tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:06 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 200):
There is only one set of facts, not a "version of facts". His interpretation of the facts always amazes me, and that's why I respect him.

After reading the NYT article, how would you rate his interpretation of facts in this exchange?

tailskid (Reply 183):
Russia is not at all restrained, in the last week they are reported to have moved 30,000 troops to the border area and are currently holding military maneuvers.

NY Times seems to think Ukraine is betting on Russia restraining (published August 9)... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/world/europe/ukraine.html
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5740
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:10 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 201):

How does that relate to MH17?

Feel free to open a thread over there in Non-Av. I hear writing there is a great waste of time fun. 



David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:24 pm

The way this thread is developing, it is delving into the pure politics of the situation.
There is an additional thread specifically for that purpose; that should be used instead of venting political opinions here.
I would have thought that the operational side of aviation is completely separate from politics.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:25 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 202):
How does that relate to MH17?

It is a response to your post in this MH-17 thread.

And it is a followup on Mandella's assertion that "one of the reasons for the Ukrainians to have tricked the Russians into shooting down an airliner " was that in the aftermath of an airliner shootdown the Russians wouldn't dare to even make any threats of invasion. His exact words are here:

It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.


And yes it would be very significant to the MH-17 investigation had the Ukrainians actually "incited a shootdown."

However the accusation is groundless and preposterous - which is what I was in the process of showing during that exchange.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:54 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 203):
The way this thread is developing, it is delving into the pure politics of the situation.There is an additional thread specifically for that purpose; that should be used instead of venting political opinions here.I would have thought that the operational side of aviation is completely separate from politics.

It is difficult to avoid some discussion of the politics, since all credible evidence shows:

1) M&17 was shot down by a ground-to-air missile;
2) That missile was fired from a rebel-controlled area of Eastern Ukraine;
3) The rebel commander went onto the website his group always uses to tout their "victories";
4) He bragged that they ahd shot down an aircraft, presumably a Ukrainian military jet;
5) After laerning that the Malaysian airliner had been shot down, his post was quickly deleted;
6) Other rebels have spoken and admitted they had the BUK system; and
7) Russian soldiers have posted videos showing they were in the Ukraine at the time.

All of continues to raise some questions:

1) Did the rebels intend to shoot down a military plane, but hit a civillian aieliner by mistake (probably);
2) Were the Russians negligent in allowing such a rag-tag group of thugs and cronies to possess such a weapon (use your own judgement here);
3) Who should be held accountable; the rebels alone, the rebels and the Russians, or some additional parties (more judgement calls at this point; although I think it is pretty obvious, others may have different opinions).

While there have been other conspiracy scenarios and loads of propagande, none of those theories fit the facts at hand. Unfortunately, those facts dictate that politics will always be a part of any discussion of MH17.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:45 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 203):
And it is a followup on Mandella's assertion that "one of the reasons for the Ukrainians to have tricked the Russians into shooting down an airliner " was that in the aftermath of an airliner shootdown the Russians wouldn't dare to even make any threats of invasion. His exact words are here:

It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.

I think you really need to read more carefully.

Mandala499's original post in response to a question from YoungMans (which was deleted due to a totally intemperate response from - guess who) was clearly divided into 4 parts:
A: Known facts
B: Known untruths
C: Disputed facts
D: Personal opinion (clearly labelled as such).

Your attacks on Mandala499 have exclusively singled out the items he explicitly labelled as personal opinion, which you have wrongly described as "claims" or "assertions", despite them being clearly differentiated as personal opinion.

If you had been a member of a.net for more than 2 months, you would know that Mandala499 is the head of a flight safety organization and has enormous experience with accident investigations. He is highly respected on a.net for his knowledge, expertise and fact-based deconstruction of accidents (as witnessed by his respect rating of 76 - yours is 0). He accepts or rejects facts based on objective evidence, not conjecture (as evidenced by his careful differentiation between known facts, known untruths, disputed facts, and personal opinion). Many of us are happy to learn from his insights - AF447, Adam Air, Lion Air and the Sukhoi Superjet accidents being just a small sample of the knowledge and expertise he brings to this forum. His contacts throughout the aviation industry, and safety and investigation agencies are remarkable.

To repeat myself, I am hugely disappointed by the number of knowledgeable contributors who have been driven off this forum by recent members with little or no knowledge of aviation who parrot the opinions of journalists and others with no knowledge of aviation.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:26 am

Someone might know this:
Much is made of a SU-25 jet fighter operating in the vicinity of MH-17.
The point has also been made that this type of aircraft could not have been anywhere near flight MH-17 because of its operating limits.
Are these limitations dictated by the performance of the aircraft or is it the pilot who cannot fly that high?
Is it possible, if the pilot is on oxygen and wears the appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE), pressure suit or whatever, that a SU-25 could in special circumstances operate higher than its normal operation height, even if for a short and limited period?
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:34 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 211):

The SU-25 operating ceiling is around 7,000m IIRC - less with weapons. So, it would be at least 10,000ft below MH17 if MH17 was at 33,000ft. Nonetheless, if the SU-25 was between MH17 and the BUK it is possible that it went for the more obvious target...

[Edited 2014-08-11 19:35:40]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:12 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 209):
The SU-25 operating ceiling is around 7,000m IIRC - less with weapons. So, it would be at least 10,000ft below MH17

33,000 minus 7,000 = 26,000.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 209):
Nonetheless, if the SU-25 was between MH17 and the BUK it is possible that it went for the more obvious target...

