|
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 16:49 Belisarius wrote:
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.
They captured some buk systems about 2 weeks ago but imidietly after Kiev officials had a press conference and stated that the taken systems were piles of junk.
About the social media posts. There have been multiple times during this conflict when anti-government forces have claimed they had shot a plane when in fact it went down because of equipment faliure. Its become standard procedure to jump the gun and make all sorts of wild claims when an aircraft goes down.
|
On July 18 2014 16:49 Belisarius wrote:
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.
No I didn't
|
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
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
On July 18 2014 16:49 Belisarius wrote:
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.
The question of whether or not they are operational is also an open one. These are apparently of Ukrainian origin, and almost all of Ukrainian weaponry is Soviet era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Military_Equipment
Needless to say, most of their equipment is ill-maintained. Many aircraft unable to fly, tanks unable to fire, etc. 25+ years is a long time.
On July 18 2014 16:49 Nesto wrote:
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
RT is more sensationalist than journalistic; the only reason we care about it is because it's in English.
One pretty good russian news source would be http://lenta.ru/ . Google translate works pretty well for it.
|
On July 18 2014 16:49 Nesto wrote:
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
That's why it's called propaganda.
|
OH MY GOD. NOT AGAIN... =(
|
On July 18 2014 16:49 Nesto wrote:
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
local news is saying the same here, all the videos and pictures online tell a different story if they are to be credible, which I think they are given the amount of them.
|
Hmm, not much new information since I went to sleep. At least this lightened my mood slightly.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xqanSbs.png)
Translation:
- Yea fuck, I am also flying over Ukraine tomorrow.
- Lean out of the little window and return fire.
- Tight plan.
Guess it's better in Dutch.
|
On July 18 2014 17:03 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 16:49 Belisarius wrote:
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. They captured some buk systems about 2 weeks ago but imidietly after Kiev officials had a press conference and stated that the taken systems were piles of junk. About the social media posts. There have been multiple times during this conflict when anti-government forces have claimed they had shot a plane when in fact it went down because of equipment faliure. Its become standard procedure to jump the gun and make all sorts of wild claims when an aircraft goes down.
You forgot to mention the other probable source of Buk SAM systems. It's called "Russia".
Even if we do take the Kiev's conference at face value that the SAM systems were tampered to make inoperable, the separatist still has access to the heavy weapons Russia is providing. Consider that the separatist do not have a airforce, they require someway to stop Ukraine's aircrafts, it's logical to assume they will be looking to acquire anti-air SAM systems.
In other words, it's very likely, almost a certainty that the separatists have access to Buk SAM systems.
For other evidence, there's lots of photos linked in this thread by civilians, of photos taken of SAM systems in Separatist controlled areas. Those photos combined with reports of Buk missiles being captured + russia supplying weapon systems all add up to a very convincing case that the separatist do have Buk missiles that are in working conditions.
For the SAM systems itself, I personally worked as a clerk in a active SAM unit for my national service(singapore). I have a general knowledge of how SAM works because of briefings/papers i have access to. From my understanding of those system, it's not hard at all to paint a target and launch missiles at it, the hard part is ID-ing what your shooting at. The operators in my squadron goes through long periods of courses & training + refresher training on ID-ing aircrafts. This also means that the poorly trained separatists have no real idea of how to use the Buk SAM besides shooting down anything they see.
I therefore lean towards a mis-id of target by the separatists that it's a Ukraine military transport vehicle and the shootdown is a mistake by the separatist. This is further reinforced by how separatists are known to be deleting all of their previous social media postings of downing of a AN26 transport plane, removal of the announcing that was crowing their acquistion of Buk SAM systems. This systematic removal of announcements/posts indicates a guilty conscience and a coverup.
The coverup itself is a admission of guilt. If they didn't do it, why are they trying to cover their tracks, going so far as to claim they lack the systems required to hit MH17?
My personal view from all the evidence and actions of the parties involved is that the separatist shot down MH17 by accident, due to poorly trained militia on the Buk system, mistaking it for a Ukraine AN26 military transport aircraft. After crowing that they took down a "bird", they realised what a error they have committed. Knowing the backlash that would occur if they admitted their mistake by the global powers, they are attempting a ill-advised coverup(not knowing that anything once posted on the internet, stays on the internet).
The separatist are guilty of shooting down a civilian aircraft and have committed a act of war against multiple countries who have citizens on it.
|
On July 18 2014 16:49 Nesto wrote:
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
Actually, it is true that the Ukrainian military have shot down an airliner before. But it was a terrible error in a military trainings over Crimea, something about a launched missile acquiring the wrong target, and they apologized.
