musman9853 wrote:

Interested wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek that the Ukrainian airliner that crashed in Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile.

https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot- ... 1313?amp=1

Is this source reliable?

newsweek is very reliable.

The opposite to what Reuters said. But this is more upto date and simplifies everything if it's to be believed.

This is what we were expecting at first but just took longer to emerge I think. Hence we looked at other options on here.

Newsweek isn't exactly the most reliable source. I don't mean in any political way, just they do like to run with stuff that may not be 100% verified.

mysfit wrote:

airhansa wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek that the Ukrainian airliner that crashed in Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile.

https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot- ... 1313?amp=1

A missile would explain most of the missing jigsaw pieces.

Except the plane turning...

No, the plane turning doesn't rule out the missile theory. The plane could have turned due to manual input (doesn't rule out missile) or damaged control surfaces or cables (doesn't rule out missile either).

JetBuddy wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I believe that the Ruptly image is from the crash site. And I believe it's the same ditch as in the first two photos with the missile tip in it.

What is more likely?

That the missile tip (which we know comes from an SA-15 which Iran has plenty of) comes from the missile that allegedly shot down the aircraft.
.

This I have to challenge. Do you have a source confirming that the missile tip is is in Iran's possession? to the contrary, the website which you linked suggests that Iran does not have such in its inventory. That version of the missile was never exported.

mysfit wrote:

airhansa wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek that the Ukrainian airliner that crashed in Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile.

https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot- ... 1313?amp=1

A missile would explain most of the missing jigsaw pieces.

Except the plane turning...

If the missile had exploded before hitting the target, it could have started fires or hit multiple parts of the plane. The plane banking quite sharply probably indicates that the wing/engine/fuel tank was hit and created a large fire. Or the pilots could have survived the missile and were unlucky that communications were lost.

The vertical fin being quite far back from the crash site suggests either that the missile hit it, or that the pilots were too aggressive (or there was some mechanical issue) trying to bring stability to the plane, or a bit of both.

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

SQ22 wrote:

Daimler wrote:

Strange, I was just going to provide the source but it seems the moderator has deleted my post on first results of Ukraininian investigators.
Anyway, posting this again - after examination of engine leftovers investigators found no evidence of burn damage. Therefore they conclude that fire observed on the video was not coming from engines.
Here is the source article: https://censor.net.ua/news/3168988/na_d ... toyatelstv
It is a respectable Ukrainian news site. Unfortunately, they don't have this article in English, but you can use google translate.

So,as someone posted here before, the question is - can the engine explosion due to mechanical failure leave no burn marks on the engine itself?

Thanks for reposting with a source.

As a reminder for everyone: When posting facts please always provide a link to your source, otherwise posts will be deleted. Thanks.

Wow, there are a lot of first hand information on that source ! I just copy the conclusions:

"So, what do we understand at the moment, what are the preliminary findings for January 9, 2 p.m.

1. The plane crashed, a fire broke out on board, but not as a result of engine malfunction, but as a result of another reason. Thus, the causes of the fire on board are not known. But apparently, the fire was in the cabin.

2. The aircraft was actually new, and the communication and control system itself, repeatedly duplicated, could not fail, there are no signs of a malfunction that the ground services would be aware of.

3. At the helm were the most experienced first pilot Aleksey Naumkin, with a flight time of 12 thousand hours, the second pilot was Sergey Khomenko with a flight time of 7.6 thousand hours, a former military pilot. There is no doubt that both of these people were highly resistant to stress and were well prepared for action in extreme conditions. Only a sudden incident could damage them, which would simultaneously hit the communications, control and crew of a huge aircraft. There can be no ordinary technical reasons for this. Even if the engines collapsed in the air without explosion and without fire, the crew would have time to go on air.

4. The absence of any negotiations with the dispatcher and the absence of a fire in the engines suggests that a version of a terrorist attack, a collision with a drone or an anti-aircraft missile explosion is very likely.

