MH17 Update

[pubsman]

Breaking news on the BBC:

'Missile parts' at MH17 crash site - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33865420)

[glad rag]

But they say they have not proved a "causal connection" between the parts and the crash. MH17 crashed in an area held by pro-Russian rebels in July 2014, killing all 298 people on board.MH17: Ukraine crash site 'yields Russian missile parts' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33865420)

[Gove N.T.]

@LLuCCIFer
Or
Perhaps these are parts that the Russian backed rebels failed to clear when they "secured" the site from any inspection team.
It is probably best to let the official report come out - the results of which are most probably likely to produce concrete evidence which most predict will rejected by Russia - Putin

[Volume]

Must have also been quite hard for those parts to change heading by some 180° and follow the track of the aircraft to finally end at the crash site...

[highflyer40]

Unless the were embedded in the aircraft itself?

[Biggles1957]

There has been much talk about the type of fragments to be found from a missile but, if one accepts that MH was brought down by a ‘BUK’, I have always wondered why there has not been greater effort in trying to locate the nose portion of the missile (or indeed other parts). After the missile detonation a significant forward portion of the nose would have travelled on in a predictable trajectory? (Some pictures of the wreckage seem to indicate a secondary impact on the end of the port wing, which could tally with the flight path of a missile). If, as has been claimed, the location of the launcher and hence the trajectory is known, then a search area for the missile parts could be plotted? In the case of Lockerbie PA103 the crucial piece of evidence was the size of matchbox, here we are looking for something much bigger. It would not have been consumed by the detonation.

[atakacs]

I might be missing something but does anybody still doubt that MH17 has been downed by a SAM?
As for the circumstances it is obviously a big can of worms but the event itself seems pretty much clear?!

[Hotel Tango]

I might be missing something but does anybody still doubt that MH17 has been downed by a SAM?

No, no one of sound mind that is. However, it may have come to your notice that not all human beings are of sound mind and some of these lurk in these forums! :suspect: ;)

[RatherBeFlying]

Any bits from the warhead not imbedded in the recovered wreckage or remains found on the ground would be difficult to distinguish from the considerable other ordinance expended in the area.
Larger identifiable bits have most likely been removed from the scene

[LLuCCiFeR]

@Gove N.T. Perhaps these are parts that the Russian backed rebels failed to clear when they "secured" the site from any inspection team.The area was relatively quiet in July 2014, but it was the Ukrainian (Kiev) military that started a large offensive immediately after the downing of MH17, thus making it impossible for the inspectors to do their work and conduct a thorough investigation of the crash site. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/ukrainian-forces-assault-separatist-donetsk-mh17-torez

But it was the Ukrainian army that seemed intent on disrupting expert work on Monday, as they apparently launched an offensive against rebel positions close to Donetsk railway station, as well as in other towns across the region.


In the mean time, we're >one year down the road. Plenty of time for both sides to fabricate and enhance any 'evidence' that suits their geopolitical and military objectives.

[glad rag]

Been a long time, but there was a dutch report showing the different types of warhead fragments from differing "buk" types, IIRC I think MH17 had some fragments that were quite distinctive, shaped like l><l...:hmm:

[angels]

Plenty of time for both sides to fabricate and enhance any 'evidence' that suits their geopolitical and military objectives.

Quite true. So let's go back to July 17, 2014 when I posted on the original thread that I thought the rebels had done it with a BUK launcher that had been seen in the rebel-controlled area earlier that day. I also noted that the rebels had claimed they'd shot down a plane, before removing these claims from the social media accounts -- but after they had been read and disseminated.

Since then, we have learned a bit more of a timeline. All this is verifiable if you wish to do so.

Roughly précised.

Fact. Three days before MH17 is shot down, rebels claim they have shot down an AN26 Ukrainian transport plane flying at 6,500 meters over rebel-held territory. The claim is true. No-one really picks up on the fact that MANPADS can't do this. Russian (note this, Russian media) report the rebels have got a BUK system which was used in the destruction of the AN26.

Fact. On the morning of July 17 an Associated Press reporter sees a BUK missile system moving through the town of Snezhnoye, close to where it is later claimed the missile was fired from. Note I say claimed, even though tracks and scorch marks were found in the field. These could have been made after the event, but why would the rebels do that?

Fact. Minutes after MH17 disappears from radar screens, rebel social media sites claim another Ukrainian transport plane has been downed. (Separatist leader Colonel) 'Strelkov’s Dispatches' is one site, Antikvariat.ru is another. "Report from the militia. In the area of Snezhnoye an AN-26 was just shot down, it has fallen somewhere beyond the Progress coal mine." (Google translate from rather ropey screenshot.)

Fact. As it becomes apparent the plane is a civilian airliner, the posts are removed.

Fact. Within five hours of the plane being downed Kiev releases what it says is a phone intercept between Igor Bezler, a rebel commander of the Russian-backed fighters, and Vasily Geranin, who is described as a colonel in the Russian Federation’s GRU (military intelligence). In that conversation, the two men confirm that “a plane has just been shot down”.

Fact - Shortly afterwards the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) release another intercept in which another separatist leader, Mykola Kozitsin, reportedly has a conversation with one of his fighters after it is apparent the plane is a civilian one. “What the **** were they flying in here for? There’s a war on,” Kozitsin says.

I'm not saying the above two paragraphs are actually true, but that was pretty quick work by Kiev if they made the recordings up.

All the above were known on the day!!

This following clip was released a year later, so perhaps belongs in the realm of conspiracy. But if this video clip is made up it is pretty impressive and has fooled the folk at News Corp. MH17 video: Rebels thought shot down plane was a Ukraine fighter jet (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/never-before-seen-footage-reveals-russian-backed-rebels-arriving-at-the-wreckage-of-mh17/story-fnizu68q-1227444676268)

Add to this, Russia's embarrassing attempts to lay the blame elsewhere Russia Photoshopped satellite images to blame Ukraine for shooting down MH17 (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2928287/security0/russia-photoshopped-satellite-images-to-blame-ukraine-for-shooting-down-mh17-report.html) and outrageous use of it's UN veto Russia vetoes bid to set up tribunal for downed flight MH17 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-un-idUSKCN0Q32GS20150729) rather give the game away.

I stand by my post which was made, I repeat, on the day of the tragedy.

[AreOut]

angels nice retrospective, nothing to add

I just wonder if it's only rebels responsibility or ukrainian government should have forbidden the air traffic at all in that zone, they knew rebels had BUK and they knew BUK capabilities (as they actually use it)

[angels]

AreOut - I think it had to be the responsibility of Kiev, especially after the AN26 was shot down.

The rebels did not target the MH flight specifically, I think they genuinely thought they were firing at a Ukrainian military transport. The reaction of Mykola Kozitsin sums it up when he learns it was a civvie. "What the **** were they flying in here for? There's a war on!"

His question was rhetorical but a very fair one.

[TC_Ukraine]

angels
1) After IL-76 downed in Lugansk lots of airlines started to avoid that airspace.
2) Now russian airlines fly just 10 n.m. to the east from separatist's controlled territory. It is within range of BUK.
non-russian airlines fly at least 50 n.m. away.
So think about airlines responsibility too. Even if russian terrorists didn't have BUKs or smth, they could down any passanger jet in case of it's depressurization and descending to FL100, with manpads.

[Dick Whittingham]

Quite a while back I saw a pic on this thread showing part of the wreckage with the distinct marks of impact from a continuous expanding rod warhead just like the one in the UK Bloodhound 2. What warhead does the BUK have?

Dick W

[angels]

Dick - As I understand it, the BUK has a radar controlled proximity warhead, which strikes me as being what you describe. There are people who are far more qualified than me who could no doubt go into greater detail/correct me.

TC - I agree the airlines that continued to use the routing over eastern Ukraine after the AN26 had been shot down were utterly irresponsible. I know about the IL76 being shot down in June, but thought it was a fair bit lower and could have been done by a MANPAD. Do you know more about this one?

[jibba_jabba]

Ukraine/UN lead investigator statement. Straight from the horses mouth. (linked to the comment. 30second comment, 8 minute interview).
https://youtu.be/fNMj-M-GDl0?t=360

Ukraine shoots down airliners too.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

Big players involved in Ukraine.....clearly a hint for a more critical eye over major events in the area, after all, who's got more to gain by a false flag event, Russia or Ukraine/The West/NATO?
?Self-appointed advocate of new Ukraine?: Soros emails leaked by anti-Kiev hackers ? RT News (http://www.rt.com/news/264037-soros-ukraine-poroshenko-leak/?)

Where are the ATC radar tapes and the ATC communication tapes that were seized by the 'new' Ukraine special agencies' immediately after the event?
I was in the company of a high ranking person that is specialized in radar and missiles and their comment was, "if its a BUK its on the radar feed". Funny how we are not given any evidence but media/politicians opinions.


NOBODY is above suspicion until the facts are laid out on the table.

Unfortunately as big players are involved as well as political agenda's/interests are involved, the public will never know. Just another 9/11 really.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-causes-of-the-mh17-crash-are-classified-ukraine-netherlands-australia-belgium-signed-a-non-disclosure-agreement/5397194

[TEEEJ]

jibba jabba,

You have slipped down and are stuck in the conspiracy rabbit hole if you are still bleating about the Ukrainians and the "seized" ATC tapes.

This is normal practice for aircraft accident investigation around the world. The tapes will be released to an appropriate investigating body.

ICAO Annex 13 section 5.12 (e) refers:

You do realize that the Russians agreed on the MH17 preliminary report. There is nothing being hidden in relation to the flight path or the ATC communications.

The draft preliminary report has been sent to the Accredited Representatives of the States that participate in the investigation, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia for review. All Accredited Representatives have sent a reaction. The Dutch Safety Board assessed the provided suggestions and amended the report where appropriate.

See transcript. Remember there is no discrepencies highlighted by the Russian Federation since the release of the report.

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

I was in the company of a high ranking person that is specialized in radar and missiles and their comment was, "if its a BUK its on the radar feed".

If that was the case then why haven't the Russian provided these "radar tapes" showing their theory that it was a Ukrainian Buk fired from an area under Ukrainian control? If it was that easy the Russian Ministry of Defence during their sham of a media briefing would have been playing those "radar tapes" on a loop!

Almaz Antey recently briefed with the theory that it was a Ukrainian Buk from Ukrainian held territory. So where are these radar tape from Russia showing a Buk on the "radar feed" ?

MH17 'shot down by Ukrainian SAM', claims Almaz-Antey - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/52019/mh17-shot-down-by-ukrainian-sam-claims-almaz-antey)

[angels]

jibba jabba

Fact to remember. The rebels have no planes, drones yes, planes no.

The Ukrainians forces hadn't deployed any BUKs (even if they had them) because they weren't needed. I have no proof of this, but this has the ring of truth to it.

Fact. Three days earlier the Ukrainian rebels shot down an AN26 flying at over 20,000 feet. They said so. They did not say with what. Russian media said it was with a BUK system.

Fact. They claimed over social media another transport plane had been downed on July 17 and then removed all social media references to it as it became apparent it was a civilian aircraft.

Please explain, or indeed refute, the above.

[AreOut]

"My belief is that the missile was stolen by them from Ukrainian military stocks in Eastern Ukraine, along with much other military hardware, and was fired at what was believed to be a Ukrainian military aircraft. There had been previous Ukraine military aircraft hit by these stolen Buks in the area as well. "

they bragged about stealing ukrainian BUKs, however I tend to believe Russia has delivered them

"A key question is why Malaysian were routing through this area when most other operators had rerouted away from it once these attacks became apparent."

That's the main problem, ATC has rerouted them without any plausible reason (that I could find). Now it's the material for conspiracy theorists...

"Meanwhile, other flights continue between Russia and Ukraine as normal; Moscow to Kiev is one of the busiest air routes in the former Soviet bloc, "

Yupp, just goes to prove how silly that war is.

[triumph61]

Where is the Source that MH17 was rerouted?
That was the Flightplan:
(FPL-MAS17-IS
-B772/H-SDFGHIJ3J5M1RWXY/LB1D1
-EHAM1000
-N0490F310 ARNEM UL620 SUVOX UZ713 OSN UL980 MOBSA DCT POVEL DCT SUI L980 UTOLU/N0490F330 L980 LDZ M70 BEMBI L980 PEKIT/N0480F350 L980 TAMAK/N0480F350 A87 TIROM/N0490F350 A87 MAMED B449 RANAH L750 ZB G201 BI DCT MURLI DCT TIGER/N0490F370 L333 KKJ L759 PUT R325 VIH A464 DAKUS DCT
-WMKK1137 WMSA WMKP
-EET/EDGG0017 EDWW0023 EDUU0036 EPWW0052 UKLV0135 UKBV0153 UKDV0225 URRV0255 UATT0347 UTAK0411 UTAA0432 UTAV0507 OAKX0518 OPLR0601 OPKR0616 VIDF0631 VABF0725 VECF0747 VYYF0926 VOMF0930 VTBB1013 WMFC1051 REG/9MMRD PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S2 SEL/QREJ DOF/140717 RMK/ACASII EQUIPPED)

TAMAK/N0480F350 A87 TIROM/N0490F350 A87 MAMED

[AreOut]

I've seen it on ukrainian aviation forum but can't remember exactly where now, maybe I didn't understand properly

[triumph61]

MH17 follows the Flight Plan, but can´t climb at PEKIT to FL350. Just before the downing, Rostov ATC wants a change to RND insteed of TAMAK.
The Reason was "we have three of them". But on this Vids there is nothing to see nearby Rostov about a Traffic problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aERAG7gFVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh06SqVx_1Q

So why wants Rostov ATC a Route Change? I heard from an UA ATC that a Route change is not normal from RND, normaly they want a change of FL.

[ATC Watcher]

The final report will be published on 13 October according the Dutch OVV ..
The report will only be technical they warn , not determining who did it.

[CargoFlyer11]

Russian maker of missile that destroyed MH17 to explain disaster (http://news.yahoo.com/russian-maker-missile-destroyed-mh17-explain-disaster-154823859.html)

Almaz-Antey, the maker of the BUK surface-to-air system that the West and Kiev believe downed MH17, said it would present its version of events at a press conference on Tuesday after holding an "experiment" that entailed detonating a missile next to a plane......

[RatherBeFlying]

There's an energy difference of a few mach between encountering warhead fragments with zero relative motion between the sample aircraft and warhead.

Atmospheric density at ground level will yield a smaller kill radius than at FL370.

A pressurised fuselage at M.8 will tend to tear itself apart when structurally damaged while an unpressurised fuselage at rest will just sit there.

[StuntPilot]

Sure, because a BUK missile with 75 kg of high explosive and fragments cannot shoot a passenger plane out of the sky and therefore we must conclude that MH-17 was downed by Elvis, right? :{

An exploding tape recorder can take down a 747. This is an entire book chapter on what flimsy MANPADS can do http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/160762/ichaptersection_singledocument/b18b9ad8-114c-4bf6-88e1-3c03e55ca88e/en/1.pdf . But a 5.5m long missile designed to shoot planes out of the sky at a 40 km range would never take down MH-17. :ugh:

[MrSnuggles]

I am waiting with excitement for the Dutch final report, coming later today, Tuesday 13th of Oct. Hopefully they will be more on time than the French and their AirAsia investigation, hmmmm...

Many newspapers have reported on the coming report lately, and Russian news have already tried to debunk claims from the not-yet-released report, LOL! One missile maker has concluded that the whole report is bollocks and of course they did not manufacture the offending non-missile that did not take down MH17.
Here is one English report on the missile manufacturers response: Russian Missile-Maker Contradicts Dutch MH17 Crash Report - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-missile-maker-contradicts-dutch-mh17-crash-report-34435357)

The Dutch Safety Board will publish on their English version of the site Dutch Safety Board (http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en) in a few hours. Meanwhile you can read about monster trucks and shipping incidents....

[AreOut]

GorseFires Collectif ‏@GorseFires 4 minHá 4 minutos
The cockpit was hit first and and broke off from the rest of the plane #MH17 (Dutch Safety Board)

Russian Market Retweeted
Gordon Darroch ‏@GordonDarroch 4 minHá 4 minutos
Dutch Safety Board: Ukrainian airspace should have been closed at time of #MH17 crash, risk not properly evaluated.

Good they have mentioned it.

