Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
Pappa Lurve said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but were those operations undertaken either as National operations (with allies obviously) or under the UN? NATO can also be employed under the UN if the member states allow.
The UNSC generally has to approve it (with the exception of Afghanistan that was dubiously enabled by 'an attack on a NATO member'), so Russia could probably stop it, but spending political capital to do so. It's fair comment - it might not be feasible.Pappa Lurve said:
Point of Nato is to have and maintain a cross Atlantic alliance based on military co-operation. Of course, in practise one could argue its value I guess but not being a military chap, I wouldn't know from a C&C / equipment / strategic point of view but from a pure laymans perspective it strikes me as probably a sensible arrangement.
It was an arbitrary grouping aimed squarely at combating the Soviet Union, a fixed, consolidated and tangible 'enemy'. In an era of asymmetric wars, terrorism, diverse global threats and humanitarian-led intervention, it has no obvious mission and could easily be replaced by as-and-when alliances, or some better model. However like many things, despite its apparent unsuitability, there's a lot of money and again political capital invested in it, so it continues to exist.Pappa Lurve said:
Sky - genuine question here... I know air defence systems can tell the difference based on transponders but when you say on its own - explain please! Is there just a modular upgrade or is it something like it needs to be connected to a area defence type systems as opposed to working standalone?
Yes it's part of a modular style system and works best when networked with a separate dedicated radar system and a command truck. It can also link with other launchers to co-ordinate resources. It can still work independently but has to rely on it's own more simple/dumb systems
Pappa Lurve said:
ALso, as I understand it, these these are pretty common in old client states so there are a lot of people who did national service in the Ukraine who may well know how to use and maintain them.
I think the best way to describe it is "easy to learn, hard to master". The basics are relatively simple to pick up with a little bit of training.This is also a fairly early example... newer system have better radar and communications.
TobyLaRohne said:
RenOHH said:
Blimey that sounds like something they'd put on the news in North Korea.
Worse still the vast majority of people where her mum lives dont read English and with only one source of news (through Russian press) they swallow everything they're told hook line and sinker!The Mrs Mum was pretty shocked to hear what the rest of the world was reporting.
skyrover said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Sky - genuine question here... I know air defence systems can tell the difference based on transponders but when you say on its own - explain please! Is there just a modular upgrade or is it something like it needs to be connected to a area defence type systems as opposed to working standalone?
Yes it's part of a modular style system and works best when networked with a separate dedicated radar system and a command truck. It can also link with other launchers to co-ordinate resources. It can still work independently but has to rely on it's own more simple/dumb systems
Pappa Lurve said:
ALso, as I understand it, these these are pretty common in old client states so there are a lot of people who did national service in the Ukraine who may well know how to use and maintain them.
I think the best way to describe it is "easy to learn, hard to master". The basics are relatively simple to pick up with a little bit of training.This is also a fairly early example... newer system have better radar and communications.
Yes... both the limited capabilities of the control systems, and the relative simplicity to point and shoot a missile off, mean we can't say it was a trained Russian crew deliberately shooting down a civilian airliner.
It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
skyrover said:
Yes... both the limited capabilities of the control systems, and the relative simplicity to point and shoot a missile off, mean we can't say it was a trained Russian crew deliberately shooting down a civilian airliner.
It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
I'd say it emphasises the notion that it was just rebels, although with kit from Russia.It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
It is not in Russias interest to do this deliberately. A military plane, yes. But not a civilian plane.
skyrover said:
Yes... both the limited capabilities of the control systems, and the relative simplicity to point and shoot a missile off, mean we can't say it was a trained Russian crew deliberately shooting down a civilian airliner.
It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with some basic military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
Indeed. Truth is, IMHO, it was rebels who thought they were targeting something else, a transport maybe or even a Ukraine airlines jet as opposed to MH17. Having said that, I am not really sure it matters much. It seems like 300 people died simply due to an error (well,a combination probably) and that makes it all the more tragic. It's perfectly plausible the rebels, some with some basic military training on former Soviet equipment, would have been able to operate the system on a basic level.
Of course, operating the system on a basic level could result in exactly the scenario that has unfolded.
Sadly though, the situation will rumble on for a while yet, more people will die and the only thing that may, or may not change, is that companies and governments may be more cautious on routing around trouble spots. The only remote good outcome of this would be if it focused the attention of people on the issues within the area and lead to a rapid settlement. I rather suspect it will in reality make very little difference or possibly lead to an escalation. Just very much hope to be proved wrong!
