Exclusive: From 'Red October' village, new evidence on downing of Malaysian plane over Ukraine

a reply to: Xcathdra

Anyone who claims that a military fighter jet can't bring down a passenger plane, is not dealing with reality but propaganda

OP

In my view you are not dealing with reality regardless of what source you quote

Even the most pathetic military jet can indeed be fitted with the stuff to bring down a passenger plane, cannon or missile

a reply to: Q

An R60 would never identify the cockpit as the primary heat source for lock-on.

You`re wrong about that.

The front of Airliners get hot by friction, and by so can also become the target.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I reckon claims this far past the event and in a place full of conflict need to be treated with circumspection as terror, mistrust and fear characterize the people and the place. In such an environment it would not be difficult to get someone to make such statements. just sayin.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

A bold statement, but unfortunately incorrect.

Even at Mach 2+, the Concorde only generated about 100c at the nose. Top speed for a 777 is only mach 0.87, and they were doing nowhere near that. There's a reason 777's don't come covered in thermal tiles from NASA.

Jet exhaust is somewhere around 500-900c; not even in the same ballpark, insofar as temps are concerned.

Not even accounting for the IR sensor package and software that really makes the magic happen.

But hey, don't take my word for it!

tx.technion.ac.il...

It's educational, AND topic relevant. The math has letters all up in it, and stuff, but maybe the brightly colored pictures will help.

Aaamok...SU-25 ceiling is only 16kft loaded; it's a ground attack frame! The SU-25 was the USSR's "Warthog". Passenger jets get almost double this at 30k, with ceiling at 43k. SU-25 top speed: mach 0.8. 777: 0.87. Today's passenger jet flies over twice as high and faster than this combat airframe from 1975. This 'most pathetic military jet' would not be able to close within the 5 mile range needed for the R60's to even lock on from a tailing position. The only slim chance would be to time it *precisely*...launch with minimum fuel and only one single missile. Timing to hit the SU-25 ceiling exactly the second the 777 broke the 5-mile barrier incoming for intercept. The R60 can go m2.7, so no speed worries there. If everything was absolutely *perfect*, they had one, incredibly "iffy" shot. If the 777 goes high and fast, it's still of combined ceiling/lock range, although this was not the case. Again though, it would aim for the engines for the above listed reasons, not he body.

Versus...a system anybody can use, known to be in the area, that matches ballistics and flight characteristics to a "T".

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but the SU-25 line on MH17 is a little farfetched even for me.

Even RT admits such, if that'll help persuade anyone:

rt.com...

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Not sure how resource independent the Netherlands are but that could bite them in the rear if Russia supplies the gas to them.

Also would I be responsible if I sold you a car then you proceeded to run someone over with it. Apples and oranges I guess but the analogy is suitable.

Would a person be responsible if they lent a drunk driver their car knowing they were intoxicated. The intention of a BUK missile system is for shooting down aircraft. IF the rebels shot the plane down and they were not trained correctly then it Russia would be partially responsible. If it was a Russian crew, then they would be responsible. For argument sake the same applies in reverse.


As for the gas comment I find it funny that if the investigation shows Russia was at fault that Russia would retaliate. Russia's use of natural gas to hold Europe hostage is coming to a point where Russia is going to start losing customers as they find replacements for Russian gas.

The more Russia uses its energy sector to go after countries who don't agree with them the more countries you will see seeking replacement resources elsewhere.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

That's roughly one and a half miles vertically, and you're going to claim that pieces the size that we saw laying on the ground in the Ukraine can travel FIVE miles horizontally in just over one and a half miles vertically? It would require a massive explosion to do that.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

IR missiles go for heat sources. The engines would be much hotter than the nose. Even if it did lock on the nose a roughly 7 pound explosive warhead is not going to cause a page that size to suddenly explode.

a reply to: Q

They are able to also target the skin of a plane...

More modern infra-red guided missiles can detect the heat of an aircraft's skin, warmed by the friction of airflow, in addition to the fainter heat signature of the engine when the aircraft is seen from the side or head-on. This, combined with greater maneuverability, gives them an "all-aspect" capability, and an attacking aircraft no longer had to be behind its target to fire. Although launching from behind the target increases the probability of a hit, the launching aircraft usually has to be closer to the target in such a tail-chase engagement.

Source

And here`s how AAM`s are exploding...

