Starfish PrimeIf the UK did this Starfish damn right I’d want to see someone jailed and, if necessary, in the Hague for it. As I’ve detailed already our forces have been in that shoot/no shoot situation and, despite operational pressures, didn’t fire!. We’ve further taken the steps of removing certain weapons systems from service that could give rise to RoE complexities. We have demonstrated, to my satisfaction, in thought and deed that we don’t do this sort of thing. That is my concern….that we are, and remain, professional enough to not be worried about such prosecutions because we get it right. Not that we ‘get off with them’ if they happen.
Your analogy is getting ever more tortured and obscure. There was no-one else immediately in the area on a threat profile. MH17 wasnt on a threat profile. Going by the COMINT intercepts cited by others there was absolutely no claim that the rebels believed they were about to come under air attack from the MH17 track. They fired because they thought they were hitting a target previously out of reach. They very deliberately established a lock and fired a missile at a target they didnt have the tools to identify. Bluster, obfuscate, whine about unfairness, point fingers at the Americans all you like. Its all meaningless. You dont shoot a missile, under zero threat conditions, at something that you dont have an ID on.
Until it actually happens of course. Much easier when you have aircraft too.
How do they know that? Fact is they couldn’t ID it and there wasn’t supposed to be an airliner there at that time. What the hell is a threat profile these days. Buk range isn’t that great, certainly well with Kh-58 range.
Well there you’ve just admitted it was an accident. They didn’t have the tools to ID it.
Zero threat conditions? No such thing in a war zone.
Starfish Primeif you have no sensor that can see the target, your HMD has no clue it is there and displays nothing.
It is a display showing you what the system can tell you, just like an MFD that’s mounted in the instrument panel. The difference is that HMD is mounted in the pilot’s helmet, but what it can display is the same as what an MFD can display – data provided by the aircraft, and, more specifically, the type of data that you programmed it to display. The source is always external to the display device, be it in the instrument panel or on your head. If you can’t grasp something so simple, I can’t help you (and probably nobody else here can)
But if the pilot knows it’s there, RWR or Mk1 eyeball, they can direct it using HMD.
I’m not debating on symbology displayed on HMD, and the manufacturer backs me up on this. The aircraft knows where the HMD is pointing and can direct an ASRAAM around at this angle, after which the seeker takes responsibility for acquiring the target.
In WVR mode on Flankers there is no sensor pointing out at 75deg, the IRST is restricted to a scan within the HUD region (at least it was circa 2000). The pilot uses the HMD to direct the missile seeker to the aircraft. Only difference here, is that the lock happens pre-launch. With ASRAAM it can happen post-launch too.
Starfish PrimeThe sensor(s) of another F/A-18 illuminating the target and feeding the track to the shooter by the Link 16 datalink. That’s how this OTS shoot occurred, and that’s how the Rafale/MICA couple did the same thing (without any HMD).
No such thing occurred. The HMD cues the missile, the missile swings around and the seeker acquires the target autonomously. Brimstone MWR can do the same thing when loft fired over mountains.
Starfish PrimeInlet cone is also a fixed inlet if the cone itself doesn’t move to match the shocks.
Go tell that to MiG, Sukhoi, Boeing etc engineers. Latest F-15E variants, Su-35 MiG-35 are still built with ramps, they must be wasting their time.
You are basing your assumptions on a “likely” which isn’t shared by the manufacturer.
No I don’t think so, just like I don’t find M2.5 limit of F-15 “too rounded” to claim it is “likely” to be M2,67 or something…
AF statements do make mistakes, and sometimes they are too negligent to check&update their website. The very fact that German UK and Austrian airforces give different numbers for exact same aircraft should at least make you question a little bit.
On some regards Official military websites DO give erroneous information. A particular Sovremenny destroyer Russian Navy website claims as operational doesn’t even have a engine inside it.
Ah but there are reasons for it. too much hp&torque = more taxes & insurance costs, less buyers. too little hp and torque = underpowered vehicle, less buyers. But I don’t recall any car that has “underrated” top speed or acceleration. Because faster is always better, and no one will inflate their emissions, because higher emissions is always a bad thing (both for environment and for taxes).
Well, that is frankly irrelevant. its airframe + engine limit is M2,83. Given the cold enough air like -15 or so, I am 100.00% sure a Su-27 can do M2,5+ without any modifications, but its not safe at all, an sure as hell this is not its top speed.
MiG-25 has too much exess thrust at around M2,83 but that only helps it to overcome the additional drag comes from payloads, so it could still fly at M2,7 with 4x500kg bombs.. This doesn’t make its top speed a tad faster than M2.83.
Yes. PW-100 engined like I’ve said. Without Vmax of course, meaning no 102% trim. Risking destruction of engines is not exacly an apples to apples comparison with Su-27.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248674[/ATTACH]Though you reposted a graph probably either me or poster Eagle first posted on this forum, I thank you that it perfectly proved my point that no F-15A/C/E can reach M2.5 on level flight at standard day, despite M2.5 is often quoted as its top speed. Kind of proving my point that M2.35, even if it may be true, may only be the top limit speed but not the actual top speed…
A book printed in 2002, giving info for an aircraft introduced into service in 2003. We are in 2016 and that book contradicts with everything else that doesn’t quote it as source. Great one.
Speaking of DRY thrust, it obviously have far greater supersonic T-D. It doesn’t show anything else about optimisation or anything you spit on this forum. For the 13049134th time you are comparing an two different engines, in a flight regime one engine simply isn’t designed for.
But its way faster at high altitudes, so climb rates at upper half of the envelope must be better? Funny to see you claim superior performance based on top speed, then get back to real world to type some “excuses” when your “proof” can lead to much more interesting conclusions.
“Climbing” does not equate to “climb rate”. I didn’t say how fast it could climb, I’ve asked for your explaination about a given “climb rate”. Don’t try to twist this as well.
Ah I thought we were talking about climb rate. For climbing to an altitude/speed point, I’ve *PROVED* an F-16 (with not THAT spectacular climb or acceleration performance) can quite match (or exceed) both
“Brakes-off to supersonic acceleration: <30 s”
“Brakes-off to Mach 1.6 at 11,000 m (36,000 ft): <150 s”Too lazy to quote myself, did the calculation in the past, a forum search would do it. Or better, don’t take my word for it, sum up the values yourself; here’s the relevant pages I am reposting:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248669[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]248670[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]248671[/ATTACH]
You don’t have to do a guess work for optimal climb&acceleration path. Just accelerate to M0,9 @ S/L, climb to 30k feet then accelerate to M1,6. This rather oversimplified flight path will still yield quite interesting results.
Well, I still don’t see it as a ramp intake. In way-too-much laymans terms, ramp moves itself as such to make oblique shock “seal” the inlet. By doing so, when that shock expands, the “inlet side” of the shock has higher than atmospheric pressure but an exact M1.0 speed. If the oblique shock doesn’t align with the inlet area air still slows down, but for pressure recovery its not exactly useful.
Ramp intake = F-14/15 Su-27 MiG-25/29/31 etc etc.
Splitter plate, aircraft’s nose, wings, canopy rudders, even F-18’s LERX all cause oblique shocks. Otherwise calling a splitter plate an inlet ramp is simply WRONG even if a Dr. Engineer from Chrysler Aerospace claims as such.
If splittler plate is considered a “fixed ramp”, then F-16/18C, Rafale, B-1B etc all have fixed ramps.
I didn’t argue with your point because it did not matter.
Su-27 has variable inlet ramps with M2.35 top speed. Su-34 really did have a fixed inlet ramp (that is ramps welded in a certain angle) and its top speed is M1,8.
Exact same thing applies to B-1A -> B-1B, Su-24A -> Su-24B and some tornado variants, even F-14D.
You were talking about stagnation pressure, when you kept calling it “total” pressure. It did not matter in any case, because “dynamic” part of stagnation pressure is necessarily fixed by the intake velocity demanded by the engine. If its M0,6 it has to be at M0,6. So the actual variable on that part is the static pressure.
I didn’t bother going on with that discussion because P01 and P02 are arbitrary points. What is 01 and what is 02? If *I* were to name those in an inlet analysis, 0 would be atmospheric, 01 and 02 would represent pressures after shock#1 and shock#2. Its definately not so in your case, and its up to your source to properly mention WHAT those numbers represent.
Show me it can? Better yet, provide an dynamic Thrust data for ANY aircraft that has a fixed inlet, yet has impressive enough thrust to prove Typhoon *may* have good enough T/W at supersonic?
Your comment is as idiotic as claiming painting the aircraft gray demonstrates how fast the aircraft is.
IF being the appropirate word there. Again neither you or I have info about that. But mk1 eyeball observation.
Typhoon: idle = nozzles expanded. pilot increases thrust for take off:
First, nozzles close, then they start to expand, then afterburners lit. This early expension tells us (me at least) flow becomes supersonic after some point inside dry thrust.MiG-29: idle = nozzles expanded just like Typhoon. Pilot increases thrust:
Nozzles close, remain closed as we see black smoke increase, then afterburner is lit and right at the same time nozzles start to expand. This tells us nozzles work in convergent on whole dry thrust regime and only con-di at wet thrust.Now thrust is not only about velocity it has a pressure component as well, and skin friction and shocks from the body of the aircraft actually slow the air to quite subsonic esspecially near M1.0 airspeeds (that is why its called transonic), so MiG-29 can go a tad above M1.0 (M1.04 to be exact).
I don’t know I didn’t design RD-33. I would suspect however, not “just because” of nozzles. It has to provide sufficent velocity or pressure on DRY thrust at first to allow a nozzle converge enough so it can generate supersonic thrust. Without changing the design of engine itself, a simple nozzle modification won’t give supercruise ability.
As for T-D, I’ve never claimed MiG-29’s drag to be lower than Typhoon at supersonic regime. For all I know, MiG-29 is designed primarily for subsonic high manuevebility, and Typhoon is for supersonic. It would be very stupid to claim Typhoon would have higher drag at supersonic than MiG-29; about as stupid as claiming Typhoon would have less drag than Su-27/MiG-29/F-16 etc at subsonic, esspecially at lower altitudes.
You were making up horse**** based on “superior T/W” magic. I’ve shown MiG-29 has way greater T/W on some parts of envelope. At the very least, I’ve PROVED uninstalled thrust can NEVER be a basis of thrust comparison between aircraft. Nothing more nothing less. You could have accepted this like a man, but you immediately twisted your argument to Climb rate.
That didn’t make sense, climb rate is still best before wavedrag and around M0,85-M0,9 is subsonic, part of envelope MiG-29 will have similar or less drag and a higher thrust than Typhoon. Then, again instead of accepting this, you twisted your argument to top speed and supercruise.
In that area you could have sticked to manufacturer data, but you couldn’t do it because it didn’t fit your propoganda. Instead, you took your one top speed from Austrian airforce which could easily be an error on web designer’s part because NO ONE ELSE claims as such, and second (sea level) top speed you quote a source, who quotes 2002 book of “llustrated Directory of Fighters by Mike Spick”. Quoting an 2002 book is esspecially funny for an aircraft entered into service in 2003..
Su-35 has greater thrust than Su-27 yet manufacturerer says it is slower. That is good enough for me. Typhoon manufacturer says Typhoon is slower than MiG-29, and that is also good enough for me. I don’t care at all if that isn’t good enough for you, if you have to nitpick something else that says faster, just to prove yours is bigger in a pissing contest, that is your own inferiority complexity to deal with.
Yes but it still produces an oblique shock before the normal shock, which is far superior to a normal shock. This is aerodynamics 101, there’s no way you have a degree, show me evidence.
F-22 isn’t, F-35 isn’t, EF isn’t, Rafale isn’t, Gripen isn’t, J-20 isn’t, PAK-FA probably isn’t. Get the picture.
Actually it is, BAE states 1,522mph, EADS stated M2+. M2.0 only came up due to lifetime durability consideration of the air frame material. It was never a T-D limit.
F-15 was stated at M2.5+. F-22 as ‘Mach 2 class’.
Operational norms for different air forces differ.
Not at all, all the vehicles I’m thinking of are top brackets for road tax and insurance.
Top speed is always quoted clean and in the remit we’re discussing (climb rate), it’s the T-D trend that’s important, not the actual structural integrity.
Well the other trim figures are for short of 100%, so I would argue the 102% trim is the most valid. And it’s not necessary it would risk the engines. Adding a little more fuel to the reheat does not risk the crucial core components at all.
Once again, the flight manuals are always 100%. Data is very often estimated. Eagles have gone over M2.5 in practice.
Like what? The performance data would have been well known by that time.
