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

a reply to: spy66

How do they know it was an SU-25 just out of curiosity? If all they got was a radar signature once it broke the ceiling how would they know for a fact it was a SU-25 or are they just guessing?

Genuine question as I have seen the Russian video on the radar data but they just seemed sure it was a SU-25.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: spy66

How do they know it was an SU-25 just out of curiosity? If all they got was a radar signature once it broke the ceiling how would they know for a fact it was a SU-25 or are they just guessing?

Genuine question as I have seen the Russian video on the radar data but they just seemed sure it was a SU-25.

Good question. I have to look at the video again because i cant remember. I know they mentioned something about the New signature that appeared as MH17 was desending With a speed of 200km/h.

a reply to: spy66

What they say is because it doesn't report a secondary signature that it was likely a military jet.
That's why it piqued my curiosity because they talk earlier on in their presentation about the ceiling that an SU-25 can reach etc.. and then they say about the secondary signature so I thought to myself how are they assuming it was an SU-25.
I think it may be a slip up by the Russians.
I have a feeling that the rebels picked up a military signature near MH17 and that is why they launched the missile and they reported that back to their Russian commanders that they had an SU-25 on radar near MH17 and that's why the launched the missile thinking it was a cargo plane being followed by an SU-25 fighter.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I see RT removed the radar cap 'showing' the fighter near MH-17 from the article.

Translate of the letters from the image of the B777 with an ID 351.

It appears to be Singapore 351
Singapore 351 was flying in the area around the same time. Flightaware shows it cruising at 35k feet in the flight.
So that was proof of a fighter approaching MH-17.

Further on this picture - the contact 3416 is the squawk code for Air India 113 - see here. The yellow figures are the cursor.

nowhere in the Russian military briefing is there any actual radar footage showing any military aircraft - only in their graphic presentation, and they inaccurately say the Su-25 was flying at 10,000m.



However in the ministry of Defence briefing they do show the radar screens - from about 11 minutes in this video they highlight the suspected military aircraft:



2 things stand out for me - firstly the Russians say the a/c is at 5000m and DESCENDING, secondly it is not moving very far at all!

These things together with it appearing the INSTANT MH17 starts slowing down and going off course make me think it is more likely a large part of MH17 that has been blown off by the missile and is "fluttering down" rather than another aircraft.

Edit:
both videos are definitely still on YT although they are not showing up here for me.

1: www.youtube.com...
2: www.youtube.com...

news.msn.com...

US: No link to Russian gov't in plane downing

Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yes, I thought the falling MH17 was a large part of the return but they seem to claim a brief ID of a fighter. Someone schooled in radar might be able add more.

I still don't quite understand the near stationary return if that was the fighter that then dropped out of coverage. It might be there were 2 returns briefly together and the more static one is still MH17 falling while high enough to create a return.

a reply to: roadgravel
I didn't see any brief identification?? the yellow lettering is just the cursor position - it gives bearing and distance from some other point.

Mostly through the video they give a bearing and distance from a radar site on the Russian border - 300 and 40 or so IIRC. In the photo above it is 360 and 0.00 - but that looks like it is because it hasn't been moved off the point being linked to - the falling debris or Su-25..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
What makes this even more amazing is the fact that the Su-25, with no external stores on board, has a service ceiling of just under 23,000 feet. So how did it get up to 32,000 feet to make a close pass?

Didn't they update their fleet to Su-25m1 with a ceiling of 10 km?(33.000ft.)

originally posted by: victor7
news.msn.com...

US: No link to Russian gov't in plane downing

Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point

In other words they don't know anything yet they do know the Separatists did it.

Lol.

originally posted by: ScrutonEyez

originally posted by: Zaphod58
What makes this even more amazing is the fact that the Su-25, with no external stores on board, has a service ceiling of just under 23,000 feet. So how did it get up to 32,000 feet to make a close pass?

Didn't they update their fleet to Su-25m1 with a ceiling of 10 km?(33.000ft.)

Yes - they upgraded 4 of them in 2010-11 - one has already been destroyed. See also here or here

But without new engines or a new wing it is difficult to see how the service ceiling would have been increased by 10,000 feet.

a reply to: ScrutonEyez
Don't now where you get that from, but it looks like you shouldn't paraphrase if you can't do so accurately.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

But without new engines or a new wing it is difficult to see how the service ceiling would have been increased by 10,000 feet.

So this info is innacurate you say? Are you an expert? Do you have a source saying it can't reach that height?

a reply to: ScrutonEyez
I certainly see no reason to believe it - all there is is your say so and as I said without new engines or wing there is no reason to believe any claim that its ceiling has increased - it is up to those who say that is the case to provide the evidence.

Do you have a source says it can get that high? Are you an expert?

I did find this source that says that the M1 can now deliver its weapons from a higher altitude - almost 20,000 feet....which is still a very long way short.

I find a lot of statements on the 'net that the M1 has a ceiling of 10,000m........but no actual credible sources are give - indeed some of them refer to the Russian radar saying "it" was at 10,000m......which looks pretty much like it is tracking the split up of MH17 and not some magically appearing new a/c at all!

Edit: And it seems the Russian Govt has been caught editing the Russian Wiki since the shooting to read that the M1 can reach 10,000m........oops!

