Boeing 777 shot down

[balky12]

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

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.

 

[Glaucus]

What authority, knowledge etc does a German pilot have? What German pilot. Does he have first hand knowledge of said weaponry, is he employed by German air force to analysis such things.
That is my first thought on seeing that. What's the saying for confidence in people with no expertise.

 

[NVP]

I know, it sounds very, very far fetched but his comments on the entry and exit holes being on the same side of the cockpit are quite worrying, however I admit ignorance on this subject and this type of analysis.

Did you read the link Glaucus? They go into more details.

 

[scorza]

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

That's the same pic that IrakisFC posted earlier in the thread. I don't know what it shows because I'm not an air crash investigator and I'm pretty sure that "blacklistednews.com" doesn't know either.

 

[thep02]

Seems a bit far fetched? As to be that close you would be able to clearly identify the target?


I could be wrong however.

That's the point, it was a pre planned act of murder by the junta and its allies as a false flag attack to be blamed on the separatists, as has been done with zero evidence but loads and loads of shouting and pointing.

 

[NVP]

That's the same pic that IrakisFC posted earlier in the thread. I don't know what it shows because I'm not an air crash investigator and I'm pretty sure that "blacklistednews.com" doesn't know either.

Sorry I missed that post. Yes I know, they don't admit to either, they're just reporting this story of the German pilots analysis and I thought I'd post the info here as well.

 

[balky12]

That's the point, it was a pre planned act of murder by the junta and its allies as a false flag attack to be blamed on the separatists, as has been done with zero evidence but loads and loads of shouting and pointing.

No I get that. However it just seems suicidal by any nation as these things will eventually come to light...

A pro-russian rebel shooting down the plane in a case of mistaken identity would seem more likely. Yes it would come out eventually, but the original intent was a mistake. To deliberately shoot down a passenger plane with full knowledge seems like a very very stupid thing to do.

Then again everything is on the table.

 

[thep02]

No I get that. However it just seems suicidal by any nation as these things will eventually come to light...

A pro-russian rebel shooting down the plane in a case of mistaken identity would seem more likely. Yes it would come out eventually, but the original intent was a mistake. To deliberately shoot down a passenger plane with full knowledge seems like a very very stupid thing to do.

I guess they thought London and Washington would back them up and they'd have control of the crash site if there was evidence left.

Let's face it the junta have played their hand terribly and are prone to dumb moves like the attack on the east itself which has guaranteed either they seperate or have a resistance war for a generation or two till they seperate.

 

[arknor]

technically wouldn't some parts of the plane has shrapnel holes from the inside when the fuel tanks explode?

The planes pretty much in a shrapnel kill zone from both wings ?

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

technically wouldn't some parts of the plane has shrapnel holes from the inside when the fuel tanks explode?

The planes pretty much in a shrapnel kill zone from both wings ?

technically yes, but in other photos such as the aft fuselage part, registration number part and tail assembly there are none. There is also a piece of the wing, massive one with a huge rupture on its top surface. I havent seen the holes the cockpit section has.

https://flic.kr/p/o93tEa

 

[Stolly]

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

Total hogwash, of all the armed military aircraft in the world the SU-25 is up there as the most impractical means of downing an airliner at ~30k feet.

"Service ceiling: 7,000 m[98] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons"

It can't even get up that high, its designed as a low level close support aircraft. I assume it is not pressurised meaning the pilot would be virtually unable to function at 30k feet even if the aircraft would take him there.

 

[ChrisJSY]

Total hogwash, of all the armed military aircraft in the world the SU-25 is up there as the most impractical means of downing an airliner at ~30k feet.

"Service ceiling: 7,000 m[98] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons"

It can't even get up that high, its designed as a low level close support aircraft. I assume it is not pressurised meaning the pilot would be virtually unable to function at 30k feet even if the aircraft would take him there.

SU-25 can be used as a platform to fire missiles higher than it can operate.

 

[Rroff]

Total hogwash, of all the armed military aircraft in the world the SU-25 is up there as the most impractical means of downing an airliner at ~30k feet.

"Service ceiling: 7,000 m[98] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons"

It can't even get up that high, its designed as a low level close support aircraft. I assume it is not pressurised meaning the pilot would be virtually unable to function at 30k feet even if the aircraft would take him there.

Its an interesting one (this is somewhat generalising and may not be entirely accurate but its ballpark close enough) assuming a SU-25 well maintained and with an experience pilot and the latest version of its air-to-air missile which IIRC are the R-73 theoretically the SU-25 could reach around 20K feet and have a range of about 12km (horizontal) where it could reliably hit an airliner which was upto about 15K feet above it (probably a fair bit less*).

More realistically the ones they are flying probably aren't in that condition, probably don't have pilots of that level of experience and armed with the older R-60s or similar - your talking more like 15-17K combat ceiling and a limit of about 4km in which it could reliably engage air to air which would put it right on the edge of its capabilities and unlikely without a lot of luck to bring down even a 777 without several attempts - does depend a lot on other factors I don't have information on though.


* Theoretically altitude separation for the platform is upto +10km, in practical use closer to half that.


EDIT: Some of the SU-25s can carry the R-77 which can engage a target at upto ~80K feet but I know even less about that configuration.

 

[Angilion]

Even if it could have been used to launch missiles to shoot down a plane >10,000 feet above it, that wouldn't be relevant to the claim being made. The claim explicitly refers to anti-tank rounds fired from the 30mm gun on the plane. There's no way that could be used to shoot down a plane >10,000 feet above it.

 

[Rroff]

Even if it could have been used to launch missiles to shoot down a plane >10,000 feet above it, that wouldn't be relevant to the claim being made. The claim explicitly refers to anti-tank rounds fired from the 30mm gun on the plane. There's no way that could be used to shoot down a plane >10,000 feet above it.

That would be an interesting one, no way you'd shoot one from behind - by something like 8000 feet the shell would be traveling slower than a cruising 777 and it would be a ridiculous feat for even the best of pilots from any even slightly feasible angle - if you had a 1000 tries at it its possible 1-2 times it would come off. (Thats probably optimistic).

 

[RoboCod]

In fact, the cannons mounted to aircraft tend to have an effective range of around 2000m (6500ft) against soft skinned targets, so the range factor isn't completely inconceivable. The difficulty would be firing up.

 

[Rroff]

In fact, the cannons mounted to aircraft tend to have an effective range of around 2000m (6500ft) against soft skinned targets, so the range factor isn't completely inconceivable. The difficulty would be firing up.

2000m is usually against ground targets, against air targets its around 30-40% more - the max effective engagement ceiling for ground to air 30mm cannons tends to be around 3000-3500m, aircraft mounted ones usually less than that (altitude separation) but not sure by how much exactly.

EDIT: Even so actually pulling that off is straining credibility.

 

[RoboCod]

Depends what calibre weapon we're talking, so I went in the middle as they range 1000m - 3000m. Anything further than that is nigh on impossible at a fast moving target. A 30mm round for example takes 12 seconds to reach 3000m, it takes less than 2s for 1000m.

 

[Derek W]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28599315

BBC reporting an ambush near the site. No details as yet other than reported casualties.

 

[NVP]

Glad you guys are making valid cases for it being nonesense, would be terrible if at all true.