Huh? SU25s (if so armed) have heat seeking missiles. MH17 was hit close to the cockpit by a close proximity radar-guided missile.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:12 am

To begin here I must state that I did not attack Mandella, that assertion on your part (while obviously just your personal opinion) is wrong. Not just partially wrong but completely wrong and unwarranted. I aggressively took on his assertion that the Ukrainians set the Russians up to shoot down an airliner. If you want to view my responding words as an attack I suppose that could be supported on some grounds, as it is a subjective call. But in that case, I attacked his words, not his person.

Here is the entire string that is available to quote from. There were two earlier iterations of this paragraph posted, both since removed. Included in this exact copy of the text is my response to Mandella's post. This was contained in post #185 above.

Quoting mandala499, from (deleted) post 192]
D2. It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.[/quote]

My response (in post 185):

Quote:
I can't imagine any reason to give this idea any credence. There is nothing at all to support this or indicate this. It appears to pulled out of thin air. This would be a hugely Machiavellian scheme with only imaginary benefits but disastrous, possibly nation ending consequences, if it was ever leaked.

The Ukrainian military situation was well in hand at the time, the people of Ukraine were supporting the war effort and the rebuilding of the army was well along its way. The proof of all this is the current situation with Donetsk completely surrounded and cut off from re-supply. There was an excellent synopsis of the military situation posted in the MH-17 political thread this morning.

Russia is not at all restrained, in the last week they are reported to have moved 30,000 troops to the border area and are currently holding military maneuvers. I can't imagine why anyone would have bet heavily that an airline shootdown would have slowed them down.

.
.
From this point, he had the option of backing off from the above assertion. He could have said that it was just a thought he had, or an opinion he had considered but didn't put much stock in himself. But he chose not to do that, he in fact doubled down, he brought what he felt was supporting evidence in to buttress his assertion. This came in post # 186 as seen above.


[quote=mandala499 (Reply 185):

NY Times seems to think Ukraine is betting on Russia restraining (published August 9)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/world/europe/ukraine.html
He cited a NYT article with the title:"Ukraine Strategy Bets on Restraint by Russia" but the article described anything but restraint on the part of Russia.

I responded:

I don't know how well you understood that NYT piece but here's today's Reuters lead on the Ukraine situation. Maybe it will be more clear to you.

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that Russia is sending an aid convoy to eastern Ukraine despite urgent Western warnings against using humanitarian help as a pretext for an invasion.

With Ukraine reporting Russia has massed 45,000 troops on its border, NATO said there was a "high probability" that Moscow could intervene militarily in the country's east, where Kiev forces are closing in on pro-Russian separatists.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso delivered a blunt message in a telephone call with Putin on Monday. "President Barroso warned against any unilateral military actions in Ukraine, under any pretext, including humanitarian," the Commission said in a statement.


.
There was no attack in my response.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:17 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 211):
his assertion

It wasn't an assertion. It was clearly labelled (as was everything in D) as a personal opinion.

You really should read more carefully.

And please pay the simple courtesy of taking the time to get his name ("handle" in your vocabulary) right - it's "mandala499".
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:21 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 210):
33,000 minus 7,000 = 26,000.

No... ne said 33,000 FEET vs. 7,000 METERS. Converting that, it exceeds 10,000 feet.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:28 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 212):
It wasn't an assertion.

If it wasn't an assertion before, it became an assertion when he cited the NYT for support. But it was an assertion. he had posited it before. It was a stock piece of the propaganda that was being thrown around here a few days ago.

And it was unsupported as well as preposterous.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:34 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 210):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 209):
The SU-25 operating ceiling is around 7,000m IIRC - less with weapons. So, it would be at least 10,000ft below MH17

33,000 minus 7,000 = 26,000.

7,000m = 23,000ft. 33,000ft - 23,000ft = 10,000ft. Like I said, the SU-25 would have been at least 10,000ft below MH17 if in the vacinity  
Quoting alfa164 (Reply 213):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 210):
33,000 minus 7,000 = 26,000.

No... ne said 33,000 FEET vs. 7,000 METERS. Converting that, it exceeds 10,000 feet.

I'm glad somebody can read  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:48 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 217):

I get it, you're priming for a discussion of existentialism. But no thanks, I'll pass on that, I just came here to discuss the shooting down of an airliner and the murder of 298 innocent people.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 217):
I have no particular view of myself.

If that's true you're probably the only person outside of an institution who can truthfully say that.

Have a nice day, I'm done with this conversation.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:53 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 217):
I'm an interested (and sad) observer. 8 of my wife's close relatives were on the flight.

Sorry to hear that. It seems as if there are a few a.net members affected personally by this tragedy...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 192):
I owe mandella no apology.

Who is Mandella? It certainly is not me, right?

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 194):
Not everybody, I remember it quite clearly as it came up very early in the discussion.

And I am sure, some more other people too.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 198):
If you don't see any reason for name-calling then you probably shouldn't engage in name calling - right?

If you mean Mandella is me, then perhaps out of common decency you can refer to me as Mandala or Mandala499, unless you want to be refered to as Tails-kid... to which I think everyone would find that as inappropriate, right?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 203):
However the accusation is groundless and preposterous - which is what I was in the process of showing during that exchange.

It's under section D, it is an opinion. So? This is a discussion forum right? Calling others propagandist, doesn't form a good discussion I think.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 206):
Mandala499's original post in response to a question from YoungMans (which was deleted due to a totally intemperate response from - guess who) was clearly divided into 4 parts:
A: Known facts
B: Known untruths
C: Disputed facts
D: Personal opinion (clearly labelled as such).

Thank you Kiarahi for reminding everyone on the sections.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 206):
you would know that Mandala499 is the head of a flight safety organization and has enormous experience with accident investigations.

Errr... whud?  Perhaps I need to correct this... I'm head of the flight operations and flight engineering committee for non-scheduled carriers at the local national air carriers' association.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 206):
His contacts throughout the aviation industry, and safety and investigation agencies are remarkable.

Not really, just the local accident investigation agencies, members of accident investigation teams in several countries, flight safety team members in local airlines, as well as airlines in the region, and Europe, and some in aircraft manufacturers. At least some global newswires, international news outlets (excludes Russian times and Putin-esque media (unless they bought a newspiece done by someone else)) have my number on hotline. Unfortunately that means my time is more and more taken up by them on some accidents (Su-95 crash in Jakarta, and MH370, and MH17 (albeit only for the first few days)). OK, enough with the self gloss... *where's my bucket*

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 206):
To repeat myself, I am hugely disappointed by the number of knowledgeable contributors who have been driven off this forum by recent members with little or no knowledge of aviation who parrot the opinions of journalists and others with no knowledge of aviation.

Trolls, and warmongers, have driven off really knowledgeable members over the past decade... If it's happening in this accident discussion, it is, most unfortunately, nothing new. But then, why would you want to listen to me, as someone accused of being a closet propagandist...   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 211):
To begin here I must state that I did not attack Mandella, that assertion on your part (while obviously just your personal opinion) is wrong. Not just partially wrong but completely wrong and unwarranted. I aggressively took on his assertion that the Ukrainians set the Russians up to shoot down an airliner. If you want to view my responding words as an attack I suppose that could be supported on some grounds, as it is a subjective call. But in that case, I attacked his words, not his person.

I need to ask Tails-kid who Mandella is... But since Tails-kid isn't an A.net member and neither is Mandella, I'll skip that.   
I think to allege that some other member is a propagandist, out and out propagandist, and closet propagandist, is also completely wrong and unwarranted.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 211):
Here is the entire string that is available to quote from. There were two earlier iterations of this paragraph posted, both since removed. Included in this exact copy of the text is my response to Mandella's post. This was contained in post #185 above.

Quoting mandala499, from (deleted) post 192]

Ah, so, Tails-kid, you are calling me Mandella?   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 211):
He cited a NYT article with the title:"Ukraine Strategy Bets on Restraint by Russia" but the article described anything but restraint on the part of Russia.

Let's see, title "Ukraine Strategy Bets on Restraint by Russia".
Then it talks about Ukraine calling Putin's bluff, Ukraine's advances are relatively unchecked as Putin is suspected of only employing scare tactics now, etc, etc, etc.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 214):
Or are you just another person with an extremely high opinion of himself?

I do suggest that discussion on propaganda, blame finger pointing on who did it, etc, are done at: Political Ramifications Of MH17 (by RomeoBravo Jul 17 2014 in Non Aviation)
or... more appropriately:
Political Ramifications Of MH17 Part 2 (by iowaman Jul 27 2014 in Non Aviation)

I'd rather we continue on the aviation aspect of this tragic accident.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:41 am

In case some of the readers here wonder what this "D2" etc, blabla is..., and what the 4 sections of what I see as facts, untruths, controversial items, and personal opiions are... Let me post a copy of the 4 sections I posted:

How I see it...
A. Fact based outline
A1. MH17 got shot down, no distress calls.
A2. MH17 was cruising at FL330 and Mach 0.84 or so (normal cruising speed for 777-200ER (RR)).
Aircraft debris strewn across large distances, indicates high altitude disintegration.
A4. Aircraft must have suffered a rapid deterioration of its structure and pressure vessel in and sufficient enough to severely affect the integrity of the aircraft and its systems rapidly in order to provide "no distress calls"
A5. Front left cockpit panel: Various sizes of debris entry wound, with increased wound density towards the front, and a large hole caused by particle entry or exit at about waist level on the rearmost left cockpit window. Evidence of "lateral peeling" of the skin may be visible. This skin area has also soot/charred deposits.
A6. Front upper cabin skin with one hole of estimated 20cm diameter, no soot/charring. Evidence of separation through peeling.
A7. Front cargo hold spars and inner skin, no charring visible, I saw only 1 hole, but the position of this section needs another look.
A8. Large segment of the left skin of the vertical stabilizer with no debris entry/exit wounds.
A9. Aircraft skin area around door R2, showing no debris damage.
A10. Based on what we see from wreckage photos available at the moment, damage is consistent with fragmentation detonation near the aircraft (fragmentation entry wound with no exit wounds concentrated in one area, charring on 1 localized area only) on the front left.

B. What I consider as dismissed (fact based)
B1. Ukrainian Su-25 shooting down the aircraft, it can only carry IR guided AAMs which would have hit the engine, which would not cause the damage described in A5-A9 above, and a distress call is likely to have been made.
B2. Cannon fire will not match the damage described in A5-A9 if fired from behind the aircraft or from the front of the aircraft. For from top rear, there's inadequate evidence to support this other than the hole described in A6 which also lack the number of holes consistent with a cannon-burst (no single-shot capability either on the GSh-30-2 of the Su-25 or the GSh-30-1 of the MiG-29 and Su-27).
B3. An Su-25 cannot be able to tail the 777, and then fire the missile, and then fire the cannon from the front... it's just not fast enough to do such a thing.
B4. If no one saw it or heard it, it can't be a SAM. Sorry, no need for sonic booms, and the sound of the rocket would die out within 5kms into something less quiet than standard artillery fire.
B5. The missile plume can be hard to see, this is alleged to be the one that shot down the aircraft... and you can see that it's not too easy to see if you don't know what to look for while not expecting an airplane to fall out of the sky:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2qjattd.jpg

C. Controversial items (Opinion - You have been warned)
C1. Rebels conversation intercepted: As much as I like to believe it, it shows that the guys firing it are just too bloody stupid. More on this later (see parts D)
C2. Through independent verification (thanks to the journalists who went there to see it), it is likely that the launch site is SE of Torez (South of Snizhne) at N47°58'27" E38°45'37", based on the photograph given in B5. However, this doesn't rule out missile being launched from another location. Previously, it was thought that the likely site was N47°58'52" E38°45'24"
C3. On ground level, this spot is acoustically shielded towards downtown Torez and downtown Snizhne due to the topography.
C4. The problem with this launch site is that the missile would be having a pure front and possibly front-right attack aspect, this is weakened by A10. But, this could be explained by lead-computing of the guidance system would make the missile aim to the front of MH17 instead of directly at it, and that a slight delay in the proximity fuse would have resulted in the detonation to the front left of the aircraft.
C5. The crash site and debris field being located to the left of the flight path also put more emphasis on A10, in that damage to the left side would have resulted in aircraft being dragged to the left as it disintegrated.

Personal Opinion:
D1. It appears that the at the moment is that aircraft is hit from the front left by something that exploded very near the aircraft's front left. The supposed launch site at C2 makes the missile launchsite to be on the front right of the aircraft instead of front left, however, we are talking about a closure speed of over 3500km/h between the aircraft and the missile; lead computing of the missile would put it to the right of the direct path to the aircraft, making it slightly to the left of the aircraft when the proximity fuze detonated the fragmentation warhead.
D2. It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.
D3. I think the "intercepted call claiming they shot down an aircraft" may be false even though I find it extremely likely that it was the pro-Russian separatist fired the missile.
D4. The Russians may not be lying when they said there could be a military aircraft tailing MH17, this is an age old trick in warfare, in this case, a MiG-29 or Su-27 are likely candidates. Do this with an ESM pod and you'd get the EW situation of the theatre.
D5. Misidentification of the aircraft to be a military aircraft instead of a civilian airliner can be done to confuse inexperienced operator at the BUK's radar command module. MH17 would be transmitting IFF/Transponder squawk at mode 3/A. Most eastern bloc combat aircraft (except for the later built ones) operate in Mode2, which cannot be changed by the crew in flight and only has On and Off for the IFF code. They could have sent something to tail MH17, knew they were being tracked by a BUK system's radar, switch their military IFF on, once they got an acquisition and fire control radar warning on their ESM, they'd switch off their IFF and bug out... and all this could be done without MH17 knowing anything about it. I find it extremely hard that the pro-Russian separatists would just shoot down anything they see because I'm sure the Russians would have told them "the Ukrainians are still sending civilians over your airspace"... unless these BuK guys that fired it were total and utter baffoons, in which case, the "intercepted call" was valid.

---

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 217):
Absolutely not. Those in possession of the evidence (Dutch Safety Board) will be the "deciders". I'm an interested (and sad) observer. 8 of my wife's close relatives were on the flight.

My condolences...
We also have another A.net member who signed off that flight, and was on the verge of suffering depression.
I also have several relatives of a friend on that flight, and also the crew are good friends of another very close friend (crew at MH) whose wife is now so totally scared whenever her husband flies on duty because the belief of "lightning doesn't strike twice" is shattered with this accident.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 221):
unless these BuK guys that fired it were total and utter baffoons, in which case, the "intercepted call" was valid.

Some of my wifes relatives live in the area, they are Russian by the way and initially didn't support Ukraine - until the rebels came. What they tell us rather points to total and utter baffoons...

And thanks for not letting you drive away, always appreciate your posts!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3117
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:19 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Are these limitations dictated by the performance of the aircraft or is it the pilot who cannot fly that high?

I believe the operation limit of the SU-25 comes from the lift/drag performance of the wing and the thrust rating of the engines.

The higher you go the less dense the air, the less lift you get. Your wing have to be designed to provide that lift at elevation.

You can increase the lift by having more powerful engines and go faster. That is where the limitation of the engine comes in.

The operation limit of the SU-25 at 7000 meters already requires the pilot to be on oxygen, so oxygen availability would probably not be a limit.

bt

edit: One more tech issue of operating at altitude would be the cockpit pressure. Not sure if the SU-25 cockpit is pressurized or would it make a difference.

bt

[Edited 2014-08-12 06:20:45]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:48 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 219):
C1. Rebels conversation intercepted: As much as I like to believe it, it shows that the guys firing it are just too bloody stupid. More on this later (see parts D)

While I might agree that the "intercepted conversation" remains unverified, we do know that the rebel commander, Igor Strelkov, (a shadowy figur; a veteran of the Russian military, having fought in post-Soviet conflicts in Transnistria, Serbia and Chechnya) posted on VKontakte (VK), Russia’s version of Facebook, claiming his group shot down an iircraft on July 17th. Importantly, the announcement was posted within 30 minutes of the crash itself - before there had been any other announcement that MH17 was missing - and included two videos showing some sort of explosion from a distance that are similar to other videos of the MH 17.

Based on their own claims, I do believe these guys are "just too bloody stupid".

D2. It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.

This is the only part of your opinions with which I completely disagree; there is no evidence that the Ukrainians were inciting anything in the air; indeed, the separatists previous shoot-down had been all of Ukrainian aircraft, much to the drtriment of the Ukrainian Air Force. To encourage further shoot-downs would amount to Russain roulette (no irony intended).

Further, keep in mind that the skies were reported as overcast (and the subsequent photos and videos confirm that); the separatists would have been unable to see their target, and were most probably just shooting at the nearest airplane they heard, expecting that it would be a military jet.

