MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The white painted area below the windshield is burnt to a gun metal gray.
Speculatively, I would guess the missile fused very close and slightly above the port side of the nose, and this is where the break up began.
Why?
The port window cockpit window frame is severely damaged, the skin panel is heavily sooted and perforated, the commander's floor shows evidence of shrapnel damage. The remaining glass laminate has signs of soot.
There is a photograph of the crown skin that is sooted and shows over pressure where the skin has been dished in between the supporting structure frame.
One crew seat is visible at the cockpit crash site, the other was possibly ejected early in the event. Or perhaps it was taken or moved during the recovery.
There's a huge amount of structure missing from the crucial part of the aeroplane - the front - and I hope the investigation turns it all up.
Speculatively, I would guess the missile fused very close and slightly above the port side of the nose, and this is where the break up began.
Why?
The port window cockpit window frame is severely damaged, the skin panel is heavily sooted and perforated, the commander's floor shows evidence of shrapnel damage. The remaining glass laminate has signs of soot.
There is a photograph of the crown skin that is sooted and shows over pressure where the skin has been dished in between the supporting structure frame.
One crew seat is visible at the cockpit crash site, the other was possibly ejected early in the event. Or perhaps it was taken or moved during the recovery.
There's a huge amount of structure missing from the crucial part of the aeroplane - the front - and I hope the investigation turns it all up.
Last edited by JamesT73J; 25th Jul 2014 at 03:56.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been published this morning in the Russian news that there is an internal investigation being carried on by the security service of Ukraine concerning potential unintentional launch of a BUK missile by the army on the day of tragedy.
Do not trust any press, but here is the original article:
http://ria.ru/world/20140725/1017459906.html
Just briefly explaining what is there.
It is written that after some BUK batteries arrived into the Donetsk area a few days prior to the event, a training campaign for the BUK crews was planned and implemented (as the crews were untrained). To be closer to the reality, a couple of Ukrainian Su-25 flew over from the Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk area to simulate the real targets that the ground crews should train with. Everything should have been "real", except for after "pressing the launch button" the missile should not be ignited and the whole BUK complex should remain in a simulation mode. A version to be investigated in detail implies that the ground crew of a particular BUK complex deployed near the village/town of Zaroschenskoye (south of Shakhtersk, close to the line between the rebels and the regulars) indeed acquired one of Su-25 as a target and the system started followed him. The ill-fated 777 was flying above Su-25 entering into the beam cone of the BUK radar. Then for unknown reasons the missile was launched (some experts say it indeed may happen if the system hardware was not duly reconfigured - AV) and since that radar cross section of 777 is much higher than that of Su-25, the missile chased the MH17. System wise, having two angular variables identical for both planes should not be enough, as there always is the third one - range. Was it because just the wrong plane was selected by the operator, or maybe the range channel did not work properly is difficult to say.
Again, could well be another piece of disinformation, but the whole situation is very similar to what happened in 2001 when the Ukrainian army was training in Crimea and hit (with S-200) the Tu-154 flying over the Black Sea coming from Israel to Siberia. Moreover, in 2001 the S-200 operators had enough time to realise that the missile was kept flying for much longer time and distance than to the target and could issue a self-destruction command (but did not do that probably being not trained/attentive enough). Here, the ground operator obviously did not have enough time to divert/destruct the missile.
Do not trust any press, but here is the original article:
http://ria.ru/world/20140725/1017459906.html
Just briefly explaining what is there.
It is written that after some BUK batteries arrived into the Donetsk area a few days prior to the event, a training campaign for the BUK crews was planned and implemented (as the crews were untrained). To be closer to the reality, a couple of Ukrainian Su-25 flew over from the Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk area to simulate the real targets that the ground crews should train with. Everything should have been "real", except for after "pressing the launch button" the missile should not be ignited and the whole BUK complex should remain in a simulation mode. A version to be investigated in detail implies that the ground crew of a particular BUK complex deployed near the village/town of Zaroschenskoye (south of Shakhtersk, close to the line between the rebels and the regulars) indeed acquired one of Su-25 as a target and the system started followed him. The ill-fated 777 was flying above Su-25 entering into the beam cone of the BUK radar. Then for unknown reasons the missile was launched (some experts say it indeed may happen if the system hardware was not duly reconfigured - AV) and since that radar cross section of 777 is much higher than that of Su-25, the missile chased the MH17. System wise, having two angular variables identical for both planes should not be enough, as there always is the third one - range. Was it because just the wrong plane was selected by the operator, or maybe the range channel did not work properly is difficult to say.
Again, could well be another piece of disinformation, but the whole situation is very similar to what happened in 2001 when the Ukrainian army was training in Crimea and hit (with S-200) the Tu-154 flying over the Black Sea coming from Israel to Siberia. Moreover, in 2001 the S-200 operators had enough time to realise that the missile was kept flying for much longer time and distance than to the target and could issue a self-destruction command (but did not do that probably being not trained/attentive enough). Here, the ground operator obviously did not have enough time to divert/destruct the missile.
Last edited by A_Van; 25th Jul 2014 at 07:43. Reason: Better URL used
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see the moment of explosion
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we can rule out any objectivity in the Russian press. A few journos from Russia Today have resigned due to their inability to report facts detrimental to the Russian government.
The US know the location of Ukrainian resources, and they were not in range of a missile strike on MH17.
The US know the location of Ukrainian resources, and they were not in range of a missile strike on MH17.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 no sponsor
Objectivity of the Russian press is in big question, yes. I did not say that I took that article as a complete true. But the same for UK and US press, for sure. BBC recently erased the footage of their correspondent in the "MH17 area" just because it contradicted with the baseline. That's the common problem of all the media.
Mentioning that US new the location of all the Ukrainian resources does not rule out the fact the Russians new them too. And with better resolution, technically speaking. Just because they are closer. And with better knowledge of their own missile and radar capabilities.
When high officials of the Russian DoD were saying (during the open briefing) that some BUKs of the Ukrainian army could reach MH17, I see no reason not to trust them. Because these data are verifiable.
Here is the map they showed:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f...ElemFormat=jpg
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
Objectivity of the Russian press is in big question, yes. I did not say that I took that article as a complete true. But the same for UK and US press, for sure. BBC recently erased the footage of their correspondent in the "MH17 area" just because it contradicted with the baseline. That's the common problem of all the media.
Mentioning that US new the location of all the Ukrainian resources does not rule out the fact the Russians new them too. And with better resolution, technically speaking. Just because they are closer. And with better knowledge of their own missile and radar capabilities.
When high officials of the Russian DoD were saying (during the open briefing) that some BUKs of the Ukrainian army could reach MH17, I see no reason not to trust them. Because these data are verifiable.
Here is the map they showed:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f...ElemFormat=jpg
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
Last edited by A_Van; 25th Jul 2014 at 08:43. Reason: typos, adding URL with BUK locations
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wantion, that is an excellent Photoshop job in post # 926.
I know it will be really hard, but can you try and Photoshop the port central windshield frame shown at the bottom of the following picture, plus the blackened wiper lower part of that windshield frame shown in the middle of that picture onto that same overall picture that you show in your post?
I know it will take a lot of editing and turning and reduction of size, but I suspect that the eventual result might be horrifically dramatic.
Here is the relevant picture.
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...s/14717505025/
I know it will be really hard, but can you try and Photoshop the port central windshield frame shown at the bottom of the following picture, plus the blackened wiper lower part of that windshield frame shown in the middle of that picture onto that same overall picture that you show in your post?
I know it will take a lot of editing and turning and reduction of size, but I suspect that the eventual result might be horrifically dramatic.
Here is the relevant picture.
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...s/14717505025/
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OSCE says this is the biggest piece of #MH17 found so far.
However, size does not matter. The piece which gives the biggest clue so far, is quite a small one. It the new piece tells a story, it is important, no matter how large.
The whole upper forward fuselage is still missing, and given the fact that the lower forward fuselage was found in one piece and away from the main crash site, that part should have survived as well. Maybe in small pieces?
If I see that correctly, the fuselage crown beacon is located a little aft of door two, around the wing root leading edge position, and well visible in one of the Akkermanns pictures attached to a larger piece of skin. So it looks like the upper fuselage skin was torn away at least up to the strong frames attaching the wing.
I have seen nothing from the cockpit crown so far, that is probably a very important piece, too.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Volume
I have seen nothing from the cockpit crown so far, that is probably a very important piece, too.
Why else would they have been cutting the wreckage up?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or even because they had already found bodies and wanted to recover them. It is like the monkey toy picture, a rebel seen with a saw cutting debris does mean nothing.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 74
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why else ?
Possibly so as to be able to cart off electronics boxes like the guy in some BBC footage taken of the cockpit. But then, maybe he believed there was a body in it? Why assume conspiracy when looting has the same effect.
Possibly so as to be able to cart off electronics boxes like the guy in some BBC footage taken of the cockpit. But then, maybe he believed there was a body in it? Why assume conspiracy when looting has the same effect.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mentioning that US new the location of all the Ukrainian resources does not rule out the fact the Russians new them too. And with better resolution, technically speaking. Just because they are closer. And with better knowledge of their own missile and radar capabilities.
When high officials of the Russian DoD were saying (during the open briefing) that some BUKs of the Ukrainian army could reach MH17, I see no reason not to trust them. Because these data are verifiable.
Here is the map they showed:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f...ElemFormat=jpg
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
When high officials of the Russian DoD were saying (during the open briefing) that some BUKs of the Ukrainian army could reach MH17, I see no reason not to trust them. Because these data are verifiable.
Here is the map they showed:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f...ElemFormat=jpg
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
As to the linked map, it is showing three Buk batteries within range of the assumed hit location. All of them were inside separatist-controlled territory (the one near Donetsk was near the front lines, the other two were deep inside).
In addition, we know that the shrapnel damage to the fuselage is concentrated in front, with particularly heavy density in front of the cockpit on the left side, so we can pretty safely rule out the westernmost two batteries (they would have left damage to the rear and to the right wing), and even the eastern battery would be stretching it. A launch from straight ahead or slightly to the left of the route would be more likely. If you look at any recent map of combat activities in the area, you can see that front left quadrant from the assumed hit location is all separatist-controlled territory at least for 40 km in all directions (and, except for the pocket straight ahead along the Russian border, there's no Ukrainian territory closer than ~70 km.)
And, of course, there's still the question "why would those Ukrainian Buks, if they were in fact there, possibly be shooting at MH17?" We have a reasonable explanation why separatists could have shot it down (they thought it was a Ukrainian transport plane). It's extremely hard to find an explanation for this action if it were committed by Ukrainians. This is not an active homing missile like S-200 that you can "lose" (like Ukrainians themselves did with Siberia Airlines 1812 in 2001). Separatists have no air force. MH17 was approaching from the heart of Ukraine and could not have been mistaken for a Russian military plane.
Last edited by hamster3null; 25th Jul 2014 at 10:07.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ A_Van, re: Russian theory of a gross error during training by UKR forces.
Notwithstanding the serious indications tending to show that the Russian side is trying to mud waters on the whole MH17 story, it is interesting to examine the logic of the scenario described.
So, you're a (young?) UKR soldier, doing training, and you shouldn't launch any missile (and you know it).
But, you make a mistake, and a missile is launched. And in addition, bound to the wrong target (perhaps you didn't notice that).
The BUK is a semi-active radar system. That means that the radar emitter is on the ground, and the missile seeker only has a passive radar receipter.
If you cut your radar illumination (from the ground) the missile cannot steer itself anymore. I think it auto-destructs in such a case (anyone more knowledgeable on that matter?).
In the control shelter, you also may have the ability to initiale missile self-destruction by other means (i.e. specific function to send such a command to the missile, notwithstanding your ground radar status).
I guess you would do anything to stop a missile, even if you're not sure towards who it's bound, if you know you shouldn't have launched one in the first place.
And if you've one or two simple means to do that, I think there is a good chance you would have succeeded.
Conclusion: this Russian theory is unlikely, and far less likely than the target identification error by a separatist team.
Notwithstanding the serious indications tending to show that the Russian side is trying to mud waters on the whole MH17 story, it is interesting to examine the logic of the scenario described.
So, you're a (young?) UKR soldier, doing training, and you shouldn't launch any missile (and you know it).
But, you make a mistake, and a missile is launched. And in addition, bound to the wrong target (perhaps you didn't notice that).
The BUK is a semi-active radar system. That means that the radar emitter is on the ground, and the missile seeker only has a passive radar receipter.
If you cut your radar illumination (from the ground) the missile cannot steer itself anymore. I think it auto-destructs in such a case (anyone more knowledgeable on that matter?).
In the control shelter, you also may have the ability to initiale missile self-destruction by other means (i.e. specific function to send such a command to the missile, notwithstanding your ground radar status).
I guess you would do anything to stop a missile, even if you're not sure towards who it's bound, if you know you shouldn't have launched one in the first place.
And if you've one or two simple means to do that, I think there is a good chance you would have succeeded.
Conclusion: this Russian theory is unlikely, and far less likely than the target identification error by a separatist team.
Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 25th Jul 2014 at 14:32.
Objectivity of the Russian press is in big question, yes. I did not say that I took that article as a complete true. But the same for UK and US press, for sure. BBC recently erased the footage of their correspondent in the "MH17 area" just because it contradicted with the baseline.
Personally, I would simply disregard anything broadcast or published by any russian media organization, because it cannot be trusted to be independent or impartial.
The BBC are a far from a perfect organization, but they are at least editorially independent of the British Government.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 40 North 75 West
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Van
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cape Town
Age: 60
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get an illustration of the cynical manipulation by Russian TV have a look at this compilation where the same person (apparently an actor) is seen to portray different people: a crying political refugee, an election observer and as a capm organiser. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny...
Zo worden Russen voorgelogen | Opmerkelijk | Telegraaf.nl
Zo worden Russen voorgelogen | Opmerkelijk | Telegraaf.nl