63 Canadians killed after civilian airliner shot down.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I honestly don't understand why anyone would think Tehran would fess up. They have no motivation to and control all evidence.

And precedent from the Ukraine incident that they can simply deny forever, though I don’t recall if there was strong intelligence evidence cited for that one.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Kind of a consequence of 40 years of Sunny Ways foreign policy to be honest.

What would cloudy ways policy allow us to do in this case?

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Royle9

With that being said, without a doubt this is retaliation for the assassination.

Let's not forget, in addition to the 63 Canadians, there were 82 Iranians and others. No Americans. If this was retaliation, it failed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I'm going to assume here.. but based on historical data of plane crashes that if in fact this was caused by "engine failure" as originally reported, one would guess/wager that there would have been significant pilot discussion and reporting to the tower if they were experiencing any sort of mechanical failure.

Now if they plane was unexpectedly shot by a S.A.M you could then assume that there was no time to actually discuss anything therefor the data would show no discussion....

It's very sad that these people paid such a price for nothing but bull#### political world drama here. I hope Iran pays, but without further escalation I don't see sanctions and restrictions really doing much in terms of "answers" to what happened and the families here ultimately get screwed.

Some one bought up earlier rightly that the pilot procedure is to get control of the plane, navigate and then communicate. But from my understanding the voice recorder in the box picks up in cockpit chatter, not just radio chatter, that could be important, if there's no conversation happening, that says a lot, if there is chatter that talks about a strike that is huge.



As one talking head former investigator said on CNN yesterday, the appearance of the debris field speaks to the plane coming apart in mid air which goes against the theory of an engine failure. Bulldozing the site and tossing the debris means investigators can't look for signs of a missile strike ie shrapnel as I believe and Baron will probably correct me, but missiles like the SA-15 don't impact the target, they explode and extend a shrapnel cone not unlike a shot gun blast.


Iran isn't going to pay anything. At some point this could go to an International Court but that doesn't mean that Iran would abide by any judgement, plus like the mafia they've already wrecked evidence.


The family are screwed already, they're never going to get answers or and I know it sounds horrible compensation.

[flylock shox]

At first blush, this denial looks to me like a horrible miscalculation by Iran that risks their losing credibility both internationally and domestically. They may have determined that they can control the messaging - at least within their own borders - well enough to convince Iranians that this was not their own government's doing, but rather an aviation disaster or, more likely, a plot by the US.



The problem with that is that they're not dealing with an uneducated populace full of country bumpkins who also have no personal interest in the truth of why the plane went down, and will happily swallow the government's narrative. They have a highly educated population with a direct interest in what happened to the (I think) 142 Iranian nationals who were on that plane, and with connections to the outside world including the Iranian diaspora in Canada and elsewhere.



In short, they've risked their credibility with their own population and the rest of the world by adopting what appears to be a "plausible deniability" propaganda exercise.



If Iran did shoot that plane down (very likely) and if they know that (also very likely) and have decided to try to cover it up (increasingly likely based on the most recent reports), then they're not only squandering an opportunity for rapprochement with the international community, but they're handing their enemies a massive public relations and political victory. Not only that, but they'd be doing so in circumstances where they were likely to be forgiven - in a sense - had they simply been forthcoming, given the situation prevailing at the time the incident occurred.


Mind you, the Iranian regime has its own brand of math when it comes to these things, and lots of this is still speculation. But Iran is best placed to resolve that speculation and, if they don't, the rest of the world will simply have to draw some negative inferences. Canada needs to keep pushing for answers regardless, and hopefully the Iranian government will face some internal pressures to provide real answers to those connected to the friends and family members lost in this incident.



It's still early days, but this isn't a promising turn from Iran.



I should also add that I really enjoy posts like the ones Baron has made above, and that Captain has made in other threads, with respect to military technology and logistics. Keep it up gents - it's very informative to those of us with no grounding in this stuff whatsoever.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by edslunch

And precedent from the Ukraine incident that they can simply deny forever, though I don’t recall if there was strong intelligence evidence cited for that one.

Russia completely covered it up to the point of driving the vehicle back to Russia to hide the fact that Russian Soldiers were the ones that fired.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

At first blush, this denial looks to me like a horrible miscalculation by Iran that risks their losing credibility both internationally and domestically. They may have determined that they can control the messaging - at least within their own borders - well enough to convince Iranians that this was not their own government's doing, but rather an aviation disaster or, more likely, a plot by the US.



The problem with that is that they're not dealing with an uneducated populace full of country bumpkins who also have no personal interest in the truth of why the plane went down, and will happily swallow the government's narrative. They have a highly educated population with a direct interest in what happened to the (I think) 142 Iranian nationals who were on that plane, and with connections to the outside world including the Iranian diaspora in Canada and elsewhere.



In short, they've risked their credibility with their own population and the rest of the world by adopting what appears to be a "plausible deniability" propaganda exercise.



If Iran did shoot that plane down (very likely) and if they know that (also very likely) and have decided to try to cover it up (increasingly likely based on the most recent reports), then they're not only squandering an opportunity for rapprochement with the international community, but they're handing their enemies a massive public relations and political victory. Not only that, but they'd be doing so in circumstances where they were likely to be forgiven - in a sense - had they simply been forthcoming, given the situation prevailing at the time the incident occurred.


Mind you, the Iranian regime has its own brand of math when it comes to these things, and lots of this is still speculation. But Iran is best placed to resolve that speculation and, if they don't, the rest of the world will simply have to draw some negative inferences. Canada needs to keep pushing for answers regardless, and hopefully the Iranian government will face some internal pressures to provide real answers to those connected to the friends and family members lost in this incident.



It's still early days, but this isn't a promising turn from Iran.



I should also add that I really enjoy posts like the ones Baron has made above, and that Captain has made in other threads, with respect to military technology and logistics. Keep it up gents - it's very informative to those of us with no grounding in this stuff whatsoever.

I would expect and someone knows here that Iran has extreme restrictions in terms of internet access and Satellite access for news etc. The average Joe citizen is probably being given the narrative that the great Satan shot down the plane or that it was a simple engine failure. They won't know the rest of the story.


Internal propaganda will be full force.


BTW, I really respect Baron's posts, he's technically way smarter then me.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect and someone knows here that Iran has extreme restrictions in terms of internet access and Satellite access for news etc. The average Joe citizen is probably being given the narrative that the great Satan shot down the plane or that it was a simple engine failure. They won't know the rest of the story.


Internal propaganda will be full force.


BTW, I really respect Baron's posts, he's technically way smarter then me.

I'm not sure how strong Iran's controls over external media including the internet are. I don't think they're at China's level of sophistication though, and there are ways to get around those restrictions from inside China, so I would expect Iranians would have at least as good access to external news sources.



Leaving that aside though, there don't seem to be significant restrictions on forms of direct communication via phone or video link, allowing Iranians to connect freely with colleagues, friends, and relatives outside of Iran. And there will be a lot of interest among Iranians in what happened to this plane (and lots of distrust in the government's messaging).



It's for those reasons that I think this is a miscalculation by Iran. Their people aren't stupid, and only a portion of the population is fanatically religious or otherwise sympathetic to the regime. Urban youth, in particular, aren't going to swallow this story unless they decide to embrace nationalism in their battle with the US over what appears to be the truth in this case. They might have done that if this was a plane full of foreigners, I suppose, but it wasn't. This was their own, and they'll want answers too.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

The problem with that is that they're not dealing with an uneducated populace full of country bumpkins who also have no personal interest in the truth of why the plane went down, and will happily swallow the government's narrative. They have a highly educated population with a direct interest in what happened to the (I think) 142 Iranian nationals who were on that plane, and with connections to the outside world including the Iranian diaspora in Canada and elsewhere.

In short, they've risked their credibility with their own population and the rest of the world by adopting what appears to be a "plausible deniability" propaganda exercise.

The regime in Iran doesn't care what Canadians think. They hate the Iranian diaspora in Canada and around the world. They raped, tortured, and killed one such member of the diaspora, Zahra Kazemi, with impunity.

