Malaysian Airliner crashes in Ukraine

[Thellonya]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/2 ... 05162.html
Gotta love how the EU is being such a fucking coward and bowing down to putin.

Hey, you just murdered our citizens! We arent gonna do jack SHIT!

Fucking cowards. Russia should get fucking hammered with sanctions for shit like this.

[Kamchastkia]

You don't have to fly at the same altitude as another plane to shoot it down. But then again, random guys on nationstates know everything about the capabilities of military aircraft.

Hurr durr, very snippy.
Suhkoi officially said that the top flight ceiling of a loaded aircraft is 5km, and a R-60 missile has a range of 8 km, that makes a flight difference of more then 100km in range, assuming the aircraft could even lock onto it with the nose mounted radar. But what do I know? I only have the official statistics from the manufacturer and Russian defense ministry. You RT apologists need to stop grasping at straws and attacking our intelligence.

You got me, I get paid $100,000,000 a year to make these posts for RT.

[Kamchastkia]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/russia-sanctions-mh17_n_5605162.html
Gotta love how the EU is being such a fucking coward and bowing down to putin.

Hey, you just murdered our citizens! We arent gonna do jack SHIT!

Fucking cowards. Russia should get fucking hammered with sanctions for shit like this.

Prove it.

[Registug]

Hurr durr, very snippy.
Suhkoi officially said that the top flight ceiling of a loaded aircraft is 5km, and a R-60 missile has a range of 8 km, that makes a flight difference of more then 100km in range, assuming the aircraft could even lock onto it with the nose mounted radar. But what do I know? I only have the official statistics from the manufacturer and Russian defense ministry. You RT apologists need to stop grasping at straws and attacking our intelligence.

You got me, I get paid $100,000,000 a year to make these posts for RT.

the wording of this post implies to me that you don't agree with Sukhoi's statistics but you have nothing to back up your claims.

[The Worlds Widest Web]

Malaysia cannot into flight.

[Vedria]

Actually, I don't think Russia should be given sanctions until we can confirm that they shot down the plane.

I mean, it could be a dickhead rebel with some old Cold-War SAMs.

[Thellonya]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/russia-sanctions-mh17_n_5605162.html
Gotta love how the EU is being such a fucking coward and bowing down to putin.

Hey, you just murdered our citizens! We arent gonna do jack SHIT!

Fucking cowards. Russia should get fucking hammered with sanctions for shit like this.

Prove it.

Aight mr pro russian. Splain my mr putin didnt use his influence with the rebels to force them to open up earlier instead of waiting all this time and destroying all kinds of potential evidence hmm?

[The Republic of Merrimont]

Hurr durr, very snippy.
Suhkoi officially said that the top flight ceiling of a loaded aircraft is 5km, and a R-60 missile has a range of 8 km, that makes a flight difference of more then 100km in range, assuming the aircraft could even lock onto it with the nose mounted radar. But what do I know? I only have the official statistics from the manufacturer and Russian defense ministry. You RT apologists need to stop grasping at straws and attacking our intelligence.

You got me, I get paid $100,000,000 a year to make these posts for RT.

Wow great job ignoring the statistics he just said....

[Neoconstantius]

You got me, I get paid $100,000,000 a year to make these posts for RT.

the wording of this post implies to me that you don't agree with Sukhoi's statistics but you have nothing to back up your claims.

I don't necessarily buy into anything Russia's been selling lately, but here's what I see as proof that the Su-25 service ceiling has been misrepresented due to competing interests.

Source: The Pocket Military Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces, published by Hamlyn in 2001

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Prove it.

Aight mr pro russian. Splain my mr putin didnt use his influence with the rebels to force them to open up earlier instead of waiting all this time and destroying all kinds of potential evidence hmm?

Except it seems they weren't destroying evidence. According to an article posted by Neoconstantius from a Dutch-language source, the separatists have been 'cooperative' and one of the experts sent to inspect the bodies commented that he was 'impressed' with how they were handling the situation, and I quote:

Peter van Vliet, the leader of the expert team, is quoted as saying "I think they did a hell of a job in a hell of a place".

