7

There are reports in the media saying Turkey shot down a Russian military aircraft after ignoring several warnings and after they entered Turkish airspace.

Which "warnings" are these? Are they standardized somehow?

orique
  • 1,550
  • 1
  • 13
  • 28

1 Answers1

8

This depends on the rules of engagement for a country and how the intercepting aircraft are instructed to act.

Radio Contact

The intercepting aircraft will try to establish radio contact on the distress frequencies available. 121.500 MHz or for NATO aircraft 243.000 MHz.

Visual Contact

Unless there is an imminent threat, the intercepting aircraft can position next to the intruding aircraft and establish visual contact with the pilots. There is also standardized procedures, such as the infamous rocking of wings.

Intercept (Image Source: www.cfinotebook.net)

Flares

Unless at high altitude, ground based units can shoot flares to attract attention and inform aircraft that they are entering prohibited or restricted airspace.

SentryRaven
  • 15,660
  • 64
  • 88
  • From this answer, I understand that they would have been warned possibly by flares and through radio on 121.500 (is this frequency used by all aircraft? I was assuming it was for civilian ones only); since Russia and Syria (the country which the alleged intruder was coming from) are not NATO countries. Is there any standard phraseology? I discard visual contact as this would require Turkish aircraft to enter Syrian airspace "just to warn". – orique Nov 25 '15 at 09:22
  • 3
    @orique The answer lists possible methods. AFAIK from reports, the Turkish F16 only used radio to contact the Russian aircraft while they were still in Syrian airspace and bound for the Turkish airspace. 121.500 MHz is used by military and civilian aircraft. Military aircraft can tune it in at least, as otherwise interception of civilian aircraft would be difficult. – SentryRaven Nov 25 '15 at 09:26
  • 2
    @orique Note that any country has the right to defend their sovereign airspace. This is why so much of the debate is focused on where the aircraft was shot down, since that is of primary interest from an international legal standpoint. Rules of engagement are as far as I'm aware national law (although possibly standardized across NATO), not international law. – Sanchises Nov 25 '15 at 12:51
  • 3
    Actually the true debate is focused on where the aircraft was at the point the missile was fired. The political debate is focusing on where the aircraft was when it was hit, but that isn't necessarily the same place in aircraft capable of mach 1+ – Jon Story Nov 25 '15 at 13:20
  • "the intercepting aircraft can position next to the intruding aircraft and establish visual contact with the pilots". By giving him "the bird"? ;) – Gavin Coates Nov 25 '15 at 16:50
  • @JonStory I guess that even that may become a point of discussion: is the point where the missile is fired more important than the point where the missile hits? Either country may develop a different opinion on that subject, depending on what turns up in investigations. – Sanchises Nov 25 '15 at 17:10
  • 2
    I doubt that's truly up for debate: legally speaking the point when the missile is launched is all that really matters, although I've no doubt the difference will be ignored when used for political point scoring. Essentially, Turkey is perfectly entitled to shoot missiles at anything over their territory: any other detail is down to the national law of Turkey. – Jon Story Nov 25 '15 at 17:30
  • and remember that this was far from the first incidence of Russian military aircraft violating Turkish airspace and being warned away. A prudent Russian commander would have put in place ROE ensuring his aircraft stayed well clear of that border. Unless of course he had explicit orders from Moscow to provoke a confrontation. – jwenting Nov 26 '15 at 07:50
  • It's a basic tenet of international law: If an aircraft is above your territory, you can shoot it down - the airspace belongs to that nation. If the aircraft breaks the law of that nation, while in the airspace of that nation, the laws of that nation apply (a basic tenet of sovereignty), see http://www.icao.int/Meetings/atconf6/Documents/WorkingPapers/ATConf.6.WP.080.1.en.pdf which mentions this. If the aircraft subsequently leaves your airspace after you've fired the missile, how are you meant to prevent that? Missiles aren't instantaneous. – Jon Story Nov 26 '15 at 23:40
  • There's no requirement to stop your missile just because it leaves your airspace. Although equally, your neighbours are entitled to shoot your missile down as soon as it crosses their border. What happens in your airspace is your business. The point is that when the decision was made to fire the missile, the Su24 was a legitimate target according to Turkish rules of engagement and international sovereignty. You could program a missile to be deactivated, but would you really want to? It would be open to abuse ("hopping" the border to waste ammo) or malicious acts (GPS jamming, for example) – Jon Story Nov 30 '15 at 10:21
  • "What happens in your airspace is your business": This didn't happen in the Turkish airspace, that's the point of canceling missiles. As the hit occurred over Syria, would that entitle Syria to shot the Turkish fighter over Turkey, for the sake of the same principle, and so on... (that's not an actual question, I'm mostly ok with your comment). – mins Dec 05 '15 at 10:42