If I was ejecting under conditions like these, I would want to be wearing a man-pad.
Of course it’s not cricket. But if you were just bombing some dudes, and then eject, they might be a bit unreasonable. Plenty of bomber pilots have made it safely to the ground only to be lynched by an outraged mob shortly after.
As for ejecting, I’m curious about the timing of ejection. Do you eject before the missile hits, or after? Seems like you eject after you’ve been hit and have decided the plane is too damaged to remain flyable. But you might not want to be there when the bomb goes off either. Are pilots trained to take the hit and eject afterwards if needed, or eject first?
After. Only paratroops jump out of a perfectly good airplane.
The pilot should have been taking evasive maneuvers and dumping chaff/flares to try to defeat the missile before it hit.
Video analysis:
As pointed out by Ravenman, the Turks agree they shot it down with an F-16. I don’t know, and can’t be arsed to check, whether they used the cannon or an AIM-9.
My comment about SU-24 damage was that at a large scale the aircraft was mostly intact. It was fatally wounded but wasn’t missing a wing or tail. That’s about the level of analysis we can get from the vid.
Warheads:
Almost all anti-aircraft missiles (air- or ground-launched) use the same warhead design: the continuous expanding rod as user_hostile says. See Continuous-rod warhead - Wikipedia for a decent explanation and diagrams.
IR guided missiles do not end up flying up the tailpipe. They end up flying towards the centroid of the heat source with a bias towards the front. The missile can approach the target from any direction: straight ahead, straight behind, straight above, straight below, or any other angle you can imagine. Typically if the warhead fails to fire the missile will flash past the target missing by a small distance; it won’t actually strike it in a direct hit.
In a classic maneuvering fight the missile typically crosses the target’s flight path at about 30-45 degrees. So more of a slash than a pole up the ass. But any crossing angle is possible.
The fuzing system is looking in a wide cone ahead of the missile’s path. Sort of like the shape of those cones people put on around a dog’s neck & face to keep it from licking wounds.
So the warhead fires milliseconds before the missile and target pass one another. As the rods expand outwards the aircraft flies through the cheesewire and gets sliced.
Ejecting:
In many cases folks never know they’re being shot at until their jet explodes around them. Some of those bail out successfuly. Most don’t.
In some cases you’ll know the missile is coming and be doing your best defensive moves. Which might or might not be enough. But you won’t know for sure until you either take the hit or see it flash past you.
Missiles aren’t death-rays. Statistical success in combat is in the low 80% bracket last I read. Nobody but a coward would eject before taking a hit. That’s granting the missile a 100% success rate.
Ejecting is no panacea either. You may be injured or killed by that process. Or shot out of the chute by enemy gunfire. Or beaten to death by the good citizens you were just bombing who’re probably a tad pissed at you. Or featured on the next ISIS blood-porn video after being used for “entertainment” for 6 months. Or interned in Siberia for the next 15 years.
There are a growing number of reports that it was an AIM-120, but the stories I’ve read are not what I’d consider authoritative.
The surviving Russian was interviewed and said that the first time he knew something was wrong was when his plane was hit. I can at least see the logic of claiming that he didn’t hear the warnings on the radio, and that’s a stretch. But for the Su-24 not to recognize that an F-16 has a radar lock on it? Just on the face of it, that’s hard to believe. F-16s don’t have sophisticated low probability of detection radars, and for a Russian Air Force strike plane not to be able to detect a pulse-Doppler radar locking onto it - wow.
It was ever thus.
When I flew F-16s we didn’t have AIM-120s. But if I was faced with the need to shoot a Su-24 near friendly territory with decent AWACS or GCI support I might not use my radar at all.
It’d be fairly straightforward to take vectors to a visual ID, followed by maneuvering into position to fire an AIM-9 or cannon burst into an unaware and hence nonmanuevering target. Our attack doctrine was heavily based on the idea that unaware targets don’t shoot back; they just die. Giving away our huge advantages of a nil visual signature plus the tactical initiative by broadcasting our position and intentions to the enemy was considered poor form.
If an AIM-120 was in fact used then obviously both the F-16 and the AIM-120 would have been radiating a locked-on signal at least briefly before launch and while the missile was inflight. If the other aircraft in the OP’s BBC vid were in fact the attacking F-16s then the firing range was fairly close and the warning time could have been just 10-ish seconds from lock-on to impact.
I have no clue how good the RWR gear in a SU-24 is. Or how often it’s broken. Not anticipating being fired upon by any other air force or ground ADA/SAMs I could see the Russians being pretty relaxed about flying with it inoperative. Though perhaps less so today than on that day.
I could also imagine that in a modern dense electronic battlefield the darn thing might be almost useless, constantly signaling a radar hit from something or other.
Is there a mode for modern fighters where they can launch -120s to a given point in space, at which point the -120s active radar turns on and searches for the target? Also, are Turkish F-16s set up with the data link that enables them to “see” the feed from ground-based radar, designate targets based on that radar picture, without radiating from their own aircraft’s radar?
I’ve read comments at, I think, the Aviationist, indicating the missile time of flight was ~30 seconds. Assuming that’s legit, they may be confusing missile time of flight with total time between missile launch and pilot ejection, but otherwise 30 seconds suggests a -120 to me.
“GCI”?
“RWR”?
ETA: Happy Thanksgiving
Q1: Yes, although this conceivably has an adverse effect on accuracy.
Q2: Quite likely. Do Turkish M1 Abrams have Chobham armor and has the US sold AESA radars to Turkey? That would give us a hint concerning how willing the US is to sell the top-shelf gear to Turkey rather than the nerfed version.
@Leo:
Wiki is your friend:
I just typed the acronyms into wiki’s search page then selected the only remotely military choice that came up on the disambiguation page.
Also:
“AIM” leads to Air-to-air missile - Wikipedia
“AWACS” leads to Boeing E-3 Sentry - Wikipedia
“BBC” leads to BBC - Wikipedia
“ADA” leads to Air Defense Artillery Branch - Wikipedia
“SAM” leads to Surface-to-air missile - Wikipedia
“OP” leads to Internet forum - Wikipedia 
Happy Thanksgiving to all, 'Merkin and otherwise. As this thread reminds us, lots of people are not having a nice life right now. We who are having a decent life ought be very thankful.
Two-seat U.S. fighters (at least the ones I rode in, F-15, F-16, F-4, and T-38) have a system that will eject both seats if the front seater pulls the handle, or only the back seat if the back-seater pulls the handle–but there is also a mode to set the system to where the back seater can fire both seats. When I was a back seater this was something discuss in the pre-flight briefing. Most guys I flew with wanted me to set the system to “aft-initiate” meaning that if I pulled the handle, we’d both eject.
I was taught that once I ejected in a combat zone, I was considered to be a non-combatant until I hit the ground and drew a weapon. Fortunately, I never had to test that theory, never needing to eject and never having been to a combat zone.
So it is, but so are my SD post-mates. Friends don’t let friends wonder about acronyms and have to work.
Especially OPs WARNAFighter pilot.
When would only ejecting the backseater be safe/make sense?
My WAG, when the front seater is already dead. Then you don’t risk hitting him during egress or decent?
Nobody likes backseat piloting.
Pilot wants to get away from a school, etc., but is not sure he can so the back seat can go while he has a better chance of surviving.
Yeah, there are some pilots like that.
Or maybe the backseat panics and the pilot thinks he can continue.
Maybe the pilot wants to make his own choice.
As to why they can be set either way makes the pilots think the command wants to save them. Wrong, the plane is designed to do a job, which comes first. If they can set it up so that they the plane and get the pilot back, cool. War planes are designed for war first, safety second.
Now they cost so damn much and pilot training is so costly, they try to save both but never think that saving the pilot is the first priority. They can always train a new guy cheaper than the billion dollar cost of the new war planes.
My info IIRC is about 50 years old so I could be wrong. Bawahahahaha
Very James Bond image here.