Interesting article on Ukraine shooting down MH17

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yes really. You're suggesting a trained pilot was deployed for no real reason in an Su-25 variant not used by Ukraine. You're then suggesting this trained pilot mistook a 777 flying from Western Europe with a MiG-27 flying from Russia and blew it out of the sky. There are so many inconsistencies and impossibilities with that story I don't know how you can actually support it.

At least if you go with the theory that a Russian plane shot it down you avoid some of those inconsistencies. That said the evidence doesn't support that scenario either.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

There's too much invested in the belief that it was a Ukrainian fighter that shot down MH-17, so attempting to invent facts to make it sound plausible is getting a bit tedious.

There is quite alot of invention going on here, much of it easily disproved, as has happened consistently right from the off.

Regards

This is hilarious nobody on this thread has debunked anything the only way to debunk it is get yourself in a su-25 and try to fly to 33,000 feet and fail now the plane is Russian made and if you think that it can only do what ever it says it can do on the internet then your more moronic than George Bush and if you really think the Russians are as stupid as one of your expresident s to try and fool the world with an impossible notion we the people of the world are not as easily fooled as the US population eg.(building 7 imploded because of office fires) eg.(weapons of mass destruction) not to mention Libya the only think this thread has debunked is that the west has any evidence that Russia or the self defence force's had anything to do with the downing of mh 17 bs all you want with your paper facts but you can't make the fact of the matter go away if all the evidence says a su-25 shot down mh17 and no evidence that a buk shot it down well guess what reply to: paraphi

a reply to: RyleeNator

Except that there's no evidence an Su-25 shot down MH17. In top of that, while Sukhoi is a Russian company it is still a company that relies on sales to make money. Why would they downsell one of their products to potential buyers by posting specs that are worse than what it can actually do?

a reply to: RyleeNator

And you're denying eyewitness reports of the rebels with a BUK in the area, video of a BUK with a missile missing, intercepted phone calls from the rebels claiming to have downed the jet, and tweets from them that same the same.

Why would Sukhoi lie about the Su-25's capabilities. The thing's been in service for decades. At this point the US probably owns at least one. On top of that there's probably at least a few private owners in the West. The capabilities of the Su-25 are well known. Also, the capabilities are all based off of science. We know all the components used to build an Su-25. It's just a matter of plugging in some numbers in a few equations and even the layman could tell you the thing's ceiling. Now if the Su-25 was a black project you could argue that it's impossible to know its true specs. The reality is that this is a mass produced plane and Sukhoi would gain nothing from lying about its capabilities.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The M1 upgrade includes longer range Air targeting.

This equipment is designed to achieve an improved accuracy of applying bomber, missile and gun weapons of the airplane, expand the range of air attack weapons, which are used on the aircraft, introduce a navigational bombing of targets with known coordinates and etc.

Source

And at least 8 were in service by the Ukrainians and most likely 2 more.

So far the only Frogfoot unit, 299 brTA, has received eight upgraded aircraft comprising seven Su-25M1s (bort numbers ‘03 Blue’ to ‘08 Blue’ and ‘41 Blue’) and a single Su-25UBM1 (bort ‘62 Blue’). Of note is the fifth single-seat Su-25M1 (bort ‘06 Blue’) to be returned to service, as this was the first Frogfoot to receive the new ‘pixel’ or ‘digital’ camouflage scheme. Delivery of at least two additional Su-25M1s is imminent as ‘38 Blue’ and ‘40 Blue’ were photographed during test flights at ZDARZ in November 2013.

Source

a reply to: RyleeNator

So I take it the name calling means you will not be providing any actual documentary evidence to back up your claims. Pity, I love admitting when I'm wrong, it enhances my credibility.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The BUK Separatist story has so many holes in it, it`s not even funny anymore.

