Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover

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.

 

MikeC

Closed Account
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."
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":

Doesn't look particularly well researched in this case, nor is it "Real time" - it is "convenient time"
 

Juha

Member
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.
 

Jason

Senior Member
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)

 

sulman

New Member
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.
 

Sgt.Tinfoil

Member
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
 

Jason

Senior Member
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
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
 

David

Member
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
This is from the manufacturer Sukhoi http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/
Service ceiling is 7 km.
 

Sgt.Tinfoil

Member
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
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.
 

Jason

Senior Member
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.
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
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
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.
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....
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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....
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
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
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.
 

Jason

Senior Member
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
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)
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
The video was uploaded June 18th. That was more than a month ago.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
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
http://www.ctka.net/2012/LHO_U2_Mark_Prior.html
 
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
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
If fighter planes are hiding 'behind' civilian flights, wouldn't the pilots notice? Have they reported anything like that?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
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".
 

MikeC

Closed Account
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.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So editwar in wikipedia equals now to proof the claim that SU-25 models do not varie on the cabibilities?
No the manufacturers specs and pilot experience are, and it equals proof the Russians were lying and tried to cover it up.
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.
Which doesn't change that they tried to edit the specs.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
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.
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.
 

CaptMal

New Member
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.
 

Elfenlied

Member
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.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
No - "everyone" is saying there is no evidence of such a military plane at all - not even in the Russian radar video where they claim there is such a thing.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
A Claims of Drug Overdose in the Death of George Floyd Current Events 35
derrick06 5G Health Claims and Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 16
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
Mick West Russian Claims of a "False Flag" Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria Current Events 10
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
MikeG Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study" Health and Quackery 5
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Chew Debunked: flat earth claims about lighthouse ranges Flat Earth 8
E Debunked: Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Lack of visible shell casings mean fake gun Conspiracy Theories 22
trevor Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Can People Run After Being Shot [Yes] Conspiracy Theories 41
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
Trailblazer Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's claims of aerial spraying over London on April 12 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Graham2001 'NASA worker' claims to have seen humans walking on Mars in 1979 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
CapnPegleg Debunked: Boyd Bushman, Area 51 scientist, claims existence of aliens in deathbed video [Hoax] Conspiracy Theories 16
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Lenny Pozner Forged Death Certificate Sandy Hook 13
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tobes Article in The Telegraph claims James Foley beheading video staged Conspiracy Theories 108
Dan Wilson Resources for Debunking GMO Toxicity Claims Health and Quackery 1
Mike Fl Debunked: Wolfgang W. Hablig's "Script" Claims Sandy Hook 5
Tobes Debunked: James Fetzer claims Shannon Hick's photo is "smoking gun" proof of a drill Sandy Hook 24
CapnPegleg Vegas Police Officers Shot - False Flag claims coming? Conspiracy Theories 32
nanotchi UniversalFreePress claims that " Democrats Plan to Repeal 1st Amendment Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeC Claims of Russia rigging the Crimean referendum General Discussion 11
Tobes Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red Boston Marathon Bombings 134
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Robbie Parker Is Actor Sandy Hook 40
zebra100 Businessman Claims he Saw ‘White Plane Image’ Under Water while Flying from Melbourn Flight MH370 0
vooke Debunked: Tim Ackers MH370 Debris Claims Flight MH370 15
Tobes Debunked: Dr. Stanley Monteith's claims about Jeff Bauman's injuries Boston Marathon Bombings 12
S RT claims BBC stages Syria chemical attack to propagate war. [BBC Responds] Conspiracy Theories 49
derwoodii Flight MH370: Oil Rig Worker Mike McKay claims to spot plane crashing near Vietnam Flight MH370 50
nanotchi Debunked: Iran claims Snowden Documents Proving “US-Alien-Hitler” Link Stun Russia [Sorcha Faal] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Look-up.org.uk claims to find Gulf of Guinea Chemtrails base Contrails and Chemtrails 13
deirdre Conspiracy Theorist Mark S. Mann claims of being a Ct. Police Officer and Firearms Industry Executiv Sandy Hook 4
John Smith Kevin Ryan's Claims about UL certifying steel components for the WTC 9/11 32
moderateGOP Poking holes in "Syrian Rebels" Claims about Chemical Weapons Use General Discussion 137
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts" Contrails and Chemtrails 207
Rroval Man Claims Mars Space Station Discovered On Google Mars (VIDEO, POLL) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
somnamblst Posting this in light of the "EMT" claims regarding Jeff Bauman Boston Marathon Bombings 6
HappyMonday 9/11 Claims 9/11 6
Boston GMO's myths and truths. Heavily noted review of the claims of the GMO giants General Discussion 191
chem_what Any debunkings of these ridiculous claims? Contrails and Chemtrails 2
rezn8d Aquiess & Sciblue Inc - Dubious claims about rainmaking technology General Discussion 100
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top