So far, logic tells you that you don't fire upon a plane that is leaving your air space, but one that is trying to enter yours. I think it was also a terrible mistake by some guys in the rebel side, but it is just speculation.
What I find amusing (well, not amusing at all really) is that they still call the separatist "militias" when they have tanks, artillery , supposedly SAM missiles and military training. The only thing they don't have are air forces...
|
On July 18 2014 17:20 Mithhaike wrote:
The coverup itself is a admission of guilt. If they didn't do it, why are they trying to cover their tracks, going so far as to claim they lack the systems required to hit MH17?
Would you really not take such posts down, regardless of guilt, in the same situation?
Guilty or not, leaving something like that would be even worse.
|
On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry.
These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified.
There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware.
And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it.
If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment.
Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now
|
What a terrible tragedy. Hearts go out to the deceased and the many, many people they leave behind 
|
On July 18 2014 17:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:20 Mithhaike wrote:
The coverup itself is a admission of guilt. If they didn't do it, why are they trying to cover their tracks, going so far as to claim they lack the systems required to hit MH17? Would you really not take such posts down, regardless of guilt, in the same situation? Guilty or not, leaving something like that would be even worse.
You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what I would do. They have admitted guilt when those posts were made, the attempted coverup only accentuates their guilt and further finger themself as the culprits for this tragedy
|
On July 18 2014 17:27 WiggyB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry. These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified. There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware. And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it. If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment. Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now
The BUK's captured were incomplete at best. Though I doubt people watched the video posted earlier about surface-to-air missile overhaul procedure, if someone had seen it they would know the high amount of calibration needed when anything is changed or removed etc. from the system. They would need special facilities and equipment as well as a few test fires to calibrate the thing.
People need to stop jumping the gun and blaming whatever side for whatever reason. Just look at the facts.
|
On July 18 2014 17:41 Mithhaike wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:25 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2014 17:20 Mithhaike wrote:
The coverup itself is a admission of guilt. If they didn't do it, why are they trying to cover their tracks, going so far as to claim they lack the systems required to hit MH17? Would you really not take such posts down, regardless of guilt, in the same situation? Guilty or not, leaving something like that would be even worse. You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what I would do. They have admitted guilt when those posts were made, the attempted coverup only accentuates their guilt and further finger themself as the culprits for this tragedy
The "attempted coverup" is what any reasonable person would do in that situation. Whether or not the evidence you saw implicates them is up to you - I'm not going to argue that point right now. But regardless of guilt, it is idiotic to leave something like that out there in plain sight. I'd argue that posting anything about military operations is a big mistake, but I suppose we do live in an internet era.
On July 18 2014 17:27 WiggyB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry. These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified. There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware. And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it. If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment. Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now
Thanks for your insight.
|
Some of the sentiments in this thread are downright insane. Regardless of who shot down the plane, it is ridiculous to call it "an act of war" - it is almost certain that the plane was shot down by mistake rather than with ill intent. It was not an act of war when Ukraineans shot down the Russian airliner some years ago or when Americans blew up a Boeing in Persian Gulf, no need to assume there was an order given to shoot at this plane knowing it to be a passenger one, either.
It is a tragedy for sure, but we kind of already know the situation in Ukraine is completely messed up. I mean, there are basically daily artillery and air strikes at civilian inhabited buildings and shit, what do you expect.
|
On July 18 2014 17:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:27 WiggyB wrote:On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry. These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified. There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware. And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it. If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment. Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now The BUK's captured were incomplete at best. Though I doubt people watched the video posted earlier about surface-to-air missile overhaul procedure, if someone had seen it they would know the high amount of calibration needed when anything is changed or removed etc. from the system. They would need special facilities and equipment as well as a few test fires to calibrate the thing. People need to stop jumping the gun and blaming whatever side for whatever reason. Just look at the facts.
I would like to enquire as to your source that the missiles captured were incomplete. From my understanding, the separatists claimed the missiles were working, while Kiev said it's not.
So you believe what Kiev says now? From your history you were highly skeptical of anything from Kiev, convenient timing to switch sides.
Like you said, look at the facts. Your postings has indicated that you have chosen a side, and your cherry picking of convenient "facts" are indicative too. Sorry you lack credibility IMO.
|
|
|
On July 18 2014 17:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:27 WiggyB wrote:On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry. These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified. There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware. And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it. If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment. Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now The BUK's captured were incomplete at best. Though I doubt people watched the video posted earlier about surface-to-air missile overhaul procedure, if someone had seen it they would know the high amount of calibration needed when anything is changed or removed etc. from the system. They would need special facilities and equipment as well as a few test fires to calibrate the thing. People need to stop jumping the gun and blaming whatever side for whatever reason. Just look at the facts.
