[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Ukrainian Air Force jet shot down Malaysian airliner On October 13, Australia's conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared to reporters that at the G20 summit to be held in Brisbane on November 15-16, he was going to "shirt-front" Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the slang of Australian football, that term refers to an aggressively illegal tackle, not to say indictable assault. Invoking the shoot-down over eastern Ukraine on July 17 of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, in which 38 Australian citizens and residents died, Abbott pledged: "Look, I'm going to shirt-front Mr Putin....I am going to be saying to Mr Putin, 'Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment.'"[1] The Prime Minister’' poll figures promptly took to the skies, with a Newspoll survey showing 63 per cent backing Abbott's plan to take a tough stance against Putin, and only 27 per cent opposed.[2] But there's one key problem with Abbott’s ploy. He has the culprit all wrong. The evidence has become conclusive that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down not by anti-Kiev insurgents using a Russian-supplied Buk M-1 surface-to-air missile -- the version fed to a salivating Western media by U.S. officials -- but by a military aircraft of the Ukrainian government. The "Buk" story started unravelling within days of the shoot-down, when one of the first international monitors to reach the crash scene reported that various pieces of the fuselage were "really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire."[3] Then in mid-August the Russian Union of Engineers published a tightly-argued 16- page report that shot down the "Buk" myth in expert detail. The only way the facts known about the tragedy could be explained, the report showed, was on the basis that a combat aircraft, probably a Sukhoi 25, had shot the airliner down using cannon fire followed by at least one air-to-air missile.[4] The insurgents of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic do not have combat jets, or the ability to track and target a high-flying airliner. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities insist that no Russian military aircraft violated Ukrainian air space. Responsibility thus lies with the Ukrainians. It is next to inconceivable that the U.S. authorities were not aware of the facts surrounding the shoot-down virtually from the time it happened. Strategic areas such as Ukraine and western Russia are monitored intensively by U.S. spy satellites. The attack on MH17 took place in bright sunlight above cloud, at a time when according to the Russian Defence Ministry, such a satellite was on watch.[5] But repeated challenges to the U.S. to reveal what the satellite images show have been met with silence. In Australia since the shoot-down, there has been no such silence from Abbott. "This week, the Prime Minister has cleared his diary and cancelled his travelled plans to focus on MH17," a Sydney Morning Herald journalist gushed in the paper's July 24 issue. "He has napped in his office waiting for calls from leaders overseas and convened daily meetings of the national security committee."[6] The Australian victims of the tragedy, Abbott had clearly decided, would not have died in vain; they would allow him to boost his profile by playing a key role in stirring international outrage and keeping it directed against the Putin administration. As exploited by Abbott and other Western leaders, the shooting down of MH17 added important fuel to the campaign to tighten international sanctions against Russia. Couldn't the shoot-down be claimed as terrorism, Abbott reportedly wondered to his aides.[7] And as early as July 20, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was reported as flying to the U.S. to argue in the UN Security Council in support of an Australian-drafted resolution demanding a "full, thorough and independent international investigation" into the disaster.[8] The resolution was adopted unanimously -- and the Australian government was set on a course which ironically, seems certain in time to place it in the thick of an ineffective, embarrassing attempt at cover-up. So what have the various investigations revealed so far? Control over the official international investigation has been ceded by the Ukrainians to the Dutch Safety Board. This organisation has a promised a full report in mid-2015. A preliminary report released by the board on September 9 is uninformative, stating what everyone accepted anyway -- that MH17 "broke up in the air probably as a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside."[9] The August 15 report by the Russian Union of Engineers on the downing of MH17 is a work of far more substance. The union is a well-regarded NGO with a record of highly professional consulting work. The team it assembled to carry out its study included reserve military officers experienced in anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as pilots with knowledge of aircraft weapons. Their findings were reviewed by a meeting of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, where, the report notes, "many variants were tested and discussed again." The situation was also analysed using a computer flight simulator of the Sukhoi 25 aircraft.