Downed Russian SU-24 black box first information

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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.

What? Where? When? Link please?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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!

No where in those links was Russia or Putin given a "UN Mandate to operate in Syria"??

Zipp..Nada...strange that you would try to pass it off? Just thinking people don't read links?

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

You should check out the legal concept of "Transit Passage" -- en.wikipedia.org...

It appears that Russia had the legal right to pass over Turkey's short bit of dirt.

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.

This is a really bad analogy!

Firstly the border off of LA is at least 12 miles out to sea. And, even IF they wee dropping bombs, they would still be given the chance to leave...the USAF wouldn't fire until the Russians refused.

In the present case, the Russians were dropping bombs near the Turkey border, but not in Turkey, thus they were not a threat to Turkey, and even IF there were previous "warnings" Russia is still entitled to the opportunity to leave.

Next: In as much as the Turkish data has been found to be entirely in error, when Turkey fired on the Russian plane; it was in Syria. Making the Turkish action illegal, and an act of war.

There is absolutely no way Turkey can justify shooting at what amounted to an allied plane. Please remember, that both Russia and Turkey are members of the UN, and supposedly both fighting ISIS...

originally posted by: Indigo5
No where in those links was Russia or Putin given a "UN Mandate to operate in Syria"??

Zipp..Nada...strange that you would try to pass it off? Just thinking people don't read links?

Except that Russia was asked by Syria for assistance...and, those UN resolutions go a fair way to justifying and supporting Russia's actions.

a reply to: DJW001

Work on your reading comprehension, DJ. That was a rather pathetic invitation to the other OT string. Think I'll pass on that one, see ya in the other thread.

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.

Funny that you say that. It's all Vlads fault after all, innit?

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?

Newsflash for you: Erdogan had nothing better in mind than his little invasion in iraq and a new series of bomb-runs on the Kurds, after this glorious defense of his imaginary borders. Guess how that turned out!
Right. Good bye EU membership! That creep pushed his little Empire too far, don't see that happening anymore. And it's a pity! He ruined the hard work of years, if not decades, within months.

Dutch Parliament calls on EU to freeze funds for Turkey

Giggle away some sanctions, eh? Yep. I love my Dutch! Pun intended.



Watch out, kids! That's what happenes when you 'kinda elect' a Trump!





a reply to: Indigo5

Russia is no UN member, you say? Now that's news to me.

Besides from that they do have an invitation from Assad, don't they?

How in hell isn't there a mandate and why shouldn't they be well within their legal rights now? Care to elaborate?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You're not one to talk about reading comprehension. What part of "the law is irrelevant" do you not understand? As for "Putin is to blame," that's not excusing Erdogan; I'm just trying to get the Putinolators to wake up. Vladimir Vladimorovich is Commander in Chief. He decides who goes in the line of fire. If he respected Erdogan's unilateral no fly zone, the pilots would still be alive. Once again, international law is about as relevant as anti- bootlegging laws were to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

a reply to: tanka418

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!

What was the Russian plane's airspeed and altitude? I will need that data to calculate where the plane was struck. I don't see that data on the cartoon you provided. Until you can provide that data I cannot double check your work.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Interesting piece of journalism here - from the Netherlands as well - Nieuwsuur's Tom Kleijn interviews Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. OIriginal broadcast on 17-12-2015.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

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!

What was the Russian plane's airspeed and altitude? I will need that data to calculate where the plane was struck. I don't see that data on the cartoon you provided. Until you can provide that data I cannot double check your work.

Speed: approx. 500 knots
Altitude: unimportant. Use 2 dimensions...actually the third dimension "delta" is small enough that the effects is negligible...(we don't need to worry about feet nor milliseconds)...

a reply to: tanka418

Altitude: unimportant. Use 2 dimensions...actually the third dimension "delta" is small enough that the effects is negligible...(we don't need to worry about feet nor milliseconds)...

Actually, the altitude is the crux of the matter. The idea is to calculate how far the aircraft could travel before it hit the ground. Where did you get 500 nautical miles per hour, by the way?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Altitude: unimportant. Use 2 dimensions...actually the third dimension "delta" is small enough that the effects is negligible...(we don't need to worry about feet nor milliseconds)...

Actually, the altitude is the crux of the matter. The idea is to calculate how far the aircraft could travel before it hit the ground. Where did you get 500 nautical miles per hour, by the way?

Really!??!! And here I thought it was more important to calculate IF the missile could reach the plane in the first place.

So...you are saying that the missile could somehow reach the plane even IF it ran out of fuel? How does that work? No, sorry man, the altitude is unimportant in this case.

As for the speed: that was the guess of a retired USAF General, don't remember his name, and I'm not finding it for you. However, 500kn is a reasonable velocity, and consistent with Turkey's radar data. Although, if you want; the speed can be refined by actually using the radar data...another task for you.

a reply to: tanka418

Really!??!! And here I thought it was more important to calculate IF the missile could reach the plane in the first place.

Interesting... you want to work out whether the missile could reach the aircraft without knowing where the aircraft was. We have two locations for a crash site. If we can work out how far the aircraft traveled after it was hit, we can constrain where it might have been when it was hit. That would determine whether or not it was shot down by an air to air missile as claimed, or by a surface to air missile. Remember, I consider it equally like that Turkey and Russia are lying: Russia about whether or not the plane entered Turkish airspace, and Turkey about how it was shot down.

As I said, we could falsify one or both of the alleged flight paths if an independent observer could get a GPS fix on the wreck. The semi-major axis of the ellipse describing the debris field would provide a vector pointing towards the plane's actual flight path. I will get back to this later, I have things to do in the real world at the moment.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

You should check out the legal concept of "Transit Passage" -- en.wikipedia.org...

It appears that Russia had the legal right to pass over Turkey's short bit of dirt.

Nope..Not even close...

Transit passage is a "concept", not law and applicable strictly to the SEA...not land.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Thanks!


a reply to: DJW001

He decides who goes in the line of fire.

What the heck are you rambling about, this is war rhetorics. So you don't think we should remind Erdogan to actually practice what he preaches?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

You should check out the legal concept of "Transit Passage" -- en.wikipedia.org...

It appears that Russia had the legal right to pass over Turkey's short bit of dirt.

Nope..Not even close...

Transit passage is a "concept", not law and applicable strictly to the SEA...not land.

I guess you don't read much, eh?

Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.

This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[2] most countries, including the U.S.,[3] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

It is related to "Innocent Passage"...

A term of international law referring to a ship or aircraft's right to enter and pass through another's territory so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the other state.

-- www.duhaime.org...

It appears that you need more ducks, and be sure to arrange them in a row...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: [post=20196227]
Interesting... you want to work out whether the missile could reach the aircraft without knowing where the aircraft was.

What the hell are you talking about?!!!

We know precisely where each aircraft was, and in this instance we have the Turkish military and government "certifying" it's accuracy...

W can derive from the data where each plane was when the missile was fired. With a wee bit of math we can even determine the precise course the missile took to its destination. So, what's your problem?

You seem to want to not just willfully remain ignorant here, but take active measures to deliberately obfuscate the nearly obvious. Your actions are not those of One who is trying to deny ignorance, but willfully. actively embrace it.

If you do not want to know the truth, that's fine...however you do not have the right to actively interfere with another's attempts to find truth. Doing so makes you by far more evil than you try to make Putin out to be, and destroys your credibility.

a reply to: tanka418

We know precisely where each aircraft was, and in this instance we have the Turkish military and government "certifying" it's accuracy...

W can derive from the data where each plane was when the missile was fired. With a wee bit of math we can even determine the precise course the missile took to its destination. So, what's your problem?

I have been extremely patient with you. I have explained why the picture you have been calling "data" cannot be relied on. Here is your blurry "data":



Don't you find it a bit odd that the circling Turkish plane makes random accelerations? This is where the dots get suddenly further apart.

Here is the Russian version of events. It, too, is a drawing, not data:



Source.

For some reason, the plane, which is apparently headed back to its base at Latakia, skirted the Turkish border, then suddenly veered north, rather than continuing to the south. Does taht seem reasonable to you? Ultimately, they claim the plane landed about four kilometers south of the Turkish border.

This graphic from the BBC illustrates the differing claims of Turkey and Russia:



Since the indeterminacy principle does not apply here, the plane cannot go down at both locations. One, the other, or neither must be where the plane went down. Do you understand why your claim to know precisely where the plane was looks foolish? Both Turkey and Russia have reason to lie: Turkey to justify shooting the plane down, and Russia to protest its innocence. Okay?

The only thing we know for certain is that the laws of physics apply. We can use them to set constraints on the possible location(s) of the plane when it was struck by the missile, irrespective of any methodology involving completely believing either side.

Can we agree that when an object falls, the time it takes to hit the ground, t, is equal to the square root of twice its altitude, d, divided by the acceleration due to gravity, g. In other words, t=(2d/g)^1/2, where g= 9.8 m/s^2. I can explain how this is derived, if you would like.

Now it just so happens I was able to provide a source that allegedly gives the plane's altitude when it was struck:

President Putin said the plane, which had two crew members, was flying at an altitude of 6,000m (19,685ft) when it was hit by an air-to-air missile.

Source.

Despite my blinding hatred of Putin, 6,000 meters sounds like a reasonable altitude. If we assume he is telling the truth, we finally have one datum. When we plug that into the above equation, we find that it took about 35 seconds for the wreck to fall to Earth.

Now the plane was not standing still, it was moving very quickly and, since it had a lot of mass, it had a great deal of momentum carrying it forward. A quick look at the plane's specs suggests that it was probably traveling at around 1.200 k/hr.

Source.

1,200 k/hr is about 1/3 kilometer per second. Since took about 35 seconds to fall, that means it probably traveled 11 or 12 kilometers horizontally before it crashed. Since we don't know what direction the plane was traveling, we can constrain the location where it was hit by drawing an 11 kilometer radius around each purported crash site on a map:



Either way, it appears likely that the plane passed through Turkish airspace. Since the AIM-120 travels at 4.900 k/hr, has a range of up to 180 km, and has a "fire and forget" guidance mode, there is no obstacle to it being fired the moment the Russian jet entered Turkish airspace and hitting its target in under 11 seconds. In fact, the overlap in the above diagram roughly matches the position the Turkish "data" suggests.

Source.

Any questions?

a reply to: tanka418

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.

Time for me to grade your work. Let's run some numbers: the AIM 9X travels at 4,900 k/hr. This means it covers about 1.4 kilometers in a second. The Russian jet is shown cutting across Turkish airspace for about eleven seconds, which means that if the pilot fired the moment the jet crossed into Turkey, and he was waiting for that to happen, the missile would have to have been fired from about 14 kilometers away in order to reach the target before it left the kill zone. Here is that approximate distance indicated on a map:



Note that the position indicated on the alleged Turkish radar image is a near perfect match:



Conclusion: Very high probability that the Turks are telling the truth.

Your grade: 0 out of 10. If you had shown your work like I asked I might have given you a few points for effort.

a reply to: DJW001


I'm sorry man, but, I've comedown with something and am having a terrible time
of focusing right now...so I'll just point out some blatant / gross exceptions (errors) .


1. The speed of the AIM-9X (Sidewinder) missile isn't 4900kph...it is 3308kph; a significant difference.
2. your velocity and transit times don't "match" mathematically...for instance at 1200kph, it takes measurably less than 11 seconds to cross 2.9 kilometers...or about 9.6 seconds.
3. While I do congratulate you on finding the missile launch point, your estimate of the distance is lacking; more like 16km.


While your estimate of the planes speed is perhaps better than mine, I don't think it is to common for military aircraft to cruse at near 85% power...I was instructed to set cruse at 65% (by my father; a veteran ww2 fighter pilot).


Anyway, when I am recovered, and caught up with my clients, I'll post a more detailed analysis. By the way; IF the navigator in the SU was doing his job, and he probably was, then when the SU was hit his speed would have been closer to 100%, as they both would have known that the AIM-9 was at it's range limit and they actually could have "out run" the missile.

And, you can take your "grade" and pack it where the Sun, he does not shine! I'm not doing this for a grade, or even to "win" your approval; I do it for FUN and TRUTH.

And on that note I have to say that your admission of your hatred for Putin; virtually disqualifies everything you say where He or Russia is involved. Your bias taints your words, and thoughts.

a reply to: tanka418

I'm sorry man, but, I've comedown with something and am having a terrible time of focusing right now.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. Perhaps that explains why you have not been thinking clearly. I think it's sad that you have not taken advantage of an opportunity to learn from a more experienced member. I admire your wanting to analyze things scientifically, but to do that, you need to explain your methodology and show your work. Include links to your sources, as I have done in my previous two posts. This allows others to follow your reasoning, and double check your figures.

When someone poses a question, do not get defensive and certainly do not attack them personally. Instead, try to answer the question. It may involve double checking your sources or questioning your assumptions. For example, when you stated that the "data" was accepted by international experts you did not bother to see whether it was a fact, or an assumption on your part.

Let's begin with some definitions. Data is a measured quantity. It can be used to create graphs, maps and other visual displays, at which point this context turns it into information. Not all graphic representations are based on data; a picture of a dragon is not the result of measurement or observation

What the Russians and Turks presented us with was in no sense data. They each presented us with a story, accompanied by a picture to support their story. Each story made a testable prediction: where the crashed aircraft would be found. From a scientific perspective, this is really the only part of the stories that matters. Both sides had reasons to lie, therefore one, the other, or both stories and pictures could be false. This is why I started with the claimed position of the wreck: this will eventually be verifiable.

The object of the first set of calculations was not to falsify either story, but to see how plausible it was based on internal evidence. If we knew what altitude the plane was at and how fast it was traveling, we could determine the likelihood of its being in Turkish airspace when it was hit. Vladimir Putin casually provided a bit of data. When he said 5,000 meters, he obviously didn't mean exactly 5,000 meters. It might have been 4,857 m or 5,098 m. Either way, 5,000 meters is a plausible cruising altitude for that type of craft. and that figure will allow one to do some rough calculations:

Which brings me to the next friendly critique: you seem to assume figures are more precise than they really are. "Around eleven seconds" means "between 8 and 13 seconds." You will note that I always rounded in my calculations. We don't know the precise altitude, we do not know the precise speed. Your analysis is flawed because, among other things, you did not understand the concept of "significant digits."

Perhaps the biggest mistake you made was to assume that the missile used was an AIM-9X. You did not cite a source for this belief, you just started calculating. When your figures indicated that it could not have been a Sidewinder, you concluded not that your assumption was wrong, but that the Turks lied. Does that strike you as logical?

In any event, my first calculation showed that, given plausible estimates of altitude and speed, the Turkish version shows that the jet could well have been in undisputed Turkish airspace. What I found surprising was that the Russian version was also consistent with the jet being over Turkish territory! (Perhaps they are already hedging their bets.) In and of itself, this proves nothing. When the wreckage is located it will confirm or falsify the stories.

1. The speed of the AIM-9X (Sidewinder) missile isn't 4900kph...it is 3308kph; a significant difference.

Correct. My mistake. (Always admit your mistakes if you wish to retain your credibility.) I typed AIM-9X because that's what you said in the post I was responding to. Had you clicked on the link to the source I was using for my data, you would have seen that I was using the specs to the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the missile that was probably used:

Source.

Do you understand why it is important to link to your sources now? Do you understand why it is important to check other members' sources before yo respond to them?

2. your velocity and transit times don't "match" mathematically...for instance at 1200kph, it takes measurably less than 11 seconds to cross 2.9 kilometers...or about 9.6 seconds.

This is exactly what I warned you about. 9.6 seconds is about 11 seconds. I'm not sure where the 11 second figure even comes from. I don't think it is the result of an actual measurement, I suspect that it is simply a rhetorical talking point. It did seem to be a plausible quantity, however, and I was actually surprised how closely the results fitted with the alleged Turkish radar trace!

3. While I do congratulate you on finding the missile launch point, your estimate of the distance is lacking; more like 16km.

Thank you. I was not trying to determine the exact launching point; I was just trying to see if Turkey's radar plot was plausible. It is.

While your estimate of the planes speed is perhaps better than mine, I don't think it is to common for military aircraft to cruse at near 85% power...I was instructed to set cruse at 65% (by my father; a veteran ww2 fighter pilot).

I assumed that they knew they were crossing into potentially hazardous airspace and went as quickly as they could while keeping a bit in reserve.

Anyway, when I am recovered, and caught up with my clients, I'll post a more detailed analysis. By the way; IF the navigator in the SU was doing his job, and he probably was, then when the SU was hit his speed would have been closer to 100%, as they both would have known that the AIM-9 was at it's range limit and they actually could have "out run" the missile.

It wasn't a Sidewinder; your own calculations proved that.

I'm not doing this for a grade, or even to "win" your approval; I do it for FUN and TRUTH.

In that case you must learn to be more objective. If your calculations show that your assumptions are false, admit that you made a mistake.

And on that note I have to say that your admission of your hatred for Putin; virtually disqualifies everything you say where He or Russia is involved. Your bias taints your words, and thoughts.

It would also help if you develop a sense of humor; my aside was sarcastic, and addressed to certain members who think that wanting the best for the Russian people makes them Russophobes, and that not worshiping Putin as the Savior of the World means that they have a blind hatred for him. Also, just because someone or some thing is biased does not completely disqualify them. It is up to the consumer of information to apply critical thinking to everything: even if it is something you agree with.