MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident

[David Coulter]

We can say that the Russians gave us a nice peace of information here, something the Ukrainians or Americans have not given.
But it is not without a reason that Russia gives this information....

The key evidence is that the object has no lateral motion in relation to the fixed blue lines of the Russia border. Airplanes can't hover! I think people are confused by the motion of the two other planes, the supposed SU25 is not moving.

 

[TEEJ]

The Russian Military Brief video has been posted in the above post. Obviously things can be lost in translation. The following is from the Russian Embassy in the UK.

22.07.2014

Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014
Speech of the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate – the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Lieutenant-

General A.V.Kartapolov

Dear representatives of mass media!

Ladies and gentlemen!
After the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 accident on July 17, following the international airway Amsterdam - Kuala Lumpur, we can find quantity of conflicted
information. In this case the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense considers necessary to submit information having at the General Staff disposal. On the
scheme you can see the international airway. The Boeing-777 was supposed to fly on this airway. Draw your attention to the fact that the aircraft followed
inside the specified air-corridor to Donetsk, then it deviated from the route to north. Meanwhile the maximum distance from the left border of the air-corridor
was 14 kilometers.

Then we can see that the Boeing-777 turned back to the borders of the specified air-corridor. Nevertheless Malaysian aircrew didn’t succeed the maneuver. At
17.20 we entered the event of the aircraft rate reduction, at 17.23 the aircraft’s point blinked off on the radar. Why did the aircraft cross the border of the air-
corridor? Was it the navigation mistake, or the aircrew followed the Dnepropetrovsk ground control orders? We will find the answers after “black boxes” and
communication decoding. According to our information on the day of the accident the Ukrainian Armed Forces deployed 3 to 4 artillery battalions of Buk-M1
missile system not far from Donetsk. The system allows hitting the targets on the distance up to 35 kilometers and on the altitude to 22 kilometers. Why did the

Ukrainian Armed Forces deploy these air defense units in the Donetsk region?As we know militants don’t have aircrafts. On the scheme we can see that both
projected impact point and the airway are inside the air defense battle zone of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Buk-M1 missile system. We have satellite photos
of the Ukrainian Air Defense systems deployed in the South-East of the country.

The first 3 photos are dated July 14, 2014:
On the first photo you can see the Buk missile systems deployed 8 kilometers north-west to Luhansk. On the photo you can see clearly a self-propelled launch
system and 2 loading vehicles.

On the second photo you can see radars deployed 5 kilometers north to Donetsk. We can see 2 radars, different equipment and facilities.

On the third photo we can see air defense equipment deployed north to Donetsk. You can see clearly self-propelled launch system with turned launch shoe and
near 60 units of military and special-proposed equipment, mounted defilades and facilities.

Here you can see a photo of the same area on July 17. Draw your attention that the antiaircraft system is absent on this photo.
On the fifth photo we can see Buk-M1 artillery battalion deployed 50 kilometers east to Donetsk and 8 kilometers south to Shakhtarsk. We can answer: why
the battalion was deployed near to the territory controlled by militants just before the accident?

On the photo of same area dated July 18 we can see that the battery left the occupied position. Besides it, on July 17 we detected increased activity of
Ukrainian radars 9S18 Kupol-M1 of the Buk missile system.

On the photo you can see that 7 radars worked on July 15, 8 radars on July 16, and 9 radars on July 17. Since July 18 there are only 2-3 radars per twenty-
four hours. We shall find out the reasons for the events.

I want to expose air situation in Donetsk area that day. On the picture you can see information of objective control since 17.10 to 17.30 Moscow time.
At that time there were 3 civilian aircrafts:
Flight from Copenhagen to Singapore at 17.17;
Flight from Paris to Taipei at 17.24
Flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Besides it, Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards
toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.

Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10000 meters for a short time. It is armed with air-to-air missile R-60 able to lock-on and destroy target at a distance of 12
kilometers, and destroy it definitely at a distance of 5 kilometers. What was the mission of the combat aircraft on the airway of civilian aircrafts almost at the
same time and same altitude with the civilian craft? We want to have this question answered.

The video of the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic Management System can corroborate the information. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev will comment the video.

Commentary of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force of the Russian Federation Lieutenant-General I.Y.Makushev

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
Today the Aircraft Air Traffic control has acquired some objective control materials from the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic Management System.
The video presents the air control information on air situation in the region of Donetsk in the period from 17.19 P.M. to 17.25 P.M. Moscow time on July 17,
2014. In the upper left corner there is a Boeing-772 mark, following the route from Copenhagen to Singapore. Under this point there is another aircraft, it is
Boeing-777 mark, which is on his way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. And on its right there is a Boeing-778 mark making its way from Delhi to
Birmingham.

All the three aircraft have been steadily monitored by the three radar stations of the air traffic control of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian
Federation. Boeing-777 is moving towards the Russian Federation state boundary and is to cross it in the point of «TONAK». An air traffic control officer has
been controlling the aircraft flight and keeps on enquiring its flight variables to compare them with the given ones. At 17.20 P.M. at the distance of 51 kilometers
from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 300 degrees the aircraft started to lose its speed obstructively which is quite distinctively to be
seen on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21 35 seconds P.M. with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of the Boeing crash there is a new
mark of the aircraft to be seen. The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period. Air control
officer having enquired the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft couldn’t possibly get them because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary
deduction system amounted on it, which is put typically for military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air
situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.
The detection of the aircraft turned out to be possible as the aircraft ascend it.

The further aircraft flight variables changes on its route testified the fact that it is now flying in the area of Boeing crash and is monitoring the situation. Earlier the
Ukrainian officials reported that on the day of the Boeing-777 accident there were no military aircraft available in the region. So, as you can see, it is not
appeared to be true. Thank you for your attention.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we also have some questions to our US partners.According to the statement of the US representatives they have some pictures from
the space supporting that missile launching was made by the militants.But nobody has seen these pictures.

According to our dates from 17:06 till 17:21 Moscow time on the July 17 over the South-Eastern territory of Ukraine flew US space satellite. This is a special
device of the experimental space system designed to detect and track various missiles launches. If the US party has photos made by the satellite, please let us
ask them to show the world’s community for further investigation.

Is it coincidence or not? However the time of the Malaysian Boeing-777 accident and the time of the observation done by the satellite over the Ukrainian
territory are the same. To conclude it I would like to mention that all the concrete information is based on the objective and reliable dates of the different
Russian equipment in contrast to the accusations of the US against us made without any evidence.The good example of such fact is that some mass media
showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the
city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road.

This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
That is why we have some questions. What kind of launching system is it? Where is it transported? Where is it now? Why is it unloaded completely?
What was the last time it launched missiles? To end my speech I would like to emphasize that the Russian Federation did not deliver to the militants any Buk-M1 missiles systems and other equipment. All the dates prepared by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will be transmitted today to the experts of the European countries and Malaysia.
I hope these dates will help to make the reliable investigation of the tragedy that happened on the July 17 over Donetsk. The Ministry of Defense will continue to inform you about the newly
revealed facts connected with the air disaster of Malaysian Boeing-777.
Thank you for your attention.

Content from external source

http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

I wonder if SIA pilots could actually see the moment of explosion since they were only some 20-30 miles behind and probably had MH17 in sight?

 

[David Coulter]

According to our dates from 17:06 till 17:21 Moscow time on the July 17 over the South-Eastern territory of Ukraine flew US space satellite. This is a special device of the experimental space system designed to detect and track various missiles launches. If the US party has photos made by the satellite, please let us ask them to show the world’s community for further investigation.

Content from external source

Of course! We would like to see what you can collect with your latest systems. For some reason I don't see that happening....

 

[MikeC]

I have looked at the video in detail, the video I used is this one (because it is the first one I saw):

Nice presentation!

 

[WeedWhacker]

I wonder if SIA pilots could actually see the moment of explosion since they were only some 20-30 miles behind and probably had MH17 in sight?

20 miles is way too far to have seen anything....sorry. (Unless you were straining to look....even then, it's pretty damned far).

