MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: dragonridr

I suggest you go back to your video and take a look check radio gun sights and the aux panel..

Amazing...utterly amazing.

a reply to: dragonridr

Stop lying, the SU39 cockpit looks different. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39.

I guess I am going to have to make that side by side comparison with little arrows and stuff.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

And where did it explode in relation to the plane?

I suggest you try this...

www.google.com...

or this...

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

Sorry I am not going to do your work for you...

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And Ukraine do not even have an SU 39.

Stop wasting space. I never said they did and was already mentioned.

So we came full circle they couldn't have used the aircraft Russia claimed. Now that we have that established we also know it's not air to air do to the damage of the cockpit. So now where down to accident or sam. We know by the black box there was no emergency so now where down to a sam

So the question becomes what Sam was available there's only two. And of those two which was seen and photographed the buk

a reply to: dragonridr

Stop making stuff up. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39, and it is flying at 8700 m at more than 1000 kmh.

I really hope that people are reading what is going on here.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Stop wasting space. I never said they did and was already mentioned.

Then why are you even discussing an airplane that Ukraine doesn't have?

As an SU 39 is not even relevant to this discussion...so what exactly is it your trying to prove about the SU 39?

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Stop making stuff up. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39, and it is flying at 8700 m at more than 1000 kmh.

I really hope that people are reading what is going on here.

Ok expert make your comparison I await the results but let me warn you the original version was a 2 seater they had two people. The two seat trainer was used as the basic design. They condensed the instruments to one cockpit and the gunners seat became extra fuel tanks. But by all means show me.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Stop wasting space. I never said they did and was already mentioned.

Then why are you even discussing an airplane that Ukraine doesn't have?

As an SU 39 is not even relevant to this discussion...so what exactly is it your trying to prove about the SU 39?

He believed the video showed an so 25 the version Ukraine had at 8500 meters. It didn't still trying to keep the plane idea alive. Not to mention the fact not even the Russian radar picked up a other plane at that altitude so the argument is silly. And is nothing more than an attempt to derail the discuasion.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Then why are you even discussing an airplane that Ukraine doesn't have?

Because I can? Because other people started talking about it?

As an SU 39 is not even relevant to this discussion...so what exactly is it your trying to prove about the SU 39?

Nothing except that saying that it is the plane in the vid is a big fat fabricated lie that apparently arose spontaneously among a group of posters.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, are you willing to reevalute your suggestion that the plane in the vid is a Su39 instead of a generic Su25?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Stop lying, the SU39 cockpit looks different. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39.

I am going to say it is probably an SU 27 not a 25, or the 39.



vozforums.com...

Possibly a trainer.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar

Clearly a Su25 cockpit, not Su39.

Not falling for the lies, despite the group effort.......

It's a Su25 for gods sakes.

See the two white buttons above and to the right of the altimeter for instance....

They are in both my pics but not in the pics of the Su39 nor the Su27.

Just one example to close this case.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Stop lying, the SU39 cockpit looks different. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39.

I am going to say it is probably an SU 27 not a 25, or the 39.

vozforums.com...

Possibly a trainer.

The original proto types were two seat trainers they converted to SU 39s see above. They removed the second seat added fuel tanks and moved the gun sights. Also took the aux panel from the trainer and moved that to the front on the right side. What we are looking at in the video was a Frankenstein they were testing in afganistan. They tested 3 different proto types before settling on the design of the so 39.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Because I can? Because other people started talking about it?

Yes you can...but derailing a thread is frowned upon.

Nothing except that saying that it is the plane in the vid is a big fat fabricated lie that apparently arose spontaneously among a group of posters.

As I expected. The plane in your video is not what your saying it is though.

SO either your lying about it, and I suspect your just going by what you heard on the video...so that means the video is lying, which is why you see what you see.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The cockpit in your example doesn't even have the vertical row of 4 meters. It's a totally different cockpit.

This is ridiculous.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Stop lying, the SU39 cockpit looks different. The plane in the vid is a normal Su25, not a Su39.

I am going to say it is probably an SU 27 not a 25, or the 39.

vozforums.com...

Possibly a trainer.

Not even close.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Not even close.

I didn't say it was an exact match did I?

I said probably which is my opinion and if you don't like it...oh well I am not here to please you.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Not even close.

You are right as your video isn't showing an SU 25 as we see here...



upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Not even close.

You are right as your video isn't showing an SU 25 as we see here...

upload.wikimedia.org...

I know I already explained that the su 39 had several changes. It's really truly beside the point ho we've guys. Ukraine doesn't have any version of the su 25 capable of reaching that altitude. And as I already shown it wasn't a heat seeking missile. There is only one possibility. It was shot down by a Sam the only question woe be from who?

Su-25TM (Su-39) Russian Su-25TM has been built in small numbers. Carries (from tip to fuselage) R-73, R-77, 8×Vikhr, Kh-29T, Kh-58. White dome of Kopyo radar container is seen below, while two Omul ECM pods lie beside the aircraft. A second-generation Su-25T, the Su-25TM (also designated Su-39), has been developed with improved navigation and attack systems, and better survivability. While retaining the built-in Shkval of Su-25T, it may carry Kopyo (rus. "Spear") radar in the container under fuselage, which is used for engaging air targets (with RVV-AE/R-77 missiles) as well as ships (with Kh-31 and Kh-35 antiship missiles). The Russian Air Force has received 8 aircraft as of 2008.[74] Some of the improved avionics systems designed for T and TM variants have been included in the Su-25SM, an interim upgrade of the operational Russian Air Force Su-25, for improved survivability and combat capability.[15] The Su-25TM, as an all-inclusive upgrade programme has been replaced with the "affordable" Su-25SM programme.[76]

en.wikipedia.org...

The vid was shot in '95.

Russia got the Su39 in 2008........

The plane in the vid is a generic Su25.