5. Records of airport radars will show the situation at the time of the disaster, and then it will be clear whether any objects were approaching or not. Thus, even the wildest rocket version cannot be ruled out at the moment.

6. Iran at the moment does not show any signs of hiding the circumstances of the tragedy, is ready to provide all the information and act in accordance with the rules of the international civil aviation organization.
"

In my opinion, a fire in the baggage compartment fit the actual reported elements as well as the observation of all the small solids tiny parts in fire at the crash site and in the security video of the crash. As the conclusion above say, only a massive event could let no time to the crew and immediately disable the communication, so this strongly suggest an explosion in the baggage compartment.

mysfit wrote:

airhansa wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek that the Ukrainian airliner that crashed in Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile.

https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot- ... 1313?amp=1

A missile would explain most of the missing jigsaw pieces.

Except the plane turning...

Why would a missile strike on an essentially-unpressurized aircraft necessarily eliminate the ability to turn back to the airport? If the pilots were still alive, and the plane's hydraulics weren't immediately inoperative, one would expect them to turn back towards safety.

Oh dear. I hope those responsible are brought to justice. I doubt they will be though.

airhansa wrote:

The vertical fin being quite far back from the crash site suggests either that the missile hit it, or that the pilots were too aggressive (or there was some mechanical issue) trying to bring stability to the plane, or a bit of both.

The vertical fin is at the end of the debris field of the crash site. This suggests that the vertical fin was attached until impact.

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

well, that's the first mention by a major US news source. CBS is about as mainstream as it's possible to get, above even Newsweek.

litz wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

well, that's the first mention by a major US news source. CBS is about as mainstream as it's possible to get, above even Newsweek.

yep, that's as close to 100% confirmation we're gonna get. iran shot it down.

btfarrwm wrote:

mysfit wrote:

airhansa wrote:

A missile would explain most of the missing jigsaw pieces.

Except the plane turning...

Why would a missile strike on an essentially-unpressurized aircraft necessarily eliminate the ability to turn back to the airport? If the pilots were still alive, and the plane's hydraulics weren't immediately inoperative, one would expect them to turn back towards safety.

Well. Not too far away there was a real life example. The DHL crew found their aircraft largely uncontrollable. It just depends where you're hit and what you're left with.

Pressurised or not, being hit by a missile is not something I consider to be survivable as a whole. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole it's catastrophic.

Interested wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

The source is Iranian president Hassan Rouhani's tweet:



https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/statu ... 85824?s=20

But the 290 were their people, right? And on this flight 147 were too. Shooting down an aircraft full of own people, departing from and flying over the own capitol impossibly can be a hostile act against anybody else.

Just to show how absurd that is: Think if the UK during the Falkland war would have shot down an airliner departing from and flying over London from a third country with no Argentiniens on board but a bunch of Brits and other people. That is so absurd, that we can rule out a willing act in this case.

Someone suggested they shot the wrong plane down by mistake There's a more American one that would have been similar time but the delays messed things up etc.

It's not inconceivable I guess.

I think it was an accident / mistake as well. It has happened numerous times before.

The Rouhani tweet is suspicious and very oddly timed - because it brings up the fact that the U.S. Navy shot down an Iran Air A300 in 1988. The Iranians have claimed that this was on purpose. So the tweet is a thinly veiled threat.

However, that connection is speculation. And I agree it doesn't make much sense to shoot down a plane with so many Iranian citizens. Unless some faction believed that the Canadians onboard were actually Americans, and read the tweet as a signal to go ahead.

But I lean more towards the accidental theory as well.

litz wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

well, that's the first mention by a major US news source. CBS is about as mainstream as it's possible to get, above even Newsweek.

Unless they are sourcing Newsweek. Pitch up the chain... this is how stories get planted... plenty of books on this.

Give it to a blog, that gets picked up by a smaller magazine/site, that gets pitched up the chain.

