Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just the plane was supposed to fall on the territory of Russia. Have not calculated.
That would be about squealing.
And so, even the debris is not collected and everything is on the brakes.
And there is a second version.
They missed it. 30 minutes later the plane of the Russian President flew in the area.
Think randomness?
I wish I knew more about radar capabilities and in general what a radar is capable of. I have heard from a lot of people the Ukrainians were flying that day knowing that civil aircraft were around and they didn't appear to care. Its definitely plausible that they thought the Novorussians would be worried about shooting down a civil aircraft by mistake and hold fire in certain situations. Not to mention if a civil aircraft did get shot down it would be great propaganda.
Any military minded individual can string something like that together.
One other thing, such a strategy may well work because the BUK launcher does have a radar, it only sees an aircraft but cannot identify specifically what the blip on the screen is.
Re-read the phrases: “no other airplanes in the vicinity that could have shot down MH17”; “no second airplane that could have shot down MH17”. This is a finding by the governments of Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Malaysia and the Ukraine. But it is ambiguous, blank, on the crucial point – were there Ukrainian Air Force planes in the air at the time armed with ground-attack weapons? Was an air-defence missile battery unit on the ground likely to suspect a bomb attack from the air during the last crucial minutes of MH17’s transit?
MH-17 was at cruise altitude when it was struck. What else was below it or in the vicinity FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE RADAR AND THE MISSILE? I know of 2 instances of missiles hitting civilian aircraft by accident because they did not self destruct as they were meant to. One was a missile in the Mediterranean fired by a US warship that hit an Italian jetliner killing everyone and the other was a Ukrainian missile that took a Siberian airliner coming from Israel.
Could the BUK missile have lost contact with its intended target and picked up MH-17 and brought it down? The Ukrainians were bombing the Novorussians at the time.
Ukrainian air force resumed flights the day before the incident.
"The Ukrainian Armed Forces resumed flights within the area of the military operation in the eastern part of the country, which were suspended after an Antonov An-26 military transport plane was shot down in the Luhansk region on July 14."
Ukrainian air force resumed flights the day before the incident.
"The Ukrainian Armed Forces resumed flights within the area of the military operation in the eastern part of the country, which were suspended after an Antonov An-26 military transport plane was shot down in the Luhansk region on July 14."
I wish I knew more about radar capabilities and in general what a radar is capable of. I have heard from a lot of people the Ukrainians were flying that day knowing that civil aircraft were around and they didn't appear to care. Its definitely plausible that they thought the Novorussians would be worried about shooting down a civil aircraft by mistake and hold fire in certain situations. Not to mention if a civil aircraft did get shot down it would be great propaganda.
Any military minded individual can string something like that together.
One other thing, such a strategy may well work because the BUK launcher does have a radar, it only sees an aircraft but cannot identify specifically what the blip on the screen is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat335
MH-17 was at cruise altitude when it was struck. What else was below it or in the vicinity FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE RADAR AND THE MISSILE? I know of 2 instances of missiles hitting civilian aircraft by accident because they did not self destruct as they were meant to. One was a missile in the Mediterranean fired by a US warship that hit an Italian jetliner killing everyone and the other was a Ukrainian missile that took a Siberian airliner coming from Israel.
Could the BUK missile have lost contact with its intended target and picked up MH-17 and brought it down? The Ukrainians were bombing the Novorussians at the time.
Very possible.
No. They purposely shot at MH17.
Kiev was allowing commercial flights over the area because their justification is that the cruising altitude is above where military flight operations were occurring, and that commercial aircraft would be let alone due to identification of them being commercial. Commercial operators operated under this also. It really baffles me why anyone would allow commercial operations over known areas with anti-aircraft instances occurring. I understand Kiev wanting an event to occur, but commercial operators?
The operators of the BUK were not experienced nor well trained. MH17 was flying an obvious commercial flight path and at commercial cruising altitude, this should have been the obvious "take a second look" sign. It also appears they are not able to understand signals as MH17 would be blasting IFF and their AVQ50. This is where the fault of Russia comes in as handing something like a BUK to these people is like handing a gun to an eight year old; obviously not trained nor prepared to operate such device.
The BUK fired at MH17 thinking it was a Ukrainian military plan (as noted after the shoot down they were looking for the pilots), and this mistake is not surprising given military operations in the area, the lack of training, and the surprise as stated by the rebels why Kiev was allowing commercial flights in the area.
Kiev was allowing commercial flights over the area because their justification is that the cruising altitude is above where military flight operations were occurring, and that commercial aircraft would be let alone due to identification of them being commercial. Commercial operators operated under this also. It really baffles me why anyone would allow commercial operations over known areas with anti-aircraft instances occurring. I understand Kiev wanting an event to occur, but commercial operators?
The operators of the BUK were not experienced nor well trained. MH17 was flying an obvious commercial flight path and at commercial cruising altitude, this should have been the obvious "take a second look" sign. It also appears they are not able to understand signals as MH17 would be blasting IFF and their AVQ50. This is where the fault of Russia comes in as handing something like a BUK to these people is like handing a gun to an eight year old; obviously not trained nor prepared to operate such device.
The BUK fired at MH17 thinking it was a Ukrainian military plan (as noted after the shoot down they were looking for the pilots), and this mistake is not surprising given military operations in the area, the lack of training, and the surprise as stated by the rebels why Kiev was allowing commercial flights in the area.
You do not mind that in this area, at this very time was deployed Ukrainian air defense with these very beeches?
The operators of the BUK were not experienced nor well trained. MH17 was flying an obvious commercial flight path and at commercial cruising altitude, this should have been the obvious "take a second look" sign. It also appears they are not able to understand signals as MH17 would be blasting IFF and their AVQ50. This is where the fault of Russia comes in as handing something like a BUK to these people is like handing a gun to an eight year old; obviously not trained nor prepared to operate such device..
Agreed overall. The crew of the BUK may not have been experienced enough to use it correctly or the hardware may not have been fully functional leading to the downing of the aircraft. If there was an off signal it is possible it was missed but do we know for sure the aircraft's off was on and working? I don't know the facts on this subject.
I do have it on good authority that the BUK was not given to the rebels by Russia. It was jacked from a arsenal around Mariupol and when things went bad Russia demanded it be given to them.
I do think it is all plausible including the possibility of a rogue missile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
