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

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
If you have an outlet you trust 100% then please share it...

Ditto.
I look at he preponderance and reasonableness of het evidence. Something relatively rare here on ATS, where a lot of people decide whether the evidence is good or not depending on who posted it or where it comes from.

See my post above for WHY I think the RT.com story about the Su-25 is nonsense - not just because it comes from RT.com - but because of the factual errors in it.

By the way, I like your Anatole France signature especially, reminds me of Western Media ;D

Reminds me of conspiracy believers here on ATS.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: khnum

Have to be pretty naive to believe that commercial aircraft are safe against Russian fighters. Ukraine has the R-60 missile which was developed by Russia in 1974 to achieve a service ceiling of 66,000 feet.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

You do know not all airplanes can carry the same missiles right? The SU-25s only air ro air missile is the one with a 5 mile range. the su-25 was around its max ceiling which is 23,000 most likely. distance from the air liner that the missile has to cover is around 6-8 miles from its angle under the aircraft. It wasnt able to get into missile range.

It's hilarious how the people who want this to be true lap it up, and claim RT is fair and just in it's reporting, despite the fact it obviously is not and several reporters have recently left over it.

The Russian claim is preposterous, so much so the article debunks itself.
[ex[“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification

“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km

So unless MH17 was only 13-15km high that is 100% impossible. We know for a fact it was not that low. The RT article is so moronic they themselves debunk the whole idea of what they are selling.

Then we have ..

“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.”

So now MH17 MUST BE 22km or lower in order to be hit, which we know for a fact it was not. The whole idea is outlandish and only anti-Western zombies could be so gullible as to lap it up.

a reply to: yuppa

Unfortunately my link didn't work in ATS but if you look "R-60 missile wilkipedia" in google the wilkipedia page tells which launch platforms (aircraft etc) can use the R-60 missile (su-25 is listed) and which countries have purchased the R-60 missile from Russia (Ukraine listed). The missile has successfully shot down F16's so any commercial aircraft within range wouldn't stand a chance.

a reply to: glend

Maybe you want to look at my post above yours which shows this discussion to be laughable. The RT article debunked the idea.

a reply to: glend
R-60 has a 3kg fragmentation warhead with a proximity fuse - it would be lucky to take out the engine of a 777 with a direct hit let alone destroy the aircraft in mid-air!

An F-16 is a much more vulnerable aircraft for a small warhead assuming it can get close - the Russians claim some Israeli ones shot down over Beka valley in 1982 - the Israelis say they lost no F-16's and all eth F-4's and Kfirs shot down were lost to SAM's, not Air-to-Air..

A BAe-125 bizjet was hit by one of these weapons in 1988 - it knocked one engine off the rear fuselage - a 2nd missile then hit the falling engine. the aircraft landed more-or-less safely.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The old Mirage III had a max ceiling of 54,000 feet but pilots told they could get much higher (above 80,000 feet) by pointing plane straight up after a short mach 1+ dive. So I wouldn't discount su-25 getting to 32,000 feet. Only thing we know from listed specifications is that it cannot maintain that ceiling.

But even at 20,000 feet the missile might have been able to hit the commercial craft 32,000 feet. Thats 12,000 foot height difference (3.6km height) at 3km distance (its bee line so not a simple addition.).

Why would Ukraine fire at commercial jet.....Many radar systems are terrible at determining height of aircraft which is why most commercial radar systems rely on an aircraft's transponder to relay height. Its very possible that Ukraine saw an aircraft under 30,000 feet and shot it down as a threat.

Everyone in airline industry knows that radars arn't accurate in determining height so why on earth did Malaysian airlines allow their aircraft to fly just 2000 feet above known hostilities - madness.

a reply to: glend

Except everything in your post contradicts the article. You are saying the article is wrong about everything .. except it's conclusion. That is some serious desire to want to think Salt is really Sugar.

Not to mention the plane had a flight plan which it was following so the Ukraine govt. knew what it was and where it was and had no need to shoot down any planes because the rebels have none.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yes a fragmentation warhead does make it less likely but ignition of fuel tanks may have resulted in a mid-air explosion.

This was a russian major screw-up.
We've seen America's screwups all over the middle east for at least 15 years.
Now we are seeing Russia's screwups, but somehow people are too conditioned to believe America is the only source of evil and bad decisions, nobody else could do that apparently.

a reply to: glend
Concorde didn't explode when its fuel tanks were on fire. TWA 800 exploded because of an almost EMPTY fuel tank.

If you want to play the "could have....could have...could have..." game then there's really no limit to the theories you can put forward.

But the more "if" statements you need to include the less serious your theory becomes.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That raises question why Ukraine Government gave a commercial flight permission to fly over its territory when just a month earlier they lost a Antonov AN-26 military transport at 21,000 feet. Obviously they already new rebels had the ability to shoot down high flying aircraft! All smells a bit fishy.

Professor Geoff Dell, a Central Queensland University accident investigation and safety specialist, said Malaysia Airlines should not have been flying over Ukraine. “From as soon as the conflict started they shouldn’t have been going anywhere near it,’’ Prof Dell said. “They should’ve shifted to alternate routes, like all the other airlines seemed to have done.’’

www.theaustralian.com.au...

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



That raises question why Ukraine Government gave a commercial flight permission to fly over its territory when just a month earlier they lost a Antonov AN-26 military transport at 21,000 feet. Obviously they already new rebels had the ability to shoot down high flying aircraft! All smells a bit fishy.

Professor Geoff Dell, a Central Queensland University accident investigation and safety specialist, said Malaysia Airlines should not have been flying over Ukraine. “From as soon as the conflict started they shouldn’t have been going anywhere near it,’’ Prof Dell said. “They should’ve shifted to alternate routes, like all the other airlines seemed to have done.’’

www.theaustralian.com.au...

20,000 and 30,000 feet is a bit different. Question, if 30,000 feet is so risky ... where did Putin fly to get home, he avoided the area right?

the myopia that everything has to be the fault of the USA is actually quite insulting to Russia at one level!!

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Most of the geo-political problems have the hand of the mighty USA in them.

However, in Ukraine, the mighty USA has played a hand far too long and risky.

Russia will NOT back down from its position in Ukraine.

Write this down and understand it many times !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that makes me "awfully" scared as to what the consequences might be for the world and its future.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ukraine plane shot down at 21,000 feet told the Ukraine authorities that rebels had missiles that could reach beyond 20,000 feet which ruled out all hand held missile. So they knowingly allowed commercial aircraft to fly in territory that had a Buk missile system that had already shot down 3 planes in as many months.

Russians might be guilty but I wouldn't put my house on it.

added..
typical cruising altitude of 777 is 35,000 to 37,000 ft, wouldn't a higher altitude be prudent over a territory with known hostilities.

a reply to: glend

You did not answer my question. If it is so risky then Putin did not fly there right?

Obviously, if there was a Ukraine war plane within the vicinity of MH17, either wittingly (planned) or unwittingly (unplanned), it would have been tracked by Russia whom would have relayed the information to the separatists on the ground.

Those on the ground would have fired a missile at what they thought was a Ukraine war plane, but misidentified the signal and fired instead on MH17. Radio conversation intercepts clearly point to confusion as to what the target turned out to be. Those on the ground clearly thought they had shot at and destroyed a legitimate target, but it wasn't.

There could have been a plan by Ukraine military to draw fire from the ground upon a civilian airliner in order to create the awful error that was made, by having one of their war planes fly close to MH17. The results would benefit the Ukraine and the West, and plunge Russia and the separatists into intense world vilification. A far greater weapon than any military one.

However, MH17 was most certainly brought down from the ground, and it was the separatists that did it. Let's not forget their boasting of having done so, and then their panic on realising what they had done.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Then Russia is to blame giving the separatists targets in your scenario. I think the Separatists just found a plane and fired without thinking of the consequences.

OccamsRazor04:

Then Russia is to blame giving the separatists targets in your scenario.

Russia is culpable. It supplied the separatists with the weaponry. Whether or not it relayed information about a possible target - the alleged Ukraine jet, is at this moment speculation on my part.

Any Ukraine jet flying close to a civilian airliner would be dangerous as it would draw fire upon itself. If the missile battery operators misidentified the signal on their radar, they let loose a missile thinking it was a Ukraine military plane. My overall question is...did the Ukraine deliberately allow one of its fighter jets fly close to MH17 in order to create the consequence that unfolded?

Kiev Says Needs Almost $780 Mln to Continue Special Operation

en.ria.ru...

The main reason Kiev brought this plane down via a set up.......war funding is coming from national reserve fund now !!

Kiev Junta is already bankrupt...........

Since July, the operation has been financed by the country’s Reserve Fund, which currently stands at $44.5 million. Ukraine spends some $128.5 million on the operation per month, the minister said calling for “additional funds” to continue the effort.


Putin: Malaysian Crash Blood for Money

english.pravda.ru...

Moscow asks for the tracking data of Ukraine war planes. They also want to know why the Malaysian flight was allowed to deviate from its main course to a war zone and why missiles were near Donetsk when the separatists have no air force.