"Komsomolskaya Pravda" distinguished itself again...
This is something!
Let me start with the fact that the “witness” could have contacted representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he chose to contact Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is quite symptomatic that most of the fuss on this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have “no relation” to either the Boeing 777, or the Buk air defense system, or dead passengers aircraft, neither to the airspace in which the Boeing was shot down, nor to the territory where the debris fell... As Winnie the Pooh said: “This is not without reason!”
Now let's look at these new "revelations".
1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoye. This is an ordinary airport. Fighter planes and helicopters were based there at that time. 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 pilots’ flights?
2. Quote: “missiles were attached to the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case.”
The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! But there was and is no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian skies
3. Quote: “about an hour before the Boeing was shot down, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air.”
And the Russian military at a briefing of 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, that’s what they told me.”
Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the shooting down of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead pilots shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of the two downed Su-25s?
5. Quote: “Knowing this pilot a little... (quite possibly when these two planes were shot down before his eyes), he simply had a frightened, inadequate reaction. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fear or for revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft.”
I’ll ask questions, “knowing a little about aviation” - since when have “shy” pilots been flying in combat aviation? I note that the Su-25 “had two missiles”, so “Captain Voloshin” got scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice? In passing, 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 flying in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km/h) and altitude (10 km) with something else during the day, above clouds, with excellent visibility? And the most interesting thing is - what could a civilian plane flying in Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor be confused with, given that there are no other planes 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 of the Komsomolskaya Pravda material complete nonsense - which plane was “that one”?
By the way, they don’t “take you out” of the Su-25, they crawl out of it. They open the canopy, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they “take out” a stowaway from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant
7. Quote: “Those who were there were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even for one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”
The “witness” contradicts itself - 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 air 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, sorties continued”
9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The “witness” answer: they can fix the target 3-5 kilometers away.”
The “witness” does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60/R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the intended missile launch was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase “wrong plane” is out of place. And if the launch was made from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason difficult), then how can the pilot know “the right plane” or “the wrong one”?
10. Quote: “The rocket has pretty good speed. Very fast rocket"
A professional (and just a person “in the know”)) would never say that. From a specialist you can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs”, but “very fast” is the talk of the average person. By the way, a speed of Mach 2.5 is not “very fast”, it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, “fast” is more than three Machs, and “very fast” is Mach 3.5 and above.
11. Quote: “The plane can simply raise its nose up, and it won’t be any problem to fix it and launch the rocket.”
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications were produced, these aircraft and missiles participated in most world conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) case of a Su-25 successfully intercepting a high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!
12. Quote: “The flight range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.”
The flight range of this missile 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 missile explode? Could it get into the case and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally it can hit 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 on-board radar, so can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head that guides the missile towards the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies towards the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there have been such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. In case of a miss, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered; the detonation distance is 5 meters.
14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the scene of the disaster and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very closely. It felt like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer from the “witness”: There is such a rocket. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction continues. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits.”
Enchanting! What happens according to the “witness”: A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, which is why “the shot goes off”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with the explosive charge and destructive elements continues to fly without exploding. And when the shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). So Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a garbage newspaper...
But even if, after laughing it off, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile that the Su-25 carries
But then, I think, the main goal of these “eyewitness revelations” begins - the use of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, etc. by Ukrainian aviation (in Donetsk and Lugansk, of course).
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of Komsomolskaya Pravda “experts” 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 popular versions of the Boeing crash,” but anyone can watch online our joint (with this KP military observer) television broadcast on Dozhd in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , who previously coordinated his participation on television with the Russian 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 Su-25T flight manual (emphasis mine):
Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and a brief description of aircraft":
"... solves problems of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in conditions of their VISUAL visibility"
Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [24-hour automatic sighting] complex "Shkval":
"KAPC Shkval" ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Height combat use(excess relative to target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric flight altitude of the aircraft is not more than
10000 m;
3. The target’s elevation above sea level is NO MORE than 4000 m;
In other words, any pilot knows that the Su-25T can hit a LOW-SPEED air target with an air-to-air missile in VISUAL visibility conditions, flying at an altitude of NO 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:
"The R-60M missile with a thermal homing head is designed
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional navigation method to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence is that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile’s movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the missile-target line is reduced to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum missile launch range with equal speeds of the carrier and the 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-
load of targets hit - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the “8f 5o 0” or “CD” mode.
_Rocket R-73. designed to destroy heat-contrasting pilots
enemy controlled and unmanned aerial vehicles day and night.
The R-73 missile has practically no restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, attack directions and interference conditions.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in the ZPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude above 4000 m - in numerical values of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is in the PPS - 650 m, in the ZPS - 350 m.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional method.
naval navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapon variants after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 hardpoints due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the R-73 TGS by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two missiles are suspended from the plane.
The aviation commander who makes the decision on fighting or the official developing proposals to make this decision, it is necessary to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles"
Please note that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (RH) of the target, i.e. to catch up - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is about the question “the plane is not the same”
A week has passed since the Malaysian airliner crashed. International experts only began arriving at the crash site of the Boeing a couple of days ago, and by that time there were already plenty of versions of what happened. Now all that remains is to establish the only one - the one that is the truth.
Candidate of Technical Sciences, a well-known Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, Vadim Lukashevich, along with the world's intelligence services, is confident that the Malaysian plane was shot down by the Buk complex. And he does not deny: the disaster did not happen without Russia’s “help.”
In an interview with Glavkom, Lukashevich explained why the Russian media version that a Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 shot down a Ukrainian plane is untenable, for whom the militants filmed the passports of the dead passengers, and also whether international experts will be able to establish the real causes of the disaster. The expert is sure that this will not be easy to do due to the fact that his country is doing its best to interfere with the objective investigation.
In the conditions of the information war and many different, often opposing, versions of the July 17 disaster over the Donbass, is it possible today to confidently say what happened?
By and large, now, before 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 coming from the Ukrainian side. If we talk about the Boeing 777, no one can yet clearly say what happened. It is clear which missile was launched, and which one hit the plane is also clear. The main intrigue is who started it. There are two sides to the conflict. The first is Kyiv, the second is Moscow. Donetsk is not here.
At the same time, what gives grounds to assert that the plane was hit by a surface-to-air missile?
Firstly, an air-to-air missile, that is, launched from an airplane, is not large, with a limited warhead power. Such a missile could hardly lead to such destruction passenger plane that we are observing. Judging by the radius of the debris, the Malaysia Airlines plane broke up in the air either immediately after the missile hit, or some time later at the time of the fall. If only it had just fallen compactly like a South Korean Boeing (border incident in the airspace of the USSR, during which on September 1, 1983, a passenger Boeing-747 of the South Korean airline Korean Air Lines was shot down by a Soviet Su-15 fighter - “Glavkom”), then that would be one thing. And here the destruction of the plane occurred at a high altitude, hence the large area of the area where the debris fell. For such a large aircraft as a Boeing 777 to break up in the air immediately after being hit by a missile, you either need to hit its center or have a fairly strong charge. Numerous hits to the aircraft by shrapnel, which is a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile, indicate that the missile may not have hit the aircraft at all, but rather close to it. I draw a conclusion from the information that comes from Donbass. Based on it, I can say that it was not an “air-to-air” type of missile, but a “ground-to-air” one. Simply because the picture of destruction would have been different otherwise.
At the same time, these arguments did not influence 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, not far from the Malaysian Boeing-777, there was a Ukrainian Su-25, which theoretically could have hit the passenger plane with a missile. How plausible is this version?
This is not a serious position of the Ministry of Defense. Firstly, why would a Ukrainian plane shoot down a plane flying at the (on high) 11 thousand meters? I would still believe it if some Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems stood on 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 (whatever you can call them), basically there is no aviation. But even if we imagine that such a need would arise for the Ukrainian army, then Ukraine has an interceptor aircraft that is “tailored” to work against air targets, this is the Su-27, but not the Su-25.
The Su-25 is an attack fighter that operates only on the ground. First of all, it's armored. Precisely because they are shooting at him from the ground with small arms and shelling enemy air defenses on the battlefield. Secondly, it does not have an airborne radar station. He simply doesn't need her. He has equipment for targeted work on the ground. Accordingly, its cannon armament is different from the Su-27. Bombs and NURSs are attached to him (unguided rockets), and URs (guided missiles) of different calibers. Every plane has a ceiling - this is the maximum altitude at which it can fly. And there are working heights at which you need to work. The Su-25 attack aircraft can rise to 9-10 thousand meters, but its main operating altitude, for which it is optimized, is 3-5 thousand meters.
That is, the shooting accuracy at 10 thousand meters will be less, and the plane simply could not hit the passenger airliner?
Certainly. Instead of bombs, an attack aircraft can be equipped with air-to-air missiles. But for this he needs a guidance system. That is, in order for a pilot on an attack aircraft to shoot down this Boeing, he must at least somehow visually identify it. And the missile with which the pilot was going to shoot down the plane must have a homing head, because after launch the attack aircraft cannot “illuminate” it (monitor her movement - “Commander”).
In turn, the fighter-interceptor (Su-27 - “Commander in Chief”) There are air-to-air systems in service of short, medium, and long range classes. It has a very powerful airborne radar that works on targets in the air. All equipment is configured to capture targets in the air and track 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. This is what he was created for. 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 Kyiv area and fire this missile from there. He does not need to fly at a distance of 3-5 km from the Boeing-777 (as stated by the Russian Ministry of Defense - “Commander in Chief”) to destroy it. In addition, as I said above, the passenger plane almost completely disintegrated in the air, which indicates the launch of a much more powerful missile than those installed on a military aircraft.
If the Ukrainian military has no need to shoot down a plane, then why expose the militants or Russia to such lies?
The militants were wrong. They wanted to shoot down one target, but they shot down another. You see, Kyiv 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 at such and such a flight level. If Kyiv begins to “operate” at an altitude of 10 thousand meters, it clearly understands that it can accidentally hit a civilian aircraft, and a foreign one at that. But the militants don’t understand, because they don’t know what kind of plane is in the air. There is no doubt that it was a Buk, a surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, there is complete agreement of everyone, including Russia. But the version that the passenger plane was shot down by a 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 mistake, since the Buk complex is a high-precision weapon?
This was not an error in choosing a target, but an error in assigning a target. That is, the rebels were sure that Ukraine no longer flies at low altitudes (Ukrainian military aircraft - “Glavkom”), but transports troops on An-26 transport aircraft flying at an altitude of 5-6 thousand meters and Il-76. The missile was deliberately fired at a certain plane moving at an altitude of 10 thousand meters. The person who fired at the plane was sure that it was a military transport aircraft performing the function of transporting troops. The Buk system cannot detect the nationality of the aircraft.
But not everything is clear with Boeing either. Why did he deviate by 14 km from the given corridor?
There are no sanctions or punishments for leaving the corridor. There are no obligations under which the aircraft is obliged to move precisely within the corridor. A corridor is a certain course at a certain altitude. Altitude is echelon. So, the plane, unlike the corridor, must withstand the flight level rigidly. The pilot, who is inside the corridor, can deviate from it to the right or to the left. For example, he saw a storm front or clouds ahead, so he deviated. To avoid shaking, it can move a little to the left; the pilot can independently decide on this. Airplanes, by and large, never fly in a straight line. There are autopilots that set the direction, and people correct it. Pilots make deviations from the corridor to the right and left, informing the dispatcher. It is not clear to me why Ukraine has not yet published recordings of conversations with the dispatcher who was flying the plane, who gave the go-ahead for such a deviation. All conversations 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 Donbass. Why, despite the ban, was the plane still flown over the territory captured by terrorists?
Closed skies mean no flights. 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 and detained. Ukraine believed that the rebels did not have air defense systems that operate above the designated altitude. Accordingly, some airlines stopped flying altogether, while others continued, realizing that they were flying within the permitted zone. These are the nuances that Ukraine knows, not the militants in Donbass. And the Donetsk dispatchers, who theoretically could have advised them, are simply out of work, because local airport does not function.
Could a passenger airliner pilot theoretically escape a rocket?
Basically I couldn't. A missile flies from the ground to such a target in 20-30 seconds. She flies up to the plane from below. What the pilot could have managed to do was only accidentally notice it, looking to the side and down, but he simply would not have had time to do anything else. In any case, the rocket flies at supersonic speed, and this is a civilian aircraft that could not do anything in 5-10 seconds. At most, the pilot would have had time to scream.
The super-original version that the missile fired at the Malaysian Boeing-777 was intended for Air Force One of Vladimir Putin, which allegedly flew over the combat area in Donbass 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 fact that Putin will never fly even at cosmic altitude above the combat area. 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 Donbass could have been the plane that disappeared on March 7 of this year. Then a plane of the same model, also belonging to Malaysia Airlines, was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and disappeared. There were “dared souls” who claimed that that plane had been stolen and was now being used to organize this tragedy now.
This version is 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 paranoia 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 that disappeared on March 7, before reaching Beijing, had one tail number, this one is completely different. This one had one part marking, this one had a completely different one. Every unit, every device, every component on the plane is marked, so these are two completely different boards, it’s easy to install. It's like a banknote, each one has its own individual number.
In the first days after the tragedy, it was not experts who worked at the disaster site, but terrorists. Why did they so quickly begin to dismantle the wreckage on their own?
Because they were sure that the dead were saboteurs and spies. Pay attention to the first video that went on air after the tragedy, when a person shows the passports of the victims in close-up to the camera. In any accident, and there are thousands of accidents in the world, no one shows their passports first. Those who collected the passports showed them on camera in close-up to someone who was very interested in knowing what kind of people were there?
Who do you mean?
The people who were the first to arrive at the scene of the accident searched the corpses to pick up some documents. Immediately, in order to make it clear what happened, they showed these documents to their curator. Someone really wanted to know what really happened in the skies over Donbass. As I understand it, this is GRU.
Why did the Russian TV channel LifeNews broadcast materials intended for Russian intelligence?
As I understand it, all this was simply unintentionally leaked to the media.
Former head of the SBU Yevgeny Marchuk draws attention to the fact that the militants began to transport the bodies themselves in order to hide the truth. They say that rocket fragments could remain in the bodies, which would indicate direct evidence that the plane was hit by a Buk. Even if we assume that the militants actually removed the remains of the rocket from the bodies, will it be possible without such evidence to establish the reason for 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. Observers from the OSCE have already reported that shrapnel is visible on the wreckage. But for this fragmentation part to reach the passengers, it had to damage the casing. Analysis of the debris will show much more fully what exploded, how it exploded, and at what distance it exploded. I will give an example of fireworks for better understanding. So, fireworks are when the high-explosive part, flying away, glows due to the coating. That is, the structure of the scattering of fragments during an explosion is approximately the same as what we see during a fireworks display. It can be spherical, or it can be directed by a beam. These fragments fly at a very high speed, about 2 thousand meters per second, and when they hit they pierce right through. And if the inlet and outlet openings are visible on the fuselage, then the direction of flight is also visible. The kinetic energy is visible by the hole itself, and the accuracy is visible by the number of lesions. It will then be possible to identify not only the location of the explosion, but also the type of ammunition used to carry it out.
These fragments, material evidence, were the first to be moved from place to place by non-specialists. How serious damage can such actions of militants cause to the investigation?
Of course, this could affect the investigation. After a plane crash, experts usually collect all the wreckage, down to the last screw, to the last rivet. After this, in a large hangar on the floor, these fragments are laid out in the same way as they occupied space on the plane before the destruction. Let's say the right wing is placed on the right, the left wing on the left, and so on. As a rule, 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 decomposed in this form, then this is already good. Based on the nature of the debris, it will be possible to determine what happened. Experts are reconstructing the picture of the damage. Naturally, the wreckage should be examined, described, and photographed immediately on the spot. This is a very important point.
According to the deputy head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Gennady Zubko, Russian experts worked at the crash site for four days, “masquerading” as civilians. Could this happen?
I’m not ready to comment on this because I simply don’t know. But if they were there, then they would no longer be concerned about hiding ends in the water, but about a real understanding of the situation and the answer to the question “how far are we in?” All the same, you can’t hide an awl in a bag. Another thing is that we (Russia – “Glavkom”) Of course we know the truth. We know the names of those people who launched the rocket. This is like the story with the South Korean Boeing, which I mentioned above. We now already know the details of that story, the name of the pilot, and so on. It’s just that the intensity of politics is so intense now that we will find out the truth of this tragic story not right away. I think that we will find out the truth years later. Naturally, it will be established by an independent expert. When the whole world already knew what happened to the South Korean Boeing, in the USSR everyone continued to say that the downed plane was a reconnaissance aircraft. It will be the same here. By and large, even now the world has little doubt that it was a Russian missile.
Considering that militants are operating at the scene of the tragedy, and terrorists allegedly talk about wanting to hide evidence are posted on the Internet, is it possible to cover up their tracks and falsify the 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 knows which serial numbers of the Bukovs ended up in Ukraine during the division in the early 90s. What’s stopping you from putting Ukrainian markings on those Buks that we sent to Donetsk? Nothing. After all, the factories producing Bukovs are still in Russia. My point is that now everything can be falsified.
Is it possible to determine from the wreckage of the rocket which Buk it was launched from?
First, rocket debris is much more difficult to find than airplane debris because it exploded into very small pieces. Secondly, in such a huge scattered area it will be very difficult to collect all the debris.
Besides examining the wreckage of the plane, what other evidence can the parties use against each other?
There are recordings published at a press conference of the Russian Ministry of Defense (photos and diagrams showing that there was a Ukrainian plane in the area of the tragedy - “Glavkom”). They can be real, they can be fabricated. All this must be verified by experts. There must be similar records from the Ukrainian side. If only because this Boeing-777 was flying in its own corridor, conducted by Ukrainian ground services. Your president said that all missiles (for "Buk" - "Glavkom") armies are available. So now we need to invite the same Dutch people so that they can see with their own eyes that on July 16, roughly speaking, there were 200 missiles, and after 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 the area hit by a civilian missile. Then Ukraine can now, without compromising its national security, transfer to the international commission all 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 aircraft near the passenger plane will remain.
The “black boxes” were eventually handed over to international experts. How much light can they shed on what happened?
Fussing around “black boxes”, by and large, yields nothing. These “boxes” record crew conversations and operating parameters of on-board systems before the disaster. That is, the flight recorders will simply confirm that an explosion occurred. “Black boxes” will not give an answer as to whose missile it was, who gave the order, who aimed the missile. When information about the plane crash over Donetsk first came out, it was already clear to me that the plane could not have fallen without the participation of external influence. There are no such coincidences.
Will international expertise be able to establish the truth?
I'm sure so. Firstly, foreigners died. The countries whose citizens were killed will not allow any incomprehensible moments to remain in this story. All the same, these countries will put pressure. One way or another, the truth will emerge bit by bit. This is, firstly.
Secondly, you understand perfectly well that if it was a Ukrainian rocket, then the Ukrainians who serviced it, launched it, and saw the launch. All the same, over time the circle of people involved in the situation will increase.
If it's ours (Russian) missile, then there is also a circle of military personnel who were removed from their place of deployment, they crossed, twice, the Russian-Ukrainian border, and launched a missile. There were border guards, or
random witnesses who saw the Buk moving. There are dozens of people who know absolutely exactly what happened, who launched the rocket, who gave the command, who transported it, who escaped. All these people will remain silent for a month, two, three, five. But one of them will still say something.
Now a savage crime has been committed, a war crime. The responsibility of the people who did this is completely different. For Russia, this is a national responsibility. Because if it turns out that Russia actually did this, then it will be clear that we are still completely in the dark, and secondly, we will run into sanctions that will depress our economy. In general, Russia may not even exist... You see, now the price of this bet is very high (in identifying those responsible for the tragedy - “Commander in Chief”). Russia will never admit that it had anything to do with this. Ukraine too.
Last night, on the “Today” program. The main thing" on the RBC TV channel (July 27, 2014, at 21:00, http://rbctv.rbc.ru/archive/main_news/562949991986206.shtml) I said the following: "Since the beginning of all Ukrainian events that began in December last year, now for the first time a situation has arisen where an independent international arbiter has appeared over the warring parties. Therefore, I want to appeal to our television viewers so that they now clearly remember: who speaks what in favor of which version. Because when the conclusion of the [emergency] commission appears... then the TV viewers themselves, each of us, will be able to clearly understand who lied to us and how.”
I think that as the first conclusions of the commission appear, we can already begin to compile a list of liars.
Let's start with fixing the obvious lie, which was such even without the results of the investigation into the circumstances of the death of the Boeing 777 (flight MH17) over Ukraine. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in order to make a lie “weighty,” official propaganda sometimes forces very well-deserved people to lie (or exposes them as liars).
1. During a public statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation before representatives of the media on July 21, 2014, Lieutenant Generals A. Kartapolov (Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Defense Ministry) and I. Makushev (Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Air Force), speaking about the presence of the Ukrainian Su -25 next to the Boeing 777, they pointed to a diagram on which, instead of the Su-25, an American electronic warfare aircraft EF-111 Raven was depicted (see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1.jpg)
2. If you look not at a fragment of the diagram, but at its entirety (http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1b.jpg), then in the vicinity of the downed Boeing 777 two other aircraft are indicated - both Boeing 778". So, such aircraft - Boeing 778 - do not exist at all!
Flight AIC113 (originally AIC113) Delhi-Bermingham is operated on a Boeing 787-8 aircraft and has ICAO code B788. But the service code is not the type of Boeing 778 aircraft!
The second Paris-Taipei flight, which, according to the Ministry of Defense, is also operated by a non-existent Boeing 778 aircraft, is actually operated by a Boeing 777-300ER, with ICAO code B77W. One illiterate martinet translated the English transcription of B77W into Russian B77V, and another, who was also blind, mistook it for B778, and as a result, our generals got a diagram of the Boeing 778.
Hence the obvious conclusion: our two-star generals publicly demonstrated to the whole world their... let's say - poor training. But what is somehow forgivable for a “combined arms officer” is unforgivable for an aviator. Therefore, I’m frankly ashamed of the Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force of the Russian Defense Ministry...
3. July 23, 2014 in the evening (20:00) final one and a half hour edition of Vesti (now it has already been removed in its original form from the site http://www.vesti.ru, there was only one 20-minute fragment left of it for another topic) an interview was presented with retired Major General of Attack Aviation, Hero of Russia S. Borisyuk.
Borisyuk stated (for this point, see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti2.jpg) that the Su-25 has a service ceiling of 7000 m, “... but we have repeatedly flown at altitudes of 11, 12 and 13 km, and at this altitude the Su-25 aircraft controlled perfectly.”
Let me explain: the service ceiling is the maximum altitude at which STEADY HORIZONTAL flight of a given type of aircraft is possible. This is known to any aviation university student or military aviation school cadet. In other words, steady horizontal flight is impossible above the practical ceiling - this is a multiplication table. But in the general case, NON-HORIZONTAL UNSTABLE flight of an aircraft above the practical ceiling is possible. For example, if you descend a little above the practical ceiling and, having accelerated strongly, increase pitching (i.e. raise the nose), then the plane will jump above the practical ceiling, but then it will fly like a thrown stone, by inertia, first rising and then falling down. Maximum height such a parabolic trajectory is called a “dynamic ceiling”. The altitudes named by Borisyuk that are kilometers above the practical ceiling are a flight to a dynamic ceiling, during which the aircraft has practically no (or extremely poor) control, because there simply is not enough atmospheric density to keep the aircraft in horizontal flight or create the necessary speed pressure for effective operation of aerodynamic control surfaces.
Accordingly, the words of S. Borisyuk, Hero of Russia, about the good controllability of the Su-25 at altitudes of 11...13 km are a lie.
4. In the same issue of Vesti on the Rossiya-1 TV channel (at 20:00 on July 23, 2014), there was further talk that the Su-25 “... rose to the flight altitude of the Boeing 777, caught up with it, I walked into his tail, took aim and fired from a cannon from a distance of 3...5 km” (see screenshot http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti4.jpg).
Considering that steady level flight (kilometers) above the practical ceiling is impossible, this is a delusional lie. Its authors were not even embarrassed that just a few seconds before, S. Borisyuk clearly said: “The effective firing range of the Su-25 cannon is 700 meters.”
5. The first data from the decrypted “black boxes” confirmed that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile: “... data from the recorders confirmed EXTENSIVE EXPLOSIVE decompression” (http://www.newsru.com/arch/world/27jul2014/blackbox. html). The two highlighted words dismiss the version of the shooting of a passenger plane from the Su-25's onboard cannon.
Accordingly, the words of the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda V. Barants (retired colonel) on the air of the Dozhd TV channel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C2-qaTt-q4 video time code 24:00–24.30) – false.
We are waiting for further data from an independent investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing 777...
Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, Candidate of Technical Sciences Vadim Lukashevich analyzed the “testimony” of the “witness” of Komsomolskaya Pravda and the interview of the “KP” employee Viktor Barants, who found this “witness”, who, by the way, is a military journalist, publicist, writer, retired colonel, as Wikipedia writes about him.
Lukashevich's analysis contains interesting technical data.
Vadim Lukashevich Facebook post on December 23:
"Komsomolskaya Pravda" distinguished itself again...
This is something!
Let me start with the fact that the “witness” could have contacted representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he chose to contact Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is quite symptomatic that most of the fuss on this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have “no relation” either to the Boeing 777, or to the Buk air defense system, or to the dead passengers of the plane, or to the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor to the territory where the debris fell... As Winnie the Pooh said: “This is not without reason!”
Now let's look at these new "revelations".1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoye. This is an ordinary airport. Fighter planes and helicopters were based there at that time. 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 pilots’ flights?
2. Quote: “missiles were attached to the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case.”
The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! But there was and is no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian skies
3. Quote: “about an hour before the Boeing was shot down, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air.”
And the Russian military at a briefing of 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, that’s what they told me.”
Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the shooting down of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead pilots shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of the two downed Su-25s?
5. Quote: “Knowing this pilot a little... (quite possibly when these two planes were shot down before his eyes), he simply had a frightened, inadequate reaction. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fear or for revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft.”
I’ll ask questions, “knowing a little about aviation” - since when have “shy” pilots been flying in combat aviation? I note that the Su-25 “had two missiles”, so “Captain Voloshin” got scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice? In passing, 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 flying in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km/h) and altitude (10 km) with something else during the day, above clouds, with excellent visibility? And the most interesting thing is - what could a civilian plane flying in Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor be confused with, given that there are no other planes 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 complete nonsense - which plane was “that one”?
By the way, they don’t “take you out” of the Su-25, they crawl out of it. They open the canopy, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they “take out” a stowaway from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant7. Quote: “Those who were there were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even for one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”
The “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 air 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, sorties continued”
9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The “witness” answer: they can fix the target 3-5 kilometers away.”
The “witness” does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60/R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the intended missile launch was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase “wrong plane” is out of place. And if the launch was made from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason difficult), then how can the pilot know “the right plane” or “the wrong one”?
10. Quote: “The rocket has pretty good speed. Very fast rocket"
A professional (and just a person “in the know”)) would never say that. From a specialist you can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs”, but “very fast” is the talk of the average person. By the way, a speed of Mach 2.5 is not “very fast”, it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, “fast” is more than three Machs, and “very fast” is Mach 3.5 and above.
11. Quote: “The plane can simply raise its nose up, and it won’t be any problem to fix it and launch the rocket.”
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications were produced, these aircraft and missiles participated in most world conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) case of a Su-25 successfully intercepting a high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!
12. Quote: “The flight range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.”
The flight range of this missile 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 missile explode? Could it get into the case and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally it can hit 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 on-board radar, so can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head that guides the missile towards the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies towards the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there have been such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. If there is a miss, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered; the detonation distance is 5 meters.14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the scene of the disaster and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very closely. It felt like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer from the “witness”: There is such a rocket. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction continues. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits.”
Enchanting! What happens according to the “witness”: A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, which is why “the shot goes off”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with the explosive charge and destructive elements continues to fly without exploding. And when the shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). So Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a garbage newspaper...
But even if, after laughing it off, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile that the Su-25 carriesBut then, I think, the main goal of these “eyewitness revelations” begins - the use of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, etc. by Ukrainian aviation (in Donetsk and Lugansk, of course).
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of Komsomolskaya Pravda “experts” 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 popular versions of the Boeing crash,” but anyone can watch online our joint (with this KP military observer) television broadcast on Dozhd in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , who previously coordinated his participation on television with the Russian 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 Su-25T flight manual (emphasis mine):
Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and brief characteristics of the aircraft":
"... solves problems of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in conditions of their VISUAL visibility"Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [24-hour automatic sighting] complex "Shkval":
"KAPC Shkval" ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Combat use altitude (exceeding the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric flight altitude of the aircraft is not more than
10000 m;
3. The target’s elevation above sea level is NO MORE than 4000 m;I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instructions:
"The R-60M missile with a thermal homing head is designed
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional navigation method to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence is that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile’s movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the missile-target line is reduced to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum missile launch range with equal speeds of the carrier and the 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-
load of targets hit - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the “8f 5o 0” or “CD” mode.R-73 rocket. designed to destroy heat-contrasting pilots
enemy controlled and unmanned aerial vehicles day and night.
The R-73 missile has practically no restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, attack directions and interference conditions.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in the ZPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude above 4000 m - in numerical values of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is in the PPS - 650 m, in the ZPS - 350 m.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional method.
naval navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapon variants after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 hardpoints due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the R-73 TGS by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two missiles are suspended from the plane.
An aviation commander making a decision on combat operations or an official developing proposals for making this decision needs to know certain specifications, limiting the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles"Please note that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (RH) of the target, i.e. to catch up - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is about the question “the plane is not the same.”
