Flight MH17 - Searching for the Truth

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I`m saying it relativity easy to modify an Su-25 so it can use and R-27 missile with just an IR module (the missile is modular and can be only IR) and Ukrainians are able to do those modifications without a doubt.

When, according to the Ukrainians, you get attacked by Russian Mig-29s who are able to fly at much greater heights you want to carry missiles which are capable to go much higher. The standard R-60 missiles aren`t capable of much lifting because of the relative low rocket thrust burn time, however the R-27 has a much greater lifting capability.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Heatseekers are fired from BEHIND a aircraft. Nice try. ZAPHOD has explained this to you before if i recall. You are just being contrary to the actual facts presented.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And still doesn't hit near the cockpit, or cause a 777 to suddenly explode.

a reply to: yuppa

BS, they can be fired from any positions once locked, newer versions go on an intercept path rather than to chase the target.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Some can, yes, but they STILL track on the hottest points, being engines, center fuselage where the environmental packs are, or tail if the APU is running.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You are arguing that MH17 was shot down with an R-27 missile using a 39kg IR guided warhead.

Evidence that disproves this:

1. The airplane's wreckage was scattered across miles on the ground. This indicates a mid air breakup, which would not have happened as a result of being shot with two R-27s, but would happen as a result of being shot with a SAM. KAL 007 was shot with two radar guided 40kg warheads and flew largely intact and controlled for quite a few more minutes before it crashed into the ocean. If MH17 was shot with two smaller and IR guided missiles, it surely wouldn't have broken up in flight.

2. The shrapnel patterns on the airplane are consistent with the missile's shrapnel colliding with the airplane relatively head on, and on the body of the airplane. This matches the profile of a SAM shootdown, with the SAM firing as the airplane enters its targeting range head on. This is not consistent with an IR guided missile, which are fired from behind.

3. An IR guided R-27 would seek to the engines of the airplane- the hottest spot. There would be no shrapnel damage anywhere except the engines, the wings, and maybe a little of the surrounding body around the engines. As previously said, there is shrapnel damage at the front of the airplane.

a reply to: justwanttofly

He's been told this many times...it doesn't help. Good effort thou!

a reply to: justwanttofly

So your proof is an similar size warhead missile which exploded a whopping 50 metres (160 ft) behind the plane as proof?

Tail section

The first missile was radar-controlled and proximity fuzed, and detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft. Sending fragments forward, it either severed or unraveled the crossover cable from the left inboard elevator to the right elevator. This, with damage to one of the four hydraulic systems, caused KAL 007 to ascend from 35,000 to 38,250 feet (10,670 to 11,660 m), at which point the autopilot was disengaged.

Fuselage

Shrapnel from the proximity fuzed air-to-air missile that detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft, punctured the fuselage and caused rapid decompression of the pressurized cabin. The interval of 11 seconds between the sound of missile detonation picked up by the cockpit voice recorder and the sound of the alarm sounding in the cockpit enabled ICAO analysts to determine that the total size of the ruptures to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet (0.163 m2)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

The thing you`re actual proving is the opposite of what you claim...

- It doesn`t need explode close to an engine because of what the proximity fuse is set to

- It does a great deal of damage from a long range

- If the missile comes more form the front, and explodes because of the setting of the proximity fuse just before that, it will explode at the front of the plane and not at the engines

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

First off, a plane at a fixed speed and fixed course is a fighter pilots dream. They can't miss. Even with an all aspect missile, no pilot with ANY air to air training is going to risk a frontal aspect shot, when the plane is radiating huge amounts of IR energy, flying in a straight line.

Secondly, there's apparently no reason for him to have risked a frontal aspect shot, since Russia's mystery witness, that passed a polygraph, can apparently identify an AA-8 missile from a distance, but can't tell the difference between a large swing wing ground attack aircraft, and a small fixed wing ground attack aircraft and now claims it was an Su-17, which is supersonic and could have easily caught up to the plane.

So this mystery witness, who we're supposed to believe over any other, manages to identify this:


As this:



For a month before suddenly changing his identification. And not one investigator thought to put a picture of an Su-25 in front of him to have him id the type.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Where did he claim that ?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

There is a new version of the article that claims now it was actually an Su-17. Everything else is identical.

Posted yesterday.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It only reads that the witness claims to have said Su-17, but I don`t see him making that claim anywhere but dailymail making that claim.

In the interview he talks about Su-25, so can you show me where he said Su-17?

Transc ript

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So the Dailymail is making it up now?

a reply to: Zaphod58

and yet it was still...

The Russians / Pro Russians
with the BUK
In east Ukraine.

Professor putin needs to stop changing the narrative.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The purpose of an IR guided warhead is to send mass quantities of shrapnel towards a heat source. Just because there's a proximity fuse doesn't change this. The missile is designed to fire the shrapnel forward in a controlled field of fire, it doesn't just explode and go in a million different directions. The shrapnel would still be largely destined for the hot spots- the engines.

KAL007's body and control surfaces were badly damaged by two bigger missiles and it still flew for quite a few more minutes. Taking out just the engines means the airplane would be even more controllable. And it would stay intact, and not break up and scatter across miles.

IR missiles would not have been fired from the front.

a reply to: justwanttofly

It all depends on where the proximity fuse was to got set off, it could have been set to exploded at 15/20 meters from the engines.

If it was a mistake they could have easily been shot from the front/side.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It doesn't depend on where the fuse was set to go off. The missile is designed to send the shrapnel to the heat source, no matter if it's a 50m fuse or 10m fuse. That has nothing to do with this.

If they tried a head on shot on the airplane they almost surely wouldn't have been able to get an IR lock. They would've run an intercept on it, which is hard to do seeing how the airplane has no radar capable of running an intercept with. They also would've used radar guided missiles for which they, again, have no radar to guide the missiles.

Doesn`t anyone finds it hugely contradicting that the article tries to make the impression that MH17 couldn`t have been brought down by a fighter jet because there weren`t any flights the 17th July, yet at the same time they try to make the suggestion there were several tanks blown up by jet fighters and the BUK crew was under big pressure to stop that from happening again?

But the Ukrainian air force also suffered losses. On July 12th a Ukrainian attack helicopter was shot down over eastern Ukraine. Two days later an Antonov An-26 military jet suffered the same fate. Another two days later two Suchoi Su-25 fighter jets were downed.

Experts say not all of these airplanes could have been hit by shoulder-fired missiles. The targeting of the two Su-25 and the Antonov suggest the use of complex weapons systems such as BUKs (according to Poroshenko and the Ukrainian themselves by AAM). In response to the new military situation, Ukraine changed its fighter jet strategy.

A Ukrainian Security Council spokesman said fighter jets were later deployed more cautiously due to losses in the first phase of the “anti-terror operations”.

Besides the Su-25 planes, the Ukrainian air force also uses MiG-29 fighter jets that can reach an altitude of 18 000 meters. The jets then drop down to a lower combat altitude to attack enemy tanks and BUK units. A BUK team risks its life if it does not already attack an enemy plane at a high altitude during its approach.

Civil air traffic granted Ukrainian fighter pilots valuable seconds in their fight for survival against BUKs. Ukrainian fighter jets have the ability to hide just beneath passenger planes without the civilian passengers and crew even knowing of their presence. Anyone who targets a fighter jet from the ground risks shooting down a passenger aircraft.

A spokesman for the Ukrainian Security Council said Ukraine did not deploy combat aircraft on July 17th. The spokesman did not respond to questions about civilian flights.

But yet...

July 17th did not begin well for the crew of BUK 3*2. That morning, the Ukrainian Security Council reported the destruction of three Russian tanks – which officers of the 53rd air defense brigade are tasked to protect. The Russian soldiers had failed, and they were under pressure not to allow a repeat incident.

So why make the impression about there were not flights, yet later to say there were flights...?

...and how about this :

Smid tells us: “There is no doubt: flight MH17 was shot down by a missile. And this missile was fired from the ground and not from a fighter jet.

Smid’s information is confirmed by Harry Horlings, a former Dutch fighter pilot, who was trained by the U.S. Air Force. Only a rocket fired from the ground has the explosive power displayed in the destruction of MH17, Horlings says.

But why does the same Harry Horlings say at 25 October MH17 could have been brought down by jet fighter while he already had the same data...?

Use Google Translate

Also is it strange that the article goes and tries to make it look like so explicitly that an jet fighter couldn`t have brought it down, while the Ukrainian SBU, Dutch investigators, Harry Horlings (earlier) and the old head of the Dutch Military Intelligence Security Service (without a doubt was his answer) all are claiming it could have happened by AAM.