Unfortunately, for at least 298 innocent victims, they were devastatingly wrong.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:25 pm

Right right, It was something.
I didn't expect for the front attack aircraft.

I got it in the great magazine (only in Russian, unfortunately): http://www.nationaldefense.ru/
I have never knew it is published.
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4062
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:25 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 198):
If you're like everyone else you have a name and I'm sure it's not PW100. PW100 is your handle on this site.

I did not know that was called a "handle". Thanks for that information.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 198):
If you don't see any reason for name-calling then you probably shouldn't engage in name calling - right?

I shouldn't, but can't stop wondering why you repeatedly misspelled a very respected user's (well, by many including myself) "handle". Since it was done several times, even in quoting where the correct spelling of his "handle" is shown, I could only conclude that it was done on purpose. And that I think comes pretty close to name-calling - right?

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:37 pm

Besides, "mandala" is a term with a deep meaning in Hindu/Buddhism traditions.
So our mandala499, he is something close to "universe," "never-ending path of getting knowledge"...
Something like this.
And that's what/who the guy actually is. Or so I think.
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:03 pm

Back to SU-25.
I uploaded the book about the aircraft.
It is in English and easy to read or just to go through.
Interesting, It appears to be a whole series/extended family of aircraft with very different options.

You can download here (unless you are obsessed by "no download anything from anywhere.")

https://yadi.sk/i/2XHE99gRZW9y3
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 226):
Interesting, It appears to be a whole series/extended family of aircraft with very different options.

But the UAF only operates Su25s (base version) and Su25UBs (trainers).
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:19 pm

I absolutely don't claim UAF having the MT version.
However, with so many frames manufactured within such a long period of time, it may (just an assumption) have some significance.

I would like to repeat again what RUS MoD exactly said: "to reach altitude of 10,000 meters for short periods of time."

I don't think that it was an AA missile and then SU-25 finished its work. It's too much.
But itst probably has been around exactly at the time of missile attack.

Now DSB promises the first report in September. Keep waiting.
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:34 pm

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 226):
I don't think that it was an AA missile and then SU-25 finished its work. It's too much.
But itst probably has been around exactly at the time of missile attack.

Even if a SU-25 was "around", I don't see what relevance that would have. The separatists clearly had no idea what they were shooting at; the skies were reported as overcast (and the subsequent photos and videos confirm that), and they would have been unable to see any target. They seem to have been just shooting at the nearest airplane they heard, expecting that it would be a military jet.

They hit a civilian airlines....costing almost 300 innocent deaths.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:44 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 218):
What they tell us rather points to total and utter baffoons...
Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 220):
Based on their own claims, I do believe these guys are "just too bloody stupid".

I think we can come to a consensus on this!   

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 220):
Further, keep in mind that the skies were reported as overcast (and the subsequent photos and videos confirm that); the separatists would have been unable to see their target, and were most probably just shooting at the nearest airplane they heard, expecting that it would be a military jet.

Buffoons.. However... and was there a BUK launch system radar command module around? Presence of one near the area could indicate they were not just "shooting at the nearest plane"...

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 220):
This is the only part of your opinions with which I completely disagree; there is no evidence that the Ukrainians were inciting anything in the air; indeed, the separatists previous shoot-down had been all of Ukrainian aircraft, much to the drtriment of the Ukrainian Air Force. To encourage further shoot-downs would amount to Russain roulette (no irony intended).

If there was a Radar Command Module around that was giving orders to the guys at the launcher, then this is quite possible. Let's say it was a MiG-29, flying below the 777, the IFF module on the RCM would be able to see the military transponder code (different from civilian, and it might not detect civilian transponder code, I don't know enough about BUK RCM IFF), but it can see the IFF code of the MiG, and determine it was a military aircraft, and shoot at it. A Radar Warning Receiver on the MiG would tell the pilot when it's being tracked by a SAM system, when it's being "locked" and when there's a launch (guidance beam), all it needs to do is just move away from the 777, and the guys at the BUK Launcher wouldn't know there was 2 aircraft and 1 moved away... All the MiG has to do is switch off his IFF as he moves away. Result, BUK goes to the 777.

But... they did mention Su-25...
Now, just out of curiousity, am stretching the Su-25.... Flying at Mach 0.8), at 23,000ft... it's true airspeed would be 482 knots... The 777 at FL330 travelling at Mach 0.83 would have a true airspeed of... 482knots...

BUT, I must say, this is just me stretching my imagination on what can be possible if it was "incitement". Not saying that it's what happened, but it's not impossible either. If true, the baffoons at the BUK Launcher wouldn't know what they're seeing on their fire control radar when there's a separation between the 2 aircraft... (They're baffoons remember!)

The legitimate question by the baffoons are "why are they still opening the bloody airspace"... but that's only valid with the principle of "2 wrongs do not make a right." At the end of the day, we still lost all those people on board!  Sad

Oh... that brings me back to...

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 153):
You don't think these conspiracy-theory-spinners are going to let somethimng as mundane as as high school physics interrupt their disinformation campaign, do you?

I think it did it's job...

[Edited 2014-08-12 09:46:18]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:55 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
Buffoons.. However... and was there a BUK launch system radar command module around? Presence of one near the area could indicate they were not just "shooting at the nearest plane"...

On an earlier thread - and I don't remember how far back that was - the poster seemed to have information that the rebels had been given a partial BUK system - the launcher (a single truck) minus the sophisticated radar/computer system that requires and additional vehicle.

I will try to go back and search for the source of that information, and see what credibility it might have.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
The legitimate question by the baffoons are "why are they still opening the bloody airspace"... but that's only valid with the principle of "2 wrongs do not make a right."