[10] With direct knowledge of the Buk M-1 missile system, the experts soon refuted the claim that it had been used in the attack. A Buk missile launch produces a tremendous noise, audible for 7-10 kilometres, and a prominent launch trail stretching up to the cloud base and visible for at least 10 kilometres. In a well-populated farming district, hundreds if not thousands of people would have noted these effects. But no such phenomena were reported. Moreover, the pattern of damage to the aircraft, still visible on the wreckage, is not consistent with the use of a Buk missile. This was pointed out by the chief of the Russian Land Forces air defence troops Major-General Mikhail Krush in an interview published in the July 30 issue of the military weekly Voenno- Promyshlenny Kuryer.[11] A Buk missile, Krush explained, is designed to explode above the target. But the holes left by the missile strike on the Malaysian Boeing's outer skin, he stated, "indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways." This would be consistent with an air-to-air heat-seeking missile striking an engine and causing it to disintegrate -- but not with a Buk. The large warhead of the latter explodes at a distance of 50-100 metres from the target, and as Krush noted, envelops the whole aircraft in a dense cloud of fragments. But photos of the wreckage of the downed Malaysian airliner show large wing surfaces substantially unmarked. A Buk strike, according to the report, would not be expected to cause the immediate breakup of an aircraft as large as a Boeing 777, leaving it to succumb to fuel fire, failure of the hydraulic system, and aerodynamic forces as control was lost. The crew would likely be able to trigger a distress call. But with MH17, no such message went out. Taking account of the known facts, the Russian Union of Engineers report constructs a hypothesis of what actually occurred. It begins with Russian Air Traffic Control radar tracking an aircraft, potentially a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25, climbing toward the Malaysian Boeing as it cruised at 10,100 metres, probably on autopilot. The evidence that this military aircraft was present has been scornfully dismissed by Western commentators as Russian propaganda. Nevertheless a video recording of the Russian radar screen, posted on the internet, shows the combat jet approaching to within 3-5 kilometres of MH17, at a slightly lower level, in cloud, and on a collision course.[12] As hypothesised by the Russian Union of Engineers report, the combat aircraft then "sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the cockpit, firing from a 30mm calibre cannon or smaller. "As a result of multiple hits from shells," the report continues, "there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew...the crew could not sound any alarm. "Since neither the engines or hydraulic system, nor other devices required for the continuation of the flight were out of commission, the Boeing 777, running on autopilot (as is standard), continued on its horizontal flight path, perhaps gradually losing altitude. "The pilot of the unidentified combat aircraft manoeuvred to the rear of the Boeing 777… the pilot… took aim and launched his R-60 or R-73 missiles. "The result was a loss of cabin pressure, the aircraft control system was destroyed, the autopilot failed, the aircraft lost the ability to maintain its level flight path, and went into a tailspin. The resulting overload led to mechanical failure of the airframe. "The aircraft broke up at a high altitude." The compelling evidence for this version is the dense pattern of round holes found in the skin of the cockpit section of the airliner, and noted by Canadian Michael Bociurkiw when, as a member of the official monitoring team, he reached the crash site while the wreckage was still smouldering.[13] The round holes are clearly visible in photos circulated on the internet. Shrapnel from a missile warhead does not leave round holes but jagged ones. As the Russian Union of Engineers report explains, however, the round holes are consistent with damage from aircraft cannon shells. "Projectiles of this kind pass through leaving a track that is perfectly round in shape; they do not explode inside the cabin and are not incendiary, but they can kill the crew and destroy the cabin. "The general typology of the holes and their location suggest that it is most likely the Boeing 777 was fired on using a GSh-2-30 aircraft cannon or an SPPU- 22 container with dual-barrel 23mm GSh-23L cannons. Sighting was targeted in the area of the cockpit, while the shells that broke through the cockpit proceeded out the other side and caused damage to the flat surface of the wing." In a sense, the Russian Union of Engineers team had the easy task. Much more difficult than providing technical proof of how the airliner was downed will be the job of discovering who in the Ukrainian military hierarchy -- or the Ukrainian government -- ordered the attack, and why. Still more difficult is the challenge that confronts honest journalists and political activists who will try to convince the public in Ukraine and the West of the facts -- over the furious opposition of media lords and lying politicians. There will be an understandable reluctance to believe that anyone in the Ukrainian state apparatus could have ordered this atrocity. Yet the attack is most unlikely to have been carried out on the initiative of an individual pilot. Meanwhile, the shoot-down was a staggering propaganda coup for Ukraine's extreme right-wing government, and for its backers in the governments of countries such as the U.S., Canada and Australia. For the Russian government, and for the Ukrainian insurgents fighting for autonomy from the Kiev state and its neo-Nazi militias, the episode has of course been an unmitigated disaster. Surely, though, the Dutch Safety Board's official investigation will reveal the truth? Not likely -- that possibility has been closed off almost from the outset. On August 8, the Russian Union of Engineers report explains, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed an agreement stipulating that information about the crash would be disclosed only upon the consent of all parties. With the truth as it is, will the Ukrainian government be forthcoming? Will Abbott? As the Russian engineers are at pains to note, "there are plenty of parties interested in concealing the real facts." We have to expect an attempted cover- up -- clumsy, thuggish, and accompanied by scurrilous attacks on truth-tellers and their organisations. Renfrey Clarke resides in Adelaide, Australia, where he is a member of the Socialist Alliance. He translates articles from Russian for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal. Find a full dossier of articles on the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on the new website The New Cold War: Ukraine and beyond. Notes: [1] www.abc.net.au/7.30/co ntent/2014/s4106143.htm [2] www.news.com.au/national/...l-boost-over-vladimir-p... [3] www.opednews.com/articles...mac-by-michael-collins-... [4] www.theautomaticearth.com...ers-accuses-ukraine-air... [5] rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/ [6] www.smh.com.au/federal-po...es-betray-sombre-duty-a... [7] www.smh.com.au/federal-po...17-abbott-government-ma... [8] www.smh.com.au/federal-po...ny-abbott-fears-russian... [9] www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july... [10] vineyardsaker.blogspot.co...ight-mh17-crash-analysis- by.html [11] www.washingtonsblog.com/2...lusive-2-ukrainian-gove... [12] www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCaEmvhr6w&app=desktop [13] www.independentaustralia....splay/what-is-the-truth... Print Write to editor Support rabble Corrections TAGS: RUSSIA UKRAINE MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT 17 COMMENTS Submitted by j_770 on November 14, 2014 - 12:57am. Hadji - with all due respect, I don't have much confidence that you know what you're talking about over and above what you seek and find on the internet. You don't present a coherent narrative that suggests you really have a working knowledge of the science behind this despite augmenting your comment with internet-cloned detail. By the way I'm not arguing a 100% sure position with respect to the jet theory. I think the probability is quite high though. It's a theory that has merit and there is a lot of opinion out there that supports the theoretical possibility that the Boeing could have been downed with an air-to-air missile and cannon fire. So it's worth exploring. I'm well aware there was no mention of a missile in the Dutch report. What I was getting at was the predominant bias toward this theory in western media and government, with a number of pundits drawing that conclusion from the wording of the report (unjustifiably in my opinion). Westerbeke has publicly stated that he thinks a ground-to-air missile is most likely so some think that adds credence to the earlier contentions in the press. With respect to posts on this site, Majka and Clarke take polar opposite positions on the crash - both also worth exploring. Although I have to admit I find Majka's confidence in an internet video released by the Ukrainian Security Service featuring heavily masked men to be rather naive and his outspoken assertions that it has all been basically proven and wrapped up to be slightly desperate. Even Westerbeke suggests investigators aren't close to that level of certainty and I'm sure they have access to a lot more information. It's a wait and see game now... and even then without concrete evidence the Dutch verdict will almost definitely turn out to be more weighted on the side of opinion than hard proof. » Submitted by Hadji Ramjet on November 11, 2014 - 1:31pm. "Anyone who followed the Dutch preliminary report knows that the bias of the investigators was clearly toward the surface-to-air missile theory..." The preliminary report makes NO mention whatsoever of a SAM; the only statements concerning the method of destruction are limite to passages such as, "...material around the holes was deformed in a matter consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects." Unlike yourself, they do not appear to be given to unsupported speculation. "The Russians have said that their radar indicated a plane with 'a profile similar to that of the Sukhoi Su-25.' It could have been a jet of a similar class - not categorically the Frogfoot. So "fighter jet" allows for that leeway. Most people get that." The first Russian briefer referred to Su-25 five times, the first including "supposedly" while the other four mentions directly referred to that specific aircraft, not a "jet