Colonel Cassad (in English)

Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda

Previous Entry Disclose Next Entry
How the Malaysian "Boeing" was shot down
NKVD Officer

Because since the first day after the moment of the crash of the Malaysian "Boeing" I subscribe to the version where the airplane was shot down by the Ukrainian SU-25 attack jet, I simply cannot refrain from publishing a new investigation, which summarizes the arguments on this topic.

A rod from the "air-to-air" missile R-60M was found among the wreckage of MH17

A model was assembled in Holland using of the fragments of the "Boeing" that was shot down in Donetsk. Using the photos of the fragments from the crash site, it is possible to approximately reconstruct the airframe. Among the photos there were at least two that refute the version of the attack against the plane using the "BUK" complex.

On one of the photos we can see the object, which looks like a rod from the AAM missile R-60M. On the other photo a round hole in the air intake of the right engine. There are at least nine holes in the skin that are characteristic of the effect of an "air-to-air" missile.

Circular, square, rod-shaped what hit the Boeing

Already by the next week, on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th March of 2015, almost five thousand people — relatives and friends of those who died in the "Boeing" catastrophe in Donbass — will be able to see the model of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing-777 that is made out of wreckage on the air base Gilze-Rijen in Holland. The last major fragments, a whole truck of them, are still located in Petropavlovka – the Dutch journalists managed to reach them only by February 22 of 2015.

Photo from the hangar, 03.03.15

Source, Source


The left side of the "Boeing".

The right side of the "Boeing".
The left side of the pilot cabin immediately attracted the most attention, the aircraft had the most damage there. The largest hole in the center of the fragment has ragged edges, bent outside, which is characteristic for an internal explosion or decompression due to a sharp change in pressure.

14749781785_ac8cde70e7_k   14769648553_13d6b517ac_k

Further on the photo we see more than 20 large round holes, which penetrated among other things the glass framing and the left side of the cabin. The material of the skin in this area has the highest density — it is made of reinforced aluminum (titanium plates are used according to other data), which is laid out in two layers in order to prevent cabin damage in the case of a possible collision with a bird. According to some data, the thickness of the first layer is 1.8 mm and the thickness of the second layer is 0.8 mm.

We also know that the thickness of the most part of the skin of the fuselage of the "Boeing"-777 is only about 2 mm (0.09 inch)

As we zoom in the photos, we can see a huge number of small marks-"pockmarks" and black patches of soot on the external side of the cabin, and also the edges of the external skin that are bent inside. This suggests that the warhead exploded in close vicinity from the plane's skin. By some estimates, the distance between the pilot cabin and the epicenter of the explosion could be between 50 cm to 4-5m. At the same time the radius of the impact zone of the "BUK" is 17 m, the missile explodes above and ahead of the target, making a climb, and creates a large cloud made of six thousand shards. (source).

Citation from mh17webtalks: Detonation products it was precisely them which left the numerous number of traces on the cockpit fragments lose the ability to inflict mechanical damage (lose the kinetic energy) at the distance from the site of explosion equal to 15...20 radii of the explosive block. Correspondingly, given the explosive block radius of 10–15 cm we get 1.5–3.0 m  The blast wave comes first after the start of the explosion, then go the hot gases, and then, due to being more bulky, shrapnel fragments. But gas slows down very quickly, so its traces can be found only next to the site of explosion.

The "BUK" doesn't match the photo with respect to the distance from the explosion. Well, perhaps it matches size of the holes?

To find out the diameter of the holes in the skin of the cabin we need to know the diameter of the head of the standard aviation rivet. It is equal to 0.488 inch or 11 mm.


By correlating the parameters we get the size of the holes of about 20-30mm. The diameter of the round holes in the skin of the cabin in the size of 2-3 diameters of the hat of the aviation rivet.

963_original P5_038

images (4) ByiwWvZCYAIQqAJ

f66cc0bb1bb1bf619eb516a3dedf553e 68762_300
The yellow-red outlines of some holes are faintly visible on the first photo perhaps, this is a trace from the copper casing of the shell that produced these holes.

(As a bullet penetrates an obstacle, it pushes some of the obstacle's material forward and widens it, leaving the particles present on the bullet on the hole that is being formed. The band of rubbing, which is several millimeters wide, leaves the particles of the soot produced during the shot, the gun grease, metallic particles from the barrel and from the bullet itself).

However, there is no copper on the shrapnel sub-projectiles from the "BUK", but there is copper on the shells of aircraft cannons.

XDmBj EOyw51YdlrQ
10108856 70
The ribbon of armor-piercing and high-explosive shells in an aircraft cannon, the shrapnel elements have cylindrical shape.