Surely the MiG-29’s variable geometry intakes should help in supercruise, yet the Typhoon still manages 50% more. How embarrassing.
Idiotic analogy. The MiG-29 and Typhoon weigh the same. The MiG-25 weighs far more and has a much lower TWR. High altitude climb rate does not equal low altitude peak climb rate. Up there the air is thin and being able to fly faster produces more lift.
You’re the one twisting it Mr. ‘Fixed ramps are the same as pitot’. Given that the subject was peak climb rate, you should have said SEP, if you wished to distinguish between the two. In the context at hand, the sentence was wrong.
Haha, depends on what weights and configurations we look at.
Okay I’ll bite, your SL acceleration table starts at 200kts. So you can add at least 12s to all those times. The HL acceleration table is also at the wrong altitude. But starting at basic aircraft weight of 20,168lb, 30,000lb GW (DI=0), gives up the closest match on fuel fraction (32.X% for both a/c). Extrapolation, that puts the 200kts to M0.91 time at 24.5s, so add 12s for 0-200kts and you have 36.5s, this also still excludes the altitude change during lift off and landing gear raise. Now begins the climb. 70s for 35,000ft. and 80s for climb to 40,000ft, so ~72s for climb to 36,000ft. That puts us at 108.5s. Extrapolate between 28,000lb and 32,000lb and we get 75s for M0.91-M1.62. Giving at total of 183.5s, or just under 3 minutes, so Typhoon is >33.5s faster.
In fact, even if the Tyhoon starts at rest and the F-16C starts at 200kts, the Typhoon still gets to M1.6 at 36,000ft >20s quicker. Nice example. Ooooh, and BTW, you do know the top speed of the F-16C is M2.05. Still doubt that M2.35 and that whole >M2.0 thing?
A ramp will create an oblique shock. This will not slow down air to subsonic, it slows it down to a lower supersonic Mach number, following which a normal shock slows it to subsonic. The deceleration to subsonic is always via a normal shock regardless of the intake, however if you do it from a very high Mach number, you lose a lot of total pressure and it’s inefficient. If you apply 1 or more oblique shocks first it’s more efficient. Now a variable ramp will allow you to optimise your oblique shock, and two will allow you to optimise 2 oblique shocks etc. there’s ultimately no limit except weight and complexity. However a fixed ramp will still produce an oblique shock but it will only be the optimal oblique shock at one speed. However, it will still be better than a pitot’s 1 normal shock at any supersonic speed. By setting the fixed ramp for M1.3-M1.4, you can produce as near as damnit, the same performance at variable geometry up to M1.6 and several % better than pitot.
The Typhoon is not calling the splitter plate a fixed ramp.
Well it kind of did matter because you used a graph I posted showing total pressure ratio across two inlets to suggest that the MiG’s intake was superior because it increased pressure. Total pressure never increases in an inlet. P01 is the start of the intake, P02 is at the face of the engine. It is the part of the intake after the normal shock that slows air down to whatever the engine is designed for.
You really need me to prove something that is even present on RAM Air induction equipped sportsbikes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ninja_ZX-6R
96.4 kW (129.3 hp) @ 13,500 rpm (claimed)
101 kW (135 hp) @ 13,500 rpm (with RAM)
*This is at 100mph.
I’m shaking my head at this stage. You really have a degree.
Not really, it makes perfect sense in demonstrating the relationship between drag and thrust at low to intermediate supersonic speeds.
Well I’m not going to look, but if that’s the case it’s a very crap design and I struggle to believe the designers would be so stupid as to only have the con-di operational on reheat.
Well you were claiming the MiG-29 had a higher peak sustained climb rate, which is achieved at low supersonic speeds. So if you agree the Typhoon has lower drag supersonic and higher thrust, plus the same weight, it stands to reason that the Typhoon can beat it on climb rate.
You haven’t shown jack, because we don’t have thrust vs velocity graphs for the EJ200, but we do know they’re optmised for M0.9-M1.6. Because it obviously applies to climb rate. What is climb rate about if not TWR and drag?
Surely to achieve a climb rate (actual, not SEP) of 345m/s, it needs to be going supersonic, no? When Western sources quote climb rate, they mean actual climb rate, sustained at a given point, not a measure of SEP.
Well using your own data I’ve shown a Typhoon to reach 36,000ft and M1.6 much quicker than an F-16C, which can do M2.05. Enough said.
My money would be on the Su-35.
Starfish PrimeYou’re applying double standards. You wouldn’t want the UK military prosecuted under similar circumstances (I sure as hell wouldn’t).
Starfish PrimeNow read Hopsalots winningly concise and accurate outline on the limits of the laws of precedent….then stop trying to obfuscate and divert away from the core point.
That point being if the missile system was never put in the hands of those who, demonstrably, couldn’t use it safely then it matters not one whit what other events occurred or didn’t occur…..that airliner makes it to its destination safely.
Of course it isnt. There was no ‘intruder’ there when the shot was fired for starters. Using your analogy the homeowner, with poor eyesight, saw someone over the street, decided that it could be a potential home invader, and decided to kill him on the off-chance….took careful aim and fired. I’m no lawyer but that sounds fairly well thought through to me….which makes it murder.
His comment is massively off point. Murderers only ‘get away’ because of lack of evidence. There is no precedent of a court simply not pursuing the prosecution of a suspected murder. However, for Iran Air 655 incident, no prosecution was ever pursued BECAUSE it was not deliberate and therefore fell outside International Law on war crimes.
There had been multiple intruders there and targeting of town centres and residential areas with bombs and rockets. Actually it’s more like the homeowner had suffered multiple break-ins, his wife had been murdered and someone off the street decided to hedge-hop through his garden to take a short-cut rather than going the long way around as the law says they should. It was night time preventing visible ID and the homeowner had lost enough already so decided not to take any chances given that he lives in say Chicago/Detroit and during a period of severe rioting.
Starfish PrimeYou can look at it any way you like: an HMD is a “Head Mounted Display”… it shows to the pilot the information fed to it by the aircraft, period.
Yes, but it doesn’t need that information when firing an ASRAAM in a given direction. Otherwise the 5+km tail chase OTS shot mentioned here wouldn’t be possible. What sensor can see it 5km behind the aircraft in tail chase?
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html
To end this, a word from the manufacturer:
http://www.mbda-systems.com/air-dominance/asraam/
ASRAAM accepts target information via the aircraft sensors, such as the radar or helmet mounted sight but can also act as an autonomous infrared search and track system. The RAAF has demonstrated successful ‘over the shoulder’ firing in Lock On After Launch (LOAL) mode against target drones that were behind the wing-line of the launch aircraft.
ASRAAM provides the pilot with the ability to effectively engage targets from gun range
to near Beyond Visual Range. The pilot can identify the threat passively and cue the
missile using a Helmet Mounted Display, Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) or radar,
or it can be cued using third party targeting. The missile imaging infrared seeker allows
ASRAAM to fly out to the target passively.ASRAAM’s maximum range is uncontested, and no other short-range air-to-air missile
comes near to this capability, providing the ability to passively home beyond the limits
of visual range and well into the realm traditionally thought of as Beyond Visual Range.
Starfish Primeonce more, the HMD alone sees nothing.. it is the sensors outside that bring information from which you can choose what to shoot at. Unless you imagine that you as a pilot tell your missile “hey, go back and see if you find something” you have to admit that you launch at a target that is designated to the missile (even if the missile locks after launch, it has to know the whereabouts of what it’s after). To designate it, you need sensors that are part of your system, be it through aircraft sensors, missiles, pods, or through datalink (thanks Spudman, I forgot to speak about those).
The HMD doesn’t have to see anything. If the pilot points it in the direction, it can cue the missile. The direction is the ‘whereabouts’. Otherwise OTS shots would not be possible.
Starfish PrimeSo basically if anyone anywhere ever gets away with murder, nobody anywhere should ever be charged with murder.
Thanks for helping us all figure that out… real valuable contribution.
Only if you wish to twist the interpretation completely. ‘Murder’ is a premeditated act. This was not premeditated. People don’t ‘get away’ with murder, they get found not guilty if the evidence is insufficient. This incident was more akin to a home invasion, where someone fires a rifle at an aggressive intruder but it flies through the window and hits an innocent bystander across the street.
International law and war crimes legislation is not there simply for the convenience of prosecuting ‘the other side’. It is there to stop the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians. This does not fall under that category. An airliner diverted last minute, putting it in a position where it shouldn’t have been at that time, the rebels were unaware of this diversion and had been under sustained attack in the days prior. They mistook it for an enemy asset and targeted it. It was an honest mistake and even opposition radio intercepts prove that.
It may be difficult for friends and families of the deceased to accept that this was a mistake but the evidence is irrefutable.
Starfish PrimeNo MSphere just because an American wrongly gets away with something does not balance a Russian making the same kind of mistake. Stop being absurdly childish. Following your schoolyard logic then I assume the Vincennes CO was ok to commit his atrocity because of KAL007?. The Russians did that one first so….so….so there.
Don’t be so damned ridiculous!. This is a very clear case, going by the report, of a weapons system being provided out of the parameters of its normal deployment. Nothing else has a bearing here other than that single fact. No attempt to divert or obfuscate with idiot commentary on airspace control – RoEs exist for a reason and no formation without RoE currency should HAVE this class of weapons period!.
Falcondude,
Clearly someone in the rebel team wished to engage high value targets at a higher altitude than could be reached by their MANPADS and Strela10s.
The request was fulfilled by someone who you’d hope didn’t understand the correct operation of a system like Buk. The alternative is that the person supplying didn’t care if the unit engaged random tracks. Essentially ignorance or callous disregard.
Actually it does. In legal jargon it’s referred to as a precedent. The reason precedents are important is because they ensure the law is fair an impartial. Without adhering to precedents you have a corrupt and unbalanced system of law.
Starfish PrimeSummaries of the shooting of Igor
07/14/14. Message from the experts.
“Today the militia to kill AN-26 aircraft at an altitude of more enemy 6000 meters was SAM column contains” 9K37M1 “(better known as the” Buk “). Few weeks ago reported the capture of the militia of these systems. Now they are refurbished, manned and administered into operation. These complexes allow shoot down planes at altitudes above 4000 meters. Earlier militia was powerless against enemy aircraft flying at such heights as neither portable air defense missile system, no anti-aircraft Artillery work such heights can not. ”[ATTACH=CONFIG]230242[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]230241[/ATTACH]
An-26
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230243[/ATTACH]
Ongoing Search and rescue efforts
Plane was shot down at 6500m (BBC)
An26
8 pers on boardOther event reported on Fr media: a military column of armored vehicles and Tanks (100 to 200) crossed de Russian border toward Luhansk and Donetzk and hve been targeted on the way
But can’t find any other ref of that in other Media
Sources:
BBC.com <- video footage of the event
Reuters.com
FranceInfo.fr
Apparently there was no evidence of this according to the Dutch Safety Board Report.:stupid:
Starfish PrimeStarfish PrimeI too am an engineer by training, and have my own opinions of what I regard as proof. There is nothing sacrosanct about yours. But is an analyst or a defence academic simply a “suped-up journalist”? Certainly they work from similar source material, but there remains an unanswered question once posed by the editor of a well-known defence magazine:
If a journalist is a man who writes for an audience of tens of thousands, and a spy is a man who writes for an audience numbered in tens or hundreds, what do you call a man who writes for an audience of around a thousand? Or a man who writes a report commissioned by a defence company and intended for its internal use?
One major difference between the analyst and the journalist is that the latter works to a deadline, and can only spend a limited amount of time on each report. (A former Jane’s staffer told me that each of their reporters is expected to file four stories a day, and the late Bill Gunston once discussed with me the number of yearbook entries that he was expected to write, update, or check each month.)
I, on the other hand, work to deadlines that can be months away or even completely open-ended. In the days of the old Science Reference Library in London, I sometimes spent days on end in the basement bookstacks, jumping from one technical paper or magazine article to another in order to build up a good understanding of the latest trends in whatever specific defence technology was of interest to a client. One cannot do that sort of research and simultaneously meet Stakhanovite ‘productivity norms’.
Since this evidence would form part of the prosecution case in any relevant criminal trial(s) that may result from the JIT investigation, it is unlikely that we will see any fully-documented report from the JIT until after any such trials have been completed.
Having downloaded the DSB reports when they were first published, I kept no record of the relevant URLs. Why should I Google for them when you are equally capable of doing this?
You keep banging on about this, but produce no evidence to support it – only your personal hypotheses.
