Downed Russian SU-24 black box first information

a reply to: DJW001

What was the Russian plane's airspeed and altitude? I will need that data to calculate where the plane was struck.

He decides who goes in the line of fire. If he respected Erdogan's unilateral no fly zone, the pilots would still be alive.

so you dont know where the plane was struck but you seem to be sure that they crossed into a no fly zone.. wow.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

so you dont know where the plane was struck but you seem to be sure that they crossed into a no fly zone.. wow.

I guess you missed these posts:


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.

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.

Now, do you have any analysis of your own?

* This is in error. The actual missile was an AIM-120 AMRAAM, as specified earlier:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: DJW001

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.

Thank you. However it only explains my delay in responding.

I like that "more experienced member"! Experienced at what? Twisting fact and conversation to favor your views? Not a skill I find valuable, I prefer to use the real facts, logic and science...quite unlike you.

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, exactly did this become a first year math class? I tend to leave out the middle parts, the "how I got there" because typically the reader is incapable of understand it...it usually being in a language that very few people can understand...tell me; do you "speak C?" Do you even know what "C" is?

As for the "links"; links are pointers...you are fully capable of "plugging" the element referenced into a search engine...I typically find this better than using another's "link" because I know that it is less biased toward the other's use...giving me a better understanding.

Let's begin with some definitions. Data is a measured quantity.

Not quite...

Data : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation

-- www.merriam-webster.com...

Data is not always "measured", sometimes it is inferred, calculated, or derived from a subset of reality.

Your example of a dragon; If that dragon exists as an image on my computer; it is made entirely of data...probably (in my case) generated by a 3D modeling and rendering system. But, make no mistake; it is still data...

What the Russians and Turks presented us with was in no sense data.

No...What the Russians and Turks presented were indeed datasets. And, in as much as both data sets were from an "official" source, thus the data is fair game for analysis in this case. The fact that we were denied corroborating data is sad, but, that in no way prevents us from analyzing the extant datasets to determine which one is the most probable.

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."

Sorry man, been working with computers since the late 1960's A 5 second spread is quite unacceptable...my idea of about11 seconds is 10.5 - 11.5 seconds. You see the link at the bottom of my post? Do you think my "Bot" would be very useful if I allowed something as sloppy as that? If I were that imprecise it would become almost impossible to identify the individual stars in a field of view.

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.

Actually this is your incorrect assumption. I started off not knowing, so I asked; I was told by several "AIM-9X", and, by the way; specifically the "9X". I thought that the AIM-120 was a better choice myself. It has greater range, is radar guided...better choice; right? We were both wrong on that...the missile was an AIM-9.

Here's why; The AIM-120 is a Mach 4 missile, and would have traveled the 10 miles from launch to impact is only a few short seconds, and the SU-24, probably would not have left Turkish air...this would make the shoot down "clean". But, the radar data provided shows the SU-24 being "hit" by the missile some 20+ seconds after it reentered Syrian air; thus the missile wasn't traveling at mach 4. AND, if we do the calculations the missile would be traveling at a speed only slightly faster that the AIM-9X. The AIM-9x being our only remaining option for the missile...as Sherlock Holms would have said; eliminate all the possibilities, and what is left must be truth.

The missile was an AIM-9x!

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,

Actually the 11 seconds was your estimate. My original was 10 seconds...based on an aircraft flying at 500kn over a distance of 1.8 miles. This was measured using Google Earth...perhaps not he best measurement source, but, since I'm in Texas, it was difficult for me to get the wife to go an measure the actual distance over in turkey (wife is civil engineer).The 9.6 second value was derived by increasing the speed of the aircraft to your 85% power assumption...I was assuming 65%.

Oh and by the way; I'm an Electrical / Software Engineer so I hope you understand my insistence on a wee bit more precision than you.

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.

I want to contradict this, but, in all honesty; it is plausible, but only just. The probability of that shot is very low, and it is entirely likely the Russians knew the missile was coming (their onboard radar should have warned them), and they likely took some evasive measure...at the distance the missile was traveling it wouldn't take much to evade it.

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

Logic demands it was an AIM-9X (Sidewinder)...the calculations strongly suggest the Turkish data is in error.

If your calculations show that your assumptions are false, admit that you made a mistake.

NO! if calculations are wrong...find out "WHY"! Then made corrections.

a reply to: tanka418

NO! if calculations are wrong...find out "WHY"! Then made corrections.

I've tried to explain why your calculations are wrong but you refuse to listen. As a result, you look more like an impetuous teenager than an adult software engineer. As a software engineer you presumably understand the value of "fuzzy logic." Humans do not measure with the precision you seem to assume. If you do not want to learn, there is nothing I can do about it. I don't like to blow my horn, but look at my join date, stars, flags, etc. Compare them with your own. The reason I get so many stars is not because I twist facts, but because I lay out my reasons in detail. (Oh, and I don't need to speak C. I learned Basic and Fortran back in the day day and now have the leisure of letting other people take care of menial programming tasks.)

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


As a software engineer you presumably understand the value of "fuzzy logic."

Apparently you have absolutely no idea when, where, how, and most importantly "why" fuzzy logic is applied...

Humans do not measure with the precision you seem to assume.

Then why does you computer work Why does your car run? Why does that last bridge you crossed over still stand?

No...sorry ,but working with precision is something that One cannot slack on. You speak of "back in the day"...so...back in the day a company called Digital Equipment Corp. was around. They built a line of mini computers that were rather famous, and well used at places like Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL). The equipment line was called PDP## as in PDP11. The PDP: stood for precision data processor. The use of precision is what allows the modern world to work. Seriously man; would you measure with a yard stick, mark with chalk and cut with an axe? If you do, that bridge won't stand for long. neither will your house, your car wont run, etc.

If you do not want to learn, there is nothing I can do about it. I don't like to blow my horn, but look at my join date, stars, flags, etc. Compare them with your own. The reason I get so many stars is not because I twist facts, but because I lay out my reasons in detail. (Oh, and I don't need to speak C. I learned Basic and Fortran back in the day day and now have the leisure of letting other people take care of menial programming tasks.)

It is not so much that I don't want to learn, more like you have nothing to teach...and your "horn"; is broken as are your numbers...so please get a grip.

Basic...beginners all-purpose symbolic instruction code. Microsoft tried to make that a respectable language, after all it could be used by non computer types to create applications...Business executives, mechanics, carpenters, high school kids are not software types and can not be made into one with any language no matter how simple it is.

The "art" of Formula Translation never quite caught on, and neither did Fortran. Not that it wasn't a reasonable language with some ability and power, but it, like basic were doomed in the late 60's when Bell labs released the "C" language. Evolved C is used today by everybody for virtually all advanced programming tasks. This is because it is the only language that can handle all of the modern constructs required...That machine you are using right now...has at its core an operating system written entirely in C+.

By the way Fortran was my first language. That lasted until I got my first job, then I learned how the world really was...and I started using assembly and machine languages.

In any case its not the leisure that compels you to employ software people, it is the fact that you quite simply couldn't write anything that works. Software is not something that anybody can do...IF you knew anything about the discipline you would not be so insulting to the people that make your world work!

a reply to: tanka418

Apparently you have never heard of the "Cocktail Napkin Calculation." Pity. It can save you from exerting a lot of effort in the wrong direction. In any event, this is getting off target. (I learned to program on a PDP 8.)

Edit to add: All I know is that you have been attacking me personally (not my methodology) without actually defending your own work.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Apparently you have never heard of the "Cocktail Napkin Calculation." Pity. It can save you from exerting a lot of effort in the wrong direction. In any event, this is getting off target. (I learned to program on a PDP 8.)

Edit to add: All I know is that you have been attacking me personally (not my methodology) without actually defending your own work.

I haven't used cocktail napkins since the early 80's at National Semi. Phd "chip" designers would scribble stuff then expect me to build it...required great precision.

Have I, been attacking 'you'? I don't remember ay specific instances, although, IF I did, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. (at least not until that last post).

And, I'm not of the opinion that my work needed any defending...I see it as quite clear, and rather solid. As contrasted to yours that appears to be anything remotely usable to establish an opposing view. All through your posts you continuously attempt to vilify Russia and Putin, while leaving his opposition relatively alone...you almost see to go out of your way in this regard.

a reply to: tanka418

And, I'm not of the opinion that my work needed any defending...I see it as quite clear, and rather solid. As contrasted to yours that appears to be anything remotely usable to establish an opposing view.

Your work is based entirely on assumptions you do not even articulate. What makes you think I am trying to establish an opposing view? I started with the assumption that both Turkey and Russia are lying, then tried to see if there was any internal evidence that supports one or the other. Russia's claims are too vague for any analysis in depth. I was able to show that Turkey's imagery supported its story, which makes it likely that the image represented real data. I then showed that this data was also consistent with the use of an AIM - 120 missile.

It is traditional in academia to defend one's thesis. If you don't feel like it, that's your prerogative, but please don't say that it's because people are stupid and won't understand your calculations.

originally posted by: DJW001
I then showed that this data was also consistent with the use of an AIM - 120 missile.

Well, actually, no you didn't. The AIM-120 would have hit the plane within 15 seconds of launch. This is not consistent with the distances traveled by the plane.

The plane traveled some 7.23km after it left Turkish air before it was hit (about 25 seconds)...there is a wee matter of 10 seconds of Mach 4 flight unaccounted for, thus the missile could not be an AIM-120. Sorry man, but the facts kind of demand the AIM-9X, and only the AIM-9X...

By-the-way; my interpretation is that the Turkish pilot fired in desperation and in spite of everything being against him, succeeded.

Every time I look at the Russian data, I can't help but think WTF!?!! It seems to have a sort of "built-in" credibility issue. Although, that doesn't justify Turkey's actions.

a reply to: tanka418

The plane traveled some 7.23km after it left Turkish air before it was hit (about 25 seconds)...there is a wee matter of 10 seconds of Mach 4 flight unaccounted for, thus the missile could not be an AIM-120. Sorry man, but the facts kind of demand the AIM-9X, and only the AIM-9X...

No, it did not. Please go back and read my posts and try to understand them. You seem not to understand that airplanes don't fall straight down when they get hit. Both alleged crash sites are consistent with the plane being hit in Turkish airspace. This could be easily accomplished by a missile traveling at Mach 4 launched as the jet crossed into Turkey. Have you even bothered to read my posts? Why do you keep beating a dead horse? Your own calculations prove that it was not a Sidewinder. Why do you keep insisting that was a logical choice?

I give up. Could one of the five people who keep starring tanka's posts please explain why you believe his argument makes sense?

a reply to: DJW001

You ask IF I've read your posts, I have. I have to ask; "Have you actually looked at the data?"


I ask this because you apparently have absolutely no idea where the crash site was...

try this...





You will notice that the actual crash site is way too far for a broken, pilotless plane to glide...(over 15km)...

The data is only consistent with the AIM-9X...no matter how much you want it to be different.

a reply to: tanka418

You're not reading the graphic properly. Look at the picture from the BBC. They read the graphic correctly.

ETA: If the point you mark is the crash site, why does the plane turn around and keep going?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

You're not reading the graphic properly. Look at the picture from the BBC. They read the graphic correctly.

ETA: If the point you mark is the crash site, why does the plane turn around and keep going?

Sorry man, but it is you that isn't reading the graphic correctly. That "line" stops at the crash site!

And, yes, please; look at the BBC image...you will see that their reported "Turkish crash site" is virtually identical with mine....probably because they are derived from the same data.


Also, earlier you complained about me leaving things out...it's true, I tend to leave out explanation of things I think are obvious...you seem to be missing the obvious!

ETA: Here is a link to someone's analysis of the crash site location. You will see that it is consistent with my analysis.


[

a reply to: tanka418

It is consistent with my analysis. Note that the crash site is not where the red line ends, but is closer to the M marking the impact. Your source agrees with me that the Turks are telling the truth. The M on the right indicates when the missile was fired, the M on the left when it hit. Clearly, the missile was traveling at least twice as fast as the jet. It was an MX-120, nota Sidewinder.

ETA:





ETA: I initially thought your red line was indicating where the aircraft turned around.

a reply to: DJW001


roflmao! You still have at least a 10 second discrepancy,


But, you insist that it is your way, because it can't be anything else!


An AIM-120 would have hit those 10 seconds earlier...but what the hell let us just ignore the data, K?

a reply to: tanka418

So do you at least agree with your source? Turkey is telling the truth after all?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

So do you at least agree with your source? Turkey is telling the truth after all?

My source?!? My source is the data provided!

And, yes, I think the Turkish version of the data is closer to reality than the Russian, but, I've already said that.

Do I think Turkey was justified in shooting down the Russian plane?

No! Absolutely not! In as much as there is no declared "no-fly zone" Turkey's action was criminal, and war-mongering. The coward Turks shot down the Russian because they could hide behind NATO. They should be thanking Allah that Russia hasn't done more about yet. They should pray to Allah that Russia continues to let it slide.

a reply to: tanka418

So after spending the past two days claiming that Turkey was lying, and refusing to accept my analysis, suddenly you now think they are telling the truth?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

So after spending the past two days claiming that Turkey was lying, and refusing to accept my analysis, suddenly you now think they are telling the truth?

Wow, just wow! You cannot let anything alone! You just have to try to twist things to your view!

What I said:

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.

And I still stand by that assessment! I still think it was highly improbable that the story, as told by the Turks, played out that way. But, there is a remote probability that it could...given a little help from the Russians not paying attention as they should have.

The data shows that Turkey was completely wrong, and quite unjustified in their actions. But, you just can't give anything to Putin and Russia, so...twist away!

Throughout this whole discussion you have tried everything you can to prove Turkey's justification, and failed. So...just give it up! Turkey and you are wrong!

I'm sorry man, but you are biased into a non-linear region and will ultimately find yourself in thermal run away.

Sad.