Jump to content

can we discuss this here?


SFAL

Recommended Posts

In theory yes but it's such a sensitive subject that in practice it won't work. On Russian forum it's been closed to anything but news about the subject and only Chizh is updating it.

 

Yes the Su-25 can fly at those altitudes but with a very light weapon load and the biggest problems come from the unpressurized cockpit. You'll find on internet that the ceiling is 7000m but there are videos of them flying at nearly 9000 m. 10 km should be possible.

 

The thing is though that it's really difficult to fly up there on a Su-25 that's also slower than a Boeing 777. Getting into a firing position requires almost perfect coordination with a ground radar as maneuvering is difficult at those altitudes, the speeds are high and you practically only have one chance to do it. I'd say it's bollocks to claim a slow and clumsy Su-25 chased down a fast B777 and shot it down with a cannon. Like Ukrainians don't have real fighter jets?

 

If you find more photos, you'll see that the largest concentration of holes in the aircraft are on the forward fuselage and especially the cockpit got badly peppered. This alone proves that the B777 was not chased down from behind. Fired from the front with a cannon? Sure, why not but why should it have been either? A SAM hit is the only reasonable possibility if you look at the evidence.

 

Besides, revealing that a Su-25 flew close by to the B777 that got shot down, rises the only possible conclusion to me; the Su-25 was targeted by a SAM and the B777 was shot down instead by a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The holes look more like shrappnel if you ask me.

 

Now i do realize it is not a general rule BUT there is not realy any distinctive round hole like most bullet holes look like.

 

Is there now also a theory that a su-25 shot mh17 down? I thought the claimed theory was the su-25 was hiding aside mh17?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, revealing that a Su-25 flew close by to the B777 that got shot down, rises the only possible conclusion to me; the Su-25 was targeted by a SAM and the B777 was shot down instead by a mistake.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking since I first heard about this Su-25 thing. Only thing that remains unclear to me, what would a Su-25 do in such altitude, near its operational limits? I presume it's not normal procedure, is it?

 

Yes, it's known that the separatists have MANPADS, so staying high would be a good way to avoid them, but then again, Su-25 is not A-10C to actually hit something from that flight level. Paint me confused.

 

 

Further regarding to the article, it's misleading. It states that "aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion." Is the author aware that anti-aircraft missiles don't hit their target directly, but explode in close proximity of their target, and destroy it with lots of tiny projectiles - which would of course create entry and exit holes as he mentions?

 

Or the statement that the fact of airplane breaking apart is proof of internal explosion. Firstly, internal fuel stores could possibly explode after SAM hit, but more importantly, the shrapnel cloud will of course disrupt the airplane's structural integrity, after which aerodynamical forces simply tear it apart.

 

 

As with any such incident, it's no wonder that conspiracy theories quickly start to surface, but I will rather wait for some official results. However, it's pretty possible that those results will say "shot down by SAM", but whether will we get to know who really launched it, remains a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's known that the separatists have MANPADS, so staying high would be a good way to avoid them, but then again, Su-25 is not A-10C to actually hit something from that flight level.

 

Su-25's have been flying at those altitudes since the Afghan war. The reason being the MANPAD's you mention.

In the bottom of the page of the link below there is an excerpt from memoirs of a Soviet Su-25 pilot in Afghanistan. He says that they had to approach targets from up to 8000 meters. That's plenty of fuel and some ordnance to do the mission thus 10 km should be no problem to achieve.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39687&page=502

Is there now also a theory that a su-25 shot mh17 down?

Russian officials didn't directly claim that the Su-25 shot it down AFAIK but they strongly hinted that it might have something to do with it. In my opinion they are just shooting themselves in the leg with that claim. It just gives a perfect reason for an accident like I mentioned.

However Russian media and conspiracists have gone wild with the idea even claiming two Su-25's were chasing the B777 with guns. I even saw a funny picture of some TV channel claiming that the guns were fired from a distance of 3-5 km.

 

There is a crazy propaganda war going on both sides. It's very hard to believe anything official from any side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only question I have on the subject is why weren't both sides in the conflict made aware of the exact flight path and altitude of the civilian flight, as well as its radio and transponder frequencies. If the rules had been followed, it would have prevented an accident (by either side and assuming it was the case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposedly the BUK was operating alone without proper command radar vehicle (or whatever) and thus couldn't see the transponder code.

 

Another thing is why many airlines were flying over a war territory where aircraft were shot down all the time? The airspace was closed below 32000 feet and the MH17 was flying at 33000 feet. Why did the airline (among others) risk the aircraft in case of engine malfunction or uncontrolled decompression? The aircraft would have to descend into the closed airspace and in the case of uncontrolled decompression it would have done a very suspicious dive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further regarding to the article, it's misleading. It states that "aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion." Is the author aware that anti-aircraft missiles don't hit their target directly, but explode in close proximity of their target, and destroy it with lots of tiny projectiles - which would of course create entry and exit holes as he mentions?

 

Or the statement that the fact of airplane breaking apart is proof of internal explosion. Firstly, internal fuel stores could possibly explode after SAM hit, but more importantly, the shrapnel cloud will of course disrupt the airplane's structural integrity, after which aerodynamical forces simply tear it apart.

In one of my flight manuals part of the pilots notes discusses how to select what type of fusing the missile is going to use whether it is instant for a head on launch or delayed if you are firing from a stern chase aspect, this is for a 1960s aircraft system.

Missilefuse1_zps4c2462b7.jpg

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposedly the BUK was operating alone without proper command radar vehicle (or whatever) and thus couldn't see the transponder code.

 

Another thing is why many airlines were flying over a war territory where aircraft were shot down all the time? The airspace was closed below 32000 feet and the MH17 was flying at 33000 feet. Why did the airline (among others) risk the aircraft in case of engine malfunction or uncontrolled decompression? The aircraft would have to descend into the closed airspace and in the case of uncontrolled decompression it would have done a very suspicious dive.

The other aspect is continuing military air operations near civilian flights.

 

There's actually 3 major points of note in this incident:

 

1) Airliners should be diverted around conflict zones where possible.

 

2) Military air operations should not be taking place against the back drop of civilian air traffic.

 

3) Both sides should be aware of all flights passing through their territory well in advance and have the means of identifying and communicating with those flights. There's something called a NOTAM I believe.

 

Manual on International Law

Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare

 

Bern, 15 May 2009

 

Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research

at Harvard University

 

http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Su-25's have been flying at those altitudes since the Afghan war. The reason being the MANPAD's you mention.

In the bottom of the page of the link below there is an excerpt from memoirs of a Soviet Su-25 pilot in Afghanistan. He says that they had to approach targets from up to 8000 meters. That's plenty of fuel and some ordnance to do the mission thus 10 km should be no problem to achieve.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39687&page=502

 

Russian officials didn't directly claim that the Su-25 shot it down AFAIK but they strongly hinted that it might have something to do with it. In my opinion they are just shooting themselves in the leg with that claim. It just gives a perfect reason for an accident like I mentioned.

However Russian media and conspiracists have gone wild with the idea even claiming two Su-25's were chasing the B777 with guns. I even saw a funny picture of some TV channel claiming that the guns were fired from a distance of 3-5 km.

 

There is a crazy propaganda war going on both sides. It's very hard to believe anything official from any side.

 

Yea true, prolly better to not belive any side lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult to comprehend? Perhaps one has to identify a couple existing of facts not theories.

 

1 Which side was in control of the crash side

2 Why weren’t investigators aloud to the crash site for two weeks after the incident.

3 Whose authority impeded the investigation and hampered the evidence, pieces of which were handled in violation of moral principles.

 

Then the old saying, if it walks like a duck and quack like one then it probably is…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Both sides should be aware of all flights passing through their territory well in advance and have the means of identifying and communicating with those flights. There's something called a NOTAM I believe.

 

Yeah, but in this case, one of the sides is not even regular army. They don't have any means of doing any of the above, and hell knows if they even care. Which is only one more reason why the airspace should be closed long ago.

 

And, while some say that the Buk launcher was smuggled from Russia, there are some rumors that it was Ukrainian, captured by the rebels. Which would mean that Ukrainian officials were well aware what the rebels have at their disposal, and didn't close the airspace even after that. Of course, it's just only a speculation.

 

 

One thing is sure. If someone has closed the airspace, none of this would happen. Funny how these things always become obvious only after something tragic happens, isn't it? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that closing of air space over the conflict zones is an international matter, since all understood the risks equally by all I mean governments, regulatory organisations and carriers.

 

Now I understand that the steps have been taken to change the system, such that the regulatory organisations will be dealing with no fly zones and not the carriers who have to assess their own risk over profits.

 

Another thing is that Ukrainian officials and UN are aware of the military hardware which was left in Crimea including the aircraft with Ukrainian IFF systems and that’s another portion to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of my flight manuals part of the pilots notes discusses how to select what type of fusing the missile is going to use whether it is instant for a head on launch or delayed if you are firing from a stern chase aspect, this is for a 1960s aircraft system.

 

Out of interest, what was the aircraft and the missile?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult to comprehend? Perhaps one has to identify a couple existing of facts not theories.

 

1 Which side was in control of the crash side

2 Why weren’t investigators aloud to the crash site for two weeks after the incident.

3 Whose authority impeded the investigation and hampered the evidence, pieces of which were handled in violation of moral principles.

 

Then the old saying, if it walks like a duck and quack like one then it probably is…

Lot of really bad information flying around here:

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-crash-site-investigators

 

22 JULY 2014

 

The Malaysian Airlines team has to cover an area of nine square miles, which is how far the wreckage of the disaster was spread when Flight MH17 fell out of the sky on Thursday, killing 298 people.

 

Surrounded by volatile pro-Russian rebels - the very people accused of shooting down the plane in the first place - the investigators look nervous, and fair enough. They have a large and difficult task ahead, and as they began, loud explosions were heard on the outskirts of Donetsk, some 40 miles from the site.

 

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed leader of the breakaway Donetsk region, Alexander Borodai, posed with MH17's flight recorders or black boxes, as he handed them over to international authorities. The recorders will now be sent to Britain for further investigation.

 

 

Yeah, but in this case, one of the sides is not even regular army. They don't have any means of doing any of the above, and hell knows if they even care.

I think that's perhaps one of the problems. It was seen that the other side weren't regular army but a lot of them actually are/were. They were deemed as irregular army because formalities could then be dispensed with. Journalists have managed to make contact inside Eastern Ukraine, so it was really far from impossible to set up a means of communicating NOTAM-type information. But otherwise I agree. If you want to fly military air operations, you close the airspace. This fundamentally falls under the same laws that apply to placing military targets away from civilian centres. It's isn't appropriate to be using civilian airliners as pseudo decoys either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

 

I think that closing of air space over the conflict zones is an international matter, since all understood the risks equally by all I mean governments, regulatory organisations and carriers.

In fairness I think most airliners were avoiding the actual conflict zone and some took the added step of avoiding Ukraine altogether. The reason for the latter approach is now obvious. Once you fly into a country's airspace, you're under the control of their ATC and they can re-direct you wherever they like, which in this case was over the disputed region.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...