Confirmed: Malaysia Airlines confirms it has lost contact with #MH17 from Amsterdam. Last known position over Ukraine. Was shot down, all passengers dead.

The pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine deny shooting it down, and are blaming the Ukrainian armed forces.

The Ukraine Defense Ministries claim it was shot down by a BUK missile, which the separatists do have, and it would reach. We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane: http://pastie.org/9400258. (I translated it, so forgive me for any inaccuracy).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...

and the google translation is as follows:

Message from the militia. "In the area Torrez just downed plane An-26, lying somewhere in the mine" Progress ". Warned same - not to fly in "our sky." And here is the video the confirmation of the next "ptichkopada." Birdie fell for waste heap, the residential sector is not caught. Peaceful people do not suffer. And also have information about the second downed aircraft, like the Su. "

even though the original post has been deleted from VK

http://vk.com/wall-57424472_7256

Unless I'm mistaken from the description, it takes 3 vehicles, each serving a separate purpose, to utilize the BUK missile system - with a complex series of operations and coordination between all the components (that can only be done by trained operators).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/malaysia-airlines...

The evidence against the anti-Kiev militia seems to only show the missile vehicle component. And it's unknown if it was even fully operational (aside from being drive-able on the roads).

> We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane

If my understanding is correct (from his other posts), the original info/report came from a post on their social site, where someone saw a plane coming down and assumed it must have been a military plane shut down by their side - and promoted it as such.

"The Buk missile system was designed to surpass the 2K12 Kub in all parameters and its designers including its chief designer Ardalion Rastov visited Egypt in 1971 to see Kub [SA-6, very effective in the Kom Kippur War 2 years later] in operation. Both the Kub and Buk used self-propelled launchers developed by Ardalion Rastov. As a result of this visit the developers came to the conclusion that each Buk transporter erector launcher (TEL) should have its own fire control radar rather than being reliant on one central radar for the whole system as in Kub. The result of this move from TEL to transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) was a system able to engage multiple targets from multiple directions at the same time."

If they have a vector to feed the fire control radar, and it then succeeds in acquiring the target, I would expect it to work. Our anti-radiation missiles, plus the system's missiles until the most recent one having semi-active homing (fire control radar must paint the target), put a premium on this sort of arrangement.

ADDED: I too am just learning these fine details; further down, as quoted by powertower in reply to this posting, the above ideal wasn't implemented in full, there's a normal 2-1 ratio of TELARs to TELs. And think about the implications of the TELARs being obviously more expensive: the normal ratio is unlikely to be always observed, the maintenance demands of TELARs and a high TELAR to TEL ratio is going to be higher, etc. etc.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NF6E5FC...

From wikipedia -

"A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle."

So a TEL vehicle would also require a feed from a TELAR or a TAR vehicle.

Though I'm just learning about all this, so I could be completely wrong.

I seem to recall (can't find the link now) that Ukraine declared their airspace closed to civilian aircraft after the Ukrainian Troop Transport plane was shot down recently.

Even if the airspace was open, it seems highly risky to fly over a battle-zone anyhow where direct radio communication with troops on the ground may not be possible, and opens a wide door for an accidental grounding, if not on purpose.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-28354787

That being said, touching eastern Ukraine with a 30,000 ft. pole would probably be less than wise at the moment.

Yes, but without any direct communication, no organized Air Traffic Control, and without tracking satellites, it seems very easy for ground troops to mistake a civilian transport with a military transport.

Seems ludicrous for anyone to attempt to fly over Ukraine right now.

Except for the transponder...

This is now starting to appear very-much-so as an accidental grounding. The rebel's posted on a social network bragging about grounding another military troop transport, then quickly deleted the post as soon as the news broke about a civilian airline going down over Ukraine.

oh and here is them bragging that they've captured Buk http://oi58.tinypic.com/29gmnah.jpg

I think it's pretty clear

EDIT: there is another image of it https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bswy4VtCUAAJCDS.jpg:orig Worse still it is stationed between houses using their own people as human shields

EDIT: got the answer in this thread - post was deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system

This could take out a 777 trivially either. I wouldn't put it past Putin to give control of this to his proxy soldiers or fuck up trying to shoot down what they detected as a Uke fighter or cargo jet. This is the system the Uke military has been blaming on shooting down their jets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/malaysia-airlines...

>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes.

He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."

Would you not put it past the Ukraine backed neo-nazis, which even the state-funded BBC now admit exist, trying to widen the conflict and drag third parties into the fight?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329

FWIW, I don't like neo-nazis or people who shoot down innocent civilians who weren't even involved in the area (other than being over it) to begin with. Whoever did this will be determined. Are you OK with accepting the outcome when it is?

I just think it's ridiculous that minutes after the event, some Ukranian officials start finger-pointing and people want to believe them because they have been conditioned to associate Russia with bad things.

Up until yesterday, 99% of the people reading this thread had probably never even heard of a Buk, yet suddenly everybody's an expert. Might as well accept neo-nazis could have done it, after all, look what Brevik did to those kids in Norway and his reasoning.

Yes, this tragedy may be due to the separatists but it could also easily have been a mistake by the Ukrainians. In fact, a British major was just on TV saying that they could have accidentally shot down the plane because their air defence is "slack".

At the end of the day, look at this thread and see how quickly people are to blame Russia. It must be a Pavlovian response of some sort.

We both agree this is wrong, and that's where we have commonality. I hear you about the blaming being laid about. It sucks on top of already a sucky situation.

What I really find distasteful is that the Ukrainian nationalists immediately announce their theories to the press, with no evidence, whilst the wreckage and the bodies are still smouldering.

It smacks of sick political opportunism at a time when all sides should be trying to figure out what happened. The separatists have at least offered a ceasefire for a few days so investigators can come in and bodies can be recovered.

We simply don't know what happened and we should heed the warnings from missing flight MH370 where all kinds of media reports and intelligence turned out to be worthless.

Sadly many parties have an incentive to shape the narrative and they will use anonymous "tips" to push the frenzied media in different directions. Unless there is independent, corroborated and conclusive evidence, we may never know what happened to this flight.

You might also count a 1955 shoot down by the People's Republic of Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_402), and one shot down in 1940 during a period of nominal peace between Finland and the Soviet Union, but probably related to the latter's occupation of Estonia two days later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleva_(airplane) ).

"However, Ukrainian officials later admitted that it was indeed their military that shot down the airliner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

Here's where it was shot down: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Torez,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukr...

Here's the territory controlled by the rebels: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/u...

We know Russia has been supplying the rebels with heavy weapons. It's unlikely that Ukrainian pro-Kiev "neo nazis" marched a heavy SAM launcher through rebel controlled territory. Also, in any case, it doesn't follow that because someone is a "neo nazi" they will shoot down aircraft.

More than that, we know the rebels themselves claim to have captured exactly the sort of weapon that would be able to do this (Buk missiles) from a raid on a Ukrainian military base.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/malaysia-airlines....

>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes. ... He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."

It could, though, be an honest retreat from a propaganda misrepresentation that has since become more of a burden than a benefit.

(Incidentally, I upvoted the parent because even though the claim may be dubious, noting the fact that the claim has been made is a valuable addition to the conversation, IMO.)

[0] referenced in my earlier post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8048607

There's also the fact that Ukranian officials have specifically said that Russian-backed rebels shot the plane down. We shouldn't accept those statements uncritically, but they're out there and they are worthy of some consideration. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of anyone credible, who is in a position to know, asserting that Ukraine is behind this.

Sadly too many parties have an incentive to shape the narrative and they will use anonymous "tips" to push the frenzied media in different directions. Unless there is independent, corroborated and conclusive evidence, we may never know what happened to this flight.

(btw, it's a valid point, no need to downvote. Yes it may seem obvious that it was Russian allies, but it's important to keep an open mind in times of war, as both sides usually play dirty)

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-tak...

Air-To-Air Missile seems highly unlikely.

Rumors abound that Militia groups were bragging about downing a Ukrainian Transport

http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1325017

Take everything with a grain of salt!

That's rich coming from the guy linking to Russian state controlled media.

When was the last time you read anything positive about Russia in the Western press?

Maybe since the day you were born you've been conditioned to have a Pavlovian reaction to Russia?

Maybe the French still want to share theirs with us, now that these treaties are obviously no longer relevant :)

2. Subsequently, people in the already autonomous region of Crimea, ethnically/culturally/historically Russian, had a referendum to break-away from Ukraine and then join Russia - especially after the new coup leaders decided to ban use of the Russian language.

Check your facts, dude.

I've been following the Russian news somewhat and my parents have been talking to friends/relatives in both Ukraine an Russia, and the amount of outright invention in the official Russian media has been quite impressive.

I have also heard sometimes countries call in the US or whatever EU agency to consult along with their personnel.

For satellites, wouldn't you want the most accurate data anyway? Using US, EU and Russian (even China/India) imagery would probably be better than pointing a finger at the right country/agency and saying we should use their images because the plane crashed in their country.

> 16:05 GMT: > The Donetsk People’s Republic – where heavy fighting continues between Kiev and opposition – has denied reports in the Western media which claim that the Malaysian plane was shot down.

http://rt.com/news/173628-malaysian-plane-crash-ukraine/

Not seen that claim reported elsewhere. Lets see what happens.

edit: also, I bet dollars to donuts there were US citizens on the flight.

Do you mean the Swedish neo-nazi snipers fighting there? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329

Or are you referring to people who have taken up arms because they no longer want to be part of the Ukraine. Why not simply call these people "rebels" or "separatists"?

For that matter, Ben Franklin, George Washington and crew were "terrorists" from some POV.

But hey, the winners write the history books.

Terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Terrorists use political violence to further their ends, but not everyone who uses political violence is a terrorist.

Exactly. It's terrorism when other people do it.

Yeah, that too. That's another reason that all of these definitions are a bit fuzzy.

And in case you're wondering, no, they didn't impeach the President or follow the constitution when seizing power.

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/was-the-cha...

Or are you just going to shoot the messenger?

You might want to double check that link you posted.

It would be a waste of resources otherwise.

Some launch areas are well-known (e.g., fixed land-based silos), some aren't (e.g., mobile launchers, submarines). So a wide-area detection capability is almost certain, though whether this includes arbitrary land surface areas is an interesting question. I'd be inclined to think so.

The Buk missles are ~700 kg (1500 lb), 5.5 m (15.3 ft) solid rocket systems. They're close to a sub-orbital missile system, and might be picked up by an orbital tracking system.

That said, I'm not sure what optical or infrared tracking exists. There's some discussion of SLBM/ICBM detection by the 7th Space Warning Squadron, but it seems largely reliant on ground-based PAVE-PAWS radar.

There was the 1960s MIDAS orbital infra-red detection system, replaced by the Defense Support System:

"The satellites are in geostationary orbits, and are equipped with infrared sensors operating through a wide-angle Schmidt camera. The entire satellite spins so that the linear sensor array in the focal plane scans over the earth six times every minute."

So any given spot on Earth is scanned once every 10 seconds. DSS involved 23 launches, I don't see information on presently active satellites.

There's also the note:

"The DSP constellation may have offered an excellent vantage point for an early warning system against state-centric threats such as missiles, but military analysts warn its ability to collect intelligence on non-state actors is severely limited."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MANPADS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Missiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Space_Warning_Squadron#Miss...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Alarm_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program

First off, 10,000m is 6.2 miles, not 9.7 miles.

If the plane is 6.2 miles on the ground away and flying at 30K feet (5.7 miles), then basic pythagorean geometry says that a missile has to travel sqrt(6.2^2+5.7^2) = 8.4 miles, which is closer to the number they give?

So your reply is quite confusing. Did you misread the above post?

?

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/489796240163745793