[sitigeltfel]

"The results of our experiment contradict the Dutch report," said Yan Novikov, the general director of the company. "It can now be clearly said that if a rocket was used it was a Buk 9M38, not a Buk 9M38M1, fired from the area of Zaroshchensk.

"The only thing that we do not yet understand are why fragments of 9M38m1 are amongst the evidence."
Sounds like they have been told what to, "understand"!

Video: MH17: Russian missile company seeks to debunk official report into air disaster - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11927963/MH17-Russian-missile-company-seeks-to-debunk-official-report-into-air-disaster.html)

[Aeroncabat]

So we finally come full circle and can once again safely assume that navigating over an active war-zone can be really deleterious to the health and safety of one's passengers and crew. At least we can now confidently exclude the excited ramblings of the less mentally stable and/or more rabidly nationalistic among us. Any further discussion on this subject will most likely continue to be decidedly within the realm of the conspiracy theorists and political agitators who have come to infest this site.

[seymoreskye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=163&v=KDiLEyT9spI

Looks like a thorough investigation at least.

[Mr A Tis]

Given what happened to MS17, can I ask about any similar safety implications to all those aircraft routing Europe- Middle East?. I appreciate that most commercial carriers are avoiding Syria & Iraq and are routing Turkey-Iran airspace. I presume Russian missiles are being launched from the Caspian sea. Are risk assessments made about this airspace? - whereas in MH17 Ukraine this didn't take place.

[Wrist Watch]

Final report document: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf

Final report summary from Aviation Herald (factual source without sensationalism): Crash: Malaysia B772 near Donetsk on Jul 17th 2014, aircraft was shot down (http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d/010&opt=0)

Video reconstruction of the flight (3 min): Animatie vlucht MH17 | NOS (http://nos.nl/video/2062832-animatie-vlucht-mh17.html)

Video reconstruction of the impact (2 min): Animatie neerhalen MH17 | NOS (http://nos.nl/video/2062833-animatie-neerhalen-mh17.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Given what happened to MS17, can I ask about any similar safety implications to all those aircraft routing Europe- Middle East?. I appreciate that most commercial carriers are avoiding Syria & Iraq and are routing Turkey-Iran airspace. I presume Russian missiles are being launched from the Caspian sea. Are risk assessments made about this airspace? - whereas in MH17 Ukraine this didn't take place.If the Russian cruise missiles are what you are referring to, they don't go up to FL altitudes. They go up in the air, and then tend to fly to their target at low level to take advantage of terrain masking. The most recent launch was a Russian Missile very similar to a Tomahawk. Those, at least, aren't a risk to commercial air carriers except in the terminal area during approach/landing, or takeoff/departure -- and that is if whomever launched it didn't do any mission planning.

[Downwind Lander]

Apart from a reference in an image caption on page 127, no other credit or reference to Pprune which seems to have predicted everything on the luchtime TV news - in these pages, months ago.

[StuntPilot]

They have released a bunch of materials: the MH-17 report, a separate report about passenger information, an 'about the investigation' document, a brochure, videos and a media package consisting of photos and videos. It is all here: Dutch Safety Board (http://www.safetyboard.nl/)

[Gridl0k]

Apart from a reference in an image caption on page 127, no other credit or reference to PPRuNe which seems to have predicted everything on the luchtime TV news - in these pages, months ago.

Shirley you're not serious?

[angels]

Gridl0k - It was all fairly clear on the day itself mate. The rebels should not have bragged about downing an aircraft before checking what they had actually downed.

Go back to the original thread, or see my post from a couple of months ago.

[Swiss Cheese]

Having sat through the private briefing this morning, there was a fair amount of expectations being met.

However, there was some surprise at the following: the safety board identified the warhead as a specific type with a definite fingerprint. They used forensic evidence of warhead paint, explosive compounds, sub components and the butterfly shaped shrapnel that peppered the cockpit and the bodies of the 3 flight crew. All members of the safety investigation including the Russian Federation agreed at the second internal review that it was this specific warhead, commonly found on the Buk system. However, by the third internal review, the Russian Federation changed its mind about all that. Hence their current formal position that there is insufficient evidence to determine the type of warhead that brought MH17 down.

[HeathrowAirport]

Surveillance data from the radar systems of both Ukraine and the Russian Federation was requested for the investigation. The Data request for the investigation was as follows. (Page 38) and most if not all was "Not available"

Not available??! I wonder why...

[mm_flynn]

For the Russian data because A - They are being awkward, B - They don't want any analysis done on the primary shadows shown in their video (that are AIUI likely to be fragments of MH17). (Although their claim is that they do a spatial save, only retaining data from within their territory and filter out data outside their territory - which seems like an improbable effort to have gone to to save a bit of storage cost).

For the Ukranian data, they said their primary Radars in the area were down for maintenance and they were using only secondary data, hence there is no ATC data (section 2.9.5.2). The Ukrainians also claim not to have military primary radar data due because they were not operating their military Radar as they had no military aircraft in the area (same section).

[wondering]

I haven´t really kept up with all the information. But, I was wondering what is the story behind Igor Girkin aka Strelkov and his 'claim to fame' on vk.com to have shot down MH17 before all his related entries were deleted when it was realized what has been shot down? :confused:

[wondering]

That´s what I understand as well. The screen shots still available today leave little doubt who is responsible. Just some people are questioning the whole thing and reckon it´s a set up. Is there any substance this could have been made up from the 'other side'?

[runway30]

'the other side' is the government of Ukraine who had no reason to shoot down aircraft in their own airspace. Russia could not use aircraft and pretend that the pilots had borrowed the aircraft to go on holiday in the same way that soldiers borrowed their tanks and BUK missile launchers to go on holiday in Ukraine.

[StuntPilot]

I think the report shows that good investigative work has been done. The conclusion about the 9N314M warhead type is strongly based on the preformed bow-tie shaped fragments which are stated to be unique for this particular BUK warhead. There are 2 points where I miss a bit of reflection:
- A group of 72 high energy objects was identified in the cockpit / crew members bodies. These were ferrous. 43 were made of unalloyed steel such as used in the BUK missile and generally matched the shape. But apparently also 28 stainless steel fragments were found. No explanation is given as to where they could come from?
- Parts of the wreckage were chemically tested for explosives. RDX, TNT and trace amounts of PETN were found. On the recovered missile parts RDX was found. It is not mentioned whether an 9N314M warhead is indeed RDX based?

[A_Van]

2 StuntPilot


I wonder where have your numbers (about fragments) come from?


In the DSB report, p. 92, Table 11, it is clearly stated that only 20 fragments were judged to be so-called "high-energy objects". 16 were of an "irregular" shape , 2 considered as "cubic" and 2 - as "bow-tie".


Quite poor statistics, especially as after so great deformation the output shape will not often match the original one.

[StuntPilot]

A_Van,

The report states on page 88 that
A distinct group was identified as small pieces of metal that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. These fragments were extracted from the Captain from Team A, the First Officer from Team A, the Purser, who was present in the cockpit at the time of the crash, and from the cockpit wreckage (Figure 37). These fragments were found to be ferrous.

Further forensic examinations were conducted on a number of these fragments. The selection was based on size, shape, mass and ferrous properties. In total 72 fragments were selected for further examination. Fifteen of these 72 fragments were found in the remains of the three crew members, one was found in the body of a passenger. The remaining 56 foreign fragments were recovered from the wreckage.


Then, on page 89, after the photo of the fragments that are stated to be characteristic for the 9N314M warhead, the report says that the forensic institute made a composition depth profile by cutting into the fragments with a focussed ion beam and performing x-ray spectroscopy. 43 of the 72 fragments were found to be made of unalloyed steel (which the fragments of a 9N314M warhead are indeed made of). 20 of the 43 fragments had clear deposits of aluminium or glass. The 14 with glass carried the signature of the cockpit glass layers (sodium, zirconium), the aluminium composition matches the aircraft's. A high accuracy composition measurement shows that there are 2 slightly differing unalloyed steel compositions, these elements could for example come from 2 different tubes (the 9N314M warhead has an inner and an outer layer of elements).

A 44th fragment was non-metallic.

Interestingly, on page 89 it says that the remaining (72-43-1) 28 fragments are made of stainless steel, not of unalloyed steel. The report does not say where they might come from.

I think the statistics is as good as it can be: although the missile spewed out many thousands of fragments, only 800 or so hit the plane, but they did so with tremendous energy. Most of them passed right through. The blast tore off the entire nose of the plane. To find some tens of fragments is then quite a bit. Many were found in the crew's bodies.

[A_Van]

ORAC,
I do not object to what is written in the excerpt that you copied in your post. Was only meaning that the conclusion is obvious (a missile was the cause) and does not give any details or clear the picture.
Special disappointment comes from simulations that were performed by NLR and TNO (appendices x-z to the report). I know both organisations and really pay great respect to the experts that work there. However, I can imagine what administrative pressure they faced to agree conducting simulations with nearly no real data about the missile. Clearly, no matter what tool are you using (MATLAB, Simulink, NASTRAN, WEST, whatever) the devil is in (precise knowledge of) all the parameters of the object/process you are simulating. As far as the missile is concerned, here we have guidance and control laws/software, a seeker model, actuators, missile dynamics - hundreds of parameters, tens of dif. equations, non-linear, non-stationary. It usually takes years for the manufacturer to generate and validate such models. And all these data are quite secret. Entering arbitrary parameters instead of real ones will result in an arbitrary output , from "black through white". If so, the customer could just select what he likes to get. I am even skeptical that Almaz-Antey could absolutely correctly reconstruct the trajectory though they do know all the data (it is their stuff).

[aperturescience]

As with everything - 'crap in = crap out' and yes the devil is certainly in the detail. However, there is a huge difference between "arbitrary parameters" and sufficient approximation for the input to a numerical simulation. A sufficient approximation is intrinsic to Finite Element Analysis since infinite precision and accuracy is not possible.

I must confess that I haven't read the appendix z report fully, I've only read the simulation setup and skimmed the results. Could you point me to the approximations of input parameters that have been made that are arbitrary?

As I've understood: It's stated that the model of the 9N314 warhead that was used is a 70 kg cylindrical charge of 60% RDX and 40% TNT. The "modified fisher" model was used to calculate the energy released as a blast wave. The aircraft was travelling at 254 m/s and the warhead ~600 m/s. You mentioned reconstruction of the trajectory - is a highly accurate trajectory necessary for simulation of the warhead and its interaction with the airframe as per this report?

[dlen]

The dutch experts worked all the way from the holes in the cockpit walls back. First they determined the approximate point of detonation and the orientation of the missile at that point in time . For this step, the detonation simulation was used to get the position and orientation, which gave the best fit to the observed ricochet traces and hole distribution.

The detonation point was a little high, left and in front of the cockpit, and the orientation, which is essential for determining the area of origin, was a small angle to the low and to the right side.

The trajectory could not be and has not been exactly reproduced. Starting from the detonation point in space, direction and speed, allowing for a certain uncertainty in those 6 parameters, and also allowing for some uncertainties concerning all the elements belonging to the missile, a pretty large area of possible launch points has been determined, more or less everything right and sufficiently in front of the flight path. This was done by simulating many launches whith a special software, while varying the launch location, launcher orientation and other factors, and then taking the area, from wich launches with the observed missile orientation at detonation point where possible.

If the missile had been fired from a point less in front and more lateral, it would have had a considerably larger lateral angle at the detonation point, as it is known to have been designed to follow a constant angle approach.

This seems reasonable. The report seems to me very well made and thorough, BTW.

[A_Van]

2 aperturescience


Please do not misinterprete what I was talking about. I am not an expert in explosive physics and was not discussing it. However, when I read the words like:
- a "mathematical model of a (9N314M) warhead" from TNO (App. X, p. 52),
- "design" II from TNO matches better that design III from Almaz-Antey"
a lot of questions arise.
I.e. TNO claims to know the (top secret) hardware from Almaz-Antey better than the designer and manufacture, bravo! BTW, A-A announced publicly in their press conference that the material they provided earlier to DSB was ignored.


Actually I was talking about the missile trajectory reconstruction, and on this point there are just a couple of pages in App. X: paras 6.19 - 6.20, pp. (60-61). What equations, what parameters? Just a trivial text for public, not for experts.
E.g., it is vaguely written (App. X, p. 60, second sentence in para 6.19) that the "simulation is based on a validated aerodynamic missile fly-out model, a rocket engine thrust profile model and models of the radar seeker, missile guidance logic and autopilot..". Bravissimo!
It usually takes years of work of a missile designer and its subcontrators (seeker, ground radar, autopilot and guidance software, etc.) to develop and validate (by means of many real launchs) all this. No need to say that all these data is top secret.


Imagine that a company in a country that does not produce aircraft would publish some results of their simulations of, say, F-22 combat operations, mentioning that their model is better than that of Boeing. The reaction of the latter is quite predictable. Here we have a similar situation and it is well below the level of engineering discussion.

[StuntPilot]

A_Van,

A-A has made data available to te investigation. A-A and the russian federation have been present at several meetings and have agreed to the findings. Then, suddenly, in the third and last meeting and response round, they have changed their story. All of this is well documented and you can read a summary of these events from page 94 onwards in the 'about the investigation' document http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf .

You underestimate the expertise of TNO. They are very much tied to the Dutch defense industry which, although maybe not widely known, consists of several hundreds of companies. Missile simulations belong to their area of competence.

Although I reject statements based on secrecy as much as you do, consider that the head of the DSB has by now stated on record and publicly that there is secret evidence (from a classified infrared missile early warning system), that has also yielded a trajectory. It is in accordance with the published findings.

[peekay4]

In related news, Russian cyber-espionage group targets MH17 investigation board:

October 22, 2015 Trend Micro -- The Dutch Safety Board (known as Onderzoeksraad) became a target of the cyber-espionage group before and after the safety board published their detailed report on the MH17 incident on October 13, 2015. We believe that a coordinated attack from several sides was launched to get unauthorized access to sensitive material of the investigation conducted by Dutch, Malaysian, Australian, Belgian, and Ukrainian authorities.

Pawn Storm Targets MH17 Investigation Team (http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/pawn-storm-targets-mh17-investigation-team/)

According to Trend Micro, the 'Pawn Storm' cyber-espionage group have a long history of attacks against US and NATO government targets, Russian dissidents, Ukrainian activists, and various media organizations.

[A_Van]

StuntPilot,

I do not underestimate knowledge and expertise of TNO and other organisations from the Netherlands (Ik werkte veel met Nederlandse bedrijven vooral met Dutch Space. Niet voor militaire, maar voor ruimte-projecten. Ook had contacten met NLR, TNO-FEL en sommige kleinere).

Just wanted to say that lack of precise data is critical and none of Russian companies, having just publicly available data, could correctly and accurately reconstruct the trajectory of the Buk either . What A-A disclosed, was definitely some general information. Specific data about guidance, an autopilot, seeker, actuators, etc. are highly classified with IPRs belonging to the MoD. If A-A disclosed these data, we would see them not at a press conference, but "behind the bars". This is, by the way, why I am skeptical about any material from A-A: they also did not disclose details.
They "draw the curves" with no proof, the same as DSB - not serious.

Thanks for pointing to the link with another DSB document. Indeed, the material from p. 94 and onwards looks strange: a childish game "you say "yes", and I say "no". Each side playes its own game and does not want to hear another one.

Regarding an early warning system, yes, shortly after the catastrophe it was heard from the US that their system detected the launch and that they "knew the area where the missile started from."
I assume they indeed had some data as both SBIRS-GEO and SBIRS-HEO satellites are in operation already (SBIRS-LEO, too, but it "addresses" missiles at relatively high altitudes, AFAIK).
However, the US declined sharing that data (evidence) and this lowers the credibility bar to zero. Also, technically speaking, it is unlikely that SBIRS could provide a highly accurate estimate of the launch point, it is just purposed for "general detection", but not for target acquisition, etc.

So, IMHO, the situation is still well unclear. I am not impressed, neither by the work by DSB, nor by the Russian groups (i.e. what I hear here in the Russian media).

[EMIT]

A-Van, the DSB report needs to be seen in its totality, not just in fragments.

The case is built from the wreckage evidence backwards - damage and break-up sequence lead to a cause outside the aircraft, a shrapnel producing detonation to the left and above the cockpit area. Only way to get such an explosive device there is by way of a weapon system. Deduction of all available knowledge and evidence leaves only a specific type of warhead as culprit. That type of warhead is only delivered by a few models of rocket, launched by BUK system.

Sufficient military intelligence material is available to then calculate from where a missile COULD HAVE BEEN launched, in orde to deliver its warhead in the position where, according to available evidence, it detonated near MH17 cockpit.

Dutch safety Board does not go any further than to display that whole possible launch area and does not appoint any perpetrator.

The years of testing and validating that an arms manufacturer goes through does not imply that NLR needs years to figure out the possible launch area - the years of effort to gather information about SA systems have taken place long before MH17 was killed - remember that back in 1973 SA-6 systems operated in the Middle East and not all systems remained in the hands of the armies that received them from the Soviet Union ...

[fox niner]

Apparently a German Private Investigator has some "explosive" information hidden in a safe of a Swiss bank. (UBS) He has been searching for information on behalf of an unknown party, offering 30.000.000 euro's to solve the mystery.

report in German: http://www.wifka.de/capital-informant-news.pdf

The Dutch safety board is aware of this info hidden in Switserland, and has asked for the safe to be opened and all paperwork to be handed over, as part of a criminal investigation. See article in a dutch newspaper:
MH17-geheimen uit bankkluis|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/25947147/__Bankkluis_MH17_geopend__.html)

[Propduffer]

UPI is carrying a story which says that a BUK missile part has been found near the debris field of MH-17.
http://cdnph.upi.com/sv/b/i/UPI-6351465299345/2016/1/14652997351204/Missile-part-found-at-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-17-crash-site.jpg

Link to the story:
Look: Missile part found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site in Ukraine - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/06/07/Missile-part-found-at-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-17-crash-site/6351465299345/?spt=mps&or=5&sn=hn)

[fox niner]

Nope. Swiss police knew exactly which UBS branch it was, and the safe has been opened by them. The contents were taken by the Swiss police, and handed over to the dutch investigators. The exact nature of these documents will be revealed at a later stage.....To be continued.
(all freely translated by me)

[Proper]

MH17 JIT june 2016 E-zine with new information: https://www.om.nl/mh17-ezine-juni2016/e-zine-en.html

[gwillie]

Two pieces in The Guardian today:


Flight MH17 investigators to pinpoint missile launch in rebel-held Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/27/mh17-inquiry-missile-launch-buk-ukraine-russia






MH17 explainer: what you need to know before the criminal inquiry results


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/27/mh17-explainer-what-you-need-to-know-before-the-criminal-inquiry-results

[Pali]

Very interesting press conference:

nrFt1fCHnvQ

Translator was a bit overwhelmed with Russian phone calls transcripts and I just hope there will be English version soon. As I learned Russian language for 10 years I could get more from this dialogues. It is worth to read them...

[hoss183]

Overwhelming evidence that the BUK came in from/ and went back to Russia.
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-mh17-shot/

direct link to video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6gJ8NDhYA well worth watching.

[Interested Passenger]

Either Russia will deny it, or ignore it, or they will identify the person(s) involved, who will have been killed in military action since then.

[Pi1010]

The video animation and today Financial Times coverage is very compelling.
I have a question about the IFF/secondary radar, surely MH17 was transmitting? Before we fired any missiles (and this was many years ago and at sea) there was a well rehearsed procedure for checking the target was adhering to a known flight path or not and was transmitting on IFF or not. I wouldn't expect a radio warning on land. If MH17 was transmitting then surely the missile radar operators knew? A Ukrainian military aircraft would not transmit or spoof on civilian IFF and the missile team wouldn't want to shoot down one of their own aircraft.

[ATC Watcher]

So UkSATSE (Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise) deliberately leaving airspace over a war zone available to CAT has no bearing...
Little . They claimed that based on the information they had the rebels had no access to no high altitude missiles.( which might be true ) UkSATSE also needed the cash of the overflights charges to continue operating. so no real incentive to go beyond what their own State intelligence told them .

But some airlines did deliberately avoid that airspace based on their State info.
Was this just precautionary of based on real intelligence? I leave the answer open as I do not have it. What is sure is that they did not share that info with other airlines, not even within their own Airline alliance.. ICAO since jumped in , and there is now a policy/procedures for such cases. Too late unfortunately for MH17 .

[mm_flynn]

If MH17 was transmitting then surely the missile radar operators knew? A Ukrainian military aircraft would not transmit or spoof on civilian IFF and the missile team wouldn't want to shoot down one of their own aircraft.
If I recall correctly, the rebels did not have any aircraft. As such, they could be confident any aircraft spotted were not theirs. That might (my speculation) have resulted in a lack of care in evaluating the aircraft's IFF status. Or alternatively, some situation may have caused them to believe it was a military aircraft deliberately showing civil IFF codes, or the launcher may have been handed over to a crew with limited training.

[Expatrick]

Little . They claimed that based on the information they had the rebels had no access to no high altitude missiles.( which might be true ) UkSATSE also needed the cash of the overflights charges to continue operating. so no real incentive to go beyond what their own State intelligence told them .

But some airlines did deliberately avoid that airspace based on their State info.
Was this just precautionary of based on real intelligence? I leave the answer open as I do not have it. What is sure is that they did not share that info with other airlines, not even within their own Airline alliance.. ICAO since jumped in , and there is now a policy/procedures for such cases. Too late unfortunately for MH17 .

It is the State's duty (via the ANSP) to ensure the safety of CAT within it's airspace. Airspace is routinely denied to CAT due to Military activity. Revenue is not an acceptable reason to risk the safety of civil aircraft, particularly in the event of conflict.

[cpt]

Couldn't it be the same sort of confusion that occured with the uss Vincennes and Iran Air flight 655 back in 1988 (the Airbus had been wrongly identified as a nearby F14)

[Chronus]

From a perspective of a aviation safety, of greater importance is knowledge of why such an act was committed and as to who was the intended target, rather than by whom it was carried out.

[fox niner]

100 witnesses were identified today, who were somehow involved in this atrocity. Their names are known to the investigation team. Some of them have blood on their hands. Some are pure witnesses. Their names were withheld, as is always the case in such proceedings in NL.
Russia should re-evaluate their stance in this affair. They act like a banana republic in the face of such damning evidence. They are in denial.

[Lena.Kiev]

That type Buk TELAR (launcher with radar) has only Russian military IFF requester, not Western/international type civilian secondary, MODE-S. Soviet type civilian secondary is obsolete, not used anymore.

[hoss183]

From a perspective of a aviation safety, of greater importance is knowledge of why such an act was committed and as to who was the intended target, rather than by whom it was carried out.

Indeed, but the usual method of solving crimes is to find who did it and then interview or investigate them to find out why they did it.

[RAT 5]

Either Russia will deny it, or ignore it,

Interesting 'Hard Talk' on BBC today. The man in the hot seat was Putin's spokesman in Moscow. His middle name was deflector. OK, he is a mouth piece, but his words are Putin's words. Denial was the name of the game, but in a slightly diluted form than some months ago.
What will be crucial is the resolve of the EU & NL in particular. Mettle & true colours will be on display on both sides. Will it be a respectful outcome to the fallen victims & families, or a fudge? If the latter then it would be a huge display of double standards on the world stage, when you consider how many conflicts are active around the globe.

[ATC Watcher]

RAT5 : What will be crucial is the resolve of the EU & NL in particular
I would not bet much on the EU resolve , but one thing I can tell you from a long experience in the country if that the Dutch will not stop and bury this .Somebody did wrong to them and they will go to the bottom of it as long as it takes. . Calvinist culture is still strong there.

[Prangster]

The elephant in the room here folks is the large Russian army that was poised to invade Ukraine itching for a causus belli. Why not shoot down one of your OWN airliners? Sadly they're cynical enough to do so. After the attack cue excited comment 'We just shot the Antonov' rapidly removed from tinternet

[Heathrow Harry]

Personally I always go for stupid over conspiracy - give a bunch of yahoos determined on independence a modern sophisticated Anti -Air missile and they're going to use it for sure......................

[Sunamer]

The elephant in the room here folks is the large Russian army that was poised to invade Ukraine itching for a causus belli. Why not shoot down one of your OWN airliners? Sadly they're cynical enough to do so. After the attack cue excited comment 'We just shot the Antonov' rapidly removed from tinternet

This version makes sense. Russia needed that reason to start an open war with Ukraine. Its own plane that would have been shot down by "bloody Ukraines" would have given that reason...

It was supposed to be a russian plane flying to Larnaca. Problems for Buk crew started when they reached a wrong position which in Russia sounded very similar to where they should have been instead. Since they relied on a radar from Russia, they shot down a wrong airliner...

The rest is history...


"Единственное более-менее приемлемое объяснение дал Наливайченко, тогдашний глава СБУ. Изложение и анализ здесь https://informnapalm.org/671-kakoj-samolet-sobyralys-sbyt-terrorysty/ . После этого выступления у него и начались проблемы. Сбить должны были российский рейс на Ларнаку, но из-за путаницы в названиях (Первомайский и Первомайское) экипаж занял не ту позицию Так как отдельной машины с мощным радаром не было, идентифицировать рейс экипаж не мог. После сбитого самолета должны были начать полномасштабное вторжение - вспомните 1999 год. К этому шло - концентрация войск на границах достигла максимума именно тогда. Все эти отмазки про АН-26 вброшены ФСБ с большого бодуна, балбесы хотя бы в Википедию глянули (можно было приплести ИЛ-76). АН-26 сбивается любым комплексом ПВО, его потолок 7300 м, у груженого не выше 6000, скорость до 540 км/ч, в 2 раза ниже Боинга. Перепутать их невозможно - это раз. Второе - Украина на тот момент закрыла небо до 10 000 м. Поэтому всякий, кто повторяет эту чушь - дурак или сексот. А тот, кто верит в качественную работу ФСБ, должен реже смотреть ТВ."

[TEEEJ]

After the attack cue excited comment 'We just shot the Antonov' rapidly removed from tinternet

Surprisingly the Russian News Agency Tass still have that article on their website.

July 17, 2014, 20:01

DONETSK, July 17. /ITAR-TASS/. The mlitia of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) have brought down a military transport Antonov-26 (An-26) plane of the Ukrainian Air Force on the outskirts of the town of Torez, eyewitnesses said.

A missile hit the An-26, it fell on the ground and caught blaze, they said.

On July 14, militiamen of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic downed another An-26 of the Ukrainian Air Force.

TASS: World - Eyewitnesses claim Donbass militia downed Ukrainian An-26 plane (http://tass.ru/en/world/741164)

[etudiant]

There is no credibility to this investigation imho.
The various parties involved in the Ukrainian civil war all have large axes to grind, as do the various intelligence agencies monitoring or manipulating events. That makes a judicial inquiry impracticable, because national security and foreign policy considerations prevent full disclosure.

[DaveReidUK]

There is no credibility to this investigation imho.
The various parties involved in the Ukrainian civil war all have large axes to grind, as do the various intelligence agencies monitoring or manipulating events. That makes a judicial inquiry impracticable, because national security and foreign policy considerations prevent full disclosure.

It's only a matter of time until the Russians assert that MH17 spontaneously combusted.

[RAT 5]

This version makes sense. Russia needed that reason to start an open war with Ukraine. Its own plane that would have been shot down by "bloody Ukraines" would have given that reason...

Isn't that similar to Hitler concocting the reason to invade Poland?

[DCS99]

It's the Cold War all over again

http://tass.com/politics/903010

Quite shocking to read.

[Lonewolf_50]

Am I on Jet Blast or R&N? The investigation report, and its value (or lack thereof) are of interest and on topic, but the launch into politics is bound to take a potentially useful discussion about this tragedy and turn it into noise and rubbish.

I take the efforts of the Netherlands investigators seriously, and I believe they do as well. That doesn't overlook that political pressure may have had an influence on both the investigation and on findings. As professionals, contaminating an investigation is bad for the whole industry, see the Egyptian government's take on flight 990 and the Malaysia governments obfuscation on MH 370.

It is in the industry's interest that solid investigations with well grounded methods are undertaken. It is also in the passengers' interests, in the long term, if such investigations improve the safety of air travel.

If we can confine our observations to the latest report and the substance of the investigation, we'll be better off and this thread will not degenerate into noise.

I realize that an event like this will evoke strong feelings in the industry. Having an airliner shot down by a missile by an armed force when it is simply going about its business (KAL 007, Airbus over Persian Gulf/USS Vincennes) shatters our belief that international travel is safe and reliable. It's enough effort to get the operations and safety right without third parties firing live ordnance at passenger liners.

[Uncle Fred]

^^^^^^^^^
This!

[edmundronald]

Historically speaking the whole Buk story just confirms that getting gunned down by some idiot in a uniform with an itchy finger and a missile is one of the risks of civil aviation.

However, maybe just maybe, after the Ukraine fiasco, airlines will be a bit less eager to fly over "hot" conflict zones in the future. That plane was -in common parlance- jaywalking a red light.

[TEEEJ]

Looks like those "investigators" do not know the basics. There are two obvious suspects: Ukrainian governmental forces who had a couple of dozen operational Buks around the place, and Ukrainian rebels that might have 1-2 damaged Buks dropped by the retreating army.

Why are you discounting the theory of the loaned Buk from the Russian Army?

The fact is ignored that it was a missile of an old Buk that was retired from the Russian army long ago but is still in wide use in Ukraine, etc. etc.

But is it? This is what the Russians desperately want to promote. They want the bow-tie fragments to go away.

The Dutch Safety Board has the warhead down as the 9N314M. (Cubic, Irregular and Bow-Tie fragments)

The Russians are suggesting that the warhead must have been the 9N314. (Cubic and Irregular fragments)

The Russians can't work out why Bow-tie warhead fragments have been found in the wreckage and in human remains.

Bow-tie fragments were recovered from the body of the Captain of MH17 and other human remains.

Almaz-Antey back in June 2015 claimed during their detailed presentation that it was a 9M38M1. They also suggested at the time that the M1 was no longer used by Russian Forces which was a bit of a white lie.

Now they have changed their tune and claim that it was a 9M38 with the caveat of they can't understand why M1 fragments are amongst the evidence.

"The only thing that we do not yet understand are why fragments of 9M38M1 are amongst the evidence."

Video: MH17: Russian missile company seeks to debunk official report into air disaster - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11927963/MH17-Russian-missile-company-seeks-to-debunk-official-report-into-air-disaster.html)

As someone has pointed out on PPRuNe. "Sounds like they have been told what to, "understand"!"

http://www.pprune.org/9146195-post31.html

The question is who is pulling Almaz-Antey's strings here?

The white lie on the M1s and now they are throwing in the red herring of they don't understand why 9M38M1 warhead fragments were found?

9M38M1 was still regularly available to the Russian Military. The early variant missiles are regularly expended during test and exercises. Only natural that they will use up older stocks as these missiles reach their shelf life.

It simply smacks of deflection by the Russians. They need to make the bow-tie fragments go away. No different to the ridiculous non-sense that the Russian Ministry of Defence were peddling during their MH17 press conference. Everything had to be made to go away. Video footage of the Buk claimed in rebel hands had to be geo-located to Ukrainian territory. The video footage was geo-located to Luhansk within days of this lie from the Russians.

The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

They still have this claim on the Russian Embassy in UK website. It is just embarrassing!

Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014 (http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865)

The JIT have released new video of the Buk claimed to be in rebel hands.

It is edited in order to protect the eyewitness/filmer.

https://static.politie.nl/binaries/content/assets/politie/mh17/video_blurred_sound.mp4

It does provide further proof to the theory that one specific Buk TELAR previously seen in Russia crossed the border into Eastern Ukraine. The Russian Army Buk units in the deployed convoy messed up badly with their operational security and postings on social media. All that was hoovered up by the likes of Bellingcat and team and supplied to the JIT.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/09/30/revelations-confirmations-mh17-jit-press-conference/

[JCviggen]

The only party who might win in this dirty gameThis presupposes that was happened was a deliberate act that went as planned.

Whether it's the nutty "the Russians tried to shoot down their own plane to invade" or the nutty "the Americans told the Ukrainians to shoot it down so everybody could blame Russia" conspiracy theory, it is illogical to assume malice when the same result can be explained by stupidity. As Hanlon's razor goes.

The least you can say is that, if we assume the more plausible scenario of a cock-up, the "rebels" were the only party which was actively shooting down planes at the time. The evidence that the missile launched from an area they controlled is pretty strong. Likewise the evidence for the type of missile.

Also, I'd like to point out that if we compare the Western story of what likely happened with the Russian one, at least the West has been consistent. Russia has changed from phantom Ukrainian SU-25s and SU-27s to Ukrainian BUKs and conspiracies. Shortly after the crash Russian officials came on TV showing "radar images" that showed this and that...two years later they are showing entirely different radar images that tell a different story which actually contradicts the first entirely.

The only thing consistent in the Russian position thus far is that "we nor the rebels could possibly be responsible" but they've invented loads of clearly bogus stories in the process which does not help them look any more believable now. Russian propagandists have paraded "experts" from organizations that do not exist on Russian state TV, used obviously faked "satellite imagery" etc. They do not behave like a country that has the facts on its side, to say the least. Their BS revelations are also nicely timed to coincide with planned releases of the Dutch investigation board.

[ATC Watcher]

For those of us old enough to remember , this sounds and looks very much like the damage control media show put up by the Soviets in 1983 after the shoot down of KAL007 .
There it t took 10 years and a change of Regime in Moscow to get the truth.(or closer to the truth). Old habbits are hard to die it seems .

Back on MH17, I have read that the Dutch prosecutors have collected about 100 names of persons possibly involved in the missile launch. If and when those names will be released, the game will change .People did not carry iPhones with them in 1983..

[angels]

As for the BUK launchers FFS, AP published a photo of it the day MH17 was downed. The next day there were pictures/mobile phone footage of it slinking back across the border minus a missile.

I keep saying this, but go back to my original post on this affair which was made less than 24 hours after the poor souls perished on that flight. Everything I said in that post has been confirmed. As I said later, the evidence that emerged on the day is almost certainly not made up as it came from many sources who had not been got at.

The wheels of justice are turning incredibly slowly on this one.

I have been censored. I think a comment that Putin is a KGB hood is entirely ON topic. It helps explain why so many perished on that day.

[Chronus]

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the missile launcher was shipped in one day and shipped back out the next day. Sort of an overnight hire deal from the nearest tool rental station. This suggests that it was required for a one off special job with the most convenient store branch to the job just across the border. To my way of thinking therefore this leaves just the one question, and that is what was the job.

[Andy_S]

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the missile launcher was shipped in one day and shipped back out the next day..........This suggests that it was required for a one off special job......

Actually, it suggests that someone needed to remove the evidence from the scene very quickly.

[Chronus]

Actually, it suggests that someone needed to remove the evidence from the scene very quickly.
Of course it does. But who, but the most incompetent of the kind would want to leave a smoking gun behind.
The whole question was about motive. To put it another way, was the target the intended victim.
As I recall from earlier discussions, some of which appeared most authoritative, the aircraft was very close to the limits of effective range of the missile.

[Obba]

Chronos,
Apparently 'they' thought it was a transport plane. AFAIK, the Buk can shoot 30kms high (probably from the U2 days - Powell), MH was 10kms.

[Load Toad]

....and Ukrainian military planes had previously been shot down too.

[MickG0105]

Of course it does. But who, but the most incompetent of the kind ...
It was far worse than incompetence, there was a callous and knowing disregard for the safety of civilians. A well known shortcoming of the Fire Dome radar on the BUK transporter/erector/launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles is that it lacks both transponder interrogation and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) capabilities. NCTR is a system that can discriminate between target types even if there is no "cooperative" transponder response. The Fire Dome has a rudimentary military IFF capability that might have been able to identify the Antonov that they were meant to be after but everything in range of the TELAR would have appeared on the radar display as a target.
They basically fired blindly into a known civilian airway against a target that could have been identified as a civilian flight with a smart-phone with a free app.

[Lonewolf_50]

Mick that's an excellent technical point about that missile system, the lack of the kind of IFF integration that would allow for seeing more than just targets.


I strongly question your last sentence's validity. I am not convinced that these people are/were professional enough to have the kind of C2 and airspace volume control measure, nor charts and depictions, to either know or care if an airway or jet route was near where they were fighting. They are/were ground minded people, not air minded people.


The "fire blindly into a known civilian airway" is the way you or I, who have a pilot's point of view, would look at it. I strongly doubt that, these people being on the ground, not professional, and concerned about their local war, would even come close to looking at it that way.


Where you sit determines what you see, and may also determine what you are even looking for.


I completely agree, however, with your general charge of carelessness, in that they seem to have been of the mental mode of "I am looking for targets" with little other consideration given. From their side's point of view, that kind of attitude is what results in blue on blue. Sadly, a "neutral" is who paid the price.

[1978]

Lonewolf, you seem to be making assumptions about the identity/"professionalsim" of those responsible that could very well be wrong. In either case it doesn't make the crime any less since you are always responsible when using potentially lethal weapons, even when driving a car. In the previous days there had already been concerns and talks about the safety of civil aviation in the area so those responsible should have been even more aware of this, no excuse.

[Lonewolf_50]

@1978
I am not offering an excuse for anyone, I am pointing out that assuming that ground folks are as air minded as pilots is a poor assumption. And it is. (If you are making a veiled allusion to a Russian missile crew deliberately doing this, I can't sign up to that conspiracy theory).

Speaking of "those responsible," there was some discussion in the MH-17 original thread about ops departments of various airlines, and various national authorities, assessing the risk of overflying a war zone (or something like a war zone, it's all muddy these days which makes risk assessment even harder) Some took risk mitigation, some did not. MH-17, tragically, flew for a company that did not. In the accidents I investigated, years ago, we classified some contributing factors as "supervisory error" even if they are not causal factors. (Causal factor here is simple: someone shot a missile and it hit, with a key hole in the cheese being that they shot at the wrong target).
None of the above relieves the missile crew who shot at an unidentified target of any responsibility for being careless and unprofessional, and as you characterize it, criminal (at the least you could make a charge of criminal negligence stick).

To make an assumption that the C2 (command and control) of the "Ukraine separatists" and their general discipline is like that of a professional force (German armed forces, Dutch, etc) is to my mind and experience erroneous.

[1978]

@Lonewolf
But we do not know yet what was the involvement of Russian forces, surely they should be considered a professional force?

[Lonewolf_50]

@1978
I do not share your belief (or estimate) that the Russians were directly involved. However, if the evidence uncovers that, I'll stand corrected.

[Lena.Kiev]

In a cellular phone tap the TELAR receiver asked "Is it with a crew?" and got answer: "Yes, with the crew":
The Security Service of Ukraine (http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129088)

AP journalists (Russian-born) were confronted by the TELAR crew in Snizhne (to check that the TELAR was not photographed), they reported that the crew member talked in Russian with a non-local accent.

[tdracer]

Lonewolf, I guess it depends on how you define "directly involved".
I personally think the Russian decided to cause havoc in the Ukraine by providing the separatists with highly capable anti-aircraft missiles and turning them loose to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft. Like you, I think it highly unlikely the Russians deliberately targeted a civilian aircraft. However, turning the separatists loose with high capability weapons, with little training and guidance, and a mindset to shoot at anything that moved - the outcome was perfectly predictable. That the Russians failed to foresee the likely outcome makes them, in my mind, ultimately responsible (and given their denials, I suspect they agree).
I see it very much like the parent that gives an 8 year old a .22 rifle and sends them out to plunk rabbits with no instruction, supervision, or safety training. While the parent didn't intend for the kid to shoot the neighbor by mistake, the fact that he did was perfectly predictable. The kid pulled the trigger, but the parent bears full responsibility.

[Lonewolf_50]

@tdracer
Plausible, and it reminds me of the paranoia during OEF (2004ish) regarding how many Stingers were left over from Massoud and his allies fighting the Russians. Once you give it to them, they may use it in ways you didn't intend. :E My point is that I don't think any Russians pulled the trigger. However, the evidence trail may lead there (per Lena.Kiev's point).


For the industry, I would hope that the lesson learned by airline management, and perhaps even national authorities, is to give war zones a wide berth due to the lethality of modern weapons.

[Expatrick]

@tdracer

For the industry, I would hope that the lesson learned by airline management, and perhaps even national authorities, is to give war zones a wide berth due to the lethality of modern weapons.

Adequate, tried, tested & documented procedures already exist for use by national authorities to give protection to civil traffic in areas subject to hazardous activity and are executed daily in most States including Ukraine. However in this case these were not adhered to in a manner sufficient to protect all CAT transiting the zone.

[Lonewolf_50]

Adequate, tried, tested & documented procedures already exist for use by national authorities to give protection to civil traffic in areas subject to hazardous activity and are executed daily in most States including Ukraine. However in this case these were not adhered to in a manner sufficient to protect all CAT transiting the zone.
Expatrick: I wasn't suggesting more rules. Having rules and procedures didn't help in this case, as you noted, due to some flaws in execution.

[Expatrick]

With respect I think "flaws in execution' is an understatement. UKsATSE deliberately made the route available for CAT above FL320, in this situation the system requires specific & deliberate intervention.

[Lonewolf_50]

But will the lessons actually be learned, or will it be lip service?

[Chronus]

Whichever way it is looked at, the inevitable conclusion must be, it was an accidental shooting of a civilian airliner.If the guys on the USS Vincennes, with all their state of the art equipment and training could get it wrong, which they obviously did, what could be expected from a bunch of half wits who got their hands on this kind of lethal equipment. With three missiles remaining unlit in the tubes it could have been a whole lot worse. There were other targets to have a pop at after all.

[Expatrick]

But will the lessons actually be learned, or will it be lip service?

So long as political expediency requires, regrettably, no.

Chronus, you are right, this was probably an accidental shoot down of an airliner - that should not have been there in the first place.

[runway30]

I was in Eastern Ukraine two days before MH17 was shot down. The war was not going well for the Russians, the Ukrainians could use air power unlike the Russians who would find it difficult to explain why aircraft were crossing the border whilst the pilots were no doubt on their holidays. Russian ground troops, on their holidays, were massed on the borders ready to invade but the Ukrainian Air Force had to be denied use of the air. Hence, the deployment of the Buks. Unlike the Russian special forces who took over government offices to start the 'rebellion', Buk operators or even tank crews on their holidays will not make any move unless it comes from their established chain of command. Any suggestion on here that anything else occurred is either extremely misinformed or in some cases deliberately misleading.

[KenV]

Whichever way it is looked at, the inevitable conclusion must be, it was an accidental shooting of a civilian airliner.Three comments:
1. Inevitable conclusion? That requires certainty on a lot of variables. That certainty does not exist.
2. Accidental? Maybe. Maybe not. At present, motives are unknown
3. The most damning part of this event are the denials and the cover ups that followed. And continue to this day. If it truly was an accident just fess up and get it over with. That's what the Vincennes crew did.

[dsc810]

The USA has never apologised for or ever admitted any legal liability for the shooting down of the Iran Air flight.
In fact as I dimly recall from those days the USA at the time was blasting out on all media channels that the said aircraft was descending and heading towards the fleet. In fact it was doing neither of these things.

[olandese_volante]

If it truly was an accident just fess up and get it over with.
They can't. For the simple reason that admitting the c***-up would implicate the presence in the conflict of Russian equipment (the rebels don't have Buks of their own) and personnel as well, which is something that Russia has always strenuously denied and continues to deny until the present day.

[Oro-o]

The USA has never apologised for or ever admitted any legal liability for the shooting down of the Iran Air flight.
In fact as I dimly recall from those days the USA at the time was blasting out on all media channels that the said aircraft was descending and heading towards the fleet. In fact it was doing neither of these things.
That is wholly untrue on both counts.

USN Adm. Fogarty's official review of the case and data - based on bridge data from the multiple U.S. ships - and released in a timely matter after the event, makes plain that the aircraft was acting innocently, and assesses blame on the bridge crew. It was ackowledged clearly, timely as these things go.

The U.S. settled claims and reparations on this in the early 90s.

[MickG0105]

I strongly question your last sentence's validity. ... They are/were ground minded people, not air minded people.

The "fire blindly into a known civilian airway" is the way you or I, who have a pilot's point of view, would look at it.

Fine, let's say that they fired blindly into the sky.


I completely agree, however, with your general charge of carelessness, ...

I didn't use the word "carelessness", I said

... there was a callous and knowing disregard for the safety of civilians.

These guys took a very powerful weapon, aimed it at a target that they did not verify, that they knew that they could not verify and yet they pulled the trigger. Any combatant should know that they are obligated to ensure that they are not shooting at civilians. Positively identifying your target is one of the most basic tenets of firearms safety and it is one of the fundamental principles of war.

You can't dress this up as an accident or a blue-on-blue gone even worse. These guys went hunting for something that they could not positively identify and blazed away regardless.

[dr dre]

That is wholly untrue on both counts.

USN Adm. Fogarty's official review of the case and data - based on bridge data from the multiple U.S. ships - and released in a timely matter after the event, makes plain that the aircraft was acting innocently, and assesses blame on the bridge crew. It was ackowledged clearly, timely as these things go.

The U.S. settled claims and reparations on this in the early 90s.

Actually the US Navy only expressed regret the incident occurred, but they never apologised. Initially they maintained the aircraft was military and was flying an attack profile against the ship. It took until 8 years later (under a different administration I should add) for them to offer the statement of regret and agree to pay some compensation to the victims in return for Iran dropping its case in front of the International Court of Justice.

Without knowing all the facts, how can you not say the BUK crew didn't also misidentify MH17 as a military aircraft? Will Russia's position change once a new leader is in power?

At least Putin hasn't publicly awarded medals to the missile crew yet.

[MickG0105]

Without knowing all the facts, how can you not say the BUK crew didn't also misidentify MH17 as a military aircraft?

You can't misidentify something that you can't identify in the first place. The Fire Dome radar on the BUK TELAR cannot discriminate between military and civilian airplanes, it has no capability to read civilian S-band transponder transmissions. They essentially fired blind.

Regarding the USS Vincennes, you left out the bit where they challenged Iran Air flight 655 ten times to identify itself before firing at it.

[angels]

dr dre - listen to what MickG0105 is saying. He seems to know his stuff!

Go back to the time of the event. Just three days earlier the rebels had downed a Ukrainian AN26 which was flying at over 20,000 feet! Of the known equipment in the region, only a BUK could do that, MANPADS haven't got a chance. No-one (apart from, would you believe, some Russian media) really picked up on this until it was too late.

The rebels were on a roll and wanted another kill. They thought they'd got one. Immediately after the destruction of the plane they claimed to have downed another AN26.

I quote from Antikvariat.ru (Google translated).

"Report from the militia. In the area of Snezhnoye an AN-26 was just shot down, it has fallen somewhere beyond the Progress coal mine."

Re personnel, this is pure speculation on my part, but I reckon there were Russians on board that launcher. I don't think rebels could be trained sufficiently to operate it and also drive it with impunity over the border.

As I say, that is my speculation. There has been no proof of this -- yet.

[Lena.Kiev]

Judging from video, the An-26 was shot down at altitude about 4400 m, not 6000 or more (perhaps claimed by crew). Also, its engine was hit, therefore IR homing. Buk has radar homing.

[dr dre]

Regarding the USS Vincennes, you left out the bit where they challenged Iran Air flight 655 ten times to identify itself before firing at it.

You left out the bit how most of those transmissions were on military-only UHF, and the other transmissions were vague and non specific. At least the crew of the ship had the capability to warn them. Who knows, there might have been circumstances where the missile launcher crew genuinely believed they were a threat? Maybe one the crew had failed to fire an a target before believing they were a civilian aircraft and it turned out it was a military aircraft? Human factors played a part in IR655 and they probably played a part in this one too. It may be that they never come to light though.

[angels]

not 6000 or more (perhaps claimed by crew

The reports I read said it was at 6500 metres. It was a Russian media outlet (TV Zvezda) that said it was a BUK that did it. They said the rebels had captured a BUK from Ukrainian forces. A claim we now know is nonsense. The launcher was supplied from over the border as the photographic and phone footage evidence shows.

Still, even if it wasn't a BUK (which I think it was) it proved that the rebels had a game-changer on their hands.

This, I think, shows up the culpability of Kiev for not closing the obviously dangerous airspace and the airlines that chose to continue to fly over the war zone despite the changed circumstances.