Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,950
Just saw a bit of the Vice video. I don't understand why they're showing dead bodies. What is wrong with them?
Rubbernecking vultures. Plenty around.
And no, I won't watch this video. How about you?
Boeing 777 shot down
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Rubbernecking vultures. Plenty around.
And no, I won't watch this video. How about you?
Caporegime
Yeah, they shot a civilian plane down accidentally 13 years ago. When it flew through an area where military exercises were taking place.
This plane was leaving the area and in contact with Ukrainian air traffic control. It was also obviously not a military jet given it was a mahoosive passenger plane!
The type of planes rebels have been targeting lately are military transport planes...
Source is wikipedia/any site with operational capabilities of modern aircraft. Go google it.
The calls were time tagged one after the other on the same day, between the same people. Remove thy tinfoil hat.
Soldato
I was interested in seeing photos of the wreckage and keeping up with what's happening, just like the BBC and Sky are showing.
I would say naive rather than a rubbernecking vulture. Thanks for the insult, though.
[TW]Fox;26629293 said:Once, 13 years ago. If you avoided for that reason you would need to avoid a major super power as well
I think the point is, they may not be the number one suspects, but they do have form for accidentally shooting down airliners and then lying through their teeth about it.
Oh come on that's just plain stupid. Of course they possess planes that can fly to that height.
Err, you do know escort dutys are provided by aircraft which have a primary role of air to air combat. Do you think the USA escorts things with A-10s?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Su-25 is the equivalent to an A-10 thunderbolt. Lots of ground attack ability on a stronger air frame.
Soldato
No way, the SU-25 is badass!
Caporegime
The SU-25 is multi-role. Why would they escort a plane with air to air when the enemy has no fighter aircraft? You'd use a multi-role.
They have, I believe, 7 SU-27s operation in the whole country. I can't see them risking them with no enemy fighter threat present.
It's a close air support not multi-role - it's totally unsuited to escort duties it's totally suited to blowing holes in the side of IFVs.
Why would they escorting a civilian plane anyway why not move the transit route?
It's arguably the best plane in it's role in the world. It's just that role does not include escorting civilian airliners.
Soldato
Indeed, an SU-25 would definitely not be used in an escorting role!
damn that plane sucks
It's the Russian equivalent of the A-10 Warthog, they don't fly that high either IIRC.
Caporegime
And would the main threat to those airliners not be from armoured anti-air defences?
Something the SU-25 is perfect at destroying.
However yes, the point is they wouldn't be escorting it. Just if they were that's the plane they'd more than likely have to use and it's completely unsuited to it!
Here we go with the conspiracy theoriesRussian defence ministry releases list of 10 questions for the Ukrainian authorities firmly planting the suggestion of a false flag attack in the minds of the gullible:
It's obvious that are making this list for political reasons, however it doesn't stop some of them being very valid, and just because their pointing out that the Kiev authorities could have been responsible (no I don't think they are) doesn't mean it would have been a false flag if true, just a mistake.
TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES
1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on? - Bias and a desire to blame their enemies, silly Russia.
2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes? - How can anybody not think that's a good question?
3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work? because the plane came down in an area they don't control, silly Russia.
4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers? - Of course, who wouldn't want to prove their innocence.
5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?- Yes, America will supply it as they've been paying close attention to what you commies are up to
6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”? - Another good question.
7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems? - Another good question.
8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory? - I hadn't heard about this but If that is true, then it is a total game changer as it could absolve whoever fired the missile of guilt (I doubt it's true, Ukraine wouldn't be that stupid).
9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators? - If true, that looks dodgy.
10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty - To be honest they learned that lying works as action still hasn't been taken against them.
You wouldn't use an SU-25 in that role SAMs are taken out by SEAD planes. The reason that SU-25s are the only planes in the locality is that they are Close Air Support which are kept close to expected battle lines because they tend to have less range (dont want big tanks on something exposed to small arms fire) and because you want them to be able to loiter for as long as possible however this will also be at a fuel inefficient height (due to their role). Air superiority fighters are stationed further back so the can maintain high loiter patterns and to take advantage of the longer runways they require compared to CAS. You don't escort something past AA defences you remove the defences first with anti-radar missiles. I am guessing (and I can't be fagged to look) that the Ukranians probably use a SU-24 maybe? Sure someone here would know.
Soldato
Correct, and according to their order of battle, a similar number of MiG29 too.
(both of which can be used for anti-rad missions).
It seems fingers are pointing at the rebels giving some responsibility to Russia for providing them with weapons. Personally I'm not sure what to make of it, it is obviously a tragedy regardless but if the rebels had declared the air space a no fly zone (is this correct?) and Ukraine authorities also (at 30k feet) then why were flights still transiting through that area?
The FAA seemed to have advised against it back in April, why was the same not deemed necessary by the EASA was it soley because they did not believe the rebels had such weaponary?
If Russia is thought to be supporting the rebels, combined with the rebels having downed Ukrainian jets in what they declared a no fly zone it seems reasonable to assume that there is a risk of them having such weapons and also the potential for errors to be made as has happened in the past even by trained military including the U.S.
Perhaps all this is easy to conclude once events unfold but put simply I personally would not risk flying over a warzone where planes are being shot out of the sky by rebels / militants, to me that's just reckless.
The FAA seemed to have advised against it back in April, why was the same not deemed necessary by the EASA was it soley because they did not believe the rebels had such weaponary?
If Russia is thought to be supporting the rebels, combined with the rebels having downed Ukrainian jets in what they declared a no fly zone it seems reasonable to assume that there is a risk of them having such weapons and also the potential for errors to be made as has happened in the past even by trained military including the U.S.
Perhaps all this is easy to conclude once events unfold but put simply I personally would not risk flying over a warzone where planes are being shot out of the sky by rebels / militants, to me that's just reckless.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Thanks for the education. All supports the point though that SU-25s would be in the area. Other planes unlikely. The SU-25s present couldn't and wouldn't escort the passenger plane.