A NOTAM had been issued shortly before July 17th prohibiting flights over the Eastern Ukraine, but crucially it only applied to operations between 26,000 feet and 32,000 feet. Prior to MH17, it appeared the rebels had weapons that were only effective at lower altitudes; their possession of the BUK was apparently unknown at that time. At the time MH17 was downed, a number of other commercial airliners were also flying over that area.

With 20-20 hindsight, we can see what a mistake that was. Given what was known prior to July 17th, though, it probably seemed reasonable.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:38 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 229):
With 20-20 hindsight, we can see what a mistake that was. Given what was known prior to July 17th, though, it probably seemed reasonable.

Especially if the BUK was only moved into the area less than 24 hours before MH17 was shot down (and disappeared overnight afterwards).

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 229):
the poster seemed to have information that the rebels had been given a partial BUK system - the launcher (a single truck) minus the sophisticated radar/computer system that requires and additional vehicle.

That is consistent with the photos on earlier threads, which show only the launcher close to the launch site and only the launcher being transported towards the Russian border following the shoot down.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:01 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
The legitimate question by the baffoons are "why are they still opening the bloody airspace"

That ''legitimate'' question only becomes legitimate if you throw out every bit of procedure & responsibility of the launch crew to identify targets.

This missile was not fired completely in the blind as sight & sound alone would not have made the launch crew aware of any aircraft approaching their range arc. The SA-11 launch vehicle is capable of independent tracking & targeting so any half decent trained and not completely stupid operator would have gained information about target altitude, speed & heading.

Tracking MH17 would have presented them with a target passing the battle lines at FL330, Mach 0.83 and, also crucially, on a fixed heading which would have shortly seen it crossing the border into Russian airspace.

Judging by the previous shoot downs of military aircraft in the area i fail to see how one could match such a flight profile to any perceived or in the past experienced enemy threat. The AN-26 can't reach FL330 and other military attack aircraft have strayed far lower & closer along the battle lines and certainly would not be heading directly for Rusian airspace. In fact, attack aircraft (like the SU-25) would be presenting a far more manoeuvring target then MH17 would ever have been. The ingredients to very, very critically question if MH17 was a valid target to be engaged would have been there. Why that does not get brought up more often is beyond me. Seems to me this launch crew was completely unfit for the job or.....

The Russian aren't making a huge deal out of the SU-25 anymore and i don't think we should either. Once launched on something at FL100 / 120 KIAS a supersonic missile doesn't just snap up along the way to engage a new target moving faster & much much higher.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 205):
To repeat myself, I am hugely disappointed by the number of knowledgeable contributors who have been driven off this forum by recent members with little or no knowledge of aviation who parrot the opinions of journalists and others with no knowledge of aviation.

It can get difficult when you just see some of the completely uninformed responses or theories coming from the same people again & again while gaining further support from others. Couple that with some of us being attacked via PM too and it just gets too much.

For me, I know one of the cabin crew members on MH370 and it's difficult to describe what those threads leave me feeling. I have not been back to those threads in quite a while because of it and honestly i am almost glad to see it's loosing momentum. On MH17 not only have i lost people i know among the cockpit & cabin crew, among them is also a colleague from our office who i count as one of my friends. I expected some Russian spin on the situation which has probably allowed me to continue reading these threads but the history of MH370 threads has left me feeling far less comfortable posting on here.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:25 am

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
I know one of the cabin crew members on MH370 and it's difficult to describe what those threads leave me feeling.

Myself and many others did not know a single person on MH370 but it's still difficult to describe how the whole MH370 incident has left many people feeling - you know - how a T7 with 238 SOB has been missing for months in today's world... Something is not right with MH370. At least we pretty much know the what happened to MH17 except for the finer details...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:49 am

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 229):
On an earlier thread - and I don't remember how far back that was - the poster seemed to have information that the rebels had been given a partial BUK system - the launcher (a single truck) minus the sophisticated radar/computer system that requires and additional vehicle.

If the launcher did not communicate with any Command Module, then we have a problem... such actions will very likely end up with the shooter not knowing what he's firing at!

Why? Let's have a look...

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
The SA-11 launch vehicle is capable of independent tracking & targeting so any half decent trained and not completely stupid operator would have gained information about target altitude, speed & heading.

Tracking MH17 would have presented them with a target passing the battle lines at FL330, Mach 0.83 and, also crucially, on a fixed heading which would have shortly seen it crossing the border into Russian airspace.

From what I know the radar displays on the Command Module and on the Launchers are very different, and they perform different functions.

http://i61.tinypic.com/20qmmma.jpg
The one on the command module is the one that can easily show target identification, position, track and altitude.

This shows data similar to what we're familiar with with ATC albeit in more spartan form...
http://i57.tinypic.com/6rrokz.jpg

The one on the launcher however, is starkly different.

http://i59.tinypic.com/eaprhs.jpg
This one requires additional skill to translate height and distance and subsequent positions to translate to "how fast is he going, where's he going, at what altitude".

Looking at the display, it looks like it shows 4 narrowbeam azimuth of probably 5 or 10 degrees each (giving you a 20 deg or 40 deg azimuth view), and the elevation of targets in each azimuth of 10 degrees each from 0 to 100 deg (it goes to 100 to enable over the top guidance for "late firing".

It's either that, or it shows what each of the 4 missile is assigned for. Possibly "when the dot hits the short line, shoot before the dot hits the longer line" firing cue.

Someone more familiar with the BUK launcher's round screen would know better than me on this.

Then we have the small screen to the right which is used to guide the turret and launcher elevation into position.