of a similar class" (whatever that might be). The second briefer also refers specifically to Su-25; a senior Russian officer goes on at some length about (alleged) Su-25 capabilities, and the Kremlin (allegedly) tries to raise the Su-25 ceiling on the Russian-language Wiki page. No, of course we're not talking about the Su-25, we're talking about a class of aircraft. Aside from A-10, what other aircraft in service might comprise this class? So the TW ratio has decreased from "excellent" (your word but no source) to "good" with no mention of what it actually is, and now the latter is an example of "first-hand technical info?" One would presume that Sukhoi, the aircraft maker, can provide better technical info than a video statement made with no corroborating evidence: service ceiling of 7000m (clean) and a maximum climb rate at that altitude of 500ft/m. "Re the skin question...I'll ask you to connect the dots." I asked you to elaborate, is your failure to do so due to a lack of knowledge of warheads? If so, I'll be more specific: what if any difference in damage patterns can be expected when superheated supersonic expanding-rod tungsten-DU warhead fragments impact B-777 ALCOA Triplex aluminum as opposed to older aircraft-grade aluminum such as that used on the L-39; and why? Do you really believe that an extremely dense piece of metal travelling at >2000m/s is going to notice the difference? "The reliable sources on this concur that a BUK missile trail is visible for around ten minutes." Presumably then you can provide these sources? "there was plenty of visibility on the day for eye witnesses on the ground to observe the trail." Do you have a source for that as well, since the evidence indicates otherwise? Multiple thundershowers were reported in the vicinity of the occurrence; just to the WSW clouds were reported at 8 octas (that's sky totally obscured) with CBs based at 1000-5000' MSL with tops to FL350; in the occurrence area Cu & CB clouds were 3 to 6 octas based at 1000', tops at 10,000'; just to the SE As/Ci clouds were 8 octas (sky totally obscured again) from 10,000 to 24,000'. Paris Match posted a video with two locals near the site where one says, "it was very cloudy," and "it went into the clouds" while another one says, "the big one was not visible." Another mentions a "big column of smoke" but it's uncertain whether he means a missile launch or smoke from the crash. One blog claims to have an audio Zella App intercept and posted the following: "... I was in the vegetable garden, it's actually [located] in October [reference to Red October farm - хутор Красный Октябрь - Червоный Жовтень] ... heard a roaring sound, came from nowhere this roar. Literally it was all quiet, and right away this loud roar. I look up ... something was flying ... well, I can't say for but it was like flying from direction where Saurivka is... I thought it was a missile.. when it was flying it already had a white smoke and had a loud roaring sound and was flying over Red October farm towards the town, in that direction". Once she's done talking a second later a male voice states "The mine #8 confirms". Then another male voice: "I was also standing on my balcony [in some apartment building] and saw [can't make it what he says] go into the clouds and then I heard explosion." Not verified but easily as credible as the people interviewed by Olga Ivshina. The L-39 shootup demo is interesting: a stable gun platform engaging a non- moving target resulting in quite large weapon dispersion, while you want to believe an aircraft far above it's service ceiling engaging a faster target would obtain far better groupings on both sides of the cockpit. Of course, and Elvis is alive. » Submitted by j_770 on November 10, 2014 - 4:07pm. Just took a look at Majka's "Mendacious nonsense: Denialism, conspiracy theory, and manipulation." Lots to rebut but for some reason comments are closed. It's worth noting that Majka's infinite certainty about the sequence of events and veracity of same isn't shared by Dutch investigator Fred Westerbeke who told Spiegel online in the course of a recent interview: "if we really want to bring the perpetrators to justice, we need more evidence than a recorded phone call from the internet or photos of the crash site." No kidding. » Submitted by j_770 on November 10, 2014 - 3:07am. @Hadji Ramjet Anyone who followed the Dutch preliminary report knows that the bias of the investigators was clearly toward the surface-to-air missile theory... newspaper coverage at the time made that clear. I didn't purposely "omit" anything. But the Dutch report outright ignored the fighter jet claim raised by the Russians - who do actually use the term "fighter jet" as do a number of experts in the field - so it's significant that Westerbeke included the air-to-air scenario in the list of possible scenarios. When asked what those scenarios were he told Spiegel online: "An accident, a terrorist attack, the shooting down by a surface to air missile or an attack by another aircraft. We have ruled out the first two." Westerbeke also said: "Based on the available information... a ground-to-air missile in my eyes is still the most likely scenario. But we do not close our eyes to the possibility that it might have been different." This is a significant development for anyone familiar with preliminary Dutch report. I referred specifically to the Sukhoi-Su-25 in my post but one reason your "fighter jet" objection is redundant is because you are apparently unaware that the term is used in part because it covers other possible variables. The Russians have said that their radar indicated a plane with 'a profile similar to that of the Sukhoi Su-25.' It could have been a jet of a similar class - not categorically the Frogfoot. So "fighter jet" allows for that leeway. Most people get that. Where are these pilots? Check out this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoIw3jBV4g#t=791 It features an excerpt with Vladimir Mikhailov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, who talks about his own experience flying the Sukhoi Su-25. In reference to the Su-25's thrust-to-weight ratio I was referring specifically to this class of plane, not aircraft in general... according to Mikhailov who flew Su-25's it has "a good thrust-to-weight ratio." I generally find it safer to get first hand technical info of this sort from people who have actually flown as opposed to online "experts." Here's a transcript (in translation) of what he had to say: "The SU-25 had good thrust-to-weight ratio. It can reach an altitude of 9,200 to 9,600 metres pretty fast and stays there for a rather a long time to carry out its mission. If a pilot uses oxygen he or she can run a mission for over 30 minutes. I have personally flown at this altitude and didn't experience any health problems. The aircraft's armaments allows it to do what happened to the Boeing: to launch an air-to-air missile or to fire its weapon." Re the skin question... you said "even if they are different, is the difference significant to an expanding-rod fragmentation warhead?" And you make an argument from physics to wrap up your post! I'll ask you to connect the dots. On the BUK vapour trail... ah yes... the Daily Mail that font of accuracy in journalism. Saw one of their claims and found it to be on a par with their photoshopped imagery of teeth growing out of people's heads etc. Really the Mail is one remove from the National Inquirer. The reliable sources on this concur that a BUK missile trail is visible for around ten minutes. Some cloud cover doesn't equal fog or smog... there was plenty of visibility on the day for eye witnesses on the ground to observe the trail. Here's the YouTube vid of the women's testimony in a BBC report: www.youtube.com/watch? v=pnncBV_Wv7c As for proof-by-physics, if that was meant to be a clincher it is the equivalent of punching air. Theoretical proofs of this sort tend to fail when there are a lot of variables involved - some of which we have absolutely no data on and/or no way of knowing - most especially when we can't even be 100% certain about the type of fighter jet involved. I will say it's certainly brave of you to make claims of the "physics says" variety in a scenario like this. I'll go with Mikhailov who said the Su-25 would have been capable of targeting the Boeing with air-to-air missiles and cannon fire. » Submitted by Christopher_Majka on November 10, 2014 - 12:11am. Doug Woodard has it exactly right: "This is mendacious nonsense." Indeed, it's worse than that: it's idiotic mendacious nonsense. Those following this thread may therefore be interested in my article, "Mendacious nonsense: Denialism, conspiracy theory, and manipulation." » Submitted by Hadji Ramjet on November 9, 2014 - 9:49pm. j_770, there are so many issues with both the original post and your support of it, one hardly knows where to begin. "There are grounds to be at the very least open to the possibility of a scenario involving a Ukrainian jet..." Perhaps, but the article isn't open to that, rather "The evidence has become conclusive that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down...but by a military aircraft of the Ukrainian government." I'll limit myself to comment on your post: 1. "...even has Dutch investigator Fred Westerbeke leaving the door open to the possibility of an air-to-air attack - he publicly stated as much last week in an interview with Spiegel online." Conveniently omitting his related comment, "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario." 2. "...fighter jet hypothesis..." Frogfoot isn't a "fighter jet," it's a subsonic low-altitude ground-attack aircraft. Pedantic perhaps, but the difference is quite significant in this context. 3. "...but then the skin of an Aero isn't comparable with the double-layered skin of a Boeing 777 cockpit..." Why not? Do you have any data comparing skin thickness of the two aircraft? Even if they are different, is the difference significant to an expanding-rod fragmentation warhead? Please elaborate. 4. "...pilots attest to its excellent thrust-to-weight ratio and a capacity to reach 9,200 to 9,600 quite quickly. According to those who have flown the jet it can maintain these altitudes comfortably." " Frogfoot's TW is around 0.7, hardly excellent, quite poor in fact. Who are these pilots and where is this alleged attestation? Adversary Tactics at Nellis disagrees, and they've flown them too; so does the manufacturer. Again, please elaborate. 5. "BBC footage ...features local village women...who said they saw a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity of MH-17 around the time of the "explosions"... not a mention though of a surface-to-air BUK with its massive vapour trail. It is their belief that the two explosions they heard were a result of an air-to-air engagement. Their testimony comes across as entirely spontaneous and credible... and is also borne out by other eye witnesses on the ground..." Remarkable, local village women who can see a military jet that's 50' long at a distance of at least 6 miles, and discern both that it's military and Ukranian. And they can hear a 3kg warhead at the same distance; both assuming they were directly underneath the incident, the shortest possible distance. I looked for but can't find said BBC footage, can you provide a link? 6. "A BUK missile leaves a highly visible trail that lingers for around ten minutes. Plenty of time to jerk up an arm and click." Do you have a verifiable technical source that can validate your claim of "ten minutes?" UK's Daily Mail published a photo that purports to be of that very exhaust trail, as well as a Gadfly in Donetsk. (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698689/The-trail- death-Moment-s...) It IS the internet though. More importantly, given that MH17 was diverting around weather, what was the weather at the time of the incident: cloud bases, tops, visibility et al? The original article repeatedly referres to cloud, do you suppose you could see a rocket exhaust in cloud? 15 second burn time, how much of that was in clear air? As well, a 1-stage rocket sounds like a "whoosh" when it launches, not "bang" like an explosion; unlike a 2-stage system such as SA-2 where the boost stage is huge to get the thing moving. I've never heard one fire, but I have been close to an ACATMS in action and I wouldn't describe it as "tremendous." The simple fact remains, a subsonic low-altitude strike aircraft could not do a stern-conversion short-range Aphid missile launch into a higher and faster target given the stated parameters. Physics. » Submitted by j_770 on November 8, 2014 - 11:22pm. @Doug Woodard The lead post is very far from "mendacious nonsense" or "Russian propaganda." Your rebuttal comes across a bit too dismissive, especially in the face of evidence that even has Dutch investigator Fred Westerbeke leaving the door open to the possibility of an air- to-air attack - he publicly stated as much last week in an interview with Spiegel online. Other experts who aren't in the tank with the Americans view the fighter jet hypothesis as plausible... in no sense "a fantasy." Your point about the size of entry holes is subject to variables such as the type of aircraft skin impacted, the angle of the cannon fire and the range involved. The Russian Air Force shot up an Aero L-39 with 30-mm cannon as part of a demo and the entry holes appear larger than entry holes seen in photos of the downed Boeing's fuselage, but then the skin of an Aero isn't comparable with the double-layered skin of a Boeing 777 cockpit. There are a number of variables, not to mention the capacity of a Sukhoi Su-25 to carry 23-mm dual barrel cannon. As for the debate about the altitude at which the Sukhoi Su-25 can fly, a lot of misinformation has been relayed about this on the net. The exact same jet is also used by the Russians and pilots attest to its excellent thrust-to-weight ratio and a capacity to reach 9,200 to 9,600 quite quickly. According to those who have flown the jet it can maintain these altitudes comfortably. There is no reason to presume that the jet needed to be flying at precisely the same altitude as the Boeing (especially when range is figured in) before the presumed strike. Also when you mention speed, there is no sense in which the Sukhoi would have gone about "chasing down" the Boeing... the Sukhoi would of course have had access to data that would have allowed for an ambush scenario rather a chase of any sort. BBC footage shot shortly after the crash features local village women with nothing to gain by making up stories, who said they saw a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity of MH-17 around the time of the "explosions"... not a mention though of a surface-to-air BUK with its massive vapour trail. It is their belief that the two explosions they heard were a result of an air-to-air engagement. Their testimony comes across as entirely spontaneous and credible... and is also borne out by other eye witnesses on the ground... none of them incidentally members of any militia, just local civilians. A BUK missile leaves a highly visible trail that lingers for around ten minutes. Plenty of time to jerk up an arm and click. Not only is there an absence of any credible visual records of this sort - minus of course the usual internet photoshop and hack jobs - but the Americans who had the territory well covered are either unable or unwilling to provide satellite images to back up their BUK claim. As investigative journalist Robert Parry pointed out in a recent article a BUK missile system deployed in the region for this purpose is not likely to be missed by US-surveillance, but all we have are tall internet tracking tales by Eliot Higgins and co - more along the lines of a NED funded fantasy. Seeing how off-base Higgins was with his analysis of the chemical attack in Syria, his current thesis is running true to form. There are grounds to be at the very least open to the possibility of a scenario involving a Ukrainian jet (or jets) - as are the Dutch investigators according to Westerbeke (although the chances of any final verdict from the Dutch free of political influence is slim to zero). Simply dismissing a thought provoking post that covers some very important ground as "Russian propaganda" seems a rather unreasonable response at this stage of the investigation. » Submitted by Hadji Ramjet on November 8, 2014 - 6:46pm. The original author is either a Russian apologist or ignorant of aerial warfare; or both. » Submitted by ScramJet on November 8, 2014 - 9:48am. As the article above indicates: With direct knowledge of the Buk M-1 missile system, the experts soon refuted the claim that it had been used in the attack. A Buk missile launch produces a tremendous noise, audible for 7-10 kilometres, and a prominent launch trail stretching up to the cloud base and visible for at least 10 kilometres. In a well-populated farming district, hundreds if not thousands of people would have noted these effects. But no such phenomena were reported. It is rather surprising that there were no witnesses from the area of the disaster that could testify to seeing such a missile trail, which can last up to 10 minutes, around the time of the shoot down. See some screen capture pics of the missile trail left by a typical Buk missiles in flight taken from another recent article: Western News-Suppression about the Downing of MH-17 Malaysian Jet by Eric Zeusse 3-Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 3.23.54 PM copy And then this: 4-Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 3.26.20 PM copy And then this: 5-Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 3.27.01 PM copy And then this: 6-Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 3.27.28 PM copy » Submitted by Doug Woodard on November 8, 2014 - 3:40am. This is mendacious nonsense. The SU-25 can't reach 10,000 metres normally, and it's not clear that it could in a zoom climb. From all I've read of head-on attacks, written by pilots who did them in WWII, theyre pretty chancy and only the most skilled are likely to be successful. Trying to shoot down a jet with gunfire at twice WWII speeds, in a head-on attack at the top of a zoom climb, strikes me (a former recreational pilot) as completely lunatic. If the attacking aircraft was missile equipped, it would use a missile to begin with. It's not clear why these fantasists haven't suggested that the Ukrainian air force would use one of the fighter types it has, well capable of reaching 10,000 metres. 30 mm cannon fire from an SU-25 would use mostly or all explosive shells for air-to-air work. They would be expected to produce holes in an aircraft's skin around 15 inches or 35-40 cm. in diameter. We don't see this in the photos, but many small holes such as would be produced by fragments. An attack from the rear with a heat-seeking missile would likely hit an engine or explode near it behind and below the wing, detonated by a proximity fuse. One would expect a lot of damage to the wing near the engine, and to the mid fuselage. What I have seen in photos and read reported, suggests an explosion beside the forward fuselage, more compatible with a missile from ahead, fired from the suggested BUK location. This looks to me like Russian propaganda of a fairly stupid kind. It's not obvious why anyone who have thought they would benefit by shooting down an airliner. The originally reported situation of a captured BUK launched by mistake by inexperienced, ill-trained rebels and irresponsible rebels has a certain plausibility. So many lies have come from the rebels and the Russians (for example that the passengers were dead long before the airliner was shot down) that we are justified in looking at any story coming from them very critically indeed. » Login or register to post comments RABBLE.CA IN YOUR INBOX! ROGER ANNIS'S BLOG Roger Annis's blog Posts 2014 November (3) October (6) September (5) August (10) July (14) June (11) May (11) April (6) March (8) February (7) January (6) 2013 December (2) October (2) September (1) July (2) June (2) May (3) April (9) March (3) February (4) January (4) 2012 December (3) November (1) September (2) August (4) July (5) May (3) April (3) March (2) February (4) January (3) 2011 December (1) TOP PICKS ON RABBLE The right-to-water struggle continues in El Salvador | Brent Patterson Stop calling it my maiden name | Anne Theriault Union vows to campaign against Harper | Ella Bedard Why libraries -- and library users -- need librarians and other library workers to be union members | David J. Climenhaga Recommended for you The 'Sonic' boom: How Alberta became an 'Offshore Business' in the pathology market The 'Sonic' boom: How Alberta became an 'Offshore Business' in the pathology market rabble.ca Burnaby Mountain: Latest wall of opposition against tar sands Burnaby Mountain: Latest wall of opposition against tar sands rabble.ca Remembrance Day as empty signifier Remembrance Day as empty signifier rabble.ca Harper slashes surplus -- take that Mulcair and Trudeau! Harper slashes surplus -- take that Mulcair and Trudeau! rabble.ca Alberta's big problem is the same as Russia's -- so what's Stephen Harper doing about it? Alberta's big problem is the same as Russia's -- so what's Stephen Harper doing about it? rabble.ca AddThis Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||