If you happen to speak Dutch:
http://nos.nl/artikel/677475-experts-tr ... g-weg.html

And a Malaysian delegate has reported that they rebels are going to turn over the flight recorders:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/wo ... &referrer=

So perhaps he did, in fact, "use his influence" as you say. Sometimes things, and I know this may startle you, take time. Especially in a situation like this.

[Vedria]

Prove it.

Aight mr pro russian. Splain my mr putin didnt use his influence with the rebels to force them to open up earlier instead of waiting all this time and destroying all kinds of potential evidence hmm?

What kind of potential evidence?

Seriously, we can figure out how a plane crashed in the ocean. Seawater is corrosive as fuck. Meaning, we have techniques that are probably able to succeed even with tampering.

[Registug]

the wording of this post implies to me that you don't agree with Sukhoi's statistics but you have nothing to back up your claims.

I don't necessarily buy into anything Russia's been selling lately, but here's what I see as proof that the Su-25 service ceiling has been misrepresented due to competing interests.

Source: The Pocket Military Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces, published by Hamlyn in 2001

A real source!

Is that service ceiling loaded or unloaded though? Oale specifically mentioned a height of 5km with a combat load. We'll need to look into it more.

[The Republic of Merrimont]

I don't necessarily buy into anything Russia's been selling lately, but here's what I see as proof that the Su-25 service ceiling has been misrepresented due to competing interests.

Source: The Pocket Military Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces, published by Hamlyn in 2001

A real source!

Is that service ceiling loaded or unloaded though? Oale specifically mentioned a height of 5km with a combat load. We'll need to look into it more.

Well with a full combat load you get this

Then again the su-25 is designed for CAS basically Russia's version of a a-10 it is not designed for anti air combat

[Neoconstantius]

I don't necessarily buy into anything Russia's been selling lately, but here's what I see as proof that the Su-25 service ceiling has been misrepresented due to competing interests.

Source: The Pocket Military Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces, published by Hamlyn in 2001

A real source!

Is that service ceiling loaded or unloaded though? Oale specifically mentioned a height of 5km with a combat load. We'll need to look into it more.

That's what I was wondering as well. Seeing as the Su-25 is a close support aircraft, it didn't necessarily need to have a full bomb payload if it was in fact deployed to its maximum operational ceiling.

[Greater Beggnig]

Wait, was MH17 supposedly escorted by Su-27's or Su-25's?
There's a big difference between this:

And this:

[Neoconstantius]

Wait, was MH17 supposedly escorted by Su-27's or Su-25's?
There's a big difference between this:

(Image)

And this:

(Image)

A big difference indeed. I've been hearing it was allegedly an Su-25, but if it was an Su-27 that changes things significantly. They have an operational ceiling upwards of 60000 feet.

[Hasmonea]

It should be noted that those specifications are for the Su-25TM (aka Su-39), an improved version fielded only by Russia...

Ukraine's most advanced version of the Su-25 in service, Su-25M1, has (according to the only source I have been able to find) a flight ceiling of 5,000 to 10,000 m. Highly ambiguous, though its fairly obvious that the ceiling varies with the load of the aircraft.

[Registug]

A real source!

Is that service ceiling loaded or unloaded though? Oale specifically mentioned a height of 5km with a combat load. We'll need to look into it more.

That's what I was wondering as well. Seeing as the Su-25 is a close support aircraft, it didn't necessarily need to have a full bomb payload if it was in fact deployed to its maximum operational ceiling.

There's too many unknowns and variables for us to say that the Su-25 shot down MH17. I'm more inclined to believe that an Su-25 being nearby to MH17 led whoever shot it down to believe that MH17 was a Ukrainian military transport with fighter escort.

[Neoconstantius]

That's what I was wondering as well. Seeing as the Su-25 is a close support aircraft, it didn't necessarily need to have a full bomb payload if it was in fact deployed to its maximum operational ceiling.

There's too many unknowns and variables for us to say that the Su-25 shot down MH17. I'm more inclined to believe that an Su-25 being nearby to MH17 led whoever shot it down to believe that MH17 was a Ukrainian military transport with fighter escort.

This seems likely. If the Ukrainian military had intended to shoot down MH17, they probably would've sent an aircraft more suited to the task.

What I wondered from the beginning of this, however, was whether it was based solely on rebel error/incompetence or if there was some level of deception involved on the part of Kiev to trick the rebels into thinking this was in fact another military transport, and thereby draw international attention and support for Ukraine and condemnation for the rebels. If this is the case it has certainly proven to be effective.

