Crisis in the Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
This thread is about the Crisis in the Ukraine and nothing else.

When posting in this thread abide by the http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/announcements/sinodefence-forum-rules-behavior-6741.html

No country bashing.
No off topic conversation.
No foul language or it's disguised cousins.
Do not bait other members into arguments.
Do not post conjecture.
Do not post anything about Nazi's or Neo-Nazi's

Thread Open....HOWEVER..if this thread get's out of hand again. This thread shall be closed permanently.


bd popeye super moderator
 

delft

Brigadier
Come on delft...that's simply not true.

All have been pushing for an investigation from the start.

As I said earlier. It is absolutely most likely that the separatists shot this aircraft down. That they did so with a Russian missile.

That missile could have been part of Ukraine equipment they captured or it could have been supplied by Russia. Operators could easily have been rebels because many of them served in the Ukraine military in times past and I bet they could have found individuals who operated the Ukrainian equipment. That's the two edged sword nature of civil wars in such nations.

In the end...IMHO, the biggest fault in this absolutely lies with Malaysian Airlines. It is incomprehensible to me that such aircraft would fly over a war zone like this. It is well known that Ukraine has such missiles. It is clear that in a civil war like this the other side may get them...either from Ukraine or Russia.

I believe the phone intercepts are accurate. All they do is, IMHO, make clear the obvious.

The separatists are at war. They saw a large aircraft flying directly over territory thy occupy. They shot it down and thought it was military. As the one person said...paraphrase..."to heck with them. We are at war. They should not be flying here."

I agree 100% with this sentiment.

They separatists should express sincere sorrow at the loss of innocent life. They should admit it was a mistake. But they should also indicate that the biggest mistake was not theirs...but Malaysian Airlines. The let the investigators in to do their business.

A lot of innocent life is being lost in this conflict. At the hands of both sides. That does not make it okay...but it is a part of war...a very tragic and sad part. IMHO, only if one side or the other can be shown to systematically and intentionally target and kill innocent civilians in an effort to accomplish political goals does it become a war crime. This is not even close to that.

If it is found that Russia supplied the system, and had operators on the ground operating it...then there is something there for the international community to crow about and sanction Russia over. But we are a LONG way from any proof of that. And if it turns out to be the case...what are they going to do? The military option has been taken off the table and so they can continue only to escalate economic sanctions...and it is not likely most of Europe will go along with that.
Well, Jeff, what must we think then of President Obama, without awaiting an investigation, calling for sanctions not of the perpetrators but of Russia?
Btw what was the role of US in 2001 when Ukraine shot down the airliner from Tel Aviv near the Turkish coast and took eight days to own up?

As for the route this airliner took, how many took the same route on that day and on previous days. If there were several, or even many, that none of them attacked the separatists why then would they decide to shoot at this one. If it was the only one, why did it go there. What was the role of Kiev traffic control in determining the route to be followed. All together it is not at all obvious that the separatists are responsible.

We have been assuming that the missile was a Buk. But is that certain. We need to know. And next we want to know its serial number and try to reconstruct its route from the factory to an airliner at 33000 ft.

There is plenty of work for the investigators and they need to be acceptable to all sides.

I'm wondering what will happen if Kiev is proven to be responsible. Does that mean closing all financial connections?
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Pepe pointed me towards this site that does provide the data for the previous MH flights from Schipol to KL
It is quite remarkable that all the previous flights avoided the hot zone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is also talk about the real field technical capabilities in the field of the BUK M1
The source site is talking about False Flags, but irrespective of that, once again if we can access real technical facts, then this will narrow down the possible options and eliminate the impossible and isolate the improbable or otherwise highly unlikely.
Annoyingly the source report is in Russian and so matching up some aspects of the translation and the original video is virtually impossible.

Here is the link and treat with obvious caution

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is the original video article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is the transcript of interest.

Note: Half of the Post Translated; The Remaining Half is Speculative
Complete Original of the Post (in Russian) Can Be Found at Eugene-DF LiveJournal

In the disseminated intercept, the place from which the missile was allegedly launched is clearly indicated: the checkpoint at the settlement of Chernukhino.

Pay close attention at the Alleged Map of the MH17 Catastrophe.

As you can see, the distance from the point of launch to the point of the fall is 37 kilometres. At the same time, the elevation of the plane was 10-11 kilometres. For the Russian BUK M2 this distance is, in fact, achievable (although with a very important caveat discussed below).

However, Ukraine does not, and cannot, have modern digital high-tech Anti-Aircraft systems in its arsenal. What it does have, at best, is the older version BUK M1. The system itself is not too bad, and could even fit the stated distance. Except for the caveat that was mentioned.

The thing is that most short to medium range Anti-Aircraft systems work extremely poorly in a “pursuit” mode. There are a number of reasons for this, and I do not intend to belabor the point, but you can take it as an axiom that when the launch is made in “pursuit” of the target, the maximum distance of the launch that successfully hits the target is at least half of the advertised maximum distance (in reality, it even worse, but let’s leave aside the sad part). Accordingly, the real distance of a “pursuit” launch for BUK M1 is 16 kilometres. What’s more, the last 3 kilometres are purely “God willing” and “without guarantees.”

And, so, we have the background. Let’s see how the picture unfolds:

The launch is alleged to have been made from Chernukhino. The maximum distance of the launch is 16 kilometres. The aircraft fell between Snezhnoye and Torez. That’s 37 kilometres, which is 20 kilometres more than the maximum possible point at which the plain could have been hit. You know, even a plane with turned-off engines can’t glide like that. But the trouble is that the aircraft was not whole.

According to the pattern of the spread of fuselage fragments and bodies, the plane was ruptured practically with the first shot. Here it must be mentioned that the high-explosive/fragmentation warhead of the rocket has a mass of approximately 50 kilograms (by the way, Ukrainians have an outdated modification, which is only 40 kilograms).

Overall, that’s not too little; however, it must be understood that it detonates not when it sticks into an airplane, but when it is still at a certain, and fairly significant distance. Moreover, the main strike factor is not the blast wave, but far more significantly – the stream of fragments. These fragments are previously prepared rods (and in the earlier versions – little cubes, if I recall correctly). And yes, for a jet fighter, that, in itself, is more than sufficient.

However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example – the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.

Nevertheless, this has relation to the next part of our analysis. For now, let’s accept as a fact the break-up of the aircraft in the air, at a significant height (which is, in essence, what was observed. Allow me to remind you: “fragments spread over a radius of 15 kilometres.” The key here is that this means the following: the aircraft (or, more precisely, the core of the aircraft) fell literally at the point where the rocket impacted it. Clarifying: as soon as the aircraft turned into a host of fragments of different mass, the separation of these fragments began due to air resistance and the difference in inertia. The densest fragment flew a further 3-6 kilometres, falling more and more steeply. The lightest – spread out and, due to gliding and air currents, fell somewhere within a 10 kilometre radius. The medium ones (primarily pieces of casing with high sail-effect and the victims’ bodies) – fell almost vertically.

In other words, the rocket caught up to the plane no closer than 25 kilometres away from Chernukhino. Which is absolutely impossible for a BUK system.

By the way, we can’t overlook the fact that, at maximum distances, BUK can be used only provided there is support from an external radar installation for location and guiding purposes. In other words, even if a rockets flies far, BUK’s mobile radar does not cover its entire distance.

Accordingly, if SBU’s video above is not fake, then, to our surprise, we discover that it was literally impossible for the aircraft to be shot down by the rebel’s BUK. By the way, what exactly this BUK was doing in Chernukhino with the Cossacks is pretty much inexplicable. It is 60 kilometres whether you go to Donetsk or to Lugansk from there, and this BUK would be unable to protect the skies over either of the key cities. Nor are there any hostilities in the area. It’s also strange for the Militia to expect enemy planes there – it’s not like the pilots are their own enemies to make such detours over the enemy’s territory, is it? Well, all right. As I already stated, let’s accept, for the moment, that the intercept is not fake.

This is a military forum with many members with a range of interest over many weapon systems. Surely we must have somebody her with knowledge or even professional experience who can help verify the accuracy of the description of the BUK M1 and its short comings as given here?
 

solarz

Brigadier
Just saw this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is claiming that the rebels may have shot down the plane because they didn't have a radar to identify the target.

I thought that you needed a radar to lock onto the target in the first place?
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
And remember Flight 370 how they were talking military radars couldn't do anything more to identify except for friend or foe. So what more of a sophisticated radar?
 

shen

Senior Member
BUK TELAR vehicle has an on-board engagement radar. normally, a separately longer range radar provides early warning. But with just the engagement radar, a BUK TELAR can engage targets. It just won't have the situational awareness that comes with a complete system. I'm not sure if military IFF is even compatible with civilian transponder.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Commercial aircraft don't have IFF and military radar don't read transponders. To which they would be seen on military radar as not friendly because it cannot be identified.
 
Last edited:

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There has been a lot of "comment" about the treatment of the dead of flight MH17 and the general management of the site.
The BBC has reported since Sunday morning that the site is now being managed by former Berkhet Police members and therefore in the hands of emergency professionals.

The other criticisms are bizarre with some complaining that bodies have not been moved and others subsequently that they are.

DPR leader Alexander Borodai has addressed these points in a press conference today and states that they were told by OCSE to touch nothing until the International Experts arrive. OK he says, we touched nothing but where are the experts?

The full half hour video of conference and q&a's follows

[video=youtube_share;0AuZ1Ok3s_I]http://youtu.be/0AuZ1Ok3s_I[/video]
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
This is a military forum with many members with a range of interest over many weapon systems. Surely we must have somebody her with knowledge or even professional experience who can help verify the accuracy of the description of the BUK M1 and its short comings as given here?

Simplified analysis . First of all, stated range of Buk system does not depend on ballistic characteristics of the missiles (there are several types of those) , but instead on targeting radar and SARH sensors in the missile . Otherwise, you could just add additional booster to the rocket and voilà ;)

35 km range given for Buk M1 is for a fighter sized target head on , for a larger passenger plane it could be more . In a pursuit mode you would need to calculate height, speed and angle of the target, but I doubt it would drop to 16km for passenger plane .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But I would agree with the article that data presented so far point more towards Ukrainian S-300 system then to alleged rebel Buk M1 .
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Pepe pointed me towards this site that does provide the data for the previous MH flights from Schipol to KL
It is quite remarkable that all the previous flights avoided the hot zone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is also talk about the real field technical capabilities in the field of the BUK M1
The source site is talking about False Flags, but irrespective of that, once again if we can access real technical facts, then this will narrow down the possible options and eliminate the impossible and isolate the improbable or otherwise highly unlikely.
Annoyingly the source report is in Russian and so matching up some aspects of the translation and the original video is virtually impossible.

Here is the link and treat with obvious caution

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is the original video article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is the transcript of interest.



This is a military forum with many members with a range of interest over many weapon systems. Surely we must have somebody her with knowledge or even professional experience who can help verify the accuracy of the description of the BUK M1 and its short comings as given here?

One word : interesting!... Good analysis and technically accurate I might add.
So if not the BUK then what? S300?
No way the seperatists has S300.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top