This is shown clearly here: How the aircraft cannon GSh-30 shoots

Besides several tens of round and oval holes, in the front part of the "Boeing" there are at least five more holes, which have rectangular and square shape. However, none of them penetrated the skin on the outside, so it is hard to determine their size. But we can speak of the sizes above 1 cm.

18520_600 (2) 16614201072_3bd4b5e52d_z
19283_600 square-hole

MH17 Perforation 2
In the description of the R27 missile characteristics, for example (it can be also mounted on Su-25), the presence of prepared cubes above the rods in the warhead of the missile is mentioned. The former service members of the Russia and Ukraine air force write on their forum that R-60 is equipped with ready-made shrapnel elements in addition to the wolfram rods (a similar description of the shrapnel and rod-based warhead is present on other websites). (A magnified image of the warhead of the R-60 training missile.) Besides this, not a single known hole on the airplane skin, which includes the skin of the pilot cabin matches the last shown element.

The skin on the side of the pilot cabin attracts attention. The charge of a fragmentation warhead may enter various surfaces of the "Boeing" at various angles. The shape of the hole may be different depending on this for example it may be round  (if a spherical sub-projectile hits at the right angle) or it may be elongated (at acute angle). Here is how this looks like when a regular bullet hits metal.
Perhaps, this is what explains the presence of holes of various sizes on one of the skin pieces to the side of the pilot cabin (Point 4 on the scheme of the left side of the Boeing).
By comparing the holes with the rivet heads we can see that the width of these holes varies between 3 cm and 10 cm The angle of penetration of these shards may be equal to 25-30 degrees.

images (1) qb13V
7dc844e89511698405793cff0db0296a Air_France_Boeing_777_F-GSPH


The 9М38М1 missile, which is used in the "BUK-M1" complexes, consists of the fragmentation warhead 9Н314, which weighs 70 kg In its base there are 32 kg of sub-projectiles (4500 sub-projectiles, each weighing 8 g in the shape of an I-section [something between the shape of Н and Х] and of 1500 cubes, each weighing 4 g). The source

On the internet there is a photo of one of the warheads of the missile complex. The I-secton shrapnel –13 mm. The diameter of cubes is below 10 mm. Source and another source

78617_600 600px-SA-11-Warhead-1

If this type of the "ground-to-air" missile was used to attack the "Boeing", then the majority of the shrapnel holes would leave characteristic rectangular-shaped traces (the I-shaped fragments have better penetration force capabilities than the cubes).

One of the "Livejournal" users conducted an experiment — the "BUK" would have to leave the following type of traces in the skin of the "Boeing" if at least several sub-projectiles out of 4.5 thousands flew into it at an angle close to the right angle.


A detailed description of the experiment HERE.

On the skin of the discovered fragments of the "Boeing" there is not a single hole of this size.
Furthermore, as the author of the experiment states, the sub-projectiles flying at the speed of 1200 m/s would have to leave a more clear trace in the thin material of the fuselage rather than say in the plating of the cabin, where the aluminum layer is reinforced. With the correction for the HE charge and the penetration angle, the "BUK" fragments may leave traces with the diameter of 18-20mm in the skin. One may read about the real sizes left by the fragmentation charges here, here, and here.

Two square fragments that were found in the cabin were exposed one of them ended up being made of ceramics, the other one didn't match due to the beveled edge.

How an airplane that was shot down using a "BUK" looks like

On the internet there are photos of the remains of three airplanes that were shot down over the last 15 years presumably using "BUK" SAM complexes. In all three cases the crew remained alive for some time after the missile strike. In all cases the skin of the airplanes looks roughly the same: many small round or cross-shaped holes. More detail here.


The wreckage of An-26 plane, which was shot down in Ukraine on July 14, 2014, at the height of 6500 m.

It is well-known that on June 29 of 2014 the militia fighters captured the military unit 1402 in Donetsk, where there was one defective "BUK" vehicle. However, at that time the DPR representatives said that they are not going to repair it. It is also known that the "Osa" complexes that are present in Ukraine are also able to hit the targets like An-26 or Su-25 at the height of 6000 m.

Rod-shaped holes. One of the rods was found

We can see at least three cutting holes among the wreckage: on the left wing, in the area of the second left door, on the elements of the tail (see the scheme Left side of "Boeing"). For example, the hole in the skin next to the second left door has the length of about 10 cm.

14714338291_66914c4811_z 14563130649_a211f44fbe_z
The left wing

14542013038_cd3e651219_z 14705657146_14b50ffe31_z
The cabin floor near to the second left door.

Next to this hole and the frames that are "cut" along it we can see an elongated element, which is externally similar to a fragment of the rod-shaped sub-projectile from the "air-to-air" aviation missile R-60M. The original photo

The skin of the lower part of the fuselage, next to the second door on the left Source

11016_900 IrN99
Left – this is approximately how the rod-based warhead that is used on the Ukrainian attack jets looks like (Source). Right – the warhead of the R-60 missile

The cross-section of the rocket without the striking elements Source


REFERENCE Su-25M1 attack jet, R-60M missile
The material of the warhead rods is the alloy of zirconium and molibdaine / wolfram. The warhead has relatively low power and is maximally effective by penetrating inside the frame of the target airplane. The detonators are the non-contact radio detonator "Kolibri" (developed in 1971) and also the contact backup detonator. The radius of the radio detonator is 5 m. The damage radius is 2.5 m. Source

Here is a description of the R-60M warhead (the 62M model). The rods used in it are a bit different from the classical thin elongated sagittal rods. In the export variant a set of "pseudo-rods" is used. These sub-projectiles are made of wolfram, which is heavier than steel. "The overlapping sub-projectiles made of wolfram, which is twice heavier than alloy steel. The cut the power wing set, airframes, and engines," — says the description of the R-60M warhead.

Some sources state the mass of the rods: 3 g. The mass of the warhead is 3 kg. The rods are laid out in the case with a triangular framing — the rods probably have triangular section. "The space between the case and the rod-shaped sub-projectiles is filled with TNT, which has pyramidal holes next to each semi-prepared sub-projectile in the casing. The sub-projectiles weigh 3 g and reach the speed of 7.5km/s" (Source)

"The rod-shaped warhead of R-60M (62М) with wolfram rods laid out perpendicularly would result not in linear but rather in huge delta and diamond-shaped holes.

Only R-62 and, starting from the 80s, R-62M were exported. 70% of both missiles had a shrapnel (or “pseudo-rod based”) rather than rod-based warhead.

Source and HERE

We can see large inbound ragged delta-holes, for example, on the right side in the skin of the second compartment. The soot trace can be seen on one of them. Besides, two similar holes can be seen on the floor of the front baggage compartment, not far from the pilot cabin.

Six delta- and diamond-shaped holes and three cutting holes on the left wing and on the lower part of the skin next to the second left door:

15582650107_2ae58548a1_z (1) 0_a4df1_32c12972_orig15769360072_a777c9f945_z 15582442248_e2b409a22c_z15767828545_9a8c793d97_z14714338291_66914c4811_z
flickr1 14542013038_cd3e651219_z

The shapes of the holes match the damage that would be expected from the warhead of the R-60M, which is mounted on Su-25M1 attack jets.

The missile could target the "Boeing" engine but explode in 5 m to its side, which may include the area next to the left wing and the floor near the L2 exit, where the two holes characteristic to the rods were found. The Ukrainian PO "Arsenal" worked on modernizing the missile. The missiles were equipped with almost full-perspective infrared guidance system OGS-75T "Komar-M". (It supports magnification of the view up to 2/4 or even 1/4 (the possibility to launch into the front hemisphere of the target given the bearing at a certain angle), it is provided by the cooling of the photo-receiver of the target-seeking head. Serial production was done by NPK "Progress" (city of Kiev, source). The targeting range sector of 34 degrees. The maximum speed of target displacement – 35 deg/s).

It is also possible that after activating the lifting charge at the closest distance to the "Boeing" the warhead opened and the carrier R-60 hit the skin of the "Boeing" in the area of the landing gear chassis, close to the engines.


"Shrapnel-rod warheads are typically used on the "air-to-air" missiles due to their compact size. At the moment of the closest approach to the target, the lifting charge is exploded and a beam of rods heads towards the target at almost space velocity. If there is a hit, such a rod may be able to fully penetrate the airplane just due to the kinetics in almost every plane, destroying the internal infrastructure of the airplane and ruining the onboard equipment. The kinetics of the rod is such that it may be able to cut even a titanium longherone in two. Such warhead has another advantage: the missile doesn't need to be perfectly precise — it is blown up before contacting the target and the rods spread towards the airplane in a cone. Even if only 2-3% of these rods hit the target, the plane is doomed." Source


Just seven seconds passed after the moment of the last response by the MH17 crew until the loss of the connection with the airplane. The crew didn't have enough time to tell the dispatchers about any threatening situation (if we believe the authenticity of the "missing" records from the air traffic control office in Dnepropetrovsk). So, the events in the pilot cabin unfolded rapidly.

After the impact the "Boeing" was turned around, it sharply lost airspeed — from 900 km/h down to 400 km/h and later it was gliding from the height of 10 thousand meters down to the height of about 2 thousand meters. The residents of Grabovo and Torez heard two very loud bangs in the sky. After going below the clouds, the "Boeing" started to disintegrate — a large piece of the fuselage landed in a forest plantation the closest to the original place where the plane was hit. This was a part of business-class and of the second compartment of the economy-class. They were found in Petropavlovka. Next to it, in Rassypnoye they found the separated pilot cabin and the bodies of 40 more people. The tail and the central part of the fuselage, along with the landing gear and the wings flew the farthest — in the field of the Grabovo village.

Between July 2014 and February 2015 the majority of the Boeing pieces were found. The right wing and the right side of the business-class, and also the nose of the "Boing" are missing. Up until now three passengers of the plane have not been identified. Overall, there were 298 people onboard. Metallic fragments were found in the body of the pilot, according to the Malaysian press. Overall, 25 metallic objects that triggered investigators' suspicion were found.

The left side of the cabin, the skin of floor of the cabin received the most damage from the shrapnel elements. Numerous holes are visible in the crew commander chair, and several holes in the chair of the second pilot. At least four holes are visible in the body of the crew commander. All of these holes have round shape.

958b4953a7dc 6459d5fde72a
The back of the seat of the second pilot, numerous holes can be seen on the side and in the back.


Considering the remains of the soot and a large number of small black dots — the traces of impact by the detonation products, the missile charge was engaged in exactly this area — outside the pilot cabin at close range.

Considering the height of this flight – 10 thousand meters, the cabin could be reached either by a SAM complex (S-300, "BUK") or by an "air-to-air" missile.

And because there are no traces of the impact of rod-shaped sub-projectiles in the pilot cabin, but there are many holes with jagged edges — it was a fragmentation charge that exploded there. Such shells with round contact elements are used in the GSh-30 aircraft cannons, they are also characteristic for the S-200 and S-300 SAMs.

Because there are no cross-shaped traces — the dominating sub-projectiles of the BUK missile, and because the actual explosion occurred at the distance of no more than 5 m, we may reject the version of the use of BUK. The S-200 complexes are "not used" in the Ukraine since 2001, nobody recorded a launch of S-300 missiles in this area.


Thus, the version of one or two Su-25M1 attack jets arose. These are modernized attack jets, which are present in Ukraine (by the moment of the tragedy, the Ukrainian air force had five such jets one of the six Ukrainian Su-25M1 was shot down one day before the "Boeing" catastrophe).

The modernized Su-25M1 has digital gun sights, which improves the targeting precision by 30% compared to the standard analogs. The practical ceiling of a Su-25M1 is 10000m. The maximum velocity is 975 km/h.

"Due to installing a satellite navigation system, the airplane is able to hit the targets even if the pilot is not visually identifying them but when he knows their coordinates. The airplane is able to use its regular weapons against ground targets during both day and night, under the conditions of low visibility and without the need to leave clouds. The altitude on which it is possible to use the weapons was increased substantially, by almost a factor of 3".

Besides the object found among the wreckage, which is similar to the rod-shaped sub-projectile of the R-60M missile, this version is confirmed by the fragment of the air intake of the right engine of the "Boeing".

IMG_0688 787-rolls-royce-engine

The fragment faces us upside-down — on the left side we can see a piece of the internal skin that was torn out and the right side is the other side with faint RR letters — if this piece is turned, then this will be a part of the air intake of the RIGHT ENGINE.

This small hole was discovered on the right engine of the "Boeing" — as stated by the respectable sources of the Wall Street Journal. The edges of the hole are torn to the outside, so in this case the piece of shrapnel penetrated the air intake by flowing from the tail side.

There is another piece of the engine — the rim of the turbine with the traces of the inbound holes, however it is impossible to determine which of the engines it belongs to. It is known that this fragment was found in the outskirts of Petropavlovka, where the right air intake was located. However, the left door was found here as well, which is located in front of the left engine.

If this is indeed a fragment of the right engine, then the fire was performed using an aircraft cannon from the right and the back and later from the right side through the broadside and the right engine towards the pilot cabin. Most likely fire was opened at close range (about 500-700m).

The right side of the "Boeing" skin between the cabin and the second door on the right wasn't found (at least, there are no photos of it in the open access). Wall Street Journal published the photos of the baggage shelves from the right side of the business-class. At the Gilze-Rijen air base the journalists were not allowed to come close to precisely these fragments of business-class by covering them with squares because the objects are of interest to the investigation.

10610491_957973157569056_4920482774089208640_n safe_image
Source Source

Su-25 (Rook).

The aircraft is equipped with double-barreled immobile GSh-30 cannon on the left of the airframe in the lower nose part of the fuselage (the caliber is 30 mm, the ammunition load is 250 shells), which is mostly supposed to destroy weakly armored
targets like APCs. Additionally, up to 4 GSh-23L cannons may be mounted, each of which has a mobile barrel that can veer down by 30 degrees (the ammunition load is 260 shells), and also two "air-to-air" missiles R-60 or R-27. In some variants it is possible to mount the R-77 missiles.


Here is how the first attack using the aircraft cannon from the right and the back "in pursuit" — the bullets penetrate the engine skin, the right side of the business-class and hit the pilots in the back. This version is considered in more detail here.

Either the aircraft cannon GSh-30 with armor-piercing or fragmentation ammunition (see above) with the caliber of 30 mm or the four cannons GSh-23 with the ammunition of 23 mm caliber could be used for shooting. Several holes on the discovered piece of skin of the pilot cabin and also the back of seat of the second pilot were most likely damaged by the shrapnel no bigger than 20-30mm, which flew from the side of the tail. This is suggested by several sources at once (link and another link ).

The pilots didn't see the attack jet in front of them they were mortally wounded from the back. Already after this the Su-25 attacked the cabin from the front, when the "Boeing" was turned around. This is how the numerous entry and several exit holes on the cockpit plating were formed.

Entry and exit holes in the pilot cabin

15115321294_5a17aa8ae7_z 15549869798_a7ea17013a_b

The back seat of the pilot. It is possible to compare how the holes that form due to penetrating the fabric and the metal here and here

The body of the crew commander with holes in the chest.

CONCLUSION: A combined strike from a Su-25 M1 attack jet was performed against the Malaysian Boeing. The first attack from the Su-25M1 was performed on the course of the "Boeing" flight in pursuit most likely the attack jet was located on the right side of the tail of the Malaysian airplane and fired while moving towards the right engine in this direction the jet made several shots using its 23 mm or 30 mm aircraft cannon.

The pilots died after the first attack, a large-scale decompression occurred in the cabin, the electronics went out of order, the plane turned right and the "Boeing" was probably attacked by the attack jet again, but this time on the left side, in the cabin area from the side of the crew commander using the aircraft cannon and a R-60M rocket in the area of the left engine and the left door, on which the traces of penetration by rod-shaped sub-projectiles remained.

P.S. The author of the photo — the Dutch correspondent of RTL Jeroen Akkermans – to whom I referred with respect to this fragment, ignored this topic. Unfortunately, we can only judge based on the photo.

  • 1


Thanks for this masterpiece. But how can a su25 attack a boeing at mach 0.84 in fl330 or 350 from behind???

Disclaimer: I'm not an aviation expert. However, I would focus on the evidence in the article and the scenario described.

1) In the described scenario the attacking jet only had to deliver several shots on target in the first salvo. After the crew was eliminated, the Boeing slowed down at which point the Su-25M1 could easily finish it off.
2) The scenario is compatible with other airplanes than Su-25. It is even compatible with an attack performed by two jets – one killed the crew and slowed down the Boeing and the Su-25M1 finished it off a bit later.
3) Su-25M1 is the Ukranian mod of Su-25 with increased operational height. In particular it has much better-performing gun sights (!) and a satellite navigation system. Also, the operational height of using onboard weapons is increased by a factor of 3 compared to a "standard" Su-25.

So, when speaking about this case we have to focus on the Ukrainian Su-25 M1 and not on the original Su-25, which was developed in 1975.

Before we can rule out Su-25M1, we have to know with absolute certainty that it couldn't deliver one salvo at the Boeing at the height of 10km. Nobody can rule this out at this point. The Su-25 M1 is quite capable of flying at this altitude. The only thing is that apparently the pilot would have to use an oxygen mask. Other than this, this scenario appears to be quite feasible to me.

Re: boeing

I still cant imagine how that SU 25 can easily follow the Boeing at Mach .84 or even .86 ! I know from own experience how slow you approach an aircraft at just a little different speed. SU 25 is NOT supersonic-right?
another thing: when they loss an engine during cruiseflight the autopilot cannot hold the plane stable in the air, because it doesnot use the rudder, which is needed to counter the loss of power on one side! A China Airlines jumbo crashed in such a case because the idiot pilot did not use the rudder- he must apply manual-with his feet- pressure to the pedals!
so, probably first a hit with heatseeking missiles from distance(how far away is possible?) kills one engine, airplane turns sharply before pilot reacts, then loses speed and either the pilot disconnects the autopilot to descend (max height with one engine is around 7000 meters)or with ap engaged the airplane stalls an spins down. the SU25 can finish their job now easily with guns and attacks from all sides.
by the way: is" meet the pilot who shot down MH15" on fort russ real or fake???

