Turkey seeks NATO meeting over downing of jet by Syria

[gerryh]

Or it could be much like the Soviets when they shot down a Korean passenger jet carrying innocent passengers as hostage on an American spy mission.... as the Soviets claimed. I find it difficult to believe a pilot could fly that far off course accidentally. Its possible that the airplane was carrying surveillance equipment. The Soviets claimed the airplane flew directly over a top secret facility in the middle of test. Also the Americans were playing cat and mouse games at the time. The Soviets just chased off an American spy plane, when the Korean airliner flew into Soviet airspace. Also the American military made a huge effort in order to be the first to recover wreckage.

I suspect in that case and in this one, the truth will remain a mystery...

So, you have problems believing a pilot could fly off course accidently and therefore lean towards believing the soviet explanation of "innocent passengers as hostage on an American spy mission".

That says a whole lot about you right there.


Personally, I'd want to get to the wreck before the soviets too, then I'd be assured that the soviets didn't plant any "evidence" to support their side of things.


and yes, I'd believe the americans over the soviets when it comes to this. Where as you, would believe anyone or anything besides the americans or the Israelis.

 

[BaalsTears]

Er... Turkey is a NATO member. Should it be found tht indeed Syria has committed an aggressive act against Turkey, that's to be interpreted as an aggressive act against NATO. If NATO does not protect Turkey, then what's the point of the alliance? Actually, if it turns its back on Turkey, then what's to say it's not going to turn its back on other allies in need? Canada ought to reconsider its membership then if that's the case.

By the way CM, were you even aware Turkey was a NATO member?

Turkey shouldn't be a member of NATO because it's interests diverge from those of the rest of the members. This isn't America's problem. It isn't Canada's problem either. Besides, the Syrians apologized over the matter.

 

[earth_as_one]

So, you have problems believing a pilot could fly off course accidently and therefore lean towards believing the soviet explanation of "innocent passengers as hostage on an American spy mission".

That says a whole lot about you right there.


Personally, I'd want to get to the wreck before the soviets too, then I'd be assured that the soviets didn't plant any "evidence" to support their side of things.


and yes, I'd believe the americans over the soviets when it comes to this. Where as you, would believe anyone or anything besides the americans or the Israelis.

You must not have noticed my verb tense "Or it could be..." I never claimed to believe the Soviets or the Americans. Both version of events are plausible and neither explains all the inconsistencies.

In the case of this Turkish fighter, even the Turkish version makes it plausible or likely that the order to shoot the unidentified fighter aircraft occurred while the plane was in Syrian airspace. The missile either followed the Turkish fighter out of Syrian airspace or the plane was hit in Syrian airspace. If the order to shoot was given in international airspace and the plane was downed within a kilometer...that must mean Syria possesses a death ray....

 

[gerryh]

You must not have noticed my verb tense "Or it could be..." I never claimed to believe the Soviets or the Americans. Both version of events are plausible and neither explains all the inconsistencies.

rofl... ya ok.

 

[Machjo]

Turkey shouldn't be a member of NATO because it's interests diverge from those of the rest of the members. This isn't America's problem. It isn't Canada's problem either. Besides, the Syrians apologized over the matter.

Well, seeing that all NATO members chose to have Turkey as a member, I guess it's up to Canada to withdraw its membership. It's not up to Canada to dictate to all other NATO countries. If we don't like the rules, then let's get out.

 

[lone wolf]

You must not have noticed my verb tense "Or it could be..." I never claimed to believe the Soviets or the Americans. Both version of events are plausible and neither explains all the inconsistencies.

In the case of this Turkish fighter, even the Turkish version makes it plausible or likely that the order to shoot the unidentified fighter aircraft occurred while the plane was in Syrian airspace. The missile either followed the Turkish fighter out of Syrian airspace or the plane was hit in Syrian airspace. If the order to shoot was given in international airspace and the plane was downed within a kilometer...that must mean Syria possesses a death ray....

...or radar lock
...or heat-seeking

 

[Machjo]

The order to shoot down the unidentified jet fighter would be illegal if the unidentified jet fighter was in international airspace. But if the order was given while the unidentified jet fighter was in Syrian airspace, it would be legal even if by the time jet was shot down, it had crossed back into international airspace.

I'm sure even if it had entered Syrian airspace, any attack would need to be called off if at all possible once it's left. This woudl apply equally to, let's say, a russian Mig entering Canadian airspace. Accidents can happen.

According to the Syrian version of events, the plane was hit in Syrian airspace and crashed in international waters.

A possibility indeed. If we fail to prove either way, then we'd have no choice but to take Syria's word for it.

 

[earth_as_one]

...or radar lock
...or heat-seeking

If the Syrians have a missile that can down a plane instantly, they must be more advanced than everyone else. Most missiles I'm familar with are launched. They accelerate toward their target and then blow their target up if successful. If the missile was a SAM, that process from point of no return until impact can take minutes. If the missile was AAM, then it could be seconds to minutes depending on distance.

The time it would take an F4 to cover a kilometer would be a few seconds.

So I'd say the odds are that even if the F5 was shot down 1KM outside of Syrian airspace as the Turks claim, the missile was launched while the F5 was in Syrian airspace.

Besides didn't the Syrians say "oops, Sorry about that".

 

[BaalsTears]

Well, seeing that all NATO members chose to have Turkey as a member, I guess it's up to Canada to withdraw its membership. It's not up to Canada to dictate to all other NATO countries. If we don't like the rules, then let's get out.

The invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty requires the unanimous vote of all the members of NATO. If Canada or America votes no then Article 5 doesn't come in to play. Turkey can call for a vote of the alliance, but without a unanimous vote in favor of coming to Turkey's aid the Turks are on their own.

 

[lone wolf]

At near mach 4, how long do you think it takes a missile to fly 12 nautical miles?

 

[earth_as_one]

Is the target stationary or moving away at mach4?

Likely the F4 was flying at some speed when it was hit. The length of time it would take a missile traveling at mach 4 would depend on how fast the F4 was traveling.

If the target is moving at mach 4, then I would say a missile traveling at mach 4 chasing a target at mach 4 would never catch the target.

If your point is I don't know the details of what happened and I'm speculating, then you would be correct.

 

[lone wolf]

An F4 couldn't do mach 4 downhill with a tailwind.

According to the information on hand, the Turkish jet was outbound and probably not with afterburners kicked in at full speed (mach 2.2) At a cruising speed of just under mach 1, it would take around 25 seconds to intercept - assuming the jet was on a straight line flight. Note: The crew survived which indicated proximity fusing was likely.

Once the missile is launched, there is no calling it back.

 

[Goober]

An F4 couldn't do mach 4 downhill with a tailwind.

According to the information on hand, the Turkish jet was outbound and probably not with afterburners kicked in at full speed (mach 2.2) At a cruising speed of just under mach 1, it would take around 25 seconds to intercept - assuming the jet was on a straight line flight. Note: The crew survived which indicated proximity fusing was likely.

Once the missile is launched, there is no calling it back.

I can only give one green for that.

 

[earth_as_one]

OK 25 seconds. But an f4 traveling at the speed you mentioned would travel about 8 km in 25 seconds. If it was hit 1 km outside Syrian airspace as the Turks claim, then that means the F4 must have been 7 km inside Syrian airspace when the missile was launched... just saying..

Its also possible that the Syrians have a death ray which can knock planes out of the sky instantly. IN which case they had no grounds to fire upon an airplane outside their airspace.

 

[lone wolf]

Maybe it was head-gamed down too....

 

[CDNBear]

and yes, I'd believe the americans over the soviets when it comes to this. Where as you, would believe anyone or anything besides the americans or the Israelis.

And that's saying something!!!

 

[gerryh]

And that's saying something!!!

I don't trust the americans.... but I trust the former soviets even less.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't trust the americans.... but I trust the former soviets even less.

One of the reasons I don't poke you about your anti-Americanism is, you're still fairly objective. I just love it when you make it obvious! lol.

 

[BaalsTears]

I don't trust the americans.... but I trust the former soviets even less.

Speaking on behalf of the American people...we love you Gerry and we trust you too. We like you even if our affection is unrequited.

 

[#juan]

Is the target stationary or moving away at mach4?

Likely the F4 was flying at some speed when it was hit. The length of time it would take a missile traveling at mach 4 would depend on how fast the F4 was traveling.

If the target is moving at mach 4, then I would say a missile traveling at mach 4 chasing a target at mach 4 would never catch the target.

If your point is I don't know the details of what happened and I'm speculating, then you would be correct.

No F-4 ever flew at mach 4. Something just over mach 2 would be more like it. In any case, these aircraft are now well over fifty

years old...Occasionally,.they probably blow up and fall out of the sky without anybody shooting at them....:roll: