MH17 investigators ask Russia to hand over their evidence that Ukraine shot it down - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29801798[/url] [quote]Dutch investigators want Russia to hand over radar data that Russia says proves a Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity of flight MH17 when it was downed. Speaking to Der Spiegel magazine on Monday, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said his team was preparing a request for assistance. Russia maintains a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down flight MH17 on 17 July. But Ukraine and the West blame pro-Russian separatists armed with a Russian BUK surface-to-air missile. Mr Westerbeke told the magazine (in German) that investigators had ruled out the possibility of an accident or a terrorist attack.[/quote]

Radar data would be piss easy to fake unfortunately.

[QUOTE=download;46353902]Radar data would be piss easy to fake unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Indeed, and if Russia had proof of this earlier, they would have shown it already in their state-run newspapers. Instead, they came up with a bunch of conspiracy theories that are on the tier of 'Aliens shot JFK'. And it still doesn't answer the question where exactly that BUK installation that was shown to be missing two rockets after the flight was shot down went after it was spotted on the way to the Russian border.

[QUOTE=download;46353902]Radar data would be piss easy to fake unfortunately.[/QUOTE] I have very little idea about how that would work, but there are many subtle elements that might make that impossible. For instance, I'd imagine that raw radar info would be very hard to fake, especially if it was cross referenced with other data. But who knows.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;46353960]I have very little idea about how that would work, but there are many subtle elements that might make that impossible. For instance, I'd imagine that raw radar info would be very hard to fake, especially if it was cross referenced with other data. But who knows.[/QUOTE] The data would simply consist of a number to identify the object, its velocity, its altitude, its angle from the radar system, its distance from the radar system all compared to a increment of time.

Russia has the black boxes though.

[QUOTE=Jordax;46353959]Indeed, and if Russia had proof of this earlier, they would have shown it already in their state-run newspapers. Instead, they came up with a bunch of conspiracy theories that are on the tier of 'Aliens shot JFK'. And it still doesn't answer the question where exactly that BUK installation that was shown to be missing two rockets after the flight was shot down went after it was spotted on the way to the Russian border.[/QUOTE] But they had [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs[/media]

[QUOTE=Jordax;46353959]Indeed, and if Russia had proof of this earlier, they would have shown it already in their state-run newspapers. Instead, they came up with a bunch of conspiracy theories that are on the tier of 'Aliens shot JFK'. And it still doesn't answer the question where exactly that BUK installation that was shown to be missing two rockets after the flight was shot down went after it was spotted on the way to the Russian border.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. No conspirancy theories. They said Ukrainians shot it down with a jet, perhaps even not on purporse.

As much as I hate Russia right now, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out Ukraine shot it down. The Ukrainian military has shown itself to be extremely incompetent time and time again.

[QUOTE=bullpull;46354187]But they had [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs[/media][/QUOTE] The theory that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot it down is absolutely ludicrous, despite the attempts made by Russia to edit the Su-25's wikipedia page to give it performance the aircraft simply doesn't have. The Su-25 has a flight ceiling of 7km when it's clean, which is easily checked on Sukhoi's website and is completely contrary to the claim here that it can attain an altitude of 10km, and of only 5km when carrying external weapons. Its absolute top speed, again clean, is on par with the cruise speed of a 777 and yet we're led to believe that it was capable of chasing it down [i]while climbing [b]above its maximum altitude[/b][/i] and downing it with short-range missiles carrying 6kg warheads? Bullshit.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46354113]Russia has the black boxes though.[/QUOTE] The boxes have been back in the hands of the Malaysians since July since the rebels turned them over to them-- four days later after MH17 was shot down, and after they'd been sent first to Moscow, that is.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46354554]The theory that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot it down is absolutely ludicrous, despite the attempts made by Russia to edit the Su-25's wikipedia page to give it performance the aircraft simply doesn't have. The Su-25 has a flight ceiling of 7km when it's clean, which is easily checked on Sukhoi's website and is completely contrary to the claim here that it can attain an altitude of 10km, and of only 5km when carrying external weapons. Its absolute top speed, again clean, is on par with the cruise speed of a 777 and yet we're led to believe that it was capable of chasing it down [i]while climbing [b]above its maximum altitude[/b][/i] and downing it with short-range missiles carrying 6kg warheads? Bullshit.[/QUOTE] Thank you! First of all, the Russians did a shitty lie, anyone who knows anything about Sukhoi aircraft knows a frogfoot can't do that. A Flanker can do that, which Ukraine has, but none were operating in that airspace at the time. A frogfoot was shotdown in that area earlier, reportedly by another aircraft, but Ukrainian radar probably knows the difference between an airliner they had no doubt been tracking for a while, and a possible enemy aircraft.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46354554]The theory that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot it down is absolutely ludicrous, despite the attempts made by Russia to edit the Su-25's wikipedia page to give it performance the aircraft simply doesn't have. The Su-25 has a flight ceiling of 7km when it's clean, which is easily checked on Sukhoi's website and is completely contrary to the claim here that it can attain an altitude of 10km, and of only 5km when carrying external weapons. Its absolute top speed, again clean, is on par with the cruise speed of a 777 and yet we're led to believe that it was capable of chasing it down [i]while climbing [b]above its maximum altitude[/b][/i] and downing it with short-range missiles carrying 6kg warheads? Bullshit.[/QUOTE] Just did my own reseach , Su-25 is carrying R-72 air-to-air missiles "Minimum engagement range is about 300 meters, with maximum aerodynamic range of nearly 30 km (19 mi) at altitude. " Tho i'm no expert , but sure as fuck it looks like they could shot it down.

[QUOTE=Govna;46354970]The boxes have been back in the hands of the Malaysians since July since the rebels turned them over to them-- four days later after MH17 was shot down, and after they'd been sent first to Moscow, that is.[/QUOTE] Thanks, didn't know.

A small reminder that even on said briefing it was always "merely suggested" that it was su-25, not to mention that if official request from investigation is made they sure as hell gonna give far more expanded and detailed report rather then one they got for press conference. Still, this is a great sign, just as that atleast some users here now opened to all versions - something for what i got some portion of hysteria earlier. And yes ukranian military as it is right now, are incompetent enought to do such thing. And rebels were always incompetent enought to have shitload of blogs and resources attempting to be №1 Novorosian info. The way i see it, rebels got trophy buk missles without aiming complex(never saw anything beside launcher), decided to show-off anyway, reposts mix up with info regarding "shooting down ukranian bomber", and when shit hits the fan, moderator panics, deletes shit and adds up to whole controversy. And again, not claiming rebels did not do it. Just attempting to explain their actions regarding "tweet info" since most of time it's the only "proof" people come up with.

[QUOTE=bullpull;46357498]Just did my own reseach , Su-25 is carrying R-72 air-to-air missiles "Minimum engagement range is about 300 meters, with maximum aerodynamic range of nearly 30 km (19 mi) at altitude. " Tho i'm no expert , but sure as fuck it looks like they could shot it down.[/QUOTE] The R-73 isn't certified for use on the Su-25 in Ukrainian service, the missile is in inventory but is carried by the Su-27s and MiG-29s. Had Russia been claiming MH17 was downed by an Su-27 and provided evidence for one having been in the area at the time then their theory would be a lot more believable, but they're not. They're claiming that an Su-25 was in the immediate vicinity and that it was flying at an altitude the manufacturer claims it couldn't reach and would have fired the R-60, a missile whose capability to bring down a 777 is supposition at best even if we suspend disbelief of Russia's claimed conditions and not even worth humouring if we accept more realistic ones; the missile would most likely never make it to impact. Even [i]if[/i] MH17 had been hit by either an R-60 or an R-73; both missiles use infra-red homing terminal seekers and as such the aircraft would have had almost all of its damage localized entirely to its engines, yet we see extensive damage to the front section of its fuselage on both sides implying a large amount of shrapnel penetrating from a roughly perpendicular impact. This is perfectly in keeping with what you would expect to see from the large fragmentation warhead of a Buk detonating near the aircraft which, when you consider the tweet from the separatists claiming to have shot down an AN-26 which was hastily deleted when it became apparent an airliner had gone down, gives very strong credence to the fact it was trigger-happy Rebels with more equipment than discipline and target discrimination.

[QUOTE=bullpull;46357498]Just did my own reseach , Su-25 is carrying R-72 air-to-air missiles "Minimum engagement range is about 300 meters, with maximum aerodynamic range of nearly 30 km (19 mi) at altitude. " Tho i'm no expert , but sure as fuck it looks like they could shot it down.[/QUOTE] The missile is a IR AA missile with a heat-seeking head, for this to work, it would have to lock onto the 777 from 5km+ range while pointing up at the sky, even if the seeker head was that powerful to pick out a aircraft from that range, and with it being pointed towards the atmosphere, maintain lock despite background IR, it would have to then travel that 5km at an extremely steep angle. It's just not realistic, plus the damage inflicted by an R-72 would be pea-nuts compared to the catastrophic damage that was inflicted onto the plane. /e Ninja'd :c

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46358589]The R-73 isn't certified for use on the Su-25 in Ukrainian service, the missile is in inventory but is carried by the Su-27s and MiG-29s. Had Russia been claiming MH17 was downed by an Su-27 and provided evidence for one having been in the area at the time then their theory would be a lot more believable, but they're not. They're claiming that an Su-25 was in the immediate vicinity and that it was flying at an altitude the manufacturer claims it couldn't reach and would have fired the R-60, a missile whose capability to bring down a 777 is supposition at best even if we suspend disbelief of Russia's claimed conditions and not even worth humouring if we accept more realistic ones; the missile would most likely never make it to impact. Even [i]if[/i] MH17 had been hit by either an R-60 or an R-73; both missiles use infra-red homing terminal seekers and as such the aircraft would have had almost all of its damage localized entirely to its engines, yet we see extensive damage to the front section of its fuselage on both sides implying a large amount of shrapnel penetrating from a roughly perpendicular impact. This is perfectly in keeping with what you would expect to see from the large fragmentation warhead of a Buk detonating near the aircraft which, when you consider the tweet from the separatists claiming to have shot down an AN-26 which was hastily deleted when it became apparent an airliner had gone down, gives very strong credence to the fact it was trigger-happy Rebels with more equipment than discipline and target discrimination.[/QUOTE] At the same time Ukrainian officials claim that the plane was shot down by a buk "because rebels had a buk". But they don't mention that a buk needs like 4 other vehicles along with it to take something down. Because what is shown to us is just a launcher like karamatrix said, and the radar is a complete separate vehicle. The command center that has to follow it is a separate vehicle too. And it goes on and on. Nobody provided any evidence for anything.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46358589]The R-73 isn't certified for use on the Su-25 in Ukrainian service, the missile is in inventory but is carried by the Su-27s and MiG-29s. Had Russia been claiming MH17 was downed by an Su-27 and provided evidence for one having been in the area at the time then their theory would be a lot more believable, but they're not. They're claiming that an Su-25 was in the immediate vicinity and that it was flying at an altitude the manufacturer claims it couldn't reach and would have fired the R-60, a missile whose capability to bring down a 777 is supposition at best even if we suspend disbelief of Russia's claimed conditions and not even worth humouring if we accept more realistic ones; the missile would most likely never make it to impact. Even [i]if[/i] MH17 had been hit by either an R-60 or an R-73; both missiles use infra-red homing terminal seekers and as such the aircraft would have had almost all of its damage localized entirely to its engines, yet we see extensive damage to the front section of its fuselage on both sides implying a large amount of shrapnel penetrating from a roughly perpendicular impact. This is perfectly in keeping with what you would expect to see from the large fragmentation warhead of a Buk detonating near the aircraft which, when you consider the tweet from the separatists claiming to have shot down an AN-26 which was hastily deleted when it became apparent an airliner had gone down, gives very strong credence to the fact it was trigger-happy Rebels with more equipment than discipline and target discrimination.[/QUOTE] it's a bit fascinating how you are expertise with air to air rockets, know everything about wreckage and hull damage of plane, but only proof you have regarding rebels is "tweets been deleted, must be them". Basically, read my post juuuust a bit up there regarding their behavior.