They're a regime of conservative religious fanatics who draw their support from the uneducated, rural, and the poor. I doubt those core supporters are bothered much by a bunch of Westernized traitors (in their eyes) getting blown out of the sky on their way back to their new homes. A hundred editorials in Western newspapers and a hundred campaigns on social media will be of no consequence to them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

(1)
I apologize in advance for is a long post; however, I’d like to bring forward some points for your consideration, ladies and gentlemen. I will break up my thoughts into several posts. A few pages ago, I stated that it looks like that plane was hit, or words to that effect and I even asked if there was an itchy trigger finger. I still lean in that general direction but, being cynical, I’m not prepared to accept as fact what US/Western Intelligence “sources” tell me via the media.

Let’s start with TOR M-1, or SA-15, or GAUNTLET or whatever you wish to call it. It is a short range area-defense system. The TOR does not operate as a stand-alone system; therefore, the system/the crews would not have been 'on alert' in the sense people are led to believe. The TOR crews and Battery Commanders do not get to decide anything.

A TOR crew would have zero authority on their own to target anything they thought was a threat within the TOR 15 km surveillance range. That is just not the way it works in an integrated, layered defense of fixed sites. The integrated system consists of long-range BAVAR 373 or S-300. The medium range is covered by BUK. The medium and long range systems are operated at higher levels – Brigade or above. Someone way above the TOR crew's pay grade would have properly identified any threatening target much further away with multiple other radars and handled it appropriately.

Even in an unlikely, hypothetical case, I can't imagine Iran (or any AD forces) clearing a TOR as the sole responder in this scenario, especially for a target 'suddenly appearing' but moving away from Tehran and the airport. What, exactly, would have been the threat to let a point-defense unit to start blasting away?

The air defense systems are operated by IRGC. The TOR isn’t operated by some schlub conscripts who show up for their night shift a few days a month. Thus, the operators are well aware of the flights coming in/out of Tehran. This flight wasn't the only air traffic at the time was it?

EDIT:

"There were 10 departures from Tehran-IKA from midnight local time 8 Jan through the departure of PS752 at 06:12 LT. Prior to PS752, the last flight movement at IKA was the departure of QR8408 at 05:39 local time."

I just can't imagine a TOR being the first/only one to detect a threatening aircraft even if it was moving directly towards Tehran. Nobody has cloaking devices, and the TOR's little engagement radar has no magical sensitivity that they could have seen anything that all the longer-range radars would have missed. The crews understand this. They're not supposed to make command decisions to destroy aircraft like they're playing a video game, and their commanders would not simply have used the closest TOR to blast an unidentified target near a Tehran's airport when they had plenty of time to figure out what was going on and opportunity to blast it if it ever was identified as a threat.

With all of that said, that doesn’t mean that some trigger happy guy down at the launcher doesn’t press ‘fire’ anyway, but I doubt it.

Thanks for adding the flight paths of departures in that window. I wanted to look this up on flightaware but forgot. And by "forgot" I mean, "got lazy".

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Russia completely covered it up to the point of driving the vehicle back to Russia to hide the fact that Russian Soldiers were the ones that fired.

I remember and it seems pretty clear what happened, but did intelligence agencies or governments openly say Russia did it? The only reason I’m asking is to understand if Iran is at the level of bald face lying as Russia was then or even worse, which could affect its ability to withstand international pressure.

Assuming of course that they did which I guess we can’t be 100% sure of, but sure looks like it.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

At first blush, this denial looks to me like a horrible miscalculation by Iran that risks their losing credibility both internationally and domestically.

Lol as if the Iranian mullahs had any credibility to begin with.

