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.
I'm going by what combat pilot's that have flown them but hay I'm sure the guy who designed it on a drawing board would know more but you official story guys change your tune pretty quick now it's can fly that high but only without weapons and not for long you should inform the the proper people who published these ceiling height s
On the contrary I've seen planes that have landed safely after being struck by a buk
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: imod02
Yes and no. Service Ceiling is the highest an aircraft can fly with a combat load and maintain a 100 foot per minute climb rate. So while Absolute Ceiling is higher, it's set by a clean aircraft with no combat load.
Top speed is set clean, with a limited amount of fuel, under ideal conditions. You'll never hit top speed with anything hanging off the aircraft because it creates drag.
Russian arms manufacturer Almaz Antey claims that an older version of the Buk surface-to-air missile found in Ukrainian but not Russian military arsenals downed flight MH17 over east Ukraine.
Mikhail Malyshevsky, adviser to the director general of the state-owned arms consortium, said that the conclusion had been formed by company experts after studying photographs of debris from the crash site.
Damaging elements come from outdated BUK-M1 missile
After analyzing the nature of damage dealt to the aircraft, manufacturer Almaz-Antey came to the conclusion it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from BUK’s older line of defense systems, namely the BUK-M1.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa
Considering the SU-25 coudnt get up to that altitude and stay there long enough to even fire its cannon to put holes in the aircraft id say its SHRAPNEL/rods from the SAM/buks/ Fragmentation warhead. Tungsten rod penetrators most likely.
The SU25 is capable of reaching that altitude…
The BUK chases its target, impacting from behind, center mass, not the side/front of the nose of the aircraft.
The shrapnel of a BUK is not 30 mm 'paper punch' holes either. The holes in the nose of Mh17 are perfectly round 30 mm , and associatedtwith in and out perforations in the fuselage, resulting from explosive cannon shells, standard armor piercing, incendiary ammunition for the Su-25.
The shells punched through the light skin exploded within so explains the in and out frag with round holes the size of cannon shells.
BUK tungsten 'rods' would be a mix of round, oblong and slotted perforations, no explosive deformation or in and out holing from secondary explosions.
Remember a tweet that was sent out by the men in donbass saying they shot down a transport that was then deleted once they figured out it was nto a transport? smoking gun to me.
Well the new vid has them talking second plane, chutes seen and pilot "crawling" while they're standing next to the burning wreckage of MH 17.
Now tell me how unreal that vid is but some 'deleted tweet' is more valid.
a reply to: RyleeNator
The recorders aren't going to show any evidence as to who fired the missile and a transcript of the last few minutes has been released. As has the transcript of the air traffic control conversations.
But a SAM is going to do a lot more damage than any air to air missile will ever do with a direct hit.