It is masterpiece of blatant lie:
- Shrapnel round Sh-361 is presented as a continuous rod warhead
- Continuous rod warhead causes completely different type of damage (long cut)

R-60 was used back in 1978 to attack similar target KAL902. In that incident R-60 cut off 4 meter long fragment of the wing. This is how continuous rod warhead works.
Boeing 707 is 4 time smaller than Boeing 777 yet it did survive the hit and landed relatively well.
Do we have to believe that R-60, which wasn't capable to down 4 times smaller airplane, managed to blew out into several pieces 4 times bigger airplane?

Re: boeing

(Anonymous) Watch from 5:30!!
СУ-25 .Галенки в Кокайтах. 1995г.mpg

The su-25 can do more than mach .84 at above 8000meters!!!

Look at the speed of this plane its above 1200kph!!!
Look at the altitude of this plane its at 8500meters!!!

Then watch the russian documentary reflections on mh17 on youtube they take a su-25 to 12000meters!!!!

Please people dont believe all the mass media bullshit! And dimwitted youtube commenters!

Punish them...


The guilty must be punished....soon..but by whom and how..??

"Su25" image

The image just below "Su-25 (Rook)" shows a Mig29, not an Su25. This may not be that important (it's just an illustration), but it's noticeable.

That is correct. That image is not a Su-25.

The image is just a schematic illustration of the proposed scenario. The described scenario is actually compatible with a different attacking jet.
Mig-29 also uses GSh-30 aircraft cannon.

By the way if it could be possible to measure those holes and figure out if it is compatible with GSh-30 or with GSh-23L, then we could rule out some types of jets. GSh-23L appears to be used on Su-25 variants and not used on other relevant candidates for the described scenario.

The author of the original article commented that she is more inclined towards GSh-23L, which explains the focus of the article on Su-25M1.

Edited at 2015-03-06 05:27 am (UTC)

Модернизация СУ-25

Я добавила в свой текст характеристики Су-25М1, очень много комментариев "это невозможно", "не достанет", "не попадет" было. Пришлось дописать.

Модернизированный Су-25М1 имеет цифровой прицел, увеличивающий точность прицеливания на 30% по сравнению с серийным аналоговым. Практический потолок Су-25М1 - 10000м. Max скорость - 975 км.ч

"За счет установки спутниковой системы навигации самолет способен поражать цели даже тогда, когда пилот их визуально не видит, но ему известны их координаты. Самолет способен использовать штатное вооружение по наземным целям днем и ночью, в условиях плохой видимости и не выходя из-за облаков. Существенно, почти в 3 раза, повышена высотность применения вооружения".

Ссылки и

Re: Модернизация СУ-25

OK. The following text was added to the translation:

The modernized Su-25M1 has digital gun sights, which improves the targeting precision by 30% compared to the standard analogs. The practical ceiling of a Su-25M1 is 10000m. The maximum velocity is 975 km/h.

"Due to installing a satellite navigation system, the airplane is able to hit the targets even if the pilot is not visually identifying them but when he knows their coordinates. The airplane is able to use its regular weapons agaist ground targets during both day and night, under the conditions of low visibility and without the need to leave clouds. The altitude on which it is possible to use the weapons was increased substantially, by almost a factor of 3".

My version of the translation


Ok Su-25M1


But the question remains - who piloted this one (or two) aircraft
in the Ukraine military, perhaps another nationality who had aims
that didn't concern themselves with collateral damage?

Possibility when one considers neocon hegemony?

Questions about the body

I'm not familiar with the wounds inflicted by various types of munitions.

In the photo of the body, are the wounds entry or exit wounds or some of both?

Is the absence of blood normal under these circumstances?

Are the wounds on the body consistent with what an expert would expect to see as the result of a successful attack from the rear with 23 mm or 30 mm cannon fire?

Re: Questions about the body

I cannot really answer your questions because I'm not an aviation expert.

But note that the GSh-23L and GSh-30 cannons may use both armor-piercing and fragmentation ammunition. The use of fragmentation ammunition for these cannons may lead to absolute carnage. There is a link in the text to a video which shows what several GSh-30 fragmentation rounds do to a bus in just 3-4 seconds. As a non-expert, I leave it up to you to decide if this could or couldn't produce the kind of wounds that we see on the body.

One big problum: the shot group is way too tight...

Interesting article but it fails to explain how, judging from the number of holes in the photographs, an aircraft that only carries 250 rounds for its cannon some how managed to hit that jet with almost every single round at over 3000 meters (the closest any "jet" got to ML17 as said by the Russians themselves, they said 3000 to 5000 meters).

