Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Juha

    Juha Member

    Haa, now I understand what you are trying to tell me.

    There are some odds of fitting a MG. It can't be never rule out 100%.
     
  2. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Highly unlikely and the damage probably wouldn't fool any experts into thinking it was a missile.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Has the CT community (or RT for that matter) claimed that Ukraine has downgraded one of its jets to fire machine gun rounds, in order to make it appear to be a missile strike, which of course, it won't?

    Nothing the CT community would say would surprise me though...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    No, but if it is claimed that the damage looks like machine gun damage, then the evidence to support or refute that claim should be what machine gun damage looks like and not just saying it's a cannon or they can't fly that high. That doesn't prove or disprove that it is or isn't damage from a machine gun. It only makes it way less likely that an SU-25 did it.

    Again, it's a silly theory but that never stopped anyone from claiming whatever suits them.
     
  5. Danver

    Danver Member

    In the Movie Behind Enemy Lines you can see a missile that does exactly the kind of damage seen on the Mh 17.. not sure waht model of Missile it is or if the Movie Directors simply invented it. But take a closer look at part of the Movie on this segment (7.50 min)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spl3nlGex40


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Hollywood gets it wrong more times than not.
     
  7. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Here's a cutaway of the 57kg warhead that is in a SAM-6 - (source)

    [​IMG]

    there is no similar detail on the SA-11/17 page
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

    They use images taken from this thread:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

    EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    The picture they use of the A-10 with damage is on wiki and it says it was flak damage, not a SAM.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Here is the account of the incident and it says it was an AA missile. (or sam)
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090903200943/http://www.stripes.com/07/jun07/heroesweb/campbell.htm
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    When did the second SU-25 enter the picture. I always thought this argument entailed one SU-25, NOT 2 of them.
     
  12. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Is the portion of the A-10 that has damage the portion that has the titanium armor? I know the cockpit is enclosed in it.
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I mentioned this before,but I think a lot of the "exit" holes on MH17 are actually the aluminum skin being blown back from the underlying steel due to fragmentation and possible liquidification of aluminum.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Juha

    Juha Member

  15. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    And correct me if I'm wrong, the Russians claim the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire, how does the majority of damage appear to be in the "front" of the aircraft and the pilot side of the air craft.
     
  16. KAT

    KAT Active Member


    There were two, all the way back on Day One. Remember Carlos the Spanish ATCO? So the possibility of both of them having a go was always there. Peter Haisenko just decided both must have been actively firing, to account for what, to him, looks like inside>outside shots on one panel of wreckage. He does not seem to have sought entry holes on the starboard side.
     
  17. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    I found this picture of an F-4 Phantom that has what appear to be bullet holes in it. Now those holes could have not been from combat but just someone shooting at it. But they don't appear to be from cannon fire and would probably be more like what machine gun fire from a .30 or .50 cal would look like.
    It's just some random person Flickr and says it was taken in someones yard in Florida.
    https://flic.kr/p/5eAqPr
     
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Washington blog is a laugh isn't it - I mean look at this:
    Clearly whoever is writing has no idea what they are talking about.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I would agree that it was used as target practice (rather undignified for such a beautiful aircraft) and I would say that they are at least .50 Cal, using my super-efficient combat engineer's eye....
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I doubt it would over that distance. Eventually the bullet is going to slow down and start to tumble. And the trajectory would angle slightly downwards.
     
  24. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Range could play a role in the penetrative power of the round, but as the target area is not constant its very hard to measure....
     
  25. Danver

    Danver Member

    A pair of Su- 25s flying faster than a 777 ,intercepting it..,going a couple of miles ahead and then returning to shot the 777 Pilot who was the guy they hated..

    Uhmmmm what part of this story tellls me that somebody is avoiding basic phisics laws and respect for less priviledged minds? :confused:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    And to repeat (one) of the reasons for the "Su-25" story being bunk...airplane performance specifications:

    Simply, absolutely impossible for those types of airplanes to intercept a B-777 that is cruising at 33,000 feet.
     
  27. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
    http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
    But I have a different issue: speed.

    According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.
    http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

    Since the SU-25 was designed as Close Air Support I assume the speed is reduced in higher altitudes.

    According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.
    http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

    So how should it be possible that the SU-25 climbs up to the Boeing 777 and performs multiple attacks if it should be way slower?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    That would only be true if it was nearly out of fuel, and with hardly any armaments added as weight.

    NOTE the other specs:

    WEIGHT
    Empty aircraft, kg
    9.500
    Normal take-off, kg
    14.600
    Maximum take-off, kg
    17.600
    Internal fuel, kg
    5.000

    Note the empty weight...then add the max fuel capacity. You arrive at the 14,500 kg "normal" figure. Even if the jet had (say) only 1,000 kg fuel, then its range and duration of flight would be severely limited.
     
  29. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    It is difficult to see how the M1 would have a different ceiling than the standard version - it has the same engines and same wing, so a 50% increase in service ceiling seems improbable - and a figure "5000m-10,000m" is kind of vague! :)
     
  30. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

    I believe the service ceiling increase comes from the pressurized cabin which allows the pilot keep his conseusness in higher altitudes. I think those upgrades were made after the Afganistan war. Anyway heres a youtube video showing at 5:33 SU-25 flying in ~8700 meters. Note that Russia among few other countries uses meters in aviation not feet like most of the world.


    Here is the link to importers specifications of SU-25M1 so we don't need to rely the old SU-25K specifications which are for the oldest model of Su-25 export version http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 It states there that Practical ceiling is 7000-10000 meters. It succest to me that indeed Ukraines army used SU-25M1 really can fly at 10km

    EDIT: added link to producer/importers specifiacations of SU-25M1
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
  31. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Like a lot of conspiracy theories, they choose the most complex and implausible explanation.

    UAF has Su27 and MiG 29, which would be better options if one decided, for no logical reason, to dogfight an airliner... and even then, why use the gun when you have perfectly functional missiles....?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    To that I read the explanation, that a) the plane was allready in the air/the only possible plane to reach the Boeing in time and b) since it's a plane designed for close air support it was not outfitted with AA missiles at that time.

    But I totally agree: the theory with the 1 (or 2) SU-25 is so full of 'whens' and 'ifs' that you wonder who should believe that.
     
  33. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I noticed this has started popping up in comment sections on various sites to back the claim of SU-25 variants being able to reach 10,000m, attributed to this book - Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot By Alexander Mladenov

    Previews of the quoted sections can be seen via Google books here and here. I haven't been able to access other pages, they may describe what modifications were required for the plane to reach 9000m, and context as to why it was necessary to fly that high. The section on dive bombing suggests it may be due to losses when making attack runs from lower altitudes.

    It certainly seems to demonstrate that SU-25's have been able to reach up to 9,000m, and with at least some form of armament equipped as bombing runs are mentioned.

    The full text from which the second quote is pulled says that the combat effectiveness of the plane was impacted, as well as the health of the pilots, suggesting that high altitude flying was undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, rather than normal operation.

    Obviously, none of this is proof of an armed Su-25 being able to reach 10,000m as the Russians implied, nor does it address the Su-25's other weaknesses (max speed, weapon range etc) though other sections of the book might have further info.

    Ray Von
     
  34. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

    If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
  35. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    What's your understanding of "close air support"? AFAIK (and my knowledge is from videogames and movies too :) ) it means supporting ground troops, not escorting bombers or fighters.

    Ray Von
     
  36. Juha

    Juha Member

    And if we read that red star-link with thoughts, we see, that no mod's to engine. And "The project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new cockpit with multiple function monitors." That mess adding weight. I'm sure that adding weight without adding power, doesn't make SU-25 go higher. (Bolding mine)
    :)

    And then mathematics: Service ceiling means, that after that, plane's ability to climb drops below 100ft/min. Climbing from 21000ft(7km) to 33000ft(10km) would take 120mins. And that's jus calculated with steady progress and is optimistic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
    • Useful Useful x 1
  37. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Not too mention, I don't get the whole argument of "the SU-25's mistakenly mistook the plane for Putin's plane" and thats why they shot it down. How many other Malaysian flights have flown across that country during this conflict, I would imagine a great deal. It makes absolutely ZERO sense. Firstly Ukranian ATC tracked the "commercial" airliner across it's entire country and ATC even gave it route changes. They knew it was a commercial airliner because of ACARS as well. Secondly, what good would've come out of shooting down a President and his staff out of the sky. It would've immediately entangled both countries into war, a war that the Ukranian government could never win in a million years. It would've been suicide for the Ukranian government. Russia would've unleashed everything they had on the Ukranian government, and there isn't a country in the world that would've stopped them. Mistake or no mistake, could you imagine if the US President's AirForce 1 was shot out of the sky.
     
  38. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  39. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    CAS is what you said: Air supporting ground troops.
     
  40. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Is it me, and I don't mean to judge, but this guy claiming to be "Carlos" looks Russian to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.