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

    BombDr Senior Member

    You are on the right track though the paint is less revealing than the chemical trace yet-to-be-found on the aircraft.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6165590.stm

    This case of friendly fire from 2003 was established after copper and chemical residue were found on the landing craft that were consistent with that of a Milan missile used by British Forces in 2003.

    There are databases with all known manufactured explosive chemical traces so if any are found, identification will be academic.

    It is also likely that the CTs and RT will have an alternative view though....
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. KAT

    KAT Active Member



    Guys, you don't have to touch the thing to have a good idea what happened. Or at least what did NOT happen. So doesn't matter that in theory things could pass out the other side. They DID NOT, which we know because we have pictures of substantial sections of the "other side" and there are no "passing through" holes.

    @@ David
    1) do BUK missiles use TNT to detonate the fragments?
    2) if TNT itself move at that speed, something it is "pushing" will be slower.

    @@BombDr let's not start comparing notes on the goriest or strangest deaths we've seen, ok? many here may not have any clinical detachment available.
     
  3. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Teej there are 2 sets of "skid" marks. Sorry, but to my eyes neither seem anything like missile colour. Give me the Akkerman album number for the one you're thinking of.

    The bright bluey green ones are aircraft primer paint. Debris which left impact dents but no visible paint of their own caused these.

    The creamy colour ones ending in a gash are ones being promoted on Russian sites to support a "shot by fighters" theory because they supposedly line up with the cockpit. They claim it might have been a continuous rod, of which there is no evidence anywhere (but of which there would be many, not just one, so their expertise is questionable).

    My theory on these, which surprisingly seems to fit known facts, is they may have been caused by a piece of the fan cowling, which separated very early in the piece. A section of the rear fitting ring of the cowl has been found, broken and with shrapnel holes. This also shows the No. 1 engine ingested shrapnel. Three pieces of fan blade have also been recovered.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    The secondary frag ref was simply to illustrate the point about other factors coming into play, and whilst having not done a scientific survey, I'm reasonably confident that Metabunk users would not be overly stressed by my banal description of a secondary frag injury.

    I'm also going to disagree with the level of exposure to the subject to come to firm conclusions. Any internet based investigation will immediately be limited by the numbers and quality of the evidence presented, and in this case we are at the mercy of the media with their desire to create memorable or 'iconic' images, and the accessibility to the crash site by the people that are the real-estate owners. Your confidence of what did not happen, based upon the same information that everyone else has is slightly misplaced, as is an imagery-only method of investigation.

    You have seen some photos of some of the aircraft in an insecure crime-scene in which seemingly anyone can wander around and interfere with the evidence and with the added complication of the reasonable possibility that the current landowners have a motive to frustrate the investigation.

    I'm not an airline pilot, nor a fighter pilot, or an image-analyist, or an air-crash investigator nor an expert on the tactical application of air defence systems, but I do have a lot of experience of explosives and explosive investigations and opine on them based upon years of experience, and even then I am unsettled to make 100% judgements on events we have so little information on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  6. KAT

    KAT Active Member


    Sure. Of course. A mark or hole on some unguarded wreckage may not be contemporaneous with the accident. This is where photographs may end up being handy even for the real investigators, who were not able to see anything before it was touched/abandoned. But don't think it likely that someone would be able to remove a large damaged panel and replace it with a whole one. Where will they get the part, anyway? off MH370?? :D

    This doesn't fit right. The XYZ is missing. Which way should it be? let's rethink this it's just not going to make sense this way. No it can't be. Yes it can IF we turn that other part. ahh now that's better. Could it have melted? what does that take? really, it got THAT hot? if it came from here we should be looking thataway.... If you don't start making a construct or narrative, you'll always end up with just a pile of parts. Start with what you have, not cherrypicked. Even knowing what is not there is useful information.

    If I didn't want people to argue I got this or that bit wrong, I'd not be posting it in a public place. Everyone's welcome to suggest changes and improvements.

    I hope I live to see the full official report come out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Odd part to survive, in a way. I think they agreed over there that the size is about right, comparing it against something of known size nearby. It was in the grazing paddock, which is where the wing parts ended up,from memory.
     
  8. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    It doesn't explode twice though does it? That is the claim they tried to make, that it exploded and then went into the plane and exploded again.
     
  9. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I agree
    I agree that you are asking perfectly reasonable questions and applying logic to them. I am merely cautioning against phrases like 'we know' and 'there were no' which imply definitive conclusions from extremely limited information.

    Even in legal cases were I have all the advantages of physical evidence, I often have to resort to phrases like 'likely', 'probably', 'the evidence suggests' rather that 'I know', or 'that did not happen' in order to qualify my responses to patchy information.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Agreed. Unfortunately many conspiracy theories form around events involving violent deaths (9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing), and the discussion of the nature of the deaths is often part of the debunking. Links to photos and videos of this need to be surrounded by explicit warnings though, and not embedded.
     
  11. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    The calculations are interesting but I am not sure they fully address a fragmentation warhead. The models seem to show a solid explosive inside a solid casing. The picture in #167 is interesting in that there appears to be modifications that could potentially minimize deceleration. Is the central tube hollow? This is a method used in mining and excavation blasting to confine the explosive energy internally before full detonation is completed to break and lift the rock by leaving open drill holes with no powder - the initial energy goes into the voids before breaking outward. The black "dots" in the outer fragmentation casing also look like holes that potentially allow the fragmentation to utilize more of the velocity of the explosive by breaking into the holes before the casing fragments.

    There is no question that microseconds after a detonation the velocity of the encasing material has decelerated rapidly but I assume the engineers that design warheads do everything to minimize the loss of velocity. Kind of a sad comment on what our species considers good engineering (no offence intended BombDr).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I'm in total agreement, which is why I get rid of such things (or used to until my hearing went)...

    The picture on #167 is slightly misleading as its a cutaway for training/sales purposes, so the colours are irrelevant really.

    The central tube (silver) is the booster charge or 'gaine' which is usually PETN type low explosives, which itself will have its own detonator which has some serious safe-to-arm protocols involved as generally speaking, anytime anything like this goes of early is considered bad form.

    The gaine itself is usually housed in an alloy case, which in turn slides inside the main charge or 'main-fill', and sometimes referred to a the 'stores'. This is the yellow bit, but in reality would most likely be an off-white colour of light brown. The explosives itself would be most likely cast and contained in its own light alloy or fibreglass sleeve, to avoid corrosion or exudation of the chemicals, which could crystallise into a volatile grit in any cracks.

    The outer frag sleeve would be metal colour (the red is for identification on the model) and again, covered in a fibreglass resin compound. Each part is modular for ease of assembly and storage. I'm uncertain but I don't think the black dots are significant in anyway.

    The explosive train would be designed so that the missile clears the launcher and arms the warhead near the target for obvious reasons, then when it is ready to function, the signal from the safe-to-arm device will fire the detonator, which in turn will fire the gaine, which explodes the main fill and the chocolate block flag-sleeve then shreds whatever is within range. The missile casing itself is just a vehicle and has little fragmentation value and I would opine that most of it is vapourised in the first milliseconds of the process.

    These Soviet era weapons are not without their problems as illustrated here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/06/afghanistan1

    But, in this case the EOD team(s) broke all the basic safety rules - disarmament by committee, using battery powered tools, introducing lubricants and solvents to the exuded crystals and trying to manually extract the explosive from the warhead in order to take it back to Germany as a training aid....
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    They hadn't made nitrogen iodide in their teens, then...
     
  15. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    No.
     
  16. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    No, but helpfully they took a series of photographs on old-school wet-film which survived the blast and showed all their buffoonery quite clearly. The photos themselves are now a slide-show used in every bomb disposal course in NATO to illustrate all the human factors (mainly hubris) that lead to disaster. And I don't want to appear smug as I can think of loads of British and US EOD types that have Darwinned themselves through simple errors....
     
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    The fragments hit that fast; the speed of the shock wave slows down very quickly and by a few dozen meters is traveling the speed of sound. The overpressure decreases at slightly less than the inverse square law. Double the distance and the overpressure will decrease to about 30%.

    The blast is very fast of course but also very localized. All the airframe would experience is some buffeting.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Danver

    Danver Member

    :eek:The Thread is closer to real science everytime. The only thing I dont like is when people don't read it all and then again ask why did the su 25 did or din't do this.

    (Dissinformation was also a great tool in the Urss empire.. inherited ,you know by whom)
     
  20. Danver

    Danver Member


    I think all those Mirage and A-4s and Super etenards were destroyed only by enemy side winders ,no a single bullet or cannon pulled them down ,and the ones damaged by ground fire or navy fire came back to base and were fixed for further missions.
     
  21. Danver

    Danver Member

    Excellent post.

    I guess I only want to point out that there is no need for a bomb inside of the plane (left there in the cargo bay as some conspiracy-conspirators have mentioned) as some people and 'specialits' have been spreading-missinforming around the world (which will allways be round).

    The missile (and what may left out of it after the fuse goes off) ,is enough of a bomb to tear that 10,000 lbs floor apart and leave the plane without it's nose and front part up to the wings.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  22. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    I hate to split hairs with you but at the UK Air Warfare Centre they have stats for every single munition that was dispensed in the course of the war and it was clear they used their guns as well, and also shot down other aircraft than the A4s and Mirages. If you have a source for this O/T discussion, Id love to see it.
     
  23. Danver

    Danver Member

    woit woit.. hiir ies thie lenk: http://www.naval-history.net/F64-Falklands-Argentine_aircraft_lost.htm
    end dunt git med ait mi
     
  24. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Thanks for the link:

     
  25. Danver

    Danver Member

    Well ,somehow its not fair to add an Hercules c140 ,helicopters (puma-augusta) and worst a Pucara (endogenous argentinian plane) thats just a very slow COIN very similar to a ov-10 Bronco. We were talking about mirage ,A4s and and super etendards. You can't add pears to apples (where have I heard that before?). We have been talking about missiles here vs cannons/ but also air ballons ,gliders and kytes should be out of the discussion. Let me try to find one of those long stories about that war in the south atlantic ,I will try to show you there how those airplanes got back to the mainland almost dead ,even with holes the size of a football-ball. I remember there was a case of an A4 that was loosing like 10% of its fuel each minute and another plane searched for it and refueled it all the way back to the airforce base (like 2 and some hours connected).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  26. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    What is a "Hercules c140"?
     
  27. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    But Bombdr has given 2 examples of A4s been shot by cannon only.
     
  28. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    Im not sure what you are arguing here. I was responding to David Coulter's comment:

    I stated from memory of a course I did last year at the Air Warfare Centre at RAF Cranwell that cannons had been used in air-to-air combat during the Falklands War by the RAF and FAA, which you disputed. You then sent me a link to a page which confirmed my assertion.

    Now you are claiming these are invalid as, in your opinion, helicopters and transports do not qualify as air-to-air combat...? How about the A4s? How about a Boeing 777?

    In any event, significant to this discussion about MH17 is that whilst it is possible to shoot down a 777 with guns/cannons, it is not easy to do so, and an SU25 would not be the platform of choice for doing so.
     
  29. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

  30. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I suppose that's true. First you have to get yourself a fast plane with cannons, and trot up to about a hundred feet behind and slightly above, having matched the monster's speed..

    I always thought it was a contemporary Russian fighter plane… do you prefer American, British, or French?

    Less than a second's burst through the cockpit would be sufficient, I would have thought…

    … So it's only difficult if you haven't got a fighter plane with cannons, then*. OT, I know…

    * I thought that was the point about fighter airplanes. To make shooting down planes easy gnash /rant.
     
  31. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I agree, but an SU25 is not a fighter plane , it is a CAS platform with a ceiling of 23000ft and max speed of 500knts, and RT is telling us this had a plausible possibility of shooting down a Boeing 777 cruising at 490knts at 35000ft.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I agree too. This has been shown repeatedly, in this thread (or was it another thread?).
     
  33. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Haha. Nuts. You're quite right. LOL. Maybe they got the number wrong. Journalists...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Thats just it, there didn't get the number wrong because the Ukrainian Air Force has been using SU25s against the rebels, they just decided to add this unrelated fact to enhance the Russian sympathiser version that the Ukrainians shot the plane down for reasons unknown, using a plane that is too slow and heavy to get near the 777, and definitely definitely was not some rebels with a missile system and rather loose or non-existent set of ROE protocols.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  35. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yup. It's called a "distraction" and is quite literally the proper definition of "shill".

    (Unlike the shrill tone often used to call MB a 'shill site' by certain members of the community).
     
  36. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    What is the range of its guns, given that with its flight ceiling of 25000 it would most likely have to fire over a distance of 8000 feet? (which sounds like an impossible shot for any non-independently tracking weapon)
     
  37. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Actually, its bordering on "disinformation".
     
  38. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yeah, this is so implausible as to be easily dismissed as...."impossible".
     
  39. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Effective range of a 30mm cannon (Adjust for ammunition, barrel length and angle) would be somewhere around the 3000m mark I would have thought, using planning guides for the 30mm gun on an Apache (yes I realise it is a helicopter, Im just using ballistics) and sadly I do not know enough about the GSh 30-2 on the SU25 and variants...

    3000m is just shy of 10000ft, but then if you look at any video on Youtube of an Apache or A10 strike, and Iv seen not a few of a 27mm Mauser cannon strikes from the Tornado GR4, you will quickly see that it is an area weapon and the spread of shot is proportional to the range fired, so really a SU25 firing at a 777 at maximum range-ish, against gravity, and against a moving target would be challenging to say the least!
     
  40. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Why this fixation on SU25? Ukrainian air force has a bunch of MIG-29s which can
    * go to 59,000 feet up
    * go at Mach 2 and
    * use a big assortment of AA missiles some of which have a level range of 30 miles or more (how far from the border was all this?)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.