It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: spy66
Check Your facts. Wiki is not a absolute fact sheet when it comes to all military hardware.
No but the manufacturer is.
But please provide the fact sheet that says this plane is capable of flying to 33000 ft. and still able to shoot their cannons without stalling.
I will be waiting....
It's just amazing how you think that the manufacturer doesn't know the capabilities of the plane they built, yet a video on RT does.
originally posted by: aussiefly
Actually thats not true re the Su-25. There are many variables regarding whether the airframe could attain that test altitude again including weather, dewpoint, engine time, distance to TBO, airframe condition etc etc. Just because it was done once...when it was brand new off the assembly line doesnt mean that the aircraft can do it again after having been in service for many many years. little dings to the leading edges...engines not operating at 100% efficiency all take their toll.
Not saying it cant...just saying that its not a certainty as you imply etc.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So far, there is no indisputable evidence?
Westerbeke: Yes. If you look in the newspapers, however, it always looks as if quite clear what happened to the aircraft and who is to blame. But if we really want to bring the perpetrators to justice or, we need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the internet or photos of the crash site. That's why we not only attract a scenario into consideration, but several.
Westerbeke: Based on the available information, the launch is by a ground-to-air missile in my eyes is still the most likely scenario. But we do not close our eyes to the possibility that it might have been different.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the OVV report states that there were no military jets in the vicinity have been.
Westerbeke: Right. But this statement is based on information that was available at the time the OVV. The question is: Do the Russians possibly [know] more?
Dienstgipfelhöhe 10.000 m 32.808 ft
the Ukrainian Air Force operates approximately 60 Su-25, Su-25UBs, and Su-25UTGs, which are operated by the 299th Independent Assault Regiment (299 OShAP) based at Kulbakino, Mykolaiv Oblast, and at Saki in the Crimea, and the 456th Assault Regiment (456 ShAP) at Chortkiv.
Also, Ukrainian Air Force modernized two types of the Su-25, one of them is Su-25M1 and Su-25UBM1.
Multirole attack aircraft SU-39 is rebuilt modern version of SU-25 "Frogfoot" attack aircraft, featuring large combat payload, good low flying maneuverability and opportunity to dodge enemy air defense systems. It recommended oneself as easy to pilot and maintain, cheap and reliable aircraft. It's serial production began in 1996.
The Russian Air Force has received 8 aircraft as of 2008.
Interview with MH17-investigator Westerbeke
Interview with Dutch public prosecutor Fred Westerbeke in the MH17 case, who denies that any progress whatsoever has been achieved so far. He confirms that only two credible scenarios remain: Buk or fighter jet (Ukrainian air-force). Westerbeke denies that the recent report by the German intelligence agency BND has provided any breakthrough. The BND claimed that seperatists were responsible. The US still has not responded to requests for providing satellite data.
Who said that the manufacturer always have to tell the truth about its military Product to the Public?
The SU have been tested to 14000m at least once. 14000m = 45931, 8 feet. That means it is capable of doing 14000m again.
THe American pilots who have tested the SU25 were supriced of how good it was.
True. If the SU isnt fitt to make the mark do to lack of maintenance it probably wouldnt fly that high.
It probably couldnt have a proper load out of ordinance when in combat either.
How hard can it be to watch a vid of 23:11 min to the end...?