Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Reoil

Banjo String wrote: »

Don't know how reliable this is, but the pro Russian rebel apparently claiming responsibility.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/entire-family-of-four-among-victims-as-face-of-man-thought-to-be-responsible-for-downing-of-mh17-revealed-30441184.html

"no peaceful civilians were injured "

WTF about the 298 on board the plane?

When he wrote that, he thought they destroyed a military Antonov plane...
He later deleted the post.

My name is URL

danniemcq wrote: »

Its not a case of aiming through crosshairs though

The BUK works off radar and the AN26 and the 777 would have similar radar signatures at least to someone who isn't fully trained and experienced

Surely if they're competent enough to operate such an advanced weapon, they'd be competent enough to tell the difference between the radar signature of turboprop plane that carries up to 40 people, and a civilian jet airliner that carries 400.

At least you'd think they would be.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I haven't seen any mobile phone footage so far of the plane coming down, only video camera footage. Amateur as it is, it's suspicious and would appear to be filmed by someone who knows what they're looking at - i.e. there's no surprise, they're not making any noise, etc.

Are you somehow finding the original video files and checking the metadata to see if it was recorded on a phone rather than a camera? The footage I've seen has generally had poor digital zoom, something common in low-end phones.

seamus wrote: »

An amateur would have difficulty telling two aircraft apart at 5,000m, never mind 10,000. Would you even hear an aircraft travelling overhead @ 10,000m? I don't think so.

There's a flight a few times a week from Amsterdam to, I think, Minnesota, that I hear passing overhead here each time, so yeah they are audible at that height.

Grandpa Hassan

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely if they're competent enough to operate such an advanced weapon, they'd be competent enough to tell the difference between the radar signature of turboprop plane that carries up to 40 people, and a civilian jet airliner that carries 400.

At least you'd think they would be.

There was a piece on exactly this in the London times this morning. Talking about this weapon. Instruction is needed to operate it, but there is a big difference between being able to fire it, and being able to analyse the information it is giving you such that you know what you are firing at

danniemcq

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely if they're competent enough to operate such an advanced weapon, they'd be competent enough to tell the difference between the radar signature of turboprop plane that carries up to 40 people, and a civilian jet airliner that carries 400.

At least you'd think they would be.

you'd like to think that but if you are looking at a dot on the screen and you have nothing i guess to compare it with then the signiture could be hard to tell.

Its not gonna display wings or details its just a blob moving across. and then you have to remember that the rebels do not have the full training that is probably required and i would hazard a guess that as complex a machine as it is all it comes down to is hitting a button or flicking a switch to fire.

EDIT Grandpa Hassan http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91331556&postcount=548 seems to have nailed it

josip

Would it have been possible to have visual contact of MH017?
ie, were the skies clear and could they have looked through a pair of 8x binoculars to verify it wasn't civilian before firing the SAM?

What dannie and the others say is all very well if you're in a full scale war zone.
But if you're going to fire a SAM in an area where civilian planes regularly fly, then you can't rely on a radar signature.
You've got to assume a radar signature is civilian until you confirm otherwise.

Hitchens

Less than 40 pages on this horric incident? Imagine the meltdown thread on boards.ie if say, US backed anti Castro Cubans shot down a civilian airliner full of innocent people!

danniemcq

Hitchens wrote: »

Less than 40 pages on this horric incident? Imagine the meltdown thread on boards.ie if say, US backed anti Castro Cubans shot down a civilian airliner full of innocent people!

Just as well they never went through with that one eh?

for those interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1595.cfm

The scary thing is it was only when it got to JFK that he said no.

loughside

I see the russian terrorist scum in panic mode trying to get the evidence offside

`A towing vehicle carrying a Buk anti-aircraft missile system was moving to the border with Russia in the early hours of Friday, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has said.`

Hitchens

danniemcq wrote: »

Just as well they never went through with that one eh?

for those interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1595.cfm

The scary thing is it was only when it got to JFK that he said no.

God is good..........and the AntiChrist is not too bad when you get to know him eh?

Mena

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a flight a few times a week from Amsterdam to, I think, Minnesota, that I hear passing overhead here each time, so yeah they are audible at that height.

I'm on that flight tomorrow. Be sure and wave.

wrong video

danniemcq

josip wrote: »

Would it have been possible to have visual contact of MH017?
ie, were the skies clear and could they have looked through a pair of 8x binoculars to verify it wasn't civilian before firing the SAM?

What dannie and the others say is all very well if you're in a full scale war zone.
But if you're going to fire a SAM in an area where civilian planes regularly fly, then you can't rely on a radar signature.
You've got to assume a radar signature is civilian until you confirm otherwise.

From what i can tell is the rebels had an unofficial no fly zone in place and warned the Ukrainians not to fly there or something along these lines.

Their intellegence showed that a military plane was flying in the area.

The height of the plane was 32000 ft which is the limit to the rebels no fly zone (and 32000ft is an ok height for long haul although they usually tend to hit nearer 40000 ft) which would have been another indication to the rebels.

Plus the time wasted in confirming (how many sources are you going to need to verify or confirm, how long is this going to take, how many people can actually do this anyway) its gonna be hard to verify and by the time this is all done the target could be out of range.

We have seen it before where even the most powerful military forces in the world can mess it up too.

in a twist of fate, The US, Russia and Ukraine have had incidenets where through faulty intelligence or whatever they have all shot down civilian aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

bear1

Jake1 wrote: »

Russian dash cam video here of moment when plane crashed. Couldnt even imagine being on the road when something like this happens.

Link removed

that isn't the Malaysian flight.

*Warning* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba2TYk2Irzs

The above video is the actual video you are linking to, I put the warning there as I don't think it's the nicest thing to see.
It was an Afghan 747.

josip

loughside wrote: »

I see the russian terrorist scum in panic mode trying to get the evidence offside

`A towing vehicle carrying a Buk anti-aircraft missile system was moving to the border with Russia in the early hours of Friday, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has said.`

Any pictures? James Bond was able to do this in Golden Eye via satellite.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

that isn't the Malaysian flight.

*Warning* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba2TYk2Irzs

The above video is the actual video you are linking to, I put the warning there as I don't think it's the nicest thing to see.
It was an Afghan 747.

Thanks, Ive just read now that it wasnt that flight. Sorry about that.was just going to do an edit

My name is URL

danniemcq wrote: »

you'd like to think that but if you are looking at a dot on the screen and you have nothing i guess to compare it with then the signiture could be hard to tell.

Its not gonna display wings or details its just a blob moving across. and then you have to remember that the rebels do not have the full training that is probably required and i would hazard a guess that as complex a machine as it is all it comes down to is hitting a button or flicking a switch to fire.

EDIT Grandpa Hassan http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91331556&postcount=548 seems to have nailed it

Well I don't know a whole lot about how those things work, I just would have thought that the difference between a small 40 year old turboprop plane and a modern huge airliner would be stark when appearing on the radar of such an advanced piece of tech.

The speed difference alone would be huge. The cruise speed of a 777 is twice that of an AN-26. Surely those sort of details are computed and displayed to operators rather than relying on people doing a load of math before engaging a target.

gandalf

My name is URL wrote: »

Well I don't know a whole lot about how those things work, I just would have thought that the difference between a small 40 year old turboprop plane and a modern huge airliner would be stark when appearing on the radar of such an advanced piece of tech.

The speed difference alone would be huge. The cruise speed of a 777 is twice that of an AN-26. Surely those sort of details are computed and displayed to operators rather than relying on people doing a load of math before engaging a target.

The SA-11 is not an advanced piece of Tech though, it's a system from the 1970's. I've tried to source a picture of an operators station off the net but couldn't find one but any others I have found of similar systems seem to be very rudimentary.

Found a picture of another system the SA-6 from the 1970's. Not exactly what I would call high tech these days.



From this site http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html

JONJO THE MISER

Jake1 wrote: »

Russian dash cam video here of moment when plane crashed. Couldnt even imagine being on the road when something like this happens.

Link removed

This cant be the planel as it looks like it is fully intact when it hit so how could there be bodies and derbis spread over 6 square miles.

bear1

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

This cant be the planel as it looks like it is fully intact when it hit so how could there be bodies and derbis spread over 6 square miles.

Read the comments below what the OP posted...

BorneTobyWilde

And America will stand by while Russia slaughters their civilians .Russia rule the world, they are untouchable,

JONJO THE MISER

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

This cant be the planel as it looks like it is fully intact when it hit so how could there be bodies and derbis spread over 6 square miles.

it isnt, sorry about that.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ukrainian PM on TV vowing to find the bastards that did this.

Literally in those words. Never seen a PM be so candid as to use words like bastard giving a press conference. Not that I disagree.

Sierra Oscar

gandalf wrote: »

The SA-11 is not an advanced piece of Tech though, it's a system from the 1970's.

And people are also assuming that those operating the unit were trained to such a standard that they could tell the difference between various types of aircraft.

superelliptic

Beal Tuille wrote: »

Didn't think surface to air missiles could reach 33,000 feet.

Surely the jet has a sensor to know a missile is locked on it which would help identify where it came from once the black box is recovered. Dont think the pilot could do anything once the missile is locked on.

This could get a wee bit intensive......

Why would you think that? It's a civilian passenger jet - aerial dogfighting is not one of its expected activities...

gandalf

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

And people are also assuming that those operating the unit were trained to such a standard that they could tell the difference between various types of aircraft.

Well for all intensive purposes it appears that it was captured by those who probably didn't have any or some training on it.

BorneTobyWilde

Those black boxes are in Russia's hands. They will never be seen again.

Mena

Mena wrote: »

I'm on that flight tomorrow. Be sure and wave.

Usually passes over me at 4am when I'm out for a smoke, I'll give you a shout.

Overflow

Deleted User wrote: »

Usually passes over me at 4am when I'm out for a smoke, I'll give you a shout.

eh...it crashed

superelliptic

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Those black boxes are in Russia's hands. They will never be seen again.

Yeah, forget an impartial investigation now....