AAM warheads work very differently. They need to hit a target moving at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour, not a few dozen. They generally don't need to defeat armor as very few aircraft platforms have any armor with which to speak of (and none of it is sufficient to require specific countermeasures). So you need a warhead that can kill the target even with a near miss, and that doesn't need to defeat a ton of armor. There are a few ways to do this, but the two most common are a continuous rod warhead (or annular blast-fragmentation), and a high explosive blast-fragmentation warhead. A continuous rod warhead is the type found on the AIM-9 Sidewinder series. It basically is a bundle of steel rods inside the missile's warhead. When it detonates, the rods expand outward into a large circle that basically cuts the plane apart, doing enough damage to cause it to catastrophically break up due to the forces involved in flight. Even just shearing off part of a critical control surface could be enough to down the plane.

In this shootdown of a target drone, you can see the rods expanding as lines in the smoke. It looks like they cause the drop tank to rip off in the bottom image. One can only imagine how the rest of the rear of that drone is basically obliterated.

Source

a reply to: Aaamok88

and anyone thinking that bullets or an air to air missile can cause an immediate explosion and breakup of a commercial aircraft travelling at an altitude the fighter cant reach is ignoring the facts.

Real life and what is seen in the movies aren't always the same.

The damage and explosion of the aircraft was not done by an air to air missile.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Which is exactly how a Surface to Air Missile works. Just about any anti aircraft missile uses rods instead of an impact warhead. It vastly increases the probability of a hit.

But again, in this case the engines were a much larger and much easier to see target than the nose. They can target the front because when targeting a fighter, the engines are buried in the back making them harder to see. With a 777 you have huge heat sources hanging on the wings. The missile isn't going to look at them and then target the much cooler nose.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The R-60 was placed into service during the Soviet Union in the early 1970's.

If you research commercial airliners that have been hit with air to air missiles you will note the explosions were not enough to cause the aircraft to explode.

Secondly I was under the impression the Russian radar track had the "SU-25" behind MH 17.

Finally - Please explain why the Russian General stated the SU-25 was at the same altitude as MH17?

RT - Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow

“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.

“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.

“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you had actually taken the time to read the alternative analysis, you would have read it wasn`t ripped apart right away.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you had actually taken the time to read the alternative analysis, you would have read it wasn`t ripped apart right away.

Black box data suggests otherwise.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So does the debris pattern. That aircraft had to come apart at high altitude. There's no way that it could have traveled that far at the altitude suggested without an explosion that would have leveled buildings.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you had actually taken the time to read the alternative analysis, you would have read it wasn`t ripped apart right away.

Black box data suggests otherwise.

You Guys Are Arguing Over A Plane THAT Wasn't there. Russia could never supply investigators with radar data to support the claim. Russia did release a satellite photo for evidence but that was quickly proved to be a fake. Russia used a satellite photo from 2012 claiming it showed an SU shooting down the plane. So first thing would be to prove the plane was even there in the first place. No evidence from Russia has been put forward other than a fake satellite photo and a badly put together power point.

Why we still don't know what happened to flight MH17

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

We still don't know what happened because it takes a year or more for the final report to come out.

It's amazing that we have the same people trying to say the manufacturers of the plane do not know what the plane they designed can do.

But now I thought it was a modified SU 25 that was supposed to bring it down...guess that went up in flames like the story Russia had seen it with there radar on standby mode.

For those who think an SU 25 is capable of this please contact the manufacturers and tell them they have no clue about what their saying, because obviously you all know more than them.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The front of Airliners get hot by friction, and by so can also become the target.

Hotter than the engines...please provide the technical data that backs the claim the nose can be hotter than an engine where the IR sensor of a missile will pick it up instead of the engines?

Also when did the SU 25 get a radar that tracks other planes, and I am pretty sure that was explained in another thread, but feel free to provide evidence that it has a radar that can do that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

We still don't know what happened because it takes a year or more for the final report to come out.

That`s what I have been saying from day 1, however the Western media/Politicians (it`s even the December war Resolutions of the US) and many have been trumpeting relentless the same old baseless story, including you...

The only thing now which can proof the investiagtion has been done independently is northing more as the following conclusions.

- It was a BUK or SA-6 system, but we don`t know exactly who (they might know, but don`t want to tell it)

- It was done by fighter jets

Any other conclusion won`t be trusted anymore because of the relentless propaganda which has been going on towards Russia/Putin in general, the baseless propaganda about the MH17 perpetrators, pushing of falsified informations by one of he investigating members, one of the most likely suspects being part of the investigating team who`s able to withhold evidence as they like, and the withholding of satellite/radar images by the US.