1. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I pulled this part from the bbc's recent article on the rebels handing over the black boxes to Malaysian authorities:
    (http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28413467)
    I noticed there was a topic discussing the BUK and it's (reasonably) likely involvement, but is there any way to verify or disprove this?

    Basically, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing the BUK system to the attack, but there's nothing concrete (at this moment! Could change any time.) So shouldn't we investigate this claim?

    Would a military plane be tracked by something that could verify if it was there or not? Or is this getting into classified info etc
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2014
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The claim seems to have originated from RT.Com ^-

    [​IMG]

    What is interesting for me here is something we have seen elsewhere - a claim that military aircraft should not be using "a civil aviation corridor"......what next - perhaps het Ukrainians laced the air with something to destroy MH17....;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2014
  3. actually its vice versa, civilian aircrafts shouldn't use routes used by military aircrafts in a conflict
     
  4. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Indeed - those are very obvious on airspace maps, and MH17 was above the restricted airspace that was current at the time, so was not in any military operational area.

    Also note that the Su-25 has a service ceiling of 23,000 ft "clean", and the Russian report says it was "climbing" - so it wasn't even that high - MH17 was at 33,000 feet - that's not really "close by" in any aviation terms!!
     
  5. well if it wasn't in a military operational area it wouldn't get hit no?! That area should be defined according to SAM limits not limits of ukrainian aircraft.
     
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    It wasn't in a military operational area because it was above the safety area that HAD BEEN PROMULGATED.

    Pretty much all airspace over Europe is within SAM range from somewhere - your point is just argumentative.
     
  7. OK you got me wrong or vice versa, just wanted to point out that it was promulgated wrongly...

    It is within SAM range but not active SAMs firing at military planes that move around that same area.
     
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Yes there's now a suggestion from the Flight Safety Foundation to review the systems that control potentially risky airspace:

    currently states (countries) have the authority to regulate airspace - in some cases they do this jointly, such as Europe. the suggestion here seems to be that the supra-national ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation - a branch of the UN) should possibly be able to over-rule states - something it cannot do now.

    Cue conspiracy theories about the UN taking over the world.......
     
  9. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Have they released those videos to the public then?

    I thought perhaps this was third-party confirmation of the flights, but it's really mostly speculation. This person alleges all flights were 'escorted' through the airspace that day.
    http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/
    Wouldn't other airliners be able to confirm this if it was true?
    And he kind of contradicts himself by sayuing they were escorting all civilian flights that day, and the rebels saw an unexpected escort which made them think it was a high-value target.
    Do the rebels even have radar screens?
     
  10. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Apparently this picture was originally on the RT.com article as the radar picture "proof":

    [​IMG]

    the contact that looks like "CNA351" is Cyrillic for SIA - Singapore Airlines flight 351 - a B777-200 (b772) at 35,000 ft (350)

    However according to that post on ATS it has now been removed from the rt.com article

    I am not sure what the "3416" contact is - but it is apparently at 40,000 ft (400)

    I think the yellow lettering reads "A 360 P 0.000" - where I think the "P" is a Cyrillic letter that translates to "r" in English.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Russia has specifically denied supplying a BUK system, and also called on the US to provide photographic proof of a BUK system being used. They also pointed out that Ukraine denied having military aircraft in the region, and purport to show proof that this was false.
    Russia's claims of the Ukraine having military aircraft in the air coincides with the claims of purported Air Traffic Controller @spainbuca as follows:
    I have no idea whether this @spainbuca fellow was indeed in the tower, but found it interesting to see his twitter evidence confirmed by radar evidence presented by a military superpower. Perhaps the rest of his tweets deserve another look.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2014
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I simply don't believe Russian statements any more - they have been caught lying way too often about the situation in Ukraine and Crimea for anything to be accepted at face value. The Su-25 is discussed above - the statement adds nothing to what is already available.
     
  13. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    Carlos @spainbuca would be a star witness then for the international investigation and should be easy to track down. He appeared in the following Russia Today interview and although partially obscured someone should be able to recognize him from what is shown? He obviously has history with the state sponsored Russia Today so perhaps his social media was an easy target for the Russian Internet Troll Army?



    On the Russian military briefing and radar 'evidence'. A very strange set of graphics for the aircraft. The 'Su-25' is represented by a General Dynamics EF-111A Raven.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/General-Dynamics-EF-111A/0726432/L/

    Is the other aircraft (Sukhoi 25) actually there? What about a theory that the 'Su-25' radar return is actually a return off MH17 as it broke up in pieces? If a large enough part detached then it would give a big enough return. It is strange how they can track an 'Su-25' after MH17 goes off radar? Could this explain why the claimed 'Su-25' was only visible for a few minutes? The radar trace supposedly shows the "Su-25" in the same place for a few minutes with the Russians claiming that it showed that the 'Su-25' orbited the crash site. Again is this just radar returns of a large piece of MH17 as it comes down?
     
  14. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  15. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    The Ukranian radar and ATC records that were (reportedly) seized - would that normally be handed over to the investigation? If the Ukraine is hiding it then there's reason to be suspicious, but they could just have secured it for the investigation, we wouldn't know straight away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

  17. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    The Ukrainian SU-25s only carry the AA-8 "Aphid" infrared air to air missile. This missile has a range of 5nm and has a 3kg warhead. Given that it is a ground attack aircraft, with a ceiling of around clean ceiling of 22,000 feet and a loaded ceiling below 20,000 feet, coupled with no air intercept radar; ( it would have to be vectored into firing position via a ground controller), I have severe doubts about it being involved in any shoot down of a 777 flying three miles above it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Not to mention that it's implying a now deliberate civilian shootdown, as opposed to an accidental one, an action which is several orders of magnitude even more insane. Russia just is spitting out any thing it can to distract at the moment, it's pathetic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. me too, but there was a chance that rebels have mistaken Boeing for the transport plane just because a SU25 was flying close to it
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Is there a possibility that the SU25 was actually the target and for what ever reason the SAM veered off course or the SU25 used defensive counters to confuse the SAM.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  21. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    From what has been posted here and elsewhere online about the launcher's capabilities, it shouldn't be possible. But that doesn't rule out older versions of the hardware, improper use, or even just over-stated capabilities.

    Still, if it had happened the rebels should have known they didn't hit their selected target. If that were the case, they wouldn't have posted and later deleted claims to have shot down an SU25 and would have gone straight to, "What missiles? We have no missiles."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. vooke

    vooke Active Member

    You mean they are yet to figure out if it was a surface-to-air or air-to-air missile?
    The presence of a fighter jet so dangerously close to the targeted Malaysian jet sounds contradictory
     
  23. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

    Pretty much this. Also there is no concrete proof _yet_ that the plane was even shot down by an missile.
     
  24. Juha

    Juha Member

    3416 is Air India 315. (AIC315, B787@FL400). 3416 is his squawk.

    Radar looks like secondary surveillance radar, that cannot track anything without transponder. So you can't see a SU-25 from that screen, even if there's a one. Of course if he illuminates himself by activating it, it shows in the screen.
    Note that, those white lines are heading, not trail.
    Yellow letterings is just cursor data. Nothing at the scope. That dot, that it points at, is last known place, where radar plotted MH17s transponder.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  25. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Wouldn't local radars be able to identify when MH17 started to lose altitude, which would indicate the approximate "exact" time it was hit by the missile.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, it's Air India 113. The other plane is Singapore 351
    Confirmed by FlightRadar24.com data.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Russia is asking the west to release proof of the missile's trajectory via satellite imagery and radar. Why is there always this argument that the US can't release it because it will inform nations of where our assets are or how they are being used. If the world knows the assets are there already, whats the difference. I think its also a fair assumption given the cold war, that Russia is also probably one of the most watched nations in the world by our satellite capabilities. Also giving the world a screen shot, so to speak, of the local area without giving away too much detail could also prove to be useful. I think its important in this instance that the US backs up what the intelligence community is saying. Not that I don't believe them, but more in terms for US perception after our failed intelligence finger pointing in the past (Iraq comes to mind)...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Russian identified the Air India plane in the press conference, they never claimed the 3416 squawk was anything else

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  31. there is, russian military has mistakenly shot down their plane when they were in hunt for U2 (and they also shot down U2 with another missile)
     
  32. Juha

    Juha Member

    Pardon me, I mis-spelled it when I wrote it. Of course it is AIC113.

    Secondary radar only shows return of transponder. If plane loses electricity or transponder is manually shut, return is lost. Like in MH370. Primary radars plot planes image, so image from it would been better to show impact, falling and debris.
    Army uses primary radars and busiest civilian airspaces has it as backup.
     
  33. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The actual video of radar is here - see 11 minutes for the identification of a 2nd contact on same location as MH17:



    the aircraft contact is said to be at 5000m and descending - TBH it looks more like debris from MH17 "fluttering down" - the Russians suggest it is "monitoring the situation"
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    So now the US is saying that its' only evidence is youtube clips and social media posts. So if they do have satellite intelligence, they are not prepared to share it. But since the US has such a preposterous track record of lying and deceit regarding its' foreign policy, I don't think any rational person aught to believe them based on only them saying "trust us". Like Russia, the US has no rapport on which to establish trust. So at present the only evidence available is anecdodatal social media and Russia's radar presentation.

    Here is the US declining to provide real forensic evidence and saying instead that its formal opinion came from youtube and twitter:
     
  35. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    The video doesn't work for me so I will add this:
    I highly doubt that their conclusions are based just on twitter photos and YT. It's embarrassing to even ponder such a thing, I mean if "we" don't accept YT and twitter as a matter of fact, I can't see US intelligence doing that.
    But that doesn't mean they haven't correlated YT videos and Twitter photos to troop and convoy movements with satellite imagery.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  36. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Except that isn't what the lady says - "..."We make assessments based on a variety of information and a variety of intelligence, some of which we can talk about, some of which we can't" - about 5 minutes.

    And "the public information is the easiest to talk about"

    Please don't misquote.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  37. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    The problem is that US intelligence can't be trusted. Remember Iraq's WMDs? LOL! And for a more recent example, how about Assad's use of nerve gas? Why trust them? They need to PROVE IT. With EVIDENCE. Otherwise we have nothing but a liar standing on a stage. What are we supposed to think?
     
  38. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  39. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I know the intelligence community messed up then, and I even admitted that above, but those were trying times after a terrorist attack on the US. I too think if the US has the proof, they should share what they can with the world. Also, I know we messed up with Iraq, but how many times have we been right before. As I said above, I think it would help America's perception in the world if we could share what we have to shut Putin up and but him back in his cave. Thats why I think its important to share it.. Not because we have to..
     
  40. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Sorry, @Libertarian. Just today (approx. 1700 PDT, 22 July) while I was listening to NPR in the car, and the U.S. is now revealing the intelligence that they have known...United States "spy" satellites DID detect a missile launch in the vicinity.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-its-case-plane-wreckage-reportedly-cut-apart

     
    • Like Like x 2