MH17 Crash In Ukraine. Known info in OP.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 1,285 comments
  • 65,453 views
I think the rocket penetrated the bottom left of the plane and only activated after punching through the other side.
CLowndes888
Has anyone claimed responsibility for the accident?
Click to expand...
No, the DNR is denying it and the overwhelming evidence points directly to them.
 
SniperRed3
No, the DNR is denying it and the overwhelming evidence points directly to them.
Click to expand...
Still no solid proofs. The UAF have about the same amount of evidence pointing on them (on Ukraine), too. But it's still not solid enough, too. I'll try to analyse it all tomorrow, in more details.
 
SniperRed3
Rage Racer have you been ignoring the whole thread? The DNR has been shooting at the investigators
Click to expand...
Missed that. Link please?
They could have confused the investigators for looters or Ukrainian paramilitary (e.g. National Guard).
...But, they also could have confused something more :D
 
SniperRed3
Rage Racer have you been ignoring the whole thread? The DNR has been shooting at the investigators
Click to expand...

Investigators reported shots in the area to CNN, but not shooting at them, on the report I watched. But the term "investigators" is pretty broad.
 
I love how Obama keeps demanding that Russia "deescalate the situation in Ukraine". I really doubt they have much control over the DNR anymore.
 
SniperRed3
The DNR has been shooting at the investigators
Click to expand...
How about you stop with the bold, unproven claims, and the gross misrepresentation? You're not helping things. There is a big difference between "shooting at investigators", as you put it, and firing warning shots, which is what the source you supplied says.

If you cannot understand that difference, then please stop posting until such time as you do. The situation is serious enough as is, and has been very distressing for thousands of people, if not more. The last thing anyone wants or needs is for someone who does not understand the situation or appreciate the implications of their own comments to go running around shooting their mouth. You have already tried to draw parallels with the death of Ayrton Senna, claimed that the CIA have already verified the evidence and identified the perpetrators without doing anything to stop it, disregarded testimony supplied by Ukrainian authorities because it did not agree with your established knowledge of the subject despite further evidence from Malaysia, consistently failed to provide any sources for your claims, and now you are suggesting that the separatists are attacking the investigators.

It needs to stop.
 
Rich S
I was thinking that yesterday, I'm wondering what's going to happen........

I remember doing a report on this once in a class (Iran Air flight), cant remember too many details but money got paid out by USA to compensate the victims, I'm wondering how these yahoo separatists are going to shell out the $$$. Maybe the Russians will end up paying for it (probably without taking any blame.)
Click to expand...


Errm I don't think so , here's the attorney view of the case

Bruce Bailey passengers atty
In 1990 I was the attorney for most of the passengers families for the 220 from around the world who were killed in the international fight of the
Airbus. The international flight was in the middle of an airway and under air route traffic control, reporting regularly and still in Iranian waters when it was shot down. One rocket hit the body of the airbus, the other a wing. The reason the photos show naked bodies is that the air in the fall from seven thousand feet tore off their clothes, before they died when they hit the water. The U.S. story was that the airbus was coming right at them and attacking the Cruiser, It was coming directly toward the Cruiser because it was also in the center of an international airway. The crew had no idea they were in an airway, untrained and on a new ship. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the families of the dead passengers could not sue the U.S. because Iran, owner of the airplane, and the U.S. were at war. Neither country knew they were at war until so informed by the U.S. Supreme court. The Cruiser, believe it or not did not have a radio to listen to air route traffic. Not one radio to tune civilian airway radio. I'm also a former Navy officer, and it was an bad day for the Navy. The U.S. should have said we are sorry and paid damages.The consequence is continuing hostility with Iran, today. Iranians believe that the airliner was shot down intentionally to threaten Iran to sign a piece treaty with Iraq, which the U.S. was defending at the time, supporting Saddam Huissen. The U.S. wanted to en the war, which Saddam was losing and Iranians today believe that it was a threat of what U.S would do to Iran if they did not sign the treaty That is why, today, Iran wants atomic weapons to protect itself from the U.S. No one in the U.S. knows this story. Not public knowledge. I've written a book but no interest and not published. Bruce Bailey.

But that is off topic
 
SniperRed3
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-crash-pro-russia-rebels-block-access-ukraine
Click to expand...
That doesn't yet mean the rebels had something to cover. This could be a result of slow communication between the militia units. Those who secured the crash site refused to let anyone in without an order from higher command. Strict military subordination, what would you expect?

And, as @Dotini has noted, "warning shots" and "shots at investigators" are different things.
 
I'm sorry didn't realise. Personally, I think that the OSCE investigators shouldn't be involved in an hour long standoff with the Rebels. I understand that 298 innocent people have been killed, it's horrifying.
There is a video on youtube of Buks being transported allegedly away the crash site. This video is of unconfirmed origin.

Also, the rebels are claiming that they have a black box and have sent it to russia. A claim which russia denies as they say they will not accept the black box. The rebel leader said that they didn't have any black boxes and Ukraines emergency services say that they recovered both of the black boxes. It's very confusing on the were abouts of the boxes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...second-black-box-from-crash-site-9614158.html
 
Last edited:
http://www.space.com/26571-military...sile-mh17.html?cmpid=514630_20140718_28099846

It's likely that the strike on MH17 showed up as an alarming blip on screens at Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado where those data from the SBIRS is processed. The detection is precise enough to detect where a missile was fired from and what kind of missile it was.

"Each missile has a different signature plume," Ellison said.

Ellison told Space.com that other military satellites in the region probably would have been alerted to gather further information to be provided to the U.S. European Command.
Click to expand...
 
Malaysia Airlines are having a bad year. First, Flight 370, and now this. I am going to predict another tragedy involving a MH plane at the very end of the year.
 
Was it not for the fact that this was a shootdown, I'd put MA under intense scrutiny. It looks more like a sad coincidence than anything that they are at fault for. We also don't know exactly what happened to the other plane.
 
TenEightyOne
@Rage Racer I'm pretty sure from the wreckage shots so far that there was an explosion outside the plane slightly above and to the right, somewhere between the starboard wing root and starboard edge of the rear pressure bulkhead, this damage looks both aerial (no dirt to be seen) and consistent with that kind of scenario. Certainly the most forcibly separated section seems to the empannage tail, there are some photos of the rearmost starboard passenger door that makes it look as if the main spheric percussion may have focused there just in front of there.

View attachment 188769
Click to expand...

Though I can't really figure out whether the missile hit the plane, or detonated outside of the plane, I for the most part agree with your assessment that it probably hit a bit aft of the wings on the fuselage based on how the structure disintegrated.
 
Touring Mars
I wouldn't give any of these cretins the benefit of the doubt, but there is a very strong chance that this was an accident i.e. they were not targeting a civilian plane, but managed to hit one thinking it was an enemy military plane. I think that much is pretty clear - provided the evidence so far is genuine and not completely fabricated (the latter being pretty unlikely).
Click to expand...
Some of the experts down here have pointed out that on order to be properly fired, the Buk system needs more than a launch vehicle - it also needs a command centre and a self-contained radar post. From the sound of things, a missile can be fired from the launcher without the support vehicles, but they're needed in order to distinguish between targets.

If the separatists did raid a Ukrainian air base and acquire a Buk, it's entirely possible that they only went for the launcher without knowing or understanding what else they needed to fire a missile properly. I can't imagine that the Russians would equip the separatists with a system like the Buk without at least warning them that the radar and command installations were needed, because of the risk to civilian aircraft.

So far, the separatists have managed to shoot down Ukrainian military transports and the odd helicopter, but as far as I am aware, they have only used shoulder-mounted systems. Therefore, I would suggest that the theory that the separatists were targeting a military flight and instead hit a passenger aircraft is most likely to be true, but that leaves the question of Russia's accountability. Was it something as passive as political approval? Was it the supply of weapons, capital and materials? Or something much more malignant, like supplying intelligence on Ukrainian military movements?
 
prisonermonkeys
If the separatists did raid a Ukrainian air base and acquire a Buk, it's entirely possible that they only went for the launcher without knowing or understanding what else they needed to fire a missile properly. I can't imagine that the Russians would equip the separatists with a system like the Buk without at least warning them that the radar and command installations were needed, because of the risk to civilian aircraft.
Click to expand...
One thing I wonder about is how they'd know how to operate the missile while not knowing about the required infrastructure. If they happened to get their hands on someone able to launch a missile I'd think that person would at least know how the SAM as a whole operates.

It could be that they had such a lack of concern that their first priority was to put a missile in the sky above all else, which says a lot about them. If Russia did supply them with equipment or training, it could say a lot about how much Russia cared to evaluate their trustworthiness.
 