If they did claim it was an An-26 initially, then it shows that they had no clue of the target's altitude and speed... simply because the displays don't tell them!

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
Judging by the previous shoot downs of military aircraft in the area i fail to see how one could match such a flight profile to any perceived or in the past experienced enemy threat.

The limited way the display at the launcher presents the information, doesn't seem to allow that.

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
In fact, attack aircraft (like the SU-25) would be presenting a far more manoeuvring target then MH17 would ever have been.

An attack aircraft cruising at altitude doesn't present itself like a target maneuvering like a combat aircraft. In transit phase to target, they just go like non-combat aircraft....

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
The ingredients to very, very critically question if MH17 was a valid target to be engaged would have been there. Why that does not get brought up more often is beyond me. Seems to me this launch crew was completely unfit for the job or.....

Well, I must thank you for raising this point because this has been left out on "if they didn't deliberately shoot down an airliner, how could it have happened?" Because so far we've been having each side of the debate throwing rhetoric or what have you at the other.

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
The Russian aren't making a huge deal out of the SU-25 anymore and i don't think we should either. Once launched on something at FL100 / 120 KIAS a supersonic missile doesn't just snap up along the way to engage a new target moving faster & much much higher.

When you have 2 airplanes as 1 blob target, and 1 splits away, which one does the missile go after? The largest one and/or the easiest one.

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
Couple that with some of us being attacked via PM too and it just gets too much.

Oh God! I've had someone disagreeing with me, PM-ing me to the extent that I had to warn the person to not contact me again via PM because he/she doesn't want to bring the discussion/debate in the open (which makes me wonder... why go on the forum then?)

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
I expected some Russian spin on the situation which has probably allowed me to continue reading these threads but the history of MH370 threads has left me feeling far less comfortable posting on here.

The spin, unfortunately is thrown by both side of the debate... to the extent that those of us in the middle, are being accused of siding with the other. Sad.

What I explained above is only an attempt to explain at how it could have happened and doesn't take the fact that those innocent people lost their lives.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:38 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):
Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 231):
The Russian aren't making a huge deal out of the SU-25 anymore and i don't think we should either. Once launched on something at FL100 / 120 KIAS a supersonic missile doesn't just snap up along the way to engage a new target moving faster & much much higher.

When you have 2 airplanes as 1 blob target, and 1 splits away, which one does the missile go after? The largest one and/or the easiest one.

Interesting point. So then if the BUK was launched at what they thought was a SU-25 which was between the BUK site and MH17 or, under MH17 when the radar blob was one blob consisting of both planes, it means it is possible for the BUK missile to continue on to the larger target when the blob breaks into two separate blobs?

This brings back the other theory that the SU-25 was some how intentionally flying in a way so that any missile shot at it would track the civilian plane, you know, the theory that the Ukrainian SU-25 knew it would get shot at so intentionally flew close to a civilian aircraft so that this would happen and Russia would be made to be the bad guy...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:36 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):
When you have 2 airplanes as 1 blob target, and 1 splits away, which one does the missile go after? The largest one and/or the easiest one.

Based on the graph the Russian Ministry of Defense has released the launcher would have been presented with 2 targets at significantly different altitudes (FL100 vs FL330) and the lower target was on a path crossing the much higher target from left to right. Yes, the launch vehicle is more limited in how it can track a target but if it makes a blob of such differing contacts then you really have to start questioning the worth of system, it just makes no sense.....

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):

The limited way the display at the launcher presents the information, doesn't seem to allow that.

I am not in the military, i have no experience with the SA-11 but the launch vehicle must have been able to tell altitude, speed and course of a target which are basic ingredients. Otherwise how do you give the missile the information it requires to set up an intercept ?

That & your post i think just further underlines my idea that these guys were probably poorly trained combined with some stupidity along the way. In any other situation they probably would not even be let near such weaponry.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:27 am

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 235):
Otherwise how do you give the missile the information it requires to set up an intercept ?

Azimuth angle, elevation angle, and slant range is adequate...

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 235):
Yes, the launch vehicle is more limited in how it can track a target but if it makes a blob of such differing contacts then you really have to start questioning the worth of system, it just makes no sense.....

Any system works that way, it's just a matter of how sophisticated is the software when it comes to blobs...
The system is designed to work as part of a system with a command module, the command module tells the launcher teams where to look and which ones are the target, and the crew of the launcher can be idiots and safe operation can be done because they work under the instructions of the command module who has the responsibility.
Putting the launcher as an independent unit to pick and choose what to shoot down, is, errr... stupid... especially if the airspace is still open, and the guys in the launcher has no idea what they're shooting at.

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 235):
That & your post i think just further underlines my idea that these guys were probably poorly trained combined with some stupidity along the way. In any other situation they probably would not even be let near such weaponry.

Of course... I think it's irresponsible to allow a bunch of goofs operating the launcher independently in an area of open airspace... with or without that proverbial Su-25 around or not... it's still irresponsible!

My fear is that it "sort of" was working with a command module not in a conventional BUK systems + Command Module as it should be, but "hey, there's a target bearing XYZ from your area, shoot him down"... instead of sending the datalink (on newer models) or a more intensive cooperation between the Command Module and the Launcher, as it should be...
... but if that's the case, a mistaken identity catalyst is required as I think all sides would agree that it's not in Russia's interest to shoot down a 3rd nation's airliner. This is the side that I think is not being looked at and it should, because the question at the end of the day is, "why shoot?"

Quoting 9mmpq (Reply 235):
Based on the graph the Russian Ministry of Defense has released the launcher would have been presented with 2 targets at significantly different altitudes (FL100 vs FL330) and the lower target was on a path crossing the much higher target from left to right.

