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.

 

MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

page: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

One I suggest you look into the rawanda tribunal this is also a plane crash investigation. As for why the Russian federation requested UN involvement in July of 2014. They just didn't think it would happen when it did they were forced to veto it. The other reason is only the UN has the ability to request information. The Dutch have no way to compel a country to turn over information pertaining to the crash. For example Russia not turning over the radar data they claimed showed Ukraines airforce downing the plane. Russia simply said they forgot to save the data. In a in criminal proceeding that wouldn't have worked.

As far as an independent investigation the Chinese offered to lead the UN investigation can't think of anyone that would be more independent. The Russians have just been putting out smoke screens to block any serious inquiries into the investigation. This means an independent investigation is impossible because the Russian veto. International law is very strict on how criminal investigations have to proceed. Russia can't claim to support the idea then take actions to block it.




posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Russia asked for an UN lead investigation, but was against an UN tribunal...2 different things.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: dragonridr

Russia asked for an UN lead investigation, but was against an UN tribunal...2 different things.


So Russia wants them to investigate but have no authority to do so. Yeah that makes sense and your showing the contradiction in Putin logic.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Waving red flags of authority? The Ukies are known for shooting down airliner, remember?



American sources proved that the plane was hit by a S-200 surface-to-air missile, fired from the Crimea peninsula during a Ukrainian military exercise

en.wikipedia.org...


I just don't get why they would have a saying in this, not Malaysia.
You won't be lead investigator just because I shot somebody in your backyard either.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


Without "Snow Drift" target data it would've been a rather blind shot, wouldn't it?
Has anybody more info on the specs of this "Fire Dome" tracking radar?
Are there any clues, that the rebels did have a complete BUK system and not a TALAR only?




A BUK TELAR is perfectly capable of engaging a large non-maneuvering target such as a Boeing 777. This claim is regularly trotted out in various conspiracy forums and it is complete non-sense. The BUK system was designed from the start for redundancy and that was based on combat experience. The TELAR was designed to operate on its own equipped with the fire control radar and optical tracker. It was designed to continue to function and engage if the other vehicles in the system were destroyed or malfunctioned. The same redundancy is maintained in the updated BUK-M2 SA-17 system.

Link

www.ausairpower.net...


edit on 23/10/2015 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: dragonridr

Waving red flags of authority? The Ukies are known for shooting down airliner, remember?



American sources proved that the plane was hit by a S-200 surface-to-air missile, fired from the Crimea peninsula during a Ukrainian military exercise

en.wikipedia.org...


I just don't get why they would have a saying in this, not Malaysia.
You won't be lead investigator just because I shot somebody in your backyard either.


How convient that you left out the jist of the wiki,

On 4 October 2001, Siberian Airlines Flight 1812, a Tupolev Tu-154, crashed over the Black Sea on route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. Although the immediate suspicion was of a terrorist attack, American sources proved that the plane was hit by a S-200 surface-to-air missile, fired from the Crimea peninsula during a Ukrainian military exercise, and this was confirmed by the Moscow-based Interstate Aviation Committee. All on board (66 passengers and 12 crew) died. The President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma and several high commanders of the military expressed their condolences to the relatives of the victims. The Ukrainian Government paid out $200,000 in compensation to the families of every passenger and crew who died when the plane crashed. They paid out a total of $15 million in compensation for the accident.[30]


The Ukrainians took responsibility, and paid compensation for the accident.
And it was an accident, the missile was fired at a target drone but locked onto the airliner instead. It was an accident, it shouldn't have happened, but it was still an accident. Very unlike the drunken bastards that purposefully shot down the Malaysia jet, and bragged about it, till they realized what they had done.

And the Russians tried to hack the investigative effort


Trend Micro Friday blamed Operation Pawn Storm for a "cyber-espionage operation before and after" the publication on October 13 of the board's detailed report.

The "coordinated attack from several sides was launched to gain unauthorised access to sensitive material of the investigation conducted by Dutch, Malaysian, Australian, Belgian, and Ukrainian authorities," the Tokyo-based company said in a statement.

Trend Micro said there were "Russian spies behind Pawn Storm" which has been active since 2007 and is "an effort to attack major political targets, especially in the Ukraine".

The group, which has also targeted Russian dissidents and the Ukrainian government, could "be acting in the behest of parties invested in the Ukraine matter, or simply an outlier group acting on its own".



Read more at: phys.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

That's what I mean:


To either side of the primary antenna are paired missile capture, tracking and uplink antennas, used to support the Command to Line of Sight (CLOS) guidance on the missiles. The missiles receive pitch/yaw steering commands and a fuse activation command, generated by the fire control system and its 9S456M3 computer system.

In operation, the acquisition radar develops tracks of potential targets, and once a target is selected, the turret with the antenna head is slewed to point the tracking antenna at the target. The tracking antenna then searches, acquires and initiates angle and range tracking of the target. Once the target is within the LAR, the missiles can be launched. Missile power-up, gyro spinup and stabilisation on TELAR power takes ~13 sec. After the missile is launched it must be captured. the wide beam aperture achives this between 60 - 150 m from the TELAR. The system then switches into the medium beam mode, and then narrow beam mode, once the missile has been steered on to its intended trajectory.

www.ausairpower.net...

The weather was bad that day, they were unable to see their target. How in hell is anybody supposed to deliver a shot (in time) with this TALAR-crap only?
Care to elaborate on the magnificent timing you seem to assume rather naturally?
20 to 25km range, 13sec. for the shot alone. How fast do you think they acquired the target-data?

 


a reply to: punkinworks10



American sources proved


You did a great job to not comment on this inconvenient fact.

Instead you constructed a lame attack due to the things I've left out of my quote but still provided with my link. Awesome, I'm stunned. Carry on!


edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: Russian Lies



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Without "Snow Drift" target data it would've been a rather blind shot, wouldn't it?


Not actually, as they knew a plane was there, just not what it was...military or civilian.


Each SA-11 transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) was equipped with a 9S35 Fire Dome X-band multi-mode engagement radar under a radome on the front of the rotating launch platform, which provided tracking and CW illumination for the missile seekers. The radar, which has search, track and illuminator functions, can scan through a 120-degree arc, independent of the movement of the launch platform.



Bill Sweetman writes that "... the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event the Snow Drift was shut down or destroyed by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles. The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery command vehicle. According to an experienced analyst of Russian-developed radar, the automatic radar modes display targets within range. The operator can then command the system to lock up the target, illuminate and shoot. Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes."


www.globalsecurity.org...



Are there any clues, that the rebels did have a complete BUK system and not a TALAR only?


No they only had the BUK launcher as the whole battery would have had to have Russian operators to run it. And MH 17 would not have been shot down.



Has anybody more info on the specs of this "Fire Dome" tracking radar?


Maybe this will help...

www.ausairpower.net...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Waving red flags of authority? The Ukies are known for shooting down airliner, remember?


So is Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Remember?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yep, no reason to let one of them airplane_downers investigate this either.

Still working on the numbers, do you know how fast the TALAR can scan through a 120-degree arc?


It would have difficulty against a high speed fast maneuvering target, but against an airliner flying a straight line at subsonic speed, it might have less of a problem problem.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Thought so, highly speculative at best.
Did anybody actually provide a clear calculation with regards to all the facts?




Edit: found it.


Operating autonomously, the 9S35 will take 4 seconds to sweep a 120° sector, with an elevation of 6° to 7°. When cued to acquire and track, with will take 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle. Average power output in pulsed tracking modes varies between 0.5 and 1 kiloWatt, with CW illumination at 2 kiloWatts. The search and monopulse angle tracking receivers are both rated at a Noise Figure of NF=10 dB. The range error is cited at 175 metres, the angular error at less than 1°. The radar can switch from standby mode to combat operation in twenty seconds.

www.ausairpower.net...


edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: added quote



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




The weather was bad that day, they were unable to see their target.


And yet they hit it.



How in hell is anybody supposed to deliver a shot (in time) with this TALAR-crap only?


Very easily...


Depending on which settings were present to operate the system (i.e. which crews/operators, scan/engagement settings, etc.) and assuming the radars and system were active and ready to launch, the SA-11 would have began the shoot-down by automatically conducting scans within its target acquisition range (out to 62mi from SPM location), detecting its target (within 59mi of SPM location) and interrogating it while computing a flight mission, and automatically assigning a missile to launch. Detecting and tracking the Boeing 777 would have been very easy due to its large radar cross section, which was well within the SA-11’s capabilities. This process likely would have continued until the aircraft reached the engagement range of the missile (about 19mi). Assuming an engagement well within the SA-11’s engagement zone, the missile would have reached the aircraft in roughly ten-twelve seconds, where the radar proximity fuse would have detonated the 154.3 Fragmentation-High Explosive warhead, completely destroying it.



sofrep.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Still working on the numbers, do you know how fast the TALAR can scan through a 120-degree arc?



Operating autonomously, the 9S35 will take 4 seconds to sweep a 120° sector, with an elevation of 6° to 7°. When cued to acquire and track, with will take 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle. Average power output in pulsed tracking modes varies between 0.5 and 1 kiloWatt, with CW illumination at 2 kiloWatts. The search and monopulse angle tracking receivers are both rated at a Noise Figure of NF=10 dB. The range error is cited at 175 metres, the angular error at less than 1°. The radar can switch from standby mode to combat operation in twenty seconds.


www.ausairpower.net...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




the SA-11 would have began the shoot-down by automatically conducting scans within its target acquisition range (out to 62mi from SPM location), detecting its target (within 59mi of SPM location)



Screw that. All of it.



The H/I-band FIRE DOME monopulse guidance and tracking engagement radar has an effective guidance range of 3-32 km and an altitude envelope 15 meters to 22 km

www.globalsecurity.org...



Engagement Radar
...
Target Range [km]: 0-28.0

www.ausairpower.net...
edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: second link



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I beg to differ. Let's take a look at the facts:

468 kts = 866,736 km/h = 14,4456 km/min = 0,24076 km/sec

Now the TALAR. To acquire & track we'll need 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle:

10° x 7° = 2 sec
180° x 7° = 36 sec
180° x 45° = 231,43 sec (MH-17 travelled 55,72 km in that time)

0,24076 * 13 sec. (to actually shoot at something) = 3,13 km additional distance.

It would've taken ages to acquire target-data, even if we would assume that they looked in the right direction. How is this theory supposed to hold any water now?
The flight would pass by any TALAR (with appr. 30km range each) before a rocket could be delivered.

We've got to assume they've had the whole BUK-system running, otherwise it's just an incredible shot. Not saying it would be impossible to hit something that fast with a TALAR, but pretty close to that and against any odds (if you can't make out your target visually due to bad weather).
This is the reason why they operate these things in a bigger system with better radar support. Kinda reminds me of the Nist-report. Again.


Debunking crap since 9/11, sincerly yours

PubOps




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


a reply to: punkinworks10



American sources proved


You did a great job to not comment on this inconvenient fact.

Instead you constructed a lame attack due to the things I've left out of my quote but still provided with my link. Awesome, I'm stunned. Carry on!

What does an American source have to do with anything, we see all missile lauches from the former soviet union and the former satellite states.

The American sources is the NRO that operates the missile launch detection satellites that picked up the launch.

And if you had actually read anything about the incident, a large military exercise that the Russians and Georgians also participated in , you would know that two missiles were launched a target drone, one hit the drone, destroying it and the S200 over flew the blast and continued on for another 150 miles
before re acquiring the air liner and bringing it down. It was an accident and like I said the Ukrainians took full responsibility for it, once they figured out what happened.



Russian investigators concluded on Friday that one of the missiles, an S-300, struck the drone, but that the second, an S-200, flew 150 more miles and unleashed a warhead of shrapnel balls at the airliner.

A recorded radio transmission released late this week showed the pilot of the plane, a Tupolev Tu-154, crying, ''Where are we hit?'' as the aircraft began its plunge.

Today the commander of Ukraine's air defense forces, Volodymyr Tkachov, and his deputy turned in their resignations and at a news conference apologized to the families of the victims and the government of Ukraine ''for this accident horrible by its consequences.''

The conference in Kiev, the capital, was interrupted when Defense Minister Aleksandr Kuzmuk burst into the room and proclaimed that he ''could not hide behind the backs of my subordinates.''

''We gained people's trust grain by grain, and now everything has to be started from scratch,'' he said. ''We did not want to deceive anybody. We don't know the causes of the tragedy, but we know that we have something to do with it. I promise we will find everything out.''

Investigators said on Friday that an analysis of 350 shrapnel holes in recovered aircraft wreckage indicated that the S-200 had exploded about 50 feet above the jetliner, raining metal over its entire length. The plane's captain and navigator died almost instantly, they said.

On Oct. 4, the day of the disaster, Ukrainian land, sea and air forces were conducting the largest military exercise in the nation's 10-year history. Russia's own air force commander was in attendance along with officials of several other former Central Asian and East European nations as Ukrainian forces fired 23 missiles at drones flying off the coast.

Experts say that the radar-guided S-200, among the farthest-flying and most capable antiaircraft missile in the arsenal of former Soviet nations, simply locked onto the Russian airliner after it raced past the destroyed drone some 20 miles off the Crimean coast.

In an interview last week, an official at the St. Petersburg plant that manufactures long-range antiaircraft missiles said it was theoretically possible for the missile to ''retarget'' after missing its original target, if the new object has a sufficiently bright radar signal and is relatively slow moving.


www.nytimes.com...

It wasn't an intentional shoot down, it was a freak accident, its a completely different situation.


edit on p00000010k201052015Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:20:51 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10




It wasn't an intentional shoot down, it was a freak accident, its a completely different situation.


Provide some proof for your claim, I can't see why you are so sure about it.



What does an American source have to do with anything, we see all missile lauches from the former soviet union and the former satellite states.


Except those findings don't support Kiev's story, I guess?



edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Except those findings don't support Kiev's story, I guess?



What are you talking about, all we saw was the launch, from a satellite, nobody denied that the launch happened.

It was part of the largest combined military exercise that the Ukrainians ever put on.

Once again from my link


On Oct. 4, the day of the disaster, Ukrainian land, sea and air forces were conducting the largest military exercise in the nation's 10-year history. Russia's own air force commander was in attendance along with officials of several other former Central Asian and East European nations as Ukrainian forces fired 23 missiles at drones flying off the coast.


The missile's on board guidance took over and just by happen stance it locked onto the airliner more than 150 miles from the launch site.

They didn't even know it had taken down an airliner till the wreckage was examined.
It took nine days to figure out what happened, and then the Ukrainians took FULL RESPONSIBILTY.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Sorry, I assumed our main topic would still linger somewhere in your mind as well. Just comparing that event from 2001 with our topic at hand.
Where is that satellite data now, 14 years later and the US has no intel to share? Kinda strange, innit?

With regards to my calculations I would still go with a full BUK-system, hence the Ukrainian military as culprit. And lacking US-intel is more circumstantial evidence for my claim, if you don't mind. That was the point, you'll catch the drift now.





posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: punkinworks10

Sorry, I assumed our main topic would still linger somewhere in your mind as well. Just comparing that event from 2001 with our topic at hand.
Where is that satellite data now, 14 years later and the US has no intel to share? Kinda strange, innit?

With regards to my calculations I would still go with a full BUK-system, hence the Ukrainian military as culprit. And lacking US-intel is more circumstantial evidence for my claim, if you don't mind. That was the point, you'll catch the drift now.




This is getting funny so now the Russians produce such crap and so far behind the west on building tracking radars that the buk couldn't have shot it down without help.. Wow I guess that Russian radar held together with rubber bands just couldn't have possibly tracked a shot down a plane even though that's what it was designed to do.

The buk was designed to operate by itself or in conjunction with other radar sister a just like the amarican counterpart. I have faith the Russians can make a radar unit capable of tracking a plane since this was done since the 50s. Now let's talk about the buk radar system and your imaginary numbers.

First the launcher has to autonamous settings one a range of 0 to 50 K to lock on the other a range of 100 k for search. The operator can identify a target in search the moment it comes into range the system can launch. Tracking radar serves one purpose guide the missile to target.The zone in which the radar searches can be adjusted. The widest zone is 120 degrees (wide zone). Or in other words it only scans 120 degrees so you have to have the buk in the line of path of the plane. Now the bad part is a military craft would have seen the radar and the pilot would have had time to react meaning odds of killing a fighter at that range very low. But a civilian aircraft would have been incredibly easy level flight and would have np warning what so ever. What takes training is shooting down military aircraft because they don't make it easy. Now the 2 second sweep for 120 degrees means that detection was simple then the operator sets radar lock once they have lock there's no delays. So at 100 km it took at most 4 seconds two sweeps in case it missed it on the first one. And then they had target lock. At 50 k the missile fires and we see the results a passenger jet was shot down.

www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com...

By the way Russian tech isn't as bad as you seem to think it is. Granted they are not on par with Western tech but are ahead of many countries including china.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




We've got to assume they've had the whole BUK-system running, otherwise it's just an incredible shot.


If that were true then Russia was responsible as it takes a highly trained individual to run the rest of the battery, and a poorly trained one to run the TELAR and push a button.

So you can assume what you want...the fact is they didn't have the rest of the battery or as I said before...MH 17 wouldn't have been shot down.



Not saying it would be impossible to hit something that fast with a TALAR, but pretty close to that and against any odds (if you can't make out your target visually due to bad weather).


How fast?

The top speed of a Boeing 777 is 590 mph, and the Fire Dome radar can track objects up to speeds of 1860 mph, so I don't see where you think it won't track and hit something that fast?


The H/I-band FIRE DOME monopulse guidance and tracking engagement radar has an effective guidance range of 3-32 km and an altitude envelope 15 meters to 22 km, and can engage approaching targets moving at a maximum of 3000 km/h (1860 mph). The radar guides as many as three missiles against a single target.


fas.org...



This is the reason why they operate these things in a bigger system with better radar support. Kinda reminds me of the Nist-report. Again.


Which is why had that have been the case here we wouldn't have had this tragedy now would we?



Debunking crap since 9/11, sincerly yours


You may want to work on your debunking as it isn't working here.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join