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46358589]The R-73 isn't certified for use on the Su-25 in Ukrainian service, the missile is in inventory but is carried by the Su-27s and MiG-29s. Had Russia been claiming MH17 was downed by an Su-27 and provided evidence for one having been in the area at the time then their theory would be a lot more believable, but they're not. They're claiming that an Su-25 was in the immediate vicinity and that it was flying at an altitude the manufacturer claims it couldn't reach and would have fired the R-60, a missile whose capability to bring down a 777 is supposition at best even if we suspend disbelief of Russia's claimed conditions and not even worth humouring if we accept more realistic ones; the missile would most likely never make it to impact. Even [i]if[/i] MH17 had been hit by either an R-60 or an R-73; both missiles use infra-red homing terminal seekers and as such the aircraft would have had almost all of its damage localized entirely to its engines, yet we see extensive damage to the front section of its fuselage on both sides implying a large amount of shrapnel penetrating from a roughly perpendicular impact. This is perfectly in keeping with what you would expect to see from the large fragmentation warhead of a Buk detonating near the aircraft which, when you consider the tweet from the separatists claiming to have shot down an AN-26 which was hastily deleted when it became apparent an airliner had gone down, gives very strong credence to the fact it was trigger-happy Rebels with more equipment than discipline and target discrimination.[/QUOTE] the Russians were claiming the projectile damage found on the MH17 wreckage was caused by 30mm cannon fire from a SU-25, rather than a missile.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46358628]At the same time Ukrainian officials claim that the plane was shot down by a buk "because rebels had a buk". But they don't mention that a buk needs like 4 other vehicles along with it to take something down. Because what is shown to us is just a launcher like karamatrix said, and the radar is a complete separate vehicle. The command center that has to follow it is a separate vehicle too. And it goes on and on. Nobody provided any evidence for anything.[/QUOTE] In proper operation, yes. But you can sacrifice - you guessed it - target discrimination and a number of other features by running it in single vehicle mode using the small radar present on the launcher.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46358628]At the same time Ukrainian officials claim that the plane was shot down by a buk "because rebels had a buk". But they don't mention that a buk needs like 4 other vehicles along with it to take something down. Because what is shown to us is just a launcher like karamatrix said, and the radar is a complete separate vehicle. The command center that has to follow it is a separate vehicle too. And it goes on and on. Nobody provided any evidence for anything.[/QUOTE] You don't [i]need[/i] all components of the system in order to be able to point at something and shoot, you need all components if you're to be an organized unit capable of operating as part of a greater force linked into a C3I network designed to ensure area-wide unit-coherence and the prevention of incidents precisely like a civilian airliner being shot down. All your post shows is that the Rebels were not an organized force and that they lacked the target discrimination to not shoot down an airliner and they ended up shooting down an airliner. Go figure. [QUOTE=karimatrix]it's a bit fascinating how you are expertise with air to air rockets, know everything about wreckage and hull damage of plane, but only proof you have regarding rebels is "tweets been deleted, must be them". Basically, read my post juuuust a bit up there regarding their behavior. [/QUOTE] Occam's Razor. Why assume some unknown motive to remove evidence of them having fired a SAM at a legitimate military target if they didn't believe themselves to have a reasonable chance of culpability? Why would they provide obstruction to international investigation at the crash site if they truly believed a Ukrainian Su-25 was responsible? If a party believes itself to be innocent then it generally doesn't behave in such a way that overtly casts doubt on that innocence. [QUOTE=shadowraptor] the Russians were claiming the projectile damage found on the MH17 wreckage was caused by 30mm cannon fire from a SU-25, rather than a missile. [/QUOTE] This is even more impossible than them having shot it down with a missile as it absolutely necessitates the Su-25 as having climbed up to a target above its maximum altitude and closing to within gun range despite not having the speed to do so.

