Flight MH17 - Searching for the Truth

a reply to: Xcathdra

Su-25s were bombing cities in front of where the MH17 exploded, so if there were Su-25s being ordered to give air cover to those planes, there`s a good change they were also there.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And why would they use Su-25s to provide air cover, when they're a horrible air to air platform. That makes about as much sense as using an A-10 to provide air cover for an AH-64. I mean, why bother with your high end fighters, like the MiG-29 or Su-27, when you can use a plane that wasn't designed for air to air.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Ukrainian air-force was in horrible state with not that many flying machines when this went on.

I have tried finding on how bad, but nobody seems to know exactly (expect the Ukrainians themselves and NATO of course), but they had not that many who where fly ready for sure.

They probably in the meantime have dusted some off again.

They also could have taught, with the Mig-29s shooting them down around that time, we can surprise them with a Su-25 armed with AAMs which could go to the height of where the Mig-29s were flying.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Except the Su-25 CAN'T go the altitude that a MiG-29 is flying, and would never manage to surprise one being flown by a half trained pilot. The Ukraine had MiG-29s flying, as well as other fighters much more capable than an Su-25.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I talked about the R-27 AAM which has way more lift as a R-60 to overcome the height difference (10km lift).

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And would have a hard time hitting a MiG-29 or any newer Russian fighter. Unlike a 777 (and I'm not saying that it was shot down by a fighter), another fighter would know the Su-25 was there long before he got a lock on, and could have fired off missiles with a much longer range and already turned away before the Su-25 could even get a lock on it with an R-27.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What makes you think that didn`t happen, only with two other planes who were flying that day?

Remember the OP in which it states the Ukrainians themselves claimed there were several tanks being destroyed by them, with what do you think that happened?

A Ukrainian security spokesman has accused Russia's air force of shooting down one of its jets while it was on a mission over Ukrainian territory.

Andriy Lysenko, spokesman for the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council, said an Su-25 ground attack plane was downed on Wednesday evening.

Russia's defence ministry called the accusation "absurd", Russian state media reported.

Rebels in eastern Ukraine say they shot down two Su-25 jets on Wednesday.

Source

So the pilot of the third plane panicked and shot down MH17 thinking it was the Mig-29...?

a reply to: Zaphod58

...and how about the Ukrainians/NATO wanting to shoot down a Russian Mig-29 so badly so they could show there were Russians involved, but the pilot being on edge, because of the days before when an AN-26 and two Su-25s were blown out of the sky, simply fired to quickly?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So a pilot who, for the area, is fairly well trained, mistook a plane flying in a straight line, at an unchanged speed, for a fighter that supposedly shot down two of his comrades. Because fighters flying over hostile territory always fly just like commercial planes, right?

Any Russian fighter over the Ukraine would be flying fairly low, and maneuvering, to avoid Ukrainian radars and antiair. If the Ukraine were to shoot it down, and were able to prove that Russian fighters were flying around in their airspace, they'd have proof that Russia had invaded them, and that changes everything. Russia can send aid to the rebels in the form of guns, and antiair, and it can't be proven that it's Russian, but there's no way in hell they could fake a MiG-29 being a separatist asset. Especially if it was shooting down Ukrainian aircraft without being caught.

Newer IR missiles don't just display a dot on the HUD and lock on. They can actually display an image of the target in the cockpit. That image is good enough you can almost see the pilots in the cockpit of an F-4. The Western missiles have better seekers, but a Russian IR missile would be easily able to display an image of a 777 on the display. And there's no way in hell anyone mistakes a 777 for a MiG-29.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Because not even a poorly trained pilot is going to mistake a plane flying at 34,000 feet in a perfectly straight line, at a fixed speed, for a Russian fighter. ESPECIALLY since the plane was coming from the total opposite direction from Russia, heading towards Russia. No way does it manage to fly all the way into the Ukraine, turn around, and not get noticed until it was almost back to safe airspace.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So you say they would not have anymore as to R-60 missiles at first, but now you say they have state of the art targeting electronics, in that case they would be armed with R-73 missiles...according to the Ukrainian eyewitness they had to dust those missiles off and they were over the expiration date...making it much more likely to be R-60 or R-27 (which would make more sense because of the lift problems of a R-60).

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I said the Su-25 can't carry advanced missiles. All aspect IR missiles have been able to display the target on a screen since the 1990s. It doesn't have to be "state of the art" to do that. The newest missiles have much better seekers that display much better images than early missiles did, but even the older all aspect missiles could do it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

...but not that well, and with a panicking pilot he could have fired to quickly.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Well enough that you could certainly tell a 777 from any kind of fighter. IR missiles aren't the kind of weapon that you can just point and shoot. It can take 5-10 seconds to lock on at long range. To even find the target, he had to be steered in, which means a trained radar operator. You can't just look around with the seeker randomly and find a target. A trained radar operator is not going to mistake a commercial flight for a fighter, just based on the flight profile.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have worked on an Air-force base and know the ridiculous amount of silly mistakes being made on it and also military wise, so such mistakes are being made without a doubt.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Of course they are. But a silly mistake on a base is one thing. The chances of a trained pilot making a mistake like that and firing an air to air missile are much smaller than a poorly trained operator mistaking it for a military transport that was supposed to be in the area at the same time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I just looked in the original thread of the 17th of July, you started of well but it didn`t take long for you to come up with the same narrative you keep on saying, despite you saying you first needed physical evidence you`re immediately making several times the suggestion it was Russian or Separatists with a SAM and not even knowing how it happened?

So even without any evidence you were already making up your mind...?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Because a SAM is by far the most likely cause, and has been from the start. No matter how modern, an AAM is not going to cause that kind of damage without it being a miracle shot, and hitting near the cockpit isn't going to qualify as a miracle shot. The so called evidence for a fighter doesn't even qualify as sketchy. The evidence for a SAM, from the start, has been there. No matter how many times you say fighter, it's not going to change that a SAM fits the evidence better than anything else.

What.....an.....interesting.....thread.

What is this? Roll call?

a reply to: Zaphod58

You have made up your mind a long time ago it seems without actual evidence to proof it, your only proof was it has happened before, like it never happened that an airliner has been brought down by anything else...let`s say a bomb, mechanical failure or by a jet fighter.