24-07-2014, 05:49 AM
from Pat Lang's blog
Most have discounted the possibility of an air to air missile taking down MH17 as the recent Russian MOD briefing suggested as a possible scenario. Up to now, I've also considered this as the least likely explanation. All eyes are on the BUK. But is this a case of sleight of hand, a misdirection? Perhaps. Let's take a closer look at the air to air missile theory. The most probable missile that would have been used is the R-60. The NATO designation is AA-8 Aphid. The R-60 weights only 44 kg (100 lbs) and can be launched from a wide range of high performance jets, including the SU-25. Even the HIND attack helicopter can use it. It's warhead uses either a 3 or 3.5 kg high explosive charge surrounded by a tungsten expanding rod. Some versions have an additional 1.6 kg of depleted uranium for increased lethality. It uses a proximity fuze. That is an important point.
Some analysis of damage found on part of MH17 suggest a proximity explosion slightly below and ahead of the planes port wing. NBC News use this information to confirm that it was an SA-11 missile because an infrared guided air to air missile would have hit an engine. I always thought that would be the case since my experience was with the Redeye which tracks the aircraft's hot exhaust and detonates on impact, usually up a jet engine's ass end. The NBC News analysts obviously were working with the same limited and dated understanding as I had.
In reality the R-60 and the SA-11 detonate on the same proximity fuze principle. The difference is that the SA-11 has a 70 kg warhead. One commenter on the Saker blog suggested that a 70 kg warhead would have turned MH17 into confetti at 10,000 meters altitude. I doubt he's an expert in missile damage. I know I'm not, but the SA-11 warhead has more explosive power than half a dozen 155mm HE shells. I've been very close to 5 inch naval gun fire. Believe me, the explosive power is mind altering. I have serious doubts an SA-11 blast would leave such big aircraft pieces lying in the fields outside Grabovo.
An R-60 did take down a commercial airliner in 1978. At an altitude of 9,000 meters, KAL902 had 4 meters of its port wingtip sheared off, an engine damaged and shrapnel punctures of the fuselage that killed two passengers by one R-60 hit. It was able to crash land on a frozen lake. Photos of the damage done can be viewed here. The aircraft was a Boeing 707.
My guess is that explosive ordnance experts can easily tell the difference between the damage produced by an SA-11 from that produced by an R-60. That would definitely eliminate at least one theory… and perhaps the West's and Ukraine's pet theory. Where would the information operation go then?
TTG
Most have discounted the possibility of an air to air missile taking down MH17 as the recent Russian MOD briefing suggested as a possible scenario. Up to now, I've also considered this as the least likely explanation. All eyes are on the BUK. But is this a case of sleight of hand, a misdirection? Perhaps. Let's take a closer look at the air to air missile theory. The most probable missile that would have been used is the R-60. The NATO designation is AA-8 Aphid. The R-60 weights only 44 kg (100 lbs) and can be launched from a wide range of high performance jets, including the SU-25. Even the HIND attack helicopter can use it. It's warhead uses either a 3 or 3.5 kg high explosive charge surrounded by a tungsten expanding rod. Some versions have an additional 1.6 kg of depleted uranium for increased lethality. It uses a proximity fuze. That is an important point.
Some analysis of damage found on part of MH17 suggest a proximity explosion slightly below and ahead of the planes port wing. NBC News use this information to confirm that it was an SA-11 missile because an infrared guided air to air missile would have hit an engine. I always thought that would be the case since my experience was with the Redeye which tracks the aircraft's hot exhaust and detonates on impact, usually up a jet engine's ass end. The NBC News analysts obviously were working with the same limited and dated understanding as I had.
In reality the R-60 and the SA-11 detonate on the same proximity fuze principle. The difference is that the SA-11 has a 70 kg warhead. One commenter on the Saker blog suggested that a 70 kg warhead would have turned MH17 into confetti at 10,000 meters altitude. I doubt he's an expert in missile damage. I know I'm not, but the SA-11 warhead has more explosive power than half a dozen 155mm HE shells. I've been very close to 5 inch naval gun fire. Believe me, the explosive power is mind altering. I have serious doubts an SA-11 blast would leave such big aircraft pieces lying in the fields outside Grabovo.
An R-60 did take down a commercial airliner in 1978. At an altitude of 9,000 meters, KAL902 had 4 meters of its port wingtip sheared off, an engine damaged and shrapnel punctures of the fuselage that killed two passengers by one R-60 hit. It was able to crash land on a frozen lake. Photos of the damage done can be viewed here. The aircraft was a Boeing 707.
My guess is that explosive ordnance experts can easily tell the difference between the damage produced by an SA-11 from that produced by an R-60. That would definitely eliminate at least one theory… and perhaps the West's and Ukraine's pet theory. Where would the information operation go then?
TTG
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl