Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    I wasn't aware of a terminology distinction between supporting other aircraft or supporting ground troops, but... That actually makes the point better than I could, since Ukranian ground troops were not in the area at that time.
  2. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Correct, but that does not discount autonomous missions. The SU25 is a 'CAS platform' and would usually work in conjunction with a JTAC (Joint Terminal Air Controller) or FAC (Forward Air Controller), but that does not mean that they cannot simply be allocated a kill-box and told to destroy any enemy in that area.

    However, what is most implausible is that you would choose to use a SU25 for Air Interdiction if you really didn't have to.

    So regarding the claim - yes I suppose it is plausible that an SU25 could be in the area, but no, I don't think its likely that you would use it to interdict anything in the air, especially at 30k+ft. I especially do not think that the Ukrainians would be so dumb as to attempt to shoot Putin down, but I am evermore surprised by human stupidity...

    I'm pretty sure that the Russians are monitoring every radio and phone transmission that the Ukrainians are emmitting, and if they had some dialogue that resembled "Im going to shoot down Putin" or "Look! An Airliner! We can shoot it down to make the rebels look dastardly" I'm pretty sure they would have produced it on a loop-tape on RT by now...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. mennie

    mennie New Member

    I have already explained why I think there was nothing else flying around MH17 in this thread:

    There are other scenario's possible why something would explode inside the cockpit.
    Take for example the crew oxygen bottles, seen in this PDF: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff777.pdf
    If they have been hit by missile fragments and caused an outwards explosion.
    It has happened before, Qantas Flight 30: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_30

    An aircraft is not strong at all, it doesn't take much to go through the skin of a B777, Egyptair B772: http://avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I agree that a 777 certainly would fall under the 'soft-skin' category of vehicles, but if there were a traumatic release of compressed gasses, Im not convinced that it would leave punctures down the entire airframe.
  5. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Does anyone know what the SU-25's role has been in the Ukranian "civil" war? Have the Ukranians been using the SU-25's for bombing runs, or close support for ground troops, or for just being a deterant in the sky... I think this distinction is important
  6. Danver

    Danver Member

    I think days before the destruction of MH 17 they pulled down a Su 25 and an Antonov 24 or 26. And a couple of days after ,two more Su 25s were pulled down also using missiles.. and those planes were at 17,000 feet (unreachable for a hand SAM (manpad). The reason of so much air traffic to that corner of Ukraine is because a whole mechanized division of ukranians was locked by Separatists (they dont look like that to me..if they are russian citizens who were born in russia). So all those ground support airplanes and transports were trying to help soldiers up there who were without supplies and locked.
  7. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    the AN was an AN-30, and was apparently hit by a MANPAD - some of them can reach as high as 20,000 ft -

    And these are probably the soldiers who have recently crossed into Russia recently.
  8. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Go look at your own links to see how EgyptAir ended up. Did you see any damage like this on MH17? can you explain how one hole in the cockpit (even if, say, it kills the pilots) would make the plane break up in the air, as this one obviously did? dropping sections off over 3 separate villages 8 miles apart?

    Oh and did you see the shrapnel holes on many of the front left-hand parts? what crew oxy fire makes hundreds of tiny INWARDS going holes? what crew oxy fire rips the cowling off the engine on the other side, and breaks up the fan blades?

    Mennie this is the best collection of detailed photos of THIS crash, please go through them
    there are no dead-body ones in this lot.

    It is ok to theorise oxy fire for MH370 -- because nobody has seen a scrap of it. When we have substantial parts of the aircraft, all photographed hundreds of times from all angles, the only theory to come up with is one that fits the known factors, at least the visible ones. That theory is MISSILE. The only mystery is WHOSE.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
  9. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Do you mean EgyptAir 990? Sorry, not equivalent.

    Were you thinking of a different incident?

    Perhaps, IranAir 655?

    (SORRY....but mistakes cause much BUNK to start, and then be repeated.....).
  10. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    The other side has no aircraft to be a deterrent to. SU-25s are attack craft, usually armed with assorted armour piercing cannon, or sometimes missiles. (Most but not all of these are incendiary or explosive, not rods or fragments, from what I've been reading lately).

    according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
    Since the first transport got shot down, it would make sense if they would escort them, in order to take out the positions aiming at the transports. But my private line to Kiev is broken, so I can't say for sure.

    In theory, it would be physically possible to aim upwards with a weapon designed for hitting ground targets. Many of those are homing types, not just dumb gravity bombs, so they'd go where there were aimed. The full range is at the very bottom of that Wiki article.
  11. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    I was replying to Mennie, who had mentioned oxygen bottle fires and linked to an article about MS667 "Nefertiti". Good to see a new member googling for possible similar air crashes, but he should then also google for THIS one.
  12. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    AH!!!....a completely DIFFERENT circumstance.

    I can understand how non-pilots can be confused.
  13. mennie

    mennie New Member

    The theory is missile, the point discussed is also why some holes are bent inwards and some are bent outwards.
    What I am trying to say is that the inwards bent holes could be from missile fragments flying in, hitting something explosive like an oxygen bottle, causing some other fragments to be forced out.
    This could rule out the imho more crazy idea of a phantom Su-25 in the area of MH17.

    Qantas Flight 30 shows us that an oxygen bottle can explode and impact the aircraft's skin, it even happened without any external force.
    Egyptair B772 SU-GBP shows us how fragile the aircraft's skin is, also in the cockpit section.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
  14. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Not sure that fixation on the crew O2 bottle(s) being "hit" and adding collateral shrapnel damage is worthy of discussion.
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    That's not entirely correct. The 9K338 Igla-S /SA-24 has a range of up to 20.000 ft. But that doesn't mean it can reach a plane in that altitude.

    Here is a list of several MANPADS: Comparison chart to other MANPADS
    It says the range of a 9K34 Strela-3 /SA-14 is 13,500 ft. But here it says that the max. altitude is 7,500 ft.

    Same with the 9K38 Igla /SA-18: Range is 5.2 km but the flight ceiling only 3.5 km.

    For a comparison:
    FIM-92A Stinger: Range: 8 km; Ceiling: 3 km
    FIM-43 Redeye: Range: 4.5 km; Ceiling: 2,740 km
    Mistral: Range: 6 km; Ceiling: 3 km
    Javelin: Range: 4.5 km; Ceiling: 1 km

    So while I can not find any data about the ceiling of a 9K338 Igla-S /SA-24 it's save to assume it should be around 12.000 ft.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  16. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Fair point. But the entire fuselage was "something explosive" -- it wanted to decompress as soon as the first shrapnel went in. That is a much bigger pressure than one little oxygen bottle (which is on the starboard side). . And it was acting on a skin much weakened by a few hundred holes made by melting-hot bits of metal travelling around Mach 3 (?) or more. First the hot gas from the detonation would follow the shrapnel in, THEN it would all decompress. That would be plenty to bend back some of the holes. It peeled back a whole big piece of skin, like opening a sardine tin. This was just behind the port side cockpit windows and you can see it peeled back so fast, some of it never even got holes in it.


    Actually on some of the multiple-thickness stronger front panels, the detonation gasses expanding between the layers could have caused outward bending, too, liked you can see on the famous striped panel that was propped against the power pole for a week. The one in Akkerman's Album 4 in the link I gave you above. That is from just under the port side windshield.

    Definitely was no SU-XXX shooting from the starboard side. No starboard pieces have such holes. Business class roof has a FEW holes, but all on the port side.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Are there actually any pictures of exit holes with metal bent outwards? I know that's not your contention Mennie, it's a general question that I'm asking because all the sources I've seen claiming exit holes use the same picture of the piece of nose under the window, and there doesn't appear to be any exit holes there, just entry holes with metal bent inwards, surrounded by metal that is bent outwards, but no corresponding exit hole.

    I had a skim through a lot of pictures in the link Kat supplied and couldn't find one there either (though I wouldn't claim to have examined them all in great detail).

    Ray Von
  18. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

    How this can rule out Russian provided evidence of SU-25 shown in the radar?
  19. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Relevant parts glued to a finished plane and one being built; the cockpit window frames seem to show holes both ways, but these are 3 or 4 layer thick sections which could curl from heat and gas expansion, too. Certainly not from shots, unless the pilots were shooting up their own windshield.


    Most other outwards holes are big tears on otherwise undamaged skin sections, so most likely caused by debris during the breakup.

    The gash and scoring on the wing, that they tried to blame on gun fire or air to air missile, is most likely from part of the port engine disintegrating.
  20. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    There is absolutely no evidence of an su-25 on that radar image.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Someone on PpRuNe gave a complicated explanation of how those radar traces are a good match for sections of MH17 as it disintegrates and changes direction and goes into a spin. I can't read radar, so.... the pieces were big enough to show up though, as many military planes are smaller than those sections.
  22. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

    Wait what??? Was not there a huge conversation about SU-25 in area when Russians provided the radar image/film. The main argument at some point ago was that SU-25 can't fly over 7km so the image can't be real. That is kinda true but newer models like Ukrainian armys SU-25M1 can achieve the higher altitudes which I provided some evidence like SU-25 flying 8.7km and also newer models specifications. So howcome there is now absolutely no evidence of SU-25 in the area?

    Sounds interesting. Then again sorry to be kinda pedantic but doesn't this put Russian militaryforces in a spot of being laughing stock when they have claimed that they saw SU-25(actually I should check this out did they mean SU-25 or just generic militaryaircraft) ganing altitude of passenger plane. To be honest I am kinda siding with military specialists than some random forum poster. Then again that is just my bias and does not mean that something could not happend like an mistake in reading radar data.

    I have absolutely same problem. Top of that I don't know anything about aviation or military planes so it has been a pain for example to get some information about cababilities of SU-25 and what they mean. As a total n00b about subject I have to rely on secondhand information all the time and turns out there are lot's of people talking much about the subject and then when you check their data turns out they don't eather know what they are talking about. It is really a pain and I really wish that discussion ould be done throught hard data not just gut feelings or repeating false or incorrect data(which probably I too am guilty of too).
  23. mennie

    mennie New Member

  24. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Yes it sort of does make the Russians seem silly, this SU-25 business came about a few days after the accident, and it was part of the Russian Propaganda machine. Besides a radar image there is absolutely "0" proof a SU-25 was in the area, and it is thought that parts of MH17 unzipping could've given radar returns. It would've been extremely helpful if the Russian provided a radar track of the SU-25 prior to the accident and after the accident, but they haven't as far as I'm aware
    • Like Like x 1
  25. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Not really. The O2 bottles are pressurized to 3,000 psi. The cabin is pressurized to no more than about 7.5 psi.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  26. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    There is no Su-25 on Russian radar.

    There are only civil airliners on the Russian radar - UNTIL "something happens" to MH17, at which point:

    1/ the MH17 plot starts losing speed and altitude and veers off course
    2/ At that point another plot appears at the same point as MH17 - consistent with there being nothing to plot before whatever caused the aircraft to change speed/altitude/heading.
    3/ the 2nd plot does not move very far from its initial position - consistent with something descending more or less straight down
    4/ the 2nd plot only descends on that one spot - see item 3.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  27. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Air pressure (atmospheric) at FL350 is 7.04 psi. But the a/c is pressurised usually to equal about 7000 feet, which is 23.1 psi, so the difference is 16.06.This is what the fuselage is containing.

    Oxygen is usually kept at 2000 psi, scuba tanks (normal air) between 2400 and 3600, LP gas only around 100 to 200; these last I've seen exploding, one a small vehicle fuel tank size (dry, no fire, deformed in a smash, shrapnel barely dented the tailgate from inside) and one a 100 tonne bulk storage tank (superheated, huge fire, blew tank 150 yards into a creek).

    I grant mennie that an oxygen tank, breached by shrapnel, could create shrapnel of its own to cause outward holes in the fuselage. But the fuselage would be ripped apart not by the 2000 psi of the oxy tank, but by the 16 psi being held in by the fuselage itself. And there is zero evidence of outward shrapnel or exploded oxygen tanks.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  28. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    No - the pressure at 7000 ft is not 23.1psi - the normal sea level pressure is only 14.7psi - you got some seriously wrong figures there.

    I think you read the wrong column from something like this table - at 7000 ft the pressure is 23.1 INCHES OF MERCURY - which is only 11.3 psi
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    That is pressurized "normal" air (21% O2, 78% Nitrogen, 1% trace gasses). I happen to be SCUBA certified.

    Oxygen bottles (PURE O2....ONLY oxygen, 100%) on airplanes are 3,000 psi (I am a retired airline pilot....I kinda know this stuff).

    An airliner's pressurization value is called the "PSID", or "psi differential".

    THIS might help in understanding (it is not a B777 Pressurization Panel....looks like a B737.... but the concept is similar):

    (NOTE that in some of the images, the "All Test" switch has been used, to test ALL lights and indicators. I mention this only to dispel any confusion).
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Aloha 243 is some useful perspective on how a plane can be ripped apart (only partially in that case).

  31. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Agreed. One thing about PpRuNe is, it's mostly aviation people, including ATC and mechanics. They all know general principles and have enormous knowledge on specific aircraft types. It's an international mob, including some from the countries involved in the MH17 drama. Many of the pilots have had military experience, not necessarily all with aircraft, or not necessarily on the saving them from SAMS end. You get a different story from someone who's actually used something, than from Wikipedia or armaments sales brochures. They're not shy to correct someone if he gets it wrong. I've seen heated discussions there about details like which bus powers which aerial and where that wire runs. Boeing manuals might tell us that, but we don't get access to those, some of those guys do. They're not "some guy on some forum" in the same way you and I are. Probably because of this, many seem uninterested in looking closely enough at the wreckage to piece it together -- it's something they rely on to keep them safe every day, they must get nightmares seeing it like this. For us it is a giant jigsaw puzzle.
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes, indeed.

    Just FYI....the section of fuselage that "broke" is between the segments of the 'tube' that comprises the fuselage, during initial assembly. IOW, the fuselage is made of "segments" during manufacture, and then these "segments" are joined to complete a full-length fuselage.

    This is how airplanes are "stretched" when new versions are made....they simply insert another "segment", thus adding length.

    AND...the fact that Aloha Flight 243 held together? Utterly amazing, and a testament to how well built those Boeing products are. The lower half of that fuselage section had to endure tremendous, unanticipated loads. Fortunately, of course, all of the flight control and engine control cables were BELOW the cabin floor, in those sections....else, this would have been uncontrollable.
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    No there never was, it was heavily suggested there might be one by Russia 'just asking questions' and that's why there was discussion of the viability of that, but Mike C's post explains what the facts were on that one.
    But once the suggestion is out there it never really dies, which no doubt is why Russia put it out there, to muddy the waters.
    There were witness reports from the ground saying the saw military aircraft under MH17, but cloud cover would make that sighting impossible and nothing else can corroborate that so it's worth dismissing at this stage as misinformation or witness error until actual proof comes along. The 'Carlos' reports are very doubtful too.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  34. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Here is what shooting oxygen tanks looks like.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  35. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    It's good to note that the flight was between Hilo and Honolulu and only reached 24k feet. If this had happened at 35k feet and on a longer flight more people would have died if not the entire plane lost.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Absolutely....100% O2, there. (Normal air, in a 21/78/1 mix won't ignite into flames).
  37. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Yeah, I forgot all the Mythbusters shooting tanks tests, none exploded.
  38. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    I think we've established
    a) medical oxygen is kept at lower pressure than aircrew oxygen
    b) pressure vessels, even low pressure ones like aircraft hulls, break up when depressurized through unwanted holes
    c) the Russians do propaganda (who doesn't???)
    d) the Russians DID SEE something on their radar. It was not photoshopped. It was not FlightAware radar so it didn't label the traces, so they had to take a guess.
    e) they took the guess that suited their aims (see point C) and said "Ukrainian military" instead of realising they saw MH17 breakup (unlike the people who thought they saw it but it was only an Antonov).
    f) in due course they will come up with "clarified" radar images which will be much the same but labelled correctly, and not apologise for or feel embarrassed by this mistake at all
    • Agree Agree x 2
  39. Nehmo

    Nehmo New Member

    Isn't there some method to _prove_ one way or the other, from the pics available now to us, that MH17 was hit with gunfire or not?
    If there are a certain number of holes the exact same size, is that enough? This should be solvable here and now with an objective scientific POV.
  40. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I was mistaken about airliner O2 PSI....it is not above approximately 1800 PSI. Apologies. I blame poor memory...3000 PSI is a nominal hydraulic system pressure. (ooops....too many numbers in my head, after three decades, and some time away, they get jumbled!!).

    Link: https://aircraftengineering.wordpress.com/tag/flight-crew-oxygen/

    But, still the fact of CABIN pressurization and PSID remains valid, and correct. (Whew!)
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.