Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a surface to air missile is radar guided

Again you show your ignorance - not all SAM's are radar guided....

which is a very inaccurate guiding system.

Wrong again, it is very accurate.

A surface to air missile, is like aiming at something while you are shaking ... you won't even hit it. Not even in a million years.

Still wrong - you apparently have never heard of Rapier.... or Starstreak!

And the radar equipment that guides it, is going to ensure that once the missile is up there .. the target isn't there. And as two object approach each other, the faster they travel there greater the possibility is that they will miss each other.

Wrong, that is why you use radar - especially at a target that is not maneuvering, it is very easy to predict where it is going to be.

A direct hit, is in the movies ... in your fantasy. It's always approximation that is used. Anything else, would be a waste of ordinance, a waste of intellect and waste of money.l If I recall correctly, the US did tried some systems that tried "impact" detonation, with something like 1% success.

Again, you have never heard of Rapier, or Starstreak.

What is most interesting, how many people on here are actually lying through their teeth.

Yes, that is very easy to see when they post nonsense here!

but a surface to air has to have a lot larger kill radius.

No it does not, it depends on the actual missile used.

You really do not know much about air defence.

NM

a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.

originally posted by: georgezip
a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.

The BBC has video of the rebels moving and scrapping the evidence, with a rebel fighter saying they have been moving all the debris and plan to scrap it, this is before any investigation of the site by an international team. This proves that their assertion that it was Ukraine is false. Why, if they are so sure it was Ukraine, are they destroying the evidence?

Destruction of evidence shows guilt.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor

Above eh? surface to air cant do that

meh, indeed. I suspect I might be the only person posting in this thread who has had a real life experience with high velocity objects taking out an aircraft. In my case, the aircraft was an F-4D just over the Laotian border with North Vietnam. The villain was a Russian SA-2/S-75, guided by a Fan Song engagement radar. And notwithstanding your clearly non-expert opinion, objects can, and in my case, did enter from above the cockpit floor. That's because the SA-2 had a Shmel radio proximity fuse, which explodes a V-88 series blast fragmentation warhead, which weighs between 190 kg and 250 kg, depending on missile variant. If the missile radar guy is a millisecond slow, the frag warhead can explode above the aircraft. I can show you the scars on the anterior aspect of my leg from the crap that came in through the canopy. Many air-to-air missiles also had proximity fuses, so the same thing can happen. So while what you posted seems, at first blush, logical, it just isn't true.

I would really, really like to see some of the pro-Russian members here explain to me why the rebels are destroying evidence if that evidence will supposedly exonerate them and prove Ukraine shot that plane down.

These are not the actions of an innocent party, they are the actions of criminals who know what the evidence will show and want to destroy it before investigation.

The rebels supposedly have a smoking gun proving Kiev's guilt and exonerating them, so why, if that is true, are they destroying the evidence?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: georgezip
a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.

The BBC has video of the rebels moving and scrapping the evidence, with a rebel fighter saying they have been moving all the debris and plan to scrap it, this is before any investigation of the site by an international team. This proves that their assertion that it was Ukraine is false. Why, if they are so sure it was Ukraine, are they destroying the evidence?

Destruction of evidence shows guilt.

While normally destruction of evidence implies guilt, you have to take into account it is possible in this case that it does not. I'm looking for that video, if you have it on hand please post.

We must consider that the rebels/separatists are citizens, and some likely poor ones who may have taken advantage of an opportunity to score some extra bread. I am not stating this to be the case, rather that it is a very possible explanation.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
We must consider that the rebels/separatists are citizens, and some likely poor ones who may have taken advantage of an opportunity to score some extra bread. I am not stating this to be the case, rather that it is a very possible explanation.

Seems plausible enough to me.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

"High energy objects" means bullets to me

"high-energy objects" doesn't mean an surface to air missile. Plus.

No evidence of emergency situation from cockpit recorder

Actually.. a sams shrapnel IS high KINETIC ENERGY OBJECTs. Fast high spoeed shrapnel. Some sams use round ball bearing type shrapnel.(explains the circular holes pretty well eh?)

a reply to: watchitburn

To support your words, www.nytimes.com...
Apparently there is a Massive stock of Weapons in Ukraine that date back to World War 1, so no surprise to their present antics,,,,,,,perhaps?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanka418

You might want to try reading up on aerodynamics, and thrust to weight radios before talking about things you don't understand. The Su-25 was designed for low altitude work, which means the wing was designed to operate best in the ticket air found there. The engines are not able to push it to high altitude because they done generate enough thrust for the weight of the aircraft.

