Boeing 777 shot down

Devlish said:
well no, you know... other than local reports of the Buk being moved into position by the separatists, then photos of it leaving the area minus one missile... telemetry of the missile launch from that area straight to the MAS flight... the separatists refusing access to the city where the missile launched from... shrapnel on the downed fuselage consistent with a SA11 missile strike... forum posts by the separatist leader (hurriedly removed, but hey its the internet) reported by the RU press where he crows he shot down a Ukranian cargo plane... intercepted comms where the separatists are discussing the fact they accidentally shot down a civilian airliner with their RU military backers...

Other than that, virtually nothing. Lets hope the black boxes clear up this mystery ey.
Click to expand...

Minus TWO missiles... Not one...
 
Danny75 said:
What is and what isn't enemy territory tends to fluctuate in conflict. Incursions into enemy territory are made, based on intelligence (which can be accurate or inaccurate). How do you know that the Ukrainians didn't receive intelligence that prompted them to send BUKs to that area, thereby explaining their presence?
Click to expand...

They're not tanks nor are they particularly discrete - they protect ground you hold, HQs, cities etc... you don't send surface to air missile launchers into enemy territory when they can't defend themselves and the enemy has no aircraft. The explanations for why they might have done this are rather dubious and don't really seem probable. The idea that the plane was shot down by mistake, by the guys in that area who were actively truing to shoot down planes is rather probable. It's good to question things but the alternative explanations so far would seem to be much much less likely - it's not a 50/50 situation.

What if we knew that a Ukrainian jet had approached MH17, for example? How would that alter the plausibility of certain scenarios? See, we can think (for example) "it doesn't make sense for a Ukrainian jet to have approached MH17, therefore it didn't happen". But if there was proof, then we'd be forced to make sense of the known fact.
Click to expand...

It can make sense, it makes less sense that a Ukranian jet would shoot it down. Again that's a very improbable scenario... They'd potentially get found out too once the debris have been examined. I rather doubt the Ukranians deliberately or accidentally shot down the plane.
 
ubersonic said:
Licenses to sell arms != selling arms, that article mentions assault rifles, IIRC the only British assault rifle is an SA80? no soldier worth his salt would use an SA80 over a new AK, it's an inferior weapon, we only use them because they're British, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Lol wat?

Yeah they're reliable but that's about it... The L85 is reliable too, it's also a much better rifle. Note not a 'gun' as you refer to it in your other post.
 
MoRT489 said:
ffs Devlish, your spouting the same carp that has been put forward on here many times, it is not evidence it is information put forward as (unsubstantiated) fact by the Ukrainians. Read back a few pages.
Click to expand...

Oh good god, get a grip, theres forum posts from RUSSIAN media, photos, military grade intercepts and radar data, aviation and military experts on the ground... what are you waiting for, a time machine to take you back and show you? Jam on that tinfoil hat, maybe itll happen.
 
Devlish said:
Oh good god, get a grip, theres forum posts from RUSSIAN media, photos, military grade intercepts and radar data, aviation and military experts on the ground... what are you waiting for, a time machine to take you back and show you? Jam on that tinfoil hat, maybe itll happen.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I just want some independent facts and assessments, which hopefully we'll get now that the investigation is underway. It would have been far more sensible for everyone to condemn the act but wait until they had a least some real proof before planting blame, but it's easier to shout loudly and then apologise quietly afterwards.
 
dowie said:
Lol wat?

Yeah they're reliable but that's about it... The L85 is reliable too, it's also a much better rifle.
Click to expand...



it is however very unsuitable for uban combat due to not being able to fire from the left shoulder without taking your jaw off which means you have to expose yourself a lot more on right hand corners.

this is why most other modern combat rifles are ambidextrous.
 
ubersonic said:
It says:



Licenses to sell arms != selling arms, that article mentions assault rifles, IIRC the only British assault rifle is an SA80? no soldier worth his salt would use an SA80 over a new AK, it's an inferior weapon, we only use them because they're British, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

you know Britain is a huge arms exporter, we sell a vast amount of optics, sighting and targeting systems we're the world leader in electronic warfare and surveillance/electronic intelligence systems for export last i checked.


also we produce a big number of vehicles and heavy weapons especially missiles, avionics and aircraft weaponry.

also its only 2 years till BAE is planning to outfit a warship with electronic rail guns for real world testing.

we sell vast vast amounts of military equipment, just its the more hi tech and expensive stuff than simple firearms.
 
Amp34 said:
Nope, gotta agree with dowie here...

This is a gun...
http://www.hightech-edge.com/naval-gun-turret-armored-weapons-warship/3755/

A pistol is a weapon, or a pistol.
A rifle is a weapon or a rifle.
A gun is the big thing you see on ships.

At least in military terms...;)
Click to expand...

watch out guys we have a bad ass over here :p

you know Britain is a huge arms exporter
its only 2 years till BAE is planning to outfit a warship with electronic rail guns for real world testing.
Click to expand...
That doesn't count as Britain because it's under contract for America who are funding it, it's not tech bae can then go and sell to whoever they like or give to British ships
 
Last edited:
Apparently they've shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets today.

Also some sources are saying that the Rebels planned to bring in parts of other downed planes and add it to the 777 wreckage to confuse investigators.
 
arknor said:
watch out guys we have a bad ass over here
Click to expand...
This is my rifle, (points at rifle)
This is my gun (points at crotch)

This is for shooting, (points at rifle)
This is for fun! (points at crotch)

:p

Westyfield2 said:
Apparently they've shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets today.

Also some sources are saying that the Rebels planned to bring in parts of other downed planes and add it to the 777 wreckage to confuse investigators.
Click to expand...

That's reasonable, it is an armed conflict after all.

Any reputable sources saying that or can we stick this in the "propaganda" folder? It would make little sense for them to do that at all. The only way it could is if they were trying to indicate a collision or similar, which could be ruled out in about a minute...
 
arknor said:
watch out guys we have a bad ass over here :p


That doesn't count as Britain because it's under contract for America who are funding it, it's not tech bae can then go and sell to whoever they like or give to British ships
Click to expand...

but it is a British company with the money going to Britain.
 
Tefal said:
you know Britain is a huge arms exporter, we sell a vast amount of optics, sighting and targeting systems we're the world leader in electronic warfare and surveillance/electronic intelligence systems for export last i checked.


also we produce a big number of vehicles and heavy weapons especially missiles, avionics and aircraft weaponry.

also its only 2 years till BAE is planning to outfit a warship with electronic rail guns for real world testing.

we sell vast vast amounts of military equipment, just its the more hi tech and expensive stuff than simple firearms.
Click to expand...
All to the Brazilian Navy via Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom