First of all operating a BUK is no job for unexperienced idiots that can only be done by trained personal so this personal can read the transponders of the aircraft they see. The civilian airliner had a transponder meaning it was distinctivley shown on the radar of the BUK system and any other rdar. A confusion is absolutley impossible, pure fiction.

What about the limited system of the Buk TELAR operating on its own? Add in the factor that the crew were convinced through faulty intelligence that the target could only be a Ukranian military aircraft. Consider that the crew and the rebels have no idea that civilian flights were regularly routing over their region and it all leads to a tragic mistake.

Source: “Buk Missile System Lethal, But Undiscriminating”–Aviation Week, including excerpted information from a 1998 interview with Buk designer Ardalion Rastov.

Summary: per Rastov, designer of Buk system: Buk was upgraded to accommodate independent engagement of targets (to avoid decoy tactics exploited by Israeli Air Force in the 70s). Buk normally receives IFF and NCTR from Snow Drift, but in Autonomous Mode (independent scan/track/illumination/fire), both modes are bypassed. This makes sense, since IFF and NCTR are on Snow Drift. In autonomous mode, it has radar only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MH17/comments/2blxwn/buk_missile_system_lethal_but_undiscriminating/cj7lejh

Originally from

http://aviationweek.com/defense/buk-missile-system-lethal-undiscriminating

Eliot Higgins is an insufferable little troll whose 15 minutes of fame was when the Russian government actually disregarded its own rule about not replying to accusations from non-state actors.

I wonder how happy he was, when he finally got a reply, his existence was actually noticed by the outside world.

LOL! It is amazing how the Russian establishment desperately need Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins to go away. Can you explain how even with that reply they got it so badly wrong? Come on this is the Russian Government! Surely in disregarding this rule they would have double-checked and triple-checked what they were sending to Bellingcat?

It is an epic fail of a response and as bad as the Russian military presentation trying to prove that the Buk on a truck video was filmed in Krasnoarmeysk. Again, come on this is the Russian establishment here and yet groups of amateur internet sleuths can run circles around them. I get that it is a mindset and that they need to desperately counter these amateur sleuths but why do they get it so badly wrong? It is just embarrassing!

Come on, seriously? They have a whole intelligence apparatus at their disposal and yet they can’t even work out that the spare tyre is located on the trailer and not the truck cab itself. I mean seriously and they use this as evidence? 🙂

Ministry of Foreign Affairs reply

Even if we leave out the important point that the Internet does not allow to “precisely” determine the date and route of a vehicle’s movement, it is clear that the photos show different vehicles. The quality of the images is artificially reduced to obscure this, but it is clear that the first photo shows a spare tire while the others don’t (apparently the spare tire just disappears and then pops up again). Apart from that, the technical features of the cabins clearly show these are indeed different vehicles.

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/articles/2016/04/22/the-russian-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-presents-its-evidence-of-mh17-fakery/

The same goes for the match-up of the location of the images and videos. Yes the exact filming locations can be determined. It is just mindless handwaiving and a desperate need to make it go away!

Ministry of Foreign Affairs reply

Just like your February 2016 opus, peppered with Russian military unit names and soldiers’ last names. The main culprits, you claim, are Vladimir Putin and Sergey Shoigu. The proof your present is dozens of photos taken from social networks showing some soldiers with blurry faces and military vehicles with poorly visible side numbers in unknown locations. This is ridiculous.

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/articles/2016/04/22/the-russian-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-presents-its-evidence-of-mh17-fakery/

It is an embarrassing reply from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and poorly researched. Bellingcat even embarrassed them by finding the blogs that the people in the ministry lifted the “evidence” from. It is a mindset, I get it but seriously it is just desperation!

That is not proof of anything.

1. The source is a claim by BBC, the forensics have shown marks of 30mm fire aswell BUK marks of old missiles that are only in possesion by Ukraine, while no BUK’s were in that region on DNR/LNR forces, aswell that has been proven with video and picture evidence about the claimed BUK 312 were taken in WEST ukraine not in eastern ukraine.

No forensics have shown 30mm fire. Stop making things up.

Looks like you are trying to use Ukrainian Buk-312? That particular Buk has no relation to the 312 referenced by Bellingcat.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/05/is-this-ukrainian-buk-a-clue-in-the-mh17-investigation-or-a-red-herring/

Please don’t use the non-sense that the Russian Military generated with the Buk on the truck video. They lied and got caught out claiming that it was filmed in Krasnoarmeisk.

The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory. We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

There was no address banner on the billboard and internet sleuths quickly found the true filming location in Luhansk. Was that the best that Russian military intelligence could do with all their intelligence resources? Even today they still have that Krasnoarmeisk lie on their UK Embassy website.

The video has been positively matched to the intersection at Luhansk.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/08/13/billy-six-interview-investigating-the-luhansk-mh17-buk-video/

The prejudice to frame russia with weapon that are only in possesion of Ukrops is telling a big and long story of this false game.

The Dutch Safety Board has the warhead down as the 9N314M. (Cubic, Irregular and Bow-Tie fragments)

The Russians are suggesting that the warhead must have been the 9N314. (Cubic and Irregular fragments)

The Russians can’t work out why Bow-tie warhead fragments have been found in the wreckage and in human remains.

Bow-tie fragments were recovered from the body of the Captain of MH17 and other human remains.

Do a Control F search for bow-tie in the report.

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf

Almaz-Antey back in June 2015 claimed during their detailed presentation that it was a 9M38M1. They also suggested at the time that the M1 was no longer used by Russian Forces which was a bit of a white lie.

Now they have changed their tune and claim that it was a 9M38 with the caveat of they can’t understand why 9N314M fragments are amongst the evidence.

“The only thing that we do not yet understand are why fragments of 9M38M1 are amongst the evidence.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11927963/MH17-Russian-missile-company-seeks-to-debunk-official-report-into-air-disaster.html

As someone has pointed out on PPRuNe. “Sounds like they have been told what to, “understand”!”

http://www.pprune.org/9146195-post31.html

The question is who is pulling Almaz-Antey’s strings here?

The white lie on the M1s and now they are throwing in the red herring of they don’t understand why 9M38M1 were found?

9M38M1 was still regularly available to the Russian Military. The early varaint missiles are favoured during test and exercises. Only natural that they will use up older stocks as these missiles reach their shelf life.

Putin watching 9M38M1s (Buk-M1 on the screen) being launched during May 2014

9M38M1 in 2015

Kiew Flight Tower recordings and communication with pilot are missing aswell no explanation of rerouting the flight over donbass in such a short time.

Stop trying to muddy the waters with old debunked myths. You do realize that the Russians agree with and signed off on the flight plan in the report? The flight plan was for 33,000 feet until the waypoint PEKIT then climb to 35,000 feet. It was the crew of MH17 themselves that requested to maintain flight level 33,000 feet.

You do realize that the Russian have signed off of the preliminary MH17 report? The Russians reviewed the report before publication so where are their claims that the data is innacurate?

The draft preliminary report has been sent to the Accredited Representatives of the States that participate in the investigation, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the Unites States of America and Australia for review. All Accredited Representatives have sent a reaction. The Dutch Safety Board assessed the provided suggestion and amended the report where appropriate.

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

According to the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board, the filed flight plan called for MH17 to fly at flight level 330 (FL330) above Ukraine until the waypoint PEKIT, then climb to flight level 350.

At 12.53 hrs MH17 was asked if it could climb to flight level 350 in accordance with the filed flight plan, but they replied that they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at flight level 330. This change of plan was agreed, and other aircraft in the area were told to climb to flight level 350 to avoid a potential separation conflict with MH17.

The crew of MH17 asked to divert the flight path by 20 nautical miles due to bad weather they could see on their route. MH17 then asked if flight level 340 was available. They were told that it was not available due to the other civilian aircraft being assigned heights in order to deconflict with MH17. That is why MH17 continued on its altitude of 33,000 feet.

Read the preliminary report that even the Russian agree with and signed off. What next? Will you be bringing up the other myth about the previous 10 flights?

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-mh17-10-previous-flightpaths-different-from-17-7.t4378/

Yes let’s not let the technical aspect run over the intends. The Su24 were unarmed without fuel tank.

The Su-24s were fitted with external fuel tanks. See images at following link.

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/720536/navy-ship-encounters-aggressive-russian-aircraft-in-baltic-sea

Four words for my reply ” prove it, post serials”.

I know for a fact both you and the above poster are FOS. Give me there serial number for ANY of the alleged serial number. See, here where you can actually look up this information or petition the government to release records, things that don’t stay hidden for long. I know that concept is foreign to some. As far as how many little birds were lost in OAF: one, what does it have to do with Kosovo? Two, what is the difference, unless there is a discrepancy in claims/losses.

Sadly it is a mindset that you will never conquer. If you questioned the likes of Venik at the time he would have pulled out the old “training accidents” to account for the “covered up losses”. In fact he did on a regular basis. Not understanding that tens of thousands of military aviation enthusiasts would have rumbled the losses? The other old one is the secret production lines to build what was lost in combat 😉 You’ll see that one regularly trotted out. A lot of them use it for the claims that B-2 Spirit of Missouri was shot down and covered up. Apparently they just built a new one in order to cover up the original combat loss! 🙂

And so it goes on. The following link is quite funny to read as Venik revisits “NATO losses”.

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html

The propaganda machine simply spun out of control. Even members of the Yugoslav Government got sucked into the non-sense. The following from the Deputy Secretary of Information, Radmila Visic during 1999.

“Belgrade, 01/06/1999 (MPA) The Deputy Secretary of Information of the Serb government, Radmila Visic, claimed that Yugoslavia has shot down more than 190 NATO aircrafts since March 24, when the Alliance launched air raids against the country, in her interview at the Macedonian Press Agency. Mrs Visic accused NATO of concealing the actual number of its losses during the two-month war in Yugoslavia and reassured that when the hostilities are over, the Alliance will be forced to inform first of all the mothers of the dead pilots, who still don’t know the truth. “Of course Americans and the rest of the NATO allies do not admit that they lost 190 aircrafts and they will not admit it in any of their briefings. However, even in the Internet, in NATO’s web-site there are data that confirm this number and verify the claims of the Yugoslav army”, said Mrs. Visic. “I am certain that when this is all over, then the international public opinion and especially the American one will face the Vietnam syndrome and then the mothers of the pilots of the shot down planes will be informed that their sons where killed in the raids against Yugoslavia”, she stressed. When asked about why the Yugoslav authorities do not present photos or videos that confirm their allegations of having downed 190 planes, the Serb minister noted that even NATO itself has admitted that Yugoslavia has a remarkable strategy. “It is part of our tactics, not to show them. I, like a good soldier, will not give more information on this. However, the fact that NATO has announced that it will bring another 1.200 planes against a country with small air force, doesn’t that mean something to you?”. Mrs Visic also pointed out the ecological side-effects of the war against her countly and stressed that “the ecological disaster cannot be restricted inside the borders of Yugoslavia and that right now NATO attacks all the countries around the river Danube”. She also expressed her regret for all the Greek students that attended Yugoslav universities and were forced to disrupt their studies and return to Greece because of the war. She accused NATO of wanting to occupy Yugoslavia and shut off every free source of information while noting that the work of Greek journalists in her country is an objective source of information transmitted all over the world showing exactly what is happening there. “NATO is defeated in the war of information” she stressed. Mrs Visic accused the Alliance of causing the massive exodus of the refugees and said that the Albanians are free to chose where they want to go; they are free to go to Skopje, Albania or Greece or even return to Kosovo.”

Tony,

Hawk T.1 serial XX154

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?93357-Hawk-XX154-35th-Anniversary-of-first-flight

A very poor document indeed. “This publication supersedes FM 3-01.80, dated 17 January 2006.”. Looks like they are supposed to update it every 10 years. They don’t obviously do a lot of proof reading! I wonder what the visual tests and exams are like if this document is so full of errors?

Figure A-15. Soko J-21 Jastreb is a drawing of a Fiat G-91.

Figure A-24. MiG–27 Flogger is a drawing of a Panavia Tornado

Figure A-35. AJ-37 Viggen is a drawing of a Panavia Tornado

Figure A-58. Tu–26 Backfire. Using the old defunct Tu-26 designation instead of the Tu-22M.

Figure D-34. Super Frelon is a drawing of a Sea King

The following is the 2006 version. It looks like someone was given the task of editing the document down and made a bit of a pigs ear of it.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-01-80.pdf