Downed Russian SU-24 black box first information

originally posted by: tanka418

Yep...just drawings; based on real world data. Though, I guessing, that because it doesn't meet your standards that the Turkish "drawing" is valid, and the Russian one isn't. Much data prejudice?

You are a bit of a comic.

Turkey released tracking data showing the exact path of the SU-24 clearly crossing through Turkish airspace...

Russia took a magic marker to a map claiming that was the path...

They then claimed the black box would confirm their artwork...

And surprise, surprise somehow every bit of data in that black box was "unrecoverable"..

Puhlees...

a reply to: tanka418

That was kind of my point. That the aircraft were indeed identified...and I can assure you that Russian military planes have transponders. You know; so that the Russian IFF works and they don't shoot down their own planes...

Good, so it was never in doubt that it was Russian planes that violated Turkish airspace. Why was someone trying to throw doubt on it?

Yep...just drawings; based on real world data. Though, I guessing, that because it doesn't meet your standards that the Turkish "drawing" is valid, and the Russian one isn't. Much data prejudice?

No, I simply have not seen this "real world data" you speak of. If you have, please provide a link to it. If not, perhaps you are the one with "data prejudice."

No, the reality is that we can use the "drawings" as a replacement for the missing black box data...which could only confirm, or deny, which "drawing" is the most accurate.

Too bad Russia can't produce the data from the black box to confirm which drawing most adequately reflects reality. There is no need to put quotes around the word drawing. That is all we have, drawings. The quotes go around the word "data," which is only alleged to exist.

Sorry man, but the data really does indicate that Russia never violated Turkish airspace. And, even IF we decide to use the bogus Turkish data, it still indicates that Turkey was the illegal aggressor here...

Data? What data? All I have seen is drawings from both sides. I find it odd that you consider the Turkish "data" to be bogus, as they have not released any... just a drawing. Are you sure you are being objective? Also, since when is defending your airspace an act of aggression?

Nope! That is entirely on Erdog(an)

Did Erdogan order Russian pilots to maneuver dangerously close to a declared "no fly zone?" Who did?

You should actually look at and make an attempt to understand the existing data.

I would love to. Please link to it.

For instance; the Turkish data shows the F-16 firing on the Russian at a distance of around 10 miles, and the subsequent 40+ seconds of missile flight to the SU-24. The problem is the AIM-9x missile only has about 35 - 38 seconds of fuel. Those last few miles were either pure fabrication, or the luckiest "hail Mary" shot in military aviation history.

Link, please.

The Russian "drawing" resolves all of the missile flight issues...unfortunately is also places the F-16 in Syrian air.

It doesn't matter what the drawing shows, the Russians need to provide some actual data.

I'm basing my conclusions on the mathematics, the probabilities of these things. Turkey relies way too much on an almost impossible shot to work. Thus; the Turkish data is a fabrication, that is easy to demonstrate. The Russian data relies on Turkey doing exactly what we might expect Turkey to do; cross into Syrian air to commit an act of aggression.

Link to data please.

If you would simply apply a little logic you can easily understand; course that also means you have to drop your anti-Russian bias.

I have weighed the evidence that both Turkey and Russia have provided even-handedly. Neither has provided data, just drawings, claims and accusations. If you have a source for actual data, please link to it. In the meantime, you might want to examine your own pro-Russian bias.

originally posted by: DJW001

I have weighed the evidence that both Turkey and Russia have provided even-handedly. Neither has provided data, just drawings, claims and accusations. If you have a source for actual data, please link to it. In the meantime, you might want to examine your own pro-Russian bias.

Now you're making me laugh.

You do realize that those "drawings" are graphical representations of that "real world data" I spoke of. Right?

Data are often reported in a graphical manner, as it is easier for Humans to understand. Thus these two different datasets can be evaluated, and analyzed by virtue of their graphical representation.

Creating these graphical representations is a part of what I do on a day to day basis. If you cannot accept the use of these graphical representations; then you have no opinion. Mostly because you are rejecting virtually all of the data upon which you can even begin to form an opinion.

As for links; you have the ability to search for yourself, besides, that way you know I'm not giving you biased stuff.

When you do your search you will notice that the requisite radar tracking drawing is available all over the Internet. Although, you can find both drawings at BBC.

All of the data used in my analysis is contained in the two drawings; amazing what One can do when they know how.

a reply to: Indigo5

Turkey released tracking data showing the exact path of the SU-24 clearly crossing through Turkish airspace...

Of cource Turkey showed us the exact plot the SUs flew...... How do you know that the Turkish radar plot shows the true path of the two SUs. Were you the one who presented the radar plot to the publick on behalf of the Turkish government?

originally posted by: Indigo5

You are a bit of a comic.

Turkey released tracking data showing the exact path of the SU-24 clearly crossing through Turkish airspace...

Russia took a magic marker to a map claiming that was the path...

They then claimed the black box would confirm their artwork...

And surprise, surprise somehow every bit of data in that black box was "unrecoverable"..

Puhlees...

Yes PLEASE

It seems a bit obvious that you are basing your conclusion on half the data.

Go find the complete Turkish radar tracking data...the one that shows the F-16 as well...do a time slice analysis.

Discover that Turkey launched an AIM-9x (probably "c") at a distance of 10 miles. This would be when the SU-24 first entered Turkish airspace (as differentiated from a "no fly zone"). You will see that the SU-24 took approximately 10 seconds to cover the 1.8 miles of Turkey, then re-entered Syria.

If you continue to the "impact zone" you will notice that it is some more than 30 seconds later. The AIM-9x (look it up on Wikipedia) has a range of 22 miles, it flies at a speed of Mach 2.7; this gives it a 38 second fuel supply. It was several miles short of its mark when it ran out of fuel!

There is another issue here as well; the AIM-9c (the most probable version) uses semi-active radar. Meaning that it is radar guided, but, relies on the aircraft radar transmitters to operate and maintain "lock". The Turkish F-16, by their data continued in a straight line toward the SU-24 entry point, it did not turn to keep it's radar lock on the Russian plane; thus the missile also "lost lock", and would have missed even if it had not run our of fuel.

If we try to use the Turkish data we find that it quite simply; doesn't work.

a reply to: tanka418

As for links; you have the ability to search for yourself, besides, that way you know I'm not giving you biased stuff.

This is usually what people say when they cannot find information that supports their claim: you look for it.

When you do your search you will notice that the requisite radar tracking drawing is available all over the Internet. Although, you can find both drawings at BBC.

A drawing is not data, it is a display of information. There is no way to verify the information without access to the data.

All of the data used in my analysis is contained in the two drawings; amazing what One can do when they know how.

In other words, you are assuming the Russian drawing is based on "real life data," and the Turkish one is not.

originally posted by: DJW001

In other words, you are assuming the Russian drawing is based on "real life data," and the Turkish one is not.

No! I was assuming that both were equal. It is/was the data itself that is determining which is most probably "real"...not my opinion.

originally posted by: DJW001

A drawing is not data, it is a display of information. There is no way to verify the information without access to the data.

You would not have the technology to view the data, and, IF you did, you would not be able to understand it.

Seriously man, this data isn't in any human readable form, it takes technology, to translate it into a form that can be used. That "usable form" is the representations we have available (drawings).

So...even IF you had that access you so desperately desire; you wouldn't be able to verify anything...and you'd be right where you are now...

Here's another aspect; Your versions, etc. would not hold up in a court of law. Mine would. The important difference is; you have rejected the data you need to perform an analysis; thus you are actually unable to reach a logical conclusion. I am using data that is accepted by all sides.

a reply to: tanka418

Here's another aspect; Your versions, etc. would not hold up in a court of law. Mine would. The important difference is; you have rejected the data you need to perform an analysis; thus you are actually unable to reach a logical conclusion. I am using data that is accepted by all sides.

