MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident

[Josh Heuer]

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)

British Prime Minister David Cameron said there was strong evidence that pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane with an anti-aircraft system known as Buk.

Russia on Monday again denied allegations that it had supplied such missiles or "any other weapons" to the rebels.

The defence ministry said a Ukrainian military plane had flown within firing range of the airliner just before it came down, but Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has rejected the claim.

Content from external source

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

 

[MikeC]

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

A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.
“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”
The presence of the Ukrainian military jet can be confirmed by video shots made by the Rostov monitoring center, Kartopolov stated.

Content from external source

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....

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

actually its vice versa, civilian aircrafts shouldn't use routes used by military aircrafts in a conflict

 

[MikeC]

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!!

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

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.

 

[MikeC]

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.

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

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.

 

[MikeC]

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

“Where known threats to civil aviation exist, States should assess and widely publish this information, or close the airspace. If States cannot discharge their responsibilities to manage their airspace safely, ICAO should play a leading role to alerting or prohibiting airlines from flying through known, hostile airspace,” Beatty further stated.

Content from external source

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.......

 

[Pete Tar]

The presence of the Ukrainian military jet can be confirmed by video shots made by the Rostov monitoring center, Kartopolov stated.

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/

In other words: since the Russian interceptors had downed a Su-25 on the previous days, the Ukrainian escorted all military and civil flights over eastern Ukraine on Jul. 17. Including MH17.

Content from external source

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.

On their radar screens, the sight of a large plane with two accompanying (or circling in CAP not too far away) fighter jets was completely new and may only mean the Ukrainians were escorting an important plane. And that would be the reason why they downed it without spending too much time analysing its transponder code and altitude.

Content from external source

Do the rebels even have radar screens?

 

[MikeC]

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



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.

 

[Libertarian]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-challe...7--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBEiLfPM1TfwUABWjQtDMD

"Russian air space control systems detected a Ukrainian Air Force plane, presumably an SU-25 (fighter jet), scrambling in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing ... The distance of the SU-25 plane from the Boeing was from 3 to 5 kilometres (2 to 3 miles)," Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev said.

"Earlier, Ukrainian officials said that on the day of the Boeing 777 crash there were no military aircraft in the region - as you can see this does not appear to be true."

Another officer, Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartopolov, said that, "whether it is a coincidence or not", a U.S. satellite had been monitoring the area at the time.

"We also have some questions for our U.S. partners," he said. "According to the U.S. declarations, they have satellite images that confirm the missile was launched by the rebels. But nobody has seen these images." "If the American side has pictures from this satellite, then they should show the international community."

Content from external source

Russia's claims of the Ukraine having military aircraft in the air coincides with the claims of purported Air Traffic Controller @spainbuca as follows:

http://slavyangrad.wordpress.com/20...rport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/

11:48 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B 777 voló escoltado por 2 cazas de ukraine hasta minutos antes, de desaparecer de los radares,

The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar,

11:54 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Sí las autoridades de kiev, quieren decir la verdad, esta recogido 2 cazas volaron muy cerca minutos antes , no lo derribo un caza

“If kiev authorities want to tell the truth, It´s gathered, 2 jet fighters flew very close minutes before, wasn’t downed by a fighter”

Content from external source

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.

 

[MikeC]

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.

 

[TEEJ]

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?

 

[TEEJ]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-33.html#post8573463

Unfortunately it looks likely that the NATO E-3 wasn't able to record MH17 over Eastern Ukraine due to range?


http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-33.html#post8573489

http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/nato...a-si-polonia-in-tragedia-din-ucraina-12941894

 

[Pete Tar]

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.

 

[Sgt.Tinfoil]

Link to the press conference
Link to the Russian militarys site to radar video
http://stat.multimedia.mil.ru/multimedia/video/clips/more.htm?id=5086@morfVideoAudioFile

 

[TWCobra]

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.

 

[Pete Tar]

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.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852656
If perception is reality, then the Russian population would assume that thedowning of Malaysia Airlines MH17 was the work of the Ukrainians—with the help of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, or vice versa.

Just one day after the horrific tragedy that left 298 people dead, Russia'sChannel One ran a package telling its audience that the entire incident was orchestrated by the United States, specifically by the CIA.

Content from external source

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

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.

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

 

[Jason]

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

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.

 

[Hevach]

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."

 

[vooke]

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

 

[Sgt.Tinfoil]

You mean they are yet to figure out if it was a surface-to-air or air-to-air missile?

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

 

[Juha]

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



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.

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.

 

[Jason]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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

No, it's Air India 113. The other plane is Singapore 351
Confirmed by FlightRadar24.com data.

 

[David Coulter]

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

The shrapnel damage photos on the Flight MH17 News thread look pretty compelling. The photo source and discussion is in a report in the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1d6a9ac2-10e3-11e4-b116-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38D7cynSD

 

[Jason]

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

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)...

 

[Mick West]

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

 

[Mick West]

Shrapnel discussion:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

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.

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)

 

[Juha]

No, it's Air India 113. The other plane is Singapore 351
Confirmed by FlightRadar24.com data.

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.

 

[MikeC]

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"

 

[Libertarian]

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:

 

[Jason]

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

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.

 

[MikeC]

So now the US is saying that its' only evidence is youtube clips and social media posts.

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.

 

[Libertarian]

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.

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?

 

[MikeC]

Well Assad did have nerve gas....so I guess that makes them an even coin toss.

Edit: apparently that is not considered "proof" - which of course it isn't - but it is evidence.

So here's some more evidence.

 

[Jason]

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?

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..

 

[WeedWhacker]

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

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

A U.S. spy satellite detected the launch of a surface-to-air missile in the area just before the plane went down.

Content from external source