Is that your source???

reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

On my tab at the moment, so it's difficult, but this link mentions the upgrade and credits upgrades to systems and avionics. "Has similar performance, operational and other characteristics"
www.ukrinform.ua...

As you said without a substantial increase to thrust or lift, I don't know where the 43% increase in service ceiling is going to come from. Math is still math, and altitude density is still altitude density, even in eastern Europe.

It's possible, of course, to fly higher than your service ceiling, but the idea that a Su-25 is going to exceed that by 40+% and maneuver for an intercept with a target moving as fast or faster is ridiculous. It's not remotely feasible. Would have been better to blame it on a Su-27. Might have been someone invented a story and it was too late to pull it back by the time people who knew better heard it.

a reply to: _Del_

theaviationist.com...

“All flights, including Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker jets over Eastern Ukraine”

Del, you got your wish for Su-27s.

No one knows any of this for sure except the people that saw the actions of whatever party took it down.

Service ceilings can easily be exceeded especially in times of war or emergency.

If the Ukrainians had a jet up there it would have been to id or escort it after failing to communicate with it, Rebels on the other hand would be less inclined to do so.

Putin is a inteligence service trained liar and a true Russian class gangster sooooo.... Make your own conclusion but this isn't the first time Russian weapons have shot down a commercial jet and no one thinks rebels are anything less than fanatical and often times trigger happy, but believe what you want.

originally posted by: circuitsports
No one knows any of this for sure except the people that saw the actions of whatever party took it down.

Service ceilings can easily be exceeded especially in times of war or emergency.

Service ceiling is the altitude at which the rate of climb is 100 ft per minute.

Zoom altitudes can certainly be higher - IIRC the F-104 allegedly had a zoom altitude of 80,000 feet. However a zoom climb requires a great deal of energy - the aircraft trades kinetic energy - speed - for potential energy - altitude. And the Su-25 simply doesn't have much speed to trade - sure it has some......but 526 kts, at sea level as its max speed, simply isn't all that fast!

Plus the radar track shows no 2nd track before MH-17 starts veering off and losing speed - which makes a nonsense of the supposed altitude being zoomed to - zoom altitude is only temporary - for the radar plot the Russians give to be an Su-25 it would have to be flying under the tail of the 777 for several minutes before hand - at least.
So there is no scenario that actually allows the 2nd radar plot to be a Su-25 - it cannot fly that high in any sustained manner, and even if it can zoom that high the radar plot shows no such zoom.

The best fit for the Russian video is that the 2nd plot is part of the 777 that has split off and stopped moving horizontally, and is just falling to earth as the rest of the aircraft flies off in a north-east direction for a short distance.

a reply to: victor7

The Iranian guy has a better story than the first line out of Russia. It's too late though, because they'd have to reinterpret all the plots to try to make that fit. Where was the merge for the Frogfoot or Flankers? Where did the Sukhoi paints go after the 777 comes down? "Stealthy" Su-27s? It's pretty clear the "unknown" plot is the pieces of the triple seven coming apart.

This isn't Russia's fault directly. I don't think an advisor pushed the button, and you could never prove that even if it were true. Most Russians I've met seemed to have more sense than that, and a crew qualified to train irregulars on that equipment knows enough to differentiate a 777 and a smaller Antonov.
But as sure as God made little green apples, Russia has had highly-trained operators equipping and training insurgents in eastern Ukraine. No one with a brain doubts that. Don't blame them personally. It's their backyard. I'm sure Green Bere, SAS and other NATO irregulars are on the ground advising in the Ukraine, too.
In this case though the Russian's proxies got off the leash. It happens. It's happened many times before with the US as well. It's sometimes the price of doing dirty business.
Russians equipped them, someone got edgy and boom, we have an airliner on the ground in pieces where it shouldn't be. Now they've got mud on their face, and Strelkov has blood on his hands. Russia has to decide whether to fish or cut bait soon. So far they're happy just to obfuscate.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All the SU have to do is fly above 16400ft and it will show up on radar. Fly bellow 16400ft and the mark disappears.

Russia stated that the radar that tracked the flight was on Stand by mode and only tracked flights above 16404ft that = 5000m. A SU can break the sealing of 16400ft.

You state that the second mark must be debries large enough to make a mark. But it cant be. If Mh17 broke into at least two large pieces. Both pieces would moste likely freefall With Close to same speed, about 200km/h. How is it possible that the second mark was on radar screen for 4 min after the original mark of MH17 disappeared?

If what you state is what happened, there would peobably two different crash sites. I have only heard of one crash site.

In any of the Public videos i can not see anyone filming a second part of the Mh17 coming Down. The second part of Mh17 would hit the ground at least 4min after the initial crash. Because it was on radar above 16400ft for 4 min longer than the original Mh17 mark.


Is it not possible for the SU to pass the falling MH17 With 3 to 5km somewhere around 16400ft when the Mh17 is freefalling towards the ground? And for the SU to stay in the same location for 4 min?

3km = 3000m = 9842ft.
5km = 5000m = 16404ft

Radar tracking altitude is from 5000m = 16404ft.


Question: If MH17 broke apart at just above 16404ft. when the New mark showed up. How is it possible for the New mark to stay above 16404ft for 4 min when it is freefalling debries?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I KNEW they had to be editing that wiki page. they even edited missile useages. I used that page earlier before the edited it and youre correct.