Syria Shoots Down Turkish Fighter Jet

[StobieWan]

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.

Thinking about it, if the pilot and WSO were both still in their seats when found, whatever overtook them must have been rapid and devastating - an IR seeking shoulder launched jobby doesn't usually pack much of a punch and they usually just shave off a chunk of the jetpipe plus some splinter damage - enough to mission kill the aircraft and perhaps bring it down but they'd have had time to work the problem and probably one or both would have had time to eject.

I'm suspecting more and more we're talking about something with a substantial warhead.

Found this blog which looked pretty interesting that talks about Syrian SAM deployment in 2010.

IMINT & Analysis: Syrian Strategic SAM Deployment

 

[djpav]

The Turkish Navy just released pictures from the RF4 wreck. You can have a look here:
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46817&Itemid=164

Now, I realize some of you do not think highly of the website I am linking to, but pictures are pictures, and what they say is that the RF4's jet engine looks fairly intact - no damage consistent with an IR missile hit.

They further say that "the most likely scenario is the Turkish aircraft while trying to reach the Syrian coast, was hit by antiaircraft cannon fire and the Turkish pilots in an effort to avoid collision in Syrian territory, managed to turn the aircraft towards the open sea and subsequently crash some kilometers from where they had been hit.
If it is accepted that the aircraft was hit by Syrian fire within 1.5 nautical miles from the coast then the Turkish pilot managed to stay in the air for about 60 seconds before crashing into the sea at a distance of approximately 8 miles."

What do you guys think? Is this a valid theory? I am honestly asking for your opinion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and what they say is that the RF4's jet engine looks fairly intact - no damage consistent with an IR missile hit.

That’s not a remotely factual statement to make at all. IR missiles only impact the tail pipe under certain engagement geometries and if they lack a proximity fuse. Even if the missile had hit the exhaust pipe (like an old Strela would) the picture shows the front end of the Turbojet which has several metres and tonnes of steel engine between it and where the missile could have hit. So it would unlikely be effected by direct damage from a tail hit warhead.

They further say that

There is nothing to support that rather tenuous argument they have constructed except their previous statements which they don’t wish to retract.

The lack of the pilot’s ejecting really makes all these it was damaged and tried to fly somewhere arguments nonsense. If they were flying a crippled plane they would have ejected before hitting the water.

It was most likely hit without warning and the plane went straight down and into the water. The only thing I can see of value in those photos is what looks like scorching or smoke damage to one of the helmets, which would appear to have a ‘tramp stamp’ painted on it(!). Indicating the aircrew were probably incapacitated by the hit or quickly after which explains the lack of May Day signals and their escape from the plane.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

- an IR seeking shoulder launched jobby doesn't usually pack much of a punch and they usually just shave off a chunk of the jetpipe plus some splinter damage - enough to mission kill the aircraft and perhaps bring it down but they'd have had time to work the problem and probably one or both would have had time to eject.

Advanced IR missiles can engage from the frontal arc and have proximity fuses or terminal manoeuvres. The only reason old school IR missiles like the SA-7 hit the tailpipe is they keep on homing in on centre of the heat source so as they get closer to the aircraft from the rear, sides or bottom this becomes the very hot metal of the exhaust nozzle. So when they get close to the aircraft they narrow in on the jet pipe. Since this often results in only causing damages the Soviets added a terminal manoeuvre so when the missile is about to hit the target it flies a quick dog leg to miss the tail pipe and fly into the wings or fuselage. Other VSHORADS add a delay fuse like Stinger so penetrate into the aircraft before exploding or engage under command with a proximity fuse and warhead designed to detonate a distance from the aircraft RBS70 or to avoid the jet pipe problem.

Anyway the aircraft crashed far too distant from Syrian shore to have been intercepted by a surface launched IR missile. It may have been engaged by a command guided missile like SA-22 (Pantsir) and the Turkish Phantom had an older RWR and was unable to tell that the radar tracking them was able to guide a missile in.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If I had to construct a scenario from the available evidence I would suggest that the Phantom was heading SSW roughly along the middle of the Syrian territorial waters at low to medium altitude. This is roughly similar to the Turkish claim but a bit closer to Syria. Because it had just before on its last pass a few minutes ago flown much closer to Syria and they would have thought it was engaging in some photo recce they decided to engage it. As it passed Ras al Basit and was about 10km from shore they engaged with a Pantsir missile. Because this system uses a phased array radar to track both the target and the missile and then radio signals to the missile to command its course to intercept the Turkish Phantom did not know it was being engaged. Such systems like Sea Wolf, SA-8 are generally considered very dangerous because unless the aircraft’s self protection suite can tell the tracking radar and/or the radio command signals and/or detect the missile the aircraft doesn’t know it is being engaged. Since the Pantsir is new and there are still plenty of Turkish Phantoms in service that haven’t had a systems upgrade it was unable to know it was in trouble. Pantsir is also a very fast accelerating and very small missile so the Turkish ground radar would probably be unable to give a voice warning in time that the Phantom was being engaged. Pantsir has a continuous rod warhead that generates multiple small fragments so would cause damage across the aircraft leading to aircrew incapacitation and holes in the tail. After being hit the Phantom would have gone straight down into the water.

 

[swerve]

The biggest difficulty I see with that scenario is that both Syrian & Turkish plots show the RF-4 veering off its roughly SSW course to head towards the Syrian coast. In your scenario, it's receding from the coast when it goes in.

I think we should assume that anything both sides agree on is very likely to be true. William of Ockham, and all that.

 

[south]

IMHO more likely to be SA-17 due to what appears to be a rather immediate destruction of the aircraft (no distress call, no pilot getting out).

GCI will not have the SA to pass that someone is being engaged by a missile, whether it be a SA7 or a SA5, so to suggest that makes it more likely to be a small missile is misleading.

Seems unlikely to me that we will ever find out for sure.

P.s. the whole syrian AAA thing is IMO a smokescreen due to the relatively short range of AAA to make it "clear" that the RF-4 was in Syrian airspace and hence justify their actions.

 

[djpav]

I have to admit that I find the whole discussion about this affair very exciting - literally a Sherlock Holmes detective mystery with lots of good arguments on all sides, and no definitive answers.

I only wish that in the end, the Syrians or the Russians (or even the Turks?) provide us with incontrovertible proof on what actually went down (besides the RF4), so we can all assess our deductive abilities.

 

[swerve]

The Turks are picking up the wreckage, so they'll be the ones to come out with the answers, if it's possible to find them. I hope they give enough access to outsiders for their conclusions to be trusted.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The biggest difficulty I see with that scenario is that both Syrian & Turkish plots show the RF-4 veering off its roughly SSW course to head towards the Syrian coast. In your scenario, it's receding from the coast when it goes in.

I think we should assume that anything both sides agree on is very likely to be true. William of Ockham, and all that.

They are agreeing on roughly the same thing for different purposes and both to support their claims of innocence.

The Turks are claiming the aircraft only veered inwards after being hit by a missile in international waters. The Syrians are claiming the aircraft was on a penetrating flight path so engaged it before it could cross their coastline.

Under the Turkish scenario the aircraft was still flying for about a minute before impacting the ocean. This doesn’t sound so feasible in the light of the aircrew not ejecting. While it is possible that they could have been incapacitated in the missile hit and the aircraft kept flying this far as it was at medium altitude (according to the Turks) it doesn’t seem so likely.

The Syrian scenario requires the Turks to fly an incredibly aggressive and risky flight path. After beating up the Syrian territorial waters with a low altitude high speed pass the Phantom is then expected to do a 180 cruise back past the Syrians and then turn in towards their coast and fly straight down the throat of their air defences. While not impossible it doesn’t sound very competent and would certainly align with a head on missile engagement knocking the plane straight into the water with the aircrew.

While the Syrian version of events seems more likely the reason I’ve stated that I think they were flying down the coast line about half way out in their Syrian territorial waters is it seems to split the difference of their claims as to what they were up to. Of course it’s just conjectural but giving the Turks the benefit of the doubt. It would also explain why they were so surprised and caught of guard when their plane was shot down. If you are sending aircraft in on flights probing or penetrating their coast you might be more expecting of being engaged.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

IMHO more likely to be SA-17 due to what appears to be a rather immediate destruction of the aircraft (no distress call, no pilot getting out).

I was just ruling out SARH missiles because the targeting spike would give warning. But I guess they could have just command guided the missile or used terminal illumination.

GCI will not have the SA to pass that someone is being engaged by a missile, whether it be a SA7 or a SA5, so to suggest that makes it more likely to be a small missile is misleading.

I was basing this call on previous reports of GCI providing warnings to aircraft of being engaged by GBAD. Though in that case it was high flying aircraft being shot at by climbing SA-2s so not really within the same ball park as medium to low fighters being engaged by missiles.

 

[Twain]

Here's an interesting read about this whole mess and the inconsistencies in both Syria's and Turkey's version of events.


http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2012/07/12/turkey-phantom-shoot-down/


The article is written from a foreign relations perspective than a military one but it offers some interesting possibilities as to why there is so much confusion. Basically, not much verifiable information has been released to the public domain by either side and the people who do know what happened aren't talking.

