>Is the SA-11 TELAR not able to do some IFF on itself?

IMO, the TELAR never does that. On the same second the TELAR radar is activated, the enemy a/c knows it's targetted, so the missile must be launched immediately. Otherwise the target has too much time to do evasive maneuvers and potentially launch a radar homing missile at BUK TELAR.

As a former Skyguard Airdefense Radar operator I can tell you that IFF enquiry is done by the IFF module coupled to the pulse doppler search radar. I can see on my radar screen friend or foe, before I lock onto target with the tracking radar. Civil airliners I had regularly on screen and they are all identified on screen marked as foe!

I don't think that SA-11 is so much different in operations. No IFF = foe

For the rest, I have had usually deployed 3 to 4 spotters which were connected by radio, to tell me if friend or foe

I can understand it if we were talking about low-flying objects. But how
spotters can be used to distinguish an aircraft on 10 km? In cloudy conditions?

at MartinM, thanks for the details

From what I've read from Finnish military sources, BUK Telar units would not seem to have device(s) needed to detect if target is a friend or foe. (at least the models that Finland uses) They say the FF detection is done by separate radar (or control) unit.

It looks like it does

A Buk TELAR vehicle is fitted with radar, digital computer, missile erector and launcher, friend or foe identification system. It is operated by a crew of four and carries four missiles.

Cheers
Martin

So 2 questions
Was Ukraine using civil airliners as a shield or was the Intel leaked by Ukraine to trick the russian or pro Russians to fire at a civil aircraft?

Either way the worldwide condemnation of Mr Putin is secured.
I personally think there is a lot more to this than just an accidental shot down.

Politics in these countries is a lot more tactile than western Europe, as the Nemsov case shows!

D and F :8

xcitation and blackbird69


I posted the following in my post 298:-


Many years ago, when I was with a major airline, I was involved in the decision making process assessing the safety of flights, near, around or over areas of potential or active conflicts. From that experience, may I enlighten some of the posters on PPRuNe on the difficulties of the process.

The first problem is imprecise information, a civil airline is not told much - you have to go and investigate yourself. NOTAMS only promulgate what the state concerned has decided to say - airspace, airways closures and altitude restrictions. Next, the government of the state of registration may issue warnings, usually in ambiguous phraseology; 'we see no reason why you shouldn't', etc. Unless individuals in the airline concerned have the necessary security clearances and access to the right military/security departments, they will find it very difficult to determine the risk.

Then there is the eternal conflict between commercial interests and caution. This is a legitimate and important debate, there are no simple answers. How does the responsible person in Flight Operations convince the Commercial Department of the necessity to re-route around the conflict area when there is little or no convincing evidence of risk?

I remember several cases when the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was less than candid, and others when they issued advice that was much more restrictive than the advice given by other governments. How do you evaluate what you are being told by government? Such issues applied when deciding to overfly Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s, and when flying around Iraq during the run up to Gulf War 1 in 1991. These are not easy decisions.

Terrorist or military risk must be assessed on the basis of 2 criteria - capability and intention...and probably a 3rd - incompetence. In the case of Afghanistan, before the Russians retreated, they had the capability but not the intention to shoot down an overflying civil airliner, they also had good command and control. After the Russians withdrew, the various factions had the missiles (capability), probably not the intention, but more importantly they lacked effective command and control. Therefore they constituted a risk and that airspace was avoided by UK airlines but not those of all other nations.

When the USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian Airbus, the US Navy had the capability, no intention to shoot down a civil airliner, but woefully inadequate command decisions (the command and control structure was OK but it was operated incompetently). During the run up to Gulf War 1 the capability was there, as was a very good command and control structure - BUT - at what point might the stress of the moment lead to a mistake?

As I understand it, the airspace in which the Malaysian flight was operating was declared open by the state involved, was being used by many other airlines, and thus the flight was legal. The problem was; who had access to the missiles concerned? Who had knowledge of this? And how could this be assessed? Probably no-one was in a position to know. It seems to me to have been a horrible cock-up by the rebel forces. I am sure no-one intended to shoot down a civil airliner.

But, please don't under-estimate the difficulty airlines have when deciding what is and what is not safe.


Not much seems to have changed since I posted that but I hope this tragic event will eventually lead to clearer lines of responsibility and a much better flow of information to those in government and airlines who have to make decisions re the safety of over-flights.

