Turkey Shoots Down Jet Near Syria Border

Turkey Shoots Down Jet Near Syria Border

Author
Discussion

glazbagun

14,259 posts

196 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Without wanting to turn this into Pprune, I ran into this article on East German Mig 29's vs contemporary F-16's (TL:DR Mig is better at dogfighting, little else) which mentions how woeful the navigation system is. Now this was ~1990, but given how old the SU 24 is (and how important the Mig 29 was), and the dumb target/lack of AA defence they're expecting, could it be a simple case of 70's navigation causing pilot to think he's further south than he is, then finding himself being chased by by a 90's missile?


http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm


marshall100

1,124 posts

200 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Apols, that should have been F35.

However it begs the question, what's a fair fight on the side of the Russians vs an F16?

eharding

13,600 posts

283 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Without wanting to turn this into Pprune, I ran into this article on East German Mig 29's vs contemporary F-16's (TL:DR Mig is better at dogfighting, little else) which mentions how woeful the navigation system is. Now this was ~1990, but given how old the SU 24 is (and how important the Mig 29 was), and the dumb target/lack of AA defence they're expecting, could it be a simple case of 70's navigation causing pilot to think he's further south than he is, then finding himself being chased by by a 90's missile?


http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
Now you mention it, that *is* quite interesting. This video still from earlier this year ostensibly shows a civilian Garmin GPS jury-rigged in an SU-24.



Given that the Russians have put considerable effort into building their own Glosnass system, you have to ask yourself why a Russian military crew would be relying on some dodgy bit of aftermarket kit, but the vagaries of procurement processes obey their own laws which don't respect any national boundaries.

From personal experience, civilian GPS units invariably lose track when maneuvering loads exceed 4g or thereabouts - on and off, over the years, we've been strapping high-resolution recording accelerometers into various aerobatic kit at Waltham combined with GPS sensors, and you can see the quality of the GPS fix rapidly decay once the g-loading increases - in fact, you can see some GPS units extrapolating completely bogus data, particularly in altitude, as the quality of fix decays. The 4g limit seems to be a cost-related measure - the amount of processing power put into unit just isn't designed for higher dynamic limits, because most civilian applications, even in aviation, don't regularly experience those loads - rather than the altitude/speed limits the US DoD impose.

If the crew involved in this incident really were relying on some dodgy consumer GPS in a high-performance jet, when even short periods of aggressive maneuvering would be likely to significantly degrade the quality of the position fix, then I'm not surprised it all went seriously tits-up in the end.


Edited by eharding on Thursday 26th November 00:06

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

131 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
No chance , these guys are top the pile professionals and i'm sure some evidence will back these claims .
A professional would understand the distinction between altitude and latitude by longitude

Captain Konstantin Murakhtin said:
"No, this is out of the question even for a one-second possibility, as we were at the altitude of 6,000 metres and the weather was clear.

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
eharding said:
From personal experience, civilian GPS units invariably lose track when maneuvering loads exceed 4g or thereabouts - on and off, over the years, we've been strapping high-resolution recording accelerometers into various aerobatic kit at Waltham combined with GPS sensors, and you can see the quality of the GPS fix rapidly decay once the g-loading increases - in fact, you can see some GPS units extrapolating completely bogus data, particularly in altitude, as the quality of fix decays. The 4g limit seems to be a cost-related measure - the amount of processing power put into unit just isn't designed for higher dynamic limits, because most civilian applications, even in aviation, don't regularly experience those loads - rather than the altitude/speed limits the US DoD impose.
Out of interest, how does loading affect GPS reception? I can't think processing power has anything to do with it, isn't it more likely that during a turn or whatever the unit is just losing reception from some satellites? The GPS signal is in the 1.2/1.5GHz range which is easily attenuated by things in the way.

I enjoy the slight irony of Russians using a US technology in their military though smile

eharding

13,600 posts

283 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
rxtx said:
eharding said:
From personal experience, civilian GPS units invariably lose track when maneuvering loads exceed 4g or thereabouts - on and off, over the years, we've been strapping high-resolution recording accelerometers into various aerobatic kit at Waltham combined with GPS sensors, and you can see the quality of the GPS fix rapidly decay once the g-loading increases - in fact, you can see some GPS units extrapolating completely bogus data, particularly in altitude, as the quality of fix decays. The 4g limit seems to be a cost-related measure - the amount of processing power put into unit just isn't designed for higher dynamic limits, because most civilian applications, even in aviation, don't regularly experience those loads - rather than the altitude/speed limits the US DoD impose.
Out of interest, how does loading affect GPS reception? I can't think processing power has anything to do with it, isn't it more likely that during a turn or whatever the unit is just losing reception from some satellites? The GPS signal is in the 1.2/1.5GHz range which is easily attenuated by things in the way.
The dynamic acceleration doesn't affect reception of the signal, it screws with the correlation processing which assumes the dynamic acceleration to be within certain limits - at least that's my understanding of the issue. Way back in the day we *did* think it was airframe blanking of the antenna that was the problem, cue some experiments with expensive multi-antenna systems and hanging in the straps inverted squinting at the GPS waiting it for to drop out, but it was always when you started to rock and roll in an aerobatic sequence, rather than maintaining any given attitude, that the DOP went pear-shaped. Back then - this was ~10 years ago - I don't recall the GPS manufacturers quoted any g limits - if they had we wouldn't have wasted so much time on it, whereas today 4g is a commonly quoted limit.



Crush

15,077 posts

168 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
eharding said:
Now you mention it, that *is* quite interesting. This video still from earlier this year ostensibly shows a civilian Garmin GPS jury-rigged in an SU-24.


[/footnote]
I was just looking for that photo. I had wondered if it was a simple nav error due to poor equipment telling the pilot he was further South than he was.

glazbagun

14,259 posts

196 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
This is a month old, but it looks like Turkish, US & Russian planes locking onto each other isn't so uncommon in the airspace of the border. I have a picture in my head of Kimi Raikkonen flying home in a rattling ancient cold war relic straining to follow Google Maps on his phone with some foreign dhead lighting up his plane and jabbering on about something airspace or other. Yeah, whatever man. hehe


http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/06/mig-29-locked...

eharding

13,600 posts

283 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
I have a picture in my head of Kimi Raikkonen flying home in a rattling ancient cold war relic straining to follow Google Maps on his phone with some foreign dhead lighting up his plane and jabbering on about something airspace or other.
Apart from the Kimi Raikkonen bit, you've pretty much summed up the experience of working with Glasgow Radar when transiting from the soft southern shandy-drinking south to Glenforsa and Plockton on the annual radial hoon from Waltham....

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
eharding said:
The dynamic acceleration doesn't affect reception of the signal, it screws with the correlation processing which assumes the dynamic acceleration to be within certain limits - at least that's my understanding of the issue. Way back in the day we *did* think it was airframe blanking of the antenna that was the problem, cue some experiments with expensive multi-antenna systems and hanging in the straps inverted squinting at the GPS waiting it for to drop out, but it was always when you started to rock and roll in an aerobatic sequence, rather than maintaining any given attitude, that the DOP went pear-shaped. Back then - this was ~10 years ago - I don't recall the GPS manufacturers quoted any g limits - if they had we wouldn't have wasted so much time on it, whereas today 4g is a commonly quoted limit.
Oh I see, so that's just the consumer-level software rather than it being directly load-related, the processing of the signal data is out of whack with expected use, and faster than usual changes in direction (at speed) confuse the software. Surely it's just update time that's the major difference? That and it being military-spec hardware, but the electronic and physical fundamentals are the same.

Anyway, going off topic, I was just interested, thanks.

eharding

13,600 posts

283 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
rxtx said:
Oh I see, so that's just the consumer-level software rather than it being directly load-related, the processing of the signal data is out of whack with expected use, and faster than usual changes in direction (at speed) confuse the software.
Traditionally, the processing is done by a custom ASIC rather than in software, but the net effect is much the same - although the cost to produce a more capable bit of silicon is obviously higher.



jimmyjimjim

7,329 posts

237 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Without wanting to turn this into Pprune, I ran into this article on East German Mig 29's vs contemporary F-16's (TL:DR Mig is better at dogfighting, little else) which mentions how woeful the navigation system is. Now this was ~1990, but given how old the SU 24 is (and how important the Mig 29 was), and the dumb target/lack of AA defence they're expecting, could it be a simple case of 70's navigation causing pilot to think he's further south than he is, then finding himself being chased by by a 90's missile?


http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
I remember several interesting articles relating to the integration of former East German assets into the Luftwaffe, all of which made the point that the soviet client state hardware was crap compared to the full blown Motherland only versions, most notably in terms of electronics; the East German Mig-29 requiring ground control for intercepts that western aircraft would be perfectly capable of on their own. As could the better versions of the Mig-29.

The same went for (allegedly) tanks and shells sold to the middle east compared to the versions kept in Russia; stories about the export versions being severely handicapped abound.

The point being that you can't really compare former East German hardware with Russian hardware, especially when it involves electronics.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Guvernator said:
The Washington Post have got control of a huge area!

cirian75

4,245 posts

232 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
jimmyjimjim said:
glazbagun said:
Without wanting to turn this into Pprune, I ran into this article on East German Mig 29's vs contemporary F-16's (TL:DR Mig is better at dogfighting, little else) which mentions how woeful the navigation system is. Now this was ~1990, but given how old the SU 24 is (and how important the Mig 29 was), and the dumb target/lack of AA defence they're expecting, could it be a simple case of 70's navigation causing pilot to think he's further south than he is, then finding himself being chased by by a 90's missile?


http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
I remember several interesting articles relating to the integration of former East German assets into the Luftwaffe, all of which made the point that the soviet client state hardware was crap compared to the full blown Motherland only versions, most notably in terms of electronics; the East German Mig-29 requiring ground control for intercepts that western aircraft would be perfectly capable of on their own. As could the better versions of the Mig-29.

The same went for (allegedly) tanks and shells sold to the middle east compared to the versions kept in Russia; stories about the export versions being severely handicapped abound.

The point being that you can't really compare former East German hardware with Russian hardware, especially when it involves electronics.
Yup, the export tanks a jokingly called by the Russians "Monkey Models"

out of date fire control systems and no fancy armour.

loveice

646 posts

246 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
marshall100 said:
Apols, that should have been F35.

However it begs the question, what's a fair fight on the side of the Russians vs an F16?
As for this mission, there isn't a fair comparison from Russian side, due to the fact that they were in a 'simple' bombing mission which only requires bombers or bomber fighters (even with a 'fighter' in their names, they never stand a chance when facing real fighters). As the enemy doesn't even have an Air Force, just like all other countries who are also bombing the region, Russian wouldn't use any fighter escort with their bombers.

But, if you are asking on paper which fighter is the equivalent to F16 Turkey used in this case, then it should be the late model Mig-29 and Mig-35 (an upgraded model of Mig-29)..

Of cause, Russia could have used their Su-34 fighter bomber which is their latest fighter bomber. They should stand a better chance when facing real fighters. But still due to their physical size, they are never the best option to deal with fighters...

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
loveice said:
marshall100 said:
Apols, that should have been F35.

However it begs the question, what's a fair fight on the side of the Russians vs an F16?
As for this mission, there isn't a fair comparison from Russian side, due to the fact that they were in a 'simple' bombing mission which only requires bombers or bomber fighters (even with a 'fighter' in their names, they never stand a chance when facing real fighters). As the enemy doesn't even have an Air Force, just like all other countries who are also bombing the region, Russian wouldn't use any fighter escort with their bombers.

But, if you are asking on paper which fighter is the equivalent to F16 Turkey used in this case, then it should be the late model Mig-29 and Mig-35 (an upgraded model of Mig-29)..

Of cause, Russia could have used their Su-34 fighter bomber which is their latest fighter bomber. They should stand a better chance when facing real fighters. But still due to their physical size, they are never the best option to deal with fighters...
Will it matter if the missiles are launched at BVR?, then does it not just come down to missile verses counter measures battle?

superkartracer

Original Poster:

8,959 posts

221 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
superkartracer said:
No chance , these guys are top the pile professionals and i'm sure some evidence will back these claims .
A professional would understand the distinction between altitude and latitude by longitude

Captain Konstantin Murakhtin said:
"No, this is out of the question even for a one-second possibility, as we were at the altitude of 6,000 metres and the weather was clear.
To be fair , the poor chap has just ejected from a jet that was hit by a missile , then shot at while parachuting , then prob kicked about a bit ... i'd give him some slack .

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

131 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
Martin4x4 said:
superkartracer said:
No chance , these guys are top the pile professionals and i'm sure some evidence will back these claims .
A professional would understand the distinction between altitude and latitude by longitude

Captain Konstantin Murakhtin said:
"No, this is out of the question even for a one-second possibility, as we were at the altitude of 6,000 metres and the weather was clear.
To be fair , the poor chap has just ejected from a jet that was hit by a missile , then shot at while parachuting , then prob kicked about a bit ... i'd give him some slack .
Yet he still had the presence of mind to present a completely misleading statement to the assembled press, which is what I was really getting at.

menguin

3,762 posts

220 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
The Washington Post have got control of a huge area!
hehe

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
I may need a whoosh parrot. Russia/USSR has been flying planes into our airspace for Decades to test our air defences. We then send up a plane, tell them they're approaching our airspace, escort them out and take some snazzy photo's alongside Russian bombers



The SU 24 seemed to be just taking a short cut. Did the Turks threaten to shoot down the Russian jet prior to doing it? All I've heard was a request to change course, nothing about shooting anyone, not withstanding Turkey moving "their" airspace 5mi into Syria. Is there an overlay of airspace vs borders available for this yet?
As has been pointed out, Russia/USSR don't 'enter' UK airspace at all. They do, though, know pretty much the moment they enter our "area of interest", and when they do they start the stopwatches. It's all done to test and assess the UK's state of readiness, and the RAF's QRA intercept times.

I know it's not relevant to the Turkey/Syria/Russia situation, but here's a Sky News video of how we do it here in UK...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hijzP1zzLI

At 18m40sec in that video...

RAF QRA Typhoon pilot said:
1605 from Lima Tango 4-7. I am instructed by Her Majesty's government of the United Kingdom to warn you that if you do not respond immediately to my orders, you will be shot down
...this was during the interception of a Latvian cargo aircraft which was not communicating with ATC when approaching London.

It's a political decision ultimately to splash a civilian a/c, and "Call Me Dave" would have to find a spine and some pretty substantial balls to order a shoot-down on a commercial airliner, but those QRA crews need to be prepared to carry out such an order should it ever come down to it.