An interesting interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda military observer Viktor Barants - the same one who, several months ago, live on the Dozhd TV channel, claimed that the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Su-25 aircraft cannon and “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 with the fact 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 is such a weather vane.So, “debriefing” by Viktor Barants:
http://youtu.be/sB3yM7F-dMITime code 02:12
- our experts whom we called...Let me note that the full name or any other information about any expert is not given!
02:21:
- Who told you that the Su-25 was chasing the Boeing?The answer is Viktor Baranets, a military observer of the Communist Party on the live broadcast of the Dozhd TV channel, the link to the recording of which was given above. He was just chasing, otherwise there was no way to shoot its tail section from the onboard cannon
02:52:
- sometimes Su-25s fly out to intercept...Well done! Attack aircraft take off to intercept a high-altitude, high-speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of using air defense aviation. Interceptor fighters smoke nervously, after which they attack ground targets on the battlefield due to the absence of attack aircraft busy with high-altitude targets.
03:03
- all this talk about “catching up” is just somehow so far-fetchedThis is how the military observer of the Communist Party publicly degrades himself - or rather, his broadcast on Dozhd, which, thanks to the Internet, remained online in public access.
I admit - this is exactly how, Viktor Nikolaevich, “far-fetched”, I perceived your words about “shell holes found at the site of the fall of the debris in the tail section of the Boeing” during the television broadcast on Dozhd
I remember then you said that at the training ground, it would probably even be necessary to do experimental shelling to confirm the identity of these holes - well, how did they shoot a lot at the GosNIIAS training ground in Faustovo?03:08
- no one actually saw... at what altitude it all happenedHere, military observer KP Viktor Baranets casually omits our military, who showed slides at the Ministry of Defense briefing on which the altitude of 10 km was clearly indicated for the Boeing 777 and Su-25
03:25
- we journalists must now... give the floor to professionals, those who sit on the Su-25 aircraft today, who service it, who arm itAnd then the floor is given to - who do you think? Igor Korotchenko, as the editor-in-chief of the magazine, who sits a lot in the Su-25, servicing it and arming it Kindergarten, pants with straps!
04:01 says Igor Korotchenko:
- the practical ceiling of the [Su-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so the Su-25 could end up at a flight level of 10 km.But above, Baranets says that talk about catching up is all “somehow far-fetched”
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling of combat use are completely different things. And the quoted commander-in-chief Mikhailov spoke specifically about the practical ceiling, but not about the combat ceiling, which is significantly lower.04:22
- the plane was brought to the meeting pointWhere is Su-25 ground-to-air radio interception?
04:42 on air again V.Baranets:
- oxygen removes the conversation, could or could not. Let's put an end to it - I could!It turned out that he could. How about shooting? I repeat - history does not know of a case where a Su-25 successfully fired at a high-speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So there is no point
05:45:
- everyone who saw the holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, say that it is very similar, incredibly similar to shooting from a thirty-millimeter cannon.Viktor Nikolaevich, you are a LIAR! In the broadcast of the “News” of the TV channel “Russia-1”, shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the military air defense of the Ground Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, Mikhail Krush, pointing to a piece of the cockpit trim, clearly said that “this is definitely the result destruction of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of a missile"
The 16:29 timecode also mentions yours truly.
The presenter says: “Blogger Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is confusion - three attack aircraft took off that day, or one attack aircraft, as the Russian military spoke about at the Ministry of Defense briefing. Lukashevich also writes: they say, how can you get confused and not understand that this is a passenger Boeing, that you can use the pilot of the “cracker” in the dark, that he didn’t know what his ultimate goal was in this military operation - that’s what you can say to that ?
It's funny, but about the use of the pilot "Drying" for the sake of it - this is entirely on the conscience of the presenter, I did not write anything like that. But God bless him, let’s look at V. Barants’ answer:
- I read these super-ambitious, categorical statements by 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 me, and I turned to the specialists who interpreted it for me, and to Lukashevich, I hope , also, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest position as a communications technician. Such a dull position, 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 altitude? No, he just saw one plane."And since the “secret specialists” of the command post did not explain anything to me, I remain in “categorical” bewilderment - how does a “secret witness” (already funny) with a “modest communications technician” know 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 “the proud pilots speak only among themselves”...
Victor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my “super-ambitious” laugh
A specialist in the field of aviation science, Vadim Lukashevich, regarding the versions of the Malaysian Boeing crash, and here are the thoughts I had based on this extensive material:
In the modern world, it is almost impossible to deny obvious facts, objects and circumstances of the material world that can be verified. It makes no sense to deny the flight parameters of the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, all moves are recorded. It is also pointless to deny the type of projectile that shot down the Boeing; the signature of the striking elements of the 9M38M or 9M38M1 anti-aircraft missile of the Buk air defense system is unique. The launch site of the rocket is also calculated with exhaustive accuracy; it is pointless and useless to deny it. What to do?
Provide legal grounds for the DPR command about the legality of firing at an air target, and accuse Ukraine of criminal negligence, expressed in the fact that the official air authorities did not close the L-980 air corridor at FL330 above the traffic control zone.
