But when I first read the claims, I was wondering if the attack mode left any clear signs in the visuals of the crashing plane? (I suppose the Air Force doesn’t use “bomb damage assessment” for its own assets.)
It also occurred to me, as a side note, that citing a ground-based missile may have political impact as well, and would reinforce, in this case, a Turkish claim of overflight, by suggesting the more short-range coverage of a stationary site. But I have no idea on the technological claims one could even draw on to make an argument on this.
What is the sequence of events–and which are more “automatic” than others–when a pilot elects to eject? How much time would he have to think about it? Does the system go into som sort of preparation, including pilot leg lockdown, or something, when it determines a missile is on its way to intercept? (I don’t even know if that is possible…I see in movies “…missile is locked on use” which means nothing to me, particularly in the scenario I suggest, because the movie pilots always take action to “unlock” the approach.)
All the extraordinary technology. Proven useless, alas.
As far as the ejection goes, it’s up to the aircrew to make the decision. Nothing happens on any of the fighter aircraft that I worked around until someone pulled the ejection handle. Of course more modern aircraft may be different, but I doubt it.
I always thought, perhaps a bit ignorantly, that there was an auto-eject type system for just in case the pilot/s are knocked unconscious and unable to yank the handles…?
since ejecting results in the total loss of a very expensive airframe I doubt that exists. The risk of it firing accidentally due to a malfunction in the auto eject system would be more dangerous than the edge cases it would save the pilots life in. Also, if your pilot is knocked unconscious by a direct hit close to the canopy, they are probably severly injured and won’t survive ejection anyway. Its a pretty brutal process getting fired by explosives out of a plane at 12-14 Gs.
US has no auto-eject. Russian practice may be different (witness Yak-38), but in general they’re not equipped that way either.
Procedure is to eject promptly upon recognizing the aircraft is no longer flyable. In many combat scenarios you’ll be dead before you make that recognition.
The YAK-38 was a special case, an exception that proves the rule. Under the failure scenario described, the aircraft would transition from fine to unflyable to unejectable-from faster than the pilot could react. And given the unreliability of those engines, the scenario happened a lot. And was pretty easy to reliably detect. So the Sovs put in an extra special black box to save a few pilots and improve the morale of the rest.
It’s precisely the un-generalizability of recognizing unflyable failures with nil false alarms that precludes auto-eject as a routine system. So far.
A careful analysis of the wreckage can give evidence of what shot it down. But given the Russians don’t want NATO folks digging around their wreckage, and the NATO folks are the ones who know the signatures of their various weapons, it’ll be hard to put together a cooperative investigation team.
If there is any good video it may contain clues. Or not. Usable video clues can’t be definitively ruled in or out sight unseen.
Ground based SAM systems have ranges anywhere from a couple miles to ballpark 75 miles. So if it was shot down by a Turkish SAM based near the border all that proves is that the aircraft was within a handful of minutes of the border. That says nothing about whose side of the border the aircraft was over when it was shot.
There is already public knowledge that they were hit within a few kilometers of the border and crashed within a couple kilometers of the border. Even certain knowledge that it was a Turkish (or Syrian, or Syrian rebel) SAM won’t tell us anything about the SU-24’s location that we already don’t know.
I guessing that the other combustible items would include hydraulic fluid, electronics (insulation, printed circuit boards), paint & coatings, pieces of the air frame such as the cockpit window, (composites), as well as people. Wouldn’t expect much of a contribution from these items as the fuel is much more easily dispersed–especially in a the kind of chaotic, dynamic environment the SU-24 underwent after being hit.
I watched the video in the OP’s link to the BBC. It raises more questions than it answers.
It starts after the SU-24 is hit, and in fact it starts after the crew has ejected. So we can’t see whatever ordnance hit it. The fire is substantially all fuel; any other contributions are negligible.
The damage, although fatal, is fairly minor. That leads me towards believing it was cannon fire or a small manpad type SAM rather than a heavy AAM or long range SAM.
The other two aircraft seen at the end are indistinguishable, but are obviously working together. We have no way of knowing whether that was stock footage from a different day and place, or was taken by the same camera at the same time.
Speaking of camera, this whole thing was filmed by a pro with long-range fairly stabilized camera gear. IMO this wasn’t some guy recording with his smartphone. Many SAM systems have co-axial cameras which can be slaved to the tracking radar. Others do not.
So who took the vid and why? How did he get cued to look at the right place at the right time to capture this?
More interesting is the murder of one of the pilots (by rebels on the ground). i thought it wasn’t cricket to murder pilots parachuting from a disabled aircraft?
Uh, everyone, there’s no longer any controversy that it was an air-to-air missile that shot down the plane. Both Turkey and Russia are saying the same thing.
There’s no need to review the Youtube video frame-by-frame to try to determine whether the explosion was due to a SAM, an AAM, or thermite charges planted by Dick Cheney.
The laws of war apply to the folks who choose to abide by them. Many rebel groups have no idea they even exist. Over the years many aircrew have been killed by civilian locals having no connection to their countries legit forces or to guerillas.
War is a lot messier and arbitrarily violent than it is ethical, fair, or chivalrous.
I was also wondering, re OP, what the visual image of the hurtling plane revealed about the nature of the missile, ground or air.
LSLGuy mentioned manpad because, if I understand him correctly, the airframe appears to be in one piece.
Which is an answer to the same question, more broadly: abm’s are kinetic kill, but in themselves don’t blast anything apart, they just induce structural failure. Of the 1001 ways a missile can be bad news, they work on blast radius specs primarily? Proximity fuses? Even though IR search will “aim” for the engine, eg, it isn’t optimized for payload thinking “well, we just need a banana up the pipe, not a whole load of coconuts.”? (Eddie Murphy as weapons designer.)
(Also, re LSLGuy and Dick Cheney: you bet your ass people get paid to think like that and do the analysis. Remember film’s of Iran’s formidable quadrophonic missile launches?)
I disagree with LSLGuy’s suggestion that a MANPAD is a possibility. It’s been clearly established that the aircraft was operating at around 20,000 feet. Most MANPADs simply do not have a capability to reach that high, and even for ones theoretically could, it would be a golden BB shot.
Could you rephrase the rest of your questions using clearer language?
It’s my understanding that some of the warheads consist of an explosive inside of a one or more(?) wire bundles. The wire is a loop constructed in a “sawtooth” fashion which allows it to be compacted over the charge. When the charge explodes, the wire expands with so much kinetic force, that it “slices” through the target. The combination of the shockwave and cheese slicer is far more lethal than an explosive charge.