Amiga500Convincing everyone it’s a massively complex and perfectly executed conspiracy involving 100’s of people in multiple countries is the only move Russia could possibly have at this point, hence why the local Web Brigade is so vocally plugging it.
??
Why does Russia have to convince anyone of anything?
It wasn’t someone within the Russian command and control structure firing a Russian weapon under Russian orders.
It was a pro-Russian Ukrainian under no control structure firing a stolen Ukrainian weapon possibly under no orders.
Amiga500See following with truck and trailer claimed to have transported the Buk in and out of Ukraine.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-into-ukraine.html
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-that-shot-down.html
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230309[/ATTACH]
As Lukos immediately pointed out – we have two shoot downs at altitudes above MANPAD range.
So, have the rebels another launcher somewhere? Or is the Ukrainian govt (which apparently claimed the missile came from Russia) talking sh|te?
There, you have a video of a truck+trailer driving down a road with a SAM system on the back. Nothing more. It could be any road, it could be any launcher. If the rebels have only one launcher, it is not theirs (as they have to have fired off at least 2 missiles).
Amiga500As has been said the airspace above 30000ft was open… why? simple… the separatists only had shoulder launched SAMs.
They cant hit a target at that altitude. All previous shoot downs inside Ukraine were with shoulder launched missiles aimed at military aircraft flying at low and medium level.
Ukraine, in turn, has accused Russia of firing a rocket that destroyed an Antonov-26 military transport plane on Monday, and Ukraine also accused Russian military planes of carrying out an airstrike that destroyed a residential building and killed 11 people in the town of Snizhne on Tuesday morning.
The American official who briefed reporters on the new sanctions said the Ukrainian transport plane had been flying at an altitude of 21,000 feet. “Only very sophisticated weapons systems would be able to reach this height,” the official said.
The Ukrainian government also accused Russia of shooting down an An-26 transport plane over eastern Ukraine on Monday, with the loss or reported capture of its crew members.
Ukrainian officials sought to argue that pro-Russian separatist rebels could not have downed the plane because they lacked missiles to hit it at high altitude.
Amiga500The fog of war claims another victim.
I primarily feel for the families of those involved; and do have concerns about what this will do to the Ukraine conflict and to Malaysian Airlines.
Who is responsible? Take your pick.
– MA for flying through potentially dangerous airspace.
– Euro control for not closing that airspace.
– Ukraine ATC for not indicating to Euro control it needed closing.
– The Rebels for firing the missile.
– The Rebels for not knowing how to operate the system right and thus not identifying the airliner for what it is.
– The Russians for not training the rebels how to operate the system right.
– The Russians for not finding out they had such equipment and alerting Euro control.
– The Ukrainians for fighting the rebels (and using air power as part of that fight).
– The Ukrainians for using transport aircraft to perform reconnaissance.
– The rebels for… well…. rebelling.
Does it matter who is responsible? Not really. The families won’t really give a f__k. All they really care about is their mum/dad/husband/wife/kids aren’t coming home again.
Amiga500@Snafu, just off of Avherald
Good.
Last thing we need is this feeding the fire thats burning already over and in Ukraine.
Amiga500I think its a great idea. (Purchase) Priced alongside the jet trainers, but capable of doing a lot of that and quite a bit more. But the $/FH needs to stack up.
It’ll be interesting to see if there is a market for it. I could see the USAF going for it as a trainer replacement initially, then sending it abroad to perform COIN much cheaper than high-end platforms (and preserving their airframes).
Amiga500Whoever shot it down must be brought to justice. This is indiscriminate mass murder.
Not to belittle what has happened… but approximately the same number of people have been killed in Gaza in the last 10 days.
Or, over 100,000 have died in Syria.
Lets not go hyperbole just because its something that may be relevant to you rather than restricted to definitely happening to only some other poor bstart in some distant country.
Amiga500An increase of even 100 mph would cut journey times, even if only by a small margin. Surely it’s worth it? We’ve seen turboprops increase in speed to over 400 mph, from roughly 300 mph, so why isn’t the same thing happening with jets? If we can’t achieve supersonic speed, we should at least attempt to reach near-supersonic.
Boeing did exactly that with the Sonic Cruiser…
Then realised no-one actually wanted it and built the 787 instead.
Amiga500….and big jet result in lots of lift induced drag that requires lots of fuel,
P-51 is a perfect example of how a smaller fighter out-ranges heavier,
and Gripen E shows that the theory is still valid with jets, for as long as heavy loads does not mess up fuel fraction.
nah, disagree there.
The P-51 had a big fuel fraction, but also had a laminar wing. That was the big change from contemporaries.
As DJ says, you need speed and range. Speed means fuel and range means lots of it. Unless there is a paradigm shift in propulsion technology, a good interceptor will always be something similar to the MiG-31. Big, loads of fuel, low-BPR engines and VG intakes. [As is well known by now, the MiG-31 is good for over 600nm at Mach 2+. It doesn’t matter if that needs burners, 600nm is 600 nm.]
Amiga500Interesting. Where does that leave the A350-800?
Dead.
Realistically speaking, the market segment guys at Airbus have totally f**ked up the past 20 years or so.
Looking at it broadly, the following markets exist (3-class config and rough passenger boundaries):
<200 passengers; range < 3000nm
200-300 passengers; range < 6000 nm
300+ passengers; range 9000 nm+
Now, you use a single-aisle/narrowbody to tackle the <200 pax segment – A320/B737.
The 200-300 passenger class was tackled by the 767/757 and 330-200.
The 300+ class is too wide for one airframe, Airbus had the 330-300 and 340 series, Boeing the 747.
Then in the mid-90s, Airbus planning fell to crap. Boeing built the 777, Airbus decided to go one bigger than the 747 with the A380 without thinking how the rest would cascade down from it.
Boeing decided to fill the gap below the 777 with the 787. This has worked well.
Airbus, because of the size of the A380, should have realised two separate frames were needed, one which was 777X sized another a more direct replacement for the A330 (maybe a touch smaller).
The A350-1000 should have been fit for 400 passengers in roughly 3-classes. -900 fit for 350 and -800 for 300.
The A330 could then have been re-engined or replaced. We wouldn’t have had the XWB fiasco and Airbus would have a proper product in every market segment.
Amiga500Why the Leahy bashing?
‘cos the man acts like an a$$hol€.
Could the order for the 777 be down to delivery date? Seems strange that they ordered the A350 in the first place, they must be more than happy with 777 operating as many as they do.
Its just a 777-X order here, so must be capacity (or maybe expected improved cashflow in the later delivery years) rather than earlier slots.
Amiga500Real-life PK is not a simple (number of missiles fired)/(number of aircraft shot down).
In an advanced combat zone where all the fancy gizmos are needed, some aircraft will not have the luxury of firing off warnings, or ripples, due to their loadout limitations.
Sometimes (& IIRC this is reported to have happened over Serbia) a missile is deliberately fired even when it is unlikely to hit, to scare off the enemy. A mission kill, but not a kill.
As opposed to requiring about 4 or 5 AMRAAMs to down a MiG.
[AFM had a feature on the Serb MiG-29s several years ago. The account of the Fulcrums included some information on missiles fired at them, most engagements leading to Fulcrum destruction – but the majority of missiles did not hit anything]
Without good data on how many missiles were fired at how many targets, in what circumstances, we can’t calculate an accurate pk. Do you have those data? If so, I’d love to see them.
I would hazard a guess no one in the world has those data, including the airforces involved.
Amiga500This is one of those classic internet moments when someone proposes an absolutely ludicrous solution to a non-existent problem.
Your direct link isn’t working, but was able to access it through dtic. Not sure whats up there.
Its nice to note the BQM-167 is “capable of 9g near sea level at near bingo fuel”.
The QF-4 supposedly doesn’t even manage that, topping out around 6g for whatever reason. Maybe the QF-16 will rectify that.
Furthermore, not once does the presentation address the issue of the AIM-7 not actually being launched WVR! Which was less than 60 launches.
http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Adams_Center/EssayContest/20042005/HigbyP_0405.pdf
And this little snippet is worrying for us trying to draw any conclusion out of Desert Storm (IF TRUE)!
“An additional factor improving the performance of radar-guided
missiles was that Iraqi pilots did not take any evasive action once radar lock occurred.
This indicates a training failure, an equipment failure (of the radar warning receiver), or a
combination of both.”
The US already has by-far the world’s most robust missile effectiveness verification/test program. It is called Combat Archer, and guess what, it features hundreds of launches per year by real operational units against sophisticated threat-representative targets. (In most tests missiles have warheads removed and intentional “drone saving” maneuvers are executed at endgame to avoid needlessly wasting drones.)
Yet the fact remains in terms of missile Pk for a given launch, the figures continue to be abysmal. Especially given the limited loadout of certain aircraft (I’m looking at you F-35).
The widely dispersed figures is of between 24-26 kills for 80something launches.
AMRAAM in Kosovo was around 10% Pk!
Amiga500And where will you get volunteers prepared to risk their lives on the success of such a turnway manoeuvre? I once had to persuade a pilot to fly within the coverage of a warheadless SAM – it was not an easy task.
Everytime they get into an aircraft they risk their lives to some degree. If the pilot is not willing to take on the risk to ensure their weapons are effective, then what are they doing in the forces?
What about the test pilots that step into any machine with risks similar in magnitude to what is proposed.
Its not as if in WW2 infantry drills were not done with live ammo!!
Rarely work? I have not been directly involved in missile trials for several decades, but even in those days the difference between the simulated and real-world trajectories was measured in metres, not tens of metres.
Now. You know full well what I mean.
As complexity is added to the scenarios, model accuracy drops away.
If models were accurate, then AMRAAM would not have been as abject in Kosovo as it was (against lame ducks at that!).
Please don’t respond with the old “ahh, but its all changed since, next time they’ll work, honest” line.
As Dubya Bush would say –
Fool me once, shame on you.. fool me… errrrr
Think about it for a moment – where within the missile could you pack such a braking chute and its deployment mechanism? Every cubic cm is already occupied.
True, it’d be tight to fit in place of the warhead and it would also require structural mods for the new loadpath to work.
Still. Cheaper to waste a few missiles finding out if the supposed silver bullet is actually made of cheap tin in a controlled environment rather than in a hot war when it could mean your sparkling new 3 billion pound aircraft carrier is essentially without air cover.
Amiga500Anyone with a decent knowledge of history would know that is actually pretty close to true. The Germans didn’t go through the Maginot line, they went via Belgium.
Oh funny that – the enemy didn’t cooperate with those carefully laid plans.
Which made the line strategically useless and anything but impregnable!
Sign In
