Posted on 08/10/2014 10:58:30 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
Question then being, why didn’t they use it earlier? Why did they wait until mid-July? To shoot down a civilian jet, no less.
What is the source of this information?
“Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.”
No, you just make a lot of statements you can’t back up. To date nobody has come out with definitive evidence about who did this. I’m sorry you are convinced so easily. I require something more substantial. Too many wars have been started using propaganda.
There's no evidence that an SU-25 was close to MH17. And, in any case, an SU-25 is not capable of shooting down an airliner flying at 33,000 feet. It was designed to provide close air support to Soviet ground forces. Its service ceiling is 23,000 feet.
You have that backwards -- You made a statement that I can't back-up.
Go read it again.
This? Nalyvaichenko's a liar. The Ukes suck, too!
What's shocking is how bad these ant-aircraft systems are at identifying targets. That goes for Aegis, too.
Do you have a link to any evidence, or just conjecture?
To date the facts are that it was a Russian manufactured launcher in eastern Ukraine. All involved parties possess and are trained to use such launchers. All involved parties are putting out conflicting stories. It is an active war zone and propaganda is to be expected. The missile was fired it by unknown person(s). No definitive proof exists to say otherwise. NATO has not made a statement saying that evidence exists to show who did it.
What would you expect them to say, we did it?
Just wait a few days — the Malaysians are going to release their preliminary report on what is known thus far from the facts on the ground and those little Orange Boxes and other viable sources.
Not true...within three days the Russian Defense Ministry released radar imagery that they said indicated a Ukraine military aircraft was in proximity to the Malaysian airliner before it went down. To date this information has not been refuted, and the Ukrainians in particular have not released any information other than denials.
And, in any case, an SU-25 is not capable of shooting down an airliner flying at 33,000 feet.
Wrong again. While an SU-25 cannot sustain such an altitude for long periods, it certainly has the ability to ascend to 33,000ft for a short while...long enough to fire a missile... if it chose to. I don't think this is what happened, but it is certainly within the capability of the SU-25 to do so.
Да, дорогой товарищ! Это партийной линии.
Cockamamie Russia Today drivel!
It was not in anybody's interest to be shooting down a foreign civilian airliner. Not the Ukrainians', the Russians', nor the rebels'.
What actually happened, of course, is that the rebels shot it down by accident, thinking they were attacking a Ukrainian military transport. Immediately upon bringing it down, they rushed to the crash site, hoping to round up any crew who had bailed out (as they had after the previous Monday's shootdown). That's when they discovered their horrible error. When their commander learned the truth about 40 minutes after the attack, he immediately scrambled to take down his Facebook boast of bagging another of Kiev's AN-26s.
Wrong again. While an SU-25 cannot sustain such an altitude for long periods, it certainly has the ability to ascend to 33,000ft for a short while...long enough to fire a missile... if it chose to. I don't think this is what happened, but it is certainly within the capability of the SU-25 to do so.
Perhaps, but it would be a lousy choice for such a mission.
The Ukes have got other toys that would be far more suitable. E.g., the S-200, which has a range of 190 miles. However, they might have been a little out of practice, it being almost 13 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.