodies of Turkish jet crew shot down by Syria found


Again, to me, this looks like a very regrettable misunderstanding and both sides have made mistakes with unfortunate consequences.

 

[Twain]

And now breaking news, the bodies have been found, on the seabed - which means they were most likely still with the aircraft or at the least, still strapped in their seats.




Again, to me, this looks like a very regrettable misunderstanding and both sides have made mistakes with unfortunate consequences.

Currently the Nautilus appears to be 8-10 nm off the Syrian Coast.

 

[Bonza]

Can we leave the insults and insinuations out of this please?

 

[swerve]

Why would the Syrians engage a target outside of their airspace? Does Syrian AD have a reputation for being aggressive and provocative or simply nervous? do they regularly paint up other aircraft in International Airspace? I have not heard that they do and I cannot believe that the media would be keeping quiet on it if they were.

Because it had been inside their airspace only a few minutes earlier, & was only just outside their airspace.

The Israelis have shot down Syrian military aircraft in international airspace.

Why did the Turkish account change everyday for the first three or four days? The Syrian account has been consistent from day one.

Every time someone says this, I ask them to point me to the different Turkish versions. So far, nobody has done so. Will you please do so?

But note that minor discrepancies in stories do not necessarily denote dishonesty. Not all the facts are always immediately apparent. Complete consistency from the start can sometimes be because a story has been invented, & is not changed as new information comes to light, because it is not dependent on information.

Assad is not a Gadaffi or Hussain. No fiery speeches; before or after, about turning the Med red with Turkish blood. So why do something so provocative and then apologise for it straight afterwards and repeat the apology regularly?

Was the apology immediate? I don't recall that. As for why apologise, the reason is obvious - fear.

Assad isn't a Gaddafi or Hussain, but he's a dictator whose path to power led over a pile of corpses (mostly killed by his father, but he accepted power knowing that) & he & his coterie have a lot of blood on their own hands. Remember how the current rebellion started: with the killing of demonstrators asking for democracy.

In conclusion I think it is a bit rich that people that have derided other members for "conspiracy theories" are supporting a version of events in which Syrian AD, out of the blue and wholly out of character attack a random none threatening aircraft in International Airspace, for no apparent reason!
Now that most definitely is a conspiracy theory (albeit a very poor one).

Who has said there was no apparent reason? The reason is obvious. See above. And it is neither out of the blue nor out of character.

I've seen no conspiracy theory here or elsewhere except the claim that this was a deliberate provocation by the Turks, sacrificing an aircraft & its crew to get an excuse to attack Syria.

PS. Almost forgot - one variant of the above was that the RF-4 was remotely piloted, because the Turks didn't want to sacrifice the crew, & that the crew were fictional. This, of course, requires the families who spoke to the press to be actors, & for the press to fall for it.

 

[t68]

I've seen no conspiracy theory here or elsewhere except the claim that this was a deliberate provocation by the Turks, sacrificing an aircraft & its crew to get an excuse to attack Syria.

Conspiracy theory..........I am not saying it’s the case here but their are presidents in the past that nations go to great lengths to highlight incidents of one’s own making to justify another, case in point the US and the Gulf of Tokin incident 1964 in which the US stated that the North Vietnamese were the aggressor, when in actual fact it was the US looking for a reason to escalate of the war into the North.

 

[swerve]

BTW, the Turks have been saying for some time that the plane went down about 8.5 nautical miles offshore. The Syrians said 10 km.

Bodies of crew recovered from among wreckage 8.6 nautical miles (= 15.9 km) from the coast.

 

[StobieWan]

BTW, the Turks have been saying for some time that the plane went down about 8.5 nautical miles offshore. The Syrians said 10 km.

Bodies of crew recovered from among wreckage 8.6 nautical miles (= 15.9 km) from the coast.

And given the fact that both sides broadly agree the aircraft was at low altitude, that's a long way to travel with a tail shot off.

 

[2007yellow430]

And given the fact that both sides broadly agree the aircraft was at low altitude, that's a long way to travel with a tail shot off.

We don't know if it was shot off or came off later. At 500 knots, that 8 nautical miles per minute. Could have damaged the tall but not taken it off, then had it come off later. We need to know where the tail was found to get an accurate idea of what really happened.

Art

 

[swerve]

And given the fact that both sides broadly agree the aircraft was at low altitude, that's a long way to travel with a tail shot off.

No, they don't agree on that.

The Turks agree the plane was at low altitude when it passed through Syrian airspace, but was at 2500-3000 metres when hit by a missile 10 minutes later, after which it flew a few km towards land before crashing.

The Syrians say it was at 100 metres or so & flying towards the coast when hit by an AA gun, & then flew several kilometres out to sea before crashing.

One has to ask oneself which is more probable, & fits the undisputed facts (the location of the wreckage) better.

It's 14-15 km further from the coast than the Syrians say it was when hit.

 

[StobieWan]

No, they don't agree on that.

The Turks agree the plane was at low altitude when it passed through Syrian airspace, but was at 2500-3000 metres when hit by a missile 10 minutes later, after which it flew a few km towards land before crashing.

The Syrians say it was at 100 metres or so & flying towards the coast when hit by an AA gun, & then flew several kilometres out to sea before crashing.

One has to ask oneself which is more probable, & fits the undisputed facts (the location of the wreckage) better.

It's 14-15 km further from the coast than the Syrians say it was when hit.

Yeah - sorry - I did read a bit more into that later - I knew both sides were okay on the low altitude initially but as you say, the Turks are saying their jet had climbed out when it was hit.

I'm guessing, and this is pure speculation, that the jet strayed into Syrian air space very briefly, as described, were warned by their own side that they'd gotten it wrong, and then turned out to sea, climbing as they did so - when probably some complete no-body with a shoulder launched missile decided it was either a fleeing defector or an enemy jet and took a shot. It's possible some AAA did engage with no results which if heard would have possibly heightened tensions.

In short, a total cluster flop on all sides with everyone involved making a few mistakes. It's possible some optically guided AAA opened up, saw the crash a bit later and claimed it rather optimistically - it's the sort of thing folks do

 

[swerve]

The route published by Turkey, with times, altitudes, & commentary, shows the RF-4 heading NE at low altitude & veering into Syrian airspace for a few minutes. During that time it was warned by Turkish ground control that it was breaching Syrian airspace. It went very close to the Syrian coast, close enough to have been engaged by AA guns, but safely entered Turkish airspace, before turning round & heading SW into international airspace. The pilot informed ground control that he intended to repeat his SW to NE run, but on the correct route avoiding Syrian airspace, & requested ground control assistance to ensure it.

The Turkish account has it hit by something (presumed to be a missile) while on that SW leg, 13 nautical miles from the Syrian coast. It was out of range of any shoulder-launched missile or AA gun, & several minutes & many miles after leaving Syrian airspace, having made a nearly 180 degree change of direction.

I agree that it's possible that optically guided AA engaged it when it was within range but missed, & that's being claimed by the Syrians as the cause of the crash despite the discrepancies in timing & crash location. I presume that if they fired a missile which could have brought down the RF-4 outside territorial waters, they'd rather not admit it.