[QUOTE=download;46358736]In proper operation, yes. But you can sacrifice - you guessed it - target discrimination and a number of other features by running it in single vehicle mode using the small radar present on the launcher.[/QUOTE] You do realise that in BUK-M missles are not auto locked? you need separate "pointer" that will literally follow target, keeping it in aim of missle. How would "on board" system be capable of tracking aircraft of such altitude? [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46358740] Why would they provide obstruction to international investigation at the crash site if they truly believed a Ukrainian Su-25 was responsible? If a party believes itself to be innocent then it generally doesn't behave in such a way that overtly casts doubt on that innocence.[/QUOTE] Please remind me where Rebels obscured investigations, did not they secure and safely transported black boxes to make sure they won't get damaged in radius of continued bombing wich was infact reason for delay most of time? Or are you trying ot point out toward civilians who gone to crashsite looting? Idiots, but they are merely locals, not rebels. Cause last time i checked, only guys getting late to party, slowing down investigation, were Kiev's representatives, that never shared dispatch records. Go figure too.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;46358746]You do realise that in BUK-M missles are not auto locked? you need separate "pointer" that will literally follow target, keeping it in aim of missle. How would "on board" system be capable of tracking aircraft of such altitude? [/QUOTE] Using on-board radar to provide mid-course guidance updates for the missile and to illuminate the target in the terminal phase A.K.A Semi-active radar homing. Been done since the very introduction of missile technology, absolutely nothing special and actually pretty antiquated by modern standards. [QUOTE]Please remind me where Rebels obscured investigations, did not they secure and safely transported black boxes to make sure they won't get damaged in radius of continued bombing wich was infact reason for delay most of time? Or are you trying ot point out toward civilians who gone to crashsite looting? Idiots, but they are merely locals, not rebels. Cause last time i checked, only guys getting late to party, slowing down investigation, were Kiev's representatives, that never shared dispatch records. Go figure too.[/QUOTE] You claim that the Rebels secured the crash site with one breath and then with your very next reference civilians having free-roam over the crash site being able to loot and tamper with evidence? There are numerous and very easy to find reports of OCSE monitors being refused entry, forced to leave their cars and walk on foot to limited areas of the crash site and even being forced away with warning shots by separatists. Again, generally not the behavior of an innocent party eager to prove it.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;46358746]You do realise that in BUK-M missles are not auto locked? you need separate "pointer" that will literally follow target, keeping it in aim of missle. How would "on board" system be capable of tracking aircraft of such altitude?[/QUOTE] [quote]... using the small radar present on the launcher.[/quote] Maybe you should learn to read.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;46358746]You do realise that in BUK-M missles are not auto locked? you need separate "pointer" that will literally follow target, keeping it in aim of missle. How would "on board" system be capable of tracking aircraft of such altitude? [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] Please remind me where Rebels obscured investigations, did not they secure and safely transported black boxes to make sure they won't get damaged in radius of continued bombing wich was infact reason for delay most of time? Or are you trying ot point out toward civilians who gone to crashsite looting? Idiots, but they are merely locals, not rebels. Cause last time i checked, only guys getting late to party, slowing down investigation, were Kiev's representatives, that never shared dispatch records. Go figure too.[/QUOTE] Dunno about you mate, but if a crash site is being looted, secure is not the term I would use to describe it.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;46358746] Please remind me where Rebels obscured investigations, did not they secure and safely transported black boxes to make sure they won't get damaged in radius of continued bombing wich was infact reason for delay most of time? Or are you trying ot point out toward civilians who gone to crashsite looting? Idiots, but they are merely locals, not rebels. Cause last time i checked, only guys getting late to party, slowing down investigation, were Kiev's representatives, that never shared dispatch records. Go figure too.[/QUOTE] There are parts of the crash site that were not accessible by neutral investigators because the separatists denied them entry to those parts. Reports go that there are still remains of victims in those parts. Also, they did a splendid job securing the site if people, whenever they are locals or the separatists themselves could loot the valuables off the deceased passengers. Literally scum.

[QUOTE=Jordax;46359202] Also, they did a splendid job securing the site if people, whenever they are locals or the separatists themselves could loot the valuables off the deceased passengers. Literally scum.[/QUOTE] This is just bullshit. Sure they denied entry to many people. OSCE was heavily biased at the time. The rebels openly said that they will let the neutral investigation team in. You know, the Netherlands. But the crashsite was under constant artillery fire. Also I am sorry, but "rebels were not organized hence they could take down a plane" is not evidence and not even close to being evidence.