Ypilot wrote:boeingboy wrote:
I'm sorry........but the Russians were warned many times about violating Turkish airspace. As a military pilot I'm sure they were always aware of exactly where they were - especially if there is another countries airspace nearby that is not involved. I can't believe they were not briefed about it.
What are the rules of engagement for Turkey ?
I find it hard to believe that two F-16s felt threatened by two Su-24s, they could have tried to make a visual contact and force them to land on a Turkish base or escort them out.
The Turkish government is irresponsible.
MC 362/1
–
the NATO ROE, provides guidance and direction on rules of engagement for
NATO in both joint and combined operations. Promulgated in July 2003, it is the only standing
Multinational ROE System. The current version, an unclassified document, is an update of NATO
MC 362, which begun in 1999 and was completed in July 2003. The document‘s function, as stated
earlier, is to provide NATO policy and procedural guidance. The document also provides a generic
catalogue of individual rules. As an ROE Catalogue, it groups and integrates land, sea and air rules.
The rules contained within, as well as the more general guidance, are designed for all aspects of
operations, from Peace through Crisis and potentially, up to Conflict.
2.
Terms and Definitions
(1)
Hostile Act
–
MC 362/1 provides a
definition of Hostile Act
as any intentional act causing serious prejudice or posing a serious danger to NATO/NATO
led forces or designated forces or personnel. ...
(2)
Also included in the discussion of Hostile Act is the necessity of taking any specific action
in the context of the status of the crisis, the political situation at the time and, if known,
the intent of the perpetrator (e.g. a defecting pilot), all of which must play a part in
determining if indeed a hostile act has occurred.
MC 362/1 gives some examples of the types of things that might constitute hostile acts, a list
which includes, but is not limited to:
(1)mine laying restricting NATO forces
(2)military a/c penetrating NATO airspace and not complying with intercept instructions
(3)intentionally impeding NATO operations
(4)breaching NATO secure/restricted areas
-
Hostile Intent
–
MC 362/1 defines it as ―a likely and identifiable threat
recognisable on the basis of both the following conditions: a. capability and
preparedness ... to inflict damage and, b. evidence ... which indicates an
intention to ... inflict damage.‘‘ Possible examples include manoeuvring into
weapons launch positions, deployment of remote targeting methods, and use
of shadowers / tattletales
Source
https://info.publicintelligence.net/NAT ... skbook.pdf
