If they had a Buk... Yeah, that's probably it.
(The -11 is the Gadfly, the -17 is the Grizzly)
Either way, they're both eminently capable of whacking a fatarsed jumbo out of the sky. Debris pattern suggests an explosion aloft.
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11020 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... |
This one, suspiciously, on the border between Ukraine and Russia. Notes to self: Don't fly Malaysian Airlines. Don't fly anywhere near eastern Europe. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... |
Ukrainian security forces are claiming the plane was shot down. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
pro-Russion rebels sent a tweet a few days ago saying they had 'appropriated' a Buk surface to air missile (SA-11 Grizzly). That tweet has since been deleted... |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If they had a Buk... Yeah, that's probably it. (The -11 is the Gadfly, the -17 is the Grizzly) Either way, they're both eminently capable of whacking a fatarsed jumbo out of the sky. Debris pattern suggests an explosion aloft. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Müs wrote: If they had a Buk... Yeah, that's probably it. (The -11 is the Gadfly, the -17 is the Grizzly) Either way, they're both eminently capable of whacking a fatarsed jumbo out of the sky. Debris pattern suggests an explosion aloft. The confusion probably results from the fact that the SA-11 and SA-17 are both variants of the Buk family. |
|
| Author: | Raell [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
WTF... |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Along with the SA-19 Ogre yeah (And I know that SAM systems all have a reporting name with "G", but still. )
|
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Disclaimer: I have no positions on the truth or implications of the following. I am just relaying information that I heard/saw. My local news just reported that the plane was shot down with an American missile. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rynar wrote: Disclaimer: I have no positions on the truth or implications of the following. I am just relaying information that I heard/saw. My local news just reported that the plane was shot down with an American missile. Your local news is terrible. Where would this American missile have originated from? Quote: Along with the SA-19 Ogre yeah (And I know that SAM systems all have a reporting name with "G", but still. )The NATO reporting name for the SA-19 is "Grison".. whatever that is. Also, it appears that the SA-19 isn't a Buk family system per se, but rather is designed to integrate with Buk systems as part of an overall air defense network. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can see it now... Vladimir Putin at press conference: "It is clear from the terrible tragedy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 that the Ukrainian government cannot control the insurgents on its border, and they have become a threat to innocent people uninvolved in this conflict. So it is with reluctance that Russia must move to intervene, we will be taking military action against these terrorists and occupying this part of Ukraine with a peacekeeping force..." "But aren't these pro-Russian rebels?" "That is not the point..." |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... |
Apparently the rebels shot down a military transport plane with a similar missile not long ago. There's some thought that they might have thought "oh hey look, another one!" and then found out later their target identification skills may not be as good as their target engagement skills.... |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... |
If they can operate the damn machine, they've read enough of the manual to know that civilian aircraft are identified by very obvious transponder codes. You don't shoot down a passenger plane unless you want to shoot down a passenger plane. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Malaysian Airlines jet goes down... |
Khross wrote: If they can operate the damn machine, they've read enough of the manual to know that civilian aircraft are identified by very obvious transponder codes. You don't shoot down a passenger plane unless you want to shoot down a passenger plane. The pilot may have turned off the transponder codes. That's also something that was put out. I don't know why he would have done so, but apparently people think he might have. It's also possible that, seeing as quite a few countries put out advisories about flying in the area, that the rebels simply didn't bother with the identification process even if they knew how to do it, and just assumed anything flying through the area must be military in nature. This incident demonstrated that it's quite possible for an otherwise well-trained crew to misidentify a civilian airliner as an enemy aircraft. I doubt the rebels are as well trained as a typical CIC crew. It isn't simply a matter of "they read the manual, so obviously they must know what they're doing", or we'd save a ton of money by teaching people to fight in the classroom with books. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, it is simply a matter of, "If you can operate the machine, you've read enough of the manual to identify transponder codes." When you shoot down a civilian passenger plane, you've either done it intentionally, or horribly **** up. There are no alternative scenarios. That incident you linked only demonstrates that the United States Navy **** up. There's no excuse for it. They **** up and shot down a civilian transport plane. They were trained to properly identify their target, and they didn't do it. They **** up. In my field, when a highly trained, highly qualified professional misses a design flaw that causes the death of a few hundred people, he immediately goes from a competent and well-trained expert to an incompetent **** who will never work again. The United States military can most certainly be held to the same standards. That means that crew is not a well-trained crew. The moment they shot Iran Air Flight 655 down they became incompetent screw-ups. It doesn't matter that they're god-fearing red-blooded Americans, nor does it matter that they shot down Muslim rag-heads. They're screw-ups. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: No, it is simply a matter of, "If you can operate the machine, you've read enough of the manual to identify transponder codes." Which, by itself, means nothing. Having "read the manual" does not mean you have practiced actually doing the task under real conditions. Quote: When you shoot down a civilian passenger plane, you've either done it intentionally, or horribly **** up. There are no alternative scenarios. Yes, obviously. Quote: That incident you linked only demonstrates that the United States Navy **** up. There's no excuse for it. They **** up and shot down a civilian transport plane. They were trained to properly identify their target, and they didn't do it. They **** up. Which is pretty much exactly what I said. They **** up - in other words, it was not an intentional shoot-down of the Iranian airliner. That was the entire point. The Iranians said it was negligent, we admitted it was negligent, and we paid a settlement. At no point did anyone claim it was done on purpose. Quote: In my field, when a highly trained, highly qualified professional misses a design flaw that causes the death of a few hundred people, he immediately goes from a competent and well-trained expert to an incompetent **** who will never work again. The United States military can most certainly be held to the same standards. That means that crew is not a well-trained crew. The moment they shot Iran Air Flight 655 down they became incompetent screw-ups. It doesn't matter that they're god-fearing red-blooded Americans, nor does it matter that they shot down Muslim rag-heads. They're screw-ups. First, the military, or in the case in question the ship's captain (who is responsible) IS held to that standard. That captain pretty much ended his career. That said, that does not mean the crew was not trained properly; in point of fact training may have been partly responsible for the ****. The crew visualized what they had seen in training over and over rather than the actual facts and reported that to their officers. That does not make them "incompetent ****"; it means that there were mistakes throughout the chain of command - mistakes that were recognized and admitted. The point of the example was that is is not true that : Quote: You don't shoot down a passenger plane unless you want to shoot down a passenger plane. CG-49 did not want to shoot down a passanger plane. They wanted to shoot down an F-14. Even Iran understood that, and hence they claimed it was a negligent shootdown, rather than an intentional one. Finally, whether they were "red blooded Americans", or were "god fearing" or were shooting at "Ragheads" is entirely irrelevant. A mistake was made, and no one (me included) was claiming that they did the right thing- the entire **** point was that a trained crew can still **** up - and your idiotic assertion that "at that point, they're ****" is a phenomenally stupid thing to say. Are you seriously claiming that they had retroactively not been trained because they made a mistake at that point? We are not in your field, Coro. We're in my field. I am not a naval officer or crewman, nor an air defense system operator per se, but I do understand what goes into an air defense network, seeing as it constitutes "fire support" which is my primary military occupational specialty. More importantly. I understand suppression of air defenses (SEAD) very well indeed. Your field, moreover, is one where your critical work is conducted in a nice safe air-conditioned or heated office on a computer, in comfortable clothing after a good night's rest, a shower, and a decent breakfast. Yes, you may occasionally have to go out and get wet or cold occasionally, or work some long hours. That isn't ****. You have no idea whatsoever what it is like having to perform tasks under real-life combat pressure, where you have seconds to react. I do. I know what it's like to come up with a plan after not sleeping for 36 straight hours. I know what fear, stress, and overexcitement and tunnel vision are like. There is nothing wrong with your field. It's an important one that does valuable work. Don't, however, think that the fact that you know your field entitles you to lecture me on my field. You managed to completely misinterpret my position for no better reason than to get your digs in at red-blooded americans, god fearing people, and some comment about ragheads, all of which had notihng to do with what I was saying. I was not defending the CG-49 shootdown - I was pointing it out as an example of how a crew much better trained than a bunch of random rebels can negligently shoot down an airliner, in response to Khross's assertion that it doesn't happen unless you want it to. Coming in and making a big stink about how it was the result of error was pretty much the entire point. Error as opposed to intentional malice. All you saw was an opportunity to shoot your uninformed mouth off about 'Merica and lecture someone with beliefs and positions you don't like. You seem to like living in 'Merica and the ability you have to criticize everyone else form a position of zero responsibility well enough. You were in no position to do so. Next time, shut the **** up and listen. You might learn something. It doesn't bother me one bit that you haven't signed up; the point of an all-volunteer force is that not everyone does. That does not entitle you to shoot your mouth off on technical matters you don't understand - and no, being an engineer and good at math does not mean you understand. That's why training is important - you may be exceedingly well educated but you are completely untrained. I don't come around telling you how to design things, so you might want to reconsider lecturing on how combat conditions work. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: being an engineer and good at math does not mean you understand. That's why training is important - you may be exceedingly well educated but you are completely untrained. I just want to point out that every engineer who has spent any time studying engineering disasters/failures (which I sincerely hope is all of us), understands this. Moreover, chain of command and assumption/training bias is another thing we understand very well. It is very rare that an engineer makes a disastrous mistake due to incompetence. In order for that incompetence to see the light of day, there is usually failures in communication (chain of command), a desire to see a particular result (assumption bias), or both. These issues are not solved with education alone. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Diamondeye wrote: being an engineer and good at math does not mean you understand. That's why training is important - you may be exceedingly well educated but you are completely untrained. I just want to point out that every engineer who has spent any time studying engineering disasters/failures (which I sincerely hope is all of us), understands this. Moreover, chain of command and assumption/training bias is another thing we understand very well. It is very rare that an engineer makes a disastrous mistake due to incompetence. In order for that incompetence to see the light of day, there is usually failures in communication (chain of command), a desire to see a particular result (assumption bias), or both. These issues are not solved with education alone. I was talking about completely untrained in terms of military matters, and specifically how the team that operates a complex weapon system like a guided missile cruiser or an area-defense SAM system works, and what mistakes can and will be made and how training mitigates them. That said, I don't disagree with anything you say. I am not an engineer, and I don't know what the ins and outs of how a design team works, or what normally leads to an engineering disaster. I imagine that there are certain similarities to the military. However, the types of experience and training are rather different, as are the pressures. It's one thing to feel the pressure from a manager, customer, the government, etc., and quite another to feel pressure because you are confronting something you believe is about to fire a missile at you. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the bigger problem is that no-fly zones weren't set up or enforced enough. Soldiers are very often incompetent and make mistakes, even when trained properly. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|