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.

 

Rod from R-60 Air to Air Missile Warhead In MH17 Wreckage?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
How can you tell what that is? I can't even get a good idea of the size.

Bar shaped objects are pretty common. Without some analysis, I don't see any reason to assume that's from a missile.




posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: GregDecker

The problem with an R-60 is that it wouldn't have done a lot of damage, and would have hit the wing/engine area. When Korean 902 was shot down with an R-60, it lost four feet of wing, and suffered minor fuselage damage. It was able to fly on for 40 minutes, before making a successful landing on a frozen lake. That was a 707, a much smaller aircraft.


So, to completely comprehend what you're saying so there is no error...you have mentioned this specific example of an aircraft surviving a R-60 missile strike before in your posting on this subject, you appear to be claiming that this one example of a 707, a relatively smaller aircraft, being hit by a R-60 missile and suffering what would be described in military circles as relatively minor damage and limp on in flight for an extended period of time, which is essentially equal to not being immediately blown out of the sky (as is the purpose of firing a military missile at an aircraft of course) means what exactly?

Are you saying that the R-60 missile is a weak weapon, with a service history of not fulfilling the aims of those who equip them, and so are unreliable for purpose and consequently could cause the deaths of our military pilots, who may miss an opportunity to destroy their target, as a result be potentially taken out by the still 'alive' enemy aircraft?

Or

Are you saying that the example of the 707 being able to limp onwards, with relatively minor damage following an R-60 missile strike is an aberration of what would normally be expected from such a missile strike on a pressurised, commercial airliner and as such the Korean 707 you're mentioning was extremely fortunate to have survived the missile encounter and carry on in flight?

Either way...if you're saying the R-60 missile is so apparently inadequate, not fit for purpose and does not fulfil the military objectives of stopping an aircraft in flight...why on earth would any military pay for and them equip a dud missile system? In this case, the R-60 missile would be like taking a knife to a gunfight!

Or if you are saying the Korean 707 was just one lucky aircraft to have survived the missile impact mostly intact...why do you use the example to claim the R-60 missile probably wouldn't take down a commercial aircraft?

Which is it...dodgy missile or lucky 707..or both?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

The R-60 is a very lightweight missile. Even with the upgraded warhead its total weight is under 100 pounds. It will do the job, but not as well as other missiles. The warhead is only about 8 pounds, compared to other missiles that have warheads close to 100 pounds. The missiles that hit KAL007 had 88 pound warheads. It's a good missile for aircraft like the Su-25, because it will work well against helicopters, and light aircraft.

For a true interception against large aircraft, and other fighters, the R-60 is dated, and doesn't work nearly as well as say the R-77, or the R-73. At the time it entered service, and until recently the R-60 was a good missile. It's maneuverable, and light. But it's extremely short ranged. It's only got a 5-8 mile range at high altitude, a limited seeker (20 degrees), and as I said, and extremely light warhead.
edit on 9/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I'm confused. Doesn't the warhead the 9M38 used also make use of rods. So if this is even a rod from a warhead what makes it have to be from an R-60?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
I see speculation in those pics, and a loose grab at it as well. Then if unwilling to listen to the Z man when it comes to aviation...It appears you have your mind already made up and are looking for things to back your theory up.

You know that could be a part from something else and it just appears to be part of an A2A missile.


Did I make any absolute claims? I think my op poses a valid question. Should I have ignored, and not posted?

"Z man"? Really?

Unwilling to isten to the Z-man?

I am sorry, but the suggestion that there are "elite" posters that everybody should listen to, is shameful.

I think I'll just think for myself, but you are free to follow whoever you want. Don't expect others to follow.
edit on 1-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The BUK model in question has no rods, the one that has, has a continuous rod setup, they are not the same rods.
edit on 1-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I could be completely wrong, but that "rod" in the pic looks bent, and as far as I know, Tungsten has to be heated and quickly bent if it is going to bend.....otherwise it breaks.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was wondering, how does the data disrtibution from the engines and other functions, to the FDR, work? Are all systems led to one or more modules and then to the FDR, or is every system connected directly?

If there are modules, where are they located?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

They couldn't have hammered it in there, and it looks like it is bent and embedded in there, however slightly.

It looks to me like it punctured the fuselage and maybe hit a part of the structure slowing it down, then hit the material which then gave way, catching it so to speak.
edit on 1-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It certainly looks like the holes in some of these pics are made by long and narrow rectangular objects. The bar would fit better to this damage than the Buk's square submunitions.








posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Well I think I have finally solved the puzzle of it being an SU 25 that did this...



As that would be the only way an SU 25 did this with a missile.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I think nobody mentioned a Su25.

In any case, the missile's range is up to 5 km, so it is not impossible a Su25 fired a missile at it. I am not saying that that is what brought it down.
edit on 1-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

The DFDR connects directly to various sensors depending on what parameters are being monitored. For the engines the sensors are mounted on the engines. Some of the connections come through the FDC.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

Excellent. Nothing like amateur forensic ballistic experts. How many rods of tungsten do you think the R60 missile carries? Is every "long" hole now a perfect fit for a rod?

The main photos show a spray of shrapnel, of all sizes.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




Excellent. Nothing like amateur forensic ballistic experts.


I am sorry. Is there any need for the tone? Did I claim to be an expert? Am I being unreasonable?




How many rods of tungsten do you think the R60 missile carries? Is every "long" hole now a perfect fit for a rod?


I don't know, not very many I think. Taking into account that they could be hitting the plane at various angles, this would be inconclusive.

But judging by the sizes of those holes, the object seems to have been twice as long as the square Buk shrapnell.

That rod is in any case a more perfect fit, for these holes.




The main photos show a spray of shrapnel, of all sizes.


But we are talking about this specific damage, aren't we? The one doesn't exclude the other, necessarily.

Btw, I also still don't see how the square Buk fragments left round holes in those areas


edit on 1-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker




I think nobody mentioned a Su25.


So then what fired the R-60 that took this plane out?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Again, I didn't say it took out the plane.

I don't know what plane shot it, I do know that a Su25 could have shot the missile, if you insist on talking about a Su25.

Nice tactic btw. You enter the thread with a "funny" pic to ridicule something that nobody was talking about, then try to steer the topic towards the pre emptively ridiculed subject.

Can you troll elsewhere?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker




Again, I didn't say it took out the plane.


And yet we don't hear anything on the black box where the pilots say they have been attacked, so we don't have that and we have a plane destroyed at 33000 ft, and now they say they found a piece of an R-60 in the wreckage...so if an R-60 didn't destroy the plane what did?



I don't know what plane shot it, I do know that a Su25 could have shot the missile, if you insist on talking about a Su25.


I don't insist...Russia is the one who insists on talking about an SU 25.



Nice tactic btw. You enter the thread with a "funny" pic to ridicule something that nobody was talking about, then try to steer the topic towards the pre emptively ridiculed subject.


You are new I see, but I have a feeling your just returning, so you do understand that the main plane being discussed as being the one that did this is an SU 25, so when discussing the bringing down of MH 17 it is relevant to the conversation...sorry you can't understand that.

WHere exactly do you think I am trying to steer your topic to?



Can you troll elsewhere?


Don't like be questioned on your evidence you provided do you?

Oh and welcome back.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




And yet we don't hear anything on the black box


Do you have access to the actual data.




so we don't have that and we have a plane destroyed at 33000 ft, and now they say they found a piece of an R-60 in the wreckage...so if an R-60 didn't destroy the plane what did?


The first important question is who fired an air to air missile?




I don't insist...Russia is the one who insists on talking about an SU 25.


Noone was talking about it until you came in. Russia is not here either.




WHere exactly do you think I am trying to steer your topic to?


Away from the air to air missile, towards a discussion about capabilities of certain planes, which would only serve as a distraction from the problem this scenario (of an air to air missile being involved) would cause.




Don't like be questioned on your evidence you provided do you?


I don't like to have my thread derailed. You didn't even touch the evidence I posted.




Oh and welcome back.


What, can't handle it alone?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker




Do you have access to the actual data.


Don't need it...other people do.



The first important question is who fired an air to air missile?


No the first question is what fired it, then who fired it.

And the answer is...nobody.



Away from the air to air missile, towards a discussion about capabilities of certain planes, which would only serve as a distraction from the problem this scenario (of an air to air missile being involved) would cause.


The plane that is being the one who did this isn't a distraction...the R-60 doesn't launch from the ground so a plane had to launch it...which plane did this is a very important part of this whole conversation.



I don't like to have my thread derailed. You didn't even touch the evidence I posted.


It isn't derailing your thread to get to what plane fired the supposed R-60, as that will provide the answer to whether one was fired or not.

As for your evidence...I believe it is not what your trying to say it is.

Do you not think the investigators would have done their job and investigated that possibility, but when it doesn't pan out they don't have anything to say about a piece of metal they found at a plane crash site...only conspiracy theorists do that.



What, can't handle it alone?


That's what I thought.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join