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.

 

A Su25 Can Fly At 10,000m Easily, And Higher. Proof

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The Su25 from the vid.



www.youtube.com...

This is a Su25-UB model. A twin seater trainer with full combat capability. It received no engine upgrades and there is no difference in performance with the the standard Su25. It was one of the early variants.

The Ukrainian Airforce has them too.

It is flying without ordinance here, but 2 R60 missiles and a full 250 30mm round magazine would only weigh around 400 kg maybe, and that's a high estimate.


Pic for reference.




10,500m on the altimeter. Speed 1000+ km/h




Radar image.


edit on 28-8-2015 by TheBlacklist because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's only about 35,000 feet.
That's not much above commercial jet altitude.

There are quite a few other fighters that can operate beyond that altitude easily.
So what's so great about this capability?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Oh, look, Soviet Era Crap!



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ShadowLink

I am pointing this out because a lot of people have been claiming that it isn't capable of that, in the aftermath of the MH17 tragedy.

Maybe you missed it.


This is why I posted it in the Deconstructing Disinformation forum.





That's not much above commercial jet altitude.


Indeed.
edit on 28-8-2015 by TheBlacklist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBlacklist

Not only that bit of truth but also stuff like this ....



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
No Avenger cannon,soviet pilot...MEH.
I'll still take the A-10 for absolute fear.
YOU would too if you were on the berms in Desert Storm.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Someone build a gun and then someone builds a bigger gun .



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It's not the gun really ,it's the skill of it's use and purpose.
Something like THOSE are only a failure for the first to use them.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
No one has denied the Su-25 can fly over its service ceiling. All aircraft can. However it cannot maintain that altitude and its performance will suffer. So how is an Su-25 going to overtake a 777 that's already faster than it at an altitude thousands of feet above its service ceiling?

It amazes me how many people still buy in to this Su-25 theory. The manufacturer of the Su-25 says its service ceiling is far below that of the 777. The manufacturer of the BUK system says their product was responsible for MH17's fate. Not even Russia can commit to the Su-25 theory for more than a week at a time.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




No one has denied the Su-25 can fly over its service ceiling. All aircraft can. However it cannot maintain that altitude and its performance will suffer. So how is an Su-25 going to overtake a 777 that's already faster than it at an altitude thousands of feet above its service ceiling?


It is not faster, and it wasn't flying above the Su25's ceiling. Why do you ignore the proof in my op?

And who says it had to overtake the 777?




It amazes me how many people still buy in to this Su-25 theory. The manufacturer of the Su-25 says its service ceiling is far below that of the 777.


But it isn't and this vid proves it. They even adress those claims. The supposed service ceiling was based on the fact that the cockpit isn't pressurised, and there is no standard oxygen mask.

It reached 11,880 m in the vid.

It amazes me that people still deny this, in the face of proof even.





The manufacturer of the BUK system says their product was responsible for MH17's fate. Not even Russia can commit to the Su-25 theory for more than a week at a time.


What exactly changed in their story?

Almaz-Antay is not the government.

They can say so, but there are some problems with that.

Btw, due to the same expertise they were also able to determine that the BUK was fired from Ukrainian held territory.
edit on 28-8-2015 by TheBlacklist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well if the A-10 is a measure of skill ,the one shot make it count goes out the window .Is it possible to shoot more bullets then that thing ?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Incorrect.
Not all engagements are solved by a single shot Grasshopper... When scouts see T72s THAT is what happens rapidly,then NO MORE T72s or what ever ADA we can kill first,usually included in the engagemnt plan of attack.
AND yes you can..www.youtube.com...
edit on 28-8-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBlacklist




It is not faster, and it wasn't flying above the Su25's ceiling. Why do you ignore the proof in my op?


Here let me show you something...


Su-25UB
The Su-25UB trainer (Uchebno-Boyevoy) was drawn up in 1977. The first prototype, called "T-8UB-1", was rolled out in July 1985 and its maiden flight was carried out at the Ulan-Ude factory airfield on 12 August of that year.[7] By the end of 1986, 25 Su-25UBs had been produced at Ulan-Ude before the twin-seater completed its State trials and officially cleared for service with the Soviet Air Force.[67][clarification needed]

It was intended for training and evaluation flights of active-duty pilots, and for training pilot cadets at Soviet Air Force flying schools. The performance did not differ substantially from that of the single-seater. The navigation, attack, sighting devices and weapons-control systems of the two-seater enabled it to be used for both routine training and weapons-training missions.[68]


en.wikipedia.org...

So this model wouldn't reach the height of MH 17, just as the SU 25 the Ukraine flies wouldn't.

As for your OP...RT has changed the story more times than most homeless men do their underwear.

Also being as they are the Kremlin mouthpiece and they have a habit of trying to make an SU 25 fly higher than it really can...I almost forgot about them changing the Wiki page for the SU 25, so nothing from them can be considered credible proof.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




So this model wouldn't reach the height of MH 17, just as the SU 25 the Ukraine flies wouldn't.


So you are just going to persist in spreading false information which my OP just proved to be false.

This model obviously reaches an altitude well above 10km. It obviously does 1000+ km/h. Why do you ignore the proof?

Did you miss the altimeter and speedometer in the screenshot I posted?

Since this one has the same performance as the standard Su25, any Su25 can do this. You can try to trun it around but it won't work.

You also seem to have missed the part where I mentioned that the Ukraine airforce actually does own this exact UB model.

en.wikipedia.org...


Su-25 Su-25UB Su-25K Su-25UTG Su-25M1 Su-25UBM1



So what this all means is that any Su25 can do this, at least you have seen that a Su25-UB can do this and you seem to agree that it doesn't differ from the standard Su25, performance wise.


So this was your debunk? Just deny the provided proof and claim the opposite? Discrediting the source off course.

Not going to work.
edit on 28-8-2015 by TheBlacklist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBlacklist




Almaz-Antay is not the government.


No, but they are the governments expert on the BUK, and that expert said it was a BUK that did this.



They can say so, but there are some problems with that.


What problems?



Btw, due to the same expertise they were also able to determine that the BUK was fired from Ukrainian held territory.


They are the Russian governments expert what do you expect them to say?

Problem with his theory is that the major damage was from the front left side, so that puts that into question.

Here you go an interesting article about the BUK...

www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




They are the Russian governments expert what do you expect them to say?


So when they say it was a BUK they are reliable. When they say it was fired from Ukraine controlled territory they are suddenly not reliable, even though this was determined using the same expertise.

Cherrypicking, much?




Problem with his theory is that the major damage was from the front left side, so that puts that into question.


Problem with that is that there are obvious exit holes in the left side too.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join