MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: dragonridr

Ukraine doesn't have any version of the su 25 capable of reaching that altitude.

Any generic Su25 is capable of doing that, and the vid proves it.

And BTW, there hardly is any difference between the normal Su25's and the Su39.

Su25.

POWER-PLANT Two jet, R-195

Thrust, kN 2 x 44.13

Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000

www.redstar.gr...



Su39.

POWER-PLANT Two jet, R-195

Thrust, kN 2 x 45.00

Service ceiling, m 12.000

www.redstar.gr...


The only thing that is significantly different is the service ceiling, and this is because the cockpit of the Su39 seems to be pressurised. It doesn't have much to do with the capability of the plane itself.

Any Su25 can easily fly at 10km, the only restriction is the lack of oxygen.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
And BTW, there hardly is any difference between the normal Su25's and the Su39.

Su25.

POWER-PLANT Two jet, R-195

Thrust, kN 2 x 44.13

Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000

www.redstar.gr...



Su39.

POWER-PLANT Two jet, R-195

Thrust, kN 2 x 45.00

Service ceiling, m 12.000

www.redstar.gr...


The only thing that is significantly different is the service ceiling, and this is because the cockpit of the Su39 seems to be pressurised.now what would happen if it was? You would see something very similar to my 17.anytime some one shot at the craft that air would escape with massive force. Besides at 10000 ft you'll do fine with an oxygen mask. Like all fighter aircraft. It doesn't have much to do with the capability of the plane itself.

Any Su25 can easily fly at 10km, the only restriction is the lack of oxygen.

I'm really trying not to laugh at you no it's not pressurized.Please just stop your so lost on this. Ok here how about a statement from the designer will that help
The chief designer of the Su-25 aircraft Vladimir Babak, who worked on the aircraft for over 30 years, made the following statement to German media companies NDR and WDR earlier this week: "The Su-25 could attack a Boeing at a height of three or four thousand meters, but it can't shoot down a plane flying at an altitude of 10,500 meters...I believe that all allegations of the Su-25 involvement in the tragedy are an attempt to cover tracks. I can't explain it in any other way. We do not understand how a Su-25 could shoot down a Boeing,"

a reply to: dragonridr

Like I just said there is no real difference in power that explains why the Su39 is supposed to go much higher.

Same type of engines, almost the same thrust. how do you explain the increased ceiling?

I encoutered various sources claiming the cockpit is presurised. Like this one,

The airplane’s protection has also been increased: the total weight of onboard survivability assets amounts to 1,115 kg. A pressurised cockpit offers an increase in the maximum combat altitude to 12,000 m from the baseline aircraft’s 7,000 m.

www.aviamarket.org...

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Like I just said there is no real difference in power that explains why the Su39 is supposed to go much higher.

Same type of engines, almost the same thrust. how do you explain the increased ceiling?

I encoutered various sources claiming the cockpit is presurised. Like this one,

The airplane’s protection has also been increased: the total weight of onboard survivability assets amounts to 1,115 kg. A pressurised cockpit offers an increase in the maximum combat altitude to 12,000 m from the baseline aircraft’s 7,000 m.

www.aviamarket.org...

And it doesn't strike you as odd the engine thrust is diffrent? I'll give you a couple of more hints too look at the wings and the air intakes. And the cockpit. And for the engine it was a redesingned changing the turbo fans and cowling. At high altitude the air is thinner so you have to make it more efficient. Which means decreasing gaps. Though its the same engine design the parts are not the same. This is one of the reasons Russia made so few of them and never finished many of them. The need disappeared after Afghanistan and the cost was prohibitive. Does having a jet with a higher coming matter in Iraq or even Ukraine not in the least. This plane was specifically built for afganistan. As you can see in the video the changes were effective.

a reply to: dragonridr

Stop making stuff up. There is hardly any difference in trust. Let's say a whopping 2%.........

The plane in the vid flying at 8700m is a normal Su25. Russia only received them in 2006. The vid was from 95'.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

You need to read deeper. A lot of the Su-25s use the R95Sh engine. The Su-25BM was the first to use the R195. The modernized Su-25SM still uses modernized R95Sh engines.

As for the Su-39, the Russian designation is either Su-25T or TM. The Su-25T first flew in 1990, and 8 production aircraft were built to test and flew until 2000. The TM further improved on the changes made to the T and was introduced in 2008.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Stop making stuff up. There is hardly any difference in trust. Let's say a whopping 2%.........

The plane in the vid flying at 8700m is a normal Su25. Russia only received them in 2006. The vid was from 95'.

