Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

comongethappy

Busted Flat. wrote: »

My only problem with the other Malaysian crash is, if it crashed in the Indian ocean, how come the US airbase and intelligence center in Diego Garcia did not or were not able to track the plane when it entered the Indian ocean.
I find it hard to understand that a plane could not be detected entering an area that is under the control of US naval intelligence. Simple explanation I think could be the person watching the screen either went to the toilet or fell asleep.
Does not bode well for US security, no matter what way it turns out.

What is the range of their sensor equipment on those islands?

InTheTrees

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I await the outcome, the longer it takes increases my suspicion. I don't expect a conclusion this year, maybe late 2015. It will all have calmed down by then.

How long did the Lockerbie investigation take?

Elmer Blooker

InTheTrees wrote: »

How long did the Lockerbie investigation take?

On December 28, 1988, just a week after the crash, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch announced that they had found traces of high explosives and that there was evidence that Pan Am 103 had been brought down by an improvised explosive device (IED).

Well, it took only a week to establish that mechanical failure was not the cause of the crash. Don't know when investigation was completed.

Busted Flat.

InTheTrees wrote: »

How long did the Lockerbie investigation take?

That's not a comparison, they knew it was a bomb on the plane that brought it down. The length of time spent on the investigation was to apportioning blame.

In the case of MH17 there is radar, traffic control, US intel and satellite images available to the crash investigators. Same on the Russian side. Whether this information will be given to the team investigating the crash, depends on how embarrassing it is.

ScumLord

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I find it hard to understand that a plane could not be detected entering an area that is under the control of US naval intelligence.

Despite what the Americans would have you believe they can't see all and know all. There are limitations to current technology.

comongethappy

ScumLord wrote: »

Despite what the Americans would have you believe they can't see all and know all. There are limitations to current technology.

Indeed, 4000+ kms from the suspected crash site is a considerable distance.

Though I'm certain Busted knows more as to their sensor capabilities.
Otherwise why make the post?

Busted Flat.

ScumLord wrote: »

Despite what the Americans would have you believe they can't see all and know all. There are limitations to current technology.

In that sensitive area I would say their coverage is exceptional, that is the reason for having such an isolated base.

pablomakaveli

Busted Flat. wrote: »

In that sensitive area I would say their coverage is exceptional, that is the reason for having such an isolated base.

So you don't know the range just assuming it's exceptional?

Busted Flat.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So you don't know the range just assuming it's exceptional?

For your information, Diego Garcia, is a major Naval,Army, and Air force base in the Indian ocean, are you suggesting that the US relies only on land based warning systems, they have AWACS, in the air at all times, satellites Naval ships protecting their bases, I would imagine. The base is 3000km south of Iraq, 5834Km from China. Do you imagine US sit on their Atoll and wait for a plane to come into their range of land based radar, that was in the fourties.
:rolleyes:

pablomakaveli

Busted Flat. wrote: »

For your information, Diego Garcia, is a major Naval,Army, and Air force base in the Indian ocean, are you suggesting that the US relies only on land based warning systems, they have AWACS, in the air at all times, satellites Naval ships protecting their bases, I would imagine. The base is 3000km south of Iraq, 5834Km from China. Do you imagine US sit on their Atoll and wait for a plane to come into their range of land based radar, that was in the fourties.
:rolleyes:

Again you say " I would imagine" so you obviously don't know all that for certain. Even naval and AWACS can only cover so much of what is a massive area. You'd need a lot of ships and aircraft to cover an area that big as well as your suggesting they can.

Busted Flat.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Again you say " I would imagine" so you obviously don't know all that for certain. Even naval and AWACS can only cover so much of what is a massive area. You'd need a lot of ships and aircraft to cover an area that big as well as your suggesting they can.

I'm getting me coat, good luck.

darkpagandeath

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Again you say " I would imagine" so you obviously don't know all that for certain. Even naval and AWACS can only cover so much of what is a massive area. You'd need a lot of ships and aircraft to cover an area that big as well as your suggesting they can.

Did you not know about the special Radar they use to Track UFO's or captured off UFO’s hard to keep up on their current Technology. :pac::pac::pac::D

SpaceTime

You'd have to feel a bit sorry for Malaysian Airlines, it was the victim of two freak incidents rather than anything systemically wrong with the airline yet it's probably going to go out of business over them.

