Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[Bester]

Su-25, it is relatively slow, and has a significantly lower service ceiling

Frogfoot's practical ceiling is 6km, but its dynamic ceiling is 10km, which means the frogfoot could climb to 10km for a short period of time and do its dirty job no problemo. The day after the crash, Russia said they saw on their radars a Su-25 in the same sector and flight level with the Boeing just before the crash. Of course nobody wants to believe Russia cause they're evil and all that.

And everyone wants to believe the US, even though the US refuses to show satellite video recordings. (ever wondered why?)

 

 

 

It'd be completely bonkers anyway, as it would either mean a false flag op or an attempt to hit Putin

Or they meant to bring down the plane on Russian soil and claim it was Russia, but screwed up. Or they meant to bring down the plane on Russian-Ukrainian border where their boys were and are still held up encircled to get a ceasefire and get them out. Or they just meant to bring down a plane to incite NATO's support/peacekeepers. Like I said before, just ask yourself "cui prodest" and the answer is always going to be ukraine.

And if you think they're somehow morally above this kind of thing, just remember how they burned people alive (policemen on Maidan and then Odessa civilians) and never bothered starting an investigation for that. And now they're shelling cities because people voted for federalization. They're not exactly sane as you can see.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bester

[Zoraptor]

I don't think they're above doing it on moral grounds. It's the practical and political grounds I question. Too hard to keep quiet and way, way too much risk of blowback. While it's certainly not impossible, having Yatsenyuk or Poroshenko or similar sit and plan to actively shoot down an airliner and blame it on the Russians I simply don't find very credible at all, without significant evidence. They have as much right to be presumed innocent on this as anyone else has.

 

It's one thing to get extremists to go off and fight and kill and die for you because you can guarantee they'll be committed to doing the job it's quite another to commit a deliberate act of war on the people you're relying on to bail you out of your mess, or on the neighbour you really want not to get involved if it was thought to be Putin's plane. If it were done deliberately I can only see it as having been done by a few people acting effectively independently- or as having been accidental, though obviously the current scenario under discussion cannot be accidental. As such, the scenario is most plausible with the perpetrators acting independently of political control, with a cover up afterwards. And even that isn't all that plausible at this point in time and with the evidence available, it's just most plausible.

[kgambit]

to add to SU-25 - yes its slow and it have lower ceiling (in papers) but in right hands and with good equipment its still possible to reach that height. Disscussion around SU-25 is in place because it was claimed by russian side that they pick it up on radar

 

 

No.  The service ceiling of a unarmed Su-25 is 23,000 feet (roughly 10,000 feet below the altitude of MH17) and that number is only going to drop as you add weapons.  Training is not going to change what is a fundamental matter of thrust versus weight and somehow allow an Su-25 to reach 33,000 feet.    You can't bend the laws of physics no matter how hard you try.  

 

Edit:  Claims that the frogfoot can reach 10km are unsupported.  I've not seen a reliable source to support that.  At the very least, you have the issue of trying to fly a plane with an unpressurized cabin to altitudes that require pressurization.  

 

 

Airspeed is also an issue.

 

According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

 

According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

 

The slower Su-25 can not overtake a faster 777 and close to 800m or less to be in range of the 30mm cannon.  The Su 25 could have already been in front of MH17 (which contradicts the Russian version actually - more on that in a bit).  But even if that were the case, the difference in maximum ceilings of the planes would have precluded the cannon fire scenario. 

 

You were right the first time - the Su-25 is too low and (probably) too slow.

 

 

I suggest you read the following article where the idea that a Su-25 was the culprit is pretty much debunked - including the cannon fire scenario.  Another jet type maybe but not an Su-25.   

 

http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/

 

The Russians have specifically mentioned that a Su-25 in the area as the culprit (and not a higher ceiling interceptor such as the Su-27 or Mig-29).  If they were unsure of the plane id, why not say so? 

 

They went on to state that the SU-25 was armed with air-to-air missiles and was spotted within 3 to 5 km of Mh17.  No closer?  If yes, then why not mention it?  FFS, they're pretty specific of the type of plane, the type of armament it carries and everything else.  So shouldn't we believe them on face value about the distances too?  If we accept their description so far, that rules out the Kh-13 heat-seeker missile entirely since its range is 1.92 km (1.2 miles). 

 

That range also rules out the 30 mm cannon fire which has a maximum effective range against aerial targets of 200 to 800 m (that's within visual range so there would be no mistaking the plane type or markings).    Again the difference in service ceilings rules out cannon fire as a possibility.  Do the maths it isn't rocket science (oh wait yes it is).  10km service ceiling 777 versus 7km service ceiling Su25 means the Su-25 could not get closer than 3000 meters which is nearly 4 times the GSH-30s maximum effective engagement range. 

 

The Russians also stated that  "the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire".  Maybe they're leaving something out in the description.  We do know that MH17 was flying on a E or ESE heading (I don't have the exact compass heading - sorry) so a plane attacking from the SW would be approaching from behind and have to fire against the starboard side of MH17.  But all of the  "shrapnel/gunfire damage" is on the port side of the plane and the penetration angles indicate the "shrapnel/cannon fire" came from in front of the c0ckpit or roughly from the NE.  So lets give the Russians the benefit of the doubt and saying that their description was incomplete.  That means that the Su25 would have to close the range and overtake (and pass) MH17 in order to wheel around to be in a position to begin its attack from the North or port side of MH17.  Tell me how the slower Su-25 managed to do that please.  Again the service ceiling differences rule out cannon fire anyway. 

 

So at this point, the Russian version isn't adding up.  The attack scenario doesn't account for the air speed characteristics, the difference in service ceilings,  the weapon range of the 30mm cannon or the relative weakness of the air-to-air missiles.  In less polite terms, its bull****.  

 

I suggest doing a google search and look at what fire from a 30mm cannon looks like.  Against a thin skinned aluminum airframe like the Boeing 777 the holes caused by 30mm shells would be much larger than the ones seen in the MH17 photos.   Here's a pic of a 30mm cannon shell (30mm is roughly 1.18 inchs)

 

 

or this link to another pic of the shell from the A-10 30mm cannon:

 

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/150308/8762286.jpeg

 

and here's a pic of the damage caused by 20mm cannon fire from an F-16:

 

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/6ac94a49c6d51725abc104a4b8968108-jpg.8311/

 

Are the shrapnel penetrations on MH17 anything like that in size (remember that the Su-25 has a 30mm cannon not 20mm)? Those holes in the SUV are fist sized holes and that's only from a 20mm cannon.   The shrapnel penetrations on MH17 are consistently much smaller.  

 

There's also a Rh-60 air to air missile carried by the SU-25. The Rh-60s has a small 6 lb warhead and while a hit from one might have damaged a Boeing 777 it is highly unlikely that it would do enough damage to destroy it on contact.  For reference KAL007 was hit by a K-8 missile with a 88 pound warhead.  That's more akin to the SA-11 and its 150+ pound warhead than the considerably smaller Rh-60.  

 

 

None of this means that there wasn't an Su-25 nearby but it's highly unlikely that it was responsible for shooting down MH17.  That leaves the SAM scenario as the most likely.

That doesn't mean it was a Russian SAM - but it was almost certainly a SAM and the Su-25 story doesn't survive close scrutiny. 

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/malaysian-probability-russia-claims-aircraft-su25/25466500.html

 

 

Here's a thread with numerous images from MH-17 (I suggest starting from page 4 but there's a lot of info there)

 

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/

 

According to Reed Foster a defense specialist at IHSJanes: 

 

Mr. Foster said the contour of the aluminum and the blistering of the paint around many of the holes indicate that small pieces of high-velocity shrapnel entered the aircraft externally. Mr. Foster said the two most likely causes were an engine explosion or an exploding missile...Most of the perforations are about the same size, and the fragments seemed to have entered from a front angle, Mr. Foster said. He said that fragmentary-warhead missiles try to “put as many consistently sized, low-drag fragments into the airframe as possible.” The shrapnel damage is different from what would be expected after an aircraft-engine explosion, Mr. Foster said, which would have caused “longer, thinner, oblique tears across the aircraft skin, with a slight hump toward the point where the fragment entered the skin, rather than the majority of punctures present.”.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html?emc=edit_th_20140722&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=25300769&_r=1

 

Here's a photo of a what a fragmentation warhead for the 2k12 Kub / SA-6 system looks like:

 

 

 

Lots of lethal little projectiles coming off that missile.  Like a huge shotgun blast. 

 

Edit:  There are claims that the M1 variant of the Su-25 has an increased service ceiling, possibly up to 10km.  According to details of the modifications "The [modification] project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new ****pit with multiple function monitors."  

 

There is no mention of adding additional power or improving engine performance.  All of those modifications means that you've just added weight and adding weight without adding power won't make an SU-25 go higher or faster.   Again it's physics.

 

The presence of an Su-25 in the area, even if its true, doesn't prove that it was the culprit.  I don't doubt (at least not totally) the Russian claim that there was an Su-25 in the area.  But their story of the engagement isn't holding up. 

 

 

And then there's this:

 

No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim [of the Su-25 being the culprit] was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page.      http://aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

http://gawker.com/did-russian-officials-edit-wikipedia-to-back-up-a-bogus-1609071757

 

 

I think it hilarious that some moron thought he could get away with that. 

Edited August 8, 2014 by kgambit

[Chilloutman]

I was told that SU-25 can reach that height, 33 000 foot ceiling can be reached only with mask on pilot and as you stated with less weapons. Maximum ceiling on aircrafts is maximum 'safe' ceiling but most planes can handle more that what they got in paramenters from manufacturer, however its not guaranteed and some equipment may not work as expected - anyway I too doubt that slow moving SU-25 could shoot down faster plane by rocket, then circle around falling plane and still shoot precisely with cannons

[Agiel]

If they stripped out all of the armaments, non-essential avionics, external stores and pylons to reduce drag co-efficients, gave it a half fuel load, and even took off all the paint like they did with the P-42 to beat the F-15's climb record, then *maybe* the Su-25 which had been specifically designed for the close air support role with its guns, rockets, anti-tank missiles, and LDGP bombs (insomuch that the A-10, its rough western counterpart, had been) could reach 33k feet. Then again, at this state with no weapons the only way it could down a civilian airliner would be by Kamikaze.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Agiel

[BruceVC]

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

[Chilloutman]

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict

[kgambit]

I was told that SU-25 can reach that height, 33 000 foot ceiling can be reached only with mask on pilot

 

A slight increase over 7km service ceiling, maybe.  But reaching 10km implies that the Su-25 is exceeding that by nearly 50%.  That's a major stretch imo; not impossible, but very highly unlikely.  (Yes, I do realize that the service ceiling isn't a hard and fast limit.)

 

That 10km ceiling might be achievable (although I'm doubtful) for the latest Russian models with the Soyuz/Gavrilov R-195 engines but certainly not for the Ukrainian Su-25M1 variant which still have the older (slightly weaker) R-95 engines.  

 

The R-195 engines are rated at 44.18kN (9931 lbs thrust) while the R-95s are rated at 40.21 kN (9,039 lbs thrust) .  That is only10% more thrust so I'm a bit skeptical of a 50% gain in service ceiling without weight reduction occurring somewhere.

 

  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%202248.html

 

But back to the Ukrainian M1 variants.  Nothing have I have read indicates that any weight reduction has occurred with the Ukrainian models and they are still using the R-95 engines.   So you have the same thrust generated by the same engines with some added equipment and some structural reinforcing of the M1 variants.  That indicates more weight and a lower thrust to weight ratio; i.e. less lift.

 

And the newer engine Su-25UTG Naval variants have only been deployed to the Russia (Naval Aviation) : 279th KIAP Severomorsk

 

Edit:  Another point to keep in mind is that when an airplane climbs it bleeds airspeed for altitude.  So even if a Su-25 is capable of reaching that 10km critical altitude it is going to be trading off air-speed while it does.  That means that the speed differential is magnified.  In short, the physics says the Su-25 flying from behind can't catch a Boeing 777 and climb to altitude at the same time. 

 

If they stripped out all of the armaments, non-essential avionics, external stores and pylons to reduce drag co-efficients, gave it a half fuel load, and even took off all the paint like they did with the P-42 to beat the F-15's climb record, then *maybe* the Su-25 which had been specifically designed for the close air support role with its guns, rockets, anti-tank missiles, and LDGP bombs (insomuch that the A-10, its rough western counterpart, had been) could reach 33k feet. Then again, at this state with no weapons the only way it could down a civilian airliner would be by Kamikaze.

 

 

Good points.  The service ceiling for the Su-25 of 7km is for a totally unarmed plane.  Adding in 200 rounds of 30mm cannon shells, a pair of Rh-60 AAMs and a full fuel load all adds weight and lowers that service ceiling.  A fully armed Su-25 has a 5km service ceiling.  The plane was simply not designed to function as a high speed interceptor, and trying to cast it in that role is silly.

 

Looks like Oby is getting ready to jump in .......  lol

Edited August 8, 2014 by kgambit

[obyknven]

Meanwhile Australian government continue generate lulz for us.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/russia-sanctions-australian-government-slams-export-decision/story-e6frflo9-1227017465068

 

The Australian Prime Minister has hit back, announcing a plan to impose stronger sanctions against Russia, labelling the country a bully over its actions towards Ukraine.

“Russia has been a bully. Russia is a big country trying to bully a small country,” Mr Abbott said in a fiery press conference.

 

Yep, Russia is bad because they respond to our sanctions by own sanctions and because of this we make moar sanctions lol. Why this guy just dont tell about Australian gaz trade (one of major gaz supplier in the world) and don't justify own actions by wish a destroy Russia (competitor!) and become monopolists on world gaz market? At least by saying the such obvious truth he show more respect to Australians, than tell such unbelieveable fairy tales to own people.
 

[BruceVC]

 

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict

 

 

Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not  mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention

 

But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists.

[Zoraptor]

If they were unsure of the plane id, why not say so?

 

 

Isn't everyone unsure of designations done purely via radar though*? Assuming they actually have video in real time from the Rostov radar station then I'd presume they would have labelled it as an Su-25 because they'd expect it to be one on a ground attack mission rather than a Su-27 or MiG-29. And there are alternative sources saying Su-27s were around. So far as I am aware while transponders give out that an aircraft is military they do not share their type, that has to be assigned.

 

Otherwise I'd find it difficult to credit that the Russians would pick exactly the wrong type of plane to finger when they could as easily have said Su-27 or MiG-29, it's not like they aren't familiar with the aircraft's specifications.

 

*Would have thought it would be easy to find out, but I obviously can't find the right terms to search for.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict

 

 

Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not  mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention

 

But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists.

 

Ukraine is not, but civilian plane could be and then it would be attack on NATO country

[kgambit]

 

If they were unsure of the plane id, why not say so?

 

 

Isn't everyone unsure of designations done purely via radar though*? Assuming they actually have video in real time from the Rostov radar station then I'd presume they would have labelled it as an Su-25 because they'd expect it to be one on a ground attack mission rather than a Su-27 or MiG-29. And there are alternative sources saying Su-27s were around. So far as I am aware while transponders give out that an aircraft is military they do not share their type, that has to be assigned.

 

Otherwise I'd find it difficult to credit that the Russians would pick exactly the wrong type of plane to finger when they could as easily have said Su-27 or MiG-29, it's not like they aren't familiar with the aircraft's specifications.

 

*Would have thought it would be easy to find out, but I obviously can't find the right terms to search for.

 

 

Don't sweat the terminology, I know what you mean.  But that's partly my point - why would the Russians single out and identify a specific airframe as the culprit if there were better (i.e. more capable) platforms?  Either they have additional information they aren't sharing (so we now have a quid pro quo on US Satellite intelligence data) or they simply pulled a convenient plane type out of their butt. 

 

Further, if the id is solely based on radar, how are the Russians sure what the plane was armed with?  Is it simply an assumption or do they have other hard data.  Remember that the Su-25 is a ground support aircraft not a high altitude interceptor.  Air to air missiles aren't uncommon but given that the separatists don't have air assets, why wouldn't the Ukrainians AF trade off some AAMs for ground attack munitions?

 

Given that there isn't something beyond simple radar, I wonder how the Russians (assuming those are the sources you refer to) can be any more positive about the identification of Su-27s in the area than they were about the Su-25s?    

 

So let me ask:  Who are these alternate sources (note: plural)  and what are they basing the Su-27 aircraft identification on?   Is it the Russian MoD?  Ukrainians? Links please?  

 

The only source that I can find for the Su-27 claims appears to be comments attributable to someone identified as Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee in private communication with the writer David Cenciotti at theaviationist.com     Every other claim that I found links back to this one source.   I can find no independent confirmation  of his claims by any news source whatsoever.   

 

Supposedly Taghvaee made comments about the Su-27 involvement on the ACIG forums (Air Combat Information Group) but the links to that site provided by Cenciotti are non-functioning and a google search which found an alternate page for ACIG currently shows the site is down. 

 

There are some obvious discrepancies in Taghvaee's report.  Six aircraft forward deployed with six aircraft in the air simultaneously at all times?  Color me skeptical.   Maybe its just awkward phrasing on Taghvaee's part but with six available Su27s, it would more likely that their CAP patrols would be staggered in 3 shifts of 2 to provide continuous coverage and allow downtime for the pilots.  But hey that's just me.

 

So is that the entire basis of the support for the Su27 claims?   If not, then provide some independent links.

 

 

 

What's funny about the Russian Ministry of Defense presentation was this image:

 

 

 

Yes I realize it's for illustration purposes only but what's amusing is that Su-25 image more closely resembles the now retired USAF EF-111 Raven.  (Or that the passenger has four engines as opposed to the twin engine the 777)

 

 

C'mon guys you aren't even trying.   (seriously are those guys just drunk or what?)

Edited August 8, 2014 by kgambit

[obyknven]

Southern pocket is over. Remnats of Junta forces throw everything and flee from  positions. Rebels try stop them, cause HUGE damage for them, but some amount of troops escape anyway. Two months ago around 5000 - 6000 strong Junta army has been surrounded here, but only around 1000 of them are returned ( and around 500 flee into Russia ). Just epic victory of quite small rebel paramilitary forces upon strong but stupid and inert regular army.

 

Junta forces drop a big amount of equipment - rebels take new toys.

'

 

 

 

Ukrainian columns try break through Rebel defence ( they use zero killometer for it - buffer zone between Russian and  Ukrainian border).

 

Not all do it successfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ukrainian army even don't take with yourself or bury bodies of own dead soldiers, they just throw them rot to fields, it's yet another evidence of total catastrophe.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict

 

 

Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not  mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention

 

But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists.

 

Ukraine is not, but civilian plane could be and then it would be attack on NATO country

 

 

But even then NATO will not go to war unless the Ukrainian separatists said something like " we shot the plane down as act of war against a NATO country" and since they are firstly even denying they shot the plane down and Malaysia isn't part of NATO there is no chance of military intervention by NATO over this tragedy

[Zoraptor]

But that's partly my point - why would the Russians single out and identify a specific airframe as the culprit if there were better (i.e. more capable) platforms?

 

Because they had it labelled as an Su-25, even if it was an erroneous assignment? Until it does something an Su-25 cannot do that label would remain. Then anyone going back to look at it would see 'Su-25', even if it actually wasn't.

 

The equivalent that I'd base that scenario on would be something like the Vincennes incident- if you looked at the radar playback I'd have no doubt that the Airbus there was labelled as an F14- erroneously, and you might notice the mistake that lead to that happening- but that is what you'd see.

 

It's fairly obvious I'm deeply sceptical about scenarios involving an actual Su-25 though, I accept that it may be technically possible to have been one but I find it highly unlikely.

 

Further, if the id is solely based on radar, how are the Russians sure what the plane was armed with?  Is it simply an assumption or do they have other hard data.  Remember that the Su-25 is a ground support aircraft not a high altitude interceptor.  Air to air missiles aren't uncommon but given that the separatists don't have air assets, why wouldn't the Ukrainians AF trade off some AAMs for ground attack munitions?

I don't think that line of thought is significant. If they knew the specific missile via humint they wouldn't say to protect sources and to a large extent the specific hardware used is irrelevant for this scenario as any missile + cannon combo can take down an airliner; though obviously whether it was a SAM or air to air is critical overall. Mostly though, the Ukrainians claimed the previous day to have had an Su-25 shot down by Russian fighters, taken at face value they'd have strong cause to be armed with AAMs andor have Su-27s around. And if the plan was to stage a false flag or go after Putin then it's the ground ordnance that would be wholly unnecessary to the mission, not any air to air stuff.

 

The only source that I can find for the Su-27 claims appears to be comments attributable to someone identified as Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee in private communication with the writer David Cenciotti at theaviationist.com     Every other claim that I found links back to this one source.   I can find no independent confirmation  of his claims by any news source whatsoever.

They may all resolve to one source, and though there are multiple sources for Su-27s being used in the relevant areas, and as per above, it would be an expected response to have fighters such as Su27s or MiG29s around if Russian fighters had really shot down a Ukrainian plane I'll concede there may well not be multiple sources for them being around on that specific day. But in any case, this could probably be cleared up one way or the other if the CVR and air controller data were released.

 

There are some obvious discrepancies in Taghvaee's report.  Six aircraft forward deployed with six aircraft in the air simultaneously at all times?  Color me skeptical.   Maybe its just awkward phrasing on Taghvaee's part but with six available Su27s, it would more likely that their CAP patrols would be staggered in 3 shifts of 2 to provide continuous coverage and allow downtime for the pilots.  But hey that's just me.

 

Don't really know enough to comment, except that I took the first six aircraft to be the initial deployment only, and not necessarily the number present/ available now as tensions ramped up. So the two mentions of six aircraft may not be the same six aircraft- 6 out of the full Su27 complement on patrol would be perfectly doable.

[Bester]

Nice. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flostarmour.info%2Farmour%2F&sandbox=1

71 ukrainian armored vehicles detroyed with proofs. Probably twice as much in reality. As losses go, that's just huge.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Bester

[obyknven]

Meanwhile stupid Ukrainian army try cause ecological catastrophe by shelling of chemical plant in Gorlovka. This is can cause chemical pollution by very strong and lethal poison in radius around 300 kilometers and kill thousands Ukrainians. Do NATO and US begin bomb Kiev because of this by same way as they threatened Syrians? Or maybe they send moar military help for war criminals instead? Rhethoric question.

http://rt.com/news/179336-chemical-disaster-donetsk-plant/

http://youtu.be/x1Xiwze9PHc

[Walsingham]

It's interesting how 'oby' is able to simply repost images and comments and almost effortlessly spoof a Russian nationalist.

 

Note how many of those images could have come from almost any conflict at any time.

[BruceVC]

It's interesting how 'oby' is able to simply repost images and comments and almost effortlessly spoof a Russian nationalist.

 

Note how many of those images could have come from almost any conflict at any time.

 

Honestly, I don't bother reading 90 % of what he says. There is no point as his comments are just  such uninformed propaganda

Edited August 11, 2014 by BruceVC

[Sarex]

Sweet irony.

[Hassat Hunter]

 

Getting pretty sick of people going unanimously after Russia, nicely forgetting we HAVE the war to thank to a US/EU backed coup-detat on a legally elected government.

But he was elected because he promised that Ukraine will make laws which will allow them to join EU and he decide to not sign them. If he would follow what he promised there should not be any coup

 

Policians lie.

 

I AM SHOCKED. UTTERLY UTTERLY SHOCKED.

 

But really, if lying politicans where enough to coup-de-tat each democratic government would be thrown over by now. Instead the 'civilised world' waits for next elections. Why couldn't Ukraine? I have no freakin' clue. You tell me... it certainly doesn't sound very democratic.

 

Of course democratic goverments have flaws... but is a ragtag band of protesters ruling and them excluding half-the-country on a new election democratic *at all*

I aim to... no.

 

Also I still find it highly hipocratic that the EU/US where all "VIOLENCE! ABUSE OF POWER!" while the riot police is going on (let's see how riot police in the US acts... yeah...), and then go out "Sure, send out the army to kill them" on similarly protesters just cause they're on the other side.

I kinda think the army is way more violent than the riot police, but maybe that's just me. Maybe in your country riot-police have tanks and fly attack helis and aircraft? Mine don't.

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm  not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government  controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

Let's see... Ukraine believes Russian MIG's violated Ukranian space... and deployed SAM's to counter them. Why there hasn't been mention of them shooting stuff down? Cause the MIG thing is bull****, and the seperatists have no planes. It's seriouly THAT easy.

 

But with SAMs on site, a fear of Russian invasion and an army that's outdated, low morale, badly trained and has no communication whatsoever, it's not farfetched some military general thought the Russians where attacking and gave the order to attack. After all, what's better to claim a plane on your airspace then it's downed corpse on your ground.

 

And of course there's also the chance of major ****ing up like in 2001, something everyone conviently forgets.

[Bester]

Policians lie.

I AM SHOCKED. UTTERLY UTTERLY SHOCKED.

 

But really, if lying politicans where enough to coup-de-tat each democratic government would be thrown over by now. Instead the 'civilised world' waits for next elections. Why couldn't Ukraine? I have no freakin' clue. You tell me... it certainly doesn't sound very democratic.

 

I'm not Chilloutman, but I'll tell you, ok? Because the next elections were to be held in 3 months and they weren't going to win, since the South-East populated by pro-russian voters always had the majority.

 

So they overthrew the government, held elections without a pro-russian candidate and without letting the Donetsk (4.5 million people) and Luhansk ( 2.2 million people) regions vote. (that's almost 20% of the population by the way)

 

Also, when you're already in power, you can do this (so the numbers wouldn't show that nobody came voting to your farce of an election):

 

 

 

And once you've completed all these steps, you gain an achievement "real democracy" and receive a new quest from the US State Department to go kill those 20% 'bad guys'.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Bester

[Hassat Hunter]

Ah, the see-through voting boxes.

 

Good memories of them being "undemocratic" and "total farce" during the Donesk voting... and then they were used for the 'official' Ukraine vote...

Western hipocrasy at it's finest... I almost had forgotten about that.

[HoonDing]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/russian-motorbike-gang-tells-the-conflict-in-ukraine

 

Hilarious in its absurdity.

 

Edited August 11, 2014 by HoonDing