[Wasyt]

You don't have to fly at the same altitude as another plane to shoot it down. But then again, random guys on nationstates know everything about the capabilities of military aircraft.

Hurr durr, very snippy.
Suhkoi officially said that the top flight ceiling of a loaded aircraft is 5km

The 5,000 meters maximum altitude is for a fully loaded aircraft, which means 8800lbs of armament. So we can safely assume that if the aircraft was only equipped with 1 or 2 R-60 AA Missiles, it's still probably able to nearly reach 7,000 meters.

Sources:
Su-25 Specifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su- ... duction.29
RA-60 Weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_%28missile%29

a R-60 missile has a range of 8 km, that makes a flight difference of more then 100km in range,

Jesus Christ. The Su-25 was 3 to 5km behind the airliner, and somewhere between near 3km below it.
Therefore, according to the informations we got, the Su-25's RA-60 missiles were always in range.

Sources you may ask ? Here, I drew you a graph showing you how the Su-25 was always in engagement range.

assuming the aircraft could even lock onto it with the nose mounted radar.
But what do I know? I only have the official statistics from the manufacturer and Russian defense ministry. You RT apologists need to stop grasping at straws and attacking our intelligence.

The targeting system is very versatile and can aim upwards and downwards to ground and air targets, now perhaps next time you shouldn't pretend you know what you're talking about when you actually don't.

[Oaledonia]

The 5,000 meters maximum altitude is for a fully loaded aircraft, which means 8800lbs of armament. So we can safely assume that if the aircraft was only equipped with 1 or 2 R-60 AA Missiles, it's still probably able to nearly reach 7,000 meters.

No, I cannot "safely assume it", because it would mean that I accept the Ukraine shot it down.

The Su-25 was 3 to 5km behind the airliner, and somewhere between near 3km below it.

{Citation needed}, no RT please :3
If it was there, others would cover it.

The targeting system is very versatile and can aim upwards and downwards to ground and air targets, now perhaps next time you shouldn't pretend you know what you're talking about when you actually don't.

FFs, 2edgy. But, the ASP-17BTs-8M2 targeting sight for the R-60 is very limited in order to make room for the DISS dopler navigation radar, which both are mounted in the nose. This is because the aircraft is CAS, not anti-air. According to a book dedicated simply to the aircraft the targeting sight for the radar only had an unrestricted scan of +/- 2,000m So, using your chart:

The red lines represent the area in which the aircraft can lock onto another.

[Imperializt Russia]

Frogfoots and A-10s usually carry something resembling a sidewinder or two, it would be stupid otherwise.

RT, however, is stupider for implying that it could reach those heights and shoot the plane down.

RT is not implying it. The image "Image courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry" clearly shows the SU-25 fighter at H(eight) 10,000M. Are you seriously suggesting that the Russian Defense Ministry would go around handing out deliberately false evidence?

I'm seriously suggesting that the Russian Defence Ministry is providing an image of a four-engine commercial airliner to represent a twin-engine Boeing 777, and an EF-111 Raven (an American electronic warfare aircraft) to represent an Su-25.

An Su-25 is wholly incapable of making any kind of intercept at that altitude, and falls three kilometres short of that ceiling even without a warload.
Interception of aircraft is not in any part of the Su-25's remit.
I'm awaiting a retraction where RT apologises for misidentification and says that it meant the Su-27

Can you decide already? Is it "Russian" or the "Soviet" habit of "lying outright". 'cause in 1983 both Russia and the Ukraine were just parts of the USSR.

Russia is the direct successor state of the USSR, so Russia=USSR in a loose sense. It's why treaties signed with the USSR carried over to the Russian Federation.

Russia is the direct successor state of the RSFSR, a constituent of the Soviet Union.
The USSR has many "direct successor states", none more direct than the other.

It bothers me a little that Malaysian Airlines was focused more on getting to their destination faster than getting there safely. I mean one of their planes already vanished without a trace. Maybe they should've taken that as a sign to be a little more careful?

Six other airlines were operating over east Ukraine without incident.

