|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
|
|
On July 18 2014 14:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
Is it possible that Twitter will be able to release the deleted tweets by the pro-Russian separatists? Do screenshots of those tweets exist?
They are around, I think the Guardian live feed had them. I saw a few of them before they were taken down. It was just bragging about the shoot down another transport aircraft. There were a couple others but that's the standout in my mind. 
What a sad stupid business this is.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
Just to put things into the perspective. From the link above:
[...]Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes when it fired a SM-2MR surface-to-air missile. The airplane was destroyed between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew. It was later claimed by United States Government that USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time of the attack, and IR655, an Airbus A300, was misidentified as an Iranian F-14.[20][...]
So if we are to belive US governemnt even highly trained operators on sophisticated ship can misidentify the plane.
|
Just want to chime in on my 2 cents with this matter. There appears to be a lot of conjecture in this thread and I want to clear a few things up.
I was a weapon engineer in the royal navy for over 6 years. So I have experience with anti-air missile systems, radars, IFF etc.
I won't anything about the potential systems that were used, as my knowledge of Russian weapons in pretty much non-existent. But shooting down a commercial airliner at 30,000 feet and traveling over 500mph is no small feat. No mom and pop easily portable system is going to be able to do that. This is high end weaponary that I would imagine only governments would have access to (Not pointing any fingers)
People are quoting the transponder as reasons why it couldn't have been shot down. In military terms this is known as IFF (Interrogation friend or foe). All commercial planes will have this. From the ops room on a warship (Or any radar station I would imagine) you can interrogate the transponder and the plane will identify itself, give course, height, destination etc.
This all well and good. But the problem is that IFF can be faked to make a spy plane or whatever look like a commercial jet. When in a war time scenario, you cannot take it as given that the IFF is correct.
Now this is conjecture on my part, some people think that it's virtually impossible for someone to accidently shoot down and airliner. I've seen plenty of extremely bad / dangerous decisions being made by unexperienced people in high stress situations.
These missiles systems are not easy to operate, by any stretch. It's not like its windows based, with a nice UI and an animated paper clip to help you out. These are bespoke systems. That are totally non user friendly. They don't have to be, because for the most part, the person who will be operating it will sit in a classroom for 3 months before they can even get in the seat.
But if these people were not trained (rebels, maybe, on either side). Mistakes will happen all the time. Maybe these guys didn't even know what IFF is. After all, it's not user friendly. It's either an orange light or a red light.
Most recent systems (last 20 years) have a feature called "Fire and Forget". Active missiles, guided by their own onboard radar, guided by a station on the ground. Making is rather easy fire of a missile at something without really knowing what you are doing.
Who gains in this scenario? No one does. This is a shit storm. This must have been a massive fuck up. No one could have meant to shoot this down. I would bet my house on it that it was a mistake.
But does that mean we, the "West" shouldn't punish anyone. No. Whoever did this needs to have their toys taken away from them because they have shown that they don't know how to play properly.
|
Could Russian separatists have brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine? While that remains to be seen, in June, NATO’s top general said that Russia had provided “anti-aircraft” training inside Russia for Russian separatists that involved “vehicle-borne” surface-to-air missiles. At a June 30 Pentagon news conference, NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove said Russia had been providing air defense training to Russian separatists on its side of the border with Ukraine that focused on “vehicle-borne” surface-to-air missiles. A vehicle-borne capability would involve a surface-to-air missile with a longer range than portable shoulder-fired missiles known as MANPADS. U.S. officials believe that Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine possess MANPADS, some of which may have been used in June to down a Ukrainian military aircraft and two helicopters. “What we see in training on the east side of the border is big equipment, tanks, APCs, anti-aircraft capability, and now we see those capabilities being used on the west side of the border,” Breedlove said at the time. He added that the anti-aircraft capability training focused on larger vehicle-borne missiles instead of portable MANPADS. “We have not seen training of MANPADS,” Breedlove told reporters. “But we have seen vehicle-borne capability being trained.” U.S. officials say an Antonov-26 cargo plane that crashed in eastern Ukraine on Monday was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. On Wednesday, a senior administration official said the AN-26 aircraft “was shot down from an altitude of 21,000 feet, with eight crew on board. And only very sophisticated weapons systems would be able to reach this height.” Another U.S. official said that whether the missile had been fired from inside Russia had not been conclusively determined. There has been a flow of heavy weaponry, including some tanks, that have flowed from Russia into eastern Ukraine. The official said the belief has been that Russian separatists did not possess larger surface-to-air missile systems aside from MANPADS. Source.
***
An overview of UK media today:
***
There appears to be the beginning of a backlash as the spoiling of the crash site and the shipping of black boxes to Moscow:
The United States is shocked by the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, and we offer our deep condolences to all those who lost loved ones on board. We continue to seek information to determine whether there were any American citizens on board. It is critical that there be a full, credible, and unimpeded international investigation as quickly as possible. We urge all concerned – Russia, the pro-Russian separatists, and Ukraine – to support an immediate cease-fire in order to ensure safe and unfettered access to the crash site for international investigators and in order to facilitate the recovery of remains. The role of international organizations – such as the United Nations and the OSCE in Ukraine – may be particularly relevant for this effort, and we will be in touch with affected nations and our partners in these organizations in the coming hours and days to determine the best path forward. In the meantime, it is vital that no evidence be tampered with in any way and that all potential evidence and remains at the crash site are undisturbed. The United States remains prepared to contribute immediate assistance to any international investigation, including through resources provided by the NTSB and the FBI. While we do not yet have all the facts, we do know that this incident occurred in the context of a crisis in Ukraine that is fueled by Russian support for the separatists, including through arms, materiel, and training. This incident only highlights the urgency with which we continue to urge Russia to immediately take concrete steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine and to support a sustainable cease-fire and path toward peace that the Ukrainian government has consistently put forward. Source.
|
Interesting read WiggyB. Although commercial airlines are flying fast and high, I assume they are still 'sitting ducks' in the sense that they cannot avoid a missile if it is on target?
Would the flight even know a missile was locked on or on course to hit them?
Terrible tragedy for those on board and Malaysia Airlines.
|
|
|
On July 18 2014 15:32 Shottaz wrote:
Interesting read WiggyB. Although commercial airlines are flying fast and high, I assume they are still 'sitting ducks' in the sense that they cannot avoid a missile if it is on target?
Would the flight even know a missile was locked on or on course to hit them?
Terrible tragedy for those on board and Malaysia Airlines.
The plane would have been a "sitting duck". There would have been nothing that the pilots could have done about it.
Would they know about missile lock? I actually don't know that, I would imagine no. I have a friend I can ask. I'll let you know.
I know planes like Air Force One will have equipment onboard to sense a lock, and certain counter measures. But I can't see why a commercial jet would have that onboard.
|
On July 18 2014 15:32 Shottaz wrote:
Interesting read WiggyB. Although commercial airlines are flying fast and high, I assume they are still 'sitting ducks' in the sense that they cannot avoid a missile if it is on target?
Would the flight even know a missile was locked on or on course to hit them?
Nope to the first question, and don't think so to the second one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 18 2014 15:19 WiggyB wrote:
Just want to chime in on my 2 cents with this matter. There appears to be a lot of conjecture in this thread and I want to clear a few things up.
I was a weapon engineer in the royal navy for over 6 years. So I have experience with anti-air missile systems, radars, IFF etc.
I won't anything about the potential systems that were used, as my knowledge of Russian weapons in pretty much non-existent. But shooting down a commercial airliner at 30,000 feet and traveling over 500mph is no small feat. No mom and pop easily portable system is going to be able to do that. This is high end weaponary that I would imagine only governments would have access to (Not pointing any fingers)
What about maintenance? How much work does it take to keep something like a mobile SAM operational, in terms of service, repair infrastructure, etc?
|
oh man thats a huge loss for mankind, that knowledge on board could've saved many lives
|
There major international HIV/AIDS conference is next week in Melbourne, Australia. The flight was to continue on to Australia from K-L, so a large number of people on board were on their way to the conference. The 100 includes general health professionals, activists and people with HIV, however, not just scientists.
This is a mess.
Also, the link at the top of this page is pretty interesting, even if the website is a bit questionable. The rebels apparently claimed they shot down a plane on a Russian equivalent of facebook, then deleted the posts once it became clear there was a passenger airplane down. They replaced them with posts claiming that they don't have systems capable of shooting down an airliner at 10,000ft.
They then seem to have gone through their other stuff and wiped tweets about how proud they were to have acquired just such a missile defense system last month.
|
I've never dealt with anything on the ground. All my knowledge is warship based. But surprisingly little. The missiles come in air tight cases. Just requiring an electrical charge to start them up / fire them.
Checks and maintenence is virtually non existent, just make sure that it hasn't been exposed to heat or violent shocks. There will be a plug to check for possible fuel leakage.
If you had a nice cool dry warehouse to store it in. You could, in theory, leave it there for years and it would be fine.
I imagine their would be hydraulics on a land based Sam, but any engineer with hydraulic expierence would be able to maintain it easily.
The missiles I worked with had a two year expiry date on them. But that was just for an inspection and possible changing of fuel. Just the military being extra careful is not essential.
In summary, not much at all
|
On July 18 2014 15:19 WiggyB wrote:
Just want to chime in on my 2 cents with this matter. There appears to be a lot of conjecture in this thread and I want to clear a few things up.
I was a weapon engineer in the royal navy for over 6 years. So I have experience with anti-air missile systems, radars, IFF etc.
I won't anything about the potential systems that were used, as my knowledge of Russian weapons in pretty much non-existent. But shooting down a commercial airliner at 30,000 feet and traveling over 500mph is no small feat. No mom and pop easily portable system is going to be able to do that. This is high end weaponary that I would imagine only governments would have access to (Not pointing any fingers)
Any sense of whether that thing is capable of doing it?
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Thanks for your insight into this WiggyB, hopefully dispels the view some people might have that these are simple weapons you just point at the sky and pull the trigger.
|
On July 18 2014 16:41 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 16:39 WiggyB wrote:
I've never dealt with anything on the ground. All my knowledge is warship based. But surprisingly little. The missiles come in air tight cases. Just requiring an electrical charge to start them up / fire them.
Checks and maintenence is virtually non existent, just make sure that it hasn't been exposed to heat or violent shocks. There will be a plug to check for possible fuel leakage.
If you had a nice cool dry warehouse to store it in. You could, in theory, leave it there for years and it would be fine.
I imagine their would be hydraulics on a land based Sam, but any engineer with hydraulic expierence would be able to maintain it easily.
The missiles I worked with had a two year expiry date on them. But that was just for an inspection and possible changing of fuel. Just the military being extra careful is not essential.
In summary, not much at all https://twitter.com/joshuadarcher/status/489825936343175169Any sense of whether that thing is capable of doing it?
Havent You read the thread? It was stated multiple times that YES IT IS CAPABLE of bringing down plane from that altitiude. Most likely that was the type of weapon used. Perhaps even this unit.
|
The thread is 30 pages. No, I have not read it all.
WiggyB said that he doubted the rebels had access to equipment capable of doing it. It appears they do have access to these. Hence, I asked. Glad it has been clarified.
|
hmm, I'm staying at a hotel and all I get is CNN and RT international... and holy hell is RT full of shit...
watching 30 minutes and I heard three times "the rebels claim they don't have the capability to shoot down a plane at 10000 meters" followed by a segment "believe it or not, the Ukrainian military actually has a history of shooting down civil airplanes" and the moderator saying "most people believe the Ukrainian military is responsible while some people believe the rebels are responsible"
what the hell
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
