MH17 Update: Missile That Took Down Airline ‘Undeniably’ Provided By Russian – (Unofficial)

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The transcripts from the flight's final minutes have been released. ATC loses contact with MH17 with no indication of anything being wrong.

I didn't know that, do you have a source?

a reply to: dragonridr

No need for math, here`s some more about upgrades :

Su-25SM

The Russian Air Forces has a requirement for 100 Su-25SMs by 2008, the total planned for 2003 was eight. Belarusian aircraft will be upgraded at Baranovichi, the Ukrainian aircraft will also be converted locally.

Source

And here`s some more :

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No you said different engines in the frogfoot so please show me the engines that are different I didn't ask abut avionics. You made a claim they can climb higher because of upgrades to the engine as you put it. By the way in jets they are referred to as power plants or some say turbojets. Now back to my question what new power plant does this stealth frogfoot have since it easily avoided Russian radar at 30000 ft you migh want to tell us when Ukraine added stealth as well.

Reality You Know Nothing About air craft and you end up believin a blogger that knows less than you do. Research the capablitzes by the way you might want to take the time to realI've this is a ground attack fighter. And apparently you think if flies like an interceptor. They design aircraft for different roles there is zero chance the US could have shot down the airliner. Ukraine has much better aircraft for that.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And that's supposed to show what? There are different ways to upgrade a jet. It's not always just about the engines. Look through what the SM variant entails and please point out which upgrade would increase the Su-25's ceiling.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Picked the wrong upgrade there. The Su-25SM doesn't touch the engines. It was a midlife upgrade that improved weapons, and navigation. They increased the payload to 11,000 pounds, replaced the laser designator in the nose with an improved version that also has a limited video capacity to improve the weapons efficiency. Most of the original systems were left intact.

The Su-39 (Su-25T/TM) is the one that got modernized engines, and there are very few of them flying in Russian service, and none in Ukrainian service. It's also the version that has a 10,000 m ceiling.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

an RT documentary....

ok......

a reply to: Xcathdra

After the US staged a coup against the democratically elected government in Ukraine.

It's a pretty standard tactic, just look up Guatemala 1954 United Fruit Co.
Don't like anecdotal evidence? How about Iran 1953, Nicaragua 1979, or Chile 1979. There are literally dozens of examples to choose from.

The real question is, why would commercial flights be flying over a conflict zone? I don't support any side, all governments are barbaric and outdated systems of control.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Try again...

The Ukraine parliament that was elected in 2012, an election Russia accepted, were the ones who removed Yanukovych, lawfully.

If we look at the leaders of the pro russian rebels, who are Russian citizens until recently, one has to ask the question why you ignore their actions which meet the definition of coup?

The Flight was just one that day and there were several in the area when the pro russian rebels accidentally shot it down.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Here you go.
Source

a reply to: Xcathdra\

Under their constituion, it would have required 338 votes to oust the president. There were only 328.

It's funny when you look at a political map, Ukraine is a proxy war between the east and west. Both sides are using Ukraine at the detriment of their people. Justify evil all you like, both sides are wrong and fighting over who gets to steal the resources of a sovereign nation.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Actually that is not correct.

In order to impeach the President a 2/3 majority is required - 300 votes.
In order to remove him from office requires 3/4 majority.

When they voted to impeach he fled to Russia.

Their system is like the US system on impeachment. In the US the House of Reps votes to impeach the President. If that vote passes the charges are moved to the Senate who performs the actual trial. A vote is then taken - guilty, at which point he is removed or not guilty - at which point things continue on as normal.


The vote to impeach

In order to impeach the President, they must be convicted of treason to the state and other crimes. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. A temporary investigative commission is established by the parliament for the impeachment investigation. The commission's final conclusions are considered at a parliamentary meeting.

The vote to remove after impeachment

To adopt an impeachment resolution, a minimum two-thirds of the parliament must support the impeachment procedure. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. The Constitutional and the Supreme Court of Ukraine's conclusions and decisions are considered at the parliamentary meetings.

The vote to impeach is the indictment.
The vote to remove after impeachment is the guilt / innocence phase.

Due to constitutional protections and immunity a President must be impeached in order to hold the trial for removing him.

The impeachment and the results were lawful and in compliance with the Ukraine Constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Why justify one side, when it is still wrong?

The parliament came to power through fraud, all acts by that parliament are therefore unconstitutional.

There is no moral high ground. The correct course of action is to divide Ukraine into pro-NATO west and pro-Russian east. It would be similar to the plan for partitioning Iraq into three ethnically divided states.

a reply to: GodEmperor

So Your Solution Is To devide a country because Russia wants there land?? Well would you be OK with China grabbing back siberia? They want it back and eventually will get it China is patient just have to wait for Putin to drive it into the ground. Did you happen to see the meeting in China had to laugh had Obama sitting with him while Putin had to sit beside China's first lady. Oddly China Is also starting to back out of its deal with Russia saying now it's a loan like Putin is a third world country needing financial aid.

See Putin lied to his people about the deal he wasaid desperate and it's going to get worse.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You`re wrong :

Early versions of the Su-25 were equipped with two R95Sh non-afterburning turbojets, in separate compartments on either side of the rear fuselage. The engines, sub-assemblies, and surrounding fuselage structure are cooled by air provided by the cold air intakes located on top of the engine's nacelles. A drainage system collects oil, hydraulic fluid residues, and fuel from the engines after flight or after an unsuccessful start. The engine control systems allows independent operation of each engine.The latest versions (Su-25T and TM) are equipped with improved R-195 engines.

Source

Su-25 M1 Frogfoot

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.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

POWER-PLANT : Two jet, R-195

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Did you bother to read that? Here, let me help you. You said:

The Russian Air Forces has a requirement for 100 Su-25SMs by 2008, the total planned for 2003 was eight. Belarusian aircraft will be upgraded at Baranovichi, the Ukrainian aircraft will also be converted locally.

The link you JUST QUOTED says:

The latest versions (Su-25T and TM) are equipped with improved R-195 engines.

Now *I* said:

The Su-39 (Su-25T/TM) is the one that got modernized engines

So tell me again how I was wrong?

The last 50 Su-25s used the R-195 engine, prior to that they all used the R-95 engine. You can tell those aircraft, because they have what's believed to be a cooling boom between the engines to lower their IR signature.

Power Plant
Two Soyuz/Gavrilov R-95Sh turbojets in long nacelles at wingroots, each 40.21 kN (9,039 lb st), superseded in about 50 late production aircraft (from 1989) by R-195s, each 44.18 kN (9,921 lb st); these first trialled by T8-14 and T8-15; 5 mm thick armour firewall between engines; R-195 turbojets have pipe-like fitment (believed not initially cleared for export, thus not fitted to Su-25K) at end of tailcone, from which air is expelled to lower exhaust temperature and so reduces IR signature; non-waisted undersurface to rear cowlings, which have additional small airscoops (as three-view); self-sealing fuel tanks filled with reticulated foam. Nos. 1 and 2 tanks in fuselage between cockpit and wing front spar, and between rear spar and fin leading-edge (latter acting as collector tank) contain 2,386 litres (630 US gallons; 525 Imp gallons); and in wing centre-section, capacity 1,274 litres (337 US gallons; 280 Imp gallons); total capacity 3,660 litres (967 US gallons; 805 Imp gallons); provision for four PTB-1500 external fuel tanks on underwing pylons.

www.militaryphotos.net...

But even those engines are different than what was used on the Su-39. Those are later model improved R-195 engines. They deliver more thrust, with a lighter airframe due to modifications. It's the same with US engines, they have the same type name, like the F119, but different version of them, with different thrust ratings.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The West has trying to scrub the internet about the Su-25 and its service ceiling (see vid also), but the Ukraine official state site gives for a good reason 2 numbers, one is 7km and the other is 10km.

The Ukrainian not upgraded ones still have the same engines and that`s why the the 7km, but the Ukrainian Su-25M1 has gotten the upgraded engines (see Link), hence the also 10km ceiling given on the official Ukraine state site.

What you showed was from `08 and was SM not M1, very important.

Four Su-25M1 and one Su-25UBM1 were upgraded in 2010-2011.

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The US hasn't scrubbed anything. Sukhoi itself gives the service ceiling as 7,000m. You really should make up your mind and settle on on particular upgrade though. You started with the SM, then went to the T, now are on the M1.

A number of Su-25 variants, including the K have the R-195 engine. An R-195 engine is not an R-195 engine however. They adapt and change over time, just like Western engines. Even with the R-195s the older aircraft are limited to 22, 960 feet.

If you look at Western fighters you see the same thing. Both the F-15 and F-16 use the F110 engine, but the F-15 engine is rated at 29,400 lbs each, while the F-16 is rated at 28,000 lbs of thrust. You can find several thrust ratings for the R-195 as well, but without the improvements that the Su-25T/TM received, it's not going to suddenly increase the service ceiling by 18,000 feet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's why I asked for the thrust ratio on his new and improved engines which he has yet to provide. He doesn't realize parts are changed on a power plant new nozzle etc. When enough changes are made they eventually give it a new number. However the specs really dont change at all. Usually the changes are made to either make it easier to maintain or correct a defect. When they want a new turbo prop they will design one and its specs will be different.

He bought into the lies of the Russian bloggers and RT who are lying because most people are clueless about aircraft.

a reply to: dragonridr

Interestingly, the Su-25T upgrade is what led to the SM update. The T was deemed too expensive and complicated, so they overhauled the engine, and installed surge protection, and made other updates that were cheaper to perform, while improving the overall performance and capabilities of the aircraft.