 

[Tomaira]

• The coupling process fails at the time of the missile strike, as evidenced by the appearance of a square. Logically, the result of catastrophic system failure on the aircraft is that the transponder fails to squawk the required code anymore, forcing a decouple.
• what is left once the FPL decouples and the SSR data is gone due to transponder failure is the Primary Surveillance radar paint of MH17. This paint is co-located with the square from the Flight Plan, they diverge as the projected FPL position of MH17 moves away based on expected normal speed of a B777, from its actual (damage and falling wreckage) location as per the PSR
• The radar paint that the RU MOD tries to describe as the phantom SU25 is in fact the MH17 primary paint of what is now falling wreckage

Content from external source

Details here, looks solid to me.

http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

thanks, I wondered how far pilots could actually see in a clear weather

 

[David Coulter]

• The coupling process fails at the time of the missile strike, as evidenced by the appearance of a square. Logically, the result of catastrophic system failure on the aircraft is that the transponder fails to squawk the required code anymore, forcing a decouple.
• what is left once the FPL decouples and the SSR data is gone due to transponder failure is the Primary Surveillance radar paint of MH17. This paint is co-located with the square from the Flight Plan, they diverge as the projected FPL position of MH17 moves away based on expected normal speed of a B777, from its actual (damage and falling wreckage) location as per the PSR
• The radar paint that the RU MOD tries to describe as the phantom SU25 is in fact the MH17 primary paint of what is now falling wreckage

Content from external source

Details here, looks solid to me.

http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/

Yes, the blog has useful information, particularly the explanation of the meaning of the round and square identifiers. I do wonder why MH17 had a box around its details, whereas the other flights did not.

 

[Master Yoda]

Any guys here with some radar knowledge? I find it quite strange that the Russians said their radar couldn't detect planes below 5000 meters at that distance. AFAIK Radar minimal detection height is getting increased by mountains etc. or by the curvature of the earth, which is 196m on 50km distance resp. 785m on 100km distance. Rostov is almost sea Level (70m above), Torez is on 262m. The Region generally looks quite flat.

That claim sounds a bit strange to me.

 

[Mick West]

Any guys here with some radar knowledge? I find it quite strange that the Russians said their radar couldn't detect planes below 5000 meters at that distance. AFAIK Radar minimal detection height is getting increased by mountains etc. or by the curvature of the earth, which is 196m on 50km distance resp. 785m on 100km distance. Rostov is almost sea Level (70m above), Torez is on 262m. The Region generally looks quite flat.

That claim sounds a bit strange to me.

Did they say where their radar is?

 

[Master Yoda]

@Mick

"The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period."

Ust-Donetsk is about 170km from Tores. I can't find a place called Butirinskoe on Google-Earth.

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

they don't want to reveal real capabilities

 

[Libertarian]

Here is a video report done by the BBC which was deleted shortly after it was put out. In it multiple eye witnesses claim seeing military aircraft next to/under the civilian plane.

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

 

[Mick West]

Here is a video report done by the BBC which was deleted shortly after it was put out. In it multiple eye witnesses claim seeing military aircraft next to/under the civilian plane.

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

A fighter jet would be invisible at 33,000 feet. It's too small.

Seems far more likely they saw one of the other two large planes that were in the region. And judging relative position is very hard for anyone to do. A plane at 37,000 feet, but several more miles away can look like it is "below" another plane that it is actually above.

 

[David Coulter]

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

Content from external source

Eyewitnesses to air crashes often see things that are not there. Witnesses often report that an aircraft was on fire before a crash when it was not - the fire of the crash seems to leak backward into their memory. The "airplane" that the one woman saw may well have been the center section of MH17 which does appear to have curved around to the NE before crashing. The center section was not on fire and might well look like another aircraft (see video below and note that there is no smoke or fire trail prior to impact).

The BBC video was apparently taken down because the reporter referred to the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than the BBC approved term "separatists".

 

[Juha]

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

Content from external source

Eyewitnesses to air crashes often see things that are not there. Witnesses often report that an aircraft was on fire before a crash when it was not - the fire of the crash seems to leak backward into their memory. The "airplane" that the one woman saw may well have been the center section of MH17 which does appear to have curved around to the NE before crashing. The center section was not on fire and might well look like another aircraft (see video below and note that there is no smoke or fire trail prior to impact).

