Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

a reply to: flibblebee

There are no numbers for the size of the shrapnel cloud, because it's never been measured. The only numbers are for the amount of explosive in the warhead. The R-60 has a warhead between 6 pounds and 13 pounds of explosive in the warhead. The SA-11 has approximately 154 pounds of explosives in the warhead.

a reply to: flibblebee

We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.

I did not say a sequence or whatever you are implying. I just said it should have taken a lot of damage to get it started.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

There are no numbers for the size of the shrapnel cloud, because it's never been measured. The only numbers are for the amount of explosive in the warhead. The R-60 has a warhead between 6 pounds and 13 pounds of explosive in the warhead. The SA-11 has approximately 154 pounds of explosives in the warhead.

Perhaps there is a video demonstration of it being fired and a high speed camera somewhere.

I would be very supprised if nobody actually measured this in order to sell the weapon.

a reply to: flibblebee

The size of the shrapnel cloud isn't what sells them, it's the damage caused. That's far more important than something like how big a shrapnel cloud is thrown out. The testing videos are of the missiles detonating near a target and the target reaction afterwards.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Funny that when watching videos of other air to air missiles being fired, even videos shot from the ground there is no problem picking out the smoke trail.

But here's another question for you, and I can't wait for this answer.

We know the plane broke apart in flight. You claim that a missile with a warhead up to 13 pounds caused it to break apart. Now for the interesting part. Same amount of fuel, same damage. Why wouldn't the parts that you claim should have been on fire if hit with an SA-11, not be on fire with an R-60? If it was going to catch fire and burn, it should have done that with either missile hitting it.

And how is it that a plane similar in size, was hit with two missiles, with much larger warheads (88 pounds compared to between 6 and 13 pounds) was able to fly for several minutes after being hit, and didn't break apart until it hit the water?

Its not that hard to answer Your question.

The fact is that the BUK missile have a warhead of 154,3 lbs. = 70kg. Tungsten expanding rod.

The R-60 Carries a 6,6 lbs = 3 kg tungsten expanding-rod.

Two of the R-60 would bring that bird Down.

THe BUK would without doubt set the Mh17 on fire or even maybe blow it up. The R-60s are not strong enought to make as much damage as the BUK missile becuase the warhead is only 3kg. It could probably set the Mh17 on fire but it didnt.

But the >R-60 did bring the MH17 to the ground.

originally posted by: flibblebee
I wonder if any of the recovered mobile phones or cameras had any images or video or audio of the "event".

To be honest unlikely the cockpit recorder should unless someone played with it. But to the passengers they would have felt a huge jolt and decompression would have started. Do to angle of the missile launch it would have came in on the right side and detonated below the cargo hold. If the pilots were still alive the cargo would shift if not fall out the aircraft loss of rudder control and than the real problem starts. The main part of the air frame is in the cargo hold meaning the plane breaks up quickly within seconds of the blast. Basically the cockpit separated from the fuselage. To people in the passenger area they would have the cabin depressurize and see the cockpit disappear. The ones that were not killed would at this point die of hypoxia (the lucky ones) or blunt force trauma impacting the ground.

Either way those poor people spent there last moments in pure hell i could only imagine the horror. See at least in a military aircraft even when hit you have a chance but in a passenger jet there was never any hope. If it had been an air to air missile the sheer size of the 777 would have led to an emergency landing and a better than 50 percent chance of survival warhead is to small.

a reply to: spy66

So, the R-60 isn't enough to cause as much damage as the SA-11, but it caused enough to break the plane apart instantly. That makes no sense at all. Other large aircraft have been hit by much larger air to air missiles, and continued flying long enough to land safely, but this plane, gets hit by a tiny missile, and instantly explodes into pieces and falls out of the sky.

That's a hell of a story there.

Moment of the missile being fired??

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: flibblebee
I wonder if any of the recovered mobile phones or cameras had any images or video or audio of the "event".

To be honest unlikely the cockpit recorder should unless someone played with it. But to the passengers they would have felt a huge jolt and decompression would have started. Do to angle of the missile launch it would have came in on the right side and detonated below the cargo hold. If the pilots were still alive the cargo would shift if not fall out the aircraft loss of rudder control and than the real problem starts. The main part of the air frame is in the cargo hold meaning the plane breaks up quickly within seconds of the blast. Basically the cockpit separated from the fuselage. To people in the passenger area they would have the cabin depressurize and see the cockpit disappear. The ones that were not killed would at this point die of hypoxia (the lucky ones) or blunt force trauma impacting the ground.

Either way those poor people spent there last moments in pure hell i could only imagine the horror. See at least in a military aircraft even when hit you have a chance but in a passenger jet there was never any hope. If it had been an air to air missile the sheer size of the 777 would have led to an emergency landing and a better than 50 percent chance of survival warhead is to small.

The CVR was damaged, confirmed as not tampered with, just plain damaged.

Which is a shame as we now depend on Ukraine et al for ATC recordings, which, well, are not forthcomming.

a reply to: dragonridr

Do to angle of the missile launch it would have came in on the right side and detonated below the cargo hold.

It couldnt have if moste of the penetration is on the left side. The R-60s hit the Mh17 somewhere Close to the two engins on the left side. Probably the one closest to the air frame/body under the left wing. since the R-60 uses a proximity fuze, fragments have penetraded the cocpit, first class, buisness class and the left wing tip. Both of the R-60 hit on the same side of the air Craft.

originally posted by: Hellas
Moment of the missile being fired??

That actually looks like the area shown in Russian proof presentation with the Ukranian SAM launchers.

a reply to: flibblebee

So it was damaged. They're designed to be damaged and still have data recovered. I haven't heard of a single plane crash, where the aircraft exploded, that didn't have damaged recorders. They've already said it appears that the recording is intact.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

So it was damaged. They're designed to be damaged and still have data recovered. I haven't heard of a single plane crash, where the aircraft exploded, that didn't have damaged recorders. They've already said it appears that the recording is intact.

I thought they said the CVR audio was unrecoverable.

This is odd, earlier the BBC said the UK couldnt recover the CVR audio just the FDR, now they claim they have recovered it, that is suspicious.

a reply to: spy66

Seriously? They detonated near the engines, and penetrated directly under the cockpit? That's some wicked physics they got going on there. There's no way that they detonate that far from the cockpit, and leave a hole that size directly under the windscreen. The engines are too far back from the cockpit, and too close to the fuselage.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Seriously? They detonated near the engines, and penetrated directly under the cockpit? That's some wicked physics they got going on there. There's no way that they detonate that far from the cockpit, and leave a hole that size directly under the windscreen. The engines are too far back from the cockpit, and too close to the fuselage.

And if a shrapnel cloud is going to take down an airplane, it would do it near the front so the plane flies into it surely rather than risk it passing it.

a reply to: flibblebee

Nobody ever said that. They've said from the start it was damaged, but the data appeared intact. In fact from the pictures of the recorder itself, there's almost no damage to it at all.

The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday, adding that it was holding talks with airlines and states on how to assess the danger posed by conflicts.

The Dutch Safety Board, which is now leading the investigation, said in a news release that although the cockpit voice recorder was damaged, "the memory module was intact."

"No evidence or indications of manipulation of the cockpit voice recorder was found. Following the examination, the cockpit voice recorder data was successfully downloaded and contained valid data from the flight.”

www.cbc.ca...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

So, the R-60 isn't enough to cause as much damage as the SA-11, but it caused enough to break the plane apart instantly. That makes no sense at all. Other large aircraft have been hit by much larger air to air missiles, and continued flying long enough to land safely, but this plane, gets hit by a tiny missile, and instantly explodes into pieces and falls out of the sky.

That's a hell of a story there.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It sertenly dosent make sense that a BUK missile hit MH17. Because the MH17 would be burning all the way Down from 33 000 feet. There are no smoke trails from either the BUK missile or a MH17 on fire.

No vitnisses saw a BUK missiel or its smoke trail. But they saw fighter jets.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

Nobody ever said that. They've said from the start it was damaged, but the data appeared intact. In fact from the pictures of the recorder itself, there's almost no damage to it at all.

The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday, adding that it was holding talks with airlines and states on how to assess the danger posed by conflicts.

The Dutch Safety Board, which is now leading the investigation, said in a news release that although the cockpit voice recorder was damaged, "the memory module was intact."

"No evidence or indications of manipulation of the cockpit voice recorder was found. Following the examination, the cockpit voice recorder data was successfully downloaded and contained valid data from the flight.”

www.cbc.ca...

That's not what I read on the BBC much earlier, they said the UK found the CVR to be unrecoverable and were able to download valid FDR data, now i see the BBC has changed that to now say they got the CVR downloaded too.

Very odd they would say that earlier.

I wish I snapshotted the page now, it kinda makes me wonder.

The R-60s hit the Mh17 somewhere Close to the two engins on the left side.

Isn't the 777 a twin engine aircraft?

a reply to: flibblebee

No, it wouldn't. Again, it depends on the missile. An infrared missile will track for the hottest part of the plane. That's engines or APU on a commercial plane. A radar guided missile is going to track on the largest radar return, which would be the center of the fuselage where the wingbox and fuselage join. You would never try to track on the nose, because there's too good a chance you could miss.