NATO seek de-escalation over Turkish shoot down of the Russian jet.

[Odenat]

Recently some Kurd lawyer got shot, as reported on Portuguese media.

Shoot down Russian planes on their way to bomb ISIS, kill the ejected pilots, kill Kurdish lawyer on TV, shout allah ackabr on minute of silence...
Get your crap together Turkey. Like this it's a rough embarassment for NATO.

PKK killed that Kurdish lawyer and 2 Turkish policeman. PKK who is supported by Europe!

It's time for Europe to stop supporting terrorists!

[Hmmm]

Here's the rub... Russia were already violating Turkish airspace on multiple occasions. They even admitted it back in October and apologised, said it wouldn't happen again.

None of the violations were justified, but that in and of itself does not justify shooting - that's why people keep bringing up the issue with the number Turkish violations of Greek airspace which you wrongfully characterized as "Greeks with an axe to grind" - which it may be, but they've still got a point regardless of the reason why they're making it. A 17 second border violation is no reason to fire at unidentified aircraft especially when you have good reason to assume that aircraft is Russian.

Turkey says the Su-24 violated Turkish airspace twice - this is shown in the radar track Turkey published and is something that has been missed by just about everybody here. Turkey said it warned the Russians on the guard frequency ten times before they fired the missile.

If you look at the tracks published by Turkey you'll see they have the Russian aircraft crossing the Turkish salient border twice. Some people here seem to think the Turkish claim that they warned the Russians ten times before shooting does not tally with the 17 seconds the Russian aircraft was in Turkish airspace, and that therefore this means Turkey is lying. Nobody - especially those in a warzone - wait for an airspace violation before issuing a warning. The Turkish AF would have started warning the Russians when they were still in Syrian airspace. In fact, if you look at both the Russian and the Turkish published tracks you'll see the Su-24 flight was frequently changing vectors and many of those changes had the aircraft heading towards Turkish airspace. This would have been more than enough to initiate the Turkish AF broadcast warnings, well before any airspace violation occurs.

No I'm pretty sure people are aware of what Turkey says - the problem is that their "warnings" according to the soundbites they've publicised themselves did not contain any information about Turkish intention to open direct fire on a violating aircraft (i.e. skipping things like: visual contact, escorting, warning by lock-on, firing warning shots). It's a needlessy excessive reaction, that's the point.

Certainly the Turks themselves claim they started warning several km prior to the violation i.e. while the Russians were still in Syrian airspace. My problem isn't the quantity of warnings they gave nor the time-frame during which they gave them, it's the quality of their warnings.

Then there's the claim that this was an ambush set up by Turkey, that they were waiting for a Russian aircraft to get close enough so they could dash across the border into Syrian airspace and shoot it down. This, naturally is evidenced by the fact the dastardly Turks got a "silent kill" with an AIM-9 fired from behind the Su-24. The "silent kill" claim is nothing more than speculation. Unless anybody here was in the cockpit of the Turkish F-16 or Russian Su-24 they can't prove anything either way. Next up most IR missiles are fired from behind, it ensures the highest probability of the missile tracking its target. Finally, the shooting at the Russian aircraft moving away from Turkish airspace can be countered by pointing out the rapidly and frequently changing vectors of the Su-24 flight... if they had already violated Turkish airspace twice who's to say they wouldn't have returned a few minutes later?

It had "already" violated Turkish airspace once before being fired upon - they shot at the second violation ,i.e. "here's a Russian plane entering our airspace, it has already done so once shortly prior, who's to say it wont do it a third time". If the Turks had bothered to warn it properly by threatening to fire before actually doing so, their shot may have been justified. As it stands, they didn't. Given how by their own account they were aware of its presence and warned it long before it passed the Turkish border, one has to ask why the Turkish F-16s "couldn't" get within visual range and escort it out?

I read yesterday that the Su-24 doesn't have a radio that can monitor guard. I don't know if this is true, but it would at least support the Russian claims they never received any warning from the Turkish AF. So let me get this right... Russia is flying combat aircraft in a warzone, less than 5km from the Turkish border, that have no radio capable of monitoring guard, and have already violated Turkish airspace and have been warned by Turkey not to do it again.

Now it should be blindingly obvious to all but the most ardent Russophile here that whether by design or by accident, this was an incident waiting to happen.

And that's not even considering the entirely plausible scenario that the Turks thought the aircraft they shot down was Syrian.

Even if the Turks engineered this entire incident, the Russians were dumb enough to walk right into it. As I've said before, if the Russians really wanted to avoid this kind of incident they would never have been operating combat aircraft so close to the Turkish border. That they were - despite all the prior warnings from Turkey about violating its airspace - says to me the cartoon I posted above has more than a ring of truth to it. The Russians miscalculated and thought Turkey would sit back and do nothing whilst they bombed Turkey's proxy rebel groups right on the border, and violate Turkish airspace whilst doing so.

No, while it certainly is stupid for the Russians to repeatedly violate the airspace of a country which has warned them from doing so, and it was dumb of both sides not to in any way coordiante their frequencies so they can communicate with one another, that doesn't mean it's an incident (of this magnitude) waiting to happen. If the Turks had applied some common sense to their procedures this wouldn't have happened. This is why I think they messed up. They're justified in protecting their airspace, they're justified in being angry at repeated Russian violations of their airspace, but they're not justified in opening fire without trying other (adequate) measures first.

The fact that the Turks had not identified the airplane or whom it belonged to speaks against their decision to open fire, btw.

The Russians took a risk - but it was the Turks who decided to react stupidly.

On balance, I'm more inclined to believe the Turkish version of events. Let's not forget this is the same Kremlin that said there was no Russian troops in Crimea and that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25. The Russians violating Turkish airspace is far more plausible (and to form) than the Russian claim that Turkey has conspired to engineer an international incident. Does this mean I think Turkey are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys? No. Whilst I believe Turkey was justified in the shoot down I think they were dumb to do so. Whilst I don't think this is all some nefarious Turkish plot, I do think Erdogan is trying to use this incident ot drive a wedge between the west and Russia in Syria. As I said earlier in the thread, Erdogan is playing a dangerous game and I've no doubt the patience of some of his NATO "allies" will be wearing thin.

Are we forgetting that the Turks are a country which is a known user of false flag operations now? Neither Turkey nor Russia are credible when it comes to telling what actually happened, they are both dicks.

This isn't about Russia and Turkey. It's not even about Syria. It's about NATO-Russian relations. We've got a pretty bold guy in the Kremlin who recognises the US, UK, France and Germany are all currently afflicted with weak political leaders. Ineffective leaders who don't know how to best handle him. Russia sees an opportunity to take back a lot of the geopolitical ground it has lost in the last 25 years. Thanks to all the gas and oil money that has been pouring in for the last ten years Russia is now in a better position to try and take back that ground. It also helps a leader like Putin immensely to get all of Russia's attention on the external threats posed by the ever belligerant NATO.

For the last couple of years Russian strategic aircraft have been skirting NATO airspace for the first time since the Cold War. Russian naval groups park themselves not too far off a major UK city. Russian submarines have been suspected snooping around in the waters of NATO (and non-NATO) members. Russian air activity in the Baltic has risen to its highest level since the end of the Cold War. Putin got a free pass in Georgia. He got a free pass in Crimea. He got a free pass in eastern Ukraine. He got a free pass with MH17. He had a free pass in Syria right up to the point Turkey shot down one of his jets.

I agree it's about NATO and Russia, that's why I posed the question why Turkey thinks it's a justified action to shoot at a plane belonging to a nuclear armed country when we need less escalation between NATO and Russia.

I'm not defending Putin, the reason I think we have to increase our military spending and join NATO is precisely because of increased Russian aggression, but the issue here is that Syria and in particular the fight against the IS is one of those places where we kind of need cooperation, not in-fighting.

[Akhenaton]

When you can´t trust in the word of men, trust in the laws of nature.

Belgian Physicist calculate the path of the russian jet

Conclusion: Both said half-truths at best, but then the best lie is one with a small core of truth, isn´t it?

[PointOfViewGun]

When you can´t trust in the word of men, trust in the laws of nature.

Belgian Physicist calculate the path of the russian jet

Conclusion: Both said half-truths at best, but then the best lie is one with a small core of truth, isn´t it?

The analysis fails at very simple and fundamental steps.

1) The 30 second window it uses is the time between the video starts and the plane crashes. That assumes that the plane was hit directly at the beginning of the video. In fact, if you look at the beginning of the video, you notice the cloud it creates behind it spanning before the video was started to be shot. It's quite clear that the fall took more than 30 seconds.

2) Nobody from Turkey claimed that 10 warnings were made while the Russian jet was in Turkish airspace. The published radio communication clearly shows that the Russian jet was warned before entering Turkish airspace. So, the analysis is making up a point to argue against.

You can trust laws of nature but you can't trust people that claim to use them.

[Akhenaton]

The analysis fails at very simple and fundamental steps.

1) The 30 second window it uses is the time between the video starts and the plane crashes. That assumes that the plane was hit directly at the beginning of the video. In fact, if you look at the beginning of the video, you notice the cloud it creates behind it spanning before the video was started to be shot. It's quite clear that the fall took more than 30 seconds.

If we look at the video the article refer to we see in the first seconds two big flaires in the sky. This we can assume to be the jet being hit by a missile. This lasts approximatly until 00:06, so our point zero for when the jet begins to fall. The fall lasts until about 00:37 when we hear a big boom, but can´t see the crash itself. The Intervall of time is 0037-0006 so about 30s give or take 2s (Btw, 32 wouldn´t be anymore in favor against their results). From that we can conclude that the fall lasted 30s.

2) Nobody from Turkey claimed that 10 warnings were made while the Russian jet was in Turkish airspace. The published radio communication clearly shows that the Russian jet was warned before entering Turkish airspace. So, the analysis is making up a point to argue against.

You can trust laws of nature but you can't trust people that claim to use them.

The better argument against, however I went carefully through the article again and this is what it sais :

The Turkish airforce says it warned the fighter jets ten times in five minutes. In five minutes, an aeroplane traveling at 980 km/h would cross a distance of about 80 kilometers. From these facts, the professors conclude: “How could the Turkish airforce predict that the Russian jets were about to enter Turkish airspace? Military jets are very agile, and in theory the Russian jets could have turned at the last moment to avoid Turkish airspace. The warnings issued to the Russian pilots were mere speculation at the moment they were made.”

First, yes the jet couldn´t have been warned ten times while in turkish airspace, because nobody can speak that fast.
Second, if the warnings were given alredy five minutes before the jet entered turkish airspace, it´s course should have already been predicted which seems unlikely for the reason given in hte quote above.

However I have only argued against the turkish site so far, so in the interest of equal shared guilt I´ll post one more argument from the article.

On the Russian map, it can be seen that the plane makes a ninety degree turn after it was hit, which is quite impossible.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

According to the physicists, the only way this could be achieved is if the momentum of the incoming rocket was so much larger than the momentum of the jet that the latter would be negligible. “A change of course of 90 degrees can only be achieved with an object that’s many times heavier or faster than the jet,” the physicists write. From this we can conclude that the jets were not actively trying to avoid Turkish territory, which is the Russian side of the story

[fkizz]

PKK killed that Kurdish lawyer and 2 Turkish policeman. PKK who is supported by Europe!

It's time for Europe to stop supporting terrorists!

Better said EU. most of "europeans" are getting tired of EU bureocrats meddling in their affairs from their ivory tower.

[caratacus]

PKK killed that Kurdish lawyer and 2 Turkish policeman. PKK who is supported by Europe!

It's time for Europe to stop supporting terrorists!

Given that this Kurdish lawyer received threats because he had previously argued that the pkk shouldn't be consider terrorists, I can't see them being the likely culprits.

Originally Posted by Setekh
You can trust laws of nature but you can't trust people that claim to use them.

Well if we are talking of laws, I think it is best to relate the justification of this incident to another example. States like to use diplomatic speak to execuse incidents which in any other case would be called unjustified. I encourage people to analyze situations because so many half truths and lies are fed to us by politicians, who are after all, the ones that cause wars.

Lets then look at it from another entirely different perspective shall we?

A man lives next to someone who's garden is infested by vermin such as rats and mice. The neighbour is a very bad neighbour and has neglected his property very badly. Such is the state of place that rodents breed profusely. Some of these come onto the man's land regularly and damage his property but others he is rather fond of and feeds them. In fact he is more fond of the mice than his neighbour, who he thinks is a violent nasty man whom he despises. Anyway, this neighbour calls his friend who owns a pest control business and he sends two of his workers. But given the poor relationship with his neighbour, the man warns the business that they must never come onto his land or he will use his shotgun. The rat catchers however, don't heed this warning and come very close to doing so on a number of occasions in pursuit of the rodents, including those that the man is very fond of. The man gets very angry, and then one day sees two rat catchers briefly come onto his land in pursuit one of of the mice the man has been feeding. Angrily he promptly picks up his shotgun and with a brief audible warning, shoots both the rat catchers dead.

Now, is this a justified act for defending his home in the eyes of the law or is it a clear case of murder? Seems to me that the neighbour, his rat catcher friend and the man, all have a hand in initiating this violent incident to occur. But there really is only one victim. Of course in the present case the victims didn't die at the hands of those that shot at them, so technically it isn't murder. But the intention was clearly there and whatever the warnings and entitlement to acts of aggression in defense of property, you would expect a suitable apology from Turkey together with some kind of rapprochement for the action, rather than firely rhetoric and further sabre rattling. After all two me died as a consequence of this action and I am not aware that Russia and Turkey are in a state of war with each other, quite yet.

To those that may read something into this example, of course I'm not comparing the Turkmen people with vermin although IS clearly are. But when a country is so badly damaged by violence, as Syria is. Anyone with a gun in his hand whether he represents the state or otherwise is part of the problem not the solution. In this and as with my example, the problem can only occur when others come together together to repair things and address the cause, not divide themselves and attempt to merely clear away the effects, vermin or otherwise. Syria needs to be stitched back together, when or that is happening, is that it is being torn apart and others helping in the process. The shooting down of this aircraft is a good example of all that is wrong with countries only to happy to lend a hand and the unwillingness or inability of the UN to do anything to address this process.

[Dewy]

If we look at the video the article refer to we see in the first seconds two big flaires in the sky. This we can assume to be the jet being hit by a missile. This lasts approximatly until 00:06, so our point zero for when the jet begins to fall. The fall lasts until about 00:37 when we hear a big boom, but can´t see the crash itself. The Intervall of time is 0037-0006 so about 30s give or take 2s (Btw, 32 wouldn´t be anymore in favor against their results). From that we can conclude that the fall lasted 30s.

It was already hit by a sidewinder before the video starts. Unless it's common for Russians to fly towards the ground whilst on fire, which I highly doubt.

[Aanker]

With regards to planes changing direction after being hit, damage to control surfaces and other aerodynamic effects at high speed could easily cause a jet to deviate from its original flight path.

[Gallus]

With regards to planes changing direction after being hit, damage to control surfaces and other aerodynamic effects at high speed could easily cause a jet to deviate from its original flight path.

Yeah it's a poor article. 90° turn is unlikely, but there are more factors than simple m1v1+m2v2=(m1+m2)v3

[PointOfViewGun]

If we look at the video the article refer to we see in the first seconds two big flaires in the sky. This we can assume to be the jet being hit by a missile. This lasts approximatly until 00:06, so our point zero for when the jet begins to fall. The fall lasts until about 00:37 when we hear a big boom, but can´t see the crash itself. The Intervall of time is 0037-0006 so about 30s give or take 2s (Btw, 32 wouldn´t be anymore in favor against their results). From that we can conclude that the fall lasted 30s.

The better argument against, however I went carefully through the article again and this is what it sais :

First, yes the jet couldn´t have been warned ten times while in turkish airspace, because nobody can speak that fast.
Second, if the warnings were given alredy five minutes before the jet entered turkish airspace, it´s course should have already been predicted which seems unlikely for the reason given in hte quote above.

However I have only argued against the turkish site so far, so in the interest of equal shared guilt I´ll post one more argument from the article.

There are no flares in that video. In the beginning the jet is already burning. The smoke trail spans beyond the span of the video. In the first two seconds of the footage (when I talk about seconds I'm ignoring the initial RT intro) the man is already saying "düşüyor" which mean "falling" in Turkish.

Not five minutes before the violation. The plane was warned in the five minutes that ended with the Russian jet entering Turkish airspace. If you look at the Turkish radar path line the Russian jet traveled toward Turkish airspace for a long time.

That 980 km/h is dependent on the fall being 30 seconds. If, say, the fall took 40 seconds then the blog would calculate the speed at 720 km/h. Back a while ago, when the incident with Syria shooting down a Turkish reconnaissance jet happened, Turkey declared that any military object coming close to the border will be treated as hostile. So, if any military jet enters a particular line beyond the Syrian border it's gonna be warned for being near the Turkish border.

Well if we are talking of laws, I think it is best to relate the justification of this incident to another example. States like to use diplomatic speak to execuse incidents which in any other case would be called unjustified. I encourage people to analyze situations because so many half truths and lies are fed to us by politicians, who are after all, the ones that cause wars.

Lets then look at it from another entirely different perspective shall we?

A man lives next to someone who's garden is infested by vermin such as rats and mice. The neighbour is a very bad neighbour and has neglected his property very badly. Such is the state of place that rodents breed profusely. Some of these come onto the man's land regularly and damage his property but others he is rather fond of and feeds them. In fact he is more fond of the mice than his neighbour, who he thinks is a violent nasty man whom he despises. Anyway, this neighbour calls his friend who owns a pest control business and he sends two of his workers. But given the poor relationship with his neighbour, the man warns the business that they must never come onto his land or he will use his shotgun. The rat catchers however, don't heed this warning and come very close to doing so on a number of occasions in pursuit of the rodents, including those that the man is very fond of. The man gets very angry, and then one day sees two rat catchers briefly come onto his land in pursuit one of of the mice the man has been feeding. Angrily he promptly picks up his shotgun and with a brief audible warning, shoots both the rat catchers dead.

Now, is this a justified act for defending his home in the eyes of the law or is it a clear case of murder? Seems to me that the neighbour, his rat catcher friend and the man, all have a hand in initiating this violent incident to occur. But there really is only one victim. Of course in the present case the victims didn't die at the hands of those that shot at them, so technically it isn't murder. But the intention was clearly there and whatever the warnings and entitlement to acts of aggression in defense of property, you would expect a suitable apology from Turkey together with some kind of rapprochement for the action, rather than firely rhetoric and further sabre rattling. After all two me died as a consequence of this action and I am not aware that Russia and Turkey are in a state of war with each other, quite yet.

To those that may read something into this example, of course I'm not comparing the Turkmen people with vermin although IS clearly are. But when a country is so badly damaged by violence, as Syria is. Anyone with a gun in his hand whether he represents the state or otherwise is part of the problem not the solution. In this and as with my example, the problem can only occur when others come together together to repair things and address the cause, not divide themselves and attempt to merely clear away the effects, vermin or otherwise. Syria needs to be stitched back together, when or that is happening, is that it is being torn apart and others helping in the process. The shooting down of this aircraft is a good example of all that is wrong with countries only to happy to lend a hand and the unwillingness or inability of the UN to do anything to address this process.

Shooting someone that steps into your yard is not analogous to shooting a bomber entering your airspace.

With regards to planes changing direction after being hit, damage to control surfaces and other aerodynamic effects at high speed could easily cause a jet to deviate from its original flight path.

Of course, but a 90 degrees deviation is unlikely. The plane in the video is clearly intact with the engines on fire which indicates that it got hit somewhere close to the backside. A force that would cause a 90 degrees turn would likely make the plane start spinning.

[Pielstick]

Some interesting speculation, if I may add my own:

With regards to planes changing direction after being hit, damage to control surfaces and other aerodynamic effects at high speed could easily cause a jet to deviate from its original flight path.

Yeah it's a poor article. 90° turn is unlikely, but there are more factors than simple m1v1+m2v2=(m1+m2)v3

You're assuming that the crew ejected as soon as the aircraft was hit. It's entirely plausible after the aircraft was hit they initially remained in the aircraft to assess the damage and possibility of recovering to base. They could have turned the aircraft to a new direction before the fire took hold and they decided to eject.

A few people have noted the wings were swept forward. Some have speculated this means the aircraft was flying slowly and thus supports the narrative the aircraft was in a non-threatening posture. Rather than flying slowly over a warzone on combat operations I think it's more likely the crew slowed down and swept the wings forward after the missile hit in an attempt to save the aircraft and recover to base.

The plane in the video is clearly intact with the engines on fire which indicates that it got hit somewhere close to the backside. A force that would cause a 90 degrees turn would likely make the plane start spinning.

The images show the fire is from fuel leaking from the wings. The AIM-9, in common with nearly all air-air missiles does not actually "hit" the target. It has an infra-red proximity fuse that detontes the warhead when the missile is close enough to the target. The warhead itself is of the expanding, or continous rod type (sometimes referred to as an annular fragmentation). This is a bunch of welded metal rods wrapped around a high explosive core. When the core detonates the metal rods expand outwards and effectively shred the target.



The rods, or more likely fragments of them pierced the Su-24 in multiple places, including the wing fuel tanks, which precipitated the fire seen in the video.

[Nikitn]

When you can´t trust in the word of men, trust in the laws of nature.

Belgian Physicist calculate the path of the russian jet

Conclusion: Both said half-truths at best, but then the best lie is one with a small core of truth, isn´t it?

Nah. Simple newtonian mechanics is inappropriate in this case and it makes me wonder if these guys really are physicists at all.

(1) They are assuming that the aircraft took 30s to hit the ground. Well, just because they filmed the last 30s of the descent, doesn't mean the descent took 30s. In fact, it's easy to see why the airplane flew far more than just 30s: You can't see the pilots ejecting out of the plane in the video, which means they ejected before the filming started.

(2) Using z=gt^2/2 to calculate the altitude of the aircraft is ridiculous, because the jet isn't some ball falling in vacuum. Its vertical velocity is by no means determined solely by the gravitational acceleration, because lift was being generated by the Su24's wings and the jet engine might still have been largely operational. Furthermore, as the aircraft started diving, the vertical component of its velocity would be completely dominated by its pre-dive velocity and not just by gravity (g*t).

(3) It wasn't an instantaneous "90 deg turn" because the map is SCALED. This means the seemingly 90deg turn happened over a distance of several HUNDRED metres. Keep in mind that a SU24 is able to safely make a 90 degree turn in around 4 seconds at high velocity with its wings unswept. While it is true that the missile would've screwed up the aerodynamics, it still doesn't make the Russian map unrealistic. And ask yourself, how stupid do you think the Russians are to make a mistake like that if they were faking the flight path?

TL;DR the "physicists" in that article are talking nonsense. Calculating the exact flight path is very difficult. To do that you need a team of engineers to investigate the ballistics and the black box. However, one thing that is definitely pointing towards the SU24 not crossing into Turkey is 1) Surviving pilot's testimony and 2) the fact that the jet crashed 4km INSIDE Syria.


Seketh,

Of course, but a 90 degrees deviation is unlikely. The plane in the video is clearly intact with the engines on fire which indicates that it got hit somewhere close to the backside. A force that would cause a 90 degrees turn would likely make the plane start spinning.

LOL a jet flying at 900kmph with intact fuselage starting to spin ? At any rate, a 90 deg turn over HUNDREDS of meters is not unlikely if you take into consideration the turn rate of the Su24

[PointOfViewGun]

Seketh,

LOL a jet flying at 900kmph with intact fuselage starting to spin ? At any rate, a 90 deg turn over HUNDREDS of meters is not unlikely if you take into consideration the turn rate of the Su24

What's the turn rate of the Su-24?

The rate performance of some planes:


Basically, for a Su-27 to make a 90 degrees turn at 900 km/h it would travel a distance of over 1 km. Though the speed of Su-24 was likely lower.

[Stavroforos]

You're not really proving much by simply posting the turn time of another jet plane.

[Pielstick]

Keep in mind that a SU24 is able to safely make a 90 degree turn in around 4 seconds at high velocity with its wings unswept.

Source for that? Are you talking about instantaneous or sustained turn rates? I'm guessing seeing as you mention the four second time frame you are talking sustained turn rate. Are you sure you aren't confusing instantaneous and sustained turn rates in this case?

I very much doubt the Su-24 has a sustained turn rate of 22.5 degrees per second. That would put it in the same class as many modern air superiority fighters. The Su-24 is a large, heavy strike aircraft with variable geometry wings - none of these things are commensurate with a 22.5 degree per second sustained turn rate.

Finally, what is a "high velocity" in this case? Do you know what the point of variable geometry wings are? Why would, and indeed how could the Su-24 fly at "high velocity" with the wings swept forward?

[Nikitn]

Source for that? Are you talking about instantaneous or sustained turn rates? I'm guessing seeing as you mention the four second time frame you are talking sustained turn rate. Are you sure you aren't confusing instantaneous and sustained turn rates in this case?

I very much doubt the Su-24 has a sustained turn rate of 22.5 degrees per second. That would put it in the same class as many modern air superiority fighters. The Su-24 is a large, heavy strike aircraft with variable geometry wings - none of these things are commensurate with a 22.5 degree per second sustained turn rate.

Finally, what is a "high velocity" in this case? Do you know what the point of variable geometry wings are? Why would, and indeed how could the Su-24 fly at "high velocity" with the wings swept forward?

Sustained turn rate is the turn rate that can be sustained indefinitely. Instantaneous turn rate can be sustained short-term, i.e. for a few seconds in an emergency. After a quick google search, you'll find that the instantaneous turn rate of the Su24 is 23 deg/sec. http://informationgazette.info/Weapon-3s.html

With "High velocity" I meant corner speed = lowest speed where max g's can be attained. In the case where the Su24's wings are swept in cruising mode, its corner velocity should be not too far below 1000kmph (I can't find the exact number, but it doesn't really matter much as all of this is very approximate).

At any rate, my main point is that it's not that unreasonable to assume that the Su-24 would be able to do a very sharp turn in a matter of seconds if it was hit while flying with cruise velocity. Within 4 seconds, it would've travelled roughly 1km along a circular path, and so 2/pi * 1km = 634m (from pi/2 * r = circumference of quarter circle) in the forward direction. Taking into account possible errors in radar measurements, the Russian map doesn't look unreasonable at all.

And besides, in both the Russian and Turkish maps, the Su24 is doing seemingly 90 deg turns all the time (this is probably due to errors in the radar measurements), so we can safely put this conspiracy theory to rest.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sustained turn rate is the turn rate that can be sustained indefinitely. Instantaneous turn rate can be sustained short-term, i.e. for a few seconds in an emergency. After a quick google search, you'll find that the instantaneous turn rate of the Su24 is 23 deg/sec. http://informationgazette.info/Weapon-3s.html

With "High velocity" I meant corner speed = lowest speed where max g's can be attained. In the case where the Su24's wings are swept in cruising mode, its corner velocity should be not too far below 1000kmph (I can't find the exact number, but it doesn't really matter much as all of this is very approximate).

At any rate, my main point is that it's not that unreasonable to assume that the Su-24 would be able to do a very sharp turn in a matter of seconds if it was hit while flying with cruise velocity. Within 4 seconds, it would've travelled roughly 1km along a circular path, and so 2/pi * 1km = 634m (from pi/2 * r = circumference of quarter circle) in the forward direction. Taking into account possible errors in radar measurements, the Russian map doesn't look unreasonable at all.

And besides, in both the Russian and Turkish maps, the Su24 is doing seemingly 90 deg turns all the time (this is probably due to errors in the radar measurements), so we can safely put this conspiracy theory to rest.

The Turkish map shows radar points. They're connected to represent the sequence. So, it doesn't really mean that the plane is making a 90 degree turn even when there is a line that has a right angle to a previous line. The Russian map, however, implies that it shows the continuous path of the jet. Though, of course, we're talking about a map that Russians created probably using MS Paint.

[Pielstick]

Sustained turn rate is the turn rate that can be sustained indefinitely. Instantaneous turn rate can be sustained short-term, i.e. for a few seconds in an emergency. After a quick google search, you'll find that the instantaneous turn rate of the Su24 is 23 deg/sec. http://informationgazette.info/Weapon-3s.html

Well the first thing I spotted was the information on the Su-24 makes no mention of its instantaneous turn rate. The 23 degrees per second you mention is actually from the section on the Su-27.

Secondly, reading through the descriptions I can see a lot of it is either hopelessly outdated, highly speculative, or just plain wrong.

I stand by my assertion there is no way in hell an Su-24 can turn at anything like the rates you describe. And that's not even considering your version of events which would have us believe the Su-24 crew, having just taken a surprise hit from a missile, instead of having a massive "WTF!" moment and then assessing the damage to the aircraft and their ability to control it, instead immediately throw the aircraft into a maximum G turn.

[Stavroforos]

Yeah, there's no reason why we should believe the Su-24 can turn that well, even if we accept the account that they did turn. The Su-24 has a wing loading of 720 kg/m2, compared to a Su-27's of 380 kg/m2 for example, so there's no way it can perform those kinds of tight turns, especially since its max G's are 6 G.