It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Air-to-air Fragmentation Missile Hit The Malaysian MH17

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: zatara

That is an angle I had not considered.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:37 AM
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Like I said, just My theory. Right now everything is conjecture and theories.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:06 AM

originally posted by: Blister
Yes there was, in the Soviet Far East, KAL007 I think it was. Air-to-air missile from a SU-15.
Incidentally, Ukraine has form in shooting down passenger aircraft, having shot a Russian one down in 2001.

The Soviet shoot-down of a Korean airliner in international airspace in 1983 was a purposeful launch. Apparently the Soviets thought it was on a spying mission.

The shooting down of a Siberian Airways airliner by Ukraine is still disputed, but most people think that a missile fired in an exercise malfunctioned in some way and did not self destruct, but instead carried on going for 150 miles. Either way, it was an unintentional shoot down.

Soviets did it on purpose. Ukraine did it by accident. There's a difference.


posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:19 AM
yall do know a SAM is almost always a fragmentation warhead right? Oh the plane has holes in it.. well duh the SAM fragments when it detonates. Also you do not always have a smoke trail when firing off a missile or they disperse very fast. RPGs are a good example of smoke trails not being there when fired sometimes.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:52 PM
The satellite data would reveal what downed the aircraft.

When I heard about the incident the first thing that came to mind was a distraction from Gaza, but what do I know?

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:04 PM

originally posted by: peanutbuddha

originally posted by: aLLeKs
I am pretty sure it was an accident, neither side would be studid enough to shoot it down on purpose.

Actually, if they could get away with it, Ukraine would be brilliant to purposely shoot down a civilian airliner and pin it on Russia and the Ukrainian separatists.

Brilliant? Not even close to brilliant. The people in charge there are not stupid. They understand the blow back. Only ones stupid enough to do something like this are the separatist with a thug in charge who feels like Mother Russia has there back. Bet Putin is P.O.'d. Kind of like how The US feels every time Israel starts crap.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 03:37 PM

Advanced US satellites played a key role in the determination by intelligence officials that a surface-to-air missile shot down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine.


we know, with good accuracy, where the launch site was and that it was a SAM missile. Now you know why Russia is trying desperately to distance themselves including changing Wiki pages

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 05:07 PM

originally posted by: paraphi

Soviets did it on purpose. Ukraine did it by accident. There's a difference.

So, "ukranians" say it was an accident, and that's it ... it's an accident. I think a lot of people will dispute that, especially with the nationalists on the power throne in Ukraine.

The Soviets shot down the plane, because it was way off course ... and weren't looking for a lame excuse for their act.

The Ukranian government allowed a commercial airliner, to fly into an airspace that they themselves as well as their adversaries, had declared a "no fly zone".

That's a pretty deliberate act ...

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: paraphi


posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:09 PM
It plausible that there could be a little truth on both sides. Fighters trailing the airliner and a SAM. If somebody was shooting at fighters in close proximity to an airliner, it's more than possible for lock to occur on the biggest and least manueverable target. (And tracking them as targets would be the reason why they knew the fighters were there.)

Still I think the most blame should lay with whoever decided it'd be a good idea to route a commercial flight over a known war zone. Keep in mind 32,000 ft as "safe" honestly doesn't cut it when history tells us of Francis Gary Powers having been shot down during the cold war in a U-2 at more than double airliner crusing altitude. And that happened with 1960's tech, certainly the latest and greatest SAMs have more reach.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 12:58 AM
a reply to: pauljs75

Yes! My thoughts exactly... This is probably the most logical theory regarding this situation.

2 Ukrainian Jets mask the passenger plane, knowing the rebels have surface-to-air missiles, then easily maneuver out of the way leaving the passenger plane a sitting duck...

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, though i believe the logistics get way more complex.

one of the biggest priorities right now should be to analyze the radar logs, find out who the pilots of the Ukrainian military jets were, then interrogate the crap out of them...

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 02:48 AM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: maghun

That airport has nothing to do with anything. They're controlled by controllers that aren't necessarily at an airport.

The route is chosen by the airlines... the optional routes through Ukraine are determined by these guys who are controlled by the Ukrainian government..

Now, I think it is fair to say that, based on recent events, Malaysia airline = SKETCH / Ukrainian gov. = SKETCH

Yes they're controlled on the ground based on the flight plan the pilots filed that has their routing on it. The controllers ensure separation and that they're flying to the right waypoints, etc, but have nothing to do with setting the course initially.

completely irrelevant to the situation.

It didn't sharply deviate from anything. They were fairly close to their filed flight plan after making adjustments for winds aloft.

Yes, your correct. it didn't 'Sharply deviate' from its course. Although, this PARTICULAR flight.. Just so happened to be given a flight path that was.. indeed, for a fact.. 300 miles North of the previous Malaysian MH17 flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Which is really odd, especially due the 'fact' that 2 Ukrainian military aircraft were shot down within the past week! Very coincidental / ironic / SKETCH! that they all of a sudden, for that PARTICULAR flight, Malaysia airlines decided they were going to save a little bit of $$$ and fly over a war-zone.

I do realize that this was an exchange between you and 'maghun' and I hate to jump in on other peoples disagreements, but felt it was necessary since you basically took a couple minor discrepancies from his post, and used them to completely reframe the subject and avoid the critically relevant information that was presented..

did you even look at the link 'maghun' provided? Here it is again just in case...

Jus Sayin...

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:50 AM

“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.

“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.

Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Russian military

At the moment of the MH17 crash an American satellite was flying over the area of eastern Ukraine, according to Russia’s Defense Ministry. It urged the US to publish the space photos and data captured by it.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: maghun
Well that may be true about a su-25 but its ceiling is 23,000 feet so its hard for it to escort a plane above its ceiling isnt it? Let alone intercept it. There is a reason the su 25 is a ground attacker.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:55 PM
a reply to: yuppa

SU-25 carries K-13 (AA-2) or R-60 (AA-8) and Vympel R-73 air-to-air missiles.

You are right, the official service ceiling is 23.000 feet, but "according to it's technical caracteristic the SU-25 can briefly climb up to 30.000 feet".

Full news conference with translation:

'Kiev claims no military aircraft operated over Donetsk on July 17th are false'

Increased radar activity? Military plane? Route deviation?

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:02 PM
A couple of problems though.

At 33.000 feet altitude the people in the Donetsk region saw nothing. A fragmentation warhead by itself does not give a clue about whether it was an AA or SA missile. SA missiles use fragmentation warheads as well. In fact the BUK probably carries a bigger payload than an AA missile.

Russia has means of surveillance right on their border. Ukraine does not have stealth aircraft. If Radar or Sattelite shows anything diverging from the accounts incriminating the Separatist, Putin would have put it on the table.

In conclusion Id like to say I wouldnt put it past NATO to down an airliner to incriminate the separatists. I just do not think that was an viable option. However I am certain with all the AA activity top brass expected the Russians to down a civilian airliner sooner or later.
edit on 21-7-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: maghun

I posted the 2 missiles it was reported to carry,but one of those listed is NOT used on the su 25 since the 60s.

The KH-13 is not in use these days. that one was stopped in the 60s. the missiles would be 40 plus years old. Plus they were heatseeking only.

the r-60 has a 5 mile range and is also heat seeking. it would hit the wings/engines not the tail or cockpit of the airliner as well. a trailing shot from its 16,000 ft ceiling when armed would had been highly unlikely to cause the damage seen on the ground.

Oh and lets not forget the newer ARCHER missile,It has the range BUT once again it it is a heat seeker and would hit wings/engines. Inconsistent with the damage.

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: yuppa

Totally agree. Discard the possible Ukrainian fighter as a SU25 as it seems an inadequate tool to use in this theorized mission (i.e. shoot down MH15).

Given the differing fighter and missile specs which you have touched-upon, explains why I propose that the missile used was not IR, but probably radar-guided. That and the need to use a suitable fighter (i.e. an SU27 or MiG29 - I favour the former) suggests that a Vympel R-27 R or Vympel R-27 ER was used. The damage that we can see, thus far (though much more physical evidence is required to harden any conclusion) lends support that matches the technical capabilities of the Vympel R-27 R (or ER) air to air missile (x2?) being used, possible from head-on.

Russian attention to very heavy radar use at the time of the incident strengthens the hypothecated use of sophisticated fire-control systems using multiple radar.

Having commented on this though, I need to reiterate that not knowing what missiles are/were in the Ukrainian inventory, or what actual aircraft were deployed at the time and from where, are critical factors in urging caution.

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: Blister

Your view of the situation is pretty good. OH just wanted to let everyone know before a few pro russians post here that RUSSIA has been CAUGHT editing the WIKI page on the SU-25 today increasing its service ceiling from 7 km to 10 km. The People who make the aircraft have not changed their specs at all which begs the question. do we believe the manufacturer or russia? I believe the manufacturer.

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: yuppa

This site is russian?

Speed 950 km/h 513 kts 590 mph
Service Ceiling 10.000 m 32.808 ft

The russians showed radar picture with a plane at 10.000 m with 400 km/h speed. End of "jump"?

First it was hit with R-60 missile, which exploded above the engine on the left wing.

At this point the false flag attack "turned" to wrong "direction"...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in