Boeing 777 shot down

[Rroff]

From what I've read the SU-25 can physically fly up to twice its 7,000m service ceiling which is in itself an artifical limit to protect the pilot because of cockpit pressurisation, so from a technical standpoint if Ukrainian forces deliberately intended to shoot down a passenger jet to blame on Russia it's probably not going to be too difficult to pull off.

American B17 WW2 bombers had ceilings of 30,000-35,000ft and their crews had nothing more than warm clothing and oxygen masks.

Its not a hard limit no but in average condition and with a weapon loadout your not really going to be exceeding much over 20,000 feet in any useful way. Theoretically though strip out the armour and some of the other weapons/modifications for its role and you'd have something with broadly similar climb capabilities to something like the hawker hunter. But I'd have thought they'd have just used a more appropriate aircraft (which afaik they have) rather than go to those measures.

EDIT: Its not completely impossible they could get one a lot closer but IIRC the reports put the su-25 at around 4km away and no closer than 2.8km at its possible closest.

 

[MoRT489]

It's when the drag is equal to the thrust of the engines at full speed. The Aerodynamics of the Aircraft effect this as well as payload.

Basically it cannot produce enough thrust to overcome the drag and create lift.

The SU-25 is not designed to fly high as it is a ground attack aircraft. It's designed to carry a big payload, drop it on the target and then fly out at it's max height.

Curious, how is it that a jet like the SU25 (akin to a sports car in this analogy) produces more drag than an airliner (the bus)?

 

[ZG002]

Curious, how is it that a jet like the SU25 (akin to a sports car in this analogy) produces more drag than an airliner (the bus)?

Not sure it's more drag, looking at thrust alone I'm guessing the 777 has a massive amount more power. Also the wings at a guess generate more lift? Up at the higher altitudes it's harder to generate lift. Just a guess, others on here seem very clued up

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Curious, how is it that a jet like the SU25 (akin to a sports car in this analogy) produces more drag than an airliner (the bus)?

It's all in the design of the Aircraft. An airliner generally has a huge aerodynamic wing and powerful engines. This increases lift and reduces drag.

Another way to reduce drag is to make the aircraft sleek and aerodynamic but this is not really practical on a commercial jet designed to carry a big load as cheap as possible.

An SU-25 does not produce more drag than a 777 it just has a bad power to drag ratio but it was designed to carry loads on the wing so has no real need to be a low drag aircraft.

 

[Jokester]

Surely at that range you'd get impact wounds on the deceased.

I expect if they get the pilots and the passengers from the front of the planes bodies they will show such shrapnel injuries.

 

[arknor]

Curious, how is it that a jet like the SU25 (akin to a sports car in this analogy) produces more drag than an airliner (the bus)?

less wings , less drag , atmosphere gets thinner as you go higher so you need more lift and power the higher you go?


same goes for helis the blades are less efficient the higher you go

 

[Angilion]

Curious, how is it that a jet like the SU25 (akin to a sports car in this analogy) produces more drag than an airliner (the bus)?

I think that the main factor in the different maximum heights would be the aerodynamics of the planes, particularly how efficiently it generates lift. A Boeing 777 is designed to cruise at a high altitude because that's best for long passenger flights (it reduces fuel consumption, increases safety and generally makes for a more comfortable ride). An SU-25 is designed specifically for attacking targets on the ground, a very different goal best served by a very different design which has very different aerodynamics. Much higher agility at the cost of reduced lift in less dense air would be a very good design decision for those purposes.

To carry on the car analogy, you could compare the SU-25 with an F1 car and the 777 with a Mondeo or suchlike. F1 cars have far more drag than a Mondeo. They have more drag than an HGV lorry. F1 cars have so much drag that it significantly reduces their performance, but the increased agility makes it a better design for the purpose they're designed for.

