« “We Choose The Moon” - TTG | Main | "What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?" by Robert Parry »

21 July 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Curiousz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast

The December 2008 action is in compliance with a late-term executive order from George W. Bush which mandated accelerated approval of NextGen

Future implementation to the ADS-B system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_flight_%28air_traffic_control%29

Which if I read it right means an end to normal ATC and a switch to satellite and super computer control of the skies. As in preparation for all the flying cars and Jetson stuff on the horizon.

Side Note: The Gyro system required for the "remote computer control" of the ADS-B system happens to have Hilary Clinton's name on the patent.

Side Note: Boeing was fined by the FAA for secretly installing said Gyro system on a fleet of planes it sold to Asia in violation of DOD secrets in technology acts.

Side Note: The FlightAware website states that their system runs off the ADS-B system and it tracks Malaysian Airlines flights.

And two of the hold outs according to the website to the worldwide implementation of this system happen to be China and Malaysia. Curious footnotes I'd say since the first mass talking heads push following the loss of that plane was the immediate frenzy for worldwide implementation of this global satellite controlled system.

PS: The Carlyle grouped owned the first satellites put in orbit to implement this system.

EDIT: I have chosen to delete the posts you apparently made under the name 'Mickey'. One pen name should suffice for what you have to say. Kindly stick to “Curiousz”.

Ulenspiegel

David Habakkuk,

it is correct that we must not confuse Russian propaganda with the separatists' propaganda.

Therefore, we should focus on the official Russian statements, however, that is IMHO already disturbing enough, I do not need additional input by the separatists.

- No clear line whether Russia has delivered BUKs to the separatists or not. Fist no, then under overwhelming pressure from presented eviudence, to maybe.

- Relatively stupid propaganda stunts like Putin's plane may in fact have been the intended target.

- The statements that the flight route of MH17 was mysteriously changed

- A fishy Spanish ATC.

- The suggestion that an Ukrainian SU-25(!) may be responsible for the kill despite the fact, that the shrapnel patterns already indicated an SAM as culprit.
There were attempts to bring the Russian Wikipedia entry for the SU-25 in line with the statements of the Russian officials. Why this nonsense?

It is quite obvious that the USA/NATO tries to work without presenting own hard data (we see only conclusions), my interpretation is this happens in order to conceal own capabilities.

At the moment most of the presented useful evidence is "public domain", however, I can live with an case only based on civilian or open source data.

It is assumed by experts that the location of the firing SAM system can be determined by evaluation of the physical data of the Boeing at the time of the first missile impact, data of the SAM system and knowledge where the warhead(s) exploded relatively to the plane. Here the the "black" boxes should help a lot as long as they still contain useful data.

Ulenspiegel

The pieces of information I found on "Augen geradeaus" in respect to the SU-25 and BUK are:

A highly talented pilot in a SU-25 may indeed be able to reach an altitude of 10.000 meters without killing the airplane and himself, this is not disputed by experts. :-)

This operation, however, would require that the plane flies at almost maximum vertical speed and would as result have very low climb rate, it could very likely not carry any external weapons.

With an normal combat pilot and at least some combat load the maximum ceiling is assumed to be below 7000 meters.

The air-to-air missiles of the SU-25 are heat-seekers, the small warhead would have hit a turbine of the Boeing and may have resulted in an explosion. However, the very uniform shrapnel patterns on the debris clearly indicated at least one SAM with large warhead, not an engine explosion.

Without additional radar the operator had around one minute between detection of an "enemy" target and launching of the missiles, here the range of the radar is the most limiting factor, one could add the stress factor that a military target may fires HARMs, i.e. the operators have an essential interest in doing their job fast in this set-up. :-)

As long as an alternative target does not fly very very close to the airliner (here we are again discussing the RL performance of a SU-25), an accidental switch of the targets is highly unlikely, according to AA guys.

Ulenspiegel

Denis,

the 7 km is the value for a SU-25 without any combat load, with high combat load it is ~5 km.

So we use a slow SU-25 to intercept an Boing? What much more suitable alternatives for this job are actually available?

The photos of MH-17 debis show very regular shrapnel patterns, that are not consistent with an air-to-air missile hitting an engine and causing an explosion, however, they fit the a SAM warhead.


Ulenspiegel

Karim,

in the English and German version we still have:

Service ceiling: 7,000 m[97] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons :-)

The new Russian(?) version - since yesterday - is now:

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,960 ft) clean, 9,000 m (30,000 ft) with max weapons :-)

Hint: if you change the meter values, please change the feet values accordingly. Otherwise there is the danger that you look like a complete idiot. :-)

But was a nice try, unfortunately, with the same quality of the official propaganda. :-)

Charles Dekle

Curiosz,
Thank you for the updates and additional information. It has been awhile since I looked at this stuff. I well past my "use by date". You gotta love Boeing. They always put the national interest first. I am just not sure whose national interest. I know that was snarky. I apologize.

Regards,

Denis

Ulenspiegel now your just talkin' gibberish.

Even if we accept your very doubtful claim that a Su-25B1 can only operate loaded at 5000m, the range of the R-60 is 12 km. Add 12000m and 5000m and you'll get 17000m. MH17 was at 10000m.

So even using your 5000m limit of the operating altitude of the Su, there is still 7000m excess.

Looks to me like the air-to-air theory is not vitiated on the basis of altitudes even if the Su were operating at 1000m.

The age-old advice applies here: When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Ulenspiegel

Denis,

the air-to-air theory is not disproven, correct, however, it is very, very unlikely.

At the moment there is absolutely no evidence that the Boing was hit by an air to air missile. Not even the Russian claim that, guess why? Could it be that the pics are already quite clear and they know that this will be confirmed in a regular investigation? :-)

As scientist I start with the most propable theory. :-)

Without any evidence for an air-air missile hit the Russian contribution is a simple fog screen.

jeff

My guess is Ukrainian jets were shadowing the commercial to avoid tracking, and the SAM hit the wrong plane, since the jets can chaff.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad