Flaperon found on Reunion Island not from MH370?

Why wasn't the Spanish manufaturer CASA contacted as soon as the flaperon was found? Was it a surprise that the flaperon contained a part that they provided? I even see claims that they make the entire flaperon. don't know if that is true.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

Well it surely had to have come from somewhere, and don't call me Shirley.

How many flaperons happen to wash up on beaches? I imagine that the odds of that happening are just as odd as a commercial airline disappearing. It is circumstantial but considering how many flights are made every year and how many planes could've lost there flaperons in flight? there would have to be records somewhere.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

What is going to be their excuse next week when everybody is back all fresh and tanned?

The number is....and it matches, no excuses, but very tan.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Can you explain how anything you said applies to anything I said in my OP? I am not sure what point you are trying to make with regards to my op.

a reply to: YeahYea4

OK, but that still doesn't mean a Tomahawk, which is designed to hit ground targets, can shoot down a plane.

www.navy.mil...

originally posted by: TheAristTocratS
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Can you explain how anything you said applies to anything I said in my OP? I am not sure what point you are trying to make with regards to my op.

Well you were talking about a missing flaperon, I shared my thoughts on said flaperon...did you not get the flying high reference?

Like I said, that flaperon had to come from a plane and few planes go down without notice. I couldn't have made my thoughts any clearer.

originally posted by: YeahYea4
I suspect this piece will disappear and some excuse will be made.

It will show blast marks from the tomahawk.

Given that the BGM-109 has almost the exact speed as a 777 in cruise, it would be a tough shot to say the least. Not to mention that the warhead is optimized for land attack. SAM or AAM do not typically explode on contact rather use a proximity sensor to shower the target with shrapnel which for an aircraft is good enough. Not to mention if you were going to shoot the aircraft down why use the -109 at all? an AIM-120 launched from a stealth aircraft would do the trick. Not to mention that its targeting system, even with the GPS guided version is not really up to snuff for that kind of thing

Also, lets just say the -109 was used, a 1000 lb warhead impacting the airframe would have sent tons of debris to be found.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think we are disagreeing on semantics. There does exist platforms in which a Tomahawk has been re-engineered for submarine to air strike capabilities.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Well you were talking about a missing flaperon, I shared my thoughts on said flaperon...did you not get the flying high reference?

Actually I didn't. I did see it though but can't remember much for some reason.

Like I said, that flaperon had to come from a plane and few planes go down without notice. I couldn't have made my thoughts any clearer.

We all know that the obvious assumption is that it is from MH370. My op is about the lack of real confirmation, and apparent doubts that it is from MH370.

a reply to: YeahYea4

No, there isn't. There is a version that can attack ships, and there's a sub launched version for land attack, but an antiaircraft missile has to be fast and maneuverable, two things a Tomahawk isn't.

The capsule launch system is for subs to launch them at land targets without having to stay in the area to do it. The early versions they had to launch from tubes right under the surface. With the capsule system they can launch a capsule with a timer, and then move out of the area before the missile launches.

The only antiaircraft system mounted on a sub was a Stinger system mounted on the top of the sail for killing helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft. It couldn't hit a commercial aircraft.

For pities sake.

Look, this cannot be as hard as they are making this out to be.

Probabilistic analysis of the presence of this flaperon, combined with the infinitesimally small number of planes carrying that sort of flaperon to have gone down in waters ANY where near the final location of the discovered segment, should resolve to a 95% chance that this is indeed the item we all thought it was. Surely the serial numbers are only being looked at in this scenario, as a formality?

a reply to: Zaphod58


Would have sworn that I read about plans to fit Stingers to some LA Class SSNs back in the day... and that some of the WarPac subs had similar, theres the IDAS missile ?, maybe a modified version to reach the required sealing ? or the A3SM missile ?

a reply to: TrueBrit

What are you trying to say? That confirmation is not needed because you assume that it must be from MH370?

a reply to: weemadmental

It was called Mast Mounted Stinger. It was identical to the shoulder fired version, and was only really useful for low flying aircraft and helicopters.

All the mast mounted systems have the same problem in this scenario. They're all fairly small missiles with short ranges. You're seriously limited in the size of the missile you can fit in there, as well as guidance systems on the sub.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

Of course not.

What I am saying is that this would not be an assumption, but a matter of cold hard probability. No 777s other than the ONE that is being looked into right now, have ever gone down in waters feeding into the tidal pattern for the region in which it was found. Serial number or not, the chances of this being a part of some other aircraft are next to non existent!

originally posted by: TheAristTocratS
a reply to: TrueBrit

What are you trying to say? That confirmation is not needed because you assume that it must be from MH370?

It sounds to me like confirmation is being dragged out because of people being on vacation.

A lot of people take the month of August off, in Europe.

Confirmation is still needed of course, but my guess is it's more likely from MH370 than not. Fortunately nobody need rely on my guess after the experts get back from vacation.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Serial number or not, the chances of this being a part of some other aircraft are next to non existent!

Again, this is your assumption based on your perspective.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Confirmation is still needed of course, but my guess is it's more likely from MH370 than not.

But obviously, claims have been made that based on their knowledge sofar, that it actually doesn't match up.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

And improper documentation, or maintenance would explain that easily. It would be far from the first time it would have happened.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean it could explain that.

Like I said, specific claims have been made that it doesn't match up sofar. I didn't see any specific claims saying that it does match up.

And why didn't they get the info from CASA right away when it was found over a month ago, or was everybody already on vacation?