[Baron von Kriterium]

(4)

So, here are the things I am having problems with:

a.
From what I can determine from many accounts is that the plane took a turn to starboard after being hit. That indicates something catastrophic to the starboard side, affecting the aerodynamics. But aren’t the “sources” saying the missile came from port?
I read an account yesterday that provided a best guess for the location of the TOR, but I can’t find it now. If the missile came from port, and we assume the fireball is from the engine, then it would have been the port engine hit and the plane would have turned to port.

b.
The aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B (the Flightradar data) too early. Whether it was a MANPADS or TOR, that doesn't explain the gap between the last ADS-B transmission and the crash (there is a gap of four minutes). This flight’s last transmission was at 0244 UTC. The plane crashed at 0248 UTC. Does that prove anything? Other flights taking off from Tehran kept transmitting, and ground stations 'heard' ADS-B in that area, so it's not coverage.


https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/u...f-from-tehran/



Is ADS-B reliable? I assume it isn’t totally accurate.

c.
Apparently the vertical stabilizer (rudder) was torn off the tail just prior to impact and found at the leading edge of the debris field. Is this true? That’s a strong part of the aircraft and even when the plane comes apart, you usually find the vertical stabilizer still attached to the horizontal stabilizer. For aerodynamic forces to rip that thing off, the aircraft would have to be spinning or encountered some other catastrophic forces just prior to impact. The final tens of seconds seem to have been in a relatively straight line, as per this dash cam video:

https://twitter.com/Khaaasteh

This looks like a plane that is under power but unable to maintain altitude. This, plus the gap of four minutes between loss of ADS-B and crash, tells me this plane was maneuvering back to airport under power. But I don't know for sure and I don't know what to make of it, but I do not believe a TOR shot this plane down.

[Looch City]

Latest comments from Ukraine:

What does Ukraine say?

At Friday's news briefing in Ukraine's capital Kyiv, Mr Prystaiko reiterated that at this stage Ukrainian investigators were not ruling out any possible cause of the crash.

But he called for the "level of speculation" to be reduced, adding that Ukraine wanted to establish an "international coalition" to conduct a thorough investigation.

Mr Prystaiko said nearly 50 Ukrainian investigators were already working in Iran, and there was "full co-operation" from Tehran.

"We are analysing pieces of the body of the plane, we are analysing the bodies of the people who died in the crash.

"We are analysing the chemical residues on the body of the plane. We will come to our conclusion, we don't want to come to them right now.

"Our team has now got access to the black boxes," he said, stressing that Ukraine wanted them to be analysed in Kyiv.

Iran earlier said it would download the information itself, adding that the process could take up to two months.

Kyiv earlier said the US had passed on "important data" about the crash, without providing any further details.

Ukraine's team in Iran includes experts who worked on the investigation into the 2014 downing by a missile of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51067545

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

(4)

So, here are the things I am having problems with:

a.
From what I can determine from many accounts is that the plane took a turn to starboard after being hit. That indicates something catastrophic to the starboard side, affecting the aerodynamics. But aren’t the “sources” saying the missile came from port?
I read an account yesterday that provided a best guess for the location of the TOR, but I can’t find it now. If the missile came from port, and we assume the fireball is from the engine, then it would have been the port engine hit and the plane would have turned to port.

b.
The aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B (the Flightradar data) too early. Whether it was a MANPADS or TOR, that doesn't explain the gap between the last ADS-B transmission and the crash (there is a gap of four minutes). This flight’s last transmission was at 0244 UTC. The plane crashed at 0248 UTC. Does that prove anything? Other flights taking off from Tehran kept transmitting, and ground stations 'heard' ADS-B in that area, so it's not coverage.


https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/u...f-from-tehran/



Is ADS-B reliable? I assume it isn’t totally accurate.

c.
Apparently the vertical stabilizer (rudder) was torn off the tail just prior to impact and found at the leading edge of the debris field. Is this true? That’s a strong part of the aircraft and even when the plane comes apart, you usually find the vertical stabilizer still attached to the horizontal stabilizer. For aerodynamic forces to rip that thing off, the aircraft would have to be spinning or encountered some other catastrophic forces just prior to impact. The final tens of seconds seem to have been in a relatively straight line, as per this dash cam video:

https://twitter.com/Khaaasteh

This looks like a plane that is under power but unable to maintain altitude. This, plus the gap of four minutes between loss of ADS-B and crash, tells me this plane was maneuvering back to airport under power. But I don't know for sure and I don't know what to make of it, but I do not believe a TOR shot this plane down.

I wish I could find it, there was an interview on CTV news this morning with an aviation consultant, and he theorized that the turn to starboard was a normal flight path to orientate the plane to its destination. He also questioned the turn as back to the airport as it wouldn't make sense because it wouldn't put the plane on a clear landing path.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

c.
Apparently the vertical stabilizer (rudder) was torn off the tail just prior to impact and found at the leading edge of the debris field. Is this true? That’s a strong part of the aircraft and even when the plane comes apart, you usually find the vertical stabilizer still attached to the horizontal stabilizer. For aerodynamic forces to rip that thing off, the aircraft would have to be spinning or encountered some other catastrophic forces just prior to impact. The final tens of seconds seem to have been in a relatively straight line, as per this dash cam video:

https://twitter.com/Khaaasteh

This looks like a plane that is under power but unable to maintain altitude. This, plus the gap of four minutes between loss of ADS-B and crash, tells me this plane was maneuvering back to airport under power. But I don't know for sure and I don't know what to make of it, but I do not believe a TOR shot this plane down.

So I totally appreciate this reply, very informative and gives a better understanding as to some of the details.

With that being said, if you do not believe it was shot down then how do you explain the footage showing an object flying at an upward trajectory striking the plane just minutes before it crashed?

I'm honestly curious what your theory on that would be. Perhaps that footage is not legit?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wish I could find it, there was an interview on CTV news this morning with an aviation consultant, and he theorized that the turn to starboard was a normal flight path to orientate the plane to its destination. He also questioned the turn as back to the airport as it wouldn't make sense because it wouldn't put the plane on a clear landing path.

It's likely a common departure turn, especially when you compare it to the map of the other departures that morning, which it matches. On climb out, a turn to the airport wouldn't be decided that quickly (focus is on flying the plane and if going down, find a field) Rarely is a 180 turn recommended at low altitude. As well, if it was decided, it would not be a slight turn then proceed to go straight again as shown in the tracking.

I don't see any indication that there was a problem during ADS-B tracking.

Edit: Possibly the Parot departure, page 16 in this document. https://vau.aero/navdb/chart/OIIE.pdf

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Royle9

So I totally appreciate this reply, very informative and gives a better understanding as to some of the details.

With that being said, if you do not believe it was shot down then how do you explain the footage showing an object flying at an upward trajectory striking the plane just minutes before it crashed?

I'm honestly curious what your theory on that would be. Perhaps that footage is not legit?

I don't believe TOR shot it down, based on the evidence I have right now. And by evidence, I mean evidence not provided by "unnamed intelligence sources".

From the video, it could be a MANPAD; it could be TOR M; or it could be doctored. Is this the footage posted by twitter user "Nariman"? If so, please be cautious because he is a known anti-Iran activist. Thus, I don't consider him a reliable source. With respect to TOR M, all I am saying is that the TOR would have to be deployed to the starboard side of the aircraft. At this point in time (and I stress that), I don't have any evidence stating where this weapon was situated.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wish I could find it, there was an interview on CTV news this morning with an aviation consultant, and he theorized that the turn to starboard was a normal flight path to orientate the plane to its destination. He also questioned the turn as back to the airport as it wouldn't make sense because it wouldn't put the plane on a clear landing path.

All I'm pointing out is that the plane will initially turn in the direction where there is the most drag. That's just physics. Assuming catastrophic engine failure, the plane will initially turn in the direction of that failed engine. What the pilot does after that to correct, I do not know. If I remember my third year aerodynamics course, an engine loss below a critical speed (which changes according to altitude, temperature, and ice) is a terminal failure, especially if the pilot attempts to turn and the aircraft stalls in the turn.

There are two other airports he could have turned to. Maybe he was trying that?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

All I'm pointing out is that the plane will initially turn in the direction where there is the most drag. That's just physics. Assuming catastrophic engine failure, the plane will initially turn in the direction of that failed engine. What the pilot does after that to correct, I do not know. If I remember my third year aerodynamics course, an engine loss below a critical speed (which changes according to altitude, temperature, and ice) is a terminal failure, especially if the pilot attempts to turn and the aircraft stalls in the turn.

That would be the Minimum Control Speed, known as Vmc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_control_speeds