PixelFlight wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

Daimler wrote:

Strange, I was just going to provide the source but it seems the moderator has deleted my post on first results of Ukraininian investigators.
Anyway, posting this again - after examination of engine leftovers investigators found no evidence of burn damage. Therefore they conclude that fire observed on the video was not coming from engines.
Here is the source article: https://censor.net.ua/news/3168988/na_d ... toyatelstv
It is a respectable Ukrainian news site. Unfortunately, they don't have this article in English, but you can use google translate.

So,as someone posted here before, the question is - can the engine explosion due to mechanical failure leave no burn marks on the engine itself?

Thanks for reposting with a source.

As a reminder for everyone: When posting facts please always provide a link to your source, otherwise posts will be deleted. Thanks.

Wow, there are a lot of first hand information on that source ! I just copy the conclusions:

"So, what do we understand at the moment, what are the preliminary findings for January 9, 2 p.m.

1. The plane crashed, a fire broke out on board, but not as a result of engine malfunction, but as a result of another reason. Thus, the causes of the fire on board are not known. But apparently, the fire was in the cabin.

2. The aircraft was actually new, and the communication and control system itself, repeatedly duplicated, could not fail, there are no signs of a malfunction that the ground services would be aware of.

3. At the helm were the most experienced first pilot Aleksey Naumkin, with a flight time of 12 thousand hours, the second pilot was Sergey Khomenko with a flight time of 7.6 thousand hours, a former military pilot. There is no doubt that both of these people were highly resistant to stress and were well prepared for action in extreme conditions. Only a sudden incident could damage them, which would simultaneously hit the communications, control and crew of a huge aircraft. There can be no ordinary technical reasons for this. Even if the engines collapsed in the air without explosion and without fire, the crew would have time to go on air.

4. The absence of any negotiations with the dispatcher and the absence of a fire in the engines suggests that a version of a terrorist attack, a collision with a drone or an anti-aircraft missile explosion is very likely.

5. Records of airport radars will show the situation at the time of the disaster, and then it will be clear whether any objects were approaching or not. Thus, even the wildest rocket version cannot be ruled out at the moment.

6. Iran at the moment does not show any signs of hiding the circumstances of the tragedy, is ready to provide all the information and act in accordance with the rules of the international civil aviation organization.
"

Ukraine was a major region for aircraft manufacturing during the soviet eras and still retains a large aircraft maintenance and manufacturing community rivaling the likes of Brazil/Canada/Russia. I would say that they have the experts to understand the situation more than Iran.

A fire in the cabin could knock out communications if the fire happened to be in the right place - but again how the fire spread to rapidly so that utterly no-one was able to communicate with the ground is another matter which still has to be explained. I still find it quite unbelievable that a plane could have all three - no communications, no control and total fireball - within minutes if not seconds.

Maybe both theories are correct.

A plane having to go around and back due to some issue, flying low over areas where people are not used to planes flying low and are under huge stress over a potential attack. Terrible combination

I would be surprised if CBS ran with a Newsweek story.

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

mysfit wrote:

Anyone remember that plane at the gate in ChiNa which rapidly burned from the cargo hold straight up through the top?

As mentioned above numerous times that fire only started when the aircraft was on the ground, the fuel flow from the leaking tank dripped on the exhaust of the engine.
.

No.

Not the one I was referring to. Last summer, lithium batteries.

sevenair wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

mysfit wrote:

Except the plane turning...

Why would a missile strike on an essentially-unpressurized aircraft necessarily eliminate the ability to turn back to the airport? If the pilots were still alive, and the plane's hydraulics weren't immediately inoperative, one would expect them to turn back towards safety.

Well. Not too far away there was a real life example. The DHL crew found their aircraft largely uncontrollable. It just depends where you're hit and what you're left with.

Pressurised or not, being hit by a missile is not something I consider to be survivable as a whole. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole it's catastrophic.

Even if the plane is uncontrollable that doesn't mean it will just fly a straight path. Maybe that turn was just the natural flight of the plane due to damaged wings. Planes are still meant to fly/glide even if severely damaged.

