NEW MH17 SENSATION: German experts point finger at Ukrainian air-force jets.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MysterX

Show me where I said it could reach that height? I said it could exceed its ceiling. That doesn't mean it can reach that altitude, it just means that it can go over 23,000 feet. Sukhoi never said by how much it could, only that for brief times it could go higher than 23,000 feet.

That's mincing words Zaphod...you implied that it was possible by not being your customary hyper-statistically-accurate self and saying that it absolutely wouldn't be possible to fly as high as MH17...meaning that you don't know one way or the other...so ergo, by definition, it is possible that it can or did.

(that's a compliment btw)

a reply to: MysterX

It doesn't matter if it's a 777, or a C-5, or a dogfight. It's cruising faster than the Su-25 can fly, and the Su-25 is using a gun designed to shoot slow moving targets, not be used against an aerial target moving at high speed.

a reply to: MysterX

I didn't imply anything. He asked about a video where they were higher than the published altitude. That doesn't mean that they can go to 33,000 feet.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Zaphod58



Again, and especially considering the huge, bloated target MH17 would have been in comparison to a fighter ducking and diving, hitting the target would be akin to hitting several barn doors with a BB gun.

'Almost impossible' starts to look more like 'It's not beyond the realms of possibility''.

Nope sorry, at those altitudes the SU-25 would not be ducking and diving at all, it would barely have enough air movement over it's control surfaces to maneuver at all let alone pull any kind of "ducking and diving" and the size of the wings in itself means it would not have much to grip on to the thin air with, the 777 may in fact have had an edge over it that high up. You may find this hard to believe but the plane has much more wing surface area and kinetic energy at those kind of altitudes. It's the reason the old vulcan bomber could out maneuver fighters at very high altitudes.

a reply to: Flatcoat

The Su-25 that the Ukrainians had, has a published ceiling of 23,000 feet. Minus replacing the engines with more powerful engines, it's not going higher, with any kind of load. There is nothing anywhere that I have been able to find that shows that the Ukrainians replaced the engines with more powerful engines.

so, is it entirely impossible that a different type of war plane shot it down? After all, i though the SU-25 was just a speculation based on the size of the radar footprint? Do we know for sure that it was, in no way, possible for the Ukrainians to have used a more modern military aircraft?

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
so, is it entirely impossible that a different type of war plane shot it down? After all, i though the SU-25 was just a speculation based on the size of the radar footprint? Do we know for sure that it was, in no way, possible for the Ukrainians to have used a more modern military aircraft?

If it was then I don't see why the Russians would have suggested a SU-25

a reply to: SUBKONCIOUS

Everyone that has ever suggested that it was an air to air shootdown has said that it was an Su-25, from people on the ground, to the Russians with their radar data.

God damn. The good ole' United States sure has been getting sloppy with their sponsored false flags as of late. This is just one piece of condemning evidence - much more will come in the coming weeks I believe.

Kiev shot this plane down. Accept it people. You were duped by America and her cronies once again. The government in Kiev should be brought to justice immediately.

The people are getting smarter. Look what happens when smart individuals actually investigate the claims made by 'unnamed U.S. officials. Surprise, surprise, when people go digging - they find that the US officials stories are full of holes, and downright disinformation.

Flame away. You will only look stupid when proven wrong in the coming weeks. Kiev did this. Absolutely disgusting.


We all had better prepare for Russia. False flags mean only one thing on the horizon. Do not fall for it... False flags mean the US Gov is getting desperate.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MysterX

It doesn't matter if it's a 777, or a C-5, or a dogfight. It's cruising faster than the Su-25 can fly, and the Su-25 is using a gun designed to shoot slow moving targets, not be used against an aerial target moving at high speed.

You're missing the obvious i think.

The stated speeds for each aircraft (cruising) are pretty close, not much in it.

If you were flying a mission, to shoot down an aircraft that can fly marginally faster than your fighter...what do you do, chase the faster target plane or do you let it catch you up to port or starboard, and having caught your fighter up, overtakes you at a relative speed of what...15 - 20 mph? or whatever the speed difference between then is.

