Evidence that MH17 was downed with a BUK.

a reply to: earthling42

No way, about MH17 they were the worst, just December they regurgitated the "BUK" missile photo with also expert analysis, and they have been pushing, the by the SBU supplied photos of their own BUK systems, which Belingcat was using to fabricate a story.

RTL News brings old propaganda as news from Kiev # MH17

They had several different experts doing a thoroughly analyses (sounds familiar), and lots of articles on their site about it.

originally posted by: canucks555
Untrained Separatists shot MH-17 down with a BUK missile from Rebel held territory.
That's completely obvious, unless you're some kind of Putin Shill...

I still feel that the Buk system is too complicated for the Rebels to use. The training takes some time and the rebels were using much simpler anti-air weapons for the other shoot downs. This use of a Buk was the first of that type of weapon I believe. There is a suspected Buk use against a military transport I believe, but that shoot down didn't confirm how it was done. Or I missed it.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

The training to military level operator takes years. But to point and shoot doesn't. It was designed to be fairly simple to use in a point and shoot environment.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was about to answer that one but you beat me to it.

@noeltrotsky

The maintenance is complex and require highly trained personels, but the usage is not so complex. Believe it or not but these SHORAD like weapon system come with a nice operating manual. The best proof that the operators were not very competent is the fact that they shot a civilian airplane.

I'm not sure what BUK system is capable, like does it only rely on radar qualitative measurements to ID the target as some info seem to imply, and/or does it use an IFF? Here the operators have shown theirs capabilities!!!

a reply to: PeterMcFly

It doesn't have IFF or NCTR capabilities.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think I read somewhere that it had NCTR capabilities but did not find anything about presence of IFF. I don't remember where I read it, so I won't argue about it, but find it strange that such advanced radar (it is a phased array AFAIK) have no NCTR capabilities. If not present, no surprise they got the wrong target.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

The NCTR wasn't introduced until the 9S18M radar in 1998. Most of the older systems still don't have it. The newer systems do though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think I've got it! According to Buk missile system it is the "command component" that have IFF capability. If the BUK launcher was used alone (it is possible) they did not have this capability.

ETA: Just got your previous post, good answer!

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Well, again i must disagree since this photo seems to portray a sunny sky, it does not.
So it seems Joost Niemöller is biased or not doing any research because obviously there has been some adjustments to make the smoke trail more visible.

Original 1

Original 2

a reply to: Nikola014

Just because a BUK allegedly shoot down MH17, it doesn't say who pulled the trigger, and because both sides are using it we can't know for sure!

Thats not entirely true.. If it examen's to be one of the modern versions of this rocket then only Russia holds this system. Until now thats not yet proven, but we will know soon I guess.

But this reporter who had smuggled these pieces out of the area, asked German rocket scientists about the angle height and altitude of this impact .

They said according the math it was launched from the separatists position..

a reply to: Zaphod58

The NCTR wasn't introduced until the 9S18M radar in 1998. Most of the older systems still don't have it.

From: Buk missile system

"
No sooner had the 9K37 "Buk" entered service than the Central Committee of the CPSU authorised the development of a modernised 9K37 which would become the 9K37M1 Buk-M1, adopted into service in 1983.[6] The modernisation improved the performance of the system radars, its "probability of kill" and its resistance to electronic countermeasures (ECM). Additionally a non-cooperative threat classification system was installed, relying on analysis of returned radar signals to purportedly identify and clearly distinguish civilian aircraft from potential military targets in the absence of IFF.[8]
"

This Wiki article seem to imply the capability existed sonner circa 1983, but the ref.[8] does not work and ref.[6] does not seem very usefull. What do you think of it?

a reply to: PeterMcFly

It's too bad it didn't have NCTR. It would have made it obvious that it was a 777.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's too bad it didn't have NCTR. It would have made it obvious that it was a 777.

That's my opinion also, always very easy to pull a trigger, but not trivial to get the good target...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Here another link that also suggest earlier capability: Link

"
While the new system design provided many performance improvements over the 2K12 / SA-6 Gainful, and permitted a greater rate of fire, the system did not perform well against TBMs, anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles and anti-tank helicopters in hover. Development of the improved 9M37M1 Buk M1 variant commenced in 1979 and IOC was achieved in 1983. The 9M37M1 Buk M1 variant has been exported.

The new variant introduced a range of incremental improvements to system components, resulting in the 9S470M1 command post, the 9A310M1 TELAR with improved 9S35M1 Fire Dome and 9Sh38-3 electro-optical tracker, the 9A39M1 TEL/transloader, and the entirely new 9S18M1 Kupol M1 / Snow Drift engagement radar. The Snow Drift was a radical departure from the Tube Arm, and used similar planar array antenna technology to the 9S15 Bill Board series.
"

Even if they had NCTR, it does not mean they knew how to properly use it!

a reply to: PeterMcFly

According to the designer NCTR was introduced in 1989. Several of the military publications have tested it and commented that it didn't initially have it to make it easier to use. They made it as simple as possible for conscripts to use.

a reply to: earthling42

The photo was coming from a Grad missile and has been filmed...

MH17 Witness: “I saw plume!”

RTL Nieuws FAKE Buk-M1 photo part II

Probably everyone have already seen the "Russian" version of the events, but here the link again:
Lin k

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: earthling42

RTL Nieuws has been doing the most propaganda of all our news regarding MH17, I even mailed them about that, no response of course.

I would love to have seen that this evidence was found by someone like Joost Niemöller, the Militia or the Russians, now it`s nothing more as....meh!

False evidence being planted is not uncommon, so we have absolutely no idea if the particles actually come from MH17...after what they have pulled with the so called BUK picture in December, they are not that trustworthy anymore.

Russians?
They were never in East Ukraine.
Right?

a reply to: grayghost

I`m talking about a Russian journalist or one from the OCSE or something, but there are also enough Russian volunteers soldiers...if the Dutch news service hadn`t been so incredible biased, but just had done proper reporting, it would have a whole lot more merit to it.

originally posted by: grayghost
Russians?
They were never in East Ukraine.
Right?

Watch the video and decide for yourself if the Russian military is present and fighting inside Ukraine.

news.vice.com...