If FL100 and FL330, then it has to be a screw up on the "instructions from Command Module elsewhere"... If it was FL250 and FL330, then it becomes murkier and harder to dissect... the reason is the slant vision from the Launcher, and the plan view seen by the "command module" (which in this case can be just any military radar across the border looking towards the area and giving a call to the launcher via voice), can be extremely different and the difference was not appreciated by those involved.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 234):
So then if the BUK was launched at what they thought was a SU-25 which was between the BUK site and MH17 or, under MH17 when the radar blob was one blob consisting of both planes, it means it is possible for the BUK missile to continue on to the larger target when the blob breaks into two separate blobs?

This depends on how close to each other would the 2 aircraft be on the slant vision from the launcher.
Eg: If MH17 was at FL330 at 30km away, it would be at an elevation angle of 18.4 degrees, which the Su-25 at 21km on the same bearing would also appear at the same elevation angle, but the difference in slant range would be blatantly obvious (31.7km vs 22.1km). Make that into 20km, the other one needs to be at 14km away and the slant range difference would be 22.4km vs 15.7km).. once you go to 10km, the other needs to be 7km and the slant distances are 14 and 9.9km... Once you look at this, my view is that it is unlikely that "merged blob" would be the reason.

But, wrong instructions from someone else, could be the culprit (the confusion between slant and horizontal distance to describe 2 different targets along the same bearing)... and if it was operating independently, it was just, stupid!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
Pohakuloa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:28 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 234):

Would this be similar to when on the highway when a policeman uses radar to get your speed when you hold close to a bus or truck and the radar would lock on to the larger object creating reasonable doubt that he actually got your speed or the larger vehicle next to you? I once got out of a speeding ticket because of this and with video evidence of an 18-wheeler beside me and the policeman not ticketing us both, they couldn't say definitely that it was me and not the tractor-trailer creating the return.

PERSONAL OPINION, NOT BASED SOLELY ON EVIDENCE OR FACT:
I put this in all caps because of past instances on this thread and has made me tentative to state my thoughts openly.

I personally don't think the SU-25 stated to be in the area at the time of CRASH was trying to get rebels to fire at a civilian airliner if it was even close enough at the time of artillery launch. Quite contrary, I think that by shadowing an airliner high above his position, the plane COULD HAVE been doing so to avoid being shot at altogether, not thinking anyone in their right mind with or without the proper artillery would take that chance. Whether from low level artillery or otherwise, known artillery or otherwise, creating reasonable doubt to the identity of his aircraft by shadowing vertically could be the SU-25, or any aircraft for that matter, pilots best way of self-preservation especially if flying solo. In a war zone, that's what I'd would do if flying solo.

As many have stated in opinion as well, this will probably be shown as a tragic accident that could have been prevented in more than just a few ways. My condolences to the families, friends, coworkers and countrymen of the passengers lost. An extra special sympathy to anet members affected as well, not just with the incident itself.

Regards,
Pohakuloa
Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:14 am

I am wondering if maneuvering like this - placing a military aircraft between the enemy and a commercial airliner (shadowing) - is considered within the Rules of Engagement?

Are there any legal norms in existence allowing/prohibiting such actions?
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5740
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:06 am

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 238):

We could turn the question around: If the separatists where professionals, they would a) never use the launcher alone, with its less-than-good radar capabilities, and b) they would be completely aware of such a possibility, a Su-25 shadowing another plane.

And how did they *know* that they would be shooting at a Su-25? Earlier, they boasted about a An-26 shootdown... huh...

It's not like MH17 was the first civilian flight in days or weeks, peacefully cruising at FL330.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:32 am

Rebels are not an entity to whom legal norms apply. Just look at ISIS rebels.
Completely different requirements apply to a regular army.

My question is completely hypothetical as I remain skeptical that the rebels had anything to do with the tragedy.
It is not a news for you.
Nothing made me to change my mind.
I will be waiting for the DSB report while reading all the opinions available.
I am on EK 231/232. The rest is just jet lag.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:40 am

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 240):

Rebels are not an entity to whom legal norms apply. Just look at ISIS rebels.
Completely different requirements apply to a regular army.

No, rebels are under international laws, your pro Russki comrades operating the Buk launcher will be prosecuted for downing MH17 if Putin fails to hide the evidence of them being involved there.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:09 am

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 237):
Quite contrary, I think that by shadowing an airliner high above his position, the plane COULD HAVE been doing so to avoid being shot at altogether,

I am not sure if that would have been the case. Without it's own radar the pilot would have had to rely on either instructions from ground radar operators or direct visual contact. I'm not saying it's unthinkable but also anything gained from it would be very momentarily. I wouldn't even be surprised if the pilot had no idea of MH17s presence.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 238):
I am wondering if maneuvering like this - placing a military aircraft between the enemy and a commercial airliner (shadowing) - is considered within the Rules of Engagement?

I'd imagine this would be considered when contemplating possible scenarios but i would associate rules of engagement with organised military branches who have their standard operating procedures. So while the question could be valid i doubt it can be applied to this side & situation.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:32 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):
The largest one and/or the easiest one.

Not so. SA-11s lack the autonomy you describe to pick and choose their target. The SA-11 utilizes semi-active radar homing, meaning the missile has a passive radar receiver that detects and allows the missile to follow the signal of the fire control radar back on the TELAR. In the situation you describe, so long as a target is illuminated by the fire control radar, it's the target the missile goes after.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
bnatraveler
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:10 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 9

Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:55 am

Moving to Part 10 - Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 10 (by bnatraveler Aug 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Posts closed after this entry for this thread.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos