Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover

Libertarian

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
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.

External Quote:
Transcription:
Terrible things are happening. For example, an incident that happened recently: passenger plane was flying by, and Ukrainian attack aircraft hid behind it. Then he lowered his altitude a bit and dropped bombs on residential sector of Semenovka town. Then he regained the altitude and hid behind the passenger plane again. Then he left.

They wanted to provoke the militia to shoot at the passenger plane. There would be a global catastrophe. Civilians would have died.

Then they would say that terrorists here did it. There are no terrorists here. There are regular people here that came out in defense of their own city.
 
Libertarian said:
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."
Click to expand...

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":

External Quote:
Washington's Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information.
Doesn't look particularly well researched in this case, nor is it "Real time" - it is "convenient time"
 
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)

External Quote:
Service ceiling
The service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft. Specifically, it is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude and with all engines operating and producing maximum continuous power, will produce a given rate of climb (a typical value might be 100 feet per minute climb or 30 metres per minute,[1] or on the order of 500 feet per minute climb for jet aircraft). Margin to stall at service ceiling is 1.5 g.[citation needed]

The one engine inoperative (OEI) service ceiling of a twin-engine, fixed-wing aircraft is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude with one engine producing maximum continuous power and the other engine shut down and feathered, will produce a given rate of climb (usually 50 feet per minute).[citation needed]

However some performance charts will define the service ceiling as the pressure altitude at which the aircraft will have the capability of climbing at 50 ft/min with one propeller feathered.
External Quote:

Absolute ceiling
8423a9893c80dd0c6ef7f70ab66b60ba.png

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. (April 2012)
The absolute ceiling, also known as coffin corner, is the highest altitude at which an aircraft can sustain level flight, which means the altitude at which the thrust of the engines at full power is equal to the total drag at minimum drag speed. In other words, it is the altitude where maximum thrust available equals minimum thrust required, so the altitude where the maximum sustained (with no decreasing airspeed)rate of climb is zero. Most commercial jetliners have a service (or certificated) ceiling of about 42,000 feet (12,802 m)[citation needed] and some business jets about 51,000 feet (15,545 m).[2] While these aircraft's absolute ceiling is much higher than standard operational purposes, it is impossible to reach (because of the vertical speed asymptotically approaching zero) without afterburners or other devices temporarily increasing thrust. Flight at the absolute ceiling is also not economically advantageous due to the lowindicated airspeed which can be sustained: although the true airspeed (TAS) at an altitude is typically greater than indicated airspeed (IAS), the difference is not enough to compensate for the fact that IAS at which minimum drag is achieved is usually very low, so a flight at an absolute ceiling altitude results in a low TAS as well, and hence in a high fuel burn rate per distance traveled. The absolute ceiling varies with the air temperature and, overall, the aircraft weight (usually calculated at MTOW).[1]
 
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.
 
Jason said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
Click to expand...
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
 
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
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
Click to expand...
External Quote:
The Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot remains the mainstay of Russian shturmovoy (ground-attack) regiments. The type is broadly analogous to the US A-10 but has been matured into a more sophisticated warplane
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
 
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
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
Click to expand...

This is from the manufacturer Sukhoi http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/
Service ceiling is 7 km.
 
Jason said:
External Quote:
The Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot remains the mainstay of Russian shturmovoy (ground-attack) regiments. The type is broadly analogous to the US A-10 but has been matured into a more sophisticated warplane
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Libertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
David Coulter said:
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....
Click to expand...
The video was uploaded June 18th. That was more than a month ago.
 
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
 
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.
 
Stevan Gvozdenovic said:
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
Click to expand...
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)
External Quote:
Most commercial jetliners have a service (or certificated) ceiling of about 42,000 feet (12,802 m)[citation needed] and some business jets about 51,000 feet (15,545 m).[2] While these aircraft's absolute ceiling is much higher than standard operational purposes, it is impossible to reach (because of the vertical speed asymptotically approaching zero) without afterburners or other devices temporarily increasing thrust. Flight at the absolute ceiling is also not economically advantageous due to the lowindicated airspeed which can be sustained: although the true airspeed (TAS) at an altitude is typically greater than indicated airspeed (IAS), the difference is not enough to compensate for the fact that IAS at which minimum drag is achieved is usually very low, so a flight at an absolute ceiling altitude results in a low TAS as well, and hence in a high fuel burn rate per distance traveled. The absolute ceiling varies with the air temperature and, overall, the aircraft weight (usually calculated at MTOW).[1]
 
Josh Heuer said:
The video was uploaded June 18th. That was more than a month ago.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jason said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
External Quote:
A zoom climb is a climb where the rate of climb is greater than the maximum for a sustained climb, as determined from the thrust of the aircraft's engines. During a zoom climb, the aircraft accelerates to a high air speed at an altitude at which it can operate in sustained level flight. The pilot then turns steeply upward, trading the kinetic energy of forward motion for altitude. During these maneuvers the engine is in full thrust. The aircraft gains potential energy (altitude) at the expense of kinetic energy (forward motion). This is different from a steady climb, where the increase in potential energy comes from mechanical work done by the engines, rather than from the aircraft's kinetic energy.
http://www.ctka.net/2012/LHO_U2_Mark_Prior.html
External Quote:
The Soviet technique that most concerned U2 pilots was the "snap up" or the power dive and zoom climb. In this maneuver, ground-based radar operators would direct the intercepting aircraft along the same flight path as the U2. When the MIG pilot achieved the same compass heading as the U2 flying more than 10,000 feet above him, he would put his aircraft into a shallow dive to pick up speed, apply full throttle to the engine, then pull back on the stick and zoom as high as he could. In this manner the Soviet pilot hoped to come up directly beneath the U2 so he could use his guns and missiles against the shiny U2 etched in silver against the dark blue-black of space. Using this maneuver, some MIGs were able to climb as high as the U2 but seldom got very close....U2 pilots often spotted MIGs that reached the apex of their zoom climbs and then fell away toward the Earth. The U.S. pilots' greatest fear was that one of the Migs would actually collide with a U2 during a zoom climb
 
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.
 
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
So editwar in wikipedia equals now to proof the claim that SU-25 models do not varie on the cabibilities?
Click to expand...
No the manufacturers specs and pilot experience are, and it equals proof the Russians were lying and tried to cover it up.
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't change that they tried to edit the specs.
 
Sgt.Tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Sticky
Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate
4 5 6
Replies
235
Views
95K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Back
Top