I do agree however that DHL was an exception, but also the missile used there was way smaller than in this case (if SA-15 was really used).

Hot, fast fire

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/artic ... -bln-yuan/

A CBS special report just reported that U.S intelligence reported that they are confident than Iran shot it down. Stating that they picked up radars being turned on and US satellites detected 2 missiles being launched shortly before it came down.

michi wrote:

airhansa wrote:

The vertical fin being quite far back from the crash site suggests either that the missile hit it, or that the pilots were too aggressive (or there was some mechanical issue) trying to bring stability to the plane, or a bit of both.

The vertical fin is at the end of the debris field of the crash site. This suggests that the vertical fin was attached until impact.

I guess it depends on the distance the fin was from the crash site and how shallow the descent was. I would think that the fin would stay close to the site, or the entire back of the plane would break off. If the fin is simply at the end of the debris field then I agree with you.

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

Let me unpack that tweet:

1. U.S. Officials are confident Flight 752 was shot down by Iran
2. U.S. Intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on
3. Satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches
4. Satellite detected another infrared blip of an explosion.

(SA-15 Gauntlet / 9K330 / Tor-M1 are all the same system)

This is as close to confirmation we can get. If you believe U.S. Officials. And I know not everyone will.

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 75459?s=20

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

smokeybandit wrote:

I would be surprised if CBS ran with a Newsweek story.

Exactly ... there's a big difference between a news aggregator (buzzfeed, etc), and a news source, which independently verifies before reporting.

Once you get to the ABC/NBC/CBS/BBC/WSJ/NyTimes level of reporting, if you see it, they have independently verified it.

I'd expect shortly we'll see the other outlets start reporting the same thing as they, too, independently verify.

I don't think they had any meaningful control at all. It seems that it was not under much control when the first video was being filmed. It was under control until 8000 feet MSL. What we need to know is what happened between them two points and what systems and services were available.

We must find out who did this. If it was the Iranian regime that shot it down by accident then perhaps they can show a little more humility and understanding when it comes to IR655. In fact it was just days ago they tweeted about the 30+ year old incident and then the day after it could be them that blew a plane full of innocent people up.

They like to big themselves up but between the failed attacks on coalition bases in Iraq and potentially commuting mass murder, the regime is making itself look rather foolish.

JetBuddy wrote:

One explenation could be the following: The last image, the one with the Ruptly watermark - shows a ditch or a canal of some sort with concrete on both sides. The first two images show the missile tip laying in this ditch. The last image is supposidly from the crash site, but it doesn't depict the missile itself. The ditch might run for miles for all I know.

No, this is not the same ditch, see my post #1164.
The last image is from the crash site and you are correct, it don't match the close missile head picture context.

mysfit wrote:

Hot, fast fire

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/artic ... -bln-yuan/

A cargo fire is one of the few situations out there that could allow for a fire of such scale as the one proposed for the Iran crash.

So acvording to CNN. Swedish minister of foreign affair said "We are not ruling anything out," and another update just stated that UK are looking into "very concerning" reports about the crash.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live ... index.html

airhansa wrote:

michi wrote:

airhansa wrote:

The vertical fin being quite far back from the crash site suggests either that the missile hit it, or that the pilots were too aggressive (or there was some mechanical issue) trying to bring stability to the plane, or a bit of both.

The vertical fin is at the end of the debris field of the crash site. This suggests that the vertical fin was attached until impact.

I guess it depends on the distance the fin was from the crash site and how shallow the descent was. I would think that the fin would stay close to the site, or the entire back of the plane would break off. If the fin is simply at the end of the debris field then I agree with you.

It's perfectly explainable if the back end of the fuselage cartwheeled over the front during the crash sequence. wouldn't be the first or last time this has been observed.

