Ukrainian Su-25 warplane detected heading toward Malaysian Boeing

a reply to: Oddkid

You certainly wouldn't hear missiles being fired. You MIGHT hear a 30mm firing, but I seriously doubt it. And if they were Su-25s as every source claims they were nowhere near high enough to fire their canon at it.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: buddah6

The SU can reach 10km, or 32.8 thousand feet...
MH17 was at 33k feet and told to reduce by 600 metres...

Not politics, just physics!!!

Peace everybody!!!

What's your speed at take off? The 777 is doing 10 miles a minute at 33000 ft. The Froggy doesn't climb at 600 mph let along to 22 or 33000 ft. If you consider the Su 25 was climbing at 450 mph the 777 would be pulling away at nearly 3 miles a minute. If it's descending by 600 meters, they wouldn't be slowing down to do so.

Maybe the SU was already at altitude waiting for the aircraft.

a reply to: rustyclutch

The maximum ceiling of 23,000 feet is for a clean configuration, meaning nothing hanging on the wings. If you start adding weapons that ceiling goes down.

Maximum altitudes, and speeds are set under very precise conditions. No weapons or fuel tanks, and sometimes not even a full load of fuel. So while it might be able to briefly, it can't with weapons on board.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Except everyone says Su-25, which can't fly that high with weapons on board.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rustyclutch

The maximum ceiling of 23,000 feet is for a clean configuration, meaning nothing hanging on the wings. If you start adding weapons that ceiling goes down.

Maximum altitudes, and speeds are set under very precise conditions. No weapons or fuel tanks, and sometimes not even a full load of fuel. So while it might be able to briefly, it can't with weapons on board.

Yeah but my main question is...how close do they have to be for a missile to work? What altitude do air to air missiles top out at?

a reply to: rustyclutch

It depends on the missile. Its possible it child have been done, but it would have had to be set up well in advance for the Frogfoot to even catch it, and perform a zoom climb to reach a firing position. And its a very small window for it to happen, so everything would have to go just right.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes it can, the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov said clearly “The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”


Peace Zaphod!!!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rustyclutch

The maximum ceiling of 23,000 feet is for a clean configuration, meaning nothing hanging on the wings. If you start adding weapons that ceiling goes down.

Maximum altitudes, and speeds are set under very precise conditions. No weapons or fuel tanks, and sometimes not even a full load of fuel. So while it might be able to briefly, it can't with weapons on board.

I was replying to the fact the SU didn't have to be parked on the tarmac at a standstill and then have to take off and catch up to the airliner.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't think they necessarily say the plane shot it down. At the end of the video they still allude to that youtube clip of the buk missile missing 1 missile but say the place that picture was taken has been in Kiev's control since May. I think they were saying what type of craft was tailing the 777 and what it was armed with for the purpose of being specific. Either way their proof looks a lot better than Washingtons. Washington hasn't produced anything but headlines and rhetoric. I can't wait to see the load of bull they try to use to spin this.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That sounds about right.

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

The Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot can carry the AA-8 Aphid or R-60 IR guided air to air missile with a range of 10km. It could shoot from a lower altitude.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

According to its specification. The Su-39 is also listed with the Su-25 specification because it IS an Su-25.

Maximum altitudes are set with no weapons and partial fuel. So no, it can't.

a reply to: Zaphod58


How high is "that high"?

According to the report it was at a distance of 3-5 km from MH17, doesn't that fall within the altitude range of the particular jet?

I don't see the problem here.

Ukraine air force also has the Mig-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker fighters which are capable of Mach 2+ and 50,000ft+ and are more than capable of intercepting and shooting down a Boeing 777. I'm not exactly sure why they are saying an Su-25 was in the area unless they have evidence of this and know for sure.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So not only do you know more than a Lieutenant-General...

But you also fail to take into account it's missiles can reach upto 5km in distance...

That's a good 15,000ft in separation that could still have caused this!!!


Peace Zaphod!!!

a reply to: CALGARIAN

Even this lady said, I think the day of the plane crash, that Ukrainian military craft were hiding behind commerical aircraft.

I wonder why she would say that?

Could it be because she is married to a separatists leader Arsen Pavlov?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I wouldn't expect anything less from her.

a reply to: ScrutonEyez

And since there is no problem, there should be no reason for people in here to act like this is some sort of bs story by the Russians. Sofar, they are the only ones to actually present some evidence, apart from the fake tapped calls that Ukraine produced.

a reply to: ScrutonEyez

Malaysia was at 32,000 feet. Five km would have put the fighter at 15,500 feet. Depending on the variant the Su-25 may not even have an air to air radar, and had to carry it in a pod under the centerline station.

a reply to: rustyclutch

They know what happened. Like without a doubt. The fact that the US hasn't come out and said means they likely don't like the answer.

It kinda looks like Syria all over again. They blamed Assad for gas attacks when it was obviously the rebels, then when they realized there was no chance Americans would accept that war then it began to come out that it was definitely the rebels.

It's funny that it's never the people we support that do these things. The Ukrainians have the motive (as the rebels did) and they definitely have the capability, without question.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Considering that he's using the official specifications too, I'd say that I know at least as much as him about this. Or did you miss the part you highlighted earlier, where he said, " ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS ".

I'm not failing to take that into account, but doing it from a dedicated ground attack platform would be difficult at best.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't see how that relates to my post, but ok.

All they said that is that they spotted it at 3-5 km distance. Now does your talk disprove this claim or not? If it doesn't then maybe you shouldn't. Talk, that is.