(seriously not a troll) Ukrainian SU-25 pilot admits to have shot down flight MH17

[trick master]

please read this use google translate if u dont speak german

You must be registered for see links

thanks

 

[KcMSean]

I'll wait for someone else to check it..but in seriousness, this shit is crazy. It's only a matter of time before another war breaks out. And apparently, (or obviously?) Russia had a huge hand in this. Things do not look good for our immediate future.

 

[Tera Path]

I'm not good at German because I've only had it for a year and I've skipped most of my classes but I'll try translating it.

Ein ukrainischer Flieger, der Pilot eines Kampfflugzeuges Su-25, hat in einem Interview mit der deutschen Zeitung Wahrheit für Deutschland die Verantwortung für die Vernichtung des Passagierflugzeuges von Malaysia Airlines am 17. Juli im Osten der Ukraine übernommen.

A Ukrain(er?) pilot, the pilot of a figherjet Su-25 has been interviewed by the German newspaper ''Wahrheit Fur Deutschland'' (I think) ''The Truth for Germany'', the pilot took responsibility for the destroying of the passenger plane from Malaysia Airlines on 17 July in Eastern Ukraine.

Der Pilot erzählte, dass er die Boeing 777 aus der zweiläufigen 30-mm-Bordkanone des Flugzeuges Su-25 beschossen hätte und dass gerade seine Maschine auf den Satellitenaufnahmen abgebildet worden sei, die das Verteidigungsministerium der Russischen Föderation bereitgestellt hat. Namen und Vornamen des gesprächigen Fliegers wollte das Blatt nicht preisgeben.

The pilot said that he fired on the Boeing 777 with a 30 mm cannon that his fighterjet Su-25 and that his machine was put on satellite imagery by the Russian Federation. Names and first names of the pilots will not be said/given to us


Underlined = Not sure.
Sorry for any mistakes.

I couldn't translate this part either.
Russische Mittel der objektiven Kontrolle hatten eine Su-25 neben dem malaysischen Liner festgehalten.

 

[Barbarossa]

If this is true things will become crazy very soon

 

[Edward Snowden]

This does not bode well.

 

[Fluffyman]

I'm german, to tell it in short: The pilot is just claiming that he shot it down, nothing to back it up.

I doubt that we will ever learn the truth. But if I had to make a bet I would say that america has a big role in this. They are using the EU to hurt Russia.

 

[KcMSean]

I'm german, to tell it in short: The pilot is just claiming that he shot it down, nothing to back it up.

I doubt that we will ever learn the truth. But if I had to make a bet I would say that america has a big role in this. They are using the EU to hurt Russia.

What makes you think that America has anything to do with this? Signs are pointing towards Russia, maybe they are responsible. Seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the US aiding them to make Russia look bad. Or do you mean that America will play a large role because of this, using this instance to hurt them?

 

[Fluffyman]

What I want to say is that the US might have been the one who shot it down, well knowing that Russia would be the guilty one for everyone. US would be playing out the EU and Russia against each other.

 

[KcMSean]

What I want to say is that the US might have been the one who shot it down, well knowing that Russia would be the guilty one for everyone. US would be playing out the EU and Russia against each other.

Sounds like a conspiracy theorist blaming US for the actions of others. You think that's more likely than Russia aiding these revolutionaries, knowing Russia has interest in the area? The shooting was likely a huge blunder on the part of inexperienced revolutionaries shooting the first thing they saw. But Russia aiding them is far, far more likely than America shooting it down to make them look bad.

 

[Aim64C]

What makes you think that America has anything to do with this? Signs are pointing towards Russia, maybe they are responsible. Seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the US aiding them to make Russia look bad. Or do you mean that America will play a large role because of this, using this instance to hurt them?

What you have to stop and realize is that this is about two things.

First - it's an issue of who controls the shale in Ukraine.

Second - it's a show-down between the BRIC and the Federal Reserve bank note.

Russia -is- responsible for backing the Russian separatists and for 'stirring the pot' to get a revolution started.

This is -nothing- new for that region. The Ottomans, Russians, and various western European powers have -always- been dabbling in Eastern Europe because they get bored or something.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't 'do anything' - but I'm also not so sure we should be 'doing anything.' Our involvement in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Sarajevo did not end up actually helping the issue in the long run - it only passed the ball of genocide off to another group.

So I caution against doing what every other major power has done throughout history and rushing into Eastern Europe/Western Asia to start another damned world war that leaves everyone in that area pissed at each other so that, ten years later, they start killing each other again and we decide to throw ourselves into another war (because we didn't learn from the last five dozen times this story has played out).

Now - with that said - you also have to understand something:

You must be registered for see images

Flight MH17, logically, had to have been directed over the airspace by air traffic control. The only ATC in the theater with the authority to do that would be in Kiev - Ukraine.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Ukrainian Security Services confiscated Kiev ATC tape recordings shortly after the incident and has yet to turn them over for analysis. This is one of the first things reviewed in the wake of -any- aircraft related incident.

The evidence suggest that there is something for Ukraine to lose if what is on these tapes is made public. Such as, perhaps, that Kiev ATC instructed the aircraft into the hostile airspace.

Now - there is a lot that could have gone on here (particularly when you let my devious imagination run wild with the possibilities for a while).

The problem is that our political leaders in charge of foreign policy have decided to beat the living shit out of the war drums with this incident. Even Obama has joined in on the jamboree.

Perhaps Russia did it.

Perhaps the Rebels did it.

Perhaps Ukraine did it.

Perhaps it was Mossad trying to give the world something else to look at (they've been known to do some pretty underhanded stuff - though I'd still rather deal with them than Hamas).

Perhaps it was a "U.S. False Flag" - of course, people have been calling "false flag" for so long that no one takes the concept seriously, anymore.

At the end of the day - the evidence suggest that there is far, far more to the story than what we currently know and will likely ever be told. That means that the political leadership are using this incident (regardless of how it occurred) to get people to agree to supporting them doing things we would, otherwise, never give them permission to do.

Sounds like a conspiracy theorist blaming US for the actions of others. You think that's more likely than Russia aiding these revolutionaries, knowing Russia has interest in the area? The shooting was likely a huge blunder on the part of inexperienced revolutionaries shooting the first thing they saw. But Russia aiding them is far, far more likely than America shooting it down to make them look bad.

Doubtful.

Assuming it was a BUK missile system - you don't just 'accidentally' shoot one.

For starters - the BUK missile system is distributed between four different vehicles with a minimum of the radar, command, and launcher vehicles necessary.

This isn't like you just shoot off a bottle rocket in your back yard and hit a crop-duster.

You must be registered for see links

[video=youtube;hsgQ83irr0o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsgQ83irr0o[/video]

While kind of cheesy - the video displays the concept of the BUK2 (as well as an update to the TOR missile system to provide theater wide datalinked protection... pretty much a Patriot missile grid while the BUK2 is comparable to a HAWK missile system providing tactical coverage with a Russian counterpart to the CRAM/Iron Dome technologies displayed, there).

You pretty much have to know what you're doing just to get one of these things to fire, and the systems themselves can gather more information about the target than the IFF transponder generates. The older systems are a little less 'fancy' - but they get the job done and allow for radar return analysis - which means they know how many engines the plane is running (unless it's an LO design - but even those are able to be sniffed out by modern digital processing of 'noise' that would have been rejected in the old varieties.... although the Russians are over-estimating their ability to track and intercept a B-2 or F-22 - but it can still be done).

If it was, truly, a BUK missile - they likely had a very good idea of what they were shooting at and had every intention of shooting it.

I have my doubts that it was a BUK missile. The altitude ceiling of the missile is 47000 feet at about 25 miles. It's a tactical missile system meant to provide protection for operating forces against tactical, strike, and attack aircraft (A-10s, F-16s, FB-111/Tornado). It's not meant for the interception of aircraft flying at high altitudes or to provide much range against such targets.

Now - since we are talking in terms of missile ballistics - it's not really 'simple' to determine the range of a missile. The BUK missile might have a range of over 40 miles against a target at only 10,000 feet - provided the radar can properly illuminate the target and the missile guidance will operate effectively over that range (there is a considerable difference between how a strategic missile guides to a target and how a tactical missile guides to a target based on what provides the best compromise between saving kinetic energy and proper interception behavior).

Of course, that changes if the target is flying at Mach 2 - as you figure that your intercept can be anywhere between a relative Mach 1 intercept at the missile's maximum velocity - or Mach 5 at the missile's maximum velocity - depending upon the flight of the target. That also means that your effective range depends upon which direction the target is flying.

In all - I would say that a BUK missile is just an unlikely candidate. It's a relatively complex missile system for rebels to try and operate to begin with (even if backed by Russia) and it provides very little value to the rebel forces. A strategic TOR or even older system would have been just fine for intercepting cargo planes (per 'the goal' they were supposed to have been going for) and given a much wider coverage of the area - compared to the rather meager performance of the BUK.

The theory that it was shot down by an escort aircraft makes a lot more sense and is more plausible.

In my estimation.

But... what would I know? I've only studied radar and missile systems since I was a kid and worked on a few of our own....

Edit:

What I should add here is that I am working off of the published figures for the missile. The 'maximum altitude' and the 'maximum range' are not necessarily related to each other.

A nominal range of 25 miles might be constrained to targets below 15,000 feet. A nominal ceiling of 27000 feet might mean 'if the missile is shot straight up into the air, this is the point where the missile still has enough velocity to make an intercept.'

Missile 'ranges' are rarely absolute or guaranteed. It takes a lot of fuel to accelerate a land based missile from not moving to moving fast enough to intercept a plane flying 600 miles an hour - let alone fast enough to knock a target out of the air that is flying 1500 miles an hour - 25 miles away.

Air-launched missiles have a huge advantage of already flying - and the range of a missile can be radically extended simply by accelerating beyond the sound barrier (as breaking the sound barrier consumes a lot of energy and reduces the maximum effective range of the missile if its limited fuel supply must expend the energy). Climbing above the target also helps.

A SAM has none of these advantages and must overcome every single one of them with more rocket fuel. Perhaps, some day, some kind of magnetic-assisted launch will come about - but that is a ways away. That is why a Phoenix missile system and a TOR missile system have roughly the same effective range - but a TOR is like 50 times bigger than a Phoenix - it doesn't have a pair of jet engines attached to it that can fly it above the target faster than the speed of sound before launching it.

So - while I was working with the stated figures of the missile - without actually looking at raw performance data - it's hard to say (although I suppose some good estimates could be made if I were to estimate the fuel used by each missile and factor in ballistic and aerodynamic simulations... but that is a bit much for me to do right now). I could be radically over-estimating the effective envelope for that system.