FalconDudeThe people who fired that Buk knew – or should have known (it was easily checkable) that there were airliners flying overhead. They could have checked where they were.
How do you know they knew? Do you have evidence ?
Why should have they known?
How could they have known?
Why was it easily checkable?
Check it with whom?
Check it with which C&C?
Check it through which chain of command?
Receive authorisation from whom?
Was there a rebel AA battalion commander they should have checked with first and we don’t know about?
By whose standards was it easily checkable?
How do you know they could have checked?
Because you and I can check it doesn’t mean fighters in the middle of a conflict have the ability to do so.
I am sure they knew where they were or had a good idea. That means nothing in relation to what was flying above them.
The chance that an aircraft at that height was a Ukrainian ground attack aircraft (it seems unlikely that it would have been photo-recce if it was above cloud) seems to me to be approximately zero.
Exactly, it seems to you. We simply have no evidence on how it seemed to them. “them” being whoever fired the missile.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more airliners than Ukrainian air force aircraft flying over within range of their their missiles.
Perhaps there were, perhaps not. We have no evidence.
As far as I can see, they were shooting at anything they detected
Perhaps they were, I wouldn’t find that surprising at all. They were after all (if they indeed were the ones who fired) a rebel force.
despite knowing (& if not knowing, being criminally negligent, since it was, as I keep saying, information easily accessible to them) that there were lots of airliners up there.
Do you have evidence that they knew?
Do you have evidence that they could have known?
Forget that, do you have even the simplest of evidence that the people who fired the missile -and (a big and) if the missile is proved to have come from a BUK – were indeed trained to use it to its full potential and capability?
You keep saying that they were just a rag-tag bunch of rebels who couldn’t help it. ********! They weren’t children.
The only organised rebel forces so far were the ones organised by the “west” and in one instance the Viet Cong . Unfortunately no other rebel forces have ever been organised beyond broad strategic objectives.
No they weren’t children, but this is no evidence that they knew how to check if the target was an airliner.
BTW, what battle were they in? Was anyone bombing them, or anyone within the area they covered? Everything I’ve read says not.
I have no information on that. They could have been in no battle, they could have just come out of one, they may have been moving into one. They might have simply lay there trying to ambush fighters. We simply do not know.
As for the double sonic boom. I haven’t heard of a missile that does that. I think it was probably an echo of some valley or something.
FalconDudeAnd most of all, those who did the shooting down.
Your refusal to acknowledge their fault is astonishing. Are they close friends of yours?
Why are you losing your temper? What is it that motivates you in this matter? I tried a few times to explain that before you can assign fault to those who pulled the trigger you have to be able beyond reasonable doubt to prove that they knew it was an airliner!
If you want to go for criminal negligence, you have to be able to prove -again beyond doubt- that there was something they could do to identify the airliner, within their abilities, and they didn’t.
Your persistence pivots around the fact that you are dead set in the assumption that trained Russians operated the launcher. You will of course settle for trained -by the russians- rebels if the first can’t be proven.
That is what I am saying, all along! However I doubt in times of conflict one will ever be able to identify exactly what happened. At best a single person involved might surface. They may take the blame, they may not. What is so hard to grasp?
FalconDudeIt’s pretty much common knowledge now that the L-band arrays on the PAK FA are for IFF. Aside from resolution issues of L-band, because of the wavelength any meaningful L-band radar meant for detection and tracking won’t fit on the nose of a fighter.
No one ever claimed that stealth is a instant win button, but it’s still a very valuable tool to have.
The thing that always sat wrong with me was the target resolution of a hypothetical L-band radar on the slats of the plane. Not the size. Now that is clear(er) that the L-band is for IFF we perhaps shouldn’t dismiss the fact that an L-band IFF such as this may prove to be very useful for SA to the pilot.
perhaps it will not be tracking or targeting VLO targets, but it will be telling the pilot that there is something out there. Perhaps enough to mean the difference between life and death.
FalconDudemmm, in Thales’ website it indicates that the GM-400 has a “Digital Beam Forming”, I thought that is a characteristic that mainly exists in AESA/PESA radars. Now that is not conclusive but it is some clue.
FalconDudeLukos is gonna like this…
Families of German MH17 victims to sue Ukraine
(Reuters) – Survivors of German victims of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 downed over Ukraine plan to sue the country and its president for manslaughter by negligence in 298 cases, the lawyer representing them said on Sunday.
Professor of aviation law Elmar Giemulla, who is representing three families of German victims, said that under international law Ukraine should have closed its air space if it could not guarantee the safety of flights.
“Each state is responsible for the security of its air space,” Giemulla said in a statement emailed to Reuters. “If it is not able to do so temporarily, it must close its air space. As that did not happen, Ukraine is liable for the damage.”
More here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-germany-idUSKBN0HG08520140921
It doesn’t surprise me. It is logical. It happens to agree with what I have been saying all along, but Ukraine is not the only responsible party. The airline and aviation authorities should be held accountable.
FalconDudeActionJacksonMan, I can understand you’re very upset that the Russians will shortly be series producing GaN-on-SiC MICs and amplifiers. As you know these are premium products compared to Al/GaN. However, it is very difficult to debate with someone who’s views are so russophobic that he wants to reinvent the periodic table to suite his (hurt) nationalistic feelings.
When you have answered (upon the 5th time of asking) the power output question for the current GaAs PAs on the NO36 (it’s here @ 01:42):
…then we’ll discuss «Многоцветник-18», which are S-band PAs with a minimum output of 250W, the end user and whether or not they too are GaN-on-SiC. Here’s a big hint:
http://www.svetlanajsc.ru/images/projects/16_.jpg
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/48135/
has this been posted before?
http://www.janes.com/article/42765/indian-air-force-unhappy-at-progress-of-pak-fa-fifth-gen-fighter
FalconDudeNope. The only bit of Africa I’ve flown over is Egypt, & there was no war at the time. Though there have been wars in Africa where SAMs have been used, e.g. the use of SA-6 by Polisario. You’re flaunting your ignorance again, & making false assumptions because you don’t know facts.
And who said “major”, or “both sides”? You’re narrowing your criteria, with no justification.
No, I am using my ignorance. I clearly said “You are obviously referring…”, a phrase that shows I made an assumption based on what you told me, but I could be wrong.
I am also using my ignorance as you call it, by putting my “assumptions”, thoughts and questions together to try and put something forward. If we take your previous reply for example, you are making a vague reference to Egypt but you are not telling us -and thus correct my ignorance on your flight patterns issue- where and when you flew over war zones were capable SAM weaponry was used.
But have you or haven’t you is not the issue at hand here.
I repeat, if we remain as unbiased as possible, the story begins with the plane overflying a war zone. It doesn’t begin with the person who pressed the firing switch.
FalconDudeI’ve flown over war zones, more than once, the first time 30 years ago. So have many millions of other people. When the side shooting at aircraft doesn’t have anything that can reach an airliner at cruising altitude, it’s completely normal – & safe.
The rebels were losing because of superior Ukrainian numbers, not because they were ‘rag-tag’. You are ignoring the copious evidence that they were remarkably well-equipped for an instantly formed ‘rebel’ army, & the indisputable fact that they had numerous Russian citizens – from Russia, not with connections to Ukraine – fighting in their ranks, including senior commanders. Where is Igor Girkin (‘Strelkov’) from? And what about political leaders? Where is Alexander Borodai from? Vladimir Antyufeyev?
You are obviously referring to 3rd world african conflicts mostly carried out with machetes, I doubt anyone flew above major conflicts were both sides were known to use anti-aircraft weaponry.
The rebels were losing, because they were rebels. Disorganised, ill equipped, not trained and with no proper chain of command to ascertain proper strategic goals and achieve them. Granted they had an overall plan, but not the ability to manage its parts effectively. These came about with help probably from outside, but not after the downing of the airliner as I suggested before.
I believe it was Girkin that commented on Russia not supporting as much as it should, but I could be wrong on the name.
As stated previously, at this stage, it seems more than likely that the plane was hit by a capable AA SAM, however who fired it and IF there was another plane or planes in the area remains to be seen and proven. Nothing more to be said really.
FalconDudeYes, I’d hold ISIS accountable, just as I hold them accountable for cutting off the heads of journalists & aid workers. I don’t give them a free pass because they are rebels. We are responsible for our actions.
The allegation of another plane shooting down the 777 is a testable statement of an alleged fact. It is not in the same category as “we are a properly constituted army of a properly constituted state”, which is a statement of how they wish to be regarded. I’m surprised that you mix them up. I treat them differently because they are in different classes.
The DNR forces could do things to avoid shooting down an airliner, & they didn’t. They could have taken note of the fact (easily checkable) that airlines were continuing to route aircraft over E. Ukraine. They could have checked routes in real time. Anyone with internet access can do this, & we know that they had access. They’re tweeting, e-mailing etc. all the time.
BTW, why do you try to lay the blame for the routing entirely on Ukraine? Why not MAS? Other airlines chose to re-route. Is it because you are hostile to one, but not the other?
You continually emphasise the claimed ‘rag-tag’ nature of the DNR/LNR forces. Why? In some respects they’re better equipped than the Ukrainian army. They certainly seem better trained. We know that lots of them are ex-Russian army, many with recent (as in up to immediately before transferring) experience. I believe ‘rag-tag’ is a false description. Certainly, there are disorganised elements within them, but why would those elements be trusted with the DNR/LNR’s best weapon against the Ukrainian air force? Doing that would be criminal negligence, in my opinion.
BTW, most of the Ukrainian fighters were shot down at low levels. MH17 was shot down a few thousand metres higher than any Ukrainian aircraft, & a few thousand metres higher than the Su-25s which had been ‘falling down like flies’ could get to.
1. I never said it was the Ukrainians fault (or solely their fault) I said repeatedly that “whoever allowed the plane ” was responsible , whoever those may be.
2. They were rag tag and up until a few weeks ago they were losing. The tide was turned with Russian support but that is after the downing not before. And there is also the interesting claims by former rebel leader that Russia didn’t actually help them and they felt betrayed. Not sure how valid or not these claims are, but I throw them in the mix anyway.
3. The fact that the fighters were hit with manpads is of no consequence, the airspace was part of a war zone. Not to mention that the possession of more capable AA was known.
FalconDudeYou’re misrepresenting what I said. I did not say absolute responsibility. I said main responsibility.
Do you think they should not be judged by what they claim to be? If they demand recognition as a properly constituted army of a properly constituted state, then that’s how they should be judged. And what about their Russian commanders & the numerous Russian ‘volunteers’ who’d served in the Russian army, some of who went over on hot transfers? Didn’t they have doctrines & a procedural background? I thought that was the point of them. They’re trained & experienced. Do you think the Buk crew was a bunch of random new recruits?
I’m not asking for them to be held to higher standards than the USN. I think the USN behaved in a disgusting manner by letting the captain of Vincennes get away with shooting down an airliner. He should have been thrown out of the service at least, & preferably imprisoned. I also do not believe that one piece of criminal negligence excuses another, which appears to be the basis of your argument.
I am sorry if you feel I misrepresented what you said. I say corrected that you meant main responsibility.
Either way that is not the case. The ISIS rebels declared a state too. Does that mean that if they down an airplane we should hold them to the same standards of accountability as a proper state? Of course not. Rebels may say whatever advances their political claim. That doesn’t make it necessarily true.
They said another plane downed that airliner and you thought that was a groundless claim, they claim they are a proper army and you say this is a grounded claim. Why ? You either treat all their claims the same or none at all.
I stated before, the 95% chance is that the rebels downed the plane. But the criminal negligence you mention lies with others. Not the rebels. Criminal negligence implies that they could do things to avoid the accident and they didn’t. To claim that, you have to be in a position to prove that they could in fact do something. Because if the guys who fired the missile where merely pressing buttons without full knowledge of the capabilities of the AA system they are not criminally negligent.
On the other hand the rebels clearly demonstrated their ability and willingness to shoot down hostile fighters used against them in the days leading to the 777 incident. This is beyond dispute as the Ukrainian fighters were falling down like flies.
Despite this, demonstrated and advertised -for propaganda- reasons ability of the rebels, the airspace was not closed/ restricted to airliners.
Who in your honest opinion can be held responsible for criminal negligence?
A rag tag rebel force that got its hands on some advanced weaponry or the ones who knew it and allowed normal civilian traffic to pass through disregarding the threat this advanced weaponry posed?
Eager to hear your thoughts…
FalconDudeThe US navy shooting down of an Iranian airliner was gross incompetence, appallingly bad command (the official report refers to “hysteria” in the command centre), & the failure to punish the captain was scandalous. But there was one aspect of it lacking in this case: the crew believed (wrongly, but sincerely) that the aircraft they shot down was a direct threat to them, personally, & they had only a very short time to react before they could be attacked by it.
This, however true, doesn’t take away anything from the question. All this -as you say- happened IN the US Navy, but you expect better from a rebel force that exists but a mere few months as an entity? More over you feel they should be responsible, absolutely for the downing of the plane as if they are a proper army with doctrines and a procedural background that somehow went wrong and hence the ****-up.
As I said, fair enough, your opinion is stated.
FalconDudeAh. So we mustn’t apply to them the standards they claim, i.e. that they are the properly constituted armies of two independent states? And obviously, their armies being led by Russians (as in from Russia), who were sufficiently under Russian control for them to be recalled to Moscow when Putin thought it expedient, does not indicate that the Russians are behind them, any more than the Russian army units which have assisted them?
Come off it, mate! I criticised the rubbish websites some here have linked to for imagining that everything that happens in the world is a result of a vast interlocking web of conspiracies – but I specifically stated that there are conspiracies, just not on the scale, or of the type, that those loonies imagine.
IF I Was trying to get the world to take my new state seriously, I’d invest a trivial sum in making sure any high-altitude SAMs I possessed were properly controlled. That’s all it takes: a trivial sum, & a tiny bit of care, to avoid shooting down airliners. It’s very very easy indeed.
One of the most well trained navies in the world made the same mistake in far better conditions and you are suggesting that a rebel force can do it easily?
Fair enough, your opinion is stated.
FalconDudeWhat? You deny that it was easy to check on airliners overflying E. Ukraine? Or what?
If I were in their shoes I wouldn’t either! You are approaching this as if there are two organised sides fighting. One side is a rebel force. Regardless of how we feel about any given rebel cause one cannot expect rebel forces to act like that.
Perhaps you feel this way because you feel the Russians are behind everything. For someone who doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories, that is contradictory.
The politics of the situation have nothing to do with this, no one in their right mind would expect rebels to follow proper engagement and weapons loose protocols or even behave in a coherent fashion or even be consistent !!
The only thing they did (if it is proven they did) was mistakenly identify a target. As tragic as it is, it is not the first time and it won’t be the last.
FalconDudeEqual? Certainly not! It can be criticised for not issuing stronger warnings, or closing that area, but it most certainly is not equally liable.
The main responsibility lies with those who shot down the aircraft. The Ukrainian government didn’t make them do it. It was their choice. The next greatest responsibility lies with those who supplied the SAM system. If the operators lacked the ability to distinguish between airliners & military aircraft, & didn’t even have the sense to check airline flights (easily done, even in the field, in these days of mobile communications) they shouldn’t have been trusted with anything so dangerous.
It was a matter of public record that there were many airliners flying over eastern Ukraine, & they could be tracked pretty much in real time.
I am sorry, this is pretty biased
FalconDudeIt is not a matter of selecting sources that fit one’s preconceptions, but one of selecting sources on the grounds of likely reliability, irrespective of whether ot not these might conform to any existing preconceptions.
Similar to the WMD in Iraq ? To the danger that Assad posed for the west in Syria while he is now the only one fighting the ISIS ? How about the stability that toppling Gadafi would bring to Libya ?
This is not a personal comment, more of a generic -state of the world right now comment-
I trust noone. There are no trustworthy sources this day and age. Most are suspicious of pushing an agenda. The reader has to form their own mind using and filtering as much as possible.
Sign In
