It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MH-17: The Untold Story

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Dienstgipfelhöhe 10.000 m 32.808 ft

Source

And here`s the altered one, still has flight test height of 14.600 m :

Dienstgipfelhöhe: Maximale Einsatzhöhe: 7.500m, Maximal erreichte Höhe (flight test) 14.600 m

Source




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And here`s the actual Ukrainian state spec sheath of the SU 25 :

Service ceiling, m 7000-10000

Source



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

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.


Who said that the manufacturer always have to tell the truth about its military Product to the Public?

That wouldnt be very smart.

The SU have been tested to 14000m at least once. 14000m = 45931, 8 feet. That means it is capable of doing 14000m again.

EDIT.
THe American pilots who have tested the SU25 were supriced of how good it was.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Interview with MH17-investigator Westerbeke



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.

Google Translate

Original German Link
edit on 27 10 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You forgot to mention:


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?


Your own source.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Dienstgipfelhöhe 10.000 m 32.808 ft

Source


You do understand that the plane you linked to is an SU 25TM a plane that Ukraine doesn't use.


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.


And before you say it was upgraded...


Also, Ukrainian Air Force modernized two types of the Su-25, one of them is Su-25M1 and Su-25UBM1.[78]


en.wikipedia.org...

And you may want to read this...


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.


www.enemyforces.net...

So did you even research the plane you linked to?

And did you even research the fact that Ukraine doesn't even have an SU 39, so now I ask again the plane will not fly that high with anything that can do harm to another plane, especially one that's flying at 33000 ft.

And this might also be a problem...


The Russian Air Force has received 8 aircraft as of 2008.


en.wikipedia.org...-25TM_.28Su-39.29

So they built 8 of these planes since 1996, but you think Ukraine has this model?

Now time to provide the facts showing Ukraine has this model, because each of the models they have won't exceed 23000 ft with any extra weight such as externals or ammunition.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Interview with MH17-investigator Westerbeke


Here you might like this...


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.


deepresource.wordpress.com...



So what were you trying to say in your post?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66




Who said that the manufacturer always have to tell the truth about its military Product to the Public?


And why would they lie, do you really think they would be able to do that when it will be known long before they are built to production. Also they build planes for specific duties such as this one.



The SU have been tested to 14000m at least once. 14000m = 45931, 8 feet. That means it is capable of doing 14000m again.


Keyword...Once.

And in that once it was not carrying any weapons or externals when it did that. Now find some evidence that proves an SU 25 can fly that high with even the smallest of armament and one that can shoot a missile that it can't carry to that height.



THe American pilots who have tested the SU25 were supriced of how good it was.


They also say that about the A-10 but that doesn't prove this plane can fly that high and shoot something down when there.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66




True. If the SU isnt fitt to make the mark do to lack of maintenance it probably wouldnt fly that high.


It isn't lack of maintenance, the plane was not built to fly that high.



It probably couldnt have a proper load out of ordinance when in combat either.


Why it isn't going into combat at 33000 ft, so why wouldn't it as its fully armed ceiling is 16000 ft.

Which btw was a bad thing to have when fighting in Afghanistan.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Look at the link of the official Ukrainian government which I also gave :



And here`s the actual Ukrainian state spec sheath of the SU 25 : Service ceiling, m 7000-10000


Know how to use Google Translate ?




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And again you fail to understand that an SU 25 will not fly that high with any type of weapon or ammunition.

Now can you show me anything that shows an SU 25 is capable of flying that high with armaments and ammo, and then be able to use their cannons at that height without stalling out.

If you can do that then you may have something.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

How hard can it be to watch a vid of 23:11 min to the end...?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




How hard can it be to watch a vid of 23:11 min to the end...?


And how hard is it for you to prove that an SU 25 that Ukraine uses, and not the one you linked to the SU 39 because Ukraine doesn't have that model in it's arsenal can fly high enough with weapons to bring down a plane at 33000 ft?

And your RT state run media isn't going to do it.

How about you actually research the plane and show me evidence that it can fly that high with armaments and is still able to use it's cannons or even carry a missile to that height and can fire it....You can't that is why you keep trying to refer to the silly video that is a lie about that plane.

And why do you think RUssia tried to change the wiki page about the SU 25...because they know it cannot do what you keep trying to push.

And I think you need to understand the difference between a flight test and actual combat flying with weapons.


edit on 28-10-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join