Vadim Lukashevich military expert biography. ... Who is lying to us and how
A week has passed since the plane crash of the Malaysian airliner. International experts started arriving at the Boeing crash site just a couple of days ago, and there were already plenty of versions of what happened by that time. Now it only remains to establish the only one - the one that is the truth.
Vadim Lukashevich, Ph.D. in technical sciences, a well-known Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, along with the world intelligence services, is sure that the Malaysian plane was shot down by the Buk complex. And he does not deny: the catastrophe did not go without the "help" of Russia.
In an interview with Glavkom, Lukashevich explained why the version of the Russian media that the Boeing-777 Malaysia Airlines shot down a Ukrainian plane is untenable, for whom the militants filmed the passports of the deceased passengers, and whether international experts will be able to establish the real causes of the disaster. The expert is sure that it will not be easy to do this in view of the fact that his country in every possible way puts a spoke in the wheels of an objective investigation.
In the context of the information war and many different, often opposite, versions of the catastrophe on July 17 over the Donbas, can we say with confidence what happened today?
By and large, now, before the independent expert opinions are received, we are not talking about who is to blame, what happened, but about which of us believes in which version. Since Russia is a party to the conflict, which we do not officially recognize, any information coming from us can be just as biased as information flowing from the Ukrainian side. If we talk about the Boeing-777, then no one can yet clearly say what happened. Which rocket was launched - it is clear which one hit the plane - is also understandable. The main intrigue is who launched it. There are two sides to the conflict. The first is Kiev, the second is Moscow. Donetsk is not here.
At the same time, what gives grounds to assert that a surface-to-air missile hit the plane?
First, an air-to-air missile, that is, launched from an aircraft, is not large, with a limited warhead power. Such a rocket could hardly lead to the destruction of a passenger plane that we are seeing. Judging by the radius of dispersion of the debris, the Malaysia Airlines plane collapsed in the air either immediately after being hit by a rocket, or some time later at the time of the fall. If it just fell as compact as a South Korean Boeing (border incident in the airspace of the USSR, during which on September 1, 1983, a Soviet Su-15 fighter jet shot down a passenger Boeing-747 of the South Korean airline Korean Air Lines - Glavkom)then that would be one. And here the destruction of the plane took place at a high altitude, hence such a large area of \u200b\u200bthe crash area. In order for such a large aircraft as the Boeing-777 to fall apart in the air immediately after being hit by a missile, one must either get into its center or have a fairly strong charge. Numerous damage to the aircraft by shrapnel, and this is a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile, indicate that the missile may not have hit the plane at all, but close to it. I draw a conclusion from the information that comes from Donbass. On its basis, I can say that it was not an air-to-air missile, but a surface-to-air missile. Simply because the picture of destruction would otherwise be different.
At the same time, these arguments did not affect Russian General Andrei Kartapolov. On behalf of the Russian Ministry of Defense, he voiced a version according to which at the time of the crash there was a Ukrainian Su-25 near the Malaysian Boeing-777, which could theoretically hit a passenger plane with a missile. How plausible is this version?
This is not a serious position of the Ministry of Defense. First, why would a Ukrainian plane shoot down a plane flying in an echelon (on high) 11 thousand meters? I would have believed it if some Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems were stationed at the border to prevent the passage of our helicopters. But here I do not see a fundamental need to raise Ukrainian aviation in order to intercept a target at an altitude of more than 10 thousand meters. After all, these rebels, bandits (you can call them whatever you like), in principle, there is no aviation. But even if we imagine that such a need for the Ukrainian army would arise, then Ukraine has an interceptor aircraft that is "sharpened" to work on air targets, this is the Su-27, but not the Su-25.
The Su-25 is a ground attack fighter. First, it is armored. Precisely because from the ground they shoot at it with small arms, fire at the enemy's air defense on the battlefield. Secondly, it does not have an onboard radar station. He just doesn't need her. He has equipment for targeting the ground. Accordingly, it has a cannon armament different from the Su-27. Bombs are attached to him, NURS (unguided rockets), and URSs (guided missile projectiles) of different caliber. Each plane has a ceiling - this is the maximum height at which it can fly. And there are working heights to work at. The Su-25 attack aircraft can climb 9-10 thousand meters, then its main working height, to which it is optimized, is 3-5 thousand meters.
That is, the firing accuracy by 10 thousand meters will be less, and the plane simply could not get into the passenger liner?
Sure. On the attack aircraft, instead of bombs, you can hang air-to-air missiles. But for this he needs a guidance system. That is, in order for a pilot to shoot down this Boeing in an attack aircraft, he must at least somehow visually identify it. And the rocket with which the pilot was going to shoot down the plane must have a homing head, because after launch the attack aircraft cannot "light up" it (follow her movement - "Commander in Chief").
In turn, the fighter-interceptor (Su-27 - "Commander in Chief") in service there are air-to-air systems of the short, medium, and long-range classes. He has a very powerful airborne radar station that works on targets in the air. All equipment is configured to capture targets in the air, and follow the missile until it hits. The Su-27 interceptor practically does not work "on the ground".
That is, the Su-27 could hit an air target without problems. He was created for this. This aircraft has medium-range missiles, that is, from a distance of 60-80 km. Roughly speaking, he has nothing to do in Donbass at all. He could take off in the Kiev region and fire this rocket from there. He does not need to fly 3-5 km from the Boeing-777 (according to the RF Ministry of Defense - "Glavkom")to destroy it. In addition, as I said above, the passenger plane almost completely collapsed in the air, which indicates the launch of a much more powerful missile than is installed on the military aircraft.
If the Ukrainian military has no need to shoot down the plane, then why should they “substitute” such a lie to the militants or Russia?
The militants were wrong. They wanted to shoot down one target and shot down another. You see, Kiev controls the airspace of its country. I mean, first of all, dispatchers. That is, the authorities know that a passenger plane is flying at such and such an altitude in such and such an echelon. If Kiev starts to "work" at an altitude of 10 thousand meters, it clearly understands that it can accidentally hit a civilian plane, and a foreign one. But the militants do not understand, because they do not know which plane is in the air. There is no doubt that it was a Buk, a surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, there is full agreement of everyone, including Russia. But the version that the passenger plane was shot down by the Su-25 appeared after the accident on the Russian TV channel "Zvezda" (TV channel of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - "Glavkom").
In your opinion, what caused the error, since the Buk complex is a precision weapon?
This was not a target selection error, but a target assignment error. That is, the rebels were confident that Ukraine now does not fly at low altitudes. (Ukrainian military aircraft - "Glavkom"), and makes the transfer of troops on transport aircraft An-26, flying at an altitude of 5-6 thousand meters and Il-76. The rocket was deliberately fired into a certain plane moving at an altitude of 10 thousand meters. The one who fired at the plane was sure that it was a military transport board performing the function of transporting troops. The Buk system cannot detect the aircraft's nationality.
But with Boeing, not everything is clear. Why did he deviate 14 km from the given corridor?
There are no sanctions, penalties for leaving the corridor. There are no such obligations under which the plane must move exactly inside the corridor. A corridor is a course at a certain height. Altitude is an echelon. So, the train, in contrast to the corridor, the plane must withstand tough. The pilot, staying inside the corridor, can deviate from it to the right or left. For example, he saw a storm front, or clouds, ahead, so he deviated. In order not to shake, he can go a little to the left, the pilot can independently make a decision about this. Airplanes, by and large, never fly in a straight line. There are autopilots that set the direction, and people correct it. The pilots make deviations from the corridor to the right and to the left, informing the controller. It is not clear to me why Ukraine has not yet published the recordings of conversations with the dispatcher who was flying the plane, who gave the go-ahead for such a deviation. All communications between dispatchers and pilots are recorded not only in black boxes, but also with dispatchers.
Some time before the tragedy, Ukraine announced that it was closing the airspace over Donbas. Why, despite the ban, was the plane still allowed over the territory occupied by terrorists?
A closed sky is a ban on flying. Ukraine has officially closed the airspace over this territory to an altitude of 7 thousand meters. Any aircraft entering this airspace is an intruder. Accordingly, appropriate measures can be taken against him, he can be intercepted, detained. Ukraine believed that the rebels did not have air defense systems that operate above the designated height. Accordingly, some airlines stopped flying altogether, and some continued, realizing that they were traveling in the permitted area. These are the nuances that Ukraine knows, not the militants in Donbass. And the Donetsk dispatchers, who theoretically could tell them, are simply out of work, because the local airport does not function.
Could the pilot of a passenger liner theoretically get away from the rocket?
In principle, I could not. A rocket flies to such a target from the ground for 20-30 seconds. She flies up to the plane from below. What the pilot could manage was only to accidentally notice her, looking sideways and down, but he simply would not have time to do anything else. In any case, the rocket flies at supersonic speed, and this is a civilian plane that could do nothing in 5-10 seconds. Maximum, the pilot would have time to scream.
The super-original version that the missile fired at the Malaysian Boeing-777 was intended for board number 1 of Vladimir Putin, who allegedly flew over the combat area in Donbas some time before the tragedy, was ridiculed on the Internet. Do you also think this version is absurd?
When we had Putin's inauguration, they (Russian authorities - "Glavkom") depopulated all of Moscow. I proceed from the assumption that Putin will never fly even at space altitude over the war zone. This is basically impossible. Putin is now flying around Ukraine near the North Pole because he is a coward.
Another, no less fantastic version is that the Boeing-777 that crashed in the Donbas could have been a plane that disappeared on March 7 this year. Then the plane of the same model, also belonging to Malaysia Airlines, flew from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and disappeared. There were "daredevils" who claim that, they say, that plane was stolen and now used to organize this tragedy now.
This version in our (Russian, - "Glavkom") The media is becoming very cynical. They say that the plane tragedy is a provocation, since all the fallen corpses are not fresh. Can you imagine the paranoid nature of a person who can say such things about this tragedy? The passports that were found at the scene of the tragedy are the passports of those people who, a few hours before the incident, checked in for a flight in Amsterdam.
The plane, which disappeared on March 7, before reaching Beijing, had one tail number, this one is completely different. That one had one part markings, this one was completely different. Each unit, each device, each unit on the plane is marked, so these are two completely different sides, it is easy to install. It's like a banknote, each one has its own individual number.
In the first days after the tragedy, not experts, but terrorists worked at the crash site. Why did they start picking up the wreckage so quickly on their own?
Because they were sure that the dead were saboteurs, spies. Pay attention to the first video that aired after the tragedy, when a person shows the passports of the victims in close-up on the camera. In any accident, and there are thousands of accidents in the world, no one shows their passports in the first place. Those who collected passports showed them on camera in close-up to someone who is very interested to know what kind of people are there?
Whom do you mean?
The people who first arrived at the scene of the accident ransacked the corpses to pick up some documents. Right there, so that it was clear what had happened, they showed these documents to their curator. Someone really wanted to know what actually happened in the sky over the Donbass. I understand that this is the GRU.
Why did the Russian television channel LifeNews broadcast materials intended for Russian intelligence?
As I understand it, this all just inadvertently leaked into the media.
Former head of the SBU Yevgeniy Marchuk draws attention to the fact that the militants began to transport bodies themselves in order to hide the truth. They say that fragments of a rocket could remain in the bodies, which would indicate direct evidence of hitting the plane from the Buk. Even if we assume that the militants actually removed the remnants of the rocket from the bodies, would it be possible, without such evidence, to establish the cause of what happened?
The cause of the disaster in the form of an explosion of a missile warhead is primarily determined by the wreckage of the aircraft. OSCE observers have already reported that shrapnel is visible on the rubble. But in order for this fragmented part to get to the passengers, it had to damage the skin. Analysis of the debris will show much more fully what exploded, how it exploded, at what distance it exploded. I will give an example of a fireworks for a better understanding. So a fireworks is when, flying apart, the high-explosive part glows due to the coating. That is, the structure of the scattering of fragments during an explosion is approximately the same as we see during the fireworks. It can be spherical, and sometimes it is directed by a ray. These fragments fly at a very high speed, about 2 thousand meters per second, when they hit, they pierce through. And if the inlet and outlet openings are visible on the fuselage, then the direction of flight is also visible. The hole itself shows kinetic energy, and the number of lesions shows accuracy. It will then be possible to identify not only the place of the explosion, but also the type of ammunition with which it was carried out.
These fragments, material evidence, were first started to be moved from place to place by non-specialists. How serious damage can such actions of militants inflict on the investigation?
Of course, this can affect the investigation. After a plane crash, experts usually collect all the debris, down to the last screw, down to the last rivet. After that, in a large hangar on the floor, these fragments are laid out in the same way as they occupied the place on the plane before the destruction. Let's say the right wing is on the right, the left wing is on the left, and so on. Typically, not all debris is collected. It all depends on the degree of destruction. However, it is believed that if 60% of the aircraft can be expanded in this way, then this is already good. By the nature of the wreckage, it will be possible to establish what happened. Experts restore the picture of damage. Naturally, the wreckage should be examined, described, photographed immediately on the spot. This is a very important point.
According to the deputy head of the presidential administration of Ukraine Gennady Zubko, Russian experts were working at the crash site for four days, disguised as civilians. Could this be?
I am not ready to comment on this, because I simply do not know. But if they were there, they would no longer care about hiding the ends in the water, but a real understanding of the situation and the answer to the question "how far have we got?" You can't hide an awl in a sack anyway. Another thing is that we (Russia - "Glavkom")of course we know the truth. We know the names of those people who launched the rocket. It's like the South Korean Boeing story I mentioned above. We already know the details of that story, the name of the pilot, and so on. It's just that now the intensity of politics is so strong that we will not immediately find out the truth of this tragic story. I think that we will learn the truth years later. Naturally, it will be established by an independent examination. When the whole world already knew what had happened to the South Korean Boeing, everyone in the USSR continued to say that the downed plane was a reconnaissance plane. So it will be here. By and large, even now the world does not particularly doubt that it was a Russian missile.
Considering that militants are operating at the scene of the tragedy, and that terrorists are allegedly talking about their desire to hide evidence on the Internet, is it possible to cover up their tracks and falsify an investigation related to the launch of a surface-to-air missile?
All Buks in service in Russia were previously produced in the USSR on the territory of the RSFSR. Our military know what serial numbers of "Buks" were in Ukraine during the division in the early 90s. What prevents the Ukrainian markings on those "Buks" that we sent to Donetsk? Nothing. After all, the factories for the production of "Buk" are still in Russia. I mean, everything can be falsified now.
Is it possible to establish from the wreckage of the rocket from which particular Buk it was launched?
First, missile wreckage is much more difficult to find than aircraft wreckage because it exploded into very small pieces. Secondly, it will be very difficult to collect all the debris on such a huge area of \u200b\u200bdispersion.
Besides examining the wreckage of the plane, what other evidence could the parties use against each other?
There are records published at the press conference of the Russian Ministry of Defense (photographs and diagrams showing that there was a Ukrainian plane in the area of \u200b\u200bthe tragedy - "Glavkom")... They can be real, they can be fabricated. All this should be checked by examinations. There must be similar records of the Ukrainian side. If only because this Boeing-777 flew in its own corridor, it was conducted by ground services of Ukraine. Your president said that all missiles (for "Buk" - "Glavkom") available armies. So now we need to invite the same Dutch, so that they can see with their own eyes that on July 16, roughly speaking, there were 200 missiles, and in 2 days the same number remained. This is a very important point. Russia will never do this, but Ukraine must show it.
In addition, your President said that at the indicated time not a single Ukrainian military aircraft was in this area of \u200b\u200bbeing hit by a civilian missile. Then Ukraine can now, without prejudice to its national security, transfer to the international commission all the flight logs of all military aircraft for July 16-18. If Ukraine does not do this, then the Russian version that at the time of the tragedy there was a Ukrainian military plane not far from the passenger plane, will remain.
The “black boxes” were eventually handed over to international experts. How much can they shed light on what happened?
Fussing around the "black boxes", by and large, gives nothing. These "boxes" record the crews' negotiations and the parameters of the onboard systems operation before the disaster. That is, the flight recorders will simply confirm that an explosion has occurred. "Black boxes" will not give an answer, whose missile was, who gave the order, who guided the missile. When the information about the plane crash over Donetsk had just passed, it was already clear to me that the plane could not fall without the participation of external influence. There are no such accidents.
Will international expertise be able to establish the truth?
I am convinced that yes. First, foreigners died. Countries whose citizens have died will not allow any incomprehensible moments to remain in this story. All the same, these countries will press. One way or another, the truth will emerge bit by bit. This is first.
Secondly, you perfectly understand that if it was a Ukrainian missile, that is, after all, the Ukrainians who serviced it, launched it, saw the launch. All the same, over time, the circle of people devoted to the situation will increase.
If this is our (Russian) missile, then there is also a circle of servicemen who were removed from the place of deployment, they crossed, and twice, the Russian-Ukrainian border, and launched a missile. There were border guards, or
bystanders who saw how the Buk was moving. There are dozens of people who know absolutely exactly what happened, who launched the rocket, who gave the command, who transported, who escaped. All these people will be silent for a month, two, three, five. But anyway, one of them will say something.
A savage crime, a war crime has now been committed. The responsibility of the people who did this is completely different. For Russia, this responsibility is generally national. Because if it turns out that Russia actually did it, then it will be clear that we are still totally in time, and secondly, we will run into such sanctions that will lower our economy. In general, Russia may not exist ... You see, the price of this rate is very high now (in identifying those responsible for the tragedy - "Commander-in-Chief)... Russia will never admit that it had anything to do with this. Ukraine too.
Vadim Lukashevich, a Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, candidate of technical sciences, analyzed the “testimony” of the “witness” of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” and the interview of Viktor Barantz, an employee of “KP” who found this “witness”, who, among other things, is a military journalist, publicist, writer, retired colonel, as Wikipedia writes about him.
There are interesting technical data in Lukashevich's analysis.
Vadim Lukashevich post in fb on December 23:
"Komsomolskaya Pravda" again distinguished itself ...
This is something!
To begin with, a “witness” could have turned to representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he preferred to contact Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is very symptomatic that most of the fuss about this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have nothing to do with either the Boeing 777, or the Buk air defense system, or the dead passengers of the plane, or the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor to the territory on which the wreckage fell ... As Winnie the Pooh said: "It's not without reason!"
Now let's look at these new "revelations".1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which the Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was in the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the Aviatorskoye village. This is an ordinary airport. At that time fighters and helicopters were based there. The planes flew regularly, bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk "
The question is, how does a person know the combat mission of combat missions, if he is not a pilot and does not direct the flights of pilots?
2. Quote: "rockets were hung on the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case."
The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists had no aviation! And there was no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky
3. Quote: "About an hour before the downing of the Boeing, three attack aircraft were taken into the air."
And the Russian military at a briefing by the Ministry of Defense claimed that there was only one Su-25 in the air.
4. Quote: “after a short time, only one plane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, I was told so "
Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing disaster? Where are the two captured or killed pilots shot down in the territory controlled by the separatists? Where is the wreckage of two shot down Su-25s?
5. Quote: “Knowing a little of this pilot ... (it is quite possible when these two planes were shot down in front of him), he had just a frightened reaction, inadequate. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fright or in order to take revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft. "
I will ask questions, "knowing a little aviation" - since when do "fearful" pilots fly in combat aviation? Note that the Su-25 "had two missiles", so "Captain Voloshin" was scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice. Along the way, we note that, judging by the wreckage, there is no evidence (yet?) That the plane was hit by two missiles, and not one.
Another question - how can a combat pilot confuse a passenger plane in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km / h) and altitude (10 km) during the day, above the clouds, with excellent visibility, with something else? And the most interesting thing - what could be confused with a civil aircraft flying in the Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor, provided that there are no other aircraft in the air, and the separatists have no aviation at all?6. Quote: "The phrase was said to him when he was taken out of the plane:" The plane is not the same. "
I ask a question that makes all the material of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" a complete nonsense - which plane was "that"?
By the way, they don't get out of the Su-25, they get out of it. They open the lantern, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they "take out" a free-rider from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant7. Quote: “Those who were there, they were with experience. Mykolaiv part was even one year, in my opinion, 2013th, the best part in Ukraine ”.
"Witness" contradicts himself - the pilot of the best unit, with extensive combat experience ("... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses aerial targets.
8. Quote: "The pilots communicated more with each other, they are so ... proud."
The pilots communicated with each other, but the “witness” knows that they constantly “bombed Donetsk and Lugansk”. In general, it seems to me that the main thing in this material is not “Ukrainian captain Voloshin shot down a Boeing”, but “elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombing Donetsk and Lugansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, the sorties continued”
9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The answer of the "witness": for 3-5 kilometers they can fix the target ".
The "Witness" does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60 / R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, while the minimum range is 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting moment arises - if the intended launch of the rocket was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase "the plane is not the right one" is out of place. And if the launch was carried out from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason is difficult), then how can the pilot know whether this is the plane or not?
10. Quote: “The rocket has a pretty good speed. Very fast rocket "
A professional (and just a person "in the subject")) will never say so. From a specialist you can expect "more than two Machs", "two and a half Machs", but "very fast" is the conversation of the layman. By the way, the speed of Mach 2.5 is not "very fast", it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, "fast" is more than three swings, and "very fast" is 3.5 and above.
11. Quote: "The plane can simply lift its nose up, and there is no problem to fix it and launch a rocket."
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25 and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications have been produced, these aircraft and missiles have participated in most of the world conflicts in recent decades, but not a single (!) Case of successful interception of the Su-25 with a high-speed air target has been recorded. upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!
12. Quote: "The range of this rocket is more than 10 kilometers."
The flight range of this rocket is up to 10 kilometers. A number of sources indicate "up to 12 km", but this is a CLOSE air combat missile, used against highly maneuverable targets.13. Quote: “Question: At what distance from the target does this rocket explode? Can it hit and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. It can literally be in the body and at a distance of 500 meters it can "
Here I can only say one thing - the "witness" is a complete idiot ...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an airborne radar station, so it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared seeker that guides the missile into the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there were such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. In case of a miss, a proximity fuse (radar or optical) is triggered, the detonation distance is 5 meters.14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the crash site and noticed that the debris hit the airplane body very close together. It feels like it exploded just two meters from the Boeing. Answer of the "witness": There is also such a missile. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction goes. And then the main warhead of the rocket strikes "
Enchanting! What happens according to the words of the "witness": A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, because of which the "shot goes", and the actual warhead of the rocket with an explosive charge and striking elements continues to fly without exploding. And when a shot hits the target, the missile warhead strikes the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). In this way, "Komsomolskaya Pravda" finally became a garbage newspaper ...
But even if, after laughing, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile carried by the Su-25But then, I think, the main goal of these "eyewitness revelations" begins - the use by Ukrainian aviation (essno, in Donetsk and Lugansk) of prohibited volume-detonating bombs, cluster munitions, and so on.
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of “experts” of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.There (on the KP website) there is a "discussion by the KP military observer of the popular versions of the Boeing crash," but anyone can watch our joint (with this KP military observer) TV broadcast on Dozhd on the Internet in order to understand the "objectivity" of this type , who had previously coordinated his participation in the broadcast with the RF Ministry of Defense.
And now, especially for "Komsomolskaya Pravda", for the idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read outside it, I give excerpts from the instructions for flight operation of the Su-25T (my emphasis):
Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and brief characteristics of the aircraft":
"... solves the problem of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in the conditions of their VISUAL visibility"Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [round-the-clock automatic sighting] complex" Shkval ":
"KAPK" Shkval "ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. The height of combat use (excess relative to the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft is not more than
10000 m;
3. Elevation of the target above sea level NOT MORE THAN 4000 m;I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instructions:
"Rocket R-60M. With thermal homing head is intended
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is guided to the target according to the method of proportional navigation to the anticipated meeting point. Its essence lies in the fact that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the "missile-target" line is brought to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum launch range of a rocket with equal speeds of the carrier and target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum launch range is 0.3 km. Launch angles - 0 / 4-4 / 4. Maximum over-
razka of hitting targets - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the "8f 5о 0" or "TsVM" mode.Rocket R-73. designed to defeat warm-contrast pilots
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles of the enemy day and night.
The R-73 missile practically does not have any restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, directions of attack and jamming environment.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at carrier height up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in ZPS: at carrier height up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude over 4000 m - in numerical values \u200b\u200bof the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is 650 m in the PPS, and 350 m in the ZPS.
Guiding the missile at the target is carried out according to the proportional method.
nal navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weaponry after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 suspension points due to the possible destruction of the TGS R-73 spherical fairings by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two rockets are suspended on the plane.
An air commander who makes a decision on military action or an official who develops proposals for making a decision on this decision needs to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles "I draw your attention to the fact that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (ZPS) of the target, i.e. in pursuit - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is the question "the plane is not the right one."
An amusing interview with Viktor Barantz, the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda, the same one who several months ago, on the Dozhd TV channel, claimed that the Boeing-777 was shot down by a Su-25 aircraft cannon and that “holes have already been found in the wreckage of the tail section at the crash site from shells ".
http://youtu.be/6C2-qaTt-q4
Now he begins by saying that "catching up" with the Su-25 and Boeing-777 is "far-fetched." True, then he again talks about the cannon, about the rocket, again about the cannon ... Here's a weather vane.So, Viktor Barantz's "debriefing":
http://youtu.be/sB3yM7F-dMITimecode 02:12
- our experts, whom we have called ...I will note - the name or any other information on any expert is not called!
02:21:
- Who told you that the Su-25 was chasing a Boeing?The answer is - Viktor Baranets, military observer of the KP live on the Dozhd TV channel, the link to the recording of which was given above. He was chasing, otherwise it is impossible to shoot his tail from the side gun
02:52:
- it happens that Su-25s fly out to intercept ...Well done! Attack aircraft fly out to intercept a high-altitude high-speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of using air defense aviation. Interceptor fighters nervously smoke, and then attack ground targets on the battlefield due to the lack of attack aircraft occupied by high-altitude targets.
03:03
- all these talk about "catch-up" - it's just somehow so far-fetchedThis is how the military observer of the KP publicly lowers himself - more precisely, his broadcast on Dozhd, which, thanks to the Internet, remained in the network in general access.
I confess - this is exactly how, Viktor Nikolaevich, "far-fetched", I perceived your words about "the holes from shells in the tail of the Boeing found at the site of the fall of the wreckage" during the TV broadcast on "Dozhd"
I remember then you said that at the test site, you will probably even have to do experimental shelling in order to confirm the identity of these holes - well, how, at the GosNIIAS test site in Faustovo, did they shoot a lot?03:08
- no one actually saw ... at what height it all happenedHere, the military observer of the KP Viktor Baranets casually lowers our military, who showed slides at the Defense Ministry briefing, on which the height of 10 km was clearly indicated for the Boeing-777 and Su-25
03:25
- we journalists now have to ... give the floor to professionals, those who are sitting on the Su-25 today, who services it, who equips itAnd here the floor is given - who do you think? Igor Korotchenko, as the editor-in-chief of the magazine, who sits a lot in the Su-25, serves it and equips the Kindergarten, pants with straps!
04:01 Igor Korotchenko says:
- the practical ceiling [Su-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so the Su-25 could be on the echelon of 10 km.But above Baranets says that talking about catch-up is all "somehow far-fetched."
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling for combat use are completely different things. And the quoted commander-in-chief Mikhailov spoke specifically about the practical ceiling, but not about the combat one, which is significantly lower.04:22
- the plane was taken to the meeting pointWhere is the Su-25 ground-to-air intercept?
04:42 V. Baranets is on air again:
- oxygen removes the conversation, could or could not. Let's put an end to it - I could!Turned out - could. But to shoot? I repeat - history knows no case for the Su-25 to successfully fire at a high-speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So there is no point
05:45:
- everyone who has seen holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, say that it is very similar there, incredibly similar to shooting from a thirty-millimeter cannon.Victor Nikolaevich, you are a LIAR! On the air of the News release of the Russia-1 TV channel, shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the air defense of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces Mikhail Krusch, pointing to a piece of the cockpit lining, clearly said that “this is definitely a result defeat of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the rocket "
Your humble servant is also mentioned in the 16:29 timecode.
The host says: “Blogger Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is confusion - three attack aircraft, or one attack aircraft, took to the air that day, as the Russian military spoke about at a briefing by the Ministry of Defense. Lukashevich also writes: how can you get confused and not understand that you have a passenger Boeing in front of you, that you can use the pilot of the cracker in the dark, that he did not know what his ultimate goal in this military operation was - that's what you can say to that ? "
It's funny, but about the use of the pilot "Drying" in the black - it's entirely on the conscience of the host, I have not written anything like that. But God bless him, let's look at V. Barantz's answer:
- I have read these super-ambitious, categorical statements of Lukashevich [I will note in parentheses - I hope that you, Viktor Nikolaevich, will also read my above accusation of lying to you], his argumentation surprised, and I turned to the experts who interpreted me, and Lukashevich, I hope , too, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest job as a communications technician. Such a gray official, but very important - he does not know the whole situation at the airfield, around the airfield. Well, three "crackers" took off, left, did he see what happened at a ten-kilometer height? No, he just saw one plane "And since the "secret specialists" of the KP did not explain anything to me, I remain in "categorical" bewilderment - as a "secret witness" (already ridiculous) with a "modest communications technician" knows where they flew ("they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), what they bombed with ("volumetric detonating bombs and cluster munitions"), what the pilots say when "they are taken out of the Su-25", while "proud pilots speak only among themselves" ...
Victor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my "superambitious" laugh
The plane crashes of the current and last years have become significant for Russia. The crash of the Malaysian Boeing, the blown up charter flight over Egypt, the Su-24 shot down by the Turkish Air Force turned out to be not just tragedies, but also events that entailed a lot of consequences for our country. Each plane crash was followed by concealment of information, conflicting versions, mutual accusations of the parties and complications in Russia's relations with other states. In addition, each of these disasters, seemingly so different, entailed contradictions within the country. The authorities do not want to admit mistakes and be responsible for the death of people, and some citizens diligently avoid collective feelings of guilt, as well as fear that invariably arises after recognizing that the political ambitions of those in power are more important than the lives of ordinary people.
A different version of each of the three plane crashes« » presented by an aviation expert, ex-designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Candidate of Technical Sciences Vadim Lukashevich.
Malaysian Boeing
July 17, 2014. A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 operated a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Was shot down over the eastern part of the Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. Onboard there were 283 passengers and 15 crew members. They all died.
- About how exactly it was shot downmalaysian Boeing over Donbass in July 2014, many versions were expressed. Which version are you leaning towards and why?
It makes no sense to talk about any versions. there isfinal report Dutch security service. We can say with absolute certainty that the plane was shot down by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system from an area controlled by the separatists, the map is there. These are no longer versions, but a proven fact.
- That is, there is nothing more to talk about?
By and large, yes. There are people who don't admit it, but this is just a demonstration of their level of understanding of the problem. Because there was an international commission that worked for more than a year, collected all the information and facts and set it all down in a report, including the claims of the Russian side and the answers to them. There is a document approved, which came into effect. An area of \u200b\u200babout 300 square kilometers is indicated there, from where the anti-aircraft missile could be launched. Now we are waiting for the results of the Dutch prosecutor's investigation, which will specifically indicate what kind of BUK it was, how it got there, who launched it, who gave the order, and so on. That is, personal responsibility will be recorded.
- But in the Russian media for a long time the version that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile was circulated.
The main purpose of such versions was misinformation, distraction, creation of "white noise" so that any useful information would disappear, drown in this chaos, and become invisible.
- How quickly did it become clear that the plane was shot down precisely from the BUK and from a certain area?
For me, as a specialist, the fact that this was an anti-aircraft missile launched from the ground was clear almost immediately, as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first poor quality video appeared, on July 17. And photographs of the wreckage of the aircraft began to appear from the 18th.
The question about the BUK is already different. Of all the versions that arose then, the BUK most suited the observed picture. From photographs and videos that appeared on the Internet, it was possible to follow how he was transported, how he moved on his own, that is, how he went from Russia to Ukraine and then was hastily taken back. Radio interception data and so on appeared. Everything spoke in favor of BUK. Therefore, two weeks later, in mid-August, it was quite clear that it was an anti-aircraft missile, and 90–95% - that the BUK was firing from the territory controlled by the separatists. This situation finally became clear on September 13 this year when the report was published.
Why was it necessary to promote the implausible version that the Malaysian Boeing was hit by a Ukrainian fighter? Draw different schemes, show them on TV? Did you think that for the laymen this would do too?
On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation for a very undemanding viewer and that if you say “halva” a lot, it will become sweeter in your mouth. Then, we remember the postulates of Dr. Joseph Goebbels that the more monstrous a lie, the easier it will be believed. These methods were clearly used, they are in service with the propaganda machine, and not only ours. Naturally, it was simply necessary to create a certain background where it would constantly sound that Ukraine was to blame, that it was their BUK or an attack aircraft. The more frenzied the campaign is, the clearer it becomes that "the hat is on fire". Our media did not pursue the goal of establishing the truth. Generally.
When an investigation is conducted, evidence, evidence, evidence is first collected. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are examined, the least probable ones are discarded.
But in our media the situation was different.
Judging by the way they put forward their assumptions, there was nothing to do with the search for the truth. An information war was being waged, and the more idiotic the versions looked, the more clumsy they were made, the more obvious it was. It was only when the idiotic versions ended that Almaz-Antey emerged [an aerospace defense concern that conducted its own investigation into the disaster].
- After all, the media understood that the truth would emerge sooner or later, didn't they really think with what face they would appear?
For me this is also a question. The information campaign was either done by idiots, or these people simply did not look ahead. If I were in the place of our media or those who supervise them, from the very beginning I would have gathered specialists, found out how things are, and would have done everything normally. And our specialists began to be attracted only in the spring of this year, when the whole world already clearly knew that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down from a BUK. Only when it became clear that it would not get out, the media attracted the developers of this installation, asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to sculpt the version that the BUK was shooting at the plane, but Ukrainian, and not from Snezhnoye or Torez, but from Zaroshchinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves into a corner so much that they forgot that, according to all sources, Zaroshchenskoye was also in the rear of the separatists.
- But then the main version became that Ukraine is to blame anyway, because it did not close the sky for flights.
The wine here is very peculiar. Let's say there is a warehouse, the storekeeper sits inside, and the watchman outside has to close the door. The watchman walked away out of need, without closing the door. And a killer and a robber entered the warehouse and killed the storekeeper. Of course, the watchman is to blame for not closing the door, but this is an indirect, not direct fault.
It's the same here. Someone launched a rocket and destroyed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country in whose airspace the aircraft is located is responsible for flight safety. She conducts wiring, provides dispatch support and receives a transit fee for these services. Now, as I understand it, the airspace will be closed over any combat area, regardless of the height of the echelon. And not as it was over Ukraine - the space is closed up to 9,700 meters, but above - I don't want to fly.
But the blame for the murder, for the death of people, of course, lies with those who dragged this BUK there, who provided all the logistics, who gave the order for the combat system to be in the territory from which the rocket was launched, who ordered to press the "launch" and who launched the rocket. The prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be in two or three months, will establish this.
- What can threaten Russia in this case?
Criminal liability. And what the court or tribunal will be, what the jurisdiction will be, and so on, what the evidence will be, is not yet clear. This is a lawsuit that will not go fast.
Note that there is still no tribunal. And Russia was against him, which is also indicative, because if we have nothing to do with it, then what difference does it make to us, and if the stigma is in fluff, then what kind of criminal would agree to a trial of himself?
But the affected countries, primarily Holland, will stand up for another court, for an international tribunal. And all the same, sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes do not have a statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not withdraw from this process. If we are in fact innocent, then at the tribunal there will be not only prosecutors, but also defenders, and it will be possible to demand an examination, evidence, recheck evidence. But if we are to blame, then we will push our horns to the end.
But the current Russian government is also not eternal. The judgment of history awaits us in any case, and the fact that Russia in every possible way resisted the establishment of the truth in this matter will remain in history.
The main functions of a technical investigation are to establish what happened and to develop some measures to prevent such a situation from recurring in the future. The catastrophe arose for two reasons: Ukraine, which did not close the airspace, and BUK. Which one and whose one is no longer the sphere of technical calculation and not the task of ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization from the English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is a criminal investigation conducted by the Dutch prosecutor's office. When we wait for the conclusion, there will be a new surge of attention to this story, now the topic is not closed, but frozen.
Charter flight from Egypt
October 31, 2015. The A321 aircraft of the Russian company "Kogalymavia" was flying from Sharm El Sheikh to St. Petersburg. It crashed about half an hour after departure, 100 km south of the administrative center of the North Sinai province, the city of El Arish, near the village of El Hasna. The plane had 217 passengers and seven crew members. No one survived.
The version about technical deterioration of the Kogalymavia aircraft flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg was one of the first. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Russian authorities finally admitted that there was also a terrorist attack with our charter flight. How quickly can you understand what caused the disaster?
This is generally an interesting point. Let's imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to a terrorist attack or not? It has been said for a long time that this is a technical version, and we are studying everything. And when it became clear that terrorism was sweeping the planet, then we condescended to admit that there was a terrorist attack with our plane. Although by this time we had already evacuated all holidaymakers from Egypt, and separately from their luggage, thereby admitting de facto that this was a terrorist attack.
- And not only us.
Yes, everyone already understood everything, but we didn't admit it. And if Paris weren't there, how long would we have been fooling around?
- Why did we play the fool? Does the admission of the terrorist attack cast a shadow on our military policy in Syria?
Absolutely and one hundred percent. On November 25, I was on the air of "Rights of the Voice" (TVC program), so there one speaker agreed to the point that he would still have blown up this plane, even if we had not climbed into Syria. This is bullshit, because there is a very clear chronological causal relationship. Until recently, our Russian planes had not exploded for a very long time, I don’t even remember the last time our plane died abroad as a result of a terrorist attack. And here we begin on September 30 an air operation against ISIS * [an extremist organization banned in the Russian Federation], nominally, we are bombing Syria, and exactly a month later, on October 31, a plane explodes over Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: this is us. We answer: no, for a technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. Again we refer to technical reasons. Terrorists are distributing a video where they are handing out sweets to children in honor of the "heroic" destruction of a Russian plane. And again we say: no, this is a technical reason.
And only after the story in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, this is ISIS* ... Naturally, by recognizing the terrorist attack, we recognize its connection with our air operation in Syria. That is why, immediately after recognition, we begin to respond by strengthening the air operation.
It's a shame that we delayed the recognition until the last, and the president, having declared national mourning, did not appear anywhere at all.
- Perhaps he did not want to be associated with some kind of negative - this affects the rating.
This means that your rating is inflated. If it is high as a result of respect, the fact that you are doing everything right and people appreciate you, then such grief unites the nation, on the contrary. And if you are afraid that the manifestation of human feelings, grief, sympathy for the dead will destroy your rating, then your rating is worthless. And you yourself.
- By the way, French President Francois Hollande came out to the people immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris.
When various leaders of states appear on the spot, talk with the relatives of the victims, express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and this is where it all ends.
Let's go back to the lost Russian plane. How difficult is it to bring explosives on board and is it possible to talk about the negligence of the airport services or was there some kind of collusion?
Everything suggests that the airport services took part in this business, because random people do not get on board. Everyone who can get there, in the state of the airport, airfield services, is always checked, there are no random people. If the explosives were not carried by one of the passengers, then this is one hundred percent of the ground services employee. Why he became so - a question to the airport security.
How great is the danger now that other Russian planes may be exposed to a similar danger, as Russia continues military operations in Syria?
I think it is very large, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, Americans are at risk virtually everywhere there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. It's the same with us. All planes flying to Russia from abroad, from where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists, are under threat. We have certain personalities with a fool took a stick and decided for the sake of pleasure, in order to show what macho they are, wander the anthill with a stick. Then it turned out that it was no longer an anthill, but a hornet's nest. And in the end it turned out that it was a bear den. Well, that's all, now the situation is unmanageable, because our special services are unable to ensure the safety of all aircraft departing from all foreign airports. Hence the hysteria - to prohibit Russians from flying abroad.
But we also have radical Islamists inside the country. Could something similar happen on domestic flights?
Inside the country, they are more controlled by our special services than any airport in Kuwait or in the Emirates. Our special services simply do not exist there. And in our airports there are none.
Su-24
November 24, 2015. The Russian Su-24 bomber was flying into Syria. It was shot down near the Turkish-Syrian border by the Turkish Air Force. One of the two pilots was killed.
Now there is a heated debate about whether our Su-24 bomber flew over Turkish territory or not, whether the Turks had the right to shoot it down or not. How can you comment.
To begin with, any country has the right to defend its national sovereignty, including airspace, by any means at its disposal. They had the right to shoot down our plane. Another thing is that they could perform a number of procedures: warn, fly up, flap their wings, and so on.
“But our plane flew too quickly over their territory for that.
You have to understand that this was not the first violation. We started a military operation in Syria on September 30th. The first violations occurred on October 3 and 4, but we did not recognize them. Then we violated Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to confess, we received an official note of protest. Our ambassador to Ankara was summoned and presented with this document. On October 7, we received the second note and, accordingly, were forced to make an official apology through diplomatic channels. After that, a number of procedures were developed to prevent this from happening. We have signed statements that the violation of the Turkish borders by our pilots will not happen again. On October 16, the Turks shot down a drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. It was only after this "unconsciousness" that the Turkish authorities, who had run out of patience, officially announced that henceforth they would shoot down any aircraft over their territory, no matter whether it was manned or unmanned. This was clearly stated, and we knew about it.
By the way, today we admitted that our military aircraft violated Israeli airspace. Here is your answer - who is violating what ...
- It is clear that the diplomats knew about it. Did the pilots know about this?
The Turkish President stated this. Accordingly, our president knew about it, he is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Whether this knowledge reaches our pilots, the Turkish President does not care, he has already made a public statement. After that, objections like “I didn't know”, “I didn't want to” don't work.
Then the situation is simple. We are not bombing ISIS. * If we look at the map, the place where we are bombing and where our plane fell is 100-160 kilometers west of their territory. In fact, thanks to the wreckage of the Su-24 that fell "in the wrong place," we were caught by the hand.
Until now, it has been said that in a maximum of one flight out of ten, we shoot at the Islamic State. I came across information that only two flights this month were aimed at ISIS *.
I want to clarify: according to some information, our planes bombed territories inhabited by Turkmens, who are considered ethnic Turks in Turkey.
They are fighting against Bashar al-Assad, and we bombed them. To bomb targets near the Turkish border, you need to enter the territory of Turkey, which cuts into the territory of Syria with a long appendix - this is the problem. Therefore, we violated Turkish airspace, otherwise it is difficult for an aircraft to fight.
On October 17, the Turks announced that they would shoot down any target over their territory, and after the terrorist attack over Sinai we decided to respond to the terrorists and increased the intensity and number of sorties. So it was only a matter of time before our plane was shot down. They just waited and finally caught us.
On November 24, two of our planes were approaching this appendix. In the air, quite far from the border, there were Turkish F-16s. Within five minutes, our pilots, as the planes approached, began to warn that they were approaching Turkish airspace, and demanded to change course. A Norwegian pilot who was nearby heard about this. The Lebanese pilot of a passenger plane also heard these talks. Our planes, ignoring the warnings, crossed Turkish territory either in nine or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But this is not so important. Then they bombed the target, turned around and flew back. And when they violated the border again, after they ignored all the warnings, one of our aircraft was shot down, the second left.
This is the version of the Turkish side. They immediately presented the data of objective control, immediately provided all the data to the UN. The talks of the pilots were shown on television, but it is not a fact that they were not fabricated. The important thing is that the Turks did it quickly. And we got hysteria that since they did everything so quickly, they prepared in advance. In fact, once you have the data, it's very easy to publish it. But if you are going to manipulate them, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later that our data appeared. Moreover, these are not objective control data, but a map on which the supposedly trajectory of our "dryers" flight is drawn. They, according to the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin's statement about the stab in the back, diligently circled the protrusion of Turkish territory. Well, where is the data from our radars, where is the data from satellites with georeferencing of the Su-24 flight routes? Our General Staff again got off with colored handwritten pictures.
- What is the probability that the truth is on the side of the Russian Ministry of Defense?
I have very little faith in the fact that an airplane heading for a target would make such a giant turn in order to fly around this territory. I am inclined to believe Turkey not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation works, how a bomber attacks, and I imagine that in this situation it is much easier, more effective and more accurate to attack in a straight line. A flyby is about thirty seconds, this is a very large arc under overload. The pilot is forced to think not about the fact that he has a target ahead, that he needs to aim at it and accurately bomb, but that he needs to fly around this territory in a long and complex arc.
- Why did the downed plane come as a surprise to us and was perceived precisely as a stab in the back?
- Not so long ago, I was a participant in one of the discussions on television. Off the air, when we are gathered before it, and after, when we wash off our makeup, we, remaining opponents, communicate with each other and talk about what no one will say on the air. So, all these "hawks" in one voice-over said that "the Turks will get lost", that "they have nowhere to go", that they will "shut up anyway", that "they will send us notes of protest, object, indignation, but they will not be able to do anything and they will all swallow ”. We understood perfectly well that we were provoking Turkey, but we were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called stab in the back is simply Turkey's unexpected refusal to tolerate our violations of their airspace further.
Perhaps, especially after the Paris terrorist attacks, the calculation was that Russia and the NATO countries, including Turkey, now have a common enemy, and therefore our military actions in Syria will, if not approved, then at least not will be hindered by potential allies.
It should be noted here that, in general, our "joint fight with the West against international terrorism" is largely a fiction. It's just that up to a certain time this fiction suited everyone, because a bad peace is better than a good war.
America fought against the terrorists who staged 9/11 for them. The roots of this terrorism and its financial cushion are the Taliban, whose economic base is in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It is no coincidence that the main enemy of America, Osama bin Laden, was destroyed in Pakistan.
For us, Russia, terrorism is Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but its financial and economic roots are the Middle East, first of all Saudi Arabia. While we drove Basasev and Hottab across the Caucasus, we openly talked about the fact that they were financed by the Saudis. In other words, when speaking of the joint fight against international terrorism, Russia and the Western countries still had in mind different terrorism. But before the start of the Syrian events, everyone was more or less satisfied with it.
And in Syria, we faced the Western coalition head-on. The West is fighting ISIS in Syria *, supporting the "moderate" opposition fighting against Assad. We are fighting there against all opponents of Assad, while delivering the main blows not to ISIS *, but to the most powerful opponents of Assad, which are precisely the "moderate opposition". In fact, we are already at war in Syria with the Western coalition, but so far indirectly, through the hands of others. The incident with our Su-24 is the first "hot" collision directly. But if we do not stop, then it will not be the last, and today's violation of Israeli airspace by us is another confirmation of this.
A simple question - on what account of the violation of its airspace will Israel start shooting down our planes?
* ISIS, "Islamic State", "Islamic State of Iraq", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" are extremist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.
"Komsomolskaya Pravda" again distinguished itself ...
This is something!
To begin with, a “witness” could have turned to representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he preferred to contact Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is quite symptomatic that most of the fuss about this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have nothing to do with either the Boeing-777, or the Buk air defense missile system, or the dead passengers of the plane, or the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor to the territory on which the wreckage fell ... As Winnie the Pooh said: "It's not without reason!"
Now let's look at these new "revelations".
1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which the Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the Aviatorskoye village. This is an ordinary airport. At that time fighters and helicopters were based there. The planes flew regularly. bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk "
The question is - how does a person know the combat mission of combat missions, if he is not a pilot and does not direct the flights of pilots?
2. Quote: "rockets were suspended from the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case."
The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists had no aviation! And there was no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky
3. Quote: "About an hour before the downing of the Boeing, three attack aircraft were taken off."
And the Russian military at a briefing by the Ministry of Defense claimed that there was only one Su-25 in the air.
4. Quote: “after a short time, only one plane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, I was told so "
Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing disaster? Where are the two captured or killed pilots shot down in the territory controlled by the separatists? Where is the wreckage of two shot down Su-25s?
5. Quote: “Knowing a little of this pilot ... (it is quite possible when these two planes were shot down in front of him), he had just a frightened reaction, inadequate. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fright or in order to take revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft. "
I will ask questions, "knowing a little aviation" - since when do "fearful" pilots fly in combat aviation? Note that the Su-25 "had two missiles", so "Captain Voloshin" was scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice. Along the way, we note that, judging by the wreckage, there is no evidence (yet?) That the plane was hit by two missiles, and not one.
Another question - how can a combat pilot confuse a passenger plane in the international corridor at a cruising speed (900 km / h) and altitude (10 km) with something else during the day, above the clouds, with excellent visibility? And the most interesting thing - what could be confused with a civil aircraft flying in the Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor, provided that there were no other aircraft in the air, and the separatists had no aviation at all?
6. Quote: "The phrase was said to him when he was taken out of the plane:" The plane is not the same. "
I ask a question that makes all the material on Komsomolskaya Pravda a complete nonsense - which plane was “that”?
By the way, they don't get out of the Su-25, they get out of it. They open the lantern, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they "take out" a free-rider from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant
7. Quote: “Those who were there, they were with experience. Mykolaiv part was even one year, in my opinion, 2013th, the best part in Ukraine ”.
"Witness" contradicts himself - the pilot of the best unit, with extensive combat experience ("... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses aerial targets.
8. Quote: "The pilots communicated more with each other, they are so ... proud."
The pilots communicated with each other, but the “witness” knows that they constantly “bombed Donetsk and Lugansk”. In general, it seems to me that the main thing in this material is not “Ukrainian captain Voloshin shot down a Boeing”, but “elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombing Donetsk and Lugansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, the sorties continued”
9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The answer of the "witness": for 3-5 kilometers they can fix the target ".
The "Witness" does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60 / R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, while the minimum range is 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting moment arises - if the intended launch of the rocket was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase "the plane is not the right one" is out of place. And if the launch was carried out from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason is difficult), then how can the pilot know whether this is the plane or not?
10. Quote: “The rocket has a pretty good speed. Very fast rocket "
A professional (and just a person "in the subject")) will never say so. From a specialist you can expect "more than two Machs", "two and a half Machs", but "very fast" is the conversation of the layman. By the way, the speed of Mach 2.5 is not "very fast", it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, "fast" is more than three swings, and "very fast" is 3.5 and above.
11. Quote: "The plane can simply lift its nose up, and there is no problem to fix it and launch a rocket."
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25 and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications have been produced, these aircraft and missiles have participated in most of the world conflicts in recent decades, but not a single (!) Case of successful interception of the Su-25 with a high-speed air target has been recorded. upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!
12. Quote: "The range of this rocket is more than 10 kilometers."
The flight range of this rocket is up to 10 kilometers. A number of sources indicate "up to 12 km", but this is a CLOSE air combat missile, used against highly maneuverable targets.
13. Quote: “Question: At what distance from the target does this rocket explode? Can it hit and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. It can literally be in the body and at a distance of 500 meters it can "
Here I can only say one thing - the "witness" is a complete idiot ...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an airborne radar station, so it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared seeker that guides the missile into the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there were such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. In case of a miss, a proximity fuse (radar or optical) is triggered, the detonation distance is 5 meters.
14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the crash site and noticed that the debris hit the airplane body very close together. It feels like it exploded just two meters from the Boeing. Answer of the "witness": There is also such a missile. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction goes. And then the main warhead of the rocket strikes "
Enchanting! What happens according to the words of the "witness": A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, because of which the "shot goes", and the actual warhead of the rocket with an explosive charge and striking elements continues to fly without exploding. And when a shot hits the target, the missile warhead strikes the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). In this way, "Komsomolskaya Pravda" finally became a garbage newspaper ...
But even if, after laughing, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile carried by the Su-25
But then, I think, the main goal of these "eyewitness revelations" begins - the use by Ukrainian aviation (essno, in Donetsk and Lugansk) of prohibited volume-detonating bombs, cluster munitions, and so on.
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of “experts” of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.
There (on the KP website) there is a "discussion by the KP military observer of the popular versions of the Boeing crash," but anyone can watch our joint (with this KP military observer) TV broadcast on Dozhd on the Internet in order to understand the "objectivity" of this type , who had previously coordinated his participation in the broadcast with the RF Ministry of Defense.
And now, especially for "Komsomolskaya Pravda", for the idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read outside it, I give excerpts from the instructions for flight operation of the Su-25T (my emphasis):
Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and brief characteristics of the aircraft":
"... solves the problem of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in the conditions of their VISUAL visibility"
Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [round-the-clock automatic sighting] complex" Shkval ":
"KAPK" Shkval "ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. The height of combat use (excess relative to the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft is not more than
10000 m;
3. Elevation of the target above sea level NOT MORE THAN 4000 m;
In other words, any pilot knows that the Su-25T can hit with an air-to-air missile a LOW-SPEED air target in VISUAL visibility, flying at an altitude of NOT MORE THAN FOUR kilometers! If we are talking about the Su-25, then its capabilities are even more modest.
I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instructions:
"Rocket R-60M. With thermal homing head is intended
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is guided to the target according to the method of proportional navigation to the anticipated meeting point. Its essence lies in the fact that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the "missile-target" line is brought to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum launch range of a rocket with equal speeds of the carrier and target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum launch range is 0.3 km. Launch angles - 0 / 4-4 / 4. Maximum over-
Razka of hitting targets - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the "8f 5о 0" or "TsVM" mode.
_R-73 rocket. designed to defeat warm-contrast pilots
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles of the enemy day and night.
The R-73 missile practically does not have any restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, directions of attack and jamming environment.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at carrier height up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in ZPS: at carrier height up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude over 4000 m - in numerical values \u200b\u200bof the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is 650 m in the PPS, and 350 m in the ZPS.
Guiding the missile at the target is carried out according to the proportional method.
nal navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weaponry after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 suspension points due to the possible destruction of the TGS R-73 spherical fairings by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two rockets are suspended on the plane.
An air commander who makes a decision on military action or an official who develops proposals for making a decision on this decision needs to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles "
I draw your attention to the fact that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (ZPS) of the target, i.e. in pursuit - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is the question "the plane is not the right one"
The wrong one was called: the leading Russian TV was hoping that the expert would blame Kiev for the fall of Boeing, but something went wrong))))
On the air of the program "Tamantsev. Results", aired the day before on the Russian RBK-TV, the invited guest - a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation complexes Vadim Lukashevich criticized the report of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the fact of the Boeing crash in the Donetsk region. Judging by the host's reaction, he did not expect such statements from the expert. He began to correct him and repeatedly ask the question: "So you think that non-professionals work in the Russian Ministry of Defense?"
"The Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this machine is work on the ground and direct support of troops on the battlefield. Shooting down an aircraft at an altitude of 11,000 with the Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors, the Su-27, so if to shoot down, then by the interceptor, which was built for this, "- said the expert.
Lukashevich also questioned the testimony of the alleged "eyewitnesses" who were able to unmistakably establish the brand of the aircraft at such an altitude.
The expert did not accuse the Russian Defense Ministry of incompetence, but said that there is an information war going on and Russia is a party to the conflict, in connection with which disinterested persons should make conclusions about the reasons for the Boeing's fall. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is “a party to the conflict, because these people in the Donbass are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we pass the complexes on to them or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).
Lukashevich also cited as an example the incident of 1983, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner carrying more than 200 people, allegedly passing it off as a "reconnaissance aircraft." “There were also generals with a mass of stars who proved that it was a reconnaissance officer who entered and exited our airspace. There were whole schemes of satellites, but the truth came out anyway, "Lukashevich said.
Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called the broadcast with Vadim Lukashevich a state of emergency: “Actually, no one has been commenting on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm the official version and put forward additional arguments in its favor. But with Vadim Lukashevich came a bobble. He did not sing along with the general, called the Defense Ministry's version untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that all is not lost, there are still people who can not sing in a common choir! What would be an ordinary interview on any other television looks like a system failure on Russian. And it turns out that the mighty propaganda machine can do nothing to oppose the calm confidence of an honest man. "
As previously reported by the IS group, a number of high-ranking European politicians have spoken out that Russia has violated all its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, given over the past three months, and continues to increase the supply of heavy weapons across the border.