And there is this from another article.

the armed forces statement declared that no traces of "petroleum-based, combustible or fire accelerant substances, organic and inorganic explosive substance residues, or any kind of ammunition" were found on debris from the wreckage floating on the sea's surface.


Turkish military sows confusion over downed jet | Reuters

There is some speculation that the RF-4 crashed while taking evasive maneuvers, others that it was actually russians manning the SAM system. The only thing that has apparently been ruled out is that it was shot down by a 23-30mm gun. At this stage, take your pick of possible explanations.

 

[STURM]

This report appears to totally contradict theTurkish claim as to its Phantom being in international waters. A senior Turkish official has now mentioned MANPADs as being the culprit.

Syria to Turkey: Show me the missile - Features - Al Jazeera English

And in this report, the Russians claim to have radar data.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/20127581333324728.html

 

[StobieWan]

Doesn't refute the position the aircraft was found in however, and the crew went down with it, which tends to indicate they had no chance to eject.

I guess it's marginally possible the crew spotted a missile launch and the pilot overstressed the aircraft trying to break the track or flew it into the sea - but I would have thought the RIO could have managed a mayday or even a general report that they were in trouble.

 

[swerve]

Not the best report.

Turkish experts, studying the photos of the plane wreckage lying on the Mediterranean seabed - released on the day of the pilots' funerals - are saying that if it was a heat-seeking missile, it would have hit the engine - but the plane’s engine is intact. If it was a radar-guided missile, you would expect it to have hit the cockpit, but the cockpit is not destroyed.

If "Turkish experts" really said that, then I'd worry about what constitutes expertise in Turkey. I suspect these 'experts' are rather ill-informed people, rounded up by the press for a sound bite.

There's no mention of the Russians having radar data in that report.

 

[Marc 1]

Not the best report.


If "Turkish experts" really said that, then I'd worry about what constitutes expertise in Turkey. I suspect these 'experts' are rather ill-informed people, rounded up by the press for a sound bite.

There's no mention of the Russians having radar data in that report.

That's about the standard of news defence reporting hereabouts. After the Falklands conflict even a sidewinder was described as an 'exocet' (and the person that remembered how to spell exocet was labled the 'expert'), After the gulf war anything vaguely missile shaped became a 'scud'... if it is vaguely rectangular and doesn't have many windows its a 'tank' and so it continues...

My personal beef is how the names of military units get poorly reported - particulary Infantry. What is so difficult about saying 1st Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment. Some of the mangling that occurs ("Battalion one of the Australian Regiment" was a recent one) is ignorant and disrespectful and I don't know about others but grates on me like fingernails down a blackboard.

 

[Marc 1]

Doesn't refute the position the aircraft was found in however, and the crew went down with it, which tends to indicate they had no chance to eject.
.

OR, realised that it wouldn't look good politically to have bits of a Turkish airframe going down on a Syrian beach so was hoping to keep it in the air long enough to get it to international waters before punching out. Obviously their initial assessment of being able to make it was wrong. Remember these were recce crews, their briefing would have been to keep the operation as deniable as possible.

During the cold war the only time real embarrassment occurred was when wreckage was shown - In the 50's and 60's the russians were complaining about overflights - the us adopted the tactic of 'what overflight?' - until Gary Powers and his dragon lady were put on display. Its the old intel (or hoons) excuse - it's only illegal if you get caught.

 

[Marc 1]

I guess it's marginally possible the crew spotted a missile launch and the pilot overstressed the aircraft trying to break the track or flew it into the sea - but I would have thought the RIO could have managed a mayday or even a general report that they were in trouble.

Mayday would have provided proof of an illegal overflight. A bit like being a burglar with a complete set of safecracking tools etc getting stuck in the place you were trying to knock off. You'd hardly be trying to call the police and emergency services to get you out would you?

 

[gf0012-aust]

During the cold war the only time real embarrassment occurred was when wreckage was shown - In the 50's and 60's the russians were complaining about overflights - the us adopted the tactic of 'what overflight?' - until Gary Powers and his dragon lady were put on display. Its the old intel (or hoons) excuse - it's only illegal if you get caught.

I recall seeing some huge numbers of US and NATO aircraft (and Soviet) shot down during the cold war that were not declared by either side. The US and Allies lost something like 180+ aircrew during the cold war from deliberate shootdowns..

 

[Haavarla]

Turkish military sows confusion over downed jet | Reuters

Great! If the Turksh can once again change their story on this incident, its would complete my allready suscpision that Turky do not have a clue yet of what happend here..

Why don't they just shut up, and make a report once the full investigation have been completed.