24-10-2014, 12:40 PM
This was on TV here just recently, but I didn't see it. It's an excellent doco imo and provides good evidence of what really happened. The smoking gun for me is the change of operating height on wiki (and elsewhere) of the SU-25 to 7,500 metres from a previous height of 14,000 metres - which clearly was done to rule out the use of this aircraft that Ukraine is equipped with.
Even today, Wiki cites the service ceiling of this aircraft as 7,000 metres and and takes that figure from Sukhoi itself. But miltary aircraft sites like military today, show the ceiling as 10 kilometres. A book on the aircraft published in 2007, well before the event and reviewed in 2011 (ditto) also shows the ceiling as 10 kilometres, with another reviewer stating that ceiling as 13,700 metres (see HERE). We can repeat this exercise many more times. See the cited service ceiling at EnemyForces.net, and HERE, HERE and HERE. Personally, I'll always take the word on non-affiliated aircraft buffs over so called media experts. However, we do need to note that a service ceiling simply defines the optimal height of an aircraft carrying a full load of weapons and able to maintain a best rate of climb airspeed. The difference in the various figures seem to be to do with the service (constant) ceiling where an aircraft can sustain flight - whereas the absolute (dynamic) ceiling is the heigh where an aircraft can reach and operate for a very limited period of time. The SU 25 can do the latter. Simples.
But apart from all that technical stuff, do we know for sure that it was a SU 25 that was responsible? Who said it was an SU 25 in the first place? I have no idea personally? The Ukrainian AF have over 40 SU 27's which are far superior anyway that even Wiki state has a service ceiling of 19 kilometres?
Other than that, the media response to the RT doco is the usual focused propaganda. Facts aren't really disputed, but heavy emphasis is put on the fact that it's a Russia Today production, with some saying it was Putin's response blah, blah, blah. Kill the messenger not the message.
Even today, Wiki cites the service ceiling of this aircraft as 7,000 metres and and takes that figure from Sukhoi itself. But miltary aircraft sites like military today, show the ceiling as 10 kilometres. A book on the aircraft published in 2007, well before the event and reviewed in 2011 (ditto) also shows the ceiling as 10 kilometres, with another reviewer stating that ceiling as 13,700 metres (see HERE). We can repeat this exercise many more times. See the cited service ceiling at EnemyForces.net, and HERE, HERE and HERE. Personally, I'll always take the word on non-affiliated aircraft buffs over so called media experts. However, we do need to note that a service ceiling simply defines the optimal height of an aircraft carrying a full load of weapons and able to maintain a best rate of climb airspeed. The difference in the various figures seem to be to do with the service (constant) ceiling where an aircraft can sustain flight - whereas the absolute (dynamic) ceiling is the heigh where an aircraft can reach and operate for a very limited period of time. The SU 25 can do the latter. Simples.
But apart from all that technical stuff, do we know for sure that it was a SU 25 that was responsible? Who said it was an SU 25 in the first place? I have no idea personally? The Ukrainian AF have over 40 SU 27's which are far superior anyway that even Wiki state has a service ceiling of 19 kilometres?
Other than that, the media response to the RT doco is the usual focused propaganda. Facts aren't really disputed, but heavy emphasis is put on the fact that it's a Russia Today production, with some saying it was Putin's response blah, blah, blah. Kill the messenger not the message.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14