There were no other Ukrainian planes in the sky. This version was examined in depth by the Dutch and Australian investigators. They confirmed that a liner of Boeing-777 type could not be intercepted by a strike fighter, even by theory.
Anyway, it was important to establish the type of the missile. The investigators received access to all kinds of anti-aircraft missiles used by Air Force and Air Defense of Ukraine.
The configuration of missile's submunitions was identified fairly quickly. The extracted submunitions are very similar to those of Buk-M1. Ukraine has such Buks in its defense, but of course, there were none of them near Torez, in the rear of the occupied area, only Russian ones.
NATO intelligence services have carried out a large-scale parallel search of modern Russian ground-to-air missiles submunitions. By an operation the details of which have not been yet disclosed, a warhead of a Buk-M1-2 missile of Russian production fell into hands of investigators. When it was disassembled, it turned out that submunitions that hit the Boeing are exactly the same as those of the warhead of this modern Russian anti-aircraft missile. Buk-M1-2 complex was developed in 1997, supplied to the Russian Armed Forces in 1998, and never delivered to Ukraine.
Boeing MH-17 downing: SUBMUNITIONS OF RUSSIAN MISSILE BUK-M1-2 (AKA SA-17) WHICH DOWNED THE MALAYSIAN BOEING MH-17. EXCLUSIVE PHOTO REPORT - Netherlands, terrorism, Yurii Butusov, Boeing 777 Malaysia Airlines, Buk, Russian Terrorists, Boeing MH-17 do

I suspect that at the bottom on the photo is not "a whole subammunition, extracted from a missile warhead", but its model produced on a 3D printer (with the printing head not scanning each layer like in 2D printers, but with molten plastic-extruding head moving along a calculated trajectory for speed).

P.S. Compare with photos of dissected training warhead: 1 2 3 (from here).

There are photos out there (from a Dutch journalist, if memory serves) of one of those warhead chunks embedded in a crew seat headrest. It's very clear.

Given other civilian transports were operating in the area at the time, the strarting question must be why was it that MH17 was brought down.

Because Buk-M1 and Buk-M1-2 TELARs' acquisition radar covers only 6-7° elevation (and 120° bearing). After the TELAR crew was notified "bird flew to you", they turned on the acquisition radar, the first aircraft which entered the narrow scanned area was locked - the radar switched to target tracking, then target illumination (in these modes the radar covers only 2.6° elevation and 1.4° bearing).

Someone with the callsign "Naemnik" ("Naimanets" in Ukrainian, "Mercenary" in English) or someone who told him. Naemnik was a subordinate of Igor Bezler. Bezler at the time was a lieutenant-colonel of Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Russian army who sent Bezler and others to make a mutiny in Eastern Ukraine.

Two versions.

From the latest evidence/analysis it looks like it was a Buk that took down MH17:

Bewijs voor neerhalen MH17 door BUK-raket | RTL Nieuws

Also now in English
Evidence proving that flight MH-17 was taken down by a BUK missile | RTL Nieuws

https://www.youtube.com/embed/j-mRxT8_AsY

Evidence of BUK-Missile
 

Today RTLNieuws, a dutch commercial news organization claims to have proof that a BUK-missile shot down MH-17.

The journalist Jeroen Akkermans, who we know from his pictures and correspondence on the MH-17 crash, collected fragments of the missile last november, before the debris of the plane was recovered.

These fragments have been analyzed by three different independent agencies and these conclude that the fragments are from a later model BUK-missile.

Fragments were shown not only from the warhead (deformed rusty metal that resembles the typical part of fragmentation warhead, but also a fragment which is from the rest of the missile and a stanced 2 in it. Next to this pitting was shown on parts of MH-17.

For a change, the RTLnieuws site decided to run the story in English as well. See link below.

Evidence proving that flight MH-17 was taken down by a BUK missile | RTL Nieuws

1. Taking evidence from a crash site is a criminal offense. Who is that reporter and his company to be trusted in the final instance? Imagine tomorrow some strangers are knocking the door of the investigation team office, one carrying pieces of Р-73, another one of Python-5, and the third one bringing pieces of Patriot.
2. Even if it is finally proved that it was Buk (quite likely, IMHO), this actually says little about the rascals who pressed the buttons. The separatists had a single launcher (likely damaged) while the Ukrainian army had several Buk batteries along the MH-17 route on that tragic day (satellite data were widely published shortly after the crash), then disappeared quickly (which, as well, proves nothing alone).

"while the Ukrainian army had several Buk batteries along the MH-17 route"

Where is the Source for that? Along which Route? RU displayed Route or real Route?

2 triumph61:


You wrote: "Where is the Source for that? Along which Route? RU displayed Route or real Route?"


Sorry, do not understand that. The route is well-known and recorded. If there are some discrepancies among different sources of measurement, they are minor, at least as compared with the operating range of the Buk missile (c.a. 35 km).


The pictures taken by the Russian military satellites were published a few days after the tragedy. Thought they were discussed here. Whether to trust them or not is rather a matter of religion or social psychology. Anyway, the US and Western Europe did not present anything similar to be discussed. Here is the full article with maps and pictures:


http://www.kp.ru/daily/26258.5/3137481/


Sorry it's in Russian, therefore some comments on some images (enlarged)


Map with locations of Ukrainian Buk batteries on that day:


http://s3.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/image/50/59/825950.jpg


Pictures taken on 14/07, i.e. 3 days before. The Buks started arriving in the war area:


http://s5.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/imag...03926831454887


http://s3.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/imag...33229944007336


http://s1.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/imag...41225791035507


I assume you skipped all the above, therefore here are some video footages generated by the Ukrainian official media:


The following promo was shown the day _before_ the catastrophe. From 4.45 thru 4.55 the commentary addresses the Ukrainian forces operating in the "anti-terror operation area". The Buk is clearly visible with the Ukrainian army staff around:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Q3MomxNHnUA


The Ukrainian analyst is pointing to this fragment:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Lgfa_kWm4_k


Again, for me all this does not mean anything. No serious proof concerning who IS to be blamed. Looks like the current civilization has totally forgotten the Roman principle stating "presumption of innocence" though formally it is declared under e.g. the Anglo-American Common Law.


First few months after the tragedy there were hopes that the Dutch investigation team would quickly dig out the truth. Then these hopes vanished in the haze. Extremely slow work. Never heard that any team like that left that many aircraft pieces lying in the field for many months (some are still there).

That same map published (by Russian Ministry of Defense) under the banner "Материалы объективного контроля" contains also cherry-coloured path of MH17, with a diversion from Donetsk towards north-east. It's a lie. Therefore, everything else on that same map deserves no trust at all.

Moreover, these alleged locations of Ukrainian Buks were at the time... inside Russia-occupied territory (yellow on this map):

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/0serg...3/1073_900.jpg
This map is from answer to question 13 in the FAQ.

There are two types of aircrash investigations: according to ICAO rules and criminal.
In November 2013 MAK (with headquarters in Moscow) began investigation according to ICAO rules of the aircrash in Kazan, Russia. Still no final report. How slow do you call that?
Russian criminal investigation of the aircrash in Smolensk (April 2010) is still ongoing (it's the reason why the debris is still not released by Russia to Poland). How slow do you call that?

Now we warming up the Fake Press Briefing of MoD?
Only this:
1. False Fly Route
2. BUK at A1428 is still there and have never leaved their Place because broken. Compare Google Earth
3. There was no Buk´s at Zaroschenke, compare the Size;and it was SEPA Area
4. At Radar Vid there are no Military Jets nearby MH17
5. THe BUK with one missing Missile was at Luhansk.

That was dicussed a lot of times

A_Van wrote

You would be correct not to trust the Russians with that sat imagery? Looks like they edited out a Buk at A1428 to make it appear that the Ukrainians had deployed it. Unfortunately they edited out a disabled Buk that was still in the same position before and after the MH17 tragedy. Naughty Russians!

See following for details and hi-res image of disabled Buk.

Another Malaysian airliner crashed in Ukraine | Page 29 | urban75 forums

See following for images. This is what the Russians captioned the image with.

http://s3.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/image/44/59/825944.jpg

http://s5.stc.all.kpcdn.net/f/4/image/43/59/825943.jpg

???????????? ??????? ??????: ???????? «?????» ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ? ???????-????? ???

Correct Take Google Earth 48° 5'54.19"N 37°45'14.44"E
Push at left down The Year, go to left top and change the dates. The BUK have never left this place
The 1.Time at 28.4.2014, last Time 3.Septemer 2014. The Buk never leave its Place. The MoD have manipulated this Sat Pic. Thats Fact.


Thats the Buk
https://drive.google.com/folderview?...lE&usp=sharing

On the left side you can see the blue Roof

Modern BUK missile hit MH17
 

@ A Van
1. Only if the evidence was handled correctly the results of the RTL nieuws investigation would be admissable in court. I am quite sure that Mr Akkersmans knew how to handle this.


2. Actually, the shrapnel and the warhead were identified as Buk-M1-2

I quote:
According to them the fragment directly belongs to the pay load of a 9M317 BUK missile, the modern version of the BUK 1-2 system. Expert Nicolas De Larrinaga: "From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly."

According to Wikepedia among others this missile is the SA-17, the improved version of the Buk-M1, which is only used by Russian armed forces.

Further, I don't think it will be easy to gather or create this particular missile fragment, so it is very unlikely Mr Akkermans could get this from another source than the MH17 crash site.

So actually, a very important find, excludes the use of captured Ukraine missiles.

9M317 missiles have much shorter wing chord than 9M38M1: drawing, photo. Which do you see on the video of the TELAR (minus one missile) evacuated back to Russia through Lugansk towards Krasnodon?

As far as I heard, 9M38M1 missiles also contain 9N314 warhead with three types of fragments, one of them shaped like hourglass or butterfly or I-beam (двутавр): photo 1 photo 2. History of design of 9M38M1 and 9N314 and I-beam (двутавр) shaped fragments: (in Russian).

Quite probably, the TELAR was indeed from Buk-M1-2 system. But loaded with 9M38M1 missiles.

Plese note this subtile difference... We have now more evidence, but still no proof. None of the fragment pieces have been "officially" collected. We have a lot of evidence which paints a fairly clear picture, but we have still no proof which would meet the criteria to use them in a lawsiut.

MH17 crash: Investigation focuses on '25 metal shards' - BBC News

500 sporen veiliggesteld in onderzoek naar MH17 | RTL Nieuws

Dutch hope metal shards will lead them to missile that hit MH17 | Reuters

no proof
 

"From the hour-glass form....." right, looking at the shape, distorted, it is positively identified as coming from one particular model of rocket? nonsense.

To count as anything approaching proof, they would have to eliminate all the other similar rockets it could have come from., Numerous fragmenting missiles were made with similar H shape fragments.

ALL news site "proofs" from The Netherlands have all been aimed at "proving" that it could only have been something currently Russian.

The area was bombarded with mortars and assorted rocketry and missiles for several months between July 17 and mid-November when Akkermans picked up the pieces -- oddly, for a photographer who'd taken 600+ detailed images of the debris, this time WITHOUT photographing them. The Ukrainian Army itself held BUK exercises in the general area on July 16, in response to their own claims two days earlier that one of their planes had been shot down by a Russian fighter.

In any case, the results here will be political, not scientific, and the final report has again been put off, this time until October. Remember Ukraine is in a position to veto any report it does not agree with; whether they do so or not will depend on who the government is around that time, a situation which today is in flux with internal power struggles.

"The Ukrainian Army itself held BUK exercises in the general area on July 16"

1. The problem here is that, Ukraine didn't have Buk systems near the place from which the missile was launched that hit 777. Trajectory would be different then and so your assumption is not relevant to the reality already. Ukraine forces would have shot the aircraft from behind, given possible set of positions they could chose, but 777 was hit from the nose.

2. Those territories, from which Buk was used, were under separatist control at that time and there was NO way for Ukrainian forces to quietly and quickly got that Buk deep into the separatists territory, made a shot, and then moved the system out.

3. Also, you forgot about images of that Buk with a missing missile on top that surfaced , and which (thanks to many photos with geotags and without) were traced back to the Russian border - simply put, Buks were quickly moved out to the Russian border RIGHT after !!!! hit the fan on the international stage. Another coincidence, I presume.

4. Local residents reported a loud noise and were seeing a missile flying upwards and to the north-west - that was at the location which separatists were controlling and it which the Buk needed to be in order to hit 777 the way it .

5. There were even photographs of a smoky trail that was left by the missile. Location where those images were shot, matched the location on the updated google map where dark burns in the field are + marks on the ground where heavy equipment was maneuvering and taking positions and it matches the location of the village where locals reported the missile. All that matches the location from which Buk missile needed to be shot in order to match the damage done to the aircraft.

Sorry, but even if every single one of this facts are not that much to get a conclusion, but when they are held together - that pretty much leaves very little chance it to be a non Russian missile. :=

>looking at the shape

DSB has 500 fragments to study and they said they focus on 25 of them.
Those fragments have come from outside of the plane. It's also confirmed that those are not bullet fragments.

These fragments that came recently to public are extra.

(pro-russia Cyber Berkut team "leaked" some DSB to Kiev sent "details" of DSB's fragments, they indicated M1 missile that bot Ukraine and Russia use. In reality, also some M1-2 missiles seems to have the same warhead.)

>Numerous fragmenting missiles were made with similar H shape fragments.

Perhaps, but only BUK was seen on the area. And the missile came from separatist's area.

>The area was bombarded with mortars and assorted rocketry and missiles for several months between July 17

It is easy to tell the difference of BUK vs things like Grad fragments. Grad warhead fragments was also found on the plane debris, by Akkermans, IIRC.

>this time WITHOUT photographing them.

They have been photographed. Also by Akkermans.

How does any one know where is the "separatist area" where "Kiev-controlled"? They only settled more or less where is who - following the 2nd Minsk agreement.

In summer it was a chess-board of pockets. Moreover, on the maps published - one and same village was counted on maps as "our" or "enemy's" by both sides simultaneously! Because Kiev troops moved in hectic manner, private battalions moved where they wished, where and how separatists moved no one knows at all - and all sides lied! tall lies regarding what they "have just captured". Where they have defeated everyone flat out o)

There has never been one decent map to trust where is who throughout whole summer.

Proof - poor OSCE - based in a hotel in Donetsk - couldn't venture out to the crash site for days. They ventured, returned, began anew, being shelled, along the route, by hell knows who.
Malaysian team, originally based in Kiev, ventured to reach Donetsk 2 weeks after the catastrophe, settled in a hotel in Donetsk as well.
Likewise, they couldn't get to the crash site, even, accompanied by all separatist leaders, and Malaysians had "guarantees" from both sides, that all is fine and no one would touch them.
I read their memoirs in summer when they recalled a blast into a car in front of them on the road, and that they had to turn back to Donetsk, afraid to continue. That was a separatist car ahead of them, by the way, Malaysians were in the centre of a "procession" of vehicles. Tucked into the centre by separatists, for safety.

No one could drive there safely, be you a Kievan or a separatist, because there are different brands of each kind, each of own mind and command.

IMHO neither side needed a BUK.

Kiev had nothing to shoot at, by a BUK.
Russia never bombed Ukraine from air.
Separatists had nothing in air at all. No "aviation" :o)

What to shoot at? Birds?

Separatists didn't need a Buk either. They have shot 24 Ukrainian airplanes very successfully, before the Boeing tragedy, having no BUKs.
By "conventional" arms , in their disposal. In the range - from fighter jets to large transport airplanes, carrying Ukrainian military personnel.

What for would separatists need a BUK?

BUK, as I understood it, fires at high altitudes, 10,000 metres, exactly where passenger aviation flies.

Ukrainian military planes flew 5,000-7,000 metres, within the range of the existing separatist arms. Proven by the loss of it all.

Who, in his right mind, would take aim at 10,000 metres where there is, technically, nothing military above Ukraine?

Whoever (if it were a BUK from the ground) took the aim high up there - what was in mind? To find there - what? on earth

What arms capable of 7000 m?

JITMH17.com - text in Russian an English; video with Russian sound and English subtitles. That website is linked from Dutch prosecutors' and police's websites. The video contains new (not published earlier) phone taps. New points of the Buk TELAR route. Buk is now officially the main version.

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/03/30/...-separatisten/

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/...itietape-mh17/
(Russian translation)

Phone taps published earlier: on July 18, on July 25. On March 30 Westerbeke confirmed them as not fake, despite widespread disbelief and attempts to discredit them:

Dear Lena, I am far from terroristic circles :o), I don't know what shoots at 7,000 metres.
I vaguely think it's called "SAM". As the blogger from Finland has just pointed out.
Something that looks like spears and is carried on the shoulder.
(my this idea was formed on various movies :o) and . news. from "hot" locations, in this planet)

Additionally, I think that separatists downed all Ukrainian military aviation there were NOT so high up in sky, but in immediate approach, when fighter jets were bombing them, in immediate view.

The big transport plane (able to fly high) was definitely shot when it was landing in the airport.

Ukraine never closed its sky for passenger traffic, didn't stop own, also - Russian airlines flew safely over Ukraine. Aeroflot certainly did, many int'l companies did.
I think there was no BUK in the game.
All "activities" went low, over roof tops.

What is carried on the shoulder cannot reach 7000 m.

Russia has many defects but things are. organised here. say, controlled :o)

If Putin authorized issue of a BUK to Donbass separatists, he'd surely accompany that by a whistle to own civil aviation. not by a whistle. by an order :o) - to avoid the conflict zone in planning their routes.

Any excuse would be used, easily, to cover up the real reason.

And, by the way, other world airlines would then follow Russian suit. Since many governments are used, by now, to read what Kremlin means - between the lines.

Nothing like that took place. To me that means the BUK system joining the fighting - if it were - was very un-planned for

Read: in English or in Russian, look at photos, watch videos. Also read the official webpage (in Russian and English) of the Joint Investigation Team, watch the video.

A version why he didn't. But at first read here.

Conspiracy theories Lena, come on. I am not scared of Pu, he was "planning to kill Russians", eh? And "shot down Malaysians, instead"?

We know perfectly well how and in what :o0 powers to be. say. can be bad for us. Have got vast experience :oO Trained population.

Being deadly is not included in the list of scares :o)