What about the possibility that there was some technical fault that caused/required them to turn right (slightly) off the SID putting them on a direct trajectory for the air defense site. Air defense site quickly reacts and fires a missile. Impact was at the time ADS-B ceased. Aircraft still partially controllable makes a further right turn to return to the airport. The second missile is launched sometime during the turn and impacts the aircraft shortly before it crashes (see the flash on the video shortly before the impact with the ground) and deposits its guidance unit in the vicinity of the crash site.

Plausible?

LEJCargo wrote:

sevenair wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

Why would a missile strike on an essentially-unpressurized aircraft necessarily eliminate the ability to turn back to the airport? If the pilots were still alive, and the plane's hydraulics weren't immediately inoperative, one would expect them to turn back towards safety.

Well. Not too far away there was a real life example. The DHL crew found their aircraft largely uncontrollable. It just depends where you're hit and what you're left with.

Pressurised or not, being hit by a missile is not something I consider to be survivable as a whole. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole it's catastrophic.

Even if the plane is uncontrollable that doesn't mean it will just fly a straight path. Maybe that turn was just the natural flight of the plane due to damaged wings. Planes are still meant to fly/glide even if severely damaged.

I do agree however that DHL was an exception, but also the missile used there was way smaller than in this case (if SA-15 was really used).

The DHL attack was actually a RPG ... which is why it hit the wing, not the engine itself ... it isn't a heat seeker.

The DHL attackers had a one-in-a-million shot to hit a moving airplane with a RPG, and nailed it.

adamant365 wrote:

What about the possibility that there was some technical fault that caused/required them to turn right (slightly) off the SID putting them on a direct trajectory for the air defense site. Air defense site quickly reacts and fires a missile. Impact was at the time ADS-B ceased. Aircraft still partially controllable makes a further right turn to return to the airport. The second missile is launched sometime during the turn and impacts the aircraft shortly before it crashes (see the flash on the video shortly before the impact with the ground) and deposits its guidance unit in the vicinity of the crash site.

Plausible?

No less plausible than any other theory put forth.

michi wrote:

The standard departure out of IKA when flying towards UKBB would be straight out. Using the FR24 Data it looks like the aircraft did an early turn. As it is not known so far that there has been communication between the aircraft and the controllers, one might think that the crew did the turn for some unknown reason.

This might be an indication that the problem arose before the ADS-B data stopped.

In case of an engine failure an aircraft might leave the track because of thrust asymmetry. Normally this departure of the proposed track should be counteracted by the pilots. Nevertheless they might have been startled and turned a bit without realising it.

Blue is the SID and green the FR24 Data. Leaving the departure track to the north might indicate thrust loss on ENG 2 (right engine).




The impact area indicated a track (orange) of around 160°.




Therefore I conclude that the proposed track (red) after the ADS-B data stops towards the impact area must look at least like this:



I took the timestamp at the impact position from the CCTV camera which shows the alley. It is not known if the timestamp is correct. Assuming the timestamp is local time and correct as well, the flight time after loosing ADS-B data towards impact is around 4min and 36sec.
My assumed ground track is around 13,75NM. The latest speed recorded by FR24 ist 275kts ground speed. An aircraft needs around 3min to cover that distance with 275kts ground speed.

So I conclude that either the red track is way to short or the crew slowed down or the CCTV timestamp is not correct. Nevertheless I expect the aircraft has flown the red track more or less than I have depicted on my third screenshot.

The cyan circles indicate the position of the ballad missile site which was brought up earlier.
http://wikimapia.org/22195465/Malard-missile-launch-site-Missile-base-at-a-depth-of-500-meters

Edit: Sources, Spelling
- FR24
- Pictures of the crash site from various internet pages and twitter
- IKA SID maps (which I can't post due to copyright issues - maybe someone else could)

Absolutely stunning work, many thanks for this !

CO787EWR wrote:
"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches"

This would fit in with reports from locals (sorry I read it earlier on this thread but don't have the source, was it Parandak who posted it?) that they heard 2 large bangs from the nearby military base right before the plane went down...

sevenair wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

mysfit wrote:

Except the plane turning...

