MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ukraine provided:
primary radar data
primary radar data
"The data obtained was the following:
- Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
- Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S) 6
- Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) 7 ground based reception."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow
Age: 62
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we consider the SA-11:
1. According to the map released by the DSB the last FDR position was at position "N48.123 E38.522".
2. Zaroschenske SA-11 (9K37M "Buk-M1") Armed Forces of Ukraine (position N47.983333 E38.451389)
3. Distance to the target 16.4 km...(((
1. According to the map released by the DSB the last FDR position was at position "N48.123 E38.522".
2. Zaroschenske SA-11 (9K37M "Buk-M1") Armed Forces of Ukraine (position N47.983333 E38.451389)
3. Distance to the target 16.4 km...(((
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Distance to the target 16.4 km...(((
2. Zaroschenske SA-11 (9K37M "Buk-M1") Armed Forces of Ukraine (position N47.983333 E38.451389)
What would be a reason for MH17 to decline the request to go to FL35? Not that it really matters either way, but conspiracy theorist will likely grasp on to this "refusal" as being somehow meaningful.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The preliminary report doesn't support this. From the page 14:
"The data obtained was the following:
- Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
- Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S) 6
- Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) 7 ground based reception."
"The data obtained was the following:
- Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
- Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S) 6
- Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) 7 ground based reception."
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the map released by the DSB the last FDR position was at position "N48.123 E38.522".
It would be over 40 km to the alleged rebel Buk location, ie out of range.
Problem is they say "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z" while Dutch report say 13:20 and they even have ATC communications recorded up to the last point. Another minute and a half from "N48.123 E38.522" takes the plane to the crash location.
Would be great if Dutch released last transponder data but they didn't.
As it is it looks like Boeing was in range of two Ukrainian Buk batteries and a possible rebel launcher.
Another thing, in their presentation Russian MOD said there was increase in radar activity on that day but they didn't specify what type of radars (as far as I remember) while Germans say Nato Awacs recorded presence of a different system, not Buk's.
Perhaps all Buks in that area were outside Awacs zone, though,
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: merseyside
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debris Field Map
Not sure if anyone has already posted this but seems to be a pretty comprehensive map of the debris field scattered over the 3 villages of Hrabove and Rozsypne / Petropavlivka . With aerial photographs & description of individual pieces of wreckage & graphics of original aircraft .
Map of a Tragedy: How Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Came Apart Over Ukraine - WSJ.com
Map of a Tragedy: How Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Came Apart Over Ukraine - WSJ.com
Problem is they say "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z"
While that quotation has been widely distributed on the Net, its provenance and reliability are both unknown.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news from the Netherlands
It was a busy news week in the Netherlands, even after the preliminary report was shared with the public.
About 100 next of kin have united themselves in 'foundation MH-17' and start putting pressure on Rutte to send investigators to the crash zone. The dutch prime minister reacted bij sending 30 extra people to Charkov, ready to enter the crash site after it is considered safe enough. But to the surprise of many people, the crash site is still considered too unsafe.
Unfortunately, today they proved right, because heavy fighting (mortar fire) took place at the crash site. One of the dutch reporters got caught in the fight and was evacuated. Not much chance of a quick return of the investigators
Slachtoffers vliegramp | RTL Nieuws
Vliegramp MH17 | RTL Nieuws
After de DSB the public prosecution office didn't want to stay behind and held a short press conference. They are still confident to find the responsible people, had collected 500 pieces of 'trace evidence' stemming from victims and personal items, including 25 metal pieces, which were now in the process of being identified.
500 sporen veiliggesteld in onderzoek naar MH17 | RTL Nieuws
Allthough the public prosecution office would like to trial the responsible people in The Netherlands, it has not yet been decided in what country a trial will be helt, if it ever comes so far. It might take 15 years before this happens.
It should be noted that it is not uncommon in such a tragic accident that parts end up in victims body or personal items. So I guess also here it is important to go back to Ukraine as quickly as possible
About 100 next of kin have united themselves in 'foundation MH-17' and start putting pressure on Rutte to send investigators to the crash zone. The dutch prime minister reacted bij sending 30 extra people to Charkov, ready to enter the crash site after it is considered safe enough. But to the surprise of many people, the crash site is still considered too unsafe.
