5 ms·

Just zooming into the tail section photo one can find on main stream media shows very suspicious signs of possible shrapnel hit ...

mrtksn 2y ago
The shrapnel damage is pretty much established as there are multiple videos from inside the plane during this flight prior to the crash and you can see shrapnel damage on the fuselage. The survivors are also confirming it, and report that there was a bang(which might be confused for bird strike). The question is, who shot the plane? This part is pure speculation at this point.
- wat10000 2y ago
  Is there anyone besides Russia who would have even been capable of shooting it down?
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    Well considering the incident happened in Kazakhstan, one might imagine Kazakhstan has air defences too...
    - mlyle 2y ago
      The aircraft was sent away / prohibited from landing after reporting the explosion over Grozny, and had to divert to Kazakhstan to land without real pitch control. Some view the denying of emergency landing clearance as an effort to destroy/obscure evidence: https://x.com/DailyTurkic/status/1872008574878298418 https://x.com/DailyTurkic/status/1872008574878298418
      - wat10000 2y ago
        The pilots probably should have ignored that. There’s no such thing as “denying landing clearance” to an aircraft experiencing an emergency. There’s only “get out of the way of the incoming emergency.” But I can’t blame them for not wanting to take their chances when they were just shot by local air defense.
        potato3732842 2y ago
        Do you really wanna push your luck with the people who just shot at you while also handing over all physical evidince to them?
        mlyle 2y ago
        "Yah, ATC is saying to leave-- but instead let's say 'unable' and shoot an approach at same airport where we just got shot at."
        Spooky23 2y ago
        There’s also “accidentally shoot another missile at the threat that wasn’t shot down last time” phenomenon
      - ummonk 2y ago
        The more obvious explanation would be that air controllers surmised that it was at risk of being shot at again if it continued attempting a landing in Grozny and the safest thing to do was to divert it out of Russia.
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        Regional air traffic control is in Rostov (on-Don) - you’d think they’d at least be able to get the military controllers at Rostov (Southern military district HQ) on the horn?
        ummonk 2y ago
        Assuming they have an established channel of communication, yes they would have, but imagine trying to communicate to them which blip on the radar screen is an actual civilian aircraft, and hoping they're able to track it and make sure they only fire on other targets.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      The plane crashed in Kazakhstan. It was shot over Russia. It was still sufficiently airworthy to make quite a distance before crashing.
  - eastbound 2y ago
    Yes, who shoots down entire civilian aircrafts? Itavia 870 comes to mind: In the 80ies, a fighter jet was being smuggled to Gaddafi by hiding under a civilian aircraft, and the speculation is that France shot the convoy, killing 81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itavia_Flight_870 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itavia_Flight_870
    - wat10000 2y ago
      It’s sadly somewhat common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc... Russia/USSR does seem overrepresented here.
    - gpderetta 2y ago
      Sure, but who's most likely to have shot down this plane over Russian territory?
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        The russians.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      > [...] a fighter jet was being smuggled to Gaddafi by hiding under a civilian aircraft [...] Do you have any sources for that? The article you link does not seem to mention that theory.
      - eastbound 2y ago
        That’s what I understood from a documentary, I think it was from Al Jeezira, a civilian was pointing that there was a double radar echo from the plane and it meant there were probably two planes on top of each other. Sure the article mention a theory that Gaddafi was in a fighter jet, and the civilian plane was a collateral damage from a dogfight, but given the lack of information in the public space, both theories still have a lot of common points.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > The question is, who shot the plane? This part is pure speculation at this point. It doesn't seem to be too difficult to put together what is likely. Grozny was under active drone attack at the time with air defenses working. And Russian air defense crews are pretty infamous for the jumpy trigger fingers at this point.
  - ummonk 2y ago
    And notably, the "drones" were civilian propeller aircraft fitted out to fly an unmanned suicide trajectory. I'm not sure they would even look all that distinguishable on a SAM operator's screen from a small jet like this.
    - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
      It's one of the reason Russia was very hesitant to shoot them down initially. Some of the planes were cessna and similar single engine prop planes that were loaded with explosives and remote controller: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/04/02/ukraine-packed-a-cessna-style-plane-with-explosives-added-remote-controls-and-kamikazed-it-into-a-russian-drone-factory-600-miles-away/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/04/02/ukraine-pac...
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        They weren’t Cessnas. They were Aeroprakts.
    - stefan_ 2y ago
      Except.. they are not jets, terribly slow, and fly at much lower altitude.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        A regional jet on approach and a prop aircraft in cruise don't necessarily look that different in ground speeds, altitudes, or even radar cross section to most radars.
EA-3167 2y ago
In particular some of the damage has a "linear" quality that could plausibly come from a continuous rod warhead, which would be typical for a system like Pantsir. If as the Russians claim, it was a bird-strike, you wouldn't expect debris from the failure of the engine to make a pattern like that on the tail, unless the entire engine body broke apart. Likewise, it didn't look like it was on a glide path, but rather that as discussed the hydraulics failed and they has to use thrust vectoring to fly. Obviously for very fine correction on final approach that becomes difficult, and the result was what we saw. All of that is consistent with a missile.

mrtksn 2y ago

The shrapnel damage is pretty much established as there are multiple videos from inside the plane during this flight prior to the crash and you can see shrapnel damage on the fuselage. The survivors are also confirming it, and report that there was a bang(which might be confused for bird strike). The question is, who shot the plane? This part is pure speculation at this point.

wat10000 2y ago
Is there anyone besides Russia who would have even been capable of shooting it down?
- londons_explore 2y ago
  Well considering the incident happened in Kazakhstan, one might imagine Kazakhstan has air defences too...
  - mlyle 2y ago
    The aircraft was sent away / prohibited from landing after reporting the explosion over Grozny, and had to divert to Kazakhstan to land without real pitch control. Some view the denying of emergency landing clearance as an effort to destroy/obscure evidence: https://x.com/DailyTurkic/status/1872008574878298418 https://x.com/DailyTurkic/status/1872008574878298418
    - wat10000 2y ago
      The pilots probably should have ignored that. There’s no such thing as “denying landing clearance” to an aircraft experiencing an emergency. There’s only “get out of the way of the incoming emergency.” But I can’t blame them for not wanting to take their chances when they were just shot by local air defense.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        Do you really wanna push your luck with the people who just shot at you while also handing over all physical evidince to them?
      - mlyle 2y ago
        "Yah, ATC is saying to leave-- but instead let's say 'unable' and shoot an approach at same airport where we just got shot at."
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        There’s also “accidentally shoot another missile at the threat that wasn’t shot down last time” phenomenon
    - ummonk 2y ago
      The more obvious explanation would be that air controllers surmised that it was at risk of being shot at again if it continued attempting a landing in Grozny and the safest thing to do was to divert it out of Russia.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Regional air traffic control is in Rostov (on-Don) - you’d think they’d at least be able to get the military controllers at Rostov (Southern military district HQ) on the horn?
        ummonk 2y ago
        Assuming they have an established channel of communication, yes they would have, but imagine trying to communicate to them which blip on the radar screen is an actual civilian aircraft, and hoping they're able to track it and make sure they only fire on other targets.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    The plane crashed in Kazakhstan. It was shot over Russia. It was still sufficiently airworthy to make quite a distance before crashing.
- eastbound 2y ago
  Yes, who shoots down entire civilian aircrafts? Itavia 870 comes to mind: In the 80ies, a fighter jet was being smuggled to Gaddafi by hiding under a civilian aircraft, and the speculation is that France shot the convoy, killing 81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itavia_Flight_870 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itavia_Flight_870
  - wat10000 2y ago
    It’s sadly somewhat common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc... Russia/USSR does seem overrepresented here.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    Sure, but who's most likely to have shot down this plane over Russian territory?
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      The russians.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    > [...] a fighter jet was being smuggled to Gaddafi by hiding under a civilian aircraft [...] Do you have any sources for that? The article you link does not seem to mention that theory.
    - eastbound 2y ago
      That’s what I understood from a documentary, I think it was from Al Jeezira, a civilian was pointing that there was a double radar echo from the plane and it meant there were probably two planes on top of each other. Sure the article mention a theory that Gaddafi was in a fighter jet, and the civilian plane was a collateral damage from a dogfight, but given the lack of information in the public space, both theories still have a lot of common points.
mlyle 2y ago
> The question is, who shot the plane? This part is pure speculation at this point. It doesn't seem to be too difficult to put together what is likely. Grozny was under active drone attack at the time with air defenses working. And Russian air defense crews are pretty infamous for the jumpy trigger fingers at this point.
- ummonk 2y ago
  And notably, the "drones" were civilian propeller aircraft fitted out to fly an unmanned suicide trajectory. I'm not sure they would even look all that distinguishable on a SAM operator's screen from a small jet like this.
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    It's one of the reason Russia was very hesitant to shoot them down initially. Some of the planes were cessna and similar single engine prop planes that were loaded with explosives and remote controller: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/04/02/ukraine-packed-a-cessna-style-plane-with-explosives-added-remote-controls-and-kamikazed-it-into-a-russian-drone-factory-600-miles-away/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/04/02/ukraine-pac...
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      They weren’t Cessnas. They were Aeroprakts.
  - stefan_ 2y ago
    Except.. they are not jets, terribly slow, and fly at much lower altitude.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      A regional jet on approach and a prop aircraft in cruise don't necessarily look that different in ground speeds, altitudes, or even radar cross section to most radars.

EA-3167 2y ago

In particular some of the damage has a "linear" quality that could plausibly come from a continuous rod warhead, which would be typical for a system like Pantsir. If as the Russians claim, it was a bird-strike, you wouldn't expect debris from the failure of the engine to make a pattern like that on the tail, unless the entire engine body broke apart. Likewise, it didn't look like it was on a glide path, but rather that as discussed the hydraulics failed and they has to use thrust vectoring to fly. Obviously for very fine correction on final approach that becomes difficult, and the result was what we saw. All of that is consistent with a missile.