Russia vetoes UN resolution on MH17 tribunal

a reply to: DProgram

No your argument is BS. does the Ukraine have BUKS? Yes. So they could have used it to shoot down an airliner. Wether or not the rebels posed a threat in the air, or not, is irrelevant to that point.

So do many other countries, but which one is backing the separatists in Ukraine?

Again you seem to miss the point here...Ukraine has had no reason to bring the BUK into this conflict as the separatists have no air force to use them against, but the separatists have the reason to use one...airstrikes from Ukrainian military jets.

Also you seem to miss the fact that Ukraine has had jets shot down in the same area by separatists only days before this happened...so who has the biggest reason to use the BUK?

And yes it is relevant to the point as Ukraine had no reason to use the BUK, but the rebels did...so how is that not relevant to the situation?

Like I said, they could still shoot it from the front without ever entering the rebel territory.

Could you please explain how that happens that a BUK missile overtakes a civilian airliner from the rear and does a 180 to bring this plane down from the front, that is one amazing missile the Russians have developed.

A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and appraoch the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible.

To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at
the intersection of the missile and target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps a constant angle
with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies
a straight-line, constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal
situation does not exist. Missile velocity seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects speed

www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com...

So shooting at it from Ukrainian territory wouldn't have brought it down from the front well into separatists held land.

But feel free to show differently.

a reply to: DProgram

The separatists didn't use a BUK prior to MH17. Up to that point all the planes were shot down by MANPADs. That's why flights were allowed over Ukraine as long as they were over 30,000 feet. Isn't funny that prior to MH17 the separatists were bragging about their recently acquired BUK system but since there's been no word about it and even attempts to claim it never existed?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So do many other countries, but which one is backing the separatists in Ukraine?

Complete irrelevant BS, and you know it. You asked why would Ukraine use BUKs when the rebels had no planes. I explained that they can use them in any case. The above line has nothing to do with it.

Could you please explain how that happens that a BUK missile overtakes a civilian airliner from the rear and does a 180 to bring this plane down from the front, that is one amazing missile the Russians have developed.

Why do I need to explain something I never claimed happened. This is the third time I am telling you it could have been shot from the front, without the system ever entering the rebel territory.

So shooting at it from Ukrainian territory wouldn't have brought it down from the front well into separatists held land.

Feel free to show this.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The separatists didn't use a BUK prior to MH17. Up to that point all the planes were shot down by MANPADs. That's why flights were allowed over Ukraine as long as they were over 30,000 feet.

Planes were shot from altitudes outside of the reach of manpads, in the weeks, even days before.

a reply to: DProgram

Complete irrelevant BS, and you know it. You asked why would Ukraine use BUKs when the rebels had no planes. I explained that they can use them in any case. The above line has nothing to do with it.

So unless it agrees with you it is BS...gotcha.

Now you do understand that the BUK has no other use but to bring planes down...what would Ukraine need them for when no planes are being used against them?

Why do I need to explain something I never claimed happened.

But your claiming they could have shot it down from Ukrainian territory, so for that plane to come down how and where it did it would have had to overtake the plane and do a 180 to hit it where it did...or are you now going away from that scenario?

This is the third time I am telling you it could have been shot from the front, without the system ever entering the rebel territory.

And again how does that happen when the plane was well into separatist territory when it was brought down from the front...is my English that bad that you don't understand the question or are you intentionally ignoring that part?

Feel free to show this.

I did you just seem to ignore the facts given.

What part of the BUK missile is not a tail chaser do you not understand...it was explained in the link I provided for you.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Also you seem to miss the fact that Ukraine has had jets shot down in the same area by separatists only days before this happened...so who has the biggest reason to use the BUK?

I didn't miss anything. Seems like it was easy to blame it on the rebels, exactly because of this.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Now you do understand that the BUK has no other use but to bring planes down...what would Ukraine need them for when no planes are being used against them?

To shoot down a plane and place blame on the rebels. See how your argument is meaningless in this scenario? What do you mean "need them for". They were at their disposal, not?

What part of the BUK missile is not a tail chaser do you not understand...it was explained in the link I provided for you.

What part of it didn't have to chase because it could have been shot from the front without ever entering rebel territory, don't you get?

a reply to: DProgram

Planes were shot from altitudes outside of the reach of manpads, in the weeks, even days before.

No they weren't...also why is it that civilian airliners were overflying the same area during this whole time and were in no danger of being shot down?

That is because they weren't in the range of the only thing being used at the time...MANPADS.

a reply to: DProgram

What part of it didn't have to chase because it could have been shot from the front without ever entering rebel territory, don't you get?

So this plane was shot over Ukrainian territory and flew long enough to get well into separatist held land before blowing itself apart and the crew not say anything about it being shot?

What fantasy land are you living in?

Don't bother with the facts just make it up as you go I see.

How about you start backing up your assertions with something more than you just calling things BS because you don't agree with them.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No they weren't.

A Ukrainian military transport aircraft has been shot down in the east, amid fighting with pro-Russian separatist rebels, Ukrainian officials say. They say the An-26 plane was hit at an altitude of 6,500m (21,325ft).

www.bbc.com...

also why is it that civilian airliners were overflying the same area during this whole time and were in no danger of being shot down?

Yes, why is that? Many have asked that question.

That is because they weren't in the range of the only thing being used at the time...MANPADS.

Not true, obviously.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You don't seem to have a clue about the shape of the rebel territory.

a reply to: DProgram

You do know a MANPAD reaches to the height of 22000 ft, or 10 km. which means it wouldn't reach the height of a civilian airliner...which is why they had a level to fly no lower than 30000 ft.

The missiles are about 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft) in length and weigh about 17 to 18 kg (37 to 40 lb), depending on the model. Shoulder-fired SAMs generally have a target detection range of about 10 km (6 mi) and an engagement range of about 6 km (4 mi), so aircraft flying at 6,100 metres (20,000 ft) or higher are relatively safe.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

And relatively safe doesn't mean they are.

Also know they were considered safe until MH 17 was shot down.

www.wired.com...

Not true, obviously.

And yet it was true...obviously until a BUK made it's way into play with the separatists.

a reply to: DProgram

You don't seem to have a clue about the shape of the rebel territory.

Well then please show me...oh wait you may want to see this.



As I said well into Separatist held territory, and Ukraine doesn't control the land between Russia and that territory or you wouldn't have the Russian arms flowing across it as they do.

Again how about backing the claims you make with something...anything.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Grasping at straws I see,

The plane was targeted with "a more powerful missile" than a shoulder-carried missile,

www.bbc.com...

Off course you know better.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

As I said well into Separatist held territory, and Ukraine doesn't control the land between Russia and that territory or you wouldn't have the Russian arms flowing across it as they do.

I see, Ukraine didn't control that territory even though all maps show that it wasn't controlled by rebels but by Ukraine.

But hey your fantasy about them not controlling it because of some contrived assumption, trumps that. Sure.

a reply to: DProgram

The plane was targeted with "a more powerful missile" than a shoulder-carried missile,

And it didn't come from separatists territory did it?

The transport aircraft was hit by an anti aircraft missile during flight at 6500 meters in eastern Ukraine region.

The AN-26 came down in an open field near the town of Izvaryne close to the russian border.

Both pilots were fatally injured while the other six were able to bail out before the crash. All of them jumped to safety all but one managed to escape local seperatist militia.

According to a presidential statement, at least one surviving crewmembers was able to contact his superiors after the shot down.

There is speculation the AN-26 was hit by a russian anti-aircraft rocket because the pro russian militia in the region is lacking missile equipment that can reach such altitudes the aircraft was flying at.

www.jacdec.de...

So then the separatists didn't have anything that could do this, but your still claiming they did?

Off course you know better.

No, but my sources do.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, but my sources do.

What, you said it was shot down with MNAPADS, it wasn't.

So then the separatists didn't have anything that could do this, but your still claiming they did?

Based on speculation, cause it didn't happen before. Fact remains that planes were being shot from altitudes out of MANPAD reach, over the contested zone, prior to MH17, which was the point of discussion.

Again, grasping at straws as you encounter them. You sure seemed to think they had them when MH17 was shot down a few days later.

a reply to: DProgram

I see, Ukraine didn't control that territory even though all maps show that it wasn't controlled by rebels but by Ukraine.

How do you think all that Russian equipment made it's way into Ukraine if they control the border between the separatists and Russia?

Seems that would be a problem if Ukraine controlled that border would it not?

Of course it would.

But hey your fantasy about them not controlling it because of some contrived assumption, trumps that. Sure.

Assumptions are made by you which you have yet been able to back up with anything other than your own thinking of the way things happened.

Saying this happened this way or that way is fine, but to really back your claims sources and real facts work better...something you have yet to provide.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

How do you think all that Russian equipment made it's way into Ukraine if they control the border between the separatists and Russia? Seems that would be a problem if Ukraine controlled that border would it not? Of course it would.

Then why doesn't your map, or others show it controlled by rebels? You are contradicting your own evidence.

What about the eastern part of the territory? Doesn't that border Russia?

I mean duh? You did look at your own source and have a general awreness of the whole situation, right?

originally posted by: DProgram
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, but my sources do.

What, you said it was shot down with MNAPADS, it wasn't.

So then the separatists didn't have anything that could do this, but your still claiming they did?

Based on speculation, cause it didn't happen before. Fact remains that planes were being shot from altitudes out of MANPAD reach, over the contested zone, prior to MH17, which was the point of discussion.

Again, grasping at straws as you encounter them. You sure seemed to think they had them when MH17 was shot down a few days later.

I don't understand the argument your pointing the finger at Russia with your own source. Ok the Russians fired a missile from there territory destroying the plane. However at the time the separatists didn't have this capability they were using manpads. However Russia needed to provide air support for the Russian armor they started shipping across the border. Russian tanks don't go anywhere without buks. Reason is simple aircraft can't destroy armor easily.

To prevent this Russia sent buks we hear this in the discussion of the intercepts between Russia and the sepratists. They also admit they shot it down on another intercept as well as post it online bragging. Until they quickly remove it after realizing they made a mistake. Now as to buks they have to be in front of where the plane crashed a buk is not going to chase down an airliner at 30 k ft.

So in order for a buk to hit the aircraft it had to be in rebel territory. But your trying to have is believe that somehow Ukraine managed to sneak a a launcher deep into enemy territory. Launch a missile that would be seen and heard for miles. Then somehow sneak out again with no one being the wiser. This is the only way your scenario could play out. Yet they destroy tanks at the border but an in armored buk travels past all there defenses did it have an invisibility cloak?

There is 3facts that are indisputable one being it was a BUK two this was launched from separatists territory. And the 3rd being it was supplied from Russia considerable evidence including pictures of it leaving the scene.. The only thing that isn't known is was it a Russian crew or was it separatists that fired the missile. Now you could say Russia have it to them which I find unlikely not to mention the training that would be needed. Or you could say Russia did and a bunch of miners not only figured out how to shoot and track aircraft. But also figured out how to maintain it something that the Russian military takes several months to train them to do.