SuprSi

SpaceTime wrote: »

You'd have to feel a bit sorry for Malaysian Airlines, it was the victim of two freak incidents rather than anything systemically wrong with the airline yet it's probably going to go out of business over them.

I just booked return flights to Oz with them, so I bloody hope not!!

comongethappy

SuprSi wrote: »

I just booked return flights to Oz with them, so I bloody hope not!!

They are a great airline.... You will have nothing to worry about.

(Hopefully!).

ceadaoin.

SuprSi wrote: »

I just booked return flights to Oz with them, so I bloody hope not!!

Well at least you might get a whole row to yourself, or even an upgrade

http://mashable.com/2014/08/25/empty-malaysia-airlines-flights/

Malaysia Airlines is facing dire economic straits after being involved in the two worst air tragedies of the year. Based on some recent photos taken by its few remaining passengers, some flights are operating nearly empty.

Busted Flat.

SuprSi wrote: »

I just booked return flights to Oz with them, so I bloody hope not!!

Seen some pics. posted of cabins with 2/3 people on the plane leaving Oz, by the looks of things you will have no problem picking a window seat, or any other seat. Safe trip.

stevedublin

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Seen some pics. posted of cabins with 2/3 people on the plane leaving Oz, by the looks of things you will have no problem picking a window seat, or any other seat. Safe trip.

Could have been before everyone else boarded, some airlines allow you to board up to an hour before flight is due to take off.

ceadaoin.

stevedublin wrote: »

Could have been before everyone else boarded, some airlines allow you to board up to an hour before flight is due to take off.

No, lots of flights are really nearly empty. They are losing $1.6 million a day apparently.

el diablo

Not sure why so many people have cancelled flights with Malaysian Airlines. I'd have no problem flying with them right now.

Busted Flat.

el diablo wrote: »

Not sure why so many people have cancelled flights with Malaysian Airlines. I'd have no problem flying with them right now.

It was not Malaysian airlines fault in both cases, we will have to wait a long time to get a result in both cases. The powers that be and their embedded journalists will see to that.

Red Nissan

el diablo wrote: »

Not sure why so many people have cancelled flights with Malaysian Airlines. I'd have no problem flying with them right now.

People just won't fly what they think is an unlucky airline.

Busted Flat.

Red Nissan wrote: »

People just won't fly what they think is an unlucky airline.

As time goes by, you will realise that it was not unlucky. But then again the result will be Malaysian airlines will be gone and the TV audience will not care.
People will be heard to say "do you remember the two planes that crashed in 2014, I wonder what ever happened". As what happened in several other crashes.

Red Nissan

Busted Flat. wrote: »

As time goes by, you will realise that it was not unlucky.

I know, it's perception, The Malaysian Airline were not deliberately targeted for being Malaysian Airlines, but the general public just won't get past that they lost two planes with no survivors.

el diablo

'It's best not to mess with us .... Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers'

Colin Freeman
Published 30/08/2014 | 02:30


Russian president Vladimir Putin raised the spectre of nuclear war with the West last night as he defied international condemnation over his decision to send thousands of Russian troops and heavy armour into eastern Ukraine.


In language not heard since the height of the Cold War, he told his audience: "Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."

Mr Putin's comments, made during a visit to a pro-Kremlin youth camp on the banks of a lake outside Moscow, will alarm Western governments. Even during the Cold War, few Kremlin leaders resorted to direct mentions of Russia's nuclear arsenal. The Russian president made his remarks as European leaders prepared to hold an emergency summit today to discuss further sanctions.

It follows the appearance of what NATO believes is more than 1,000 regular Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.

The soldiers are believed to be the backbone of a counter-offensive in which pro-Kremlin rebels in eastern Ukraine have seized back swathes of territory from Ukrainian government forces in the past few days, dramatically turning the tide in the four-month conflict.

Battle

A major battle is now looming in the port city of Mariupol, where Ukrainian forces are bracing themselves for a full-scale assault by rebels backed by the Kremlin's forces.

The escalation in the conflict is the most serious since the pro-Russian uprising began, and has dashed Western hopes that sanctions had forced the Kremlin to abandon its support for the rebels.

Ukraine crisis: The phoney war is over as Russian troops and armour flood across the border

"If it looks like a war, sounds like a war and kills like a war, it is a war," said Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister. "The situation is now out of control," added his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Speaking after an emergency summit yesterday to discuss the crisis, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general, accused Russia of "hollow denials" over its role in the conflict. "Russian forces are engaged in direct military operations inside Ukraine," he said.

"Russia continues to supply the separatists with tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers. Russia has fired on Ukraine from both Russian territory and within Ukraine itself."

At a summit in the Welsh city of Newport next week, NATO leaders will meet Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine's new president, to show what Mr Rasmussen described as "unwavering support".

Obama rules out US military action in Ukraine

Diplomatic sources have said that Ukraine will ask for a package of "non-lethal" aid, including thousands of new uniforms, helmets, body armour and communications gear. Ukrainian defence chiefs also want access to sophisticated US and NATO satellite images of Russian troop positions.

Arseny Yatseniuk, Ukraine's prime minister, said that his country would now seek to join NATO, although sources within the organisation said that it was out of the question in the foreseeable future. Any such move would oblige NATO to come to Ukraine's immediate defence against Russia. The new Russian incursions into Ukraine suggest the Kremlin has lost little of its appetite for the conflict, despite the international outrage that followed the downing of a Malaysian passenger jet in July.

As well as the regular Russian troops, NATO believes the Kremlin has sent in up to 100 battle tanks and 100 artillery pieces, as well as anti-tank weapons and shoulder-mounted missile launchers.

NATO: 'Over 1,000 Russian troops now operating inside Ukraine'

That, NATO officials have said, explains the sudden gains made by rebel forces, including the capture on Wednesday of the coastal town of Novoazovsk.

On Thursday night, Mr Putin appeared to give the rebels direct encouragement by describing them as the forces of "Novorossiya", or "New Russia".

The latest upsurge in the conflict is likely to reopen divisions within Europe over how to respond.

While Holland led calls for tougher sanctions yesterday, such a stance is likely to be hard for Italy and Germany, whose economies depend heavily on Russian gas. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

Busted Flat.

If he said that, it must be true.
Colin Freeman is the Chief Foreign Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.

That gives you an idea about the post.

smurfjed

US relies only on land based warning systems, they have AWACS, in the air at all times

Actually they only have 32 E3 AWACS, so its impossible for them to be everywhere at the same time, and strangely enough they also have limitations of how far they can "see", do a bit of research on how "RADAR" works and you might understand.

Busted Flat.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.pravda.ru%2Fworld%2Fussr%2F13-08-2014%2F128268-boeing_crash_ukraine-0%2F&ei=RR0DVNHOMZCp7AaW1YGgDw&usg=AFQjCNGw9VGix4vlfWaSnyEEYewMdWFzfw

Romanian military expert, pilot and former deputy commander of Otopeni military airport, Valentin Vasilescu, presented his version of the tragedy of the Malaysian Boeing in the sky over Ukraine. According to the expert, the plane was shot down by Ukrainian MiG-29, possibly piloted by Polish pilot.

The expert notes that he is not alone in his opinion. For example, Gordon Duff, a veteran of the Vietnam War, currently a security consultant, believes that the Malaysian Boeing could not be shot down by surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. According to him, it was either a bomb explosion on board, or "a gun of a Ukrainian fighter jet." "It was a diabolical brain that planned the attack, as flight MH-17 was shot down from an onboard gun. The gun left traces that make one believe that it was a small bomb that exploded inside," he said. Canadian expert Michael Bociurkiw wrote in his report that part of the aircraft fuselage was dotted with "shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes." He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials. Bociurkiw believes that Boeing MH-17 was shot down from small arms or artillery weapons of a fighter aircraft that had a high fire rate.

smurfjed

possibly piloted by Polish pilot

I love this part.... now how exactly did they come to this conclusion?

According to him, it was either a bomb explosion on board, or "a gun of a Ukrainian fighter jet.

All that he left out of his "opinion" was aliens!! Once again think about it, a bomb onboard would result in the skin rupturing outwards. And bullets would result in the skin getting ripped inwards, at least on one side. They are a total contradiction of each other ! Some opinion

pablomakaveli

smurfjed wrote: »

I love this part.... now how exactly did they come to this conclusion?

All that he left out of his "opinion" was aliens!! Once again think about it, a bomb onboard would result in the skin rupturing outwards. And bullets would result in the skin getting ripped inwards, at least on one side. They are a total contradiction of each other ! Some opinion

The missile can detonate a lot closer to the target than he says as well which would result in damage to a more concentrated area.