Facts are quite hard saying that rebels did this.
|
On July 18 2014 17:20 Mithhaike wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:03 zeo wrote:On July 18 2014 16:49 Belisarius wrote:
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. They captured some buk systems about 2 weeks ago but imidietly after Kiev officials had a press conference and stated that the taken systems were piles of junk. About the social media posts. There have been multiple times during this conflict when anti-government forces have claimed they had shot a plane when in fact it went down because of equipment faliure. Its become standard procedure to jump the gun and make all sorts of wild claims when an aircraft goes down. You forgot to mention the other probable source of Buk SAM systems. It's called "Russia". Even if we do take the Kiev's conference at face value that the SAM systems were tampered to make inoperable, the separatist still has access to the heavy weapons Russia is providing. Consider that the separatist do not have a airforce, they require someway to stop Ukraine's aircrafts, it's logical to assume they will be looking to acquire anti-air SAM systems. In other words, it's very likely, almost a certainty that the separatists have access to Buk SAM systems. For other evidence, there's lots of photos linked in this thread by civilians, of photos taken of SAM systems in Separatist controlled areas. Those photos combined with reports of Buk missiles being captured + russia supplying weapon systems all add up to a very convincing case that the separatist do have Buk missiles that are in working conditions. For the SAM systems itself, I personally worked as a clerk in a active SAM unit for my national service(singapore). I have a general knowledge of how SAM works because of briefings/papers i have access to. From my understanding of those system, it's not hard at all to paint a target and launch missiles at it, the hard part is ID-ing what your shooting at. The operators in my squadron goes through long periods of courses & training + refresher training on ID-ing aircrafts. This also means that the poorly trained separatists have no real idea of how to use the Buk SAM besides shooting down anything they see. I therefore lean towards a mis-id of target by the separatists that it's a Ukraine military transport vehicle and the shootdown is a mistake by the separatist. This is further reinforced by how separatists are known to be deleting all of their previous social media postings of downing of a AN26 transport plane, removal of the announcing that was crowing their acquistion of Buk SAM systems. This systematic removal of announcements/posts indicates a guilty conscience and a coverup. The coverup itself is a admission of guilt. If they didn't do it, why are they trying to cover their tracks, going so far as to claim they lack the systems required to hit MH17? My personal view from all the evidence and actions of the parties involved is that the separatist shot down MH17 by accident, due to poorly trained militia on the Buk system, mistaking it for a Ukraine AN26 military transport aircraft. After crowing that they took down a "bird", they realised what a error they have committed. Knowing the backlash that would occur if they admitted their mistake by the global powers, they are attempting a ill-advised coverup(not knowing that anything once posted on the internet, stays on the internet). The separatist are guilty of shooting down a civilian aircraft and have committed a act of war against multiple countries who have citizens on it.
While most of your post is pure conjecture.
"it's not hard at all to paint a target and launch missiles at it, the hard part is ID-ing what your shooting at. The operators in my squadron goes through long periods of courses & training + refresher training on ID-ing aircrafts. This also means that the poorly trained separatists have no real idea of how to use the Buk SAM besides shooting down anything they see."
This is a very true statement
On July 18 2014 17:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 17:27 WiggyB wrote:On July 18 2014 17:04 LegalLord wrote:
What about the launchers themselves, at least the ones you are familiar with? Are those as reliable as the missiles, or do they get buggy?
I'm assuming that the Russian military had the same kind of standards when it comes to weaponry. These systems are heavily tested at great expense. I've heard of cases of missiles exploding on the launcher, or exploding in mid air. But never heard of a case where a missile had hit a target other than the one specified. There have been mistakes, but always human error as far as I am aware. And after a quick Google on the BUK. It's been in service since 79. Thats over 35 years. If it was unreliable they wouldn't still be using it. If you are interested in missile tests. YouTube "Sea Dart misfire HMS Gloucester". I would provide the link, but I'm on work Internet at the moment. Don't worry no one was hurt, and everyone laughs about it now The BUK's captured were incomplete at best. Though I doubt people watched the video posted earlier about surface-to-air missile overhaul procedure, if someone had seen it they would know the high amount of calibration needed when anything is changed or removed etc. from the system. They would need special facilities and equipment as well as a few test fires to calibrate the thing. People need to stop jumping the gun and blaming whatever side for whatever reason. Just look at the facts.
All I was saying is that missile systems are reliable do not have "bugs". If a system wasn't maintained properly or incomplete, it just wouldn't work. Not shoot something else down by mistake.
I've haven't seen that video, due to me being on a boat with a very slow internet connection.
I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just stating facts or opinions based on expierence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
