MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US and Russia have been doing elint surveillance on each others doorstep for decades. Usually barely in international waters, as was the case this time, when the rc-135 experienced a radar lock. Normally the surveillance planes just have a few close passes by the host country's fighters, no big deal. Russia's IL-20's were recently shooed away from the UK and Turkey's coastlines. Nothing new here, except for the radar lock.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What RADAR lock
Nothing new here, except for the radar lock.
Please do not extrapolate from reference to TOP GUN movie by so called journalist - especially from CNN on a slow news day .
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Russians took the unusual action of beginning to track it with land-based radar
When a radar "tracks" a target (as in azimuth and elevation) it is about as locked on as it gets. A periodic radar sweep is one thing, tracking a target is entirely a different matter.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same images in higher resolution:
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_039.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_038.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_030.jpg
That same frame is visible still attached to the spar in the other image above.
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_039.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_038.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_030.jpg
That same frame is visible still attached to the spar in the other image above.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this is a repeat request, is there info on the fusing of the missile available, where both the contact and proximity fuse are located?
1 - semi-active radar homing
2 - proximity fuse
3- warhead
Checking a fuse
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GR, why?
As the proximity fuse must initiate the explosive train before the missile reaches the target it follows that it must be in the nose.
Impact fuzing is more problematical.
It will function as a result of a sudden deceleration. It could be behind the warhead but that risks breakup of the warhead before detonation. It follows that it will behind the proximity fuse system but close to it. Best position is as far forward as possible.
As the proximity fuse must initiate the explosive train before the missile reaches the target it follows that it must be in the nose.
Impact fuzing is more problematical.
It will function as a result of a sudden deceleration. It could be behind the warhead but that risks breakup of the warhead before detonation. It follows that it will behind the proximity fuse system but close to it. Best position is as far forward as possible.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it follows that it must be in the nose.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly impact fuzing for some missiles was electrical contact on the fins. These had small warheads though and the idea was to allow the warhead to be inside the target before detonation. Partial destruction of the detonator was allowed for and it would still function for a short time (2-3 msec) after damage.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR, why?
As the proximity fuse must initiate the explosive train before the missile reaches the target it follows that it must be in the nose.
Impact fuzing is more problematical.
It will function as a result of a sudden deceleration. It could be behind the warhead but that risks breakup of the warhead before detonation. It follows that it will behind the proximity fuse system but close to it. Best position is as far forward as possible.
As the proximity fuse must initiate the explosive train before the missile reaches the target it follows that it must be in the nose.
Impact fuzing is more problematical.
It will function as a result of a sudden deceleration. It could be behind the warhead but that risks breakup of the warhead before detonation. It follows that it will behind the proximity fuse system but close to it. Best position is as far forward as possible.
I was asking because of the thermal damage to the cockpit area remains.
The explosion must have been very close indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it was postulated a few pages back that they would normally Fire two missiles for a higher PK.
I suggested that the damage suggested late functioning and as only one missile was launched it was an lucky hit.
I suggested that the damage suggested late functioning and as only one missile was launched it was an lucky hit.
2. Fat target like 777 is very easy target - big radar cross-section, high alt, no speed, no maneurs, no electronic warfare, no chaffs, etc.
Radar equipment of SA-11 produced for kill targets with RCS=1sq.m.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Falls Church, VA, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
obvious
33M, obviously the point of a detailed forensic analysis, using incomplete information and lots of arrows, is to accomplish two key objectives:
1. To illustrate how knowledgeable the poster is
2. To illustrate flaws in Boeing's design that made this plane (and ostensibly others in its commercial lineup) extremely susceptible to being destroyed by a meager 6m long SAM going Mach 3+
I'm sure once Boeing sees these detailed forensic analyses their future planes will resemble the A-10 and/or Su-25.
I tend to believe theory #1 more
lmao at your post 33M - good one
1. To illustrate how knowledgeable the poster is
2. To illustrate flaws in Boeing's design that made this plane (and ostensibly others in its commercial lineup) extremely susceptible to being destroyed by a meager 6m long SAM going Mach 3+
I'm sure once Boeing sees these detailed forensic analyses their future planes will resemble the A-10 and/or Su-25.
I tend to believe theory #1 more
lmao at your post 33M - good one
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggested that the damage suggested late functioning and as only one missile was launched it was an lucky hit.
Your supposition supports that.
Your supposition supports that.
In this case, if the missile was approaching from directly below (or above) and fused at the side of the cockpit, then, yes, that looks a bit late.
On the other hand, if it is approaching from the front, maybe slightly to one side, it could be exactly as designed/expected. Depends on which part of the a/c the fuse will "see". It may be the wing box and/or engine fan that is the biggest return or centre of it. Fuse distance seems most often quoted as 17m, although I have seen other numbers (large radius zone, this is a big warhead). By my reckoning, approaching from front slightly to one side, 17m from wing box / engine on a 777 would put you right about the cockpit window...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also appreciate their aircraft/airframe knowledge and the photoshop skills.
One thing it has certainly confirmed is the crew never knew what hit them it was instant
Last edited by oldoberon; 5th Aug 2014 at 01:53. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Russia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about warhead of missle
Accordingly this
http://www.ctro.hr/universalis/175/d...1606332201.pdf
On the 7th slide there are interesting captured frames of detonation of the projectile. The peculiarity is that detonation generates relatively a narrow stripe of small fragments and this somehow should be portrayed on the fuselage but distance play a key role in that case.
On the 9th slide there is interesting graph about velocities distribution of the fragments.
http://www.ctro.hr/universalis/175/d...1606332201.pdf
On the 7th slide there are interesting captured frames of detonation of the projectile. The peculiarity is that detonation generates relatively a narrow stripe of small fragments and this somehow should be portrayed on the fuselage but distance play a key role in that case.
On the 9th slide there is interesting graph about velocities distribution of the fragments.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sydney (Aust)
Age: 78
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing it has certainly confirmed is the crew never knew what hit them it was instant
That recorded rebel speculation that the plane had been carrying corpses is, of course, nonsense. But it was based on observations that the bodies were not bleeding, looked like they were dead before they hit the ground. Without going into morbid details, I can only say that a close look at the available photos confirms this.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have trouble believing it was "instant" death for all on board. A couple of seconds at least for some, I feel that a small few would have had only a couple to few seconds of realising something is wrong before death.