Ukraine Revolt/Civil War News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys, let's please stop speculating about what happened with the MH17 Airliner. That has been done ad-nausium both ways.

The:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


...has been filed that states that a Russian made missile downed the airliner.

Here is a direct quote from the report regarding conclusions:

Dutch Safety Board Report said:
10.1 Main conclusions

1. Causes of the crash

a. On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines operated flight MH17, an airworthy Boeing 777-200 with the registration 9M-MRD, in cruise flight near the Ukrainian/Russian border at 33,000 feet, under the control of Ukrainian Air Traffic Control and was operated by a competent and qualified crew.

b. At 13.20:03 hours (15.20:03 CET) a warhead detonated outside and above the left hand side of the cockpit of flight MH17. It was a 9N314M warhead carried on the 9M38-series of missiles as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system.

c. Other scenarios that could have led to the disintegration of the aeroplane were considered, analysed and excluded based on the evidence available.

d. The impact killed the three persons in the cockpit and caused structural damage to the forward part of the aeroplane leading to an in-flight break-up.

The break-up resulted in a wreckage area of 50 square kilometres between the village of Petropavlivka and the town of Hrabove, Ukraine. All 298 occupants lost their lives.

10.Weapon used

The aeroplane was struck by a 9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. This conclusion is based on the combination of the following:

  1. the recorded sound peak,
  2. the damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast and the impact of fragments,
  3. the bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments found in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew members in the cockpit,
  4. the injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit,
  5. the analysis of the in-flight break-up,
  6. the analysis of the explosive residues and paint found and the size and distinct, bow-tie, shape of some of the fragments.
11. Missile flight paths

The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have commenced measures about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine. Further forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom Act 'Dutch Safety Board'.


IMHO, no one can reasonably claim that the Dutch Safety Board were biased in their report.

We can certainly argue the merits of their process and data...but that leads to speculation of the highest order on both sides, and certainly does not have access to the data and info the Dutch Safety Board had access to


At least we have a report now from an official investigation which is far better than we had before.


DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATIO
N
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Basically its back to, " Moscow says Kiev says."

Both sides had the means and motivation to park AA missile systems and search for targets.
Frankly we will not get a proper answer until this whole situation between Russia, East and West Ukraine, the US. and EU is sorted out.

That's the truth. I don't expect answers any time this decade and I don't think any of us should.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Basically its back to, " Moscow says Kiev says."

Both sides had the means and motivation to park AA missile systems and search for targets.
Frankly we will not get a proper answer until this whole situation between Russia, East and West Ukraine, the US. and EU is sorted out.

That's the truth. I don't expect answers any time this decade and I don't think any of us should.

True, but that would do a total disservice and unjust to the victims families.:(:mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

delft

Brigadier
I just read parts of the report, the parts that interests us here. The main piece is on page 256:
11. Missile flight paths
The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have commenced measures about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine. Further forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom Act ‘Dutch Safety Board’.
But early in the report is given the spot where the aircraft was when its radios stopped:
The data 10 on the Flight Data Recorder showed that the aeroplane was flying at 33,000 feet, on a constant displayed heading of 115° and at a constant computed airspeed of 293 knots. 11 The recording had stopped abruptly at 13.20:03 (15.20:03 CET). The Flight Data Recorder showed that the aeroplane’s position at 13.20:02 (15.20:02 CET) was 48.12715 N 38.52630538 E.
This is on page 47.
Just looking at the maps that seems to be very near the position one of us estimated 15 months ago - about 50 km from the position those two British journalists had seen the Buk launcher in rebel hands.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
It seems to me that the investigation has been extended unnecessarily as far as our point of view is concerned. If we had been given the position of the aircraft when it was hit or, as in this case, the second before it was hit, a week after the disaster when it had become known at Farnborough, we could have looked at the given positions of the four Buk launchers nearby and decided that the launcher in the hand of the rebels was or was not within reach.
I suppose that Russia thought, correctly as it came out, that the Kiev regime would be weaker as the mystery lasted longer and so was prepared to wait while the other side hoped that it never would come out or something. The Russian military must have been watching over the the Donbass in order to warn for any approaching attacking aircraft and to give wise council on shooting them down and must have seen it happen.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
It seems to me that the investigation has been extended unnecessarily as far as our point of view is concerned. If we had been given the position of the aircraft when it was hit or, as in this case, the second before it was hit, a week after the disaster when it had become known at Farnborough, we could have looked at the given positions of the four Buk launchers nearby and decided that the launcher in the hand of the rebels was or was not within reach.
I suppose that Russia thought, correctly as it came out, that the Kiev regime would be weaker as the mystery lasted longer and so was prepared to wait while the other side hoped that it never would come out or something. The Russian military must have been watching over the the Donbass in order to warn for any approaching attacking aircraft and to give wise council on shooting them down and must have seen it happen.

Actually master Delft, the Dutch are being coy about naming the guilty party in order NOT to prejudice the ongoing "criminal investigation", and those criminals will be named and prosecuted! Justice will be served.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Again, the:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


...has been filed that states that a Russian made missile downed the airliner.

Here is a direct quote from the report regarding conclusions:

Dutch Safety Board Report said:
10.1 Main conclusions

1. Causes of the crash

a. On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines operated flight MH17, an airworthy Boeing 777-200 with the registration 9M-MRD, in cruise flight near the Ukrainian/Russian border at 33,000 feet, under the control of Ukrainian Air Traffic Control and was operated by a competent and qualified crew.

b. At 13.20:03 hours (15.20:03 CET) a warhead detonated outside and above the left hand side of the cockpit of flight MH17. It was a 9N314M warhead carried on the 9M38-series of missiles as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system.

c. Other scenarios that could have led to the disintegration of the aeroplane were considered, analysed and excluded based on the evidence available.

d. The impact killed the three persons in the cockpit and caused structural damage to the forward part of the aeroplane leading to an in-flight break-up.

The break-up resulted in a wreckage area of 50 square kilometres between the village of Petropavlivka and the town of Hrabove, Ukraine. All 298 occupants lost their lives.

10.Weapon used

The aeroplane was struck by a 9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. This conclusion is based on the combination of the following:

  1. the recorded sound peak,
  2. the damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast and the impact of fragments,
  3. the bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments found in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew members in the cockpit,
  4. the injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit,
  5. the analysis of the in-flight break-up,
  6. the analysis of the explosive residues and paint found and the size and distinct, bow-tie, shape of some of the fragments.
11. Missile flight paths


The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have commenced measures about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine. Further forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom Act 'Dutch Safety Board'.
Again, no one can reasonably claim that the Dutch Safety Board were biased in their report. They are avoiding stepping into the separate ongoing criminal investigation.

At least we have a report now from an official investigation which is far better than we had before.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATIO
N
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
My Dutch newspaper NRC,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, writes in the edition of yesterday on page 5 that Ukraine 'tried to deceive its allies', before the destruction of MH17, by claiming the An-26 shot down on July 14 was hit at an altitude of 6200 meters ( I have also seen mention of 5500 and 6500 meters ). It refers to Appendix t of the MH17 report. I cite page 24 of the MIVD report:
The MIVD’s impression was that the Separatists were trained to use weapon systems, including MANPADS, in the Russian Federation. There were no indications that they were being trained to use powerful anti-aircraft systems. The Separatists’ training in the Russian Federation came to light as a result of the press conference given by General Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO, on 30 June 2014. Breedlove stated that Separatists on the Russian side of the border had been trained to use vehicle-borne air defence systems. He also stated that the Americans had not yet observed that these systems were being transported across the border to Ukraine. These
statements contained little new information for the MIVD. The terms ‘vehicle-borne capability’ and ‘air defence vehicles’ are generic and are also used to refer to short-range anti-aircraft systems.

On 14 July 2014, an An-26 military cargo aeroplane (referred to hereafter as: the Antonov), belonging to the Ukrainian airforce, was shot down. The Ukrainian authorities reported the event the same day in a briefing with Ukraine’s presidential administration in Kiev. The MIVD also received a concise report
of the briefi ng from the Dutch Defence attaché. The report revealed that the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Klimkin, declared that the situation in the east had reached a new and dangerous phase because the Russian Federation was now openly providing the Separatists with military support. As an example of the escalation, Klimkin cited the Antonov’s being shot down in the area of Lugansk. Klimkin reported that the Antonov was flying at an altitude of 6,200 metres and could only have been hit with Russian equipment, because the Separatists did not possess this kind of anti-aircraft systems.
According to a media report on 14 July 2014 (which the MIVD possessed), the Ukrainian authorities stated that the aeroplane was flying at 6,500 metres and was not shot down by a portable anti-aircraft system but by a more powerful system. This was probably carried out from Russian territory. In the media, the Separatists claimed that they had shot down the aeroplane and taken some of the crew prisoner.

If the Antonov had indeed been shot down by, or even from, the Russian Federation, this would have been a game changer. Direct Russian participation in the conflict would have become a fact. That is why the MIVD immediately launched an investigation into the incident. In the morning of 17 July 2014, the MIVD communicated the results of this investigation in its daily intelligence summary (‘dagintsum’), which had a number of users, including the NCTV and the AIVD. The MIVD assessed it to be unlikely that the Antonov had been shot down by a powerful anti-aircraft system (separate from the question whether this had been carried out from Russian territory). From pictures of the wreckage and eyewitness accounts it was clear that the aeroplane’s right-hand engine had been hit and that 5 to 6 parachutes had subsequently appeared. The Antonov had allegedly crashed only then. On this basis, the MIVD concluded that the appearance of the damage was not consistent with a hit by a powerful anti-aircraft system. The aeroplane would in that case probably have been destroyed in the air. The crew would probably not have survived if this had been the case. According to the MIVD, the wreckage and the eyewitnesses supported the fact that the aircraft was shot out of the air by a MANPADS from Ukrainian territory. This would only have been possible if the Antonov were flying substantially lower than 6,200 or 6,500 metres. Another possibility was that a short-range, vehicle-
borne anti-aircraft system had been used. The MIVD’s information does indicate the use of a powerful anti-aircraft system.

On 14 July 2014, the Ukrainian authorities publicly issued a NOTAM, which meant that Ukrainian airspace was closed up to a height of 9,700 metres (FL320). The MIVD did not receive any information regarding the reasons for this restricted airspace.
We also saw those photographs and concluded that the Ukrainian story was false.
The MIVD story is not quite coherent but should have been reason to accord Ukraine a position of suspect in the MH17 case and not co-investigator.
 
Top