Another problem is the MAXUMUM effective range of the SU-25s 30mm cannon is about 1800 meters vs ground targets and it's even less vs aerial targets (look it up if want). This is well below the 3000 meter minimum any aircraft ever got near ML17 (again Russia's own statement in their press conference).

I'm an avid competition marksman, I've even fired 7.63mm machineguns in the military as a competitor, and while that in it's self doesn't make me an expert of 30mm cannons there are some things that apply to all projectiles that fly trough the air from the end of a barrel and, to me anyways, in the end basic ballistics is against this theory. Here's why: the spread of projectiles fired from any automatic weapon gets greater (wider) with range, digitally assisted or not, at almost over 2 times the maximum range of what that weapon was intended to fire at targets, to be putting that many holes in a 4 foot by 5 foot panel (8% of the SU 25s cannon ammo load by the way) is, well, pretty damn near impossible. Those holes were caused by something other than a cannon and missile warhead shrapnel is a very good candidate.

Also what is not been mentioned is while the SU-25M1 can climb to 10,000 meters it can only do so with a very limited load and for only a short period with serious restrictions on its performance... this theory has the jet carrying cannon ammunition (quite heavy) and A to A missiles wile dancing around with a airliner.

Re: One big problum: the shot group is way too tight...

This article has nothing to do with the press-conference given by the Russian ministry of defense on this topic. The article doesn't use any of the radar evidence presented there. In fact, the article doesn't use any evidence associated with MH17 other than the photographs from the crash site.

After reviewing the relevant segment of that press-conference, the only thing they said is that there was an airplane without a transponder, which appeared on the radar like a Su-25, that flew within 3000 to 5000 meters from the "Boeing". That doesn't imply that the jet that they tracked was the only such jet. They didn't say anywhere that they guarantee that there was nothing else in the area. Actually, they did say that the radar was in "standby mode", which only allows it to detect airplanes above 5km. We would need in-depth knowledge of how their system works in "standby mode" and how the information from multiple radars is aggregated to guarantee that they saw every single airplane above 5km in that area.

In other words, absence of evidence of other military jets closer to MH17 does not imply evidence of their absence. We'd need some pretty strong guarantees from the Russians about their radars and C2 systems performance to make that conclusion from the press-conference. I don't think that they ever gave such guarantees.

Besides, the article gives a fairly convincing argument that the holes were not produced by the sub-projectiles in a Buk-M1 SAM. So, if we accept this argument, then it wasn't a BUK but rather it was S-200 or S-300 type SAM, which still changes absolutely everything about this case and rules out the use of "BUK".

Finally, I'd like to note that framing this article as "more evidence from the Russians", e.g., using rhetoric like "Russians themselves" that can be viewed by some readers as implicitly framing this particular article as "yet another attempt by the Russians to come up with an excuse" is not going to help us figure out what really happened. Lets not lump things together and lets consider separate things separately.

Edited at 2015-03-07 06:09 am (UTC)

Re: One big problum: the shot group is way too tight...

Regarding your argument about the spread. The GSh-type cannons mounted on airplanes apparently combine armor-piercing and fragmentation rounds. The reason apparently is that it is too difficult for the pilot (or shooter) to switch between ammo types during air combat. Fragmentation rounds would produce *a lot* of holes, many more than the number of rounds fired, as you can see on the video where a bus gets destroyed by GSh-30. The pattern of holes produced by sub-munitions in these rounds can be quite chaotic indeed – just take a look at the windows of that bus as the fragmentation rounds started exploding inside.

Finally, if the Su-25M1 was using the GSh-23L setup, then it definitely a lot of ammo to go around.
As for particular climbing characteristics of Su-25M1 – it is a deep mod of Su-25. There are even some claims on the internet that some of the Ukrainian Su-25M1 had their engines replaced, in which case all bets are off. We'd need more specific data about each Su-25M1 in service to Ukraine to make the claim that they couldn't do it (as I understand, each of the Ukrainian Su-25M1s was "one of a kind" – the M1 mod was not something that was produced serially, but rather applied to individual jets in service to Ukraine). – the Google cache of a white paper from Kharkov about possible engine replacements in Su-25. This paper is by the way the source of quotes about Su-25M1. Engine replacement is indicated as one way to ensure that Ukrainian Su-25s are useful through 2020s. The list of engines considered in this article is very impressive, In the list it even includes the AL-31FN monstrous engine used in Russian air superiority fighters. Engine replacement was defintely considered serious for the Ukrainian Su-25 fleet.

