Malaysian Airliner crashes in Ukraine

[Registug]

Still though, I find it far more unlikely that Ukrainian fighters shot down MH17 than Ukrainian SAMs shooting down MH17

[Costa Fierro]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

[Hasmonea]

Well, he's only discussing whether the Su-25 could have shot down MH17 if it was indeed in the position reported by RT.

Not sure about the engagement process with Su-25 and R-60 but given that the missile is infrared homing I don't see why it could not be fired without a radar lock. Though if so the pilot would have had been using vision in the acquisition of the airliner and it is doubtful that it would have been clearly identified for what it was.

In any case the Su-25 shooting down MH17 is one hell of a stretch - the Su-25 lacks the speed, ceiling, or avionics to reliably intercept and the R-60 is actually stated on Wikipedia to 'only have a practical range of 4,000m'.

[Imperializt Russia]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

It's easier to intercept from the front. Playing tail-chaser is difficult at best.

A friend of mine showed me an image yesterday that was really quite disturbing not for its content, but its implication - a large fragment of the aircraft nose, showing the base of the cockpit window frame.
Peppered with fragmentation holes.

[Neoconstantius]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

Not necessarily. At that altitude rapid depressurization would probably immediately compromise the structural integrity of the plane and would result in multiple holes opening simultaneously.

[Registug]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

It's easier to intercept from the front. Playing tail-chaser is difficult at best.

A friend of mine showed me an image yesterday that was really quite disturbing not for its content, but its implication - a large fragment of the aircraft nose, showing the base of the cockpit window frame.
Peppered with fragmentation holes.

Samoz, that's the same picture as yesterday overlayed on the nose of the aircraft

[Costa Fierro]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

It's easier to intercept from the front. Playing tail-chaser is difficult at best.

A friend of mine showed me an image yesterday that was really quite disturbing not for its content, but its implication - a large fragment of the aircraft nose, showing the base of the cockpit window frame.
Peppered with fragmentation holes.

That's it there. That's the part that's overlaid in correlation with the livery of Malaysian. There was also an image of the wing. So, do SAM missiles usually hit aircraft from the front?

Also, if you want the super sleuths in military forums to make our argument for us, looky here.

[Imperializt Russia]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

Not necessarily. At that altitude rapid depressurization would probably immediately compromise the structural integrity of the plane and would result in multiple holes opening simultaneously.

Aircraft are typically quite resistant to that event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Having large-weight fragments from a missile penetrate the cockpit and kill the crew and damage systems is all the damage that's necessary.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's easier to intercept from the front. Playing tail-chaser is difficult at best.

A friend of mine showed me an image yesterday that was really quite disturbing not for its content, but its implication - a large fragment of the aircraft nose, showing the base of the cockpit window frame.
Peppered with fragmentation holes.

That's it there. That's the part that's overlaid in correlation with the livery of Malaysian. There was also an image of the wing. So, do SAM missiles usually hit aircraft from the front?

Also, if you want the super sleuths in military forums to make our argument for us, looky here.

All of the supposition of the firing position of the battery indicates an incoming intercept. The missile would have been launched towards the incoming aircraft and detonated on proximity.

[Wasyt]

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.

Yep, and again you're talking about something you don't know nothing about. You're talking about the original Su25 targeting system and not the newly modernized Ukraine's Su25 with newer targeting systems. Also, for your information most Su25 versions have CAS, Air to Air and Air to Ground capabilities. As said earlier, it is a very versatile and capable aircraft. This is not Battlefield 4 where it's only used to destroy tanks >.> My god.

[Registug]

please tell me who told you the Ukrainians have a modernised Su-25

[Wasyt]

please tell me who told you the Ukrainians have a modernised Su-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Operators

Scroll down to Ukraine.

[Hasmonea]

There is an Ukrainian upgrade, Su-25M1.

Not sure if there were any improvements to the avionics in terms of A2A capabilities, though, especially of coverage.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

Some missiles are designed to pass the target before they explode in order to get better effects from their fragmentation.

[Tahar Joblis]

Again, that's a debate for another thread.

Not really.

UMN offered an excuse for Russia taking territory in order to defend Russia arming, funding, and organizing separatists who then shot down a Malaysian airliner full of Dutch people. His excuse was bad.

You deviously used the word "Lebensraum" to invoke certain feelings, when words such as irredentism, or other types of reannexations would easily work. But no, you're using Lebensraum. Your goal is to associate Putin with Hitler and you'll try to do that in any way that you can. When you accuse others of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, you are doing it either because you don't know anything about Eastern European History, or because you are deviously trying to defame the person using charged language. And the fact that you tried to associate Hitler with UMN and Putin with Hitler merely shows how utterly devious that post is. I'll remember that post Tahar Joblis, next time you try to ask "why can't Russia treat Ukraine like Serbia?!"

I deviously used the word "Lebensraum" to point out that UMN's argument for why Russia should annex more territory to better defend itself was as shitty as every other excuse offered for naked aggression.

Which is neither particularly devious nor an inapt comparison. The comparison between Hitler's choice of claimed justifications for annexation and intervention and Putin's is actually quite spot-on; both claimed the right to act on behalf of the putative interests of co-ethnics in other countries. Flimsy pretexts.

Now you're mad at me because I'm calling you out on it.

No. I'm mildly irritated that you couldn't figure out how to use the word correctly after the first time I took you to task on it. If you can't even figure out how to use "Lebensraum" properly in a sentence, you don't understand the concept well enough to make any argument on the appropriateness of using the term.

It's amazing. You simply twist and turn everything into an anti-Russian argument.

You haven't yet seen my defense of the Soviet Union. It's quite epic.

I don't have anything against Russia, and when it comes to being the invader rather than the invaded, there's one country that hasn't been invaded by foreign troops in any numbers worth noting since the War of 1812: The United States.

Flatly, though, Russia has historically less reason to worry about Polish aggression - or NATO aggression in general - than vice versa. And to be brutally honest, most imperial states were pretty nasty pieces of work on the level of state actors. The same is true of many Communist states. (There have been some visible silver linings - Cuba has great literacy rates and low child mortality, for example.)

A certain poster needs to do rudimentary research before telling us all how mean Russia is... And yeah, war pushes people to migrate. So does the central government's bombing of their homes, their schools, their utility stations, etc. Again, I'm game for a referendum on independence, are you?

If it is run fairly, using the appropriate electorate, over a "natural" region, et cetera. The sorts of things that did not happen in Crimea, where a Russian passport was what you needed to vote, ballots came pre-marked, etc.

I really don't need to establish it.

You did; and you failed.

If by "discussed" you mean went completely off topic

Not at all off-topic. My point was that Russia's neighbors have greater reason to perceive themselves at risk of being invaded than Russia itself. Which means, in turn, that if UMN's idea of security through depth [of conquered territory] has any merit whatsoever, Poland has better security reasons to point to in conquering Belarus than Russia would in conquering the Ukraine. I'm not losing track of the argument.

There is no moral justification to be had for Russia's imperialism.

Something tells me that if the Whites were the stronger side, it'd be "fear of resurgent Russian Imperialism"

"Something" called "paranoid delusion." I recommend you abandon it. Conventional powers had very real reasons to fear the Bolsheviks.

There were 10,000 coal miners up in arms in 1921 in West Virginia. Labor revolts were a happening thing. The powers that be were already worried about communists, and the success of the Bolsheviks fed that fear to a fever pitch. It is through fear of communism that we saw the rise of fascism as a "third way" offered between lassez faire capitalism and communism.

Russia as an imperial power was third rate even before Russia entered WWI, and the Russians lost men and materiel at an alarming rate during WWI. Russia didn't pose a threat to British supremacy, American ascendance, or French recovery.

The international communist movement, however, was much more frightening, and the Bolsheviks - violent anti-democratic thugs on the extremist fringe of the socialist movement - had every intention of destroying the existing world order.

Add in personal/kinship ties between Russian royalty and European royalty, and it becomes patently obvious which side the Europeans would back. Remember that the Germans funded the Bolsheviks and that the Bolsheviks responded quid pro quo by signing a separate peace so that Germany could concentrate on fighting the British and Americans, and it reads as an extension of WWI.

To intervene in WWI, Churchill used "Little Belgium" as a moral concern; considering what was going on in the Congo, I'd say that it was rather amoral to preach morality in favor of supporting Belgium. Add to this the prolongued British policy to weaken the Russian Empire

A goal easily accomplished by being in good favor with the winning side and pushing them to accept the secession of Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc.

What you're asserting is that the Europeans supported the White Russian Army with the intention that the White Russian Army lose anyway. Their motives were not that complex and not that devious... nor that evil.

But it should be given back regardless, if it was so "improperly" seized! L'wow for Poland! L'wow for Poland! L'wow for Poland! Let's rectify Stalin's error, and get L'wow into the EU, what do you say? I say L'wow for Poland!

Whether or not things that were originally improperly seized should be given back is complicated.

Remind me, some day, to tell you about the story of Israel and Palestine. It's a little long, but it turns out that resolving old claims to land can get complicated and bloody. Lviv has a very long history. If ownership of Lviv is to change hands, this will be discussed between Poland and the Ukraine. Amicably, if Poland and the Ukraine are both EU members and NATO members; less amicably, if the Ukraine is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc.

So did Putin recently purchase Gallup?

(Image)

RT repost of a Gallup conducted poll.

I don't see that poll on Gallup's website. That is also not the question you need to be looking at. What you see is a claim that 82% of Crimeans thought that the election was actually conducted fairly. This does not mean that 82% of Crimeans supported joining Russia, nor do I even trust that RT is citing an actual Gallup poll.

I have in fact looked for such polls. Gallup conducts polls for IRI on Ukrainian public opinion. Note that following the annexation of Crimea by Russia, Gallup was unable to effectively include Crimea in such polls.

http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/ ... 202014.pdf
http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/ ... 202014.pdf

Again, if you're going 3 for 3

In 3 of the last 3 times Russia was subjected to a major invasion by foreign troops, it happened after Russia invaded the West first.

The future of Napoleon's Polish Grand Duchy of Warsaw remained the most problematic issue. Alexander had desired over the territory for years,

Greedy Alexander.

but Austria and Prussia both had parts of the old Polish kingdom. The Prussians entered an agreement with Russia, under which Russia would support Prussia's bid for Saxony and Prussia would support Russia's bid for Poland; in addition, Prussia would hand over its share of Poland to Russian. Metternich, however, feared that Russia would become too powerful in this deal. To combat the Russian-Prussian alliance, on January 3, 1815, Metternich, Castlereagh, and Talleyrand signed a secret treaty agreeing to oppose the Prussians and Russians. In the end, the Congress of Vienna created a small Poland ("Congress Poland") with Alexander installed as the king. With Russia satisfied, Prussia lost its ally and only was able to get a minor piece of Saxony.

Greedy, backstabbing, treacherous Alexander.

But we weren't talking about that episode. We were on this episode earlier. You know, Tsar Alexander offering Napoleon a little quid pro quo with respect to his plans.

Or are you seriously going to tell me that the Russo-Prussian armies wouldn't be able to beat the armies of Austria-Hungary, Rapp's "mighty" French forces and the British Army?

The French, Austro-Hungarians, and the British? With only the Prussians for allies? The Russians would have gotten thumped out of Poland.

So Putin seizing Crimea in 2014 is the reason for Ukraine's governments neglecting their economy between 1991 and 2013

Not what I was saying at all.

Sorry, I can't take this anymore. It's just too much bullshit for me. Just stop. Speaking of acting in bad faith, it seems that the only country that happens to have trouble moving Russian gas from point A to point B without stealing it, happens to be Ukraine.

There are two (and more) sides to that story. Russia's decisions to cut off gas supplies have ultimately had relatively little to do with outstanding debt and quite a bit more to do with the momentary state of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Russia's decisions regarding the price and volume of gas exported to Ukrainians (including, in some cases, more gas than Ukrainians were willing to buy at the price Gazprom was selling it for) have similarly had more to do with politics than supply and demand.

This has been an abusive and dysfunctional relationship, and it has not in any way helped Russia build the case that their interests are aligned with Ukrainian interests. Nor does it in any way justify Putin's military invasion of the Ukraine and his efforts to foment a civil war in the Ukraine.

[Wasyt]

There is an Ukrainian upgrade, Su-25M1.

Not sure if there were any improvements to the avionics in terms of A2A capabilities, though, especially of coverage.

The Ukrainian aviation factory in Zaporozhye, undertook the assignment of the modernization of the Ukrainian Su-25 Frogfoot. The project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new cockpit with multiple function monitors.

Other systems that were upgraded are the target searching and locking system, which is now fully digital with a 30% increase of its capabilities and the counter measures systems thus improving the survivability of the aircraft.

http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Airc ... _25M1.html

[Costa Fierro]

please tell me who told you the Ukrainians have a modernised Su-25

The Ukrainians modernized them themselves. Interestingly, the given ceiling even with modifications is 7,000 meters. Wiki says there are only four M1 variant in service. The remainder are K and UB/UBM1 variants.

Interesting how the Ukrainians modify their aircraft and they seem to perform worse than "standard" Su-25's.

[Costa Fierro]

Interesting picture overlay of some of the debris discovered on MH17.