Exorcet
One thing I wonder about is how they'd know how to operate the missile while not knowing about the required infrastructure. If they happened to get their hands on someone able to launch a missile I'd think that person would at least know how the SAM as a whole operates.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but the separatists have demonstrated knowledge of and the ability to use military hardware. They could have figured out how to launch on their own, without using the radar and command modules. After all, the three don't have to be physically connected - you would establish anti-aircraft batteries in an area, then have your radar and command post quite separate, so that if someone tries to attack a battery, you don't lose the whole air defence system. Similarly, they're not going to be remotely linked to protect your ability to fire if the radar and command modules are taken out.

It could be that they had such a lack of concern that their first priority was to put a missile in the sky above all else, which says a lot about them. If Russia did supply them with equipment or training, it could say a lot about how much Russia cared to evaluate their trustworthiness.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I doubt the Russians would supply a Buk launcher and/or training in its use without warning them about the need to use the radar and command infrastructure, if only for particularly selfish reasons - given the proximity of the crash site to the Russian border, including the city of Rostov-on-Don, untrained separatists could just as easily target a Russian passenger jet. Missiles don't discriminate; they have no intent - they just fire in the direction and at the target that their operator tells them to fire at. If the separatists had no training, and therefore no ability to pick a commercial flight from a military one, then they would have no ability to distinguish a Malaysian passenger jet from a Russian one. With training, they would be able to pick military from civilian, and so distinguishing Malaysian from Russian is not an issue (unless they were targeting a civilian flight all along).
 
Exorcet
One thing I wonder about is how they'd know how to operate the missile while not knowing about the required infrastructure. If they happened to get their hands on someone able to launch a missile I'd think that person would at least know how the SAM as a whole operates.

It could be that they had such a lack of concern that their first priority was to put a missile in the sky above all else, which says a lot about them. If Russia did supply them with equipment or training, it could say a lot about how much Russia cared to evaluate their trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

Here's an example I used somewhere in the Ukraine thread, way back when we were in Act II;

In the UK we have the Territorial Army. Effectively they're trained reservists who are "part-time" army. Lets say Britain began a civil war (very civil, we'd stop for afternoon tea and everything). We split across the very middle (think of a line from the Humber to Manchester). The Regular Army would be concentrated south of that but, to the north, there'd be bases/stores with regular military equipment that may well fall into the hands of "separatist" reservists. TO some extent a similar thing has happened in the Ukraine.

To the BUK; I believe that similar US systems are able to operate the missile-vehicle component autonomously albeit with greatly-reduced functionality... but one can still launch a missile in a basic "seeker" mode. The types/ranges of potential targets is presumably greatly affected but, if BUK can do something similar, you wouldn't need a two-or-three-vehicle setup to make a "dumb" launch.

@prisonermonkeys ; I hadn't seen your fuller explanation a few posts up... sorry :)
 
prisonermonkeys
I'm no expert, but the separatists have demonstrated knowledge of and the ability to use military hardware. They could have figured out how to launch on their own, without using the radar and command modules. After all, the three don't have to be physically connected - you would establish anti-aircraft batteries in an area, then have your radar and command post quite separate, so that if someone tries to attack a battery, you don't lose the whole air defence system. Similarly, they're not going to be remotely linked to protect your ability to fire if the radar and command modules are taken out.
Click to expand...

A SAM system like this is a bit more complicated than other weapons, and that's why it's odd that they would just be able to pick one up and start shooting. The system doesn't need to be physically connected, but it is designed specifically to work as an integrated unit. The launcher's self sufficiency is a defense mechanism more than an offensive one.




Like I said, I doubt the Russians would supply a Buk launcher and/or training in its use without warning them about the need to use the radar and command infrastructure, if only for particularly selfish reasons - given the proximity of the crash site to the Russian border, including the city of Rostov-on-Don, untrained separatists could just as easily target a Russian passenger jet. Missiles don't discriminate; they have no intent - they just fire in the direction and at the target that their operator tells them to fire at. If the separatists had no training, and therefore no ability to pick a commercial flight from a military one, then they would have no ability to distinguish a Malaysian passenger jet from a Russian one. With training, they would be able to pick military from civilian, and so distinguishing Malaysian from Russian is not an issue (unless they were targeting a civilian flight all along).
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as saying that training equates to safe use of the weapon. If it was a Buk that brought down the plane, there's the question of which Buk it was. The system has been around for a few decades and modified continually. I'd expect more modern ones to be better at IDing targets while older ones might have difficulty doing this, even with trained operators.