While it seems that comint is yet another subject on which you know next to nothing, but are prepared to erect rickety hypotheses, it is equally obvious that you have failed to read and understand my comments on this subject in posting #198
(Just for the record, although I have worked in EW, I have no training in comint, but do have a certain amount of ‘not in the public domain’ information on the subject. For example, recent European EW conferences have included an entire day devoted to the subject. So I have a fairly good general understanding of the current state of the art, including methods of exploiting a newly-discovered criminal or hostile network.)
Such naive questions are embarrassing to read. Given press reports that the rebels had captured an unserviceable TELAR, a functioning Russian TELAR on a Ukrainian low-loader could be explained away as being the now-repaired Ukrainian TELAR. It would have been pretty hard to explain away the presence of a full Buk system carried on Russian military-style low loaders.
You have got that right – instead of calmly and rationally discussing an incident which almost 300 inncocent people lost their lives, we are lost in a maze of off-topic irrelevancies such as
the Nuland recording
Donald Trump
a bombed the hospital in Afghanistan
Vincennes and the Iranian airliner
the attempted coup in Turkey
farmers in Zimbabwe
what the Saudis are doing in YemenThe long digression over the alleged presence on our forum of pro-Russian trolls was inconclusive, as might have been expected, but reminded me of the words of my great predecessor Mercurius Oxoniensis: “Otherwise, ’tis hardly to be believed that there are ninnies enough to go round.”
I’m at a disadvantage compared with folks who indulge in off-topic digressions, in suggestions of corrupt investigators and reports containing lies, and allegations that I and other forum posters are lying. The sight of recognisable warhead fragments recovered from one of the MH17 crash sites made the matter uncomfortably real for me, and not some cheap point-scoring game.
MH17 has occupied enough of my time over the last two years, and may demand more in the future. But for the moment, having offered up some of the facts (as I understand them), and commented (to the best of my ability) on the JIT evidence, I am ‘getting out of here’. I have one report to write for a client, then I am going to take several weeks of well-deserved R&R, during which I intend to think about no military topic later that the alleged misdeeds of King William the Bad (who probably owes his nickname to the literary trolls of his day).
Shouldn’t they produce a proper report first? In fact, why are there going to be trials? The evidence shows it was an accident, i.e. zero criminal intent. Holding trials over this and not doing the same for mistakes made by other air forces, armies or navies is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
That’s the point I’ve tried. I found this link but it’s broken. Don’t complain that I’ve not read something if you can’t find a valid link.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mh17-read-the-full-report-by-the-dutch-safety-board-a6692591.html
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
What do you call this at 0:18. This is evidence they actually had for the investigation. Combine that with the shoot down of the cargo plane and there’s more than just a suspicion of a SAM. The report lied.
Ha, it’s known that another plane was shot down, so one TELAR was bound to be without a missile. Where’s the TELAR that shot down the cargo plane? Unless you can conclusively prove that was a separate TELAR to the ones the photos, or prove something else shot it down, then that is reasonable doubt. Aside from that, a war crime requires intent. You have to make civilians the object of attack. They didn’t, they mistook a last minute diverted airliner as a military plane.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156
Not really. Western media had already shown huge convoys of Russian equipment ‘allegedly’ going over the border anyway. So you’re stuck with this half-way house of BS, which fits neither one version nor the other. Is there any particular reason the Russians should even hide their assistance given the open assistance provided by NATO to Ukraine? Nope. This is just a convenience you’re clinging to in order to explain away the inexplicable.
They’re not off-topic irrelevances because they’re the same damn thing, and people are talking about prosecutions for one and not the other. But then about every post you’ve made clearly indicates bias and falsehood.
Starfish PrimeWhat?
Starfish PrimeAre you going to show us your engineering degree again? Oh wait, that was Lukos….
You can make all the cheap remarks you like but the report stated that there was no evidence of a non-MANPADS SAM in the area prior to the incident and this is also the position of Mercurius:
Did you ever bother to read the final report of the Dutch Safety Board? I suggest that you read the section ‘5.3 Shootings involving military aircraft’ (pages 181-185). There was no information that a non-MANPADS SAM system was in rebel hands.
However the report actually included an intercept to indict the rebels that shows clear indication of such a SAM in the days prior to the incident (see 0:18). That coupled with the cargo plane shoot down is clear evidence of non-MANPADS SAMs in the area. So when the report and Mercurius says, “no indication of a non-MANPADS SAM,” it is quite clearly a bare-faced lie.
Sign In