Dodgy pictures, sloppy put together so called leaked phone interception, tweets from a nutcase which as the story goes wasn`t even tweeting himself, supposed BUK launch site surrounded with houses at three sides which makes it impossible not see an hear the launch by many witnesses, several planes flying over in the hour before while they were at the supposed launch site waiting, a so called picture of the trail with almost blue sky while it was clouded, 30km away from the MH17 explosion while a BUK only has 35km range and the radar 42km, meaning they would have immediately fired without conformation as to what they were shooting and it was coming straight over them so they had the time to look at it much better before shooting, questionable claims about BUK 312 actual not being still from the Ukraine themselves and an Ukraine BUK instructor emphasizing you really need to be excellent trained to be able to launch a BUK, which makes a mistake much less likely.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Air to ground targeting. Sorry, but it still doesn't carry the R-73.

The M1 upgraded the KN-23-1 and the SUO-8-1 attack suite. They added the ILS-39 digital weapons sight, and SN-3307 GPS receiver to the KN-23-1. That allowed them to target objects on the ground from 6,000 meters, giving a 30-50 meter precision.

Page 42.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

While the Su-25 story is sterling. That's why Russian media had to push that Photoshopped image. That's why the Russians have to rely on unnamed "witnesses" to support their story. That's why the Russians has to edit the Wikipedia page for the Su-25.

The rebels claimed to be in possession of a BUK. The rebels had already downed a number of other Ukrainian planes. Ukraine never made claims on social media or any other medium that they downed a plane at the same time MH17 was downed. Ukraine never scrambled fighters because of a commercial jetliner in the past.

Considering the fact that the pro-Putin crowd claims the current Ukrainian administration is in the pocket of the United States I have one question to ask. How did Putin know MH17 had been downed before Obama? Obama learned of the incident through a call from Putin.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The BUK has no way to determine if it's a civilian or military aircraft, so a longer look at it wouldn't have shown them anything other than it was an airplane.

According to many people that have used a BUK, including Russia, it was designed to be fairly simple to operate the basics (identifying a target on radar, locking on, and firing). If you want to try to identify the aircraft on radar, you have to be highly trained. If you're just locking on to targets and firing, it's easier to use. You still need some training though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It does not show it`s able to use them, but maybe it could.

It is however upgraded also for better air fighting.

In March 2010 Ukraine's Defense Ministry recently passed Su-25 UBM1 and Su-25 M1 Russian-made fighters into service. A two-seat operational trainer Su-25 UBM1 is designed to provide tactical flight training of pilots in air force units and improving fighting efficiency. It could also be used for better determination of location, height and flying speed of enemy jets by utilizing digital algorithm range setting. The Su-25 UBM1 jet is a modernized version of Su-25 UB equipped with tuned and updated instruments to increase accuracy of bombing and missile launching. The fighter jet Su-25 M1 is a modernized version of Su-25 equipped with updated devices with improved fighting performance. By putting into service the two new jets, the defense ministry expected to improve tactical flight and combat efficiency.

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And that helps them to launch better infrared guided missiles how? The Su-25 doesn't carry any radar guided missiles, so most variants don't even have air to air radar, just navigation/weather radar. It's not even clear if the BM1 has an air to air radar. The UBM, that is in Russian service does, but that's a different aircraft than the Ukrainian UBM1, which is the trainer version of the M1. In which case, that algorithm is for the radar warning receiver on board, and not an actual radar system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

According to this Ukrainian BUK instructor you need to be a specialist; an engineer and have knowledge about radio location to be able to operate it.

At 17:48 :

Link

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And according to others, including Russia, it's a very simplistic system designed for easy use, which is why they didn't even put target identifying systems like IFF on it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you have a link to that, and not from MSM ?

They will tell it`s easy to use of course regarding to the BUK story.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That`s why I was thinking about a R-27 missile with only IR module, they sure would be able to fire them with modifications from lower altitude.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Aviation Week

The problem with the "they weren't trained" argument is that prior to MH17 being downed, a Ukrainian Air Force plane was shot down while above the ceiling of a MANPADS. That means that the missile had to come from either a fixed or mobile SAM system.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Which wouldn't have exploded near the cockpit once, let alone twice.