Unfortunately, today they proved right, because heavy fighting (mortar fire) took place at the crash site. One of the dutch reporters got caught in the fight and was evacuated. Not much chance of a quick return of the investigators
Slachtoffers vliegramp | RTL Nieuws
Vliegramp MH17 | RTL Nieuws
After de DSB the public prosecution office didn't want to stay behind and held a short press conference. They are still confident to find the responsible people, had collected 500 pieces of 'trace evidence' stemming from victims and personal items, including 25 metal pieces, which were now in the process of being identified.
500 sporen veiliggesteld in onderzoek naar MH17 | RTL Nieuws
Allthough the public prosecution office would like to trial the responsible people in The Netherlands, it has not yet been decided in what country a trial will be helt, if it ever comes so far. It might take 15 years before this happens.
It should be noted that it is not uncommon in such a tragic accident that parts end up in victims body or personal items. So I guess also here it is important to go back to Ukraine as quickly as possible
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing, in their presentation Russian MOD said there was increase in radar activity on that day but they didn't specify what type of radars (as far as I remember) while Germans say Nato Awacs recorded presence of a different system, not Buk's.
Frequency of SA-3 same as SA-11 - 3 cm.
Last edited by anonymousdefender; 14th Sep 2014 at 10:34.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frequency of SA-3 same as SA-11 - 3 cm.
Do you mean that the frequency of both systems is the same, or that it is simply in the same band? It should be exactly the same before you can make this statement.
An AWACS is not a SIGINT or ELINT plane It's function is to check the sky's for airplanes and guide interceptors to target or coordinate friendly forces.( AWACS = Airborne (Early) Warning And Control). It was not designed as a signal intelligence plane. If you want to do signal intelligence, you use a RC-135 and if you want to know ground forces movement you select the E-8 JSTARS. Both were nowhere near.
The detection of SAM-sites is easy when they use their radar suit. A surveillance radar like the Snow Drift can find targets up to 85 km, but can be detected and identified at much longer range by any Radar Warning Receiver. Russia came with graphs of Ukraine radar activity, so they were monitoring too.
In the cold war, the Sovjet Union built great radar stations able to search for aircraft over the horizon and their own version of an AEW&C plane.
With nearly 40.000 Russian troops near East Ukraine border, I do not doubt that part of this is air defence. So if they wish, they can easily cover the battlefield by search radar.
This makes the Russian presentation even more suspect. It is like proving somebody is a thief by showing a rather vague mobile phone picture, while at the same time you have several High density professional camera footage of the same guy, which you do not share.
An AWACS is not a SIGINT or ELINT plane It's function is to check the sky's for airplanes and guide interceptors to target or coordinate friendly forces.( AWACS = Airborne (Early) Warning And Control). It was not designed as a signal intelligence plane. If you want to do signal intelligence, you use a RC-135 and if you want to know ground forces movement you select the E-8 JSTARS. Both were nowhere near.
The detection of SAM-sites is easy when they use their radar suit. A surveillance radar like the Snow Drift can find targets up to 85 km, but can be detected and identified at much longer range by any Radar Warning Receiver. Russia came with graphs of Ukraine radar activity, so they were monitoring too.
In the cold war, the Sovjet Union built great radar stations able to search for aircraft over the horizon and their own version of an AEW&C plane.
With nearly 40.000 Russian troops near East Ukraine border, I do not doubt that part of this is air defence. So if they wish, they can easily cover the battlefield by search radar.
This makes the Russian presentation even more suspect. It is like proving somebody is a thief by showing a rather vague mobile phone picture, while at the same time you have several High density professional camera footage of the same guy, which you do not share.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Fire Dome (9S35M1 of SA-11, search mode) and Low Blow (fire and tracking channels of SA-3) have same wave length - 3cm.
Since SA-3 mostly killer then AWACS probably prefer SA-3 then SA-11.
AWACS had a few ESM upgrades (Block 1, 20/25 and 30/35) which added to Sentry ability for detect and track radar emitters.
Working radar near border is routine and usual thing, it cannot argue against Ukraine or Russia, only against separatists since they dont had systems like SA-3 or SA-11.
Anyway, Russia must detect fire mode of 9S35M1 radar (wave length 4 cm) but all what we heard is 9S18M1 in search mode and very far from MH17 death.
Since SA-3 mostly killer then AWACS probably prefer SA-3 then SA-11.
AWACS had a few ESM upgrades (Block 1, 20/25 and 30/35) which added to Sentry ability for detect and track radar emitters.
Working radar near border is routine and usual thing, it cannot argue against Ukraine or Russia, only against separatists since they dont had systems like SA-3 or SA-11.
Anyway, Russia must detect fire mode of 9S35M1 radar (wave length 4 cm) but all what we heard is 9S18M1 in search mode and very far from MH17 death.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ValeryD: The "Zaroschenske hypothesis" you proposed is an easy one to disagree with. How would a missile shot from a position ~ in the 3 o'clock of an aircraft end up by "impacting" said aircraft from ~ its 11/12 o'clock (with no significant heading change by said aircraft)? It's simply not possible.
Indeed, intention looks pretty clear here. "Sadly" the alleged unreliability of the transponder is not consistent with the FDR data (no xpder info from the Dutch, for now: analysis in ongoing, they wrote).
@ blackbird69, re: "An AWACS is not a SIGINT or ELINT plane". Errr, not primarily, indeed, but some AWACS (all?) have a pretty impressive SIGINT/ELINT capability. There are more aerials to an E-3 than just the big rotating plate.
It would be over 40 km to the alleged rebel Buk location, ie out of range.
Problem is they say "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z" while Dutch report say 13:20 and they even have ATC communications recorded up to the last point. Another minute and a half from "N48.123 E38.522" takes the plane to the crash location.
Problem is they say "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z" while Dutch report say 13:20 and they even have ATC communications recorded up to the last point. Another minute and a half from "N48.123 E38.522" takes the plane to the crash location.
@ blackbird69, re: "An AWACS is not a SIGINT or ELINT plane". Errr, not primarily, indeed, but some AWACS (all?) have a pretty impressive SIGINT/ELINT capability. There are more aerials to an E-3 than just the big rotating plate.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to AlphaZuluRomeo:
- the missile hits from above downward with advance to the target's course;
- the cockpit is curved;
- the MH17 is a moving object with the speed 250 m/s (also hitting the cloud of 'high-energy penetrating objects' made by the missile);
- the most known picture shows also tangential marks of impact;
- Zaroschenske is just a spotted position not the firing one (as Snizhne for the rebels's Buk);
There is no such an attack direction which completely rules out rebels's guilt.
to Lena.Kiev:
See the video since 1:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOzhSHAfMuA
to anonymousdefender:
Every mention of Su-25 in the briefing was accompanied with the word 'supposedly'.
Regarding the failed attempt to geolocate the video in Krasnoarmeysk it is more likely someone's laziness in their PR department. They just took a widely circulated version from social networks at that moment without a thorough check. Ukrainians also mistakenly claimed the video was recorded in Krasnodon.
The "Zaroschenske hypothesis" you proposed is an easy one to disagree with. How would a missile shot from a position ~ in the 3 o'clock of an aircraft end up by "impacting" said aircraft from ~ its 11/12 o'clock (with no significant heading change by said aircraft)? It's simply not possible.
- the cockpit is curved;
- the MH17 is a moving object with the speed 250 m/s (also hitting the cloud of 'high-energy penetrating objects' made by the missile);
- the most known picture shows also tangential marks of impact;
- Zaroschenske is just a spotted position not the firing one (as Snizhne for the rebels's Buk);
Indeed, intention looks pretty clear here.
to Lena.Kiev:
The question is whether it had time to tumble while it flew from the explosion near cockpit to wingtip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOzhSHAfMuA
to anonymousdefender:
is same lie as Su-25 and Krasnoarmeysk.
Regarding the failed attempt to geolocate the video in Krasnoarmeysk it is more likely someone's laziness in their PR department. They just took a widely circulated version from social networks at that moment without a thorough check. Ukrainians also mistakenly claimed the video was recorded in Krasnodon.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to BATHIK:
That's not true. See this Yandex map
The hitpoint is less than 38 km from Russia's border.
There are plentiful alleged rebels's Buk positions.
Quote:
According to the map released by the DSB the last FDR position was at position "N48.123 E38.522".
It would be over 40 km to the alleged rebel Buk location, ie out of range.
According to the map released by the DSB the last FDR position was at position "N48.123 E38.522".
It would be over 40 km to the alleged rebel Buk location, ie out of range.
The hitpoint is less than 38 km from Russia's border.
There are plentiful alleged rebels's Buk positions.
Every mention of Su-25 in the briefing was accompanied with the word 'supposedly'.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GSOB
Every mention of Su-25 in the briefing was accompanied with the word 'supposedly'.
Every mention of Su-25 in the briefing was accompanied with the word 'supposedly'.
The first Russian general mentioned the fighter jet (Su-25) five times during the briefing. Only the first time he used word "presumably". After that he was talking about the plane without any doubt.
The second Russian general, while talking about the "plane" (it is obvious that Russians tried to present a large falling piece of the Boeing as a Ukrainian fighter) was pretty affirmative too.
Everybody can watch the briefing.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 62
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are the Buks at Zaroschenskoe Ukraine ones? I can´t see at the Sat Pics anything that look like Ukraine. It is also possible that were the captured Buks of the A1402 Depot. Only the Russian said that there were Ukraine Buks. Whre is the different between Ukaine Buks and captured Buks by Separist?
Last edited by triumph61; 16th Sep 2014 at 08:50.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buk's warhead has two detonators, one in front and one at the back, depending on how the missile approaches the target it detonates either one or both. Relative to the missile the cloud of shrapnel then looks like a forward looking cone, backward looking cone, or a donut. That's according to posters with experience operating Buks on Russian military forums, so far this information remains unchallenged, take it or leave it.
If that is true, there's no way to determine where the missile came from and how it detonated without reconstructing the cockpit and tying up strings like they did on Dexter.
Buk missiles are also low on maneuverability, the exhaust all fuel in the first 15 seconds of the flight and after that they only glide towards the target, giving them a relatively limited scope for correction.
There's also visible damage to the left wing which could account for the projectiles hitting the cockpit from 2 o'clock, ie Zaroschenskoye.
If that is true, there's no way to determine where the missile came from and how it detonated without reconstructing the cockpit and tying up strings like they did on Dexter.
Buk missiles are also low on maneuverability, the exhaust all fuel in the first 15 seconds of the flight and after that they only glide towards the target, giving them a relatively limited scope for correction.
There's also visible damage to the left wing which could account for the projectiles hitting the cockpit from 2 o'clock, ie Zaroschenskoye.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buk's warhead has two detonators, one in front and one at the back, depending on how the missile approaches the target it detonates either one or both. Relative to the missile the cloud of shrapnel then looks like a forward looking cone, backward looking cone, or a donut. That's according to posters with experience operating Buks on Russian military forums, so far this information remains unchallenged, take it or leave it.
Dynamic field of strike elements is result of vector summing of speeds. Angle of detonation depend from relative speed of missile-target. And cone forming by this summary speed (look on my picture where im draw what shape have dynamic field of strike elements in cause of hit from side - violet lines instead of red lines which work for static warhead). For warhead not good idea to have 2 detonators since it decrease output power.
Anything what you really know and dont read on sites?
There's also visible damage to the left wing which could account for the projectiles hitting the cockpit from 2 o'clock, ie Zaroschenskoye.
So where thousand of holes from dynamic field of strike elements which must puncture fuselage and left wing between holes in cabin and hole in left wing?
So strange warhead - only scratch left wing by single shot - sniper, but devastate a cabin and killed pilots - murder, and nothing between it! And how right engine lost part with hole from schrapnel if cone go in direction cabin-left wing, do you have second warhead for it?!
If that is true
So still missile with high probability come from ahead, not from side.
Another picture with dynamic field of strike elements if missile come from ahead. Point of detonation above and some on left side.
Violet lines - cone of schrapnel.
Lines 1-4 is horisontal projection. How we see most strike elements in that cause can bypass fuselage and wings. Also hits in left wing and right engine have same probability to meet target by system elements or non-system. In really, i think left wing and right engine hitted by single pieces which non-system for field of strike elements.
Lines 5-6 is vertical projection of field. It how cabin was penetrated.
Buk missiles are also low on maneuverability, the exhaust all fuel in the first 15 seconds of the flight and after that they only glide towards the target, giving them a relatively limited scope for correction.
Maneurs up to 19 g on start and 13 g at end.
Last edited by anonymousdefender; 16th Sep 2014 at 11:41.