Given that the Ukrainians have an Air Force and therefore air superiority over separatists who have not, why have they not used more ground attack and anti missile systems ?
The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they? The rest of the world could hardly object.
It would also put the Russians in a fix. They would be unable to use the Russian Air Force in response without admitting they are officially fighting Ukraine.
The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they? The rest of the world could hardly object.
It would also put the Russians in a fix. They would be unable to use the Russian Air Force in response without admitting they are officially fighting Ukraine.
Vaud said:
All media is biased.
Listen to radio 4, then listen to BBC world service. Then watch al-jazeera, CNN, Russian news, French news and Japanese,
The truth will be somewhere in between.
The BBC is biased. I loved their coverage of 600 BBC job losses the other day, compared to the 18,000 Microsoft jobs, for example.
Listen to radio 4, then listen to BBC world service. Then watch al-jazeera, CNN, Russian news, French news and Japanese,
The truth will be somewhere in between.
The BBC is biased. I loved their coverage of 600 BBC job losses the other day, compared to the 18,000 Microsoft jobs, for example.
This^ - all media, citizens of a country, religious groups, football fans etc.
Did the 9/11 reaction - war in Afghanistan/Iraq really achieve anything? "War" against Russia, without proof Putin pulled the trigger or sanctioned it (Saddam & 9/11)?
Enlist Putin rather than corner him - sounds naive, and it probably is.
skyrover said:
rollondeath said:
Ha ha ha like our media source's are any different!
Our media isn't great, but there is a vast difference between selecting what to report, and blatantly making the whole lot up.Try reporting something other than the official line in Russia and see what happens
rollondeath said:
skyrover said:
rollondeath said:
Ha ha ha like our media source's are any different!
Our media isn't great, but there is a vast difference between selecting what to report, and blatantly making the whole lot up.Try reporting something other than the official line in Russia and see what happens
toppstuff said:
Given that the Ukrainians have an Air Force and therefore air superiority over separatists who have not, why have they not used more ground attack and anti missile systems ?
The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they? The rest of the world could hardly object.
Ukraine's military is in utter shambles and has received very little attention/funding for the last 10 years. The Yanukovych government was especially neglectful, probably because he had ideas toward closer reliance/integration with Russia. The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they? The rest of the world could hardly object.
Ukraine only has 13 operational fighters (9 x Su-27 and 4 x mig-29) and around 20 strike aircraft (Su-24m and Su-25)
Russia captured most of Ukraine's air-force in Crimea (45 x MiG-29s), but crushed them and returned the pieces.
Edited by skyrover on Sunday 20th July 11:47
Blib said:
Ridiculous, puerile and idiotic post.
Hmm Blib (and Attak Z) I'm thinking you wouldn't be much good at accident investigation. There's a need to keep an open mind, and when the MH17 story first broke it was a possibility that something had gone wrong with the aircraft, causing it to lose height, and thus coming within range of the smaller missile launchers. Only with more information has that become less likely, but we really won't be sure unless the black box can be found.MH17 and MH370 could both have the same initial cause, but with very different outcomes. Again we won't be 100% sure without both black boxes, and they both look a problem at the moment, unless I've missed something on today's news (Sunday).
Accident investigation also requires clinical analysis and an absence of feelings and empathy - which I'm also good at
But then this is an Internet Forum, not the AAIB, so speculation is ok.
The SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence) has released a new alleged interception of rebel communications.
If it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
If it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
toppstuff said:
Given that the Ukrainians have an Air Force and therefore air superiority over separatists who have not, why have they not used more ground attack and anti missile systems ?
The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they?
Well no, they have been unable to find anything smaller than blocks of residential flats to hit. We weren't that good at finding Saddam's Scuds in the first Gulf War, and couldn't find Milošević's tanks when we went to war over Kosovo.The Ukrainians could give the separatists a good hiding from the air in order to destroy seperatist BUK units. Couldn't they?
skyrover said:
The SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence) has released a new alleged interception of rebel communications.
If it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
OMGIf it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
ian in lancs said:
skyrover said:
The SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence) has released a new alleged interception of rebel communications.
If it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
OMGIf it is true, those black boxes are unlikely to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ff_LTlZZI8
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff