4 ms·

The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-siz

by cstross 11y ago

The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing. Other variants have anti-ballistic missile capability and/or nuclear warheads! It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft. There are echoes of Iran Air Flight 655 here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

istvan__ 11y ago
This still does not prove anything, it could have been the Ukraine military as well, they have (just like any other ex-Soviet country) plenty of BUK missiles.
- tptacek 11y ago
  First, no, they do not have "plenty" of BUK missile launchers, second, the launchers they do have are not parked in the middle of separatist strongholds, and third, it's not the SBU spinning wild stories of fighter jets flying alongside MH17 and sudden course changes by MH17 --- it's the separatists and the Russian Ministry of Defense saying those things, which have been conclusively debunked now by the Dutch report.
  - istvan__ 11y ago
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_Air_Defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_A... "Surface-to-air missile systems and complexes of division level are characterized by their long range and firepower and are equipped with surface-to-air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor." 2. No they did not need to do that, it was enough to park it closer to the zone 3. I am not sure what is this gibberish about, I did not mention anything about SBU or anybody else saying anything. Thanks for the downvotes, even when you are obviously wrong. It is just showing how much HN lost its way.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      No. The report isolates the region the missile could have been launched from, based on the damage pattern from the warhead's projectiles and MH17's flight path, to a very small number of square kilometers, all of which are firmly ensconced in separatist territory. These missiles have a fairly short range. The report and the missile's Russian manufacturer agree about the very limited number of missile models that the warhead could have been mounted on.
norea-armozel 11y ago
The question I have is how would the militias acquire such equipment. I'm assuming the answer is either the Russian government gave it willingly or someone within the government wanted to make some money on the side. Either way, it seems like trouble to me.
Const-me 11y ago
“with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing” — not really. That Russian thing is actually autonomous: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html#mozTocId210497 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html#mozTocId210497 You see? Transporter Erector Launcher _And Radar_. Wikipedia says: A transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) is the same as a TEL but also incorporates part or all of the radar system necessary for firing the missile(s). Such vehicles have the capability of being autonomous, greatly enhancing their effectiveness. With this type of system, each vehicle can fight regardless of the state or presence of support vehicles. “quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft” — yeah, I also think so. The important difference with Flight 655 and MH17 is USS Vincennes was there legally. The cruiser wasn’t smuggled to some international terrorists who say they’re independent freedom fighters, like it happened with Buk M1 which downed MH-17.

by cstross 11y ago

istvan__ 11y ago

This still does not prove anything, it could have been the Ukraine military as well, they have (just like any other ex-Soviet country) plenty of BUK missiles.

tptacek 11y ago
First, no, they do not have "plenty" of BUK missile launchers, second, the launchers they do have are not parked in the middle of separatist strongholds, and third, it's not the SBU spinning wild stories of fighter jets flying alongside MH17 and sudden course changes by MH17 --- it's the separatists and the Russian Ministry of Defense saying those things, which have been conclusively debunked now by the Dutch report.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_Air_Defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_A... "Surface-to-air missile systems and complexes of division level are characterized by their long range and firepower and are equipped with surface-to-air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor." 2. No they did not need to do that, it was enough to park it closer to the zone 3. I am not sure what is this gibberish about, I did not mention anything about SBU or anybody else saying anything. Thanks for the downvotes, even when you are obviously wrong. It is just showing how much HN lost its way.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    No. The report isolates the region the missile could have been launched from, based on the damage pattern from the warhead's projectiles and MH17's flight path, to a very small number of square kilometers, all of which are firmly ensconced in separatist territory. These missiles have a fairly short range. The report and the missile's Russian manufacturer agree about the very limited number of missile models that the warhead could have been mounted on.

norea-armozel 11y ago

The question I have is how would the militias acquire such equipment. I'm assuming the answer is either the Russian government gave it willingly or someone within the government wanted to make some money on the side. Either way, it seems like trouble to me.

Const-me 11y ago

“with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing” — not really. That Russian thing is actually autonomous: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html#mozTocId210497 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html#mozTocId210497 You see? Transporter Erector Launcher _And Radar_. Wikipedia says: A transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) is the same as a TEL but also incorporates part or all of the radar system necessary for firing the missile(s). Such vehicles have the capability of being autonomous, greatly enhancing their effectiveness. With this type of system, each vehicle can fight regardless of the state or presence of support vehicles. “quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft” — yeah, I also think so. The important difference with Flight 655 and MH17 is USS Vincennes was there legally. The cruiser wasn’t smuggled to some international terrorists who say they’re independent freedom fighters, like it happened with Buk M1 which downed MH-17.