 

[ubersonic]

Just been watching a documentary on the SU25 theory (made by RT so pinch of salt advised) and they had an interview with retired Russian Air Force Commander in Chief Vladimir Mikhailov who stated that not only could the SU25 easily reach sustained altitudes in excess of 31,000 feet but he had personally flown the SU25 at that altitude during his days as a pilot and that the SU's cannon would be capable of inflicting the damage seen on the Boeing.

It sounds pretty convenient but they then went one step further and used a Russia SU25 (identical to the Ukrainian ones) to fire a few cannon rounds at a target aircraft, and the damage did indeed look like the damage to MH17 (though not as much of it as they only blipped the cannons).

Video's here if anyones interested (good stuff starts about the 12 min mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoIw3jBV4g

 

[Werewolf]

I think one of the problems with the Russian led SU25 theory is that the pilots didn't even get time to get a distress message off* (unless the attacking pilot managed to hit both pilots in the first short burst), which if it was a cannon on another aircraft is quite unlikely, also the spacing on the damage wouldn't look like it did.

IIRC the damage shown on the wreckage was also very variable in size which corresponds to hitting irregularly shaped bits of shrapnel in a "cloud" rather than cannon shells hitting from the same direction in a sort of stream one after another.
If you look at the damage in the video they're all fairly neat holes roughly the same size, in pictures of the wreckage that have been shown before, the holes vary in size, impact direction and shape massively (from fairly small to about fist sized).

This completely ignores the fact that the source is Russia Today which is media owned by the Kremlin to show exactly what the Kremlin wants it to say.
People complain about the BBC being a mouthpiece of the government forgetting that the BBC regularly reports stuff the government would rather it not, and usually offers opinions from both sides, whilst RT is actually editorially controlled by Kremlin policy.


*Nor did anyone else using any of the other onboard comms often found on modern aircraft from memory (including the back of seat phones, and other options).

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

Americans said that it was the Russians who shot down the plane. It is a fact. Why are we even discussing this?

America DOES NOT lie.

 

[Werewolf]

Erm did america?
I thought the theory was it was the rebels.

I think it far far more likely it was a Russian designed AAW operated by the rebels (who had been busy shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft at lower altitudes), than some mythical Ukrainian fighter.
Which seems to be the theory most of the world is working on (the big question is was the AAW actually a russian one that had been given to the rebels, a russian one operated by russians who had decided to fight for mother russia and father Putin, or a ukrainian one that had been used by the rebels).

Especially when the damage pattern on the wreckage looks far more like shrapnel damage than from cannon fire.

Did the ATC guy that RT and the Russians claimed saw the SU25 but no one else seems to have known anything about ever turn up? (ATC is quite a smallish community so a qualified controller disappearing would be reasonably hard to hide and probably fairly easy for it to be proven he existed in the first place).

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

Erm did america?
I thought the theory was it was the rebels.

I think it far far more likely it was a Russian designed AAW operated by the rebels (who had been busy shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft at lower altitudes), than some mythical Ukrainian fighter.
Which seems to be the theory most of the world is working on (the big question is was the AAW actually a russian one that had been given to the rebels, a russian one operated by russians who had decided to fight for mother russia and father Putin, or a ukrainian one that had been used by the rebels).

Especially when the damage pattern on the wreckage looks far more like shrapnel damage than from cannon fire.

Did the ATC guy that RT and the Russians claimed saw the SU25 but no one else seems to have known anything about ever turn up? (ATC is quite a smallish community so a qualified controller disappearing would be reasonably hard to hide and probably fairly easy for it to be proven he existed in the first place).

Rebels, Russians, whatever.

Same thing.

 

[ubersonic]

I think one of the problems with the Russian led SU25 theory is that the pilots didn't even get time to get a distress message off* (unless the attacking pilot managed to hit both pilots in the first short burst), which if it was a cannon on another aircraft is quite unlikely, also the spacing on the damage wouldn't look like it did.

*Nor did anyone else using any of the other onboard comms often found on modern aircraft from memory (including the back of seat phones, and other options).

If the opening strike did hit the cockpit it would have killed both pilots instantly, this is the Russian equivalent of an A10 warthog we're talking about and we know what those can do to a football pitch, and if the plane went straight into a dive or exploded after the belly/wings (which store the fuel) got hit it's unlikely anyone would have been able to make a call.

It is a bit far fetched though, although plausible it's defiantly a less likely explanation.

IIRC the damage shown on the wreckage was also very variable in size which corresponds to hitting irregularly shaped bits of shrapnel in a "cloud" rather than cannon shells hitting from the same direction in a sort of stream one after another.

Trying to be objective, it also looks exactly like the exit damage from the SU's cannon, which would correspond to two planes strafing the Boeing (This would be VERY hard to do).

This completely ignores the fact that the source is Russia Today which is media owned by the Kremlin to show exactly what the Kremlin wants it to say.
People complain about the BBC being a mouthpiece of the government forgetting that the BBC regularly reports stuff the government would rather it not, and usually offers opinions from both sides, whilst RT is actually editorially controlled by Kremlin policy.

Agreed, it's not like they are going to broadcast anything that is detrimental to their argument, however it's not exactly like the more open media has come up with any more evidence for the US story, which basically consists of "Rebels *probably* did it, we think".

I think it far far more likely it was a Russian designed AAW operated by the rebels (who had been busy shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft at lower altitudes), than some mythical Ukrainian fighter.
Which seems to be the theory most of the world is working on (the big question is was the AAW actually a russian one that had been given to the rebels, a russian one operated by russians who had decided to fight for mother russia and father Putin, or a ukrainian one that had been used by the rebels).

Agreed, however the is also the option that it was a Ukrainian one operated by the Ukrainians as they did have them in the area and had been complaining in the run up to the crash that Russia had been providing direct air support to the rebels.

Oh and to add fuel to the tin foil hat fire, I will point out that the Buk is capable of joining SAM networks alongside other units and Sx00 long range batteries. It is entirely possible that if the rebels had a Russian or Ukrainian one and only knew the basic parts of it's operation then it's original owners could have controlled it by remote or even used it's tracking to fire in a long range missile from another site. (of course unlikely as Russia wouldn't want to frame it's own guys and Kiev wouldn't want an international incident on it's door step).

Did the ATC guy that RT and the Russians claimed saw the SU25 but no one else seems to have known anything about ever turn up? (ATC is quite a smallish community so a qualified controller disappearing would be reasonably hard to hide and probably fairly easy for it to be proven he existed in the first place).

The definition of qualified ATC guy differs from country to country, I.E I doubt a Ukrainian/Russian controller would be employable here. But still it is quite convenient that they can't find the guy who gives their story any legitimacy lol.

 

[Rroff]

Trying to be objective, it also looks exactly like the exit damage from the SU's cannon, which would correspond to two planes strafing the Boeing (This would be VERY hard to do).

It looks similar to the damage done by those kind of rounds at relatively close range against a static target but doesn't really match the expected impact/exit nature of rounds fired at long range against a moving target. Realistically for the SU25 to engage a boeing in cruise like that it would have had to have done a rapid climb to an altitude it couldn't sustainably fly at for long periods, fire into the approaching aircraft and move off which while not impossible would be a considerable feat.

 

[ubersonic]

It looks similar to the damage done by those kind of rounds at relatively close range against a static target but doesn't really match the expected impact/exit nature of rounds fired at long range against a moving target.

I did link a video above of an SU25 firing a short burst of it's cannons at range against a (non moving) target and getting the same damage pattern on exit.

Realistically for the SU25 to engage a boeing in cruise like that it would have had to have done a rapid climb to an altitude it couldn't sustainably fly at for long periods, fire into the approaching aircraft and move off which while not impossible would be a considerable feat.

MH17 was cruising at 10,000 meters, the SU25 can climb rapidly to 9200-9500 meters and sustain that altitude for quite a while, well within cannon range.

For the record I don't think another plane was involved, just pointing out it's not as comical as some media sources have claimed.

 

[Rroff]

That was what I was commenting on that video is relatively short range compared to the most likely scenarios of an SU25 engaging a cruising boeing. (And given the radar data, etc. of the closest any other aircraft is recorded to have got to it).

I call BS on the other bit - sure an unladen, well maintained SU25 can operate a fair bit above its ~7000m ceiling, a combat load, probably not that well maintained example will only be operating at those kind of altitudes for short bursts and be doing quite a bit slower than a 777 at those altitudes (no way around that unless the aircraft is significantly modified).

I don't think its as impossible as the media make out but given the limited hard facts that can be worked from it would have needed a top notch pilot engaging the oncoming aircraft from quite a range (which would explain the frontal nature of the damage) but you'd expect to see far more rounds having made marks like on the wing from that scenario and less making marks like you see against those static aircraft.

 

[Stolly]

I did link a video above of an SU25 firing a short burst of it's cannons at range against a (non moving) target and getting the same damage pattern on exit.




MH17 was cruising at 10,000 meters, the SU25 can climb rapidly to 9200-9500 meters and sustain that altitude for quite a while, well within cannon range.

For the record I don't think another plane was involved, just pointing out it's not as comical as some media sources have claimed.

Yes it is. Hitting an airliner from 500m away traveling at a different altitude speed and heading would require levels of luck high enough for it to all but a one in a million chance.

Hold on though, the SU-25 can carry an air to air missile !

The first is that the Ukrainian air force shot the Boeing 777 down itself, using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25 is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

Next conspiracy please !

 

[Stolly]

More on the same subject.....

http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/

 

[Rroff]

Plus the 777 is designed to do those speeds at cruise altitude - the SU25 can attain them at lower levels but not at the kind of altitudes it would have had to go to engage the 777. The closest any aircraft got to MH17 is recorded by military radar (which is also backed up by Russian data) as 3km - which while within reach of an SU25's gun if the target is flying towards the SU25 its a top level marksman feat on top of pushing an aircraft to its utter limits.

EDIT: Can't discount someone having a punt with a missile and burst of cannon fire and happening to get lucky - it would match the evidence better than either a missile or cannon fire on its own.

 

[ubersonic]

Yes it is. Hitting an airliner from 500m away traveling at a different altitude speed and heading would require levels of luck high enough for it to all but a one in a million chance.

Oh, I'm disappointed now as that basically ruins every WW2 film ever made I didn't realise you had to be in punching distance of a larger slower moving target to actually hit it, it's a pity the aggressors couldn't alter their own heading or something to improve their chances of scoring a hit

Hold on though, the SU-25 can carry an air to air missile !

The first is that the Ukrainian air force shot the Boeing 777 down itself, using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25 is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

Just to add a point, as that source is almost as biased as RT lol, as a aircraft enthusiast I can tell you it's very common to see people fighting over specifications on Wiki, the fact somebody was trying to change the service ceiling back* to 33,000ft on that day was because the SU25 page pretty much exploded on that day (more edits than in the previous few months).

Just to note that most of the editing was done by anti-Russian posters who removed a lot of valid points, such as SU25's routinely surpassing their service ceiling for long periods, the absolute ceiling being over 10,000 meters, etc.

*The specifications were only changed to 7KM a year or two ago when the specifications were changed from those of the SU-25TM to those of the original 1970's SU-25.

Plus the 777 is designed to do those speeds at cruise altitude - the SU25 can attain them at lower levels but not at the kind of altitudes it would have had to go to engage the 777. The closest any aircraft got to MH17 is recorded by military radar (which is also backed up by Russian data) as 3km - which while within reach of an SU25's gun if the target is flying towards the SU25 its a top level marksman feat on top of pushing an aircraft to its utter limits.

Indeed even the Russians say it didn't get closer than 3KM

(Just in case it looks like I am arguing both sides here, I am not trying to say nor do I believe that an SU25 did it either with cannon or missile, I am just saying an SU25 could have done it with cannon or missile, that's all).