'External factor' caused Sinai crash

Russian airline blames 'external activity' for Saturday's deadly Sinai plane crash.

Fears were growing today that a bomb could have destroyed the Russian holiday jet that crashed in Egypt killing all 224 people on board.

The Airbus A321 broke up mid-air shortly after takeoff from the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, scattering wreckage over a wide area in Sinai.

Alexander Neradko, head of Russia's federal aviation agency, confirmed that the jet disintegrated at high altitude in a remote area where Egypt is fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda-backed terrorists.

Terrorism and aviation experts believe that a bomb could have been responsible, citing the fact there was no distress call and that some wreckage showed the fuselage skin had peeled outwards possibly due to a 'force acting outwards from within'.

A top official at Russian airline Metrojet also insisted a technical fault could not have caused the crash and blamed 'external activity' for the disaster.

Meanwhile, a Russian government plane brought home the bodies of 144 victims in the early hours of this morning, landing in St Petersburg, the intended destination of the doomed flight.

Russian government plane seen at Saint Petersburg returning remains of the crash victims

Russian news agencies say the government will be dispatching a second plane to bring back more remains later in the day.

President Vladimir Putin declared a nationwide day of mourning and flags flew at half-mast on Monday.

On Sunday, aviation experts and the search teams were combing an area of 16 square kilometers (more than 6 square miles) to find bodies and pieces of the jet. The Egyptian government said that by midday, 163 bodies had been recovered.

A truck carrying the bodies of victims of a Russian airliner which crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday leaves Pulkovo airport

Professor Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, said a bomb was a more likely cause for the plane breaking up mid-air than a missile or mechanical failure. 

He told BBC Radio Five Live: 'There's no sign of a distress call, so the idea that the aircraft was undergoing an mechanical problem, or an engine problem, or a fire, or something like that, you would expect that there would be some sort of distress call beforehand.

'So the fact that there was a catastrophic failure at 31,000 feet, with the aircraft falling in two pieces, suggests to me an explosion on board.

'So was this caused by some form of terrible accident, which is unlikely, or a bomb, which is much more likely, my mind is moving in that direction rather than anything that happened on the ground.'