TenEightyOne
Here's an example I used somewhere in the Ukraine thread, way back when we were in Act II;

In the UK we have the Territorial Army. Effectively they're trained reservists who are "part-time" army. Lets say Britain began a civil war (very civil, we'd stop for afternoon tea and everything). We split across the very middle (think of a line from the Humber to Manchester). The Regular Army would be concentrated south of that but, to the north, there'd be bases/stores with regular military equipment that may well fall into the hands of "separatist" reservists. TO some extent a similar thing has happened in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Right, but I'd expect the reservists to have a bit of knowledge depth when it comes to equipment, etc.

I'm not trying to say what's happened because I simply don't know, but it bugs me that they could so easily launch a missile from what should be a pretty secure weapon (in terms of physical security and operational security). Then again, I myself don't know how the Buk works in detail, so I could be overstating things.

To the BUK; I believe that similar US systems are able to operate the missile-vehicle component autonomously albeit with greatly-reduced functionality... but one can still launch a missile in a basic "seeker" mode. The types/ranges of potential targets is presumably greatly affected but, if BUK can do something similar, you wouldn't need a two-or-three-vehicle setup to make a "dumb" launch.
Click to expand...
My knowledge on the Buk is that the search radar is a separate entity. The track radar is carried by the launcher. SR is obviously longer ranged and can better ID targets. I don't know the limits of the launcher's TR. It might be that you pick up something visually, point the radar at it and if there's a return launch the missile.
 
Last edited:
SniperRed3
Personally, I think that the OSCE investigators shouldn't be involved in an hour long standoff with the Rebels.
Click to expand...

I'm sure everyone wholeheartedly agrees! Do you have a source showing this happened? None of the sources I found so far mention any shots other than one (apparently visibly inoxicated) "guard" who fired a warning shot into the air when one of the investigation team left the "prescribed area".
 
prisonermonkeys
Some of the experts down here have pointed out that on order to be properly fired, the Buk system needs more than a launch vehicle - it also needs a command centre and a self-contained radar post. From the sound of things, a missile can be fired from the launcher without the support vehicles, but they're needed in order to distinguish between targets.
Click to expand...
The Buk could not hit a plane on that altitude without a 9S18 Kupol - universal radar station included in a Buk system squad.
The 9S35 RCS equipped on a Buk launcher vehicle provides missile guidance in 10 km range and 4~5 km altitude. Which means, it could not shoot the Boeing without a Kupol. However, the modern version of the system - Buk-M2 has a radar with phased antenna grid on the launcher, which raises the autonomous range to 18 km. But Ukraine does not have this mod, they possess Soviet-made Buk-M1 only.

TenEightyOne
To the BUK; I believe that similar US systems are able to operate the missile-vehicle component autonomously albeit with greatly-reduced functionality... but one can still launch a missile in a basic "seeker" mode. The types/ranges of potential targets is presumably greatly affected but, if BUK can do something similar, you wouldn't need a two-or-three-vehicle setup to make a "dumb" launch.
Click to expand...
Depending on what range type of SAM you're talking about.
Short range systems (like Tunguska, Osa, Pantsir-S1, Roland, Rapier, M48 Chaparral, etc) usually have all units on one vehicle.

Buk is a medium range system, it consists of:
9S18 Kupol RCS
4 launcher vehicles
2 loading vehicles.
 
I'm afraid a good investigation of the wreck site will be very difficult. There are videos of men with guns and balaclavas sifting through the wreckage and dumping various pieces into dump trucks.
 
Pilitev
I'm afraid a good investigation of the wreck site will be very difficult. There are videos of men with guns and balaclavas sifting through the wreckage and dumping various pieces into dump trucks.
Click to expand...
Could you post one please?
 
TenEightyOne
I'm sure everyone wholeheartedly agrees! Do you have a source showing this happened? None of the sources I found so far mention any shots other than one (apparently visibly inoxicated) "guard" who fired a warning shot into the air when one of the investigation team left the "prescribed area".
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-crash-pro-russia-rebels-block-access-ukraine

You forget that the rebels have seized equipment with the capability to shoot down Ukrainian military aircraft flying at high altittude as they have been doing it all week. Edit: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...egedly-downed-malaysian-airlines-buk-launcher
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems
19 20 21
Replies
618
Views
38K
Liquid
Liquid
Dotini
Global Energy Crisis
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
nitro_2005
David Leslie & Richard Lloyd die in plane crash in Kent
Replies
13
Views
3K
JohnBM01
JohnBM01
buickgnx88
Georgian luger dies in horrific training crash
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Aldo
Aldo
Tommi
Travis Barker Seriously Injured In Fatal Air Crash
Replies
4
Views
2K
91hondawagon
91hondawagon

Latest Posts

Back