My version is "I don't know." I'm pretty sure that would hold up in a court of law. Yours is based on a tissue of assumptions about drawings allegedly based on "real life data." In a court of law, it would be dismissed as speculation. Incidentally, I am not "desperate" for data. I am simply pointing out that you do not have access to it, which renders your oh-so-technical "analysis" meaningless.

originally posted by: DJW001

My version is "I don't know." I'm pretty sure that would hold up in a court of law. Yours is based on a tissue of assumptions about drawings allegedly based on "real life data." In a court of law, it would be dismissed as speculation. Incidentally, I am not "desperate" for data. I am simply pointing out that you do not have access to it, which renders your oh-so-technical "analysis" meaningless.

No...my version is based on internationally accepted data released by Turkey and Russia. It has been accepted as valid. Thus it is not speculation...it is science and math. All you have is opinion. An opinion, by the way, that has no foundation.

a reply to: tanka418

No...my version is based on internationally accepted data released by Turkey and Russia. It has been accepted as valid.

Okay then, post a link to the data, or at least to a reputable source that supports your claim that international experts have accepted it as valid. In a court of law, it is necessary to provide an evidentiary chain. So far, you have failed to do so. And even then, you have made a series of impressive sounding claims without showing your work. You claim to have done the math. Post it, please.

a reply to: DJW001

I was just reminding someone that Russia does indeed use troops without insignia, as admitted by Putin. What else is there to say, given that Ukraine is off topic?

Vlad the Impaler has an UN mandate to operate in Syria. Is there one for the Crimean peninsula as well? Nope, thought so.
How in hell is it remotely comparable then? You make me giggle a lot, I'll give you that.

A reader with a grasp of subtlety will notice the absence of the phrase "downed over Syrian territory."

Again:

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DJW001

Who on Ceres cares? Or as Erdogan would say:

“a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack”.

Right, it can't. When we talk about Turkish planes in Syrian airspace, of course.

Why did it take Turkey just 17 seconds to shoot down Russian jet?

An ambush they waited for, innit?

You're a reader? I didn't see you read, digest and reply to this fact, did I?

Still riding the dead horse of 'short term border violation', constantly pushing double standarts? Yep, thought so. Giggle away!

originally posted by: DJW001

Okay then, post a link to the data, or at least to a reputable source that supports your claim that international experts have accepted it as valid. In a court of law, it is necessary to provide an evidentiary chain. So far, you have failed to do so. And even then, you have made a series of impressive sounding claims without showing your work. You claim to have done the math. Post it, please.

Sorry dude, but I have to ask; "How lazy are you?"

So anyway...here...one of the images I used



It is from the Turkish government...via the BBC -- www.bbc.com...

You will have to do your own math, if you can...but, you will notice that the missile is required to travel farther, longer (time wise) than an AIM-9X has fuel for...thus it could not have been the missile that shot the SU down...though Turkey insists it is.

In other BBC articles you can find versions of the Russian data; which is at least something possible...shorter missile flight, though it was launched inside Syria.

Now then; you really need go get over yourself, and your hate for Putin and Russia. That way you aren't taken in by foundationless claims from opposing governments (like Turkey)...i.e. Turkey lied!

Do your own time-slice analysis...

Not sure if you noticed; but nearly the same data (not as complete)is posted right here on the page, from another ATSer, images from another intermediary, but ultimately both the Russian and Turkish military.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Vlad the Impaler has an UN mandate to operate in Syria. Is there one for the Crimean peninsula as well? Nope, thought so.

And exactly what mandate would that be?

As I can't seem to find anything that backs this claim.

As for Crimea...Russia blocks anything that the UN security council tries to pass concerning Crimea.

So there isn't much they can do..and Russia knew that.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Blinded by flags with Wolfsangel, I guess. Here you go:

US makes case at United Nations for cooperative effort to fight Isis

Wait... broad coalition? Vlad the Impaler is out then, is he? Hint:

Security council unanimously calls on UN members to fight Isis

Are we done with OT now? See ya in the other thread, looking forward to our next clash of cultures!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Vlad the Impaler has an UN mandate to operate in Syria. Is there one for the Crimean peninsula as well? Nope, thought so.

