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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The data on their site is debunked by that Sukhoi guy himself. He even said it could reach 10km. He added that it wasn't able to shoot a weapon though from that altitude which seems nonsense.

Anyways, the topic of the thread is a possible air to air missile. A Su25 could have fired one in any case, since its range is more than 5km.
edit on 2-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

No it wasn't. The service ceiling, which is where it can maintain a 100 foot per minute climb rate, is 16,000 feet. That means it can carry weapons up to that altitude, but can't climb higher with them. With no weapons, there's almost 10,000 lbs less weight on the aircraft, and a lot less drag, so it's able to briefly climb higher. The absolute ceiling, meaning the altitude where it can no longer sustain level flight, is 10 km. But to get to that altitude it has to be as light as possible, meaning no weapons, and light fuel load.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

An R-60 weighs only 45 kg and it could have been fired from from well below 10km. The guy didn't even mention the possibility of a board cannon or anything about fuel weight.


Yes it was. It says 7 km, he said max 10 km.


edit on 2-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Georgian Sukhoi Su-25KM with Israeli Python 4 or 5 missiles might have brought down MH17.


As I wrote on February 20, two Sukhoi-25KM aircraft were participating in NATO operation "Sea-Breeze." This operation ended on July 17 2014, after which these aircraft were flown back to Tbilisi. I now know from very reliable sources that both aircraft have made a stopover at the airport of Dnipropetrovsk. Officially to refuel, but they were also equipped with weapons again. During exercise "Sea-Breeze" both SU-25KM did not carry air-to-air missiles, but they left Dnipropetrovsk fully armed with two air-to-air missiles and both with a 23mm cannon in a wapenpod under the wing.


Link



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

Because a gun that is designed for air to ground attacks doesn't work for air to air attacks, unless you're right on top of the target, and get extremely lucky. The targeting system of the Su-25 is designed to work at low altitude, aiming at targets on the ground, not high speed (yes, even the 777 was considered high speed) air to air targets.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So it is possible in theory you say.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

No, because even though the missiles are light, they're drag and weight. So are the gun rounds. To get over the service ceiling, they have to remove all excess drag and weight, which means all missiles and gun rounds. Yes, the missiles are less than 100 pounds, but even paint adds drag. Those missiles under the wings are drag no matter how light they are.

The max 10 km is the absolute ceiling. Again, to get that high, there can be no excess weight or drag on the aircraft, not even light missiles. You might be able to get slightly over 7 km with them, but you're not going to get to 10 with them. That is done by lightening the aircraft as much as possible, and giving it the minimum fuel necessary.

A missile, yes, just because of the range, but for an R-60 it's going to be at extreme range, and it is going to target the engines not the cockpit. A gun, no, the Su-25 won't get close enough with the ammunition on board.

edit on 9/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Might.., except they didn't since these missiles are infrared guided and would have gone for a heat source.
Moreover, there were no fighter jets seen on primary radar.

How are you? everything ok?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Whatever, it could have fired a missile anyway, and it can get up to 10km with low weight. You know a hundred rounds would be less than 100 kg. This is really not going to make a difference. In theory they could take a 100kg less fuel it it really comes to such an insignificant amount.

Again, it could have fired the missile anyway.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The max 10 km is the absolute ceiling. Again, to get that high, there can be no excess weight or drag on the aircraft, not even light missiles. You might be able to get slightly over 7 km with them, but you're not going to get to 10 with them. That is done by lightening the aircraft as much as possible, and giving it the minimum fuel necessary.


Says you. This is you talking, you have no source for this.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

It makes a huge difference. Every pound of weight makes a difference when you're talking about aircraft. When they set absolute ceiling it's done with enough fuel to take off, get to altitude and back, under the most perfect weather conditions they can get. It doesn't matter if it's "less than 100 kg" that's still more weight that will keep it from reaching the maximum altitude.

Yes, it can fire the missile, but read it again. The R-60 is a infrared missile. That means it will track on the engines, not the cockpit. There's a lot more heat from the engines than from the cockpit. It has a very limited all aspect capability, which means that it has to be close to track on the front of an aircraft. The R-60 would be a horrible missile to use for a frontal aspect attack on any aircraft, and if fired from the rear, it wouldn't get anywhere near the cockpit.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

You're not understanding Zaphod.

