TomcatViPJust in passing there is some nonsense being spread that a Ukranian SU25 was in the area and could have downed the airliner with a missile over the rebel territory to implicate them.
Then somebody pointed out that the service ceiling of an SU25 was insufficient to allow this
Today the Wikipedia entry on SU25 has been locked from editing after attempts to alter its performance details
Moggy
In that hypothesis, the question that remains is why a Su25 would hve been flying at such unusual height. For what kind of mission ? with what sort of payload ? Shadowing an airliner for a safe reco ? At that height it would have required an external pod with excellent optical quality. Does UkrAF hve such equipment ? A modified one. An external sourced ? And then, why did they took the risk to operate their An26 before? So was the hypothetical 25 a last ditch effort after the shotdown ?
If so that raised another set of question.
Won’t it hve been in the interest of the UkrAF to let the civilian traffic flow even by disregarding the security of those overflight (that they are responsible as it was their Airspace and they are the one granting overflight authorization?
As we see the implication of that second shadowing contact, if true, raise a new set of question, for the MH17, and for the future of commercial flight:
Does a nation committed to war can still be granted responsibility for any commercial overflight of its territory by the world community ?
Last bu not least, the weather over Donetz that day was cloudy. Not really precise source of info, but it’s a first row:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230490[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230491[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPAdd to the list the “diffuser” at the wings root and the remarkable full carbon structure for the fuselage (there is some pic on the thread).
it’s a neat design. The Tucano (if not improved) is likely to see its last years of sales.
TomcatViPDevelopments in Plasma Technology
Thought I’d move this to its own thread as the topic is interesting and has the potential to massively impact the future of flight. It would be good to compile a list of developments that have occurred over the previous few decades.
Upon hearing about the development of LM’s proposed SR-72, I began looking for any information to get a clue as to how far along hypersonics development had matured, searching for DARPA RFI’s, patents, etc.
What I found around the period of 2005 was that there were numerous patents lodged by the major US aircraft manufacturers for their propulsion concepts, but more interestingly there were a similarly large number of patents filed for plasma technology for augmenting aircraft aerodynamics and propulsion.
As an initial post, the list below contains a few interesting patents for plasma based propulsion and airflow control systems. One of these claims that the system can effectively negate aerodynamic drag using a system of plasma airflow injection and electromagnetic accelerators on an aircraft’s surface, in fact it can turn the aircraft’s skin into a part of the propulsion system.
The patent claims the system can be used to perfectly control airflow into a a jet engine and can eliminate the need for moving control surfaces as airflow around the aircraft can be controlled using the solid state system. Apparently the system is quite small so one wonders if something like this can be retrofitted to existing aircraft.
Here’s a couple of LM’s patents from around that time, will dig up the Northrop and Boeing ones when I have a little time.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230021[/ATTACH]
Some are unrelated to aircraft applications, but the main ones of interest are:
8.006.939 (controlling airflow using plasma accelerators) – 2006
8.453.457 (plasma thrust vectoring) – 2009
8.242.404 (plasma jet design) – 2010
8.523.115 (Boundary layer flow control) – 2011Has anyone heard of similar developments from other nations perhaps?
An interesting picture:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230478[/ATTACH]
To compare with:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230479[/ATTACH]
😡
TomcatViPI thought this thread deserves some cool pics:
ADVENT
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230476[/ATTACH]
And the most gorgeous in my view 🙂
HEETE
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230477[/ATTACH]
(But this last one is for a persistent UCAV)
Photos are extracted from the TM memo posted earlier on another thread
TomcatViPTomcatViPMoney. Commitments. Cost vs fractional buy (every country had their own Ponies to push frwd).
By the way, the frele (fragile) Gazelle did a really good job (see the french Air mobility operation in Desert Storm) despite its lack of armor. I think it even scored more “kills” during the latest Lybian intervention than the so-called Attack helo’s deployed by Fr.
The Bo105 was an awesome ride also (see RedBull demo). Perhaps even better than anyone else in its category. So, as for the Gaz, their perfs made for the lack in offensive cap.
So the answer is cost and commitment in a NATO program.
But by the way, in the early 80’s the Cobra was a logical choice in term of cost and perfs. So I guess that the story have the same meanings that what we see today with the 35 .
OMG, I just used the EuroDevil nbr! 😮
Quick quick three RafaleNoster !
TomcatViPWeather we debate what and who did this terrible act, or not
No one can deny its grand political meaning.
If Russia is directly responsible for putting BUK equipment and crew training into the hands of Rebels.
Then there is no telling how much worse this new cold front between NATO and Russia will go..It might seems like lack of respect for the lost ones, but the thruth is out there and as of now are yet to be found.
Hold down Hold down Haavarla. You are mixing two different things.
First there is a war raging on since several months (how ugly it is that I can’t remember the starting day). This is a war incident, as tragic as it is. One that will need a rightful inspection of events to see who were responsible and who should be brought in front of Justice.
Then there are responsibility of those that let that chaos getting even more messy. If – Notice that we have no facts so far – the government of Putin ordered that Buk to be smuggled in Rebel hold territory, then it’s in violation with its engagement. Harder sanction are to be expected in reprisal. On his discharge, one have to take into account that non of the Ukr authorities agreed to stop using their Air force to directly bomb their opponents. If fact, they used it (naturally) as a strategic assets.
You can’t ask ppl to be bombed and not respond to it. What could have even been a strong point to deescalate the conflict is a no fly zone (bomber), yes let’s call it, by mutual agreement. It was not done at my knowledge. So if we start here to finger point culprits, all of us have two hands: here and there.
Then there is the WHY a commercial plane was authorized to fly with 300 passengers over a conflict zone where dayS before a plane was shot down at high alt giving CLEAR indications that something was able to reach a typical airliner flight. It’s holidays season in Eu, I have in mind that the answer is somehow lying there. That’s how stupid things happens.
Without downsizing the “rebel” responsibilities (the officer in charge of the SAM system shld be brought in front of the justice – there is no question about that – and perhaps their commander asking for “results” perhaps in disregard of safe engagement rules) but SAM’s are not banned by the Geneva convention. Bombed pll tend to fire back with any means (remember the Vietcong trained to shoot back at aircraft with riffles ?). That is how the things are in any war until the end of times (very sadly).
So, let’s keep our heads cool and work around the events with the facts that are at our reach.
TomcatViPIt just makes no sense for the Ukrainian Air Force to escort civilian airliners since they would simply in the first place forbid any civilians flight over the area and reroute them. Even the airlines, especially foreign airlines, wouldn’t be stupid enough to fly over an area that the Ukrainian Armed Forces deemed dangerous enough to require fighter escorts.
Best regards,
I agree completely. Civilians don’t fly “escorted”.
Anyhow I am still so puzzled that no ban of overflight was imposed AT LEAST after the An26 was shotdown at 6.5m, that I don’t see why any passengers that have been routed through that area after that date don’t file a case in court.
Why, for example, did AirFrance change their route when their sister-airline KLM did not ?
Ukr conflict is not central Africa or a fight against Taliban. From day one, two opposite side of a prof military organisation are facing each other with materials far out-ranging a simple AK47
TomcatViPCorrect it is an Antonov. The footage is from the 6th June when an An-30 was downed.
Thx for the correction. Will delete my entry commenting the vid.
TomcatViPEDITED: see TEEJ coment bellow.
On the other hand :
Check out the New York Times site: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html?_r=0
Apart from Malaysian Airlines, other airlines like KLM, Thai Airways and Lufthansa were routing aircraft over the area. British Airways and Air France avoided the area.
Anyone with access to ATC data ought to know airliners were passing overhead – regularly. Anyone with rudimentary aircraft identifying skills would know.
I don’t understand how that flight was scheduled to pass via a closed air-route. The NY Time state that the route was closed hours before. What I understand is that at the time of MH17 overflight Ukr, the Russian portion of the route was alrdy closed.
Something went really wrong there.
TomcatViPThat’s what I thought aswell but apparently everyone was flying over eastern Ukraine until a few hours ago. Cynically you could say only when the insurance companies announced they wouldn’t cover for any losses there, they stopped.
Also showing the charred bodies in various media outlets is really distasteful.RIP.
Don’t want to make this thread turns philosophical, but we have a serious problem in Eu. A war raging on. Eu committed heavily on political grounds. Incoherent behavior from both side. High level of weaponry disseminated all over the battlefield… And we let companies fly all over the place ?! This have never happened over Serbia. Nor in Lybia. Neither in Irak… And Ukr is not that large as a territory to justify for the risk.
So the second question is what made Malaysia the unexpected target. What are the similarities if any?
TomcatViPThere are few videos of the crash on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fjpB5gw3iM from RussiaToday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyxIiW9m2mM from CNN
notice falling debris long after main part(s) of the plane hit the ground ,debris scattered over very big area (which IMHO indicates midair disintegration of the plane)
Let’s wait for the press to get a chance to interview some witnesses. But size of footprint and trajectory could give IMOHO an idea of what kind of missile hit the plane. A 777 is a big solid airplane.
TomcatViPThat print screen is a fabrication(Russian information war?) .Look at the real data from flightradar24
https://twitter.com/flightradar24?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2014%2F07%2F17%2Fflight-radar-ukraine-crash-malaysia_n_5596574.html&tw_i=489843455192227840&tw_p=tweetembed
thx.
So there is a possibility that we have some witnesses of the incident (missile streak – glowing fire ball – trajectory of the plane going down).
TomcatViPIATA on #MH17: “Based on the information currently available…airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”
yes. On the BBC:
The head of the Russian Air Traffic Controllers’ Union, Sergei Kovalyov, told BBC Russian that the airspace over eastern Ukraine had remained open during the conflict because the planes previously shot down had tended to be helicopters or low-flying fast jets.
Sign In