I'm done arguing about stupidity just the fact it has a different designation tells you it changed. But you know more then all the aviation experts your right it's the same aircraft. My God you can't admit your wrong oh please do that point by point on the cockpit two I'd be real interested to hear how you would explain the second seat. Hahahahaha


Now at this point I suggest we return to the thread if you wish to continue and discuss the differences between an su 39 and the su25 start a thread of there isn't one already. And ill be happy to join the conversation. I noticed you have yet to comment on the buk or provide any evidence it wasn't a buk.

a reply to: dragonridr

According to Babak, it is also impossible that other fighter jets could have downed MH17. So called air-to-air missiles would only have damaged the Boeing, and the Boeing had been completely destroyed while still in the air.

The KIev born expert seems to have forgotten that fighter jets also have large caliber cannons.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Which unlike Hollywood don't cause airplanes to suddenly explode, barring a one in a billion shot.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

According to Babak, it is also impossible that other fighter jets could have downed MH17. So called air-to-air missiles would only have damaged the Boeing, and the Boeing had been completely destroyed while still in the air.

The KIev born expert seems to have forgotten that fighter jets also have large caliber cannons.

Yeah the designer of the aircraft forgot it has cannons. No the designer if the aircraft knows those cannons are useless unless he can get above the aircraft which he cant.

a reply to: dragonridr

Even then a gun designed for ground attack doesn't work well in air to air. Two Iranian Su-25s tried to use their gun to shoot down a Predator and failed.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah the designer of the aircraft forgot it has cannons. No the designer if the aircraft knows those cannons are useless unless he can get above the aircraft which he cant.

But he said reaching the height was not the problem, the lack of heavy missiles was. He simply ignored the guns.

According to Babak, it is also impossible that other fighter jets could have downed MH17. So called air-to-air missiles would only have damaged the Boeing, and the Boeing had been completely destroyed while still in the air.

Other jets can definately reach that height and above. What about their board guns?

I noticed you have yet to comment on the buk or provide any evidence it wasn't a buk.

Be patient.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You need to read deeper.

You need to provide links to your sources.

Which unlike Hollywood don't cause airplanes to suddenly explode, barring a one in a billion shot.

What property of a BUK did cause it to suddenly explode and disintegrate?

a reply to: Zaphod58

You need to read deeper. A lot of the Su-25s use the R95Sh engine. The Su-25BM was the first to use the R195. The modernized Su-25SM still uses modernized R95Sh engines.

What are the differences in thrust?

I bet they are insignificant.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

While initial production Su-25s used the R-95 turbojet engine, very late production examples used the improved R-195 turbojet, which provided slightly greater thrust and was specifically designed for combat survivability, with the ability to soak up considerable battle damage and keep on running. Fit of the R-195 required minor changes to the engine nacelles.

The Su-25BM was almost indistinguishable from the standard Su-25, except for the fact that most or all of the Su-25BMs had the uprated R-195 engines.

The Klen-PS targeting system and the R-95Sh engines are retained; the engines are old-fashioned, but they are very sturdy and reliable

www.airvectors.net...

The Su-39 (also known as the Su-25T or Su-25TM) is a Frogfoot variant incorporating post-Afghanistan lessons-learned.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The shockwave and massive damage that any SAM have cause the aircraft to explode.

a reply to: Zaphod58

which provided slightly greater thrust and was specifically designed for combat survivability,

Like I said, insignificant difference in thrust. So why does it suddenly fly higher?

The shockwave and massive damage that any SAM have cause the aircraft to explode.

Is it the force of the explosion or the explosive decompression due to the hull damage that cause a plane to break up?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

There's enough of a thrust difference to allow the Su-39 to carry an additional 2,000 kg of weapons.

It's the major structural damage caused combined with the force is the air around the aircraft tearing it apart. An air to air missile or gun can't cause that kind of instantaneous damage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There's enough of a thrust difference to allow the Su-39 to carry an additional 2,000 kg of weapons.

In the source I used earlier the difference in thrust was a mere 2%, but there was 2000-3000 kg increase in take off loads Is this not because the Su39 has more attachment points to carry extra weight, and a larger default take off load because of added options?

It's the major structural damage caused combined with the force is the air around the aircraft tearing it apart. An air to air missile or gun can't cause that kind of instantaneous damage.

So it is not the actual explosion but the damage caused by it. Cannon fire can easily create the same level of structural damage in a short timeframe.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

All Su-25 variants use the same wing with 10 hardpoints, and an 11th fuselage point.

A cannon isn't going to cause an instantaneous explosion of the aircraft like we saw here. It will take a few seconds if not longer.