NEW MH17 SENSATION: German experts point finger at Ukrainian air-force jets.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Would you care to put money on that one?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

That ceiling of 23,000 feet can ONLY be reached with no external stores mounted, as it says on Sukhoi's website. It MIGHT reach 23,000 with canon rounds, but not with rockets, or fuel tanks, or anything hanging off the wings. It can't reach 33,000 feet period.

Wasn't there a video of a SU-25 in level flight at 8600m posted on another thread?

a reply to: Flatcoat

Sukhoi has said that it can exceed its ceiling for short periods of time, but that would again, be minus weapons, and most likely when it has a much lighter fuel load.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Would you care to put money on that one?

Thank you for the correction.

I read somewhere that the holes caused by the rod damage indicated that a larger warhead must have been used.. i.e. a SA-11 BUK.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

The main missile carried by an Su-25 only has about a 13 pound warhead (or even smaller depending on configuration). A warhead that small isn't going to rip a 777 to pieces like this. KAL007 was hit by two missiles, with 88 pound warheads (on each), and flew something like 10 minutes before radar contact was lost.

The impact point also doesn't make sense for an air to air missile. For this much damage, it had to be a pretty substantial warhead, which, while it doesn't necessarily specify an SA-11, it does show a Surface to Air Missile.

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ceiling armed or unarmed Zaphod? my belief is that the Su-25 could achieve the required height without rockets

It didn't have to...the guns have a 4km range on an SU-25.

Curious that the gang of experts pouring all over this subject, fail to mention these factoids when clamouring for excuse after excuse that might, remotely raise doubts in readers minds that this crash was caused by anything other than what the US government says caused it..saying that, the US government has backtracked so often in it's statements regarding this entire situation, it's getting hard to keep ahead of who the US says is to blame today.

Sensation? More like sensationalism. I'd love to hear him explain how he's come to the concrete conclusion that the damage is from canon rounds and not a missile warhead.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Did you find out if MH17 had an inerting system in place?

If not, a single small missile or rocket could have blown it to pieces if it hit a fuel tank in addition to the cockpit and other areas.

But, the bullet holes proposition by the expert from Germany is interesting.

I'm guessing there isn't anyone who are disputing his credentials as an expert in aircraft armaments is there, if so, has he been validated or refuted?...i'm playing catch up on this one.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ceiling armed or unarmed Zaphod? my belief is that the Su-25 could achieve the required height without rockets

It didn't have to...the guns have a 4km range on an SU-25.

Curious that the gang of experts pouring all over this subject, fail to mention these factoids when clamouring for excuse after excuse that might, remotely raise doubts in readers minds that this crash was caused by anything other than what the US government says caused it..saying that, the US government has backtracked so often in it's statements regarding this entire situation, it's getting hard to keep ahead of who the US says is to blame today.

The SU-25 story was implausible enough when we were talking missiles, now it's just ridiculous.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Wow, he says that those are 30mm holes? Has he ever SEEN a 30mm shell?

rvtravel.com...

That's not going to leave a small hole by any stretch of the imagination.
Some SUs could get up there......don't know if the Ukies have ANY LEFT THOUGH.....

And more importantly, where were the mystery planes? Russia released radar data that they claim shows an Su-25 (which can't reach altitude with a 777), but that's the only plane they say was in the area. The Su-25 uses a 30mm canon, but again, cant reach altitude with a 777. It has a 23,000 foot service ceiling per Sukhoi, who makes it.

Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 7
Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 950
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 0.82

www.sukhoi.org...

That leaves 10,000 feet minimum between it and the 777, which would place the rounds on an upward trajectory. Those holes were from something at altitude with the aircraft. They went straight in, if they were going upwards, they would be longer, and stretched out.

there ARE A FEW SU25s THAT CAN GET that high....whether the Ukies have any or ANY LEFT IS another matter....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flatcoat

Sukhoi has said that it can exceed its ceiling for short periods of time, but that would again, be minus weapons, and most likely when it has a much lighter fuel load.

So, the bottom line is, in other words..yes, it could have reached the same altitude as MH17.

And why hasn't this been brought to members attention, every time (the MANY times) people have been using the ceiling altitude of an SU-25 to debunk the SU-25's seen nearby MH17 by Russian radar and Spanish ATC?

To clarify, the SU-25 can albeit briefly and stripped down to minimal combat load out and with reduced fuel...have reached MH17's altitude if it or they had planned to do so..yes or no please.

a reply to: MysterX

A couple minor points you're overlooking. The gun on the Frogfoot is for ground attack, not air to air, which will make it much harder to hit an airborne target with it.

The holes are level which means they'd have to have been fired from an altitude the aircraft can't reach.

The holes are too small for that caliber.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So now you're saying that a stripped down, minimal fuelled SU-25 CAN'T reach that height...minutes after you claimed it could briefly?

Confusing.

IF an SU-25 or variant thereof CAN, however briefly and with minimal arms aboard, reach that height...then the bullet holes will be on an horizontal trajectory.

Which mean the bullet hole theory, together with the data from the Russians and the Spanish ATC statements...be what brought this airliner down...the Criminals in Kiev are looking more guilty by the day.

a reply to: MysterX

Still no. It MIGHT be able to for an extremely short time, but not with any kind of combat load without new engines.

Even if it could, hitting another aircraft, that is flying faster than the top speed of the Frogfoot would be almost impossible, and would cause it to stall and fall out of control.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flatcoat

Sukhoi has said that it can exceed its ceiling for short periods of time, but that would again, be minus weapons, and most likely when it has a much lighter fuel load.

So, the bottom line is, in other words..yes, it could have reached the same altitude as MH17.

And why hasn't this been brought to members attention, every time (the MANY of times) people have been using the ceiling altitude of an SU-25 to debunk the SU-25's seen nearby MH17 by Russian radar and Spanish ATC?

To clarify, the SU-25 can albeit briefly and stripped down to minimal combat load out and with reduced fuel...have reached MH17's altitude if it or they had planned to do so..yes or no please.

Not necessarily, all we know is it could possibly exceed it's published service ceiling but we don't know by how much. It could not achieve this simply from it's own limited power so would have to go into a climb and it would only fleetingly hit that higher altitude and come right back down again because it doesn't have the power to maintain level height above it's rated service ceiling. Additionally the plane would probably be less responsive than usual and closer to it's stall speed.

When you consider the plane would be at that height only briefly and with reduced stability and control responsiveness and consider additionally that it was never intended to perform air to air combat in any capacity other than emergency self defense it seems somewhat implausible that it performed a climb well above it's service ceiling and managed to score multiple hits with an unguided canon against a target it could not stay at the same altitude as.

In fact it would only really have a few seconds during it's arc that it would be able to face the target directly, it's highly unlikely that the plane would be pitching up and down to face the target during any part of the maneuver and don't forget that unlike a missile, a cannon has to be pointed EXACTLY at the target for any chance of scoring a hit.

a reply to: MysterX

Show me where I said it could reach that height? I said it could exceed its ceiling. That doesn't mean it can reach that altitude, it just means that it can go over 23,000 feet. Sukhoi never said by how much it could, only that for brief times it could go higher than 23,000 feet.

a reply to: stirling

The ones that can, that I have found, are redesignated Su-35 and are in limited production. Ukraine never got them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Almost impossible isn't impossible.

And a short time exceeding max ceiling for a SU-25 or variant, would quite probably be all that was required. Stalls can be recovered and survived if the pilot is skilled and experienced enough.

And bear in mind, this wasn't a dogfight against another nimble fighter, this was a very large, very fat and heavy, very unaware passenger 777 flying straight and level, not weaving and bobbing.

Big difference.

Again, and especially considering the huge, bloated target MH17 would have been in comparison to a fighter ducking and diving, hitting the target would be akin to hitting several barn doors with a BB gun.

'Almost impossible' starts to look more like 'It's not beyond the realms of possibility''.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flatcoat

Sukhoi has said that it can exceed its ceiling for short periods of time, but that would again, be minus weapons, and most likely when it has a much lighter fuel load.

Just went back and had another look at the video, you can find it here, and it looks like the aircraft had a pretty decent loadout to me.