I guarantee you'll never catch a faster plane if it's in front of you...if you waited for it, you have all the time in the world, as it would be like a lorry overtaking your car on the motorway...relatively slow and lumbering, because you're both flying parallel and the relative speed difference is only the difference in max speeds...would give you plenty of time to get the shot in accurately and get out of dodge PDQ.

I don't know the specifics on the BUK, but many of your AA systems are designed to explode into a cloud of shrapnel much the same way that a shotgun blast works. So those aren't bullet holes from a gun, but rather bits of the cloud of shrapnel from the missile. I believe this is also how the Patriot Missile system works.

Patriot PAC-3
However, the missile still has a small explosive warhead, called Lethality Enhancer, a directional warhead which launches a stream of low-speed steel fragments in the direction of the target in order to make the missile cross-section greater to enhance the kill probability. This greatly increases the lethality against ballistic missiles of all types.

BUK Missile 9M38
The weight of the missile is 581 kg, including the 62 kg blast fragmentation warhead initiated by a dual-mode radar proximity fuze.

a reply to: MysterX

And the second you pull the trigger, you're going to stall and fall out of control, and probably crash. You're going to be near your stall speed the entire time, and a 30mm gun, at low altitude, in a dive, can almost stop a plane in flight when fired. So you're at high altitude, above where your plane was designed to fly, at a very slow speed already, with almost no air moving over the control surfaces to give you any kind of fine control. Then you kick in a massive gun designed to destroy tanks with just a few rounds, and you're now tumbling out of control, with no way to get it back until very low altitude, where the air is thicker, which gives you a few seconds to react. And that's if your engines don't flame out from already being higher than they were designed for, and having disrupted airflow through them due to the tumbling you're doing now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

All true.

Although i'd imagine the pilots selected for an important mission would be chosen very carefully and be among the best of the best, as it were.

a reply to: fatdeeman

I referred to MH17 NOT ducking and diving, in reference to it not being as agile as another fighter jet.

I wasn't referring to the SU-25 or MH17 moving in such a way, but more the opposite.

a reply to: MysterX

Again, it wouldn't make much difference. You're still going to stall, and the same things are going to happen. You can be Maverick from Top Gun, and the same thing would happen. It's all about how the plane reacts to the gun being fired. It doesn't matter if you're the best pilot to ever strap a plane on, this would be as close to impossible as you are ever going to see.

a reply to: Zaphod58
A plane, following a straight path, would be a sitting duck. All you gotta do is lead it, and let it move right into your path of fire. Even if the pilots happened to notice, no way a jetliner is going to have the reactionary nimbleness to avoid all the shots.

a reply to: TKDRL

Except for the fact that the aiming for a gun designed to shoot ground targets is different than that designed to shoot air targets. For one thing, ground targets are much slower, so the lead is much lower. You can't take a gun system designed to shoot ground targets, and just point it at a plane and shoot down the plane, even if it's just traveling in a straight line.

originally posted by: R_Clark
a reply to: Vasa Croe

In the article, he describes exactly why this cannot be from the ground including how the bullets are passing through from outside through to inside the craft and then out again... It is discussed...

Which can be caused by the sam exploding near the aircraft, forcing shrapnel from the outside into the inside and back out the opposite side.

A ATA missile is not capable of causing the damage we see. A sam on the other hand has enough explosives, and blast pattern, to do it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And more importantly, where were the mystery planes? Russia released radar data that they claim shows an Su-25 (which can't reach altitude with a 777), but that's the only plane they say was in the area. The Su-25 uses a 30mm canon, but again, cant reach altitude with a 777. It has a 23,000 foot service ceiling per Sukhoi, who makes it.

I swear that I read that you said in another thread some days that it could briefly reach 10.000m. Should I go look for it?

a reply to: SirElrondofRivendell

I said that it could briefly exceed its normal operating ceiling. Not that it could reach 33,000 feet.


Even if it COULD, it couldn't do it with missiles on board, and it couldn't fire the gun up there without stalling and going out of control.