You do understand what "ceiling" means, right?

Yes...Physics and engineering...you might want to check it out...real science is wonderful.

I'm fully aware of the effects of wing loading, etc. none of that prevents the craft from operating at higher altitudes, only makes it less efficient. By the way; the difference in the "thickness" of the atmosphere frm 23,000 feet to 35,000 feet s rather little...not enough to make the difference you want.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Perhaps someone tested a high power EM railgun or guns.

Pure speculation here.

a reply to: tanka418

Have you been in the airforce? If not you should listen to zaphod. You are aware that the russian were caught editing the wiki entry for that aircraft correct? The manufactures website contradicted it. A ceiling is in place for a reason. Yeah the plane can go over it for a few seconds,but it cannot hold it. it will STALL. and loaded with missiles it would definitely stall. the planes missiles are also not large enough to cause that amount of damage seen in the wreckage either.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: tanka418

Have you been in the airforce?

Actually; yes, I was in the Air Force...

You should check out the aircraft...did you know, for instance; the SU-25 had greater wing area...although it is seriously crippled in the power plant dept.

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes...Physics and engineering...you might want to check it out...real science is wonderful.

How would you know, since you wrote this:

I'm fully aware of the effects of wing loading, etc. none of that prevents the craft from operating at higher altitudes, only makes it less efficient.

No, it doesn't.

Once the wing generates the same lift as the aircraft has weight it stops climbing, period.

By the way; the difference in the "thickness" of the atmosphere frm 23,000 feet to 35,000 feet s rather little...not enough to make the difference you want.

Density at 23,000 feet ISA: 0.58880 [kg/m^3]
Density at 35,000 feet ISA: 0.37960 [kg/m^3]

(from this calculator - just enter the altitude and hit "calculate"

so at 35,000 feet you only get approximately 2/3rds the lift you get at 23,000 feet.

I guess for some definition of "troll" this could be expressed as "rather little!!

originally posted by: tanka418

Actually; yes, I was in the Air Force...

so you don't even have that excuse.....

You should check out the aircraft...did you know, for instance; the SU-25 had greater wing area...although it is seriously crippled in the power plant dept.

A greater wing area than what?

originally posted by: tanka418
Yes...Physics and engineering...you might want to check it out...real science is wonderful.

I'm fully aware of the effects of wing loading, etc. none of that prevents the craft from operating at higher altitudes, only makes it less efficient. By the way; the difference in the "thickness" of the atmosphere frm 23,000 feet to 35,000 feet s rather little...not enough to make the difference you want.

Average air temp at 23,000' is -5.5C. Assuming humidity of 30%, and using a standard atmospheric model for barometric pressure, the air density is .033 lb/ft^3 at 23,000' (it will vary, of course, but we're using standard models for average). Air temp drops 2C per 1000' of altitude. So air temp at 35,000' we'll assume is -19.5C. Assuming the same humidity (not a given), the air density is .022 lb/ft^3. Call me crazy, but it looks like the altitude density drops by a third or there about. Feel free to check my math. I'm sure that you, as another expert, already know the equations to be used, but I'll provide them if you need them. I can direct you to the barometric pressure chart if you need to check that variable as well. Since lift increases or decreases linearly with the fluid density, we can safely say that at 35,000' a wing is producing 1/3 the amount of lift as it is at 23,000'.
A full third, in most any measure, is not "rather little".

originally posted by: georgezip
a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.

Being from the Netherlands we of course have had a lot of information about it.

It was Separatist controlled area, but Kiev decided to attack and conquer parts of it while they had agreed to leave that area alone. The Dutch investigators have had good help the short period they were there. Kiev has actual delayed the researcher mission big time. They couldn`t do more as searching for body parts, but locals had done a very good job and they didn`t find any parts anymore.

And @Rocker2013,

The Separatist on the video says he`s moved stuff from the road, because it was blocking the road. And he says they are securing it because there are people who try to sell it as scrap.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Oh, look, I screwed up the F to C conversion because I used 22F instead of -22F when doing the math for the base temp at 23,000'. That means the base temp is -40C by my data and is different than your online calculator by 10 degrees. Also, puts the temp at 35,000' at a chilly -64C instead of -54C like your calculator. Not sure which is "more correct". Data doesn't change much though: .024 lb/ft^3 at 35,000' and .038 lb/ft^3. Just over a third less.
Should have caught the temperature though. If I'd paid attention it would have noticed -5.5C seems high.

a reply to: _Del_

Clearly your mistake was to use science....