Why would a missile strike on an essentially-unpressurized aircraft necessarily eliminate the ability to turn back to the airport? If the pilots were still alive, and the plane's hydraulics weren't immediately inoperative, one would expect them to turn back towards safety.

Well. Not too far away there was a real life example. The DHL crew found their aircraft largely uncontrollable. It just depends where you're hit and what you're left with.

Pressurised or not, being hit by a missile is not something I consider to be survivable as a whole. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole it's catastrophic.

The DHL crew found their plane nearly uncontrollable because they immediately lost all hydraulics. It's not the best retort to someone who specifically mentions a scenario where hydraulics are still available.

airhansa wrote:

I guess it depends on the distance the fin was from the crash site and how shallow the descent was. I would think that the fin would stay close to the site, or the entire back of the plane would break off. If the fin is simply at the end of the debris field then I agree with you.

The fin is at the crash site where all the other debris is. As the impact likely occurred with high speed, the debris area is quite large. I estimate the main debris field length around 400m.

https://www.isna.ir/photo/98101813851/سقوط-هواپیمای-اوکراینی#61

So, missile?

Ouch

So let's suppose for a minute it's a missile. How do you confirm that based on wreckage?

JetBuddy wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

The plane departed at least an hour late. It was probably not on any list of known flights - though it's still highly remarkable that the plane wasn't contacted beforehand or that the military officials didn't understand the schedules of an airport especially of a departing flight. Also, a lot of missile systems are automated somewhat - maybe the one used in Iran is dodgy.

Would you attempt to communicate a distress signal in such a situation? No communication from a aircraft in such a situation is unusual - though I am fully aware of the procedures involved.

JetBuddy wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

Let me unpack that tweet:

1. U.S. Officials are confident Flight 752 was shot down by Iran
2. U.S. Intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on
3. Satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches
4. Satellite detected another infrared blip of an explosion.

(SA-15 Gauntlet / 9K330 / Tor-M1 are all the same system)

This is as close to confirmation we can get. If you believe U.S. Officials. And I know not everyone will.

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 75459?s=20

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

And it's possible Iran defence systems were disrupted by cyber hacking from US bearing in mind Iran have stated they disrupted US base defence systems with cyber hacking the previous night

Doesn't mean US were trying to make Iran make a mistake like this. But they might have been showing them what they were capable of doing in terms of cyber hacking in all sorts of ways. Not just defence systems

So who knows what the Iran defence guys were dealing with on the night that might have confused them etc. They could have had all sorts of unusual things to deal with.

It's still odd that Iran has been so open about the situation, allowing pictures and inviting Ukrainian investigators.

Could it be that the communication between Iranian authorities is so bad that they did not know they shot it down in the first few hours after the crash? Maybe the military was super secretive and did not admit they did it until later?

smokeybandit wrote:

So let's suppose for a minute it's a missile. How do you confirm that based on wreckage?

Shrapnel punctures....CVR.

I think.

PixelFlight wrote:

michi wrote:

The standard departure out of IKA when flying towards UKBB would be straight out. Using the FR24 Data it looks like the aircraft did an early turn. As it is not known so far that there has been communication between the aircraft and the controllers, one might think that the crew did the turn for some unknown reason.

This might be an indication that the problem arose before the ADS-B data stopped.

In case of an engine failure an aircraft might leave the track because of thrust asymmetry. Normally this departure of the proposed track should be counteracted by the pilots. Nevertheless they might have been startled and turned a bit without realising it.

Blue is the SID and green the FR24 Data. Leaving the departure track to the north might indicate thrust loss on ENG 2 (right engine).




The impact area indicated a track (orange) of around 160°.




Therefore I conclude that the proposed track (red) after the ADS-B data stops towards the impact area must look at least like this:



I took the timestamp at the impact position from the CCTV camera which shows the alley. It is not known if the timestamp is correct. Assuming the timestamp is local time and correct as well, the flight time after loosing ADS-B data towards impact is around 4min and 36sec.
My assumed ground track is around 13,75NM. The latest speed recorded by FR24 ist 275kts ground speed. An aircraft needs around 3min to cover that distance with 275kts ground speed.

So I conclude that either the red track is way to short or the crew slowed down or the CCTV timestamp is not correct. Nevertheless I expect the aircraft has flown the red track more or less than I have depicted on my third screenshot.

The cyan circles indicate the position of the ballad missile site which was brought up earlier.
http://wikimapia.org/22195465/Malard-missile-launch-site-Missile-base-at-a-depth-of-500-meters

Edit: Sources, Spelling
- FR24
- Pictures of the crash site from various internet pages and twitter
- IKA SID maps (which I can't post due to copyright issues - maybe someone else could)

Absolutely stunning work, many thanks for this !

I agree stunning work

michi wrote:

airhansa wrote:

I guess it depends on the distance the fin was from the crash site and how shallow the descent was. I would think that the fin would stay close to the site, or the entire back of the plane would break off. If the fin is simply at the end of the debris field then I agree with you.

The fin is at the crash site where all the other debris is. As the impact likely occurred with high speed, the debris area is quite large. I estimate the main debris field length around 400m.

https://www.isna.ir/photo/98101813851/سقوط-هواپیمای-اوکراینی#61

My theory is based on if the fin was further back from the crash site. The maps I had seen did not convey the scale of the crash site.

airhansa wrote:

Has anyone posted a theory on the loss of the vertical fin far before the crash site? It might be a sign that the pilots were to aggressive in trying to control the plane.

The vertical fin is clearly visible on the crash site.

airhansa wrote:

If the missile had exploded before hitting the target,

That's what the vast majority of them (anti aircraft) are designed to do. Proximity fuse and then an explosive detonation to release shrapnel that is contained in the warhead. Basically a less crude version of a box of nails with a bomb in the middle of it (but the nails are considerable larger and rather evilly shaped.

It is the shrapnel that brings the aircraft down, not so much the explosion.

JetBuddy wrote:

CO787EWR wrote:

"[email protected]: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion."

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 2086675459


US officials believe an Iranian SA-15 downed the 737-800

Let me unpack that tweet:

1. U.S. Officials are confident Flight 752 was shot down by Iran
2. U.S. Intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on
3. Satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches
4. Satellite detected another infrared blip of an explosion.

(SA-15 Gauntlet / 9K330 / Tor-M1 are all the same system)

This is as close to confirmation we can get. If you believe U.S. Officials. And I know not everyone will.

https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/statu ... 75459?s=20

The current theory is that it was an accident. Which makes sense because:

1. This crash happened after Iran had launched 20 missiles towards Iraq
2. Iranian military was expecting American retaliation in form of air strikes, and SAM system crews were likely on high alert and nervous.

The most likely scenario considering the tension everywhere. I'm curious if the Ukrainian gov't/Iranian gov't and or Ukrainian International had time to issue a warning for civil aviation to stay grounded or avoid Iranian airspace.

adamant365 wrote:

What about the possibility that there was some technical fault that caused/required them to turn right (slightly) off the SID putting them on a direct trajectory for the air defense site. Air defense site quickly reacts and fires a missile. Impact was at the time ADS-B ceased. Aircraft still partially controllable makes a further right turn to return to the airport. The second missile is launched sometime during the turn and impacts the aircraft shortly before it crashes (see the flash on the video shortly before the impact with the ground) and deposits its guidance unit in the vicinity of the crash site.

Plausible?

I had the same idea as you. But the communications were lost only after the plane started to turn, hence the pilots would have had time to request help from the airport, especially since they were heading back the airport. Though I guess a fire in the fuselage could have knocked out communications one by one as each wire was enveloped, if you stretch the possibilities.

JetBuddy wrote:

We have some more information and verification of the Tor-M1 SAM system missile debris found.

It appears to be genuine.

It also appears to have landed perhaps too perfectly within the confines of that narrow culvert...