Posted on 07/29/2014 9:13:26 PM PDT by aardwolf46
This has been on various news sites today, but I don't see it on FR or Drudge. Any sort of a Google search on "MH17 bullet holes" will turn up multiple versions. German investigators are claiming that the forward part of MH17 is riddled with bullet holes, apparently 30mm, which is the main armament of the Ukrainian jets which were tailing the airliner. There is zero possibility of anybody shooting down an airliner with a 30mm gun from the ground.
Or Jack Kennedy for that matter. Kennedy faced them down with a lot of class, IMO.
~I believe you are in error.
The missile is a radar guided proximity detonation. It does not attempt to actually hit the aircraft. It get’s it’s cigar by just being close.
A rod charge is a penetrator for armor, like a tank.
To knock down a fighter jet, you don’t need that, although I am sure they have a missile designed for that and can be launched by a BUK.
AA missiles are quite different.~
I’m 100% sure BUK missile has a continuous rod warhead. Yes, it is radar-guided proximity detonated. I have no idea why do.you see a contradiction here.
JFK’s weakness and incompetence almost got us killed and his election is what destroyed America, he was a disaster in foreign policy.
Ah yes, you are quite correct. Looks like I had SU-25 first, and then I got dyslexic and upgraded it to a SU-35.
And also thank you for mentioning that it cannot match the speed of the 777. I forgot to mention that.
First of all, warhead designs, are application specific.
I am sure this launcher called the BUK can accommodate several types of missiles, usually at least 2-3 variants.
We really don’t know what warhead design it had so I am going by the damages I see and have seen in days of picture releases.
As to continuous rods, I understand the concept and have actually seen it in frag weapons of the 1960’s, but in these the rods were either cast or had score marks to break them up in whatever size was required.
In the case of a anti-personnel weapon, the rods and it’s fragments would be smaller. in the case of a aircraft they would be sized to the most effective mass and size for the required effective burst area. Never seen the guts of one, but It seems likely the frag size would be equivalent to the size of the most effective AA ordinance which is 20mm-30mm in diameter.
When designing this stuff you have to take into consideration the flight characteristics of the fragment to make it as effective as possible..(rarely miss) and to do that you need a fragment that flies true, like a ball or something that is just as wide as it is long, which approximates a ball or a chunk with a balanced dimensions.
I use the term ball, because that works as do aerodynamic chunks, which we use in many of our frag weapons.
The effective area of a AA warhead burst can be in the neighborhood of 200-300 sq meters and continuous rods without fragmentation shear points to create (chunks or ball like projectiles) will not give you that sort of effective range. In my experience the rods type, usually copper, was a anti tank or anti bunker warhead. The rod is designed to melt and burn it’s way through, which is why calling the Buk oridinance a rod type can be somewhat misleading.
I would draw one for you, but I can even post a picture if I had one, but the fragment resembles a ball and has beveled edges.
In some applications, prior to fragmentation it may look like a bunch of rods that are twisted like a steel cable.
But after fragmentation they look closer to little 10-30mm balls or chunks ...
Yeah, but he did stand the Russians down in Cuba.
Actually he inherited the policies that led to Khrushchev desiring to place medium range nukes in Cuba. (we had them in Germany and Turkey)
Essentially, without getting into specifics, it is the same deterrent policy the Bush admin had in a somewhat modified way.
Things have changed since and we use subs now for the same tactical advantages. And so do they....
As part of the stand down, when both us and Russia were on full alert, we agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey over a period of years, and Russia agreed to take their crap back from Castro.
The man admitted Khrushchev slapped him around, and then he started Vietnam after almost killing us in a nuclear war with Russia, the guy was an idiot in foreign policy.
Eisenhower and his vice president, weren’t.
With no JFK, the 1960s wouldn’t have become the destructive decade, Vietnam tore us apart, as did JFK’s immigration goals that became realized in 1965 which makes a coherent foreign policy increasingly impossible.
Vietnam started kicking up during Truman's term.
I think much to much is made of Kennedy's mistakes, (bay of pigs) or his actions..
Had Ho Chi Min been paid even the smallest amount of attention by the US when he sought help, things may have been different.
Kennedy’s participation or lack of it in Vietnam was not really the catalyst that led up to the war. In my view it was our political blindness as it applied to our French allies at the time.
He created the mess, and the media made him the hero of his debacle.
““We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along,” snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro.”
” That Khrushchev swept the floor with Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis was mainstream conservative conclusion throughout much of the Cold War. Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, for instance, represented opposite poles of the Republican establishment of their time.
“We locked Castro’s communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal,” growled Barry Goldwater about the JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution.”
“Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,” complained Richard Nixon. “Then gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard.”
Generals Curtis Le May and Maxwell Taylor represented opposite poles of the military establishment.
“The biggest defeat in our nation’s history!” bellowed Air Force chief Curtis Lemay while whacking his fist on his desk upon learning the details of the deal.
“We missed the big boat,” complained Gen. Maxwell Taylor after learning the same.
“We’ve been had!” yelled then Navy chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK “solved” the missile crisis. Adm. Anderson was the man in charge of the very “blockade” against Cuba.
“It’s a public relations fable that Khrushchev quailed before Kennedy,” wrote Alexander Haig. “The legend of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation invented by Kennedy’s men paid a handsome political dividend. But the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal was a deplorable error resulting in political havoc and human suffering through the America’s.”
William Buckley’s National Review devoted several issues to exposing and denouncing Kennedy’s appeasement. The magazine’s “The Third World War” column roundly condemned Kennedy’s Missile Crisis solution as “America’s defeat.”
Even Democratic luminary Dean Acheson despaired: “This nation lacks leadership,” he grumbled about the famous “Ex-Comm meetings” so glorified in the movie Thirteen Days. “The meetings were repetitive and without direction. Most members of Kennedy’s team had no military or diplomatic experience whatsoever. The sessions were a waste of time.”
But not for the Soviets. “We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along,” snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. “
http://humanevents.com/2013/10/24/so-when-did-the-cuban-missile-crisis-become-kennedys-victory/
Get real, FDR had a handful of men in Vietnam, Truman, Eisenhower had advisers there, but they were there for a purpose and their presence had nothing to do with getting us into to war, we have Green Berets everywhere and they have nothing to do with getting us into war, hidden advising is their mission.
JFK went to war, he shipped 16,000 troops to Vietnam to help conceal his buffoonery and weakness, the man was a disaster.
Har!
As I understand, the holes are irregularly shaped, which is consistent with shrapnel damage rather than bullet wholes. Also, SU-25 can’t reach the height of the jetliner to shoot cannons.
Russians did it
I can't tell if you are joking or incredibly naive.
You cannot do a factual or reasoned debate with quotes of past political rhetoric.
If that is what you use as a basis to formulate your opinions, then you have ample reason to have totally screwed up opinions.
As I said, Vietnam becan before it was even called Vietnam. It was called French Indochina. Kennedy did not start it.
Khrushchev wanted a deterrent to balance what at the time was a definitive US first strike capability. This battle still continues, which is why Putin created this little distraction in the Ukraine.
Keep your eye on the pea!
As to Khrushchev’s commentary in his diary, it was obviously for his legacy in the USSR. You do know that he was forced out of office because they believed him to be far too weak. But they did, through their treachery, manage to get one thing that they wanted, and that was to have more parity with the US in terms of a first strike capability, but they did not achieve the balance they needed and still don’t have it, to be truthful.
That is a good thing, by the way, but Obama is changing that strategic advantage.
We are now becoming quite vulnerable in more ways than I want to get into right now, and yes, the border issue is a part of that and the Russians are up to their armpits in it. (Indirectly of course)
So they replaced him with Brezhnev, a total puppet of the Committee.
I said, and I will say it one last time for you to grasp.
If Truman had met or even sent a delegate to meet with Ho, and done even the smallest of indirect military support, we never would have had to defend the fake and utterly manufactured “South Vietnam”.
Ho, at the time, was not even a communist, he desired a relationship with the US. He went to Russia after he had given up on getting US support and after spending time in the US. As a matter of need he decided then to pursue a armed revolution against the French with aid from anyone he could get it from.
Vietnam would not have been on Kennedy’s plate at all, had we acted on Ho’s information.
Well, you seem to have absorbed your left wing revisionist history very well as you admire JFK’s foreign policy prowess and cover up for him, including in Vietnam, even overlooking the almost decade long gap between the French ending their war in Vietnam and JFK shipping 16,000 troops into Vietnam to start his own war.
You sure dismissed the views of the military, and republican leaders who actually lived through the history casually enough.
Well, as I expected and have noted in out past discussions. You are misreading me just as you do geo-politics.
Russian jets also have 30mm guns
Some might disagree. Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity
On topic I believe it was a BUK missile. Who fired it is still to be determined. Where's our proof the Russian did it other than some carttonish audio tapes put together in Kiev's basement.
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.