Now the question is – did any of that go beyond white paper.

Edited at 2015-03-07 06:32 am (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I still say those holes are not from cannon rounds; for the reasons I already stated and the simple fact that evidence of the cannon rounds themselves or fragments of them have not been found in the wreckage or in the bodies of the victims (as far as I know). They don't just vaporize on impact.

I'm new here so a quick disclaimer: I'm not interested in the politics of this incident. I really don't have a dog in that fight. I seriously believe we'll probably never know who really did it for sure and whom ever gets "blamed" based on whatever evidence is presented in the end will of course deny it and present their own version of events.

Those holes are bent outside, though. Which is not compatible with a SAM exploding ahead and above the nose. Also, there is surprisingly little damage on other sections of the plane.

Actually, we haven't heard anything about the autopsies. For some reason there is an undue amount of secrecy about this case. If they would an I-section in a body of one of the victims, this would pretty much settle the case – at least it would be clear that it was someone's Buk. At this point the "Buk" version is highly dubious.

As for particular scenarios – to my non-expert eye there could be a lot of feasible scenarios of a single or double AAM hit and GSh-23/GSh-30 salvos (of which there could be more than one), which are compatible with the reasoning in this article. The described scenario is probably the simplest in the sense that it requires the least effort from the attacking pilot.

I agree %100 about the bodies showing what really hit the aircraft. No doubt the autopsies will be a part of the final report. I have no idea what the privacy laws are in Holland. That might have something to do with nothing being put out yet.

The image of the cockpit crewman, by the way, with the three hits to the torso is pretty telling. If he was hit by cannon rounds that may times he'd been cut in half. something with less velocity more than likely hit him.

Fuel explosion - why not?

Three purely technical questions:

Is there in 10km height, where mh17 was hit, so much oxygen in the air so an explosion in the jet fuel eventually could have been triggered?

What is the height limit for such an jet fuel explosion?

Why did Mh17 not explode in the air?

Edited at 2015-03-07 03:42 pm (UTC)

Re: Fuel explosion - why not?

I don't think MH17 ever received a direct hit from an explosive object like a missile. Cannon rounds, if used, would have to hit the fuel cells to start a fire which might result in an explosion.

It would seem MH17's cockpit area was more likely hit and destroyed by something like shrapnel from a missile (or cannon rounds) resulting in the crew being killed and control of the aircraft being lost. The jet liner then broke up from the stress of it basically falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled manner... the forward section with the cockpit was probably torn off first due to the damage the area received.

There was some smoking debris seen falling in some of the video but it appears the main mid-section of the aircraft (center fuselage with the engines) hit the ground "intact" and then burned.

Re: Fuel explosion - why not?

My idea is that if MH17 was hit by a Buk missile, it would have exploded immediately, if such an explosion is possible in 10km height. The Buk metal pieces had so much energy, that the metal to metal friction heat would have ignited the jet fuel. Therefore I repeat my technical question: Can such an explosion occur in 10km height when you consider the oxygen conditions?
I assume that if MH17 was hit by Buk sharpnel, the fuel tanks would have been penetrated.
If a jet fuel explosion is possible in that height, it was NOT a Buk. It must have been something else, and your desciption of what happened seems reasonable, as it is known that one of the passengers found, had put on his oxygen mask.

Edited at 2015-03-09 06:20 am (UTC)

Re: Fuel explosion - why not?

That would depend on how far away the BUK (if it was one at all) was when the warhead went off. The missile its self is not designed to hit the intended target but to explode near it and shower it with shrapnel. Everyone assumes optimal performance and effect on the part of such equipment... that may have not been the case here. It may have detonated where only the very front of the aircraft was caught in the shrapnel cone thrown out by the missile. Nothing is perfect.

Jet fuel explosion

"Can such an explosion occur in 10km height"

The short answer is no. It's unlikely because jet fuel is not explosive. It burns if all variables are optimized, but it won't explode.

russian's propaganda can do everything to blame all of the world just for save their lie. And we see it again. I think this troll-writer is from Saint-Petersburg's trolls-office and his month salary is around 30-40k rubbles.

If you want to know truth, check this out -
No assumptions or guesses just facts, only facts.

Hi bloody russian trolls. I watching for you.

Edited at 2015-03-13 01:11 am (UTC)
(Frozen) (Thread)

This post is so much fun that I'm not even going to remove it :) – especially the St. Petersbug wtf thing :))

By the way, it looks like you are writing to us from Kiev ;)
(Frozen) (Parent) (Thread)

Продолжение истории - анализ правого борта Боинга Здесь разбор того, что известно на данный момент

  • 1

Log in