Does this indicate that the missile hit the front of the aircraft?

Some missiles are designed to pass the target before they explode in order to get better effects from their fragmentation.

So does the Buk have these sorts of missiles?

[Wasyt]

please tell me who told you the Ukrainians have a modernised Su-25

The Ukrainians modernized them themselves. Interestingly, the given ceiling even with modifications is 7,000 meters. Wiki says there are only four M1 variant in service. The remainder are K and UB/UBM1 variants.

Interesting how the Ukrainians modify their aircraft and they seem to perform worse than "standard" Su-25's.

Standard SU25s ceiling altitude without payload is 7000m as well, so its not 'worse'. They didn't upgrade the engine but avionics and electronics..

[Imperializt Russia]

There is an Ukrainian upgrade, Su-25M1.

Not sure if there were any improvements to the avionics in terms of A2A capabilities, though, especially of coverage.

Alexander Miladenov suggests that the M1 and UBM1 (two seat trainer) specifications are for a "low cost" improvement in capability. They allow more precise, high-altitude ground attack capabilities up to flight ceiling.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wsWc ... em&f=false
Unlike other upgrade specifications he lists in the book, Miladenov does not discuss a new radar system fitting to the M1 and UBM1 standard aircraft - which presumably retain the stock Kopyo sets I've already discussed the capabilities of.

[Hasmonea]

There is an Ukrainian upgrade, Su-25M1.

Not sure if there were any improvements to the avionics in terms of A2A capabilities, though, especially of coverage.

The Ukrainian aviation factory in Zaporozhye, undertook the assignment of the modernization of the Ukrainian Su-25 Frogfoot. The project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new cockpit with multiple function monitors.

Other systems that were upgraded are the target searching and locking system, which is now fully digital with a 30% increase of its capabilities and the counter measures systems thus improving the survivability of the aircraft.

http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Airc ... _25M1.html

wow

i read that too

math tim

130% of 2000 is 2600

clearly this shows new raduh could scan +/- 2600m

kewl

uh oh wait bbbut thats still not enough coverage to get lock on MH17 hurhur

Seriously, 30% doesn't mean anything without other figures as context and 'target' is equally ambiguous!

[Hasmonea]

There is an Ukrainian upgrade, Su-25M1.

Not sure if there were any improvements to the avionics in terms of A2A capabilities, though, especially of coverage.

Alexander Miladenov suggests that the M1 and UBM1 (two seat trainer) specifications are for a "low cost" improvement in capability. They allow more precise, high-altitude ground attack capabilities up to flight ceiling.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wsWc ... em&f=false
Unlike other upgrade specifications he lists in the book, Miladenov does not discuss a new radar system fitting to the M1 and UBM1 standard aircraft - which presumably retain the stock Kopyo sets I've already discussed the capabilities of.

Considering Ukraine's financial status and the fact that the Su-25 is oriented towards ground attack, I'd think it only logical that any improvements to avionics would be in the area of A2G capabilities. Not that a Su-25 should be engaging in any air combat other than firing off R-60s in self defense anyway.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some missiles are designed to pass the target before they explode in order to get better effects from their fragmentation.

So does the Buk have these sorts of missiles?

FAS describes it as a 70kg HE warhead, so I'd assume it's standard blast-fragmentation.

I imagine that continuous-rod warheads were designed to slightly pass aircraft, since the CRW design has an expanding ring of fragments, not a (warped) spherical distribution as attributed to conventional HE-FRAG designs.

Interestingly, for such a heavy warhead a lethal radius of just 17m is ascribed to the weapon according to FAS.

[Gravlen]

Countries directly affected by the disaster, such as the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK, have been concerned that the crash site was not properly sealed off with the risk that valuable evidence could go missing.

A spokesman for the OSCE monitors at the site, Michael Bociurkiw, told the BBC that major pieces of the plane had been cut into and that large parts now looked different from before.

BBC: International monitors say parts of the wreckage have been changed since they first saw it.

[Greater Beggnig]

Countries directly affected by the disaster, such as the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK, have been concerned that the crash site was not properly sealed off with the risk that valuable evidence could go missing.

A spokesman for the OSCE monitors at the site, Michael Bociurkiw, told the BBC that major pieces of the plane had been cut into and that large parts now looked different from before.

BBC: International monitors say parts of the wreckage have been changed since they first saw it.

Probably trying to alter the wreckage to make it look more like an air-to-air missile hit MH17. How dumb do they think air crash investigators are?