Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tec on July 17, 2014, 11:34:25 AM
-
The proverbial excrement is going to hit the proverbial fan.
-
Unbelievable...
I see they're saying its a Buk Missle system.
Very, Very Sad, thoughts and prayers to the passengers and crew.
-
This is not going to end well. :uhoh
-
This is not going to end well. :uhoh
Probably like this thread. Tragic deal for the passengers and families. Probably take a couple of days or more until we get information that is not garbage.
-
They know what's going on, civilian and military planes were shot down over past days; why are passenger flights still routed over this combat zone?
Watch this photos videos; not translated link;
https://vk.com/strelkov_info
..from same link AN26 shot down 2 days ago; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfu4apcgLeU
-
There is a NOTAM out saying to avoid that area and air corridor in the last couple weeks. Many airlines are doing so, many aren't. Even an hour after the shoot down there was still airlines in the area on flightradar. Crazy.
23 Americans on board.
If this thread makes it to page 3 I'll be amazed. I'm guessing shooting down airliners is a "controversial" topic.
-
Tragic.
Also rather disconcerting considering Vlad's sabre rattling just recently :old:
-
Just saw a DailyMail.com update that described the BUK as a
"Shoulder-launched weapon that could be packed into a suitcase".
I see the idiots in the media have already started doing what they do so well. :rolleyes:
-
from RT;
President Putin's plane might have been the target for Ukrainian missile ; :huh :lol
http://rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/
-
how sad, get well soon to any survivors
-
This is a good read. Remember we shot down an airliner as well once upon a time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/17/when-airliners-get-shot-down-facts-get-skewed-quickly/
-
And the reason these types of threads get locked, is they tread very quickly into politics.
It is not the topic that is the problem.
-
"Shoulder-launched weapon that could be packed into a suitcase".
I see the idiots in the media have already started doing what they do so well. :rolleyes:
The suitcase just needs to be big enough
(http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8524217/m/LOUIS-VUITTON-EPA-_1900049a.jpg)
-
The suitcase just needs to be big enough
(http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8524217/m/LOUIS-VUITTON-EPA-_1900049a.jpg)
How big is that suitcase (in centimeters) Lusche? :D
-
:P
-
Ukraine air space closed for airliners ,this map is cool;
http://www.flightradar24.com/#54.3,49.3/3?&_suid=140563706534405519975743283891
-
Thanks ghi, great link :aok :aok
-
Really bad year for Malaysian Airlines... :frown:
-
Really bad year for Malaysian Airlines... :frown:
:noid
In other words very sad, RIP.
Wonder why airlines were even flirting the idea of flying over the war zone?
-
Don't understand why they were not avoiding that area, especially when Russians are involved.
-
Ukraine air space closed for airliners ,this map is cool;
http://www.flightradar24.com/#54.3,49.3/3?&_suid=140563706534405519975743283891
my inner asperger is going insane rite now
-
Don't understand why they were not avoiding that area, especially when Russians are involved.
My understanding from reading elsewhere is that the warnings were for lower altitudes than the 33k they were flying at. I know they are going to be second guessed massively at this point, but apparently per the warnings their flight plan was fine.
-
The problem they didn't closed airspace correctly.
They should close the airspace over Russia as well at areas close to Ukrainian border. It meaningless to close an airspace over Western and Central part of Ukraine but some Russian airspace (where you see many planes flying) can be very dangerous because of proximity to Ukrainian border or more correctly the the "rebels" controlled area.
-
The problem they didn't closed airspace correctly.
They should close the airspace over Russia as well at areas close to Ukrainian border. It meaningless to close an airspace over Western and Central part of Ukraine but some Russian airspace (where you see many planes flying) can be very dangerous because of proximity to Ukrainian border or more correctly the the "rebels" controlled area.
Hah, flying over Russian airspace has always been safe. Worked for KAL 007 after all.
-
(http://arstechnica.com/civis/download/file.php?id=31401)
-
The seperatists also shot down a plane at 21,000 feet. And I read somewhere that journalists have reported seeing seperatists in possession of Buk SAMs.
-
The seperatists also shot down a plane at 21,000 feet. And I read somewhere that journalists have reported seeing seperatists in possession of Buk SAMs.
They are also apparently scrubbing social media of their former boastful claims of having those weapons now that MH17 has gone down.
-
They are also apparently scrubbing social media of their former boastful claims of having those weapons now that MH17 has gone down.
Which would explain why went I went to replay a recording I heard this morning, it is nowhere to be found.
I read the separatists overran a military base sometime ago which had these weapons, my question is that given these weapons are sophisticated who are the crews?
-
Which would explain why went I went to replay a recording I heard this morning, it is nowhere to be found.
I read the separatists overran a military base sometime ago which had these weapons, my question is that given these weapons are sophisticated who are the crews?
Prolly Russki ex-servicemen who have either gone or been sent across the border to support the separatists.
I've no doubt they've done a runner back across to Mother Russia (along with the flight recorders); I also have no doubt they'll each be quietly awarded "one behind the ear" and end up as crow food.
-
from RT;
President Putin's plane might have been the target for Ukrainian missile ; :huh :lol
http://rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/
So the propaganda starts from the ever reliable Russian state controlled media. :rolleyes:
The Ukrainians didn't shoot down the plane.
Here's a link to Aviation Herald on the subject. Note the description of the Russian cover up that has already started even if it's too late.
http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0
Putin is to blame for this. He encourages and supplies the terrorists. He is a dangerous man.
-
Well that settles it, or vacation to Kuala Lumpur will be by ship!
-
I'm dubious about how much control the russian state is able to wield over it's own forces. From local ploliceman to top tier anti terrorist units to fsb intelligence units, they will all work for anyone who can pay their wages, because the state can't.
-
So the propaganda starts from the ever reliable Russian state controlled media. :rolleyes:
The Ukrainians didn't shoot down the plane.
Here's a link to Aviation Herald on the subject. Note the description of the Russian cover up that has already started even if it's too late.
http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0
Putin is to blame for this. He encourages and supplies the terrorists. He is a dangerous man.
Putin is dangerous, is not only him, they want to change the world , end the dollar domination; Eastern Ukraine is just like a small volcano spilling from larger geo politic economic lava chamber boiling under the surface ; Last week ,in the shadow of over publicized Soccer World Cup, maybe the real economic game changer world cup, BRICS vs IMF was held in Fortaleza, Brazil BRICS summit ; I believe this could affect all of us in next years;
""BRICS nations agree to create own development bank
New $100B bank, seen to counter IMF and World Bank, will be headquartered in China "
more here
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/brics-nations-agree-to-create-own-development-bank-1.2707903
(http://i.cbc.ca/1.2707923.1405457945!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/brazil-brics-summit.jpg)
-
This should be interesting, hang on fellers!
-
I wonder when organizations and companies will realize that it is not wise for everyone to take the same plane. 100 of the world's foremost HIV scientists died on MH17... A tragedy that will have enormous consequences for untold thousands of people...
-
Funny you should say that Gscholz. My company only allows a max of 10 employees on a single flight for just this reason. It's displayed in big red letters on my inter-company travel site, and there is a system in place to prevent it from happening. All arrangements must be made thru the site, and once a specific flight reaches
10 Employees a soft warnng is displayed and locks you out of being able to get a seat on it
-
Funny you should say that Gscholz. My company only allows a max of 10 employees on a single flight for just this reason. It's displayed in big red letters on my inter-company travel site, and there is a system in place to prevent it from happening. All arrangements must be made thru the site, and once a specific flight reaches
10 Employees a soft warnng is displayed and locks you out of being able to get a seat on it
I've never considered until now, but I'd be extremely surprised if my employer doesn't do the same. (Then again, for all I know, we may have the same employer ;) )
-
I wonder when organizations and companies will realize that it is not wise for everyone to take the same plane. 100 of the world's foremost HIV scientists died on MH17... A tragedy that will have enormous consequences for untold thousands of people...
Not something I would have even considered but thats an excellent point!
-
Way back in the mid '80s when I worked for BNR, they had a restriction on how many employees could travel on one flight. To long ago to remember the number.
-
I wonder when organizations and companies will realize that it is not wise for everyone to take the same plane. 100 of the world's foremost HIV scientists died on MH17... A tragedy that will have enormous consequences for untold thousands of people...
This is why my immediate family will never be on the same flight all at once. We may not be super important in the grand scheme of the planet (ie curing cancer scientist family or anything), but my old man always said it was silly because what happens if the flight goes down, then we're all gone at once.
For family vacations we usually split between 2 and sometimes even 3 different flights.
I believe the saying goes, "Never put all your eggs in one basket..."
... my sympathies to those affected by this horrible event. :pray
-
Rebel leader implies it was the missing 777.
http://news.yahoo.com/rebel-leader-gives-bizarre-account-plane-crash-182256709.html
-
Rebel leader implies it was the missing 777.
http://news.yahoo.com/rebel-leader-gives-bizarre-account-plane-crash-182256709.html
Seriously? Who do they think was flying? Rod Serling?
-
Good to hear that companies on your side of the pond are smart about air travel. Over here I fear it is another story.
-
They are now saying 80 children were aboard. :mad: They say no one can secure the crash site to even start collecting bodies because of those stupid wanna-be soldiers. How about we we actually USE the 82nd Airborne Division to take & hold it, instead of decades of practice jumps & never using them.
-
Because of reasons... Mostly the 10th Spetsnaz Brigade, 22nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade, 346th Spetsnaz Brigade, and 25th Spetsnaz Regiment that are deployed not far away. And the fact that a war with Russia is bad mmkay.
-
I wish it was that easy Ranger but I'm with you - while those Russian backed scumbags control the site there will never be proper answers, there will never be a proper recovery and those poor people & all those kids will litter those fields until something changes.
Tronsky
-
The separatists shot it down. That much is clear. However, from intercepted radio communications and the fact that they are scrambling to cover it up it is equally clear that it was a mistake, not a willful act. Sheit happens in war, something the US military has proven on numerous occasions. If I were to point a finger I would point it at the airline for flying over a known war zone where several Ukrainian aircraft have been shot down.
-
The separatists shot it down. That much is clear. However, from intercepted radio communications and the fact that they are scrambling to cover it up it is equally clear that it was a mistake, not a willful act. Sheit happens in war, something the US military has proven on numerous occasions. If I were to point a finger I would point it at the airline for flying over a known war zone where several Ukrainian aircraft have been shot down.
I agree, I cannot understand how anyone thought that would be a safe idea, though I wouldn't take an ounce of blame off of those pulling the trigger. The Vincennes wasn't let off the hook...
-
The Vincennes was a different story. It actually sailed into the territorial waters of another nation and shot down one of its airliners. While the Persian Gulf was a known trouble spot it wasn't a war zone where aircraft were regularly being shot down. In eastern Ukraine the Ukrainians are using their air power against the separatists. The separatists have no air power of their own, but they possess some air defense capabilities. It is only natural and understandable that they use this AD capability against the Ukrainian aircraft. It was into this hornets nest that the Malaysia Airlines chose to fly MH17 with 298 people on board. I think the separatists should be excused for thinking nobody would do something like that and mistaking the 777 for a Ukrainian military aircraft.
The Vincennes incident is a case study in failure of command and leadership.
-
Limiting group members is not just limited to flying. I was in Boy Scout troop that had previously had a tragic experience. Several Scouts with their leaders were traveling in 4 vehicles in a line, an accident developed directly in front of the first car, and it and second were destroyed. The following two were able to avoid the crash.
The entire male lines of 3 families died.
After that families were split up, cars left at different times.
JGroth
-
I agree, I cannot understand how anyone thought that would be a safe idea, though I wouldn't take an ounce of blame off of those pulling the trigger. The Vincennes wasn't let off the hook...
Malaysia Airlines was not the only airline flying over that area around that time. Others, including British Airways, had also just passed overhead. KH17 was above the altitude of the closed air space.
In retrospect, yes, they ought to have gone around, but per the warnings what they did was appropriate.
-
They are now saying 80 children were aboard. :mad: They say no one can secure the crash site to even start collecting bodies because of those stupid wanna-be soldiers. How about we we actually USE the 82nd Airborne Division to take & hold it, instead of decades of practice jumps & never using them.
Because of reasons... Mostly the 10th Spetsnaz Brigade, 22nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade, 346th Spetsnaz Brigade, and 25th Spetsnaz Regiment that are deployed not far away. And the fact that a war with Russia is bad mmkay.
Well, I was going to say a Ranger Battalion, but I didn't want to get too crazy. ;)
-
Ukraine MIA: at 4.50 a.m. recorded a truck loaded with SAM, without one rocket on the road to Russian Federation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0
Intercepted audio with ENG subs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuHxAR01Jo
-
can we send this guy in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5DsLow4SVQ
-
Well, I was going to say a Ranger Battalion, but I didn't want to get too crazy. ;)
A Ranger Battalion vs all those Spetnaz regiments??? Thats just ridiculously outmatched...
...better make it a reinforced Ranger company
Tronsky
-
Limiting group members is not just limited to flying. I was in Boy Scout troop that had previously had a tragic experience. Several Scouts with their leaders were traveling in 4 vehicles in a line, an accident developed directly in front of the first car, and it and second were destroyed. The following two were able to avoid the crash.
The entire male lines of 3 families died.
After that families were split up, cars left at different times.
JGroth
that pretty much has been the standard for a lot of major corporations since the 80's. I went to many business trips to new york from Charlotte, NC and our company never allowed more than 4 employees in the same airplane. and a manager and section manager from same department could not fly in the same airplane. this was pretty much the standard up until now since this incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771
that single airplane crash wiped out the to management of a company.
semp
-
It should be noted that those traveling to the HIV/AIDS conference were not part of the same organization. Going to the same conference isn't the same as coming from the same company or university. The reports I am seeing are saying 7-10 were on board, not 100. Significant names in the field to be sure, but not 100 of them.
-
Some of these post are very frightening and "Nationalistic"
Can this post be locked?
-
Whose side are you on, zack?
-
Some of these post are very frightening and "Nationalistic"
Can this post be locked?
If we lock this tread the terrorists win :noid
-
Morning Copper i will be logging on in an hour <S>
-
If we lock this tread the terrorists win :noid
Morning Bailey <S>
-
It should be noted that those traveling to the HIV/AIDS conference were not part of the same organization. Going to the same conference isn't the same as coming from the same company or university. The reports I am seeing are saying 7-10 were on board, not 100. Significant names in the field to be sure, but not 100 of them.
The reports vary...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/aids-conference-says-100-researchers-may-have-been-on-board-crashed-plane
-
:pray
-
The reports vary...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/aids-conference-says-100-researchers-may-have-been-on-board-crashed-plane
Note the word 'may'. So in worst case scenario if 100 people are travelling from europe to the conference and they all happen to be on the same plane...
-
Morning Bailey <S>
Howdy Zack!! :aok
-
A lot of airlines flew that route, for example 57 Lufthansa, 75 Singapore Airlines and 5 United Airlines flights passed over the area the last week before MH17. malaysian airlines where just one among the others. just bad luck for them it where that flight that where hit. A 777 from singapore Airlines where around 90 seconds behind when they got hit.
It is pretty easy to see where the missile came from, both sides has the capabillity to do that and it seems pretty clear that they where shot down by misstake by the rebels. Guess the lesson is that providing advanced weapons to the enemy of the enemy is a risky buissness the could bite u in the rear parts.
-
A Ranger Battalion vs all those Spetnaz regiments??? Thats just ridiculously outmatched...
...better make it a reinforced Ranger company
Tronsky
:aok :salute
-
Oh yeah?! :lol :aok
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/SPETSNAZ_88ee79_137241.jpg)
-
Even the US military would have a hard time engaging the Russian's in Ukraine. Reinforcements and logistics literally next door. Numerical superiority on the ground. And fighting defensively on territory they have complete tactical awareness of. Not to mention a hostile populace and a guaranteed nuclear escalation.
-
Note the word 'may'. So in worst case scenario if 100 people are travelling from europe to the conference and they all happen to be on the same plane...
in addition a lot of those people may have brought spouses, aids... even there were 100 people going to that conference. not all 100 will be researchers.
semp
-
I think it's bad taste to allow this thread to turn into a celebration of all things military. Please be a little respectful of those innocent people who have lost their lives. The mood among ordinary people is rather somber in this country this week.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/world/europe/the-netherlands-a-nation-in-mourning-but-mindful-of-ties-to-russia.html?_r=5&referrer
-
I think it's bad taste to allow this thread to turn into a celebration of all things military.
It was a solution to the problem when no one else in the world will step up. Get off your normal high horse.
-
It was a solution to the problem when no one else in the world will step up. Get off your normal high horse.
'It'?
-
It was a solution to the problem when no one else in the world will step up. Get off your normal high horse.
what is the problem that we must send our guys to get killed.
semp
-
It was a solution to the problem when no one else in the world will step up. Get off your normal high horse.
British Empire
USA Empire
You cannot admit it
-
British Empire
USA Empire
You cannot admit it
The American Empire. I admit it. And I'm darned proud that our nation has been so immensely successful.
what is the problem that we must send our guys to get killed.
semp
The problem is that innocent people who are not even involved in the conflict are being killed.
-
I agree with USRanger. Whats the point of having all these airborne forces if we never use them properly? We spend a lot of time and money on keeping them. The last time that they were truly used to their full potential was the 1980s invasion of Panama.
Drop them in, secure the wreckage, recover any U.S. citizens' remains, and get them back out.
-
sounds easy
-
I agree. What's the point of having all these expensive nuclear weapons if we never use them? I say nuke East-Ukraine! :rock
-
The problem is that innocent people who are not even involved in the conflict are being killed.
name one war where innocent people didnt die? as cold as it sounds we cant save the world.
semp
-
I agree. What's the point of having all these expensive nuclear weapons if we never use them? I say nuke East-Ukraine! :rock
Hey, remember when the U.S. invaded Pakistan in 2011, for about 3 hours, and killed Osama Bin Laden? We could do the same thing to secure the wreckage. Get in, collect everything, take photos, get out.
-
I agree with USRanger. Whats the point of having all these airborne forces if we never use them properly? We spend a lot of time and money on keeping them. The last time that they were truly used to their full potential was the 1980s invasion of Panama.
Drop them in, secure the wreckage, recover any U.S. citizens' remains, and get them back out.
The American Iranian hostage rescue mission was a big failure.
-
Hey, remember when the U.S. invaded Pakistan in 2011, for about 3 hours, and killed Osama Bin Laden? We could do the same thing to secure the wreckage. Get in, collect everything, take photos, get out.
This would be a much higher-risk mission. In Pakistan DEVGRU raided a private home in a Islamabad suburb with a couple of armed civilians offering the only opposition. In East-Ukraine they'd be facing a trained militia and Russian mercs/foreign-fighters. Also in Pakistan there was only one body to extract, not more than 200.
(http://images.smh.com.au/2014/07/19/5609241/br-mh17-20140719195708771421-620x349.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5524480-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
collect everything
:rofl
-
The American Iranian hostage rescue mission was a big failure.
Only because two aircraft collided in a sandstorm.
-
Hey, remember when the U.S. invaded Pakistan in 2011, for about 3 hours, and killed Osama Bin Laden? We could do the same thing to secure the wreckage. Get in, collect everything, take photos, get out.
That would start World War 3.
-
WW3 is the war on terror.
-
Dude's got a scope on an ak74 lol.
-
Dude's got a scope on an ak74 lol.
nothing funny with that. I think that that is a sign of how well equipped they are
-
WW3 is the war on terror.
Oh, it is? First time I've heard that used in a non-hypothetical situation...
Dude's got a scope on an ak74 lol.
It is still a gun/caliber that can reach out and touch someone.
-
Others have claimed that the world has changed, that war has changed, and thus World War III will not be a conventional or even nuclear war, as had been imagined in the Cold War. Some claim that the War on Terrorism is World War III, with September 11 being the 'Pearl Harbor' that dragged the United States into a terrorism fight, as the UK and Israel were already fighting, in a similar way to World War II. On the 24 May 2011 edition of CNBC's Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy Under-Secretary of Defense Jed Babbin, accepted the view of the Cold War as World War III, adding "World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V."
-
Its not a war unless somebody is trying to impurify our precious bodily fluids
-
The accepted idea of a World War 3 is actually in the second sentence of the full version of that beautiful wikipedia article you refer to. A conflict between Russia and her allies and the United States and it's allies using conventional military tactics and resources. The bolded statement seems very hypothetical to me.
If you were to say the war on terrorism is indeed a war, there has to be some victory condition for either side. To wipe out not a country, but a belief is impossible...therefore how can the war be won?
-
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Thebigboard_zpseb787b59.gif~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/Thebigboard_zpseb787b59.gif.html)
-
Gasp! Everyone can see the Big Board
-
Drop them in, secure the wreckage, recover any U.S. citizens' remains, and get them back out.
There was one passenger who had dual American citizenship. Which half of the body would you like to rescue?
-
WW3 is the war on terror.
:rofl
Keep it short and sweet :rofl
-
WW3 will be a war of fighting to remain our western lifestyle. This war is being fought by brainwashing and breeding. A low education religiously fundamentalist family outbreeds a western family 10:2. The war is lost the second a country allows the fundamentalists to even live there. All they have to do is live normally and they take over the country.
-
:rofl
When are we invading Syria?.
Oh flippin heck :rofl
The colonials are now thinking of backing Asad :rofl
I did say give it 2 months my apologies it took 3 months
Drones are the future like garlic bread :rofl
-
:rofl
When are we invading Syria?.
Oh flippin heck :rofl
The colonials are now thinking of backing Asad :rofl
I did say give it 2 months my apologies it took 3 months
Drones are the future like garlic bread :rofl
garlic bread is the past Texas toast is the future
-
name one war where innocent people didnt die? as cold as it sounds we cant save the world.
semp
Agreed, innocents die during war, but when the collateral damage starts expanding beyond those directly involved in the conflict (The citizens living in the embattled territory) we need to start thinking about taking a stand.
-
See Rule #14
-
Agreed, innocents die during war, but when the collateral damage starts expanding beyond those directly involved in the conflict (The citizens living in the embattled territory) we need to start thinking about taking a stand.
Well... the collateral damage did not expand beyond the "embattled territory". The innocents flew over the "embattled territory".
-
It's a good thing Ukraine is in the UN and is enjoying the benefits of membership.
Cough, cough.
-
Well... the collateral damage did not expand beyond the "embattled territory". The innocents flew over the "embattled territory".
Agreed, it's a bit of a grey area, and there is certainly something to be said for poor decision making on the part of the airliners, but the expansion of the conflict to things like airlines albeit over the embattled territory, it shows a significant risk of continued expansion of violence. Similar to the sinking of passenger liners near England...
-
No. Unlike the passenger liners running the German blockade of Britain in WWI and WWII, the airliner could easily have flown around the war zone in Eastern Ukraine. Its destination wasn't anywhere near Ukraine. You say "risk of continued expansion of violence" as if the violence has actually expanded. It hasn't. If anything it has been more contained recently by Ukrainian forces.
-
No. Unlike the passenger liners running the German blockade of Britain in WWI and WWII, the airliner could easily have flown around the war zone in Eastern Ukraine. Its destination wasn't anywhere near Ukraine. You say "risk of continued expansion of violence" as if the violence has actually expanded. It hasn't. If anything it has been more contained recently by Ukrainian forces.
Vertical expansion is still expansion.
-
You say that as if MH17 is the first aircraft that has been shot down in East-Ukraine...
-
It's a good thing Ukraine is in the UN and is enjoying the benefits of membership.
Cough, cough.
And Russia is member of the UN Security Council. And so was China while it was at war against UN forces. :headscratch:
-
This thread is wandering into areas it should not be wandering into. Heads up!
-
And Russia is member of the UN Security Council. And so was China while it was at war against UN forces. :headscratch:
exactly. what a joke.
-
This thread is wandering into areas it should not be wandering into. Heads up!
Made it 8 pages so far though.....maybe there is hope for it
-
Made it 8 pages so far though.....maybe there is hope for it
I was actually just thinking I was impressed it's come this far...
You say that as if MH17 is the first aircraft that has been shot down in East-Ukraine...
It's not the first, no, but it's the first civilian passenger plane just passing through the area. Previously, it was their problem, in their area. Now it's gone international.
-
And Russia is member of the UN Security Council. And so was China while it was at war against UN forces. :headscratch:
Communist China was not part of the UN nor sat on the Security Council during the Korean War. The UN only recognized the Nationalist Chinese as the true government of China at the time, the ChiComs were frozen out.
ack-ack
-
I hope Skuzzy was referring to the UN debate...
It's not the first, no, but it's the first civilian passenger plane just passing through the area. Previously, it was their problem, in their area. Now it's gone international.
So? So what? It is their problem, in their area. Do not fly into their area if you don't want to risk being on the wrong end of a mistake. War is dangerous. The international aviation authorities should have done something when 10 or more Ukrainian aircraft were shot down the last few weeks prior to MH17. It is not the separatists fault that the sky is full of civilian planes when they're trying to defend against Ukrainian air attacks.
-
Satellite photos of the site. I think it's safe to infer it broke apart in a steep dive.
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6610091/12e38e24/satellietfoto_s_rampplek_mh17.html
-
It's a good thing Ukraine is in the UN and is enjoying the benefits of membership.
Cough, cough.
I have served on UN duty. It's the most impotent organisation on the planet
-
It is not the separatists fault that the sky is full of civilian planes when they're trying to defend against Ukrainian air attacks.
It is their fault for not accurately identifying a hostile aircraft before pulling the trigger. Someone made the decision to shoot and apparently didn't care what they were shooting at.
-
It is their fault for not accurately identifying a hostile aircraft before pulling the trigger. Someone made the decision to shoot and apparently didn't care what they were shooting at.
Exactly. If it were anyone else, you don't think there would be a huge outcry? Know your target.
-
It is their fault for not accurately identifying a hostile aircraft before pulling the trigger. Someone made the decision to shoot and apparently didn't care what they were shooting at.
Well said Puma. One of the most mature and responsible things written in this thread. :salute
-
It is their fault for not accurately identifying a hostile aircraft before pulling the trigger. Someone made the decision to shoot and apparently didn't care what they were shooting at.
Very true, but it is also besides the point. This shoot down is no more an escalation or expansion of the conflict than when the USAF mistakenly bombed an Afghan wedding party, or mistakenly attacked British vehicles in Iraq. There's plenty of blame to go around for the people involved, but it does not in any way constitute an escalation or expansion of the conflict.
-
Very true, but it is also besides the point. This shoot down is no more an escalation or expansion of the conflict than when the USAF mistakenly bombed an Afghan wedding party, or mistakenly attacked British vehicles in Iraq. There's plenty of blame to go around for the people involved, but it does not in any way constitute an escalation or expansion of the conflict.
You made the point......and then drove it off in the ditch.
-
Whatever that means...
-
Very true, but it is also besides the point. This shoot down is no more an escalation or expansion of the conflict than when the USAF mistakenly bombed an Afghan wedding party, or mistakenly attacked British vehicles in Iraq. There's plenty of blame to go around for the people involved, but it does not in any way constitute an escalation or expansion of the conflict.
:huh
-
2 more down in the last 2 days, very sad.
-
:huh
What? :)
-
What? :)
(http://lafishblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Fishing_Cartoon_02tra.gif)
-
Pictures over at theaviationist.com show the cockpit wall right under the left seat window, the frame of the window and stripes of the paint job are plain to see. What is also plain is the dozens of shrapnel holes from the proximity warhead exiting from the inside out, meaning the missile likely hit the plane right near the nose on the right hand side, or at least partially, and that the proximity warhead sprung out and threw it's payload through the right hand side of the nose of the plane, and exited out the left hand side. One would assume from looking at it that the crew was likely killed almost instantly.
Hard to imagine how awful that must have been for all on board.
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MH17-part-with-holes-identified.jpg)
-
Modern SAM and A2A missiles target the cockpit area to increase kill probability. Gruesome thing to see the real-life effect of...
-
Modern SAM and A2A missiles target the cockpit area to increase kill probability. Gruesome thing to see the real-life effect of...
How do the missiles do that?
-
How do the missiles do that?
Well nobody knows.
-
How about letting him answer the question?
-
Nevermind
-
How do the missiles do that?
I'm sure you'll find a reliable answer on one of the most guarded military secrets.
-
How do the missiles do that?
Radar keeps track of target direction and speed. Blow up in front as cockpits are at the front of the plane.
Like taking lead in a WW II fighter, just a little out front.
-
By the mid-'70s with more powerful computers and more accurate sensors, more intelligent pro-nav guidance became feasible. With active radar homing A2A missiles got the ability to attack specific parts of an aircraft since the closer the missile got to the target the more accurate the radar becomes. If I'm not mistaken the AMRAAM was the first A2A missile programmed to lead the target slightly thus hitting the cockpit area rather than the center fuselage, increasing kill probability against bombers and large fighters like the Su-27. The latest generation of missiles with IR or radar imaging capability such as the Israeli Python-5 are even programmable in flight allowing the pilot to choose what part of the target aircraft the missile should try to hit.
-
Shame they couldn't be bothered to program something in to recognize civilian airliners really isn't it?
-
If they only had one launcher vehicle and not the entire system with search radar they quite possibly did not have the ability to interrogate the target. Also the skill level of the operators is in question.
-
Probably adding such a system to the missile itself is becoming an increasingly high priority wouldn't you agree?
-
Afraid not. Then any military jet could just squawk as a civilian plane to defeat the missile. In any case the 9M317 missile doesn't make decisions on its own. The radar returns from the missile's seeker is relayed to the launch vehicle via data link where computers analyze the information and decides what the missile needs to do, and then sends command signals back to the missile. Everything "intelligent" is done on the ground, not by the missile itself.
-
Afraid not. Then any military jet could just squawk as a civilian plane to defeat the missile. In any case the 9M317 missile doesn't make decisions on its own. The radar returns from the missile's seeker is relayed to the launch vehicle via data link where computers analyze the information and decides what the missile needs to do, and then sends command signals back to the missile. Everything "intelligent" is done on the ground, not by the missile itself.
Obvously the method would have to be secure.
-
No such thing I'm afraid. Blue-on-blue happens, and always will. To expect people in a war situation to not shoot unless they have a positive ID on the target is naive and do-gooder thinking. In a war zone you either fight or get the hell out of the way. If you can't get out of the way you'd better take cover. IFF - Identify Friend or Foe is really a misnomer since it can't really identify a foe. It should be IFU - Identify Friend or Unknown. And nobody's going to give their IFF codes to civilian airlines.
-
No such thing I'm afraid. Blue-on-blue happens, and always will. To expect people in a war situation to not shoot unless they have a positive ID on the target is naive and do-gooder thinking. In a war zone you either fight or get the hell out of the way. If you can't get out of the way you'd better take cover. IFF - Identify Friend or Foe is really a misnomer since it can't really identify a foe. It should be IFU - Identify Friend or Unknown. And nobody's going to give their IFF codes to civilian airlines.
You say do-gooder like it's a bad thing. :old:
It wouldn't be beyond the reach of present technology to have a missile, most especially a SAM, recognize a civilian airliner. Assuming the system could not be cracked (obviously no customer would buy such a thing and no nation manufacture it) you don't think this would be a good idea?
I wonder what state the world would be in this very week if this airliner had contained mostly American passengers.
-
It's quite a trivial problem actually to have an 'intelligent' missile ignore or rather move away from a civilian airliner and still have its behaviour unimpeded against military aircraft. Both the technology and the infrastructure is essentially there already.
Of course the want has to be there too.
-
nrshida, it is also quite easy to dress a military plane in civilian clothes and have it pass for that. Just saying.
No matter what system you come up with, there will always be those who can find a way around it.
Civilian aircraft have no business flying anywhere near a war zone.
-
It's quite a trivial problem actually to have an 'intelligent' missile ignore or rather move away from a civilian airliner and still have its behaviour unimpeded against military aircraft. Both the technology and the infrastructure is essentially there already.
Of course the want has to be there too.
You must live in a very nieve world. What one person can build to ID aircraft as airliner or military another can cracked and use it to fly military aircraft past Sam sites.
In this case We will never know for sure, it looks like poor training. Someone saw a blip and hit a button without checking on what the blip was.
-
What if the airliner is is heading for an abrupt landing in Manhattan, like those 13 years ago? There is no such thing as a "civilian aircraft". You can use a plane for civilian purposes, but you can also use the same plane for military purposes. Cargo plane or bomber depends only on what you're carrying. Same with airliner or troop carrier. Private light aircraft or artillery spotter? Etc.
When I deployed to Bosnia 20 years ago I flew in a Bulgarian Airlines Tu-154, chartered by the UN. We dodged Bosnian-Serb AAA in a steep dive into Split, Croatia.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/tu154bul.jpg)
-
nrshida, it is also quite easy to dress a military plane in civilian clothes and have it pass for that. Just saying.
No matter what system you come up with, there will always be those who can find a way around it.
There are already systems currently in widespread use which cannot be cracked. No one has or can find a way around those. Not in good time anyway :banana:
Civilian aircraft have no business flying anywhere near a war zone.
I agree, I think however they were not aware of this particular war zone having the altitude it apparently did. But I agree this is the only way to be sure.
You must live in a very nieve world. What one person can build to ID aircraft as airliner or military another can cracked and use it to fly military aircraft past Sam sites.
I love the way people can poo poo an idea with total confidence without knowing what it is or the background of the person suggesting it. So jaded are you that you can't imagine attempting to improve the world is worth the effort?