The BBC video was apparently taken down because the reporter referred to the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than the BBC approved term "separatists".

And if you look that video's background, you see the overcast.
I don't know about witnesses, but I can't see trough clouds.

 

[Miss VocalCord]

Maybe slightly side track to this topic; but I came across this youtube video:
Claiming the Singapore Airlines flew right behind Flight MH17.

However when you look at the places where he claims the MH17 crash happened (e.g. Novoshakhtinsk and Shakhty) you will see these are all places in Russia not the Ukraine.
It seems to me he has been using some flightradar site which does some kind of prediction of the flight path.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe slightly side track to this topic; but I came across this youtube video:
Claiming the Singapore Airlines flew right behind Flight MH17.

However when you look at the places where he claims the MH17 crash happened (e.g. Novoshakhtinsk and Shakhty) you will see these are all places in Russia not the Ukraine.
It seems to me he has been using some flightradar site which does some kind of prediction of the flight path.

This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:

 

[Miss VocalCord]

This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:

Ah, great video. I tried to do it myself, however fligthrader24 seems restricted to only a week playback since a little while now.

 

[Trailspotter]

Ah, great video. I tried to do it myself, however fligthrader24 seems restricted to only a week playback since a little while now.

Indeed, the Flightradar24 playback has been changed this morning spotting a new window but grossly restricted back time.

 

[SR1419]

This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:

Is it possible to go farther back on the flight path? This video claims ( at ~1:10) the plane took a divergent path from the normal route....and that was directed by Ukraine ATC. Do we know that to be true? ( the whole movie is a gish gallop based on incredulity)

 

[Juha]

Is it possible to go farther back on the flight path? This video claims ( at ~1:10) the plane took a divergent path from the normal route....and that was directed by Ukraine ATC. Do we know that to be true? ( the whole movie is a gish gallop based on incredulity)

Very slight correction of course, maybe due weather. It's still in route L980 limits.

 

[mennie]

For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.

 

[Mick West]

Indeed, the Flightradar24 playback has been changed this morning spotting a new window but grossly restricted back time.

Premium version lets you go back two months.

 

[Jason]

For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.

I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?

 

[Mick West]

For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.

Here I've attached the JSON for the FR24 data for the flight, it could probably be munged into a KML.

 

[Mick West]

I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?

No, it's because you don't have Google Earth.
http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html

 

[Jason]

No, it's because you don't have Google Earth.
http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html

You're right, downloading it now, thanks. Love the green tab on the top left corner of our avatar so we know who's online, great addition

 

[Elfenlied]

As others pointed out the spokesperson was very careful with what she said, and she she clearly alluded to other sources. You obviously would like the US to disclose everything but there is no way that will happen in order to protect "sources and methods". The woman in the video would definitely not have a security clearance and so could not possibly explain all of the assets that were used.

Is this a reference to the spokeswoman of the State Department, Marie Harf? If so, you might want to check her bio before stating she "would definitely not have a security clearance".

Prior to joining President Obama’s re-election campaign, Ms. Harf was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Media Spokesperson. She crafted the CIA’s media strategy on a wide range of sensitive national security and intelligence topics.

Ms. Harf began her federal government career in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence, where she was an analyst on Middle East leadership issues. She produced finished intelligence products -- including items for the President’s Daily Brief -- on top foreign policy priorities, providing insight and context while identifying risks and opportunities for the United States.

Ms. Harf received her Master’s degree in Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia, where her thesis evaluated the prospects for continued regime stability in Saudi Arabia. She graduated with honors from Indiana University, earning a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science with concentrations in Jewish Studies and Russian and Eastern European Studies.

Content from external source

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/220636.htm

 

[Pete Tar]

That only proves she may have had clearance in the past, not her current clearance status, as she left her previous position.

 

[Jason]

That only proves she may have had clearance in the past, not her current clearance status, as she left her previous position.

If you had top level clearance in the past, and you've been promoted to another job by the President of the US, do you think she would still have a security clearance or does the gency pull them from her. How does that work?

 

[WeedWhacker]

I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?

I realize that this post is a bit off the topic, but since FR24 is referenced so often, I though I'd mention that "FlightAware" has modified their website, to "compete" (I guess) with FR:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...All_Planes_Nearby_Airports_Premium_Map_Layers

You can now view all the nearby flights when tracking a flight; FlightAware will display all the air traffic around flights that you're tracking. Click the "+" in the upper right of the map and check the "Nearby Flights" The nearby flights will automatically load and display the airplane icons on the map. You can hover over a flight for more information, or click on it to go to a flight's tracking page.

Content from external source

I mention this because "FA" is adding more ADS-B coverage as well. And, as a pilot, I tend to prefer the FA content as being a bit more comprehensive.

(Side-bar)...Using 'FA' when someone you know is flying, whether en-route to or away from your location? It is SO easy to "track" them, and part of the "fun". PLUS, you can tie-in to ATC (if you want...but, that's another website: liveatc.net).

 

[Jason]

I realize that this post is a bit off the topic, but since FR24 is referenced so often, I though I'd mention that "FlightAware" has modified their website, to "compete" (I guess) with FR:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...All_Planes_Nearby_Airports_Premium_Map_Layers

You can now view all the nearby flights when tracking a flight; FlightAware will display all the air traffic around flights that you're tracking. Click the "+" in the upper right of the map and check the "Nearby Flights" The nearby flights will automatically load and display the airplane icons on the map. You can hover over a flight for more information, or click on it to go to a flight's tracking page.

Content from external source

I mention this because "FA" is adding more ADS-B coverage as well. And, as a pilot, I tend to prefer the FA content as being a bit more comprehensive.

Which is better for a novice or just better all around?

 

[Pete Tar]

If you had top level clearance in the past, and you've been promoted to another job by the President of the US, do you think she would still have a security clearance or does the gency pull them from her. How does that work?

I doubt she is out of the loop completely or anything like that, but I imagine clearance is based on your current job status, not a life-time membership thing.

Edit...
But it's likely it was transferred if her job requires it still -

4. How is it decided what level of clearance a person receives?
The Bureau of Human Resources determines whether a Department of State position will require a security clearance, as well as the level required, based upon the duties and responsibilities of the position.
...
6. What work does each clearance allow a person to do?
A clearance allows a person filling a specific position to have access to classified national security information up to and including the level of clearance that they hold, so long as the person has a need to know the information.
7. Will my clearance be transferable to other federal agencies?
Federal agencies will normally accept another agency's investigation as the basis for granting a security clearance, provided your last security clearance investigation was completed within the past 5 years for a Top Secret clearance and 10 years for a Secret clearance, and you have not had a break in service of more than 2 years. Also considered is whether there have been any significant changes in your situation since your last investigation. Some federal agencies might have additional investigative or adjudicative requirements that must be met prior to their accepting a clearance granted by another agency.
http://www.military.com/veteran-job...s-department-of-state-security-clearance.html

Content from external source

 

[Jason]

I doubt she is out of the loop completely or anything like that, but I imagine clearance is based on your current job status, not a life-time membership thing.

So it's not like the "Godfather".

 

[WeedWhacker]

Which is better for a novice or just better all around?

I guess.....FR24 is more "novice-oriented". BUT....I'd suggest immersing ("immersion"?) into FlightAware, just as a learning experience.

 

[MikeC]

A spokesperson's security clearance or otherwise isn't really important - it isn't going to be high - even if it is with the CIA - it's going to be enough to "know" just a little more than is released to the public in order to make that release sound "good".

This aspect of the discussion is a red herring - a favourite way for CT's to steer discussion away from specifics and into speculation, so let's try to avoid it here please!

 

[Elfenlied]

A spokesperson's security clearance or otherwise isn't really important - it isn't going to be high - even if it is with the CIA - it's going to be enough to "know" just a little more than is released to the public in order to make that release sound "good".

This aspect of the discussion is a red herring - a favourite way for CT's to steer discussion away from specifics and into speculation, so let's try to avoid it here please!

If you're going to resort to that kind of insinuations, then I'm out of here.

 

[Pete Tar]

Don't take it personally - you replied to a point, I replied to your point, someone else replied to my point, etc. Yes it's now kind of off-topic.
Your point was valid in context, too much attention and it gets off-topic. It's a minor aside.