Indeed. It could easily have been Singapore Airlines SQ351 instead.


http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-singapore-airlines-plane-sq351-was-abou

Is that an Aeroflot flight heading in the opposite direction?

No, I think Aeroflot uses the flight code SU. Aside from one aircraft over central Ukraine, all SU aircraft are over Russian territory in that image.

http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3486

You don't have to fly at the same altitude as another plane to shoot it down. But then again, random guys on nationstates know everything about the capabilities of military aircraft.

Random guys on Nationstates think to look at Sukhoi's (the manufacturer of the Su-25) official statistics for the aircraft claimed to have been flying at ten thousand metres. Official statistics that do not support any capability to operate at or reach, under any circumstances, ten thousand metres altitude.

the wording of this post implies to me that you don't agree with Sukhoi's statistics but you have nothing to back up your claims.

I don't necessarily buy into anything Russia's been selling lately, but here's what I see as proof that the Su-25 service ceiling has been misrepresented due to competing interests.

Source: The Pocket Military Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces, published by Hamlyn in 2001

The manufacturer website has shown a maximum, unladen flight ceiling of 7000m since October 2007 (the earliest captured example of the page).
http://web.archive.org/web/200710230538 ... su25k/lth/
This is with the Su-25K fitted with the slightly more powerful R-195 engine, rather than the stock R-95.

It should be noted that those specifications are for the Su-25TM (aka Su-39), an improved version fielded only by Russia...

Ukraine's most advanced version of the Su-25 in service, Su-25M1, has (according to the only source I have been able to find) a flight ceiling of 5,000 to 10,000 m. Highly ambiguous, though its fairly obvious that the ceiling varies with the load of the aircraft.

The Su-39 uses the R-195 engine while the stock Su-25 family use the R-95 engine. The R-195 is barely more powerful, and is fitted to the Su-25K, sold for export by Sukhoi - which for at least seven years has reported a best-case, unloaded flight ceiling of seven thousand metres.

I don't think there are suddenly 3-5 kilometres of altitude you can magically squeeze from the Su-39 that aren't available to the Su-25.

Hurr durr, very snippy.
Suhkoi officially said that the top flight ceiling of a loaded aircraft is 5km

The 5,000 meters maximum altitude is for a fully loaded aircraft, which means 8800lbs of armament. So we can safely assume that if the aircraft was only equipped with 1 or 2 R-60 AA Missiles, it's still probably able to nearly reach 7,000 meters.

Sources:
Su-25 Specifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su- ... duction.29
RA-60 Weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_%28missile%29

It's not just the weight, but also the drag. Even fitting a load of two R-60s, and why the hell would you, when Ukraine has aircraft far more suited to capability for conducting combat air patrol, would impede flight performance.

assuming the aircraft could even lock onto it with the nose mounted radar.
But what do I know? I only have the official statistics from the manufacturer and Russian defense ministry. You RT apologists need to stop grasping at straws and attacking our intelligence.

The targeting system is very versatile and can aim upwards and downwards to ground and air targets, now perhaps next time you shouldn't pretend you know what you're talking about when you actually don't.

Three kilometres behind and three kilometres below means the 777 was at a pretty oblique 45 degrees angle from the axis of the radar.
http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.p ... pyo-radar/
This blog suggests that a "HUD scan" acquisition feature for the Kopyo radar fitted to Su-25 variants looks in a region of +/- 14 degrees, some thirty degrees short of this extreme angle we need to be looking in.
Tracking limits of the radar are +/- 40 degrees

[Costa Fierro]

Except it seems they weren't destroying evidence.

It's not that they were "destroying" evidence, it's the fact that the first people on the scene were rummaging through people's belongings and in some cases, taking items of value. It's just disrespectful.

[Neoconstantius]

“When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.

“But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”

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.

Initial reports from The Aviationist indicated MH17 was accompanied by an Su-27, not an Su-25, which would make a lot more sense. I don't think Russia would make this type of error, but an Su-25 reaching that altitude is not nearly as believable.

[Neoconstantius]

Except it seems they weren't destroying evidence.

It's not that they were "destroying" evidence, it's the fact that the first people on the scene were rummaging through people's belongings and in some cases, taking items of value. It's just disrespectful.

Honestly, the only concrete evidence I've seen of disrespectful behavior and looting has come from journalists.