Washington's Blog is new reporting that "Ukrainian fighter jets were hiding behind passenger planes, pulling away temporarily, dropping bombs on Ukranian separatists, and then hiding again behind the planes." They link to a youtube video making this allegation before Flight 17 was shot down.
A pretty girl with a gun makes it interesting....bu not particularly credible - where's the radar plots for this?? Su-25's simply cannot fly that high. There are other aicraft in inventory of course - so how about a little more info? Washington's blog says in its "Overview for new readers": Doesn't look particularly well researched in this case, nor is it "Real time" - it is "convenient time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory Possibilities in there to choose from.
SU-25 behind B777 @33000ft. Sounds not plausible. SU-25 max alt with bomb/other external load is 10000ft lower. It can't make dashes up/down very fast at that altitude. It would take ages to reach up again after strafe/bomb run. Even clean aircrafts level flight at 33000ft is no-go. + additional vortexes from B777 if not flown very precise. SU-25 is like a IL-2 Stormovik. It's wing design and electronics is purely for low level hit and run. No air-to-air radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25 Performance Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (975 km/h, 526 knots, 606 mph) at sea level Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks Service ceiling: 7,000 m[97] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
It just doesn't seem likely. Civilian radar controllers (even Ukranian ones) would have a fit, and a bombed-up frogfoot would start wheezing above 5000 feet. It's possible that they could use fighters in an A/G role but again the slightest hint of it and no civil flights would go anywhere near there. It is very much in the Rebel's and Moscow's interest to advance the theory that civil aircraft are used as cover, just as they did for KAL007.
I believe the wikipedia is under editwar [tinfoil]propaganda war[/tinfoil] so the info is now reflecting to the original su-25 plane which does not have pressurized cabin and new engine which gives newer models ability to go 10km http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_su25_frogfoot.htm Entered service 1981 Crew 1 men Dimensions and weight Length 15.35 m Wing span 14.52 m Height 5.20 m Weight (empty) ? Weight (maximum take off) 20 t Engines and performance Engines 2 x MNPK Soyuz/Gavrilov R-195Sh turbojets Traction (dry) 2 x 44.13 kN Maximum speed 950 km/h Service ceiling 10 km Combat radius 400 km
The first sentence of the link you provided. It's primary use is for ground attack, similar to the A10, so there really isn't a need for high ceiling capabilities with this aircraft, especially since Russia has planes that can reach higher ceilings to compliment the SU25
This is from the manufacturer Sukhoi http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Service ceiling is 7 km.
All honestly I am not an aircraft specialist or military specialists of their usage but I believe that aircrafts are upgraded to prolong their servicetime. I still think that it was the case of SU-25 and they upgraded it so that newer models can handle the 10km altitude or it might be the side effect of those upgrades.
I'm not an expert neither, but it's not a simple upgrade. Aiframe, engines, and cabin are built to withstand a certain altitude due to engine stall and cockpit conditions for pilot. The new SU do fly higher, but the 25's are mostly for ground attack.. I can't see the need in terms of cost or capability for the Ukranians to invest in these to make em fly higher, if that is even possible
www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000 Also the Russian radar information suggests that SU-25M1 is capable to achieve 10km altitude
There is a bit of a logic flaw here. It was posted on youtube on July 18th, not a month ago. So you have to trust the source that it was made a month ago. Has little to no credibility. Now, if it had been on youtube for a month, that would be a different story....
constant ceiling is 7 km, dynamic ceiling is 10 km so it can reach 10 km but only for a very short period of time, also SU25 is not the only aircraft that was engaged in conflict, there are many other capable of flying that high
One article about this. http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/
OK....to be clear....the fighters alleged to be "hiding" behind civilian airliners DO NOT HAVE the altitude capability, when loaded with bombs, to reach these altitudes (FL320 and above). Done.
Dynamic and constant are being misused to be honest with you. Military jets have a service ceiling and an absolute ceiling also known as the "coffin corner". I discussed this above in post #9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25 Performance Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (975 km/h, 526 knots, 606 mph) at sea level Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks Service ceiling: 7,000 m[97] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
Roger that. I was looking at the published date - since I have only looked at the youtube website a few times I didn't know the difference. So back to the aircraft performance arguments which are probably more in line with debunking with evidence.
Constant means it can stay at that altitude, dynamic means it can not. These are different things to service and absolute ceiling. An example of a dynamic altitude is a "zoom climb", where forward velocity achieved below the constant ceiling is translated into vertical velocity, combined with full thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_climb http://www.ctka.net/2012/LHO_U2_Mark_Prior.html
we should differ her claims from official russian claim there were SU25s in vicinity of MH17, she has never stated those planes were SU25 and SU27 were also engaged in action
If fighter planes are hiding 'behind' civilian flights, wouldn't the pilots notice? Have they reported anything like that?
You'd never know as the pilot of a civil plane - you have no ability to "check your 6" - no radar, and you can't just do a quick 360........and even if you could any fighter would be more maneuverable and could stay in your blind spot. What makes it nonsense is that any fighter climbing to such a position would stand out like dogs' testicles on ATC radar from a hundred miles away or further - Russian radar along eth border would certainly pick it up and it wouldn't be a falling dot that isn't moving - it would be a fast moving dot that intersects the civil aircraft.
I don't dismiss SU25s (or other) in relative vicinity of MH17, after all it's a war zone and they were very active there but it would be most probably just a coincidence not intentional "covering".
Probably not even in a zoom! But it depends on how much ordinance - the 5000m/16,000 ft service ceiling is with a full load - less than a full load will get you somewhere between there and the "clean" service ceiling of 7000m/23,000 ft.
sure - google search "Russia edited Su-25 page" - take your pick also noted yesterday - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh...earby-before-incident.3993/page-2#post-117870 - but easy enough to miss in all the rush
So editwar in wikipedia equals now to proof the claim that SU-25 models do not varie on the cabibilities? I would also like to note that wikipidea is not the only place where you can get info for the capabilities of that plane or it's different models.
No the manufacturers specs and pilot experience are, and it equals proof the Russians were lying and tried to cover it up. Which doesn't change that they tried to edit the specs.
As Pete wrote - there are lots of specs for the plane around the place, including he manufacturer - apparently they were accurate enough for everyone before MH17, and I see nothing about the Su-25 that has changed that would make them inaccurate now.
I don't see that really happening. That particular plane just doesn't have the ability from what I am reading above. What I have witnessed is a plane trying to mimic a civilian airliner.
So is everyone saying that having a military plane in close proximity to a passenger plane, be it at different altitude, couldn't possibly dissuade a BUK operator from firing out of fear of hitting the wrong plane? Or that such an event wouldn't be beneficial for the same people who had the authority to declare the airspace safe for commercial airlines? "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." Churchill, one week before the sinking of the Lusitania.
No - "everyone" is saying there is no evidence of such a military plane at all - not even in the Russian radar video where they claim there is such a thing.