What he explains to you is that it must be in clean configuration to be able to reach that hight, a level which is the coffin corner of the aircraft.
It must use all its engine power and fly straight in order to maintain flight on that height.
It cannot manoeuvre like it does below its survice ceiling at 5km with weapons or at 7km in clean configuration.


edit on 2-9-2015 by earthling42 because: typo



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: earthling42

I`m fine, and you ?

He talks about the missiles went for the radar, which is in the nose of a 777, or it goes for the most vital parts of the target (cockpit of 777).

There have been so many witness accounts of fighter jets being in the air at that time, I don't believe one thing about Kiev claiming them not being around.

Torez orphange. How MH17 fell down | Eng Subs




edit on 2 9 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The holes I am talking about are not from near the cockpit, those holes are very different.

They go for the heat signature of the engine and in the ideal case they actually hit it directly. As you know they have a proximity fuse so it could explode anywhere in the general vicinity of the engine.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

They're going to explode as close as possible without actually hitting to maximize the damage to the wing and the engines. The damage would have been to the rear of the engine, and the wing around it. There would have been a lot of damage to the wing that didn't seem to have happened here. When Korean 902 was hit four feet of wingtip was blown off and at least one engine destroyed by the R-60. There was minor fuselage damage from that.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: earthling42




You're not understanding Zaphod.


No I am not agreeing with what he says.




It must use all its engine power and fly straight in order to maintain flight on that height. It cannot manoeuvre like it does below its survice ceiling at 5km with weapons or at 7km in clean configuration.


I have seen enough evidence that it can.

Anyways, it could have fired the missile in any case.




edit on 2-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There is damage to engine, wing as well as fuselage.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I totally missed all the Ukraine modifications of the su 25. Ha. Perhaps the witnesses were seeing an su-25M1.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The Python doesn't track on radar. The Python family uses IR sensors, with some of the newer ones having an electroptical sensor to identify the target, then it switches over to IR for terminal guidance.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Georgian Sukhoi Su-25KM with Israeli Python 4 or 5 missiles might have brought down MH17.


It might have...but didn't.

So now this makes what 5, 6 different theories from Russia?

Problem with it being a Georgian plane using the Python...Georgia isn't a country that uses it...


Israel - Shafrir-1/2, Python-3/4/5 (primary user, local designation Zephyr).
Argentina - Shafrir-2 (350 missiles, delivered 1981[12]) and Python-4.[13][clarification needed]
Bolivia - Python-3.[14]
Brazil - Python-3 (400 missiles, delivered 2001), Python-4 and Derby (200 missiles each, all delivered 2011).[12]
Chile - Shafrir-2 (50 missiles, delivered 1978), Python-3 (120 missiles, delivered 1997), Python-4 (280 missiles, delivered 2011) and Derby (60 missiles, delivered 2003).[12]
People's Republic of China - Python-3 (3000 missiles, delivered 1991-2000, local designation PiLi-8 (PL-8)).[5][12]
Colombia - Shafrir-2 (80 missiles, delivered 1989), Python-3/4 (75 missiles each, all delivered 2005), Python-5 (100 missiles, delivered 2011) and Derby (40 missiles, delivered 2010).[12]
Ecuador - Shafrir-2 (75 missiles, delivered 1984), Python-3/Python-4 (60 missiles, delivered 1996), Python-5 (50 missiles, delivered 2001) and Derby (60 missiles, delivered 2003).[12]
El Salvador - Shafrir.[15][clarification needed]
Honduras - Shafrir-2 (100 missiles, delivered 1978).[12]
India - Python-4 and Python-5 (100 missiles, delivered 2007) and Derby.[12]
Romania - Python-3.[16]
Singapore - Python-4 (600 missiles, delivered 2004).[12]
South Africa - Python-3 (local designation V3S Snake, delivered 1989 and retired in April 2008), Derby (Local designation as R-Darter or V4).[17]
Republic of China (Taiwan) - Shafrir-2 (450 missiles, delivered 1977).[12]
Thailand - Python-4 (400-500 missiles, delivered 1990).[12]
Venezuela - Python-4 (54 missiles, delivered 2004).[12]


en.wikipedia.org...(missile)#Current_operators

And Ukraine doesn't use them either so there goes that theory.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join