scbriml wrote:

Which, of course, the French deny.

Who to believe?

The Il-20 aircraft has been downed by Syrian military forces after Israel jets put it under attack off the Syrian coast, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov stated

sharles wrote:

Oh my. I never imagined Israelis are successfully using unpowered weapons against a modern air defense system.

JetBuddy wrote:

Do we know what type of SAM was used to shoot down the plane?

smithbs wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Do we know what type of SAM was used to shoot down the plane?

Appears to be a S-200 (SA-5). Wikipedia even has a writeup on this incident now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)#Incidents_involving_the_S-200

smithbs wrote:

There are heavier unpowered glide bombs like GBU-15, but it looks like the Israelis chose a small round - they must have known exactly what they were after and right-sized the munition for it.

bikerthai wrote:

Additionally, the GU-39 has much more range (good for stand-off attack) and you can carry more of them (fewer attacking aircrafts).

bt

scbriml wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The russians themselves said that it was a Syrian SAM.

Yes, but originally they apparently claimed it was shot down by the French.

Phosphorus wrote:

January 2019, so far:

2 Su-34 collided over Sea of Japan, with casualties.
https://www.aex.ru/news/2019/1/19/192741/

Tu-22M3 crashed on landing in Murmansk region, reportedly with casualties.
https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/6026357

Scipio wrote:

Footage of the Tu-22M3 crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... HMSSU_XyxU

Remarkably, two of the four crew members survived.

Tugger wrote:

Scipio wrote:

Footage of the Tu-22M3 crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... HMSSU_XyxU

Remarkably, two of the four crew members survived.

Holy hell! More than remarkable!

Certainly less than ideal landing conditions. The body broke with touchdown. The nose wheel didn't touch before it broke. Wow....

Very sad, my condolences to the family and mates of the crew. I am sure it hits hard for the Russian Air Forces.

Tugg

jupiter2 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scipio wrote:

Footage of the Tu-22M3 crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... HMSSU_XyxU

Remarkably, two of the four crew members survived.

Holy hell! More than remarkable!

Certainly less than ideal landing conditions. The body broke with touchdown. The nose wheel didn't touch before it broke. Wow....

Very sad, my condolences to the family and mates of the crew. I am sure it hits hard for the Russian Air Forces.

Tugg

That's some dodgy weather.

Not surprised it snapped, it was slammed down pretty hard. It seems strange to say it, but the survivors are lucky the rest of the aircraft didn't land on top of the broken off cockpit section.

jupiter2 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scipio wrote:

Footage of the Tu-22M3 crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... HMSSU_XyxU

Remarkably, two of the four crew members survived.

Holy hell! More than remarkable!

Certainly less than ideal landing conditions. The body broke with touchdown. The nose wheel didn't touch before it broke. Wow....

Very sad, my condolences to the family and mates of the crew. I am sure it hits hard for the Russian Air Forces.

Tugg

That's some dodgy weather.

Not surprised it snapped, it was slammed down pretty hard. It seems strange to say it, but the survivors are lucky the rest of the aircraft didn't land on top of the broken off cockpit section.

Dutchy wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Holy hell! More than remarkable!

Certainly less than ideal landing conditions. The body broke with touchdown. The nose wheel didn't touch before it broke. Wow....

Very sad, my condolences to the family and mates of the crew. I am sure it hits hard for the Russian Air Forces.

Tugg

That's some dodgy weather.

Not surprised it snapped, it was slammed down pretty hard. It seems strange to say it, but the survivors are lucky the rest of the aircraft didn't land on top of the broken off cockpit section.

pretty hard? That was a very hard landing, did you see how high it bounced in the air? And the forces needed to literally brake off the cockpit section must be tremendous.

Dutchy wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Holy hell! More than remarkable!

Certainly less than ideal landing conditions. The body broke with touchdown. The nose wheel didn't touch before it broke. Wow....

Very sad, my condolences to the family and mates of the crew. I am sure it hits hard for the Russian Air Forces.

Tugg

That's some dodgy weather.

Not surprised it snapped, it was slammed down pretty hard. It seems strange to say it, but the survivors are lucky the rest of the aircraft didn't land on top of the broken off cockpit section.

pretty hard? That was a very hard landing, did you see how high it bounced in the air? And the forces needed to literally brake off the cockpit section must be tremendous.

monomojo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

That's some dodgy weather.

Not surprised it snapped, it was slammed down pretty hard. It seems strange to say it, but the survivors are lucky the rest of the aircraft didn't land on top of the broken off cockpit section.

pretty hard? That was a very hard landing, did you see how high it bounced in the air? And the forces needed to literally brake off the cockpit section must be tremendous.

Doesn't look to me like it bounced, it looks like (and sounds like) the pilot went to full throttle and pulled back on the stick for a go around when he realized he was too low, plane landed too hard on the MLG, forward fuselage broke off, and the aft fuselage pitched up and stalled before crashing back to the runway.

JayinKitsap wrote:

At 1:22 in the video just before the MLG touched down there may have been a tail strike, if it didn't it was very close. Something caused a forward pitch moment, the MLG contact then would reverse this moment, besides for the high G force landing (someone noted above it was 7g). Once the break happened this pitch up moment as well as lift caused the wings to rise into a stall.

Wiki has an interesting article, the first paragraph could have been this week as it points to part of the cause of this accident. Reference is to 1996 article though.

the Tu-22's handling characteristics proved to be dangerous. Its landing speed was some 100 km/h (60 mph) greater than previous bombers and it had a tendency to pitch up and strike its tail upon landing. It was difficult to fly, and had poor all-round visibility.

Phosphorus wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

At 1:22 in the video just before the MLG touched down there may have been a tail strike, if it didn't it was very close. Something caused a forward pitch moment, the MLG contact then would reverse this moment, besides for the high G force landing (someone noted above it was 7g). Once the break happened this pitch up moment as well as lift caused the wings to rise into a stall.

Wiki has an interesting article, the first paragraph could have been this week as it points to part of the cause of this accident. Reference is to 1996 article though.

the Tu-22's handling characteristics proved to be dangerous. Its landing speed was some 100 km/h (60 mph) greater than previous bombers and it had a tendency to pitch up and strike its tail upon landing. It was difficult to fly, and had poor all-round visibility.

While one can speculate, one important takeaway is that the general opinion of those, who flew Tu-22 (both the original Tu-22 -- description of which you are quoting from Wiki, and its distant, almost unrelated cousin of Tu-22M series), and those who were washed out, before they were allowed to pilot one -- Tu-22 series are UNFORGIVING planes. They demand a lot of respect from the flight crews; pilots need to obey a lot of rules and limitations, to survive the flying.
This generally seems a bane of Soviet variable geometry bombers -- the variable geometry, in theory, is supposed to make flying easier for the pilots. In practice, variable-sweep birds had reputation of widowmakers.