It could mean a number of things. Why don't you enlighten us as to what you think though?
Boeing 777 shot down
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
It could mean a number of things. Why don't you enlighten us as to what you think though?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
https://flic.kr/p/ov9iWZ
it means that whatever happened it must have happened in front of the plane, given the trajectory and speed of the 777, shrapnel from an explosion behind the cockpit could have not hit the most front part of the aircraft which is the cockpit. Basically we can rule out that it was a missile coming from behind and seeking for its engines (heat source tracking missiles).
If you look closely on the photo above shrapnel appear to have penetrated the cockpit at an angle
also, if the missiles were heat source tracking an explosion near the wings who have fuel could have exploded the whole thing in mid air leaving nothing but small pieces, instead in a video there is a huge explosion when it comes crashing down.
Ofcourse this is just my humble opinion and i am no expert, just sharing a thought.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Thats kinda the problem with the internet, isn't it. Everyone has a humble opinion and they quickly snowball into ridiculous theories that others find difficult to separate from fact, especially if the theory suits a view they already hold.
So go on then, do tell us, exactly what are you trying to imply happened? Will we need tinfoil for the answer?
Theoretically can extrapolate the position using the heat source as an origin so as to explode in front of an object. Not sure if any of the systems in use have that functionality though.
Not sure what that really says though if it was for instance a su25 it could have come around and attacked from the front so the missile(s) would have been coming in from that direction towards the heat source.
Shrapnel flies at thousands of miles per hour initially so a missile exploding behind the cockpit (even say 50m behind the aircraft) will still throw shrapnel forward within a split second of the explosion at extremely high velocities, enough to overtake the plane.
Modern IR missiles (post mid-90's) use an Imaging IR seeker (a bit like a FLIR picture) so they can "see" the target as an image, know it's direction of travel and therefore aim for the front end if possible (side or front approach) as it's easier to knock a target out by killing the aircrew with their smaller warhead. Earlier IR missiles just chased heat (mainly engines) and while they had a good hit rate (Falklands etc) the aircrew could usually survive the hit, eject and potentially be flying again in a new plane shortly after.
Radar Missiles do the same too but their larger warhead allows them more leeway so they tend to aim for the middle to maximise the chances of a hit.
Modern IR missiles (post mid-90's) use an Imaging IR seeker (a bit like a FLIR picture) so they can "see" the target as an image, know it's direction of travel and therefore aim for the front end if possible (side or front approach) as it's easier to knock a target out by killing the aircrew with their smaller warhead. Earlier IR missiles just chased heat (mainly engines) and while they had a good hit rate (Falklands etc) the aircrew could usually survive the hit, eject and potentially be flying again in a new plane shortly after.
Radar Missiles do the same too but their larger warhead allows them more leeway so they tend to aim for the middle to maximise the chances of a hit.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
i thought about this as well and it is certainly true, but if you look at the photo all the holes are bent inwards, if shrapnel were coming from behind shouldnt the holes be outwards?
Only if the missile detonated Directly behind and all the shrapnel had to travel the whole length of the A/C first which is extremely unlikely. More likely is that it exploded in a huge cloud of shrapnel from below (the direction of travel for a SAM) and the plane was hit by hundreds of bits flying in the general direction.
Aren't the missiles America claims are responsible radar guided not heat seekers?
If the shrapnel came off an exploding missile travelling >3 times as fast as the plane (such as an SA-11 from a Buk) then it would have overtaken the plane and flown back into it as it lost momentum and the plane overtook it.
The was actually a tragic crash caused a decade or so ago when an engine of an airliner came off it's mountings and the overtook the aircraft before the plane flew into it and took out another engine.
The missile has a radar proximity fuse which detonates the missile when it is close to the target. The payload can vary but they usually have a hardened warhead designed to puncture the airframe and a shrapnel burst designed to destroy the engines and wing areas.
Was more a general observation.
pretty sure America hasn't decided that collective suicide is the answer, no.
i think it's you.
America is pretty much saying what their equipment says (and very likely underplaying the level of detail they've got*), and it is pretty obvious that Russia has been working with the "Ukrainian separatists" (some of whom seem to be using equipment that is current high level Russian gear as used by the Russian special forces) many of whom seem to be in current Russian gear (as you get at any army surplus store...including the specialist gear), and some in uniforms with things like the badges of current russian units.
If America wasn't trying to keep things reasonably restrained I suspect there would be a lot more activity from Nato given that most of the dead are from a Nato member country, and the Russian forces in the area could be seen to be more than a little threatening to other Nato members.
*America will have been watching the area with good gear since the start of the Ukrainian separatist movement, especially along the borders and in the areas with fighting, and you can be pretty sure that what they're releasing to the public is deliberately lower quality than what they are getting as in military terms you never let a potential enemy know the real limits of your intelligence gathering operation (or equipment).
Finally we have proof that the rebels do posses weapons sourced from Russia.
Ukraine forces captured a rocket launcher complete with logbook detailing all it's testing/etc since 1993 lol:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/uk-ukraine-crisis-arms-specialreport-idUKKBN0FY0U320140729
No proof yet that they have received anything heavy like Buk's but it proves they have received some weapons that are supposed to be in Rostov.
In the interest of fairness however it should be noted that just because it came from Russia does not mean for certain it was sent by the Russia government. I.E $100Bn of weapons/equipment missing from Ukraine's inventory which is mostly in Africa and similar places.
Ukraine forces captured a rocket launcher complete with logbook detailing all it's testing/etc since 1993 lol:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/uk-ukraine-crisis-arms-specialreport-idUKKBN0FY0U320140729
No proof yet that they have received anything heavy like Buk's but it proves they have received some weapons that are supposed to be in Rostov.
In the interest of fairness however it should be noted that just because it came from Russia does not mean for certain it was sent by the Russia government. I.E $100Bn of weapons/equipment missing from Ukraine's inventory which is mostly in Africa and similar places.
Posted this in the Ukraine crisis thread incorrectly, moved to here.
Source
Not sure on its legitimacy but if it's true... bloody hell!
Link to apparent picture
Source
Not sure on its legitimacy but if it's true... bloody hell!
Link to apparent picture
I'm not saying the piece you quoted is wrong, but from what I take it as ( and I am not an expert by any means) is that Ukranian jets shot this down from close range flying directly at the aircraft using machine gun anti-tank rounds?
Seems a bit far fetched? As to be that close you would be able to clearly identify the target?
From what I understand of the BUK missile (and similar types of S2A missiles) is that they explode in close proximity of target, sending shrapnal through the target, much like a shot gun. So this could explain the small entrance and exit wounds to the cockpit?
I could be wrong however.