What if the airliner is is heading for an abrupt landing in Manhattan, like those 13 years ago? There is no such thing as a "civilian aircraft". You can use a plane for civilian purposes, but you can also use the same plane for military purposes. Cargo plane or bomber depends only on what you're carrying. Same with airliner or troop carrier. Private light aircraft or artillery spotter? Etc.
When I deployed to Bosnia 20 years ago I flew in a Bulgarian Airlines Tu-154, chartered by the UN. We dodged Bosnian-Serb AAA in a steep dive into Split, Croatia.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/tu154bul.jpg)
13 years has it really been so long? Aren't those really a separate set of problems which could / should have been solved before the aircraft took off? Wow. I'm happy you survived your triple A incident. Did the oxygen masks deploy and the kiss your arse goodbye warning light come on? :eek:
-
Heheh no :) I don't think there was any AAA actually being fired at us. It was just standard procedure to dodge and dive in that area because it was not safe to fly the normal approach pattern to Split airport. I had a cold so my sinuses popped loudly, that's about it.
-
I had a cold so my sinuses popped loudly, that's about it.
:rofl
'OMG the plane's been hit, oh no wait...'. :lol
-
There are already systems currently in widespread use which cannot be cracked. No one has or can find a way around those. Not in good time anyway :banana:
Could you name one? I certainly can't.
It's a worthy idea to try to come up with a way to prevent missiles from target civilian airlines, but just like ECM led to ECCM, there will always be someone trying to crack it. And considering a RESPONSIBLE operator on the ground would help prevent us from NEEDING missiles that avoid civilian aircraft, and those who AREN'T responsible enough to avoid shooting are also NOT responsible enough to purchase the more-expensive civilian-avoiding missiles, there really isn't much point in spending billions of dollars on an ongoing arms race.
-
Could you name one? I certainly can't.
RSA with a reasonable length key cannot be broken if they are cycled on a shorter rotation that they can be unfactored.
It's a worthy idea to try to come up with a way to prevent missiles from target civilian airlines, but just like ECM led to ECCM, there will always be someone trying to crack it. And considering a RESPONSIBLE operator on the ground would help prevent us from NEEDING missiles that avoid civilian aircraft, and those who AREN'T responsible enough to avoid shooting are also NOT responsible enough to purchase the more-expensive civilian-avoiding missiles, there really isn't much point in spending billions of dollars on an ongoing arms race.
Hmmm well my idea depended on precluding reverse engineering. There is indeed an interesting converse relationship between those designing and developing the weapons systems and those that often seem to end up getting hold of them. You have to wonder what other human problems this ingenuity could be applied to.
Oh well, costs nothing to discuss creative ideas.
-
RSA with a reasonable length key cannot be broken if they are cycled on a shorter rotation that they can be unfactored.
Hmmm well my idea depended on precluding reverse engineering. There is indeed an interesting converse relationship between those designing and developing the weapons systems and those that often seem to end up getting hold of them. You have to wonder what other human problems this ingenuity could be applied to.
Oh well, costs nothing to discuss creative ideas.
It's not just individual code-cracking that can be used to defeat such a system. What would prevent people from taking an actual 767, gutting the center of it, and putting a bomb-bay there instead? How does one uniquely identify a military aircraft universally?
-
I love the way people can poo poo an idea with total confidence without knowing what it is or the background of the person suggesting it. So jaded are you that you can't imagine attempting to improve the world is worth the effort?
I didn't "poo poo" idea, I just pointed out realistically that What one man can make, another can find a way around. On top of that, who's to say the guy that comes up with "the idea" doesn't just turn around and sell it to the enemy anyway. I know what kind of world we live in, do you?
-
:rofl
'OMG the plane's been hit, oh no wait...'. :lol
You may laugh, but I thought my head was going to explode. Was very traumatic! ;)
-
It's not just individual code-cracking that can be used to defeat such a system. What would prevent people from taking an actual 767, gutting the center of it, and putting a bomb-bay there instead?
Doesn't each nations branch of the civil aviation authority operate with the co-operation and support of its legitimate government? I did mention a continuous cycle of valid codes. Of course there will always be edge cases. I didn't propose to address those.
How does one uniquely identify a military aircraft universally?
You can't, but you can uniquely identify a legitimate civilian aircraft.
I didn't "poo poo" idea, I just pointed out realistically that What one man can make, another can find a way around.
Respectfully Mr. Fugitive that is untrue. There are systems which cannot be reversed engineered. You already use these you're probably just unaware of them. Regarding work-arounds you only need to make it impractical enough that other approaches become considerably more viable. Look at international trade for example.
On top of that, who's to say the guy that comes up with "the idea" doesn't just turn around and sell it to the enemy anyway.
Aren't there already methods to secure important things?
I know what kind of world we live in, do you?
:lol I have my subjective model of the world just like you do. Perhaps ours differ in that I would never be put off creating solutions that don't exist yet by people who are convinced they would never work.
-
You may laugh, but I thought my head was going to explode. Was very traumatic! ;)
:rofl :aok
-
Doesn't each nations branch of the civil aviation authority operate with the co-operation and support of its legitimate government? I did mention a continuous cycle of valid codes. Of course there will always be edge cases. I didn't propose to address those.
You can't, but you can uniquely identify a legitimate civilian aircraft.
How?
Again, looking at our current situation. Ukraine has military and civilian aircraft. So if I'm understanding your codes suggestion correctly, the civilian airplanes are given a new set of codes every so many days, and these codes identify them as civilian, correct? So what's to stop the current Ukranian government from taking one of the civilian airliners in their country, continuing to use the civilian codes, but using the plane to drop paratroopers on the rebels?
-
Again, looking at our current situation. Ukraine has military and civilian aircraft. So if I'm understanding your codes suggestion correctly, the civilian airplanes are given a new set of codes every so many days, and these codes identify them as civilian, correct? So what's to stop the current Ukranian government from taking one of the civilian airliners in their country, continuing to use the civilian codes, but using the plane to drop paratroopers on the rebels?
Well, we can only hope there are enough Boeing 727s still in service then we can call them the DB Cooper paratroop brigade. Is it actually possible to paratroop from the side doors of an airliner? 'Converting' them to have a bomb bay also doesn't seem viable to me. Additionally couldn't you identify a parachute drop by altitude and flightpath?
Perhaps it's the nature of this forum but I'm interested to note that most objections to such a system aren't about protecting civilian aircraft but making sure the weapon is still effective against aggressors. It's not as if SAMs are the only way to remove an aggressive aircraft. Wouldn't you rather let the 1 in 1,000,000 aircraft go to be dealt with by other defense systems that are more discriminating and avoid loss of civilian life?
-
Nope. The effectiveness of the weapon system is paramount. It isn't really a technological question; no one in their right mind would build a weapon that can be remotely deactivated by a third party, and certainly no one would buy it. If it becomes a demand by politicians not in their right minds then that part of the weapon system is the first thing the military will disable when the shooting starts. Avoiding civilian casualties is secondary to winning the war.
-
Avoiding civilian casualties is secondary to winning the war.
Not for very much longer I think.
-
Interesting article with some video footage of the reaction of the Dutch people.
http://time.com/3025307/malaysia-flight-17-netherlands-dutch-mourning/
"The Dutch people who died on MH17 mirror their own rapidly evolving society, and remind the rest of us that our futures don’t lie in tribalism, but in expanding our connections".
-
Gibberish Shida
That is why Scotland wants independance :old:
And we have more Ultra right wing nationalist countries now in the EU
Poland,Latvia and Ukraine are raving Nationalists, when they cant get want from the EU they will start getting moody :)
This is the future Shida no amount of tree hugging will stop it, at least the colonials can go down to RED jacket and get a insurance policy :rofl
-
I do not endorse hugging trees. Progress is ongoing whether you like it or not. Get with the programme and make a contribution, you pessimistic stuffy old farts :old:
-
Not for very much longer I think.
The western world hasn't fought a real war for ages. When military victory is all but guaranteed political consideration comes into play, like avoiding civilian casualties. In the Ukraine however, they are fighting for real.
-
I do not endorse hugging trees. Progress is ongoing whether you like it or not. Get with the programme and make a contribution, you pessimistic stuffy old farts :old:
Progress?.
What are you talking about?.
These Eastern European countries are still fighting wars started in 1570, like the Irish their culture is based on fighting the english :old:
Reactionary is the word Shida not progress
London most spoken language now not English, this is what progress is Shida :rofl
-
Well, we can only hope there are enough Boeing 727s still in service then we can call them the DB Cooper paratroop brigade. Is it actually possible to paratroop from the side doors of an airliner? 'Converting' them to have a bomb bay also doesn't seem viable to me. Additionally couldn't you identify a parachute drop by altitude and flightpath?
Perhaps it's the nature of this forum but I'm interested to note that most objections to such a system aren't about protecting civilian aircraft but making sure the weapon is still effective against aggressors. It's not as if SAMs are the only way to remove an aggressive aircraft. Wouldn't you rather let the 1 in 1,000,000 aircraft go to be dealt with by other defense systems that are more discriminating and avoid loss of civilian life?
Russian paratroopers jump from Il-76s. The same can be done from a 767. And adding a bomb-bay can be very easy, so long as you aren't interested in making it pretty. A hack-saw and some hydraulics can get the job done while still confusing missile systems into thinking it's a civilian airplane. The line between a tool and a weapon lies only in its application.
We do focus, primarily on weapon effectiveness, because it's absolutely necessary. It doesn't matter how 'safe' a weapon is, if it's not effective, because a weapon that is not effective will not be employed, thus making all of the advances in safety useless. Additionally, as a warfighter, there are easier ways to solve this problem on the individual level. The Vincennes is coming up a lot in the middle of this, and it's a great learning experience. It was equally tragic, and honestly, I see it as the same situation. Someone on the ground was trigger-happy, they mis-identified their target, and launched a weapon that should have never been used. Sure, you can try to develop a smarter missile, but the better answer is to develop a smarter shooter. Even before this, we went over the case-study of the Vincennes at least once a year, tearing it apart, inside and out, and writing papers on how to avoid making that same mistake. THAT is the way forward. You can only change the world so much by changing objects. People need to be changed to make a real difference.
-
The unpressurized cargo holds of airliners are easily converted to weapons bays. The U.S. Navy's new P-8 Poseidon is just a Boeing 737 with an internal weapons bay and wing hardpoints. It's predecessor the P-3 Orion was just a Lockheed Electra, old turboprop airliner.
(http://www.flightlinearts.com/Portals/0/images/Portfolio/Boeing%20P-8A%20Poseidon.jpg)
-
The U.S. Navy's new P-8 Poseidon is just a Boeing 737 with an internal weapons bay and wing hardpoints. It's predecessor the P-3 Orion was just a Lockheed Electra, old turboprop airliner.
(http://www.flightlinearts.com/Portals/0/images/Portfolio/Boeing%20P-8A%20Poseidon.jpg)
Thank you! Man, I'm horribly disappointed that I of all people didn't come up with this example myself.
-
Incidentally the P-8 Poseidon's great ancestor, the first real maritime reconnaissance bomber was also a converted airliner.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-432-0796-07,_Flugzeug_Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_%22Condor%22.jpg)
-
During the Cold War the Soviets even had glazed noses on their airliners so they could quickly be modified to bombers if the war became hot.
(http://aviationoverview.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tu134cccp-65782aeroflot1.jpg)
-
The unpressurized cargo holds of airliners are easily converted to weapons bays. The U.S. Navy's new P-8 Poseidon is just a Boeing 737 with an internal weapons bay and wing hardpoints. It's predecessor the P-3 Orion was just a Lockheed Electra, old turboprop airliner.
(http://www.flightlinearts.com/Portals/0/images/Portfolio/Boeing%20P-8A%20Poseidon.jpg)
Where exactly is the internal weapons bay?
-
Behind the wing, right under the U.S. insignia and "NAVY". The doors are open and there's a torpedo under it.
Better view:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/2384079.jpg)
-
Behind the wing, right under the U.S. insignia and "NAVY". The doors are open and there's a torpedo under it.
Better view:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/2384079.jpg)
Interesting, an angry 73! Thanks, good picture.
-
The unpressurized cargo holds of airliners are easily converted to weapons bays. The U.S. Navy's new P-8 Poseidon is just a Boeing 737 with an internal weapons bay and wing hardpoints. It's predecessor the P-3 Orion was just a Lockheed Electra, old turboprop airliner.
The worlds first jetliner was also converted into an ASW platform and was active from 1969 to 2011.
-
Russian paratroopers jump from Il-76s. The same can be done from a 767. And adding a bomb-bay can be very easy, so long as you aren't interested in making it pretty. A hack-saw and some hydraulics can get the job done while still confusing missile systems into thinking it's a civilian airplane.
Doesn't the Il-76 have a ramp even the commercial version? I don't think you can actually open the doors of a commercial airliner with the motors running as they are plug doors and rely on pressure difference to keep them closed. Even if you modified one so it could as I suggested before a commercial airliner flying low and slow when not approaching an airport is immediately suspicious so I fail to see the advantage.
The P-8 Poseidon was modified by a division of Boeing itself and the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was probably designed right from its early stages with provision for military 'conversion' as a workaround for the Treaty of Versailles and was again converted by an aircraft company, not some A Team with hacksaws and a MIG welder.
The line between a tool and a weapon lies only in its application.
Respectfully Serenity this is the sort of unthinking idiotic sound bite I'd expect to hear from some moron trying to protect his right to own a 50 calibre machine gun on his farm. To what other purpose can a SAM or a Colt 45 be applied? Almost anything can be employed as a weapon and yet presently the most popularly supported option seems to be to get an actual weapon.
We do focus, primarily on weapon effectiveness, because it's absolutely necessary.
Has the idolatry of power and weapons reached such a point that they are in some way sacred from the incorporation of a mechanism to make them ineffective against targets they were never intended to destroy? What about anti-personal mines? What if they had a secured coded short-range signal where you could set them off in situ after the conflict is over? Is that unacceptable because of the infinitesimal chance the enemy could crack or intercept the codes and neutralize them before that point? Do you object to such an idea as (former?) military personnel?
What about the Geneva Convention and Hors de combat? Don't these rules / laws pertain to the ethics of confining casualties to combatants? In the case of flight mh 17 an indiscriminating fire and forget weapon is thoughtlessly launched against a totally civilian target, an airliner - not incidental casualties, not an overspill from a legitimate target - and destroys it and you are telling me with conviction that it's unfortunate but more important that the weapon destroys whatever it is fired at? You can't even discuss such possibilities without being shouted down?
THAT is the way forward. You can only change the world so much by changing objects. People need to be changed to make a real difference.
No I'm sorry I disagree with this to the very core. In all other domains of human problem solving BOTH approaches are being taken in harmony.
-
You don't need to pressurize the cabin. Unpressurized, opening the doors in flight is not a problem. Unlike other German aircraft that were designed clandestinely for military purposes the Fw 200 is not one of them. The Fw 200 was designed specifically as a transatlantic airliner. The Buk SAM system is not a "indiscriminating fire and forget weapon"; the missile needs to be guided all the way to the target by the launch vehicle and its crew. They could have aborted the interception at any time before impact had they realized their mistake.
As for your "not some A Team with hacksaws and a MIG welder" comment: It's pretty irrelevant. The fact is that all modern militaries use airliners in one form or another for military purposes. They don't even have to be modified at all; in the most basic military application an airliner, like its oceangoing counterparts, can be used as troop transports. In my real-life example the Bulgarian Airlines Tu-154 in which I was transported to a war zone was a perfectly legal military target, despite the fact that the day before it was probably flying tourists to some holiday resort somewhere. The US military uses FedEx and DHL as transport subcontractors; one DHL Airbus was almost shot down in Iraq. The fact you seem to want to avoid is that in war many "civilian" vehicles and indeed the "civilians" who operate them are perfectly legal military targets in their own right. You don't need to carry a gun or a uniform to contribute to the war effort.
-
Delta Airlines transporting US soldiers deploying to Iraq:
(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/us-soldiers-deployed-to-iraq-1.jpg)
Perfectly legal target.
-
You don't need to pressurize the cabin. Unpressurized, opening the doors in flight is not a problem.
Something else was bothering me about the DB Cooper parachute brigade idea. Out of six airliners still in service quickly surveyed four have doors which open outwards. The DC10 and 767 might be possible but it isn't my idea in the first place and rather an absurd scenario I think.
The Condor and Buk corrections I bow to your superior knowledge of both since I'm not particularly interested in either but with the missile system is it really material to the incident? Once these knob-heads pressed the fire button is it likely they used the interim time to reconsider their decision or concentrate on guiding to target? Doesn't matter how you divide the system in the end the holistic system was indiscriminate.
Delta Airlines transporting US soldiers deploying to Iraq:
(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/us-soldiers-deployed-to-iraq-1.jpg)
Perfectly legal target.
And for all those legal targets, what is the proportion of military personal who have been killed in transit to the battlefield compared to civilians who have been killed by these weapons systems who were not?
-
. Unlike other German aircraft that were designed clandestinely for military purposes the Fw 200 is not one of them. The Fw 200 was designed specifically as a transatlantic airliner.
In fact, this conversion was very troublesome as the FW 200, being a pure civilian design only, lacked the structural strength originally required for such a military role. A typical stopgap measure.
-
And for all those legal targets, what is the proportion of military personal who have been killed in transit to the battlefield compared to civilians who have been killed by these weapons systems who were not?
Depends on how far back you want to go. DC-3 count? :P
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uHvXAdg-1BI/U3Kw6HhMmwI/AAAAAAAAD9o/-0XmeMuWehg/s1600/Event-Exit-exit..-Paratroopers-exit-a-Douglas-DC-3-C-47-Dakota-Skytrain-for-a-commorative-jump-over-the-D-day-invasion-landing-zones-in-Normandy-France.jpg)
-
These Eastern European countries are still fighting wars started in 1570, like the Irish their culture is based on fighting the english :old:
Hmm the British army maintain two Irish regiments to this day. It seems to me that the only Irish fighting at the moment are fighting FOR the English! On the other hand my next door neighbour is English. I'm off to fight him!
Gibberish Shida
That is why Scotland wants independance :old:
And we have more Ultra right wing nationalist countries now in the EU
Poland,Latvia and Ukraine are raving Nationalists, when they cant get want from the EU they will start getting moody :)
This is the future Shida no amount of tree hugging will stop it, at least the colonials can go down to RED jacket and get a insurance policy :rofl
I agree with you on this though. The world is going backwards not forward. There is an alarming drift to the right in Europe and the rest of the world. Russia is no longer a Communist state but a Fascist state led by a virtual dictator.
Another European war is not as unthinkable as it used to be!
-
During time of war aeroflot was to fall under military command. The soviets had a thing, I'm not sure what to call it, a faring I guess, that would be inserted through the open doors that would better facilitate paratroopers jumping out. That I know of, nato countries never experimented with dropping conventional troops from commercial transport jets. The fact that DB cooper had that skill set back in the 70's indicates that he belonged too a very particular demographic.
-
Doesn't the Il-76 have a ramp even the commercial version? I don't think you can actually open the doors of a commercial airliner with the motors running as they are plug doors and rely on pressure difference to keep them closed. Even if you modified one so it could as I suggested before a commercial airliner flying low and slow when not approaching an airport is immediately suspicious so I fail to see the advantage.
The P-8 Poseidon was modified by a division of Boeing itself and the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was probably designed right from its early stages with provision for military 'conversion' as a workaround for the Treaty of Versailles and was again converted by an aircraft company, not some A Team with hacksaws and a MIG welder.
Respectfully Serenity this is the sort of unthinking idiotic sound bite I'd expect to hear from some moron trying to protect his right to own a 50 calibre machine gun on his farm. To what other purpose can a SAM or a Colt 45 be applied? Almost anything can be employed as a weapon and yet presently the most popularly supported option seems to be to get an actual weapon.
Has the idolatry of power and weapons reached such a point that they are in some way sacred from the incorporation of a mechanism to make them ineffective against targets they were never intended to destroy? What about anti-personal mines? What if they had a secured coded short-range signal where you could set them off in situ after the conflict is over? Is that unacceptable because of the infinitesimal chance the enemy could crack or intercept the codes and neutralize them before that point? Do you object to such an idea as (former?) military personnel?
What about the Geneva Convention and Hors de combat? Don't these rules / laws pertain to the ethics of confining casualties to combatants? In the case of flight mh 17 an indiscriminating fire and forget weapon is thoughtlessly launched against a totally civilian target, an airliner - not incidental casualties, not an overspill from a legitimate target - and destroys it and you are telling me with conviction that it's unfortunate but more important that the weapon destroys whatever it is fired at? You can't even discuss such possibilities without being shouted down?
No I'm sorry I disagree with this to the very core. In all other domains of human problem solving BOTH approaches are being taken in harmony.
Respectfully (Okay, let's be honesty, I've lost a significant chunk of respect for you with THAT particular comment) the .45 Colt currently sitting on my hip has MANY possible jobs, from protecting my family, to hunting and putting food on the table.
On the subject of the P-8, the point is, how would you POSITIVELY identify a P-8 vice a 737? Hell, you couldn't find the weapons bay on it and doubted it was a military attack aircraft! Thus, so long as we send in P-8s, SAMs won't touch us.
And yes, a weapon MUST be effective, if it's going to be used. If I'm about to head into combat, being the moral and ethical person that I am, and I am offered two guns, one which is 'smart' and will NOT shoot when pointed at a person NOT holding a rifle (So civilians are safe, but so are suicide bombers) and one old fashioned dumb gun, you bet your rear end, I'm taking that old fashioned gun every single time without hesitation. Your smart technology is useless if it's left at home because it might render the weapon ineffective.
-
Hmm the British army maintain two Irish regiments to this day. It seems to me that the only Irish fighting at the moment are fighting FOR the English! On the other hand my next door neighbour is English. I'm off to fight him!
I agree with you on this though. The world is going backwards not forward. There is an alarming drift to the right in Europe and the rest of the world. Russia is no longer a Communist state but a Fascist state led by a virtual dictator.
Another European war is not as unthinkable as it used to be!
I could beat you in a fight, well my butler could :)
-
Zack runs afoul of an irishman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uOrSvLlSg
-
I could beat you in a fight, well my butler could :)
Yes indeed my dear boy but your Butler is probably Irish, old chap.
-
"WHAAAAT?
Jenkins an Irishman?
It's a outrage!!!"
-
Respectfully (Okay, let's be honesty, I've lost a significant chunk of respect for you with THAT particular comment) the .45 Colt currently sitting on my hip has MANY possible jobs, from protecting my family, to hunting and putting food on the table.
'Significant chunk'? Was there so much in the first instance? What kind of food do you gather for your family with a Colt 45?
On the subject of the P-8, the point is, how would you POSITIVELY identify a P-8 vice a 737? Hell, you couldn't find the weapons bay on it and doubted it was a military attack aircraft! Thus, so long as we send in P-8s, SAMs won't touch us.
Because one has a legitimate C.A.A. registration and the other doesn't. If my suggestion is so outrageous how come military aircraft already use a similar system without problems?
And yes, a weapon MUST be effective, if it's going to be used. If I'm about to head into combat, being the moral and ethical person that I am, and I am offered two guns, one which is 'smart' and will NOT shoot when pointed at a person NOT holding a rifle (So civilians are safe, but so are suicide bombers) and one old fashioned dumb gun, you bet your rear end, I'm taking that old fashioned gun every single time without hesitation. Your smart technology is useless if it's left at home because it might render the weapon ineffective.
Suicide bombers aren't civilians. I don't believe my proposal makes SAMs ineffective in combat. So your consistent objection boils down to not trusting the technology to fulfill its purpose because of the marginal cases which would render you, or the weapon user unarmed? Isn't that a rather selective distrust of technology?
If you don't want to discuss land mines for some reason what about a police pistol which would only fire in the hands of the officer it is paired to. Are you comfortable with that notion?
-
'Significant chunk'? Was there so much in the first instance? What kind of food do you gather for your family with a Colt 45?
Because one has a legitimate C.A.A. registration and the other doesn't. If my suggestion is so outrageous how come military aircraft already use a similar system without problems?
Suicide bombers aren't civilians. I don't believe my proposal makes SAMs ineffective in combat. So your consistent objection boils down to not trusting the technology to fulfill its purpose because of the marginal cases which would render you, or the weapon user unarmed? Isn't that a rather selective distrust of technology?
If you don't want to discuss land mines for some reason what about a police pistol which would only fire in the hands of the officer it is paired to. Are you comfortable with that notion?
I make a very comfortable living, so I don't HAVE to put food on the table with any of my firearms, but I have the capability should the need arise, however my life experience has shown me I am MUCH more likely to protect my family with it than feed them. And yes, there was a good amount of respect, I thought we were having a very well-educated debate until that line.
With regards to the C.A.A. registration, what prevents a government from procuring a fraudulent C.A.A. registration for an aircraft similar to the P-8? As long as we have a SAM programmed not to engage targets with specific characteristics, our enemy WILL try to recreate those characteristics. Like jamming to radar, except that when you're talking about the ability of the weapon to actually engage, it gets even more dangerous. At the end of the day, I do NOT trust a weapon to think for me. I do not trust landmines that can be remotely switched off after the conflict, because I will bet my left testicle that there will be an enemy dedicating their lives to cracking that code and making those landmines useless. It's a bit better than a SAM that will not target a specific type of plane, I agree, but I still see the danger. Land-mines being a passive weapon that is employed blindly vs a SAM actively targeting an enemy. And no, I will NOT support a pistol paired to an individual officer's hand. The margin for error there is astronomical. Is it finger printed? If so, what if his hands are too dirty? Doesn't grab it the same way? Is it paired to his heart rythms? Then you have stress... how would you RELIABLY single out a specific category of shooter or target without creating a GIANT blind spot in the system?
-
"WHAAAAT?
Jenkins an Irishman?
It's a outrage!!!"
Yes its an outrage!
Jenkins is Ungandan :old:
-
I have served on UN duty. It's the most impotent organisation on the planet
Fug yeah. Do did I - did 4 months in Iraq with UNIIMOG (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/uniimogbackgr.html). The UN allowed the Iraqi military to force us to 'lock up' our weapons while on patrol after the northern 'incident' (don't ask, long story).
The UN is the most toothless and pointless organization that is in need of an enema. No veto powers and everyone votes. Unfortunately the UN can do little for the issue in Ukraine as long as Russia has veto power.
-
Actually there is a very good reason for the veto powers; to make sure than any resolution in the UN Security Council (that's the only council where they have vetoes btw.) is at least agreeable to all the major (nuclear) powers. The point of the UN is to prevent war, not create more wars, and certainly not to tick off a nuclear power.
-
And yes, there was a good amount of respect, I thought we were having a very well-educated debate until that line.
Then I apologize. I'm probably getting institutionalized with the AH forum and feel discussion is usually the pre-fight to derision and insulting dismissal. In this thread there has been selective responses which degrades the discussion. I felt you were insulting my intelligence.
I make a very comfortable living, so I don't HAVE to put food on the table with any of my firearms, but I have the capability should the need arise, however my life experience has shown me I am MUCH more likely to protect my family with it than feed them.
I have a 250 year old wakizashi which I can draw cut and return to its case very quickly and my life experience has shown me I'm much more likely to sell it to feed my family than to use it to protect them :rofl
With regards to the C.A.A. registration, what prevents a government from procuring a fraudulent C.A.A. registration for an aircraft similar to the P-8? As long as we have a SAM programmed not to engage targets with specific characteristics, our enemy WILL try to recreate those characteristics. Like jamming to radar, except that when you're talking about the ability of the weapon to actually engage, it gets even more dangerous. At the end of the day, I do NOT trust a weapon to think for me. I do not trust landmines that can be remotely switched off after the conflict, because I will bet my left testicle that there will be an enemy dedicating their lives to cracking that code and making those landmines useless. It's a bit better than a SAM that will not target a specific type of plane, I agree, but I still see the danger. Land-mines being a passive weapon that is employed blindly vs a SAM actively targeting an enemy. And no, I will NOT support a pistol paired to an individual officer's hand. The margin for error there is astronomical. Is it finger printed? If so, what if his hands are too dirty? Doesn't grab it the same way? Is it paired to his heart rythms? Then you have stress... how would you RELIABLY single out a specific category of shooter or target without creating a GIANT blind spot in the system?
I do have ideas regarding false C.A.A. registration and the police firearm but I think the discussion is reaching its useful end as we approach ideological differences so I might just leave it there.
This is the second airliner shot down in living memory by a SAM with a devastatingly unnecessary loss of life. This time most of the dead were from the country I presently live in and the national grief and acceptance is tangible. Especially to think of the eighty children killed I find this act abhorrently objectionable. How dare these people do this to innocents. I just thought it obvious that an innovative IFF system for civilian aircraft would have prevented this.
A friend of mine recently shared an interesting piece of text with me from an unexpected place:
Narrated By Abdur Rahman bin Abi Laila. Sahl bin Hunaif and Qais bin Sad were sitting in the city of Al-Qadisiya. A funeral procession passed in front of them and they stood up. They were told that funeral procession was of one of the inhabitants of the land i.e. of a non-believer, under the protection of Muslims. They said, "A funeral procession passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, "Was he not a human being (a living soul)?"
-
Then I apologize. I'm probably getting institutionalized with the AH forum and feel discussion is usually the pre-fight to derision and insulting dismissal. In this thread there has been selective responses which degrades the discussion. I felt you were insulting my intelligence.
Absolutely not. I cannot stand your stance on firearms, and THAT comment felt like a dig at my intelligence, but I thought this was a great intelligent discussion.
I have a 250 year old wakizashi which I can draw cut and return to its case very quickly and my life experience has shown me I'm much more likely to sell it to feed my family than to use it to protect them :rofl
While I have my sharp, carbon steel officer's sword, I imagine my 1911 and AR-15 will serve me much better.
This is the second airliner shot down in living memory by a SAM with a devastatingly unnecessary loss of life. This time most of the dead were from the country I presently live in and the national grief and acceptance is tangible. Especially to think of the eighty children killed I find this act abhorrently objectionable. How dare these people do this to innocents. I just thought it obvious that an innovative IFF system for civilian aircraft would have prevented this.
I agree, it's an absolute tragedy. But you and I are approaching this from different standpoints. You are looking at it (I assume) from the perspective of a civilian concerned only with preventing deaths. I am coming at from the perspective of an individual employing these weapons. While it would be great to create something that would keep civilians safe, any weapon that isn't effective enough to guarantee a kill on an enemy, will NOT be used. If it's not used, safety is meaningless. People are the best way to prevent death.
-
I hate to break it to you Shida, but shooting down airliners is almost as old as human flight itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents
-
This thread is wandering into areas it should not be wandering into. Heads up!
Is that your way of saying that you are blaming the airlines for wandering into battle-zone airspace? :p
-
I hate to break it to you Shida, but shooting down airliners is almost as old as human flight itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents
And quite markingly the first incident was done by who else? Russians.
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
You have ethical issues designing offensive weapons... What's "offensive" in this context?
-
You mean designing an IFF for civilian airliners?
-
No I meant your VTOL design thingy...
-
No I meant your VTOL design thingy...
Oh I see. Well the JSF brief seemed to be mainly an element of an overall offensive strategy. I wasn't comfortable with that so worked on an interceptor design operating out of clearings like the original Harrier. Quite hard to do though. I decided a long loiter time was needed so that meant plenty of internal fuel which of course incidentally meant a long range to strike - if you wanted to do that with it. Only did it for the design challenge. The propulsion system had some very nice problems to solve.
-
I'm taking a wild guess here; you're not a big fan of preemptive self-defense are you? ;)
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Ok, this just went far off the rails. Next post decides if this thread should be locked and the person making the post to be suspended, or not.
Get it back on track folks.
-
Ok, this just went far off the rails. Next post decides if this thread should be locked and the person making the post to be suspended, or not.
Get it back on track folks.
If my comments have been deleted because they might offend the higher prevalence of military and ex-military people on this forum then I'm a little loathe to apologize. I myself rather find needlessly killed civilians and children offensive especially when the majority were from the country I presently live in. Lives lost by incompetent military or paramilitary personnel. Let's at least be adultly honest about it shall we.
Further, if I occasionally say things which border on offending internal American values how is that deliberate flamebating when in other countries such topics are freely allowed to be discussed without being considered a forbidden attack on nationalistic ideology? Is that actually my problem? I am not an American citizen, am not part of the American culture and am not subjected to the nationalistic policing of what I may and may not say. Does the rule state 'do not say anything that Americans might find offensive'?
I think you have my email address Skuzzy. If it is necessary to ban or suspend me from the forum then I should like an elaboration via that medium if you have the time.
-
If my comments have been deleted because they might offend the higher prevalence of military and ex-military people on this forum then I'm a little loathe to apologize. I myself rather find needlessly killed civilians and children offensive especially when the majority were from the country I presently live in. Lives lost by incompetent military or paramilitary personnel. Let's at least be adultly honest about it shall we.
Further, if I occasionally say things which border on offending internal American values how is that deliberate flamebating when in other countries such topics are freely allowed to be discussed without being considered a forbidden attack on nationalistic ideology? Is that actually my problem? I am not an American citizen, am not part of the American culture and am not subjected to the nationalistic policing of what I may and may not say. Does the rule state 'do not say anything that Americans might find offensive'?
I think you have my email address Skuzzy. If it is necessary to ban or suspend me from the forum then I should like an elaboration via that medium if you have the time.
Notice my post got hit too. It's not about nationalism, it's about the fact that both of us were getting a bit off track. I don't understand the flame-tag either, but hey, such is life.
We are all deeply hurt by this tragedy. There is no doubt about that. It should not have happened. I think we can leave it at that and kindly go on with our lives.