Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Please check the supplement section here.

(still not handy with copy&paste on ipad, sorrry)

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AnderweltOnline: Shocking Analysis of the `Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17
If you go to the trouble of broadening your knowledge by questioning a specialist book, you'll get completely different information: the maximum flight altitude of the SU 25 is 14,600 meters.

This guy sends us to broaden our knowledge by not looking at the manufacturer's specs?

I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia discussion of repeated edits (scroll down) to make the SU-25 fit with Russian claims. No, I don't think people on Wikipedia are part of the great Western media fixing. I think they are just looking at the clear evidence that the SU-25 is a ground attack craft that reaches its ceiling at 7,000 metres.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And even if it were capable of flying at 14,600 meters as the article claims, MH17 was flying at 33,000. A bit of a gap there.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
metres/feet...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
feet?? wtf are feet??
Mea culpa.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:13:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The German manual he references gives 14,600 m as having been reached in a test flight (no date or further reference as to particular conditions for that flight). But the operational ceiling is there given as 7,500 m.

The author claims also that Wikipedia said the ceiling was 10,000m previous to the MH17 crash. I took a look at the Wayback Machine for a date this year previous to July:

Before the MH17 incident, Wikipedia said 7,000m clean. It was pro-Russians that tried to alter the record.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There goes eurogreen crashing into Mars...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see in Haisenko's German link the numbers 7500m and then
"... (flight test) 14600m"

So I will admit at operating at the MH17 cruise height is unlikely.

Do manifacturer specs change for modernised versions?

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Before the rest of us spend time digging out an answer for that last question, would you mind finding out whether (and preferably approximately when) Ukraine actually did modernize their fleet of SU 25s?

Because refurbishing fighter planes is expensive, and Ukraine has been flat broke for pretty much its entire existence. And half the time on unfriendly terms with Russia, which is where you would go to get the refurb done in practice, making it quite unlikely that they got a freebie for old times' sake.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 03:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ukraine is not broke for determined, professional "anti-terrorist" actions in Odessa and East Ukraine. Or for cash rewards for turning in weapons. Or for the ballistic missiles it is firing. One unconventionally upgraded Su25 would be really a surprise.
by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 06:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, yes it would.

It is one thing to over your motor pool and stockpile of old assault rifles to your favorite goons ("professional" my ass - if that's professional, I'd hate to see what amateur night looks like), or hand out some chump change to a few defectors. It is something else entirely to more than double the performance envelope of a Soviet-era turbojet aircraft.

Even if the latter is possible (and that it is possible is actually something you need to provide a plausible story about, because prima facie it sounds insane), Ukraine does not have the sort of industrial plant they would need to do it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 07:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A plausible story would be US/NATO support.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not a plausible story about how it is possible to double the performance envelope on a Soviet-era turbojet.

Until and unless you establish that this is even remotely feasible, you do not get to speculate on who performed the modifications that you have not yet established are even possible.

But for the sake of the argument, let's pretend you didn't skip over the most important part of your burden of proof. You're still completely off your medication if you think NATO would go to the trouble of refurbishing a single obsolete turbojet as a favor to a pet client state, instead of just giving them a couple of F16s or Mirages slated for the scrapyard.

The only possible reason to do something so obviously nonsensical would be if they had been planning ahead of time to stage a false flag operation. Which they weren't, because this plan would involve way too many people to keep it secret for six hours, let alone six months.

And on what timeline is this mythical modification exercise supposed to take place, by the way? Kiev was run by the ancien regime until six months ago, which is, eh, not enough lead time to smuggle a fighter to the other side of the planet, dismantle it, reverse engineer it, double its performance envelope, and then put it back together again so seamlessly nobody notices, and smuggle it back again.

Or are we supposed to believe that Langley has a stash of dispatchable replica Soviet military hardware with physically implausible performance specifications, just for the purpose of staging false flag operations?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

das monde has been asked to stop posting CT. I suggest the (fruitless) debate has gone far enough.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, and sorry about that. Didn't catch up with the relevant subthreads until after hitting 'post.'

Lazy mistake, my bad.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One interesting thing then: if the rebels shot MH17 by mistake, what were they aiming for at that height?! Was there anything else than Su25 mentioned?

Here are some numbers of Ukraine cambat aircrafts.

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They didn't have to know the height of the plane to shoot at it with a radar-guided missile.

An airliner can easily be mistaken for a bomber, or an AWACS.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Photographic evidence suggests a rather cloudy sky, with small windows for visual observation. They had to rely on radar (in any case) - with height information then available. So they would had been aware of the (limited) possibilities, one should presume.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cloudy sky? Even better for target misidentification.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 10:37:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought this discussion is ended?
by IM on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 10:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. I got carried away.



A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series