So Putin had no UN mandate to invade Crimea? Thank you, you've seen the light.

How in hell is it remotely comparable then? You make me giggle a lot, I'll give you that.

Putin invoked the "Hitler Doctrine" when he invaded Ukraine: "If a kindred ethic group is under threat in a nearby nation, it is legitimate to use military force against that nation without a formal declaration of war." Erdogan is using that doctrine in defense of the Turkmen of Syria. It was BS when Hitler used it, it was BS when Putin used it, and it is BS when Erdogan uses it. Nevertheless, it is the "fact on the ground" and it is hypocritical of Putin and his supporters to criticize Erdogan for using it.

Still riding the dead horse of 'short term border violation', constantly pushing double standarts? Yep, thought so. Giggle away!

Whether or not the Russian jet was in actual Turkish airspace is irrelevant, isn't it, never mind for how long? Erdogan dared Putin to send planes his way. Putin took the dare and lost. As I have patiently explained time and again, Putin and Erdogan are not playing by gentlemen's rules. Putin could not believe that anyone would dare shoot down a Russian plane for fear of the awful consequences. Erdogan called Putin's bluff. What were the awful consequences? Carpet bombing? Sinking the Turkish navy? Nope. "Sanctions." Oooooo, scary.

Giggle away. Gangster turf wars are hilarious, aren't they?

a reply to: tanka418

Do your own time-slice analysis...

I'm more interested in grading yours. Thank you for admitting that it is an image, not actual data. Now, the Russian and Turkish versions place the wreckage in two different places, so rather than performing analyses on missing data sets, why not simply take the two international observers out to the wreck with a GPS system? That would immediately falsify one-- or, more probably, both -- pictures. Have the Russians done this yet?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Do your own time-slice analysis...

I'm more interested in grading yours. Thank you for admitting that it is an image, not actual data. Now, the Russian and Turkish versions place the wreckage in two different places, so rather than performing analyses on missing data sets, why not simply take the two international observers out to the wreck with a GPS system? That would immediately falsify one-- or, more probably, both -- pictures. Have the Russians done this yet?

Ya know...logic kind says you would be better off performing your own analysis...they way you don't have to try to use non-existent data...it will also give you much needed practice at analyzing data...

And where you "think" I've admitted something...nope, sorry man, but in this case the image IS the data. As I said earlier, you have to come to terms with data in it's natural "state"...in this case graphical representations (drawings, images, etc.) until you can, you have nothing to say really...just a collection of words with no meaning. Is that what you are about...content without substance?

Love the way you thought that through! Problem is...it wouldn't reveal anything. Hell...you don't even know how far apart the respective crash sites are.

How about where the Turkish fired the missile Can you find it in the data?

Oh, and, there are no missing datasets...there are only 2 and we have them both! And, I have provided you with one and told where to find the other.

Perhaps you should endeavor to remember the words of Sherlock Holmes...

In any case; my providing you with data has proven a waste of my time, since you have neither the intent or the skill to do anything with it...your argument is a bust!

originally posted by: tanka418

Discover that Turkey launched an AIM-9x (probably "c") at a distance of 10 miles. This would be when the SU-24 first entered Turkish airspace (as differentiated from a "no fly zone"). You will see that the SU-24 took approximately 10 seconds to cover the 1.8 miles of Turkey, then re-entered Syria.

10 Seconds at 1.8 miles is 648 Miles per hour. The SU-24 has a top speed in the ballpark of 800 Miles per hour..

I don't care if the Russian Bomber was in Turkish airspace for 10 seconds or 10 minutes...their bad. they were repeatedly warned.

If a Russian bomber did a brief "10 second" fly-over Los Angeles, whilst dropping bombs a mile off the coast..you can bet your red butt that the USAF would drop that plane and there would be no apologies.