But Ukraine did not have any legal grounds for failure to fulfill its international obligations and the closure of this echelon, because there was no danger to air navigation at this echelon and could not have been otherwise than with the direct participation of a third, unofficial party to the conflict - the Russian Federation, which has weapons capable of damaging targets at this echelon. Ukraine did not use air defense systems against militants, and official information there was no evidence that the militants could have such weapons, except through their supply from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Having the sad precedent of the defeat of the IL-76 military aircraft, on June 14, 2014, on approach to Lugansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the ATO area to the flight level 260 (altitude 7900 meters).Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016
So, the question of who exactly shot down the Boeing has been practically resolved - the fighters, the DPR command and the senior political leadership of the Russian Federation, which provides support for the DPR, supplies and command, another thing is who exactly is to blame for the deaths of people, but here big questions arise and in this sense the quote from Kurginyan and his video message, which Lukashevich cites, are a good help in resolving it.
Kurginyan speaks openly, and the DPR confirms that the Russian Federation is supplying heavy anti-aircraft weapons to the Donbass and warns not to “fly, otherwise we will shoot down and we have something to shoot down.” Ukraine closes the sky over the territory of the ATO, but who is Kurginyan?
Kurginyan is an ordinary provocateur, whose function is to perform a quasi-legal action - to “warn” Ukraine that we have heavy anti-aircraft weapons and will shoot down planes. Ukraine did not heed the warning, did not close the sky, and accordingly, “Ukraine is to blame for everything.” The idea is as simple as three kopecks, we have a just war here for the Russian world, we shoot down the planes of Bandera-fascists, whoever didn’t hide, it’s not my fault.
After the downing of a military IL-76 near Lugansk airport on June 14, 2014, it was clear that this was not the last air casualty. The author of these lines wrote about this. It is likely that this incident was used by the Russian intelligence services as an element of the subsequent monstrous provocation against the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, and the entire body of indirect evidence presented by Lukashevich confirms this conclusion, and from the theory of evidence it is known that some necessary and sufficient the totality of circumstantial evidence acquires the weight of direct evidence.
The author of the report cannot be denied the elegance of his reasoning. Everything is clear, true and correct until the key moment of history, the actual technical details of firing from the BUK air defense system to kill and some other circumstances of significant importance, the main of which is public access to information about the movement of aircraft in the specified echelon, from the flightradar-24 website and other services that provide real-time information about the flight of all commercial civil aircraft equipped with enabled transponders (radio beacons).
There is no information in the investigation materials that the transponder of MH17 was turned off, which means that the entire set of its flight data was available to the public, via the Internet, in a simple and easy-to-understand form. Accordingly, the person in charge of the BUK air defense system had every opportunity to avoid accidental launches against random targets not covered by the command’s combat plan.
The DPR anti-aircraft gunners could not help but know that several international air corridors pass over the territory to which the BUK is being deployed, including the L-980 at FL330, through which regular air traffic is carried out.
Moreover, to launch an anti-aircraft missile of the Buk complex of type 9M38M or 9M38M1, it is necessary to enter the missile’s flight mission (x y z v) coordinates and speed of the target.
The procedure for entering a flight mission is quite complex and requires preliminary determination of these parameters using standard radar systems, including in automatic mode, but still, the operator is required to control key firing parameters according to instructions.
By the time before the immediate launch team, the skies of Ukraine were closed until 260 echelon (altitude 7900 meters).for aircraft of a class below wide-body airliners such as Boeing, with a low flight ceiling. Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016 and the anti-aircraft gunners also knew about this from public sources.
If we follow the reasoning of the author of the report, Lukashevich, and assume that the DPR anti-aircraft gunners were waiting for the Ukrainian AN-26, guided by information from intelligence spies, then why does the author not indicate the estimated flight data of this aircraft, at least from where and where it was flying. The target parameter Z = 10100 and the target speed, more than 700 km/h, should have greatly surprised the DPR anti-aircraft gunners, and then made them doubt the correctness of the decision to kill and double-check the aiming results, correlating them with the available information about the air navigation situation in the area. And there can be no question of any dissatisfaction in this matter of the destruction of a civil aircraft in an area of a busy air navigation situation.
Both the senior and middle command of the anti-aircraft gunners, and the direct launchers and gunners-operators of the Buk, had to know and knew what target they were going to hit and, realizing the significant danger of their actions, foreseeing the possibility or inevitability of the onset of dangerous consequences, desiring their occurrence, they carried out shooting at a civilian aircraft. The senior leadership of the anti-aircraft gunners set a combat mission to destroy a civilian aircraft, the commander gave the launch command, and the executive operator carried out the command. 
The respected Vadim Lukashevich, a specialist in aviation science and the author of a voluminous and convincing work, could not have been unaware of these circumstances, but for some reason these essential circumstances were omitted from his report.
Thus, from the totality of information presented by Lukashevich, taking into account the specified additions, regarding the imaginary story with the Ukrainian An-26, facts, circumstances, and other information related to the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, it follows that if the specified information is correct, and There is less and less reason to believe the opposite, then the responsibility for committing a serious crime against humanity lies with the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, who gave the order to conduct a complex of special operations on the territory of Ukraine under the cover of the civilian population, women and children of not only Ukraine, but also the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and a number of others European countries, which the first person of the Russian state hates so much!
