Airliner Shot Down over Ukraine

[Raellus]

Let's not dive into politics here. Really, what can the U.S. do, short of provoking a war with Russia, that it isn't already doing (a second batch of sanctions went into effect just a couple of days ago)?

It's easy for us guys over-draft-age guys safe behind our computer screens to call for stronger measures but let's be a little more sober minded here. Any threat of or application of Western military force in Ukraine will be seen by Putin as an act of war and the consequences of such could be very dire indeed. Russian military aircraft are already flying into the airspace of NATO's Baltic members on an almost daily basis and the U.S. is scrambling intercepts on average of once per day. The situation is already ripe for an "incident". The last thing anyone needs is further provocations.

For example, NATO Wild Weasels escorting commercial airliners over a non-member nation just a few kilometers from the border with a fairly bellicose Russia? Is Russia going to let that happen? Would the U.S. allow Russian combat aircraft to fly right up to the U.S.-Mexico border? It's a recipe for disaster. Is a lack of backbone in the White House really the problem? Does the U.S. need another war? Do our NATO allies? Come on. I don't think not wanting to start a war with Russia is cowardly. It's common sense. Partisan politics seems to get people to react emotionally instead of rationally.

Commercial Airliners don't have the performance specs to outrun or outmaneuver a supersonic SAM. According to reports, it took the SAM less than 30 seconds from launch to intercept, and that with the airliner at a cruising altitude between 33k-36k feet. A 777 isn't built to outrun, outturn, out climb, or out dive a guided missile.

Bottom line is that commercial airliners should not be flying over an active conflict zone, especially one where other high-flying aircraft have been shot down. Malaysia Airlines made a disastrous call allowing its aircraft to transit that area. Their excuse that it hadn't been officially declared off-limits is patently ridiculous. Considering the events of the past year, I hope MA gets sued out of existence.

Something should be done to "punish" Russia for supplying the Ukrainian separatists with military hardware. More diplomatic and economic pressure should be brought to bear on Russia to reign in the separatists. Hopefully, this latest incident will go farther in turning global public opinion against Russia's support for the separatists in East Ukraine.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Let's not dive into politics here. Really, what can the U.S. do, short of provoking a war with Russia, that it isn't already doing (a second batch of sanctions went into effect just a couple of days ago)?

It's easy for us guys over-draft-age guys safe behind our computer screens to call for stronger measures but let's be a little more sober minded here. Any threat of or application of Western military force in Ukraine will be seen by Putin as an act of war and the consequences of such could be very dire indeed. Russian military aircraft are already flying into the airspace of NATO's Baltic members on an almost daily basis and the U.S. is scrambling intercepts on average of once per day. The situation is already ripe for an "incident". The last thing anyone needs is further provocations.

For example, NATO Wild Weasels escorting commercial airliners over a non-member nation just a few kilometers from the border with a fairly bellicose Russia? Is Russia going to let that happen? Would the U.S. allow Russian combat aircraft to fly right up to the U.S.-Mexico border? It's a recipe for disaster. Is a lack of backbone in the White House really the problem? Does the U.S. need another war? Do our NATO allies? Come on. I don't think not wanting to start a war with Russia is cowardly. It's common sense. Partisan politics seems to get people to react emotionally instead of rationally.

Commercial Airliners don't have the performance specs to outrun or outmaneuver a supersonic SAM. According to reports, it took the SAM less than 30 seconds from launch to intercept, and that with the airliner at a cruising altitude between 33k-36k feet. A 777 isn't built to outrun, outturn, out climb, or out dive a guided missile.

Bottom line is that commercial airliners should not be flying over an active conflict zone, especially one where other high-flying aircraft have been shot down. Malaysia Airlines made a disastrous call allowing its aircraft to transit that area. Their excuse that it hadn't been officially declared off-limits is patently ridiculous. Considering the events of the past year, I hope MA gets sued out of existence.

Something should be done to "punish" Russia for supplying the Ukrainian separatists with military hardware. More diplomatic and economic pressure should be brought to bear on Russia to reign in the separatists. Hopefully, this latest incident will go farther in turning global public opinion against Russia's support for the separatists in East Ukraine.

Totally agree and America's doing the right thing by economically strangling Russia into conforming to international laws.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Let's not dive into politics here. Really, what can the U.S. do, short of provoking a war with Russia, that it isn't already doing (a second batch of sanctions went into effect just a couple of days ago)?

It's easy for us guys over-draft-age guys safe behind our computer screens to call for stronger measures but let's be a little more sober minded here. Any threat of or application of Western military force in Ukraine will be seen by Putin as an act of war and the consequences of such could be very dire indeed. Russian military aircraft are already flying into the airspace of NATO's Baltic members on an almost daily basis and the U.S. is scrambling intercepts on average of once per day. The situation is already ripe for an "incident". The last thing anyone needs is further provocations.

For example, NATO Wild Weasels escorting commercial airliners over a non-member nation just a few kilometers from the border with a fairly bellicose Russia? Is Russia going to let that happen? Would the U.S. allow Russian combat aircraft to fly right up to the U.S.-Mexico border? It's a recipe for disaster. Is a lack of backbone in the White House really the problem? Does the U.S. need another war? Do our NATO allies? Come on. I don't think not wanting to start a war with Russia is cowardly. It's common sense. Partisan politics seems to get people to react emotionally instead of rationally.

Commercial Airliners don't have the performance specs to outrun or outmaneuver a supersonic SAM. According to reports, it took the SAM less than 30 seconds from launch to intercept, and that with the airliner at a cruising altitude between 33k-36k feet. A 777 isn't built to outrun, outturn, out climb, or out dive a guided missile.

Bottom line is that commercial airliners should not be flying over an active conflict zone, especially one where other high-flying aircraft have been shot down. Malaysia Airlines made a disastrous call allowing its aircraft to transit that area. Their excuse that it hadn't been officially declared off-limits is patently ridiculous. Considering the events of the past year, I hope MA gets sued out of existence.

Something should be done to "punish" Russia for supplying the Ukrainian separatists with military hardware. More diplomatic and economic pressure should be brought to bear on Russia to reign in the separatists. Hopefully, this latest incident will go farther in turning global public opinion against Russia's support for the separatists in East Ukraine.

I also totally agree with the above post.

[copeab]

There is only one way to stop Russia, and it would probably fail. That is for for all the smaller countries that border it, that have territory that that Russia wants, to band together and attack Russia if Russia attacks any one of them.

Unfortunately, with Georgia out of the way and Ukraine in tatters, it's only a matter of time until Russia knocks on the doirs of Finland and Poland.

[Olefin]

I dont agree with appeasing Russia for one big reason - its never worked in the past. With anyone. In fact appeasement has usually led to wars breaking out because of mis-calculations that the other side was too weak and that they wouldnt reply this time because they didnt all the other times.

Remember Hilter kicked off Big Mistake Number Two for the Germans on the assumption that he had gotten away with it by remilitarizing the Rhineland and the Saar, built submarines and battleships in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, taken over Czechoslovakia and Austria - so why should anyone mind if he settles accounts with Poland?

Tens of millions of dead later it was pretty apparent that if people had stood up to him earlier he would have backed down big time.

And Russia has nuclear weapons - but frankly I dont think even Putin is stupid enough to actually do something that he knows will end with his homeland a radioactive wasteland in the cause of defending the right of his boyos to shoot down unarmed airliners.

In the end if you let countries act like barbarians then you get barbaric acts and lots of of them.

And economic sanctions may work in the end - but it hasnt worked against North Korea or Iran or Cuba - and I dont see the Europeans hanging tough for years, especially if the Russians decide that their natural gas and oil can better be sold to other people.

And no one wants to start a war with Russia - but frankly Teddy Roosevelt was right - talk softly but have that big stick when you need it. Economics may in the end prove to be that big stick. And in the end that did bring down the Soviet Union. We just had to stick it out for 45 years to do that to them. But we also showed them the whole time that we were ready to back up economic power with military power as well.

And its time we grew a set and actually had the guts to stand up to Putin because frankly if the British and French had done that in 1936 or 1938 we may not have had Europe look like a moonscape by 1945.

Or are we saying that any country that has atomic weapons can act like barbarians and we will let them get away with it?

[Raellus]

Olefin, what do you suggest we do? And please be more specific than "stand up to Putin". Would you be willing to spark a war with Russia to resolve the situation in East Ukraine?

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Olefin, what do you suggest we do? And please be more specific than "stand up to Putin". Would you be willing to spark a war with Russia to resolve the situation in East Ukraine?

Answer: Yes i would be willing threaten to spark a war with Russia if possible to stop a much bigger war later on.

Our allies and friends have to know that the US will be willing to stand up for them as we said we would. Thats why Hitler got away with what he did - because in the end the French and British were paper tigers and let him build up and conquer to where he couldnt be stopped short of a general war.

And consider the fact that the Russians havent been brainwashed completely into a cult following like the North Koreans have - given the US standing up and saying enough is enough and be willign to back it up I highly doubt that the Russians will jump into a war to defend the right to shoot down civilian airliners because Putin's ego would be bruised otherwise.

For all his bluster and BS he isnt Stalin and the Russian military knows damn well what would happen if they went to war with the US. I dont see them ready to committ suicide for Donetsk.

We signed an agreement with the Ukraine where they gave up their nukes in exchange for promises from the US to prevent exactly what is going on with the Russians now. And I doubt the MRE's we have delivered have done much in the way of honoring that agreement

Oh and there are lots of ways the US could make Putin's life a living hell short of war - like arming the Ukranians, training their troops, all out economic warfare with the Russians, moving US forces into Poland and the Baltics and Slovakia that are bigger than the speed bump battalions that are there now, putting the missile shield into Poland and Czech Republic, stationing Aegis ships in the Baltic and Black Sea permanently, etc..

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

We signed an agreement with the Ukraine where they gave up their nukes in exchange for promises from the US to prevent exactly what is going on with the Russians now. And I doubt the MRE's we have delivered have done much in the way of honoring that agreement

Technically this was never submitted to the Senate and therefore never signed as a treaty. It is legally null and void.

This still floors me that the Ukrainians accepted this fact and still got rid of their nukes. Given it was politicians making the promises, it seem a bit like paying for insurance but never getting anything in writing in return. "We will cover you Trust us."

[Sanjuro]

I have to ask though, don't Civilian Airliners have anything to detect a missile lock? A warning light? Anything?

Nope, nothing- not that there is anything we could do anyway. Best defence against an inbound, tracking missile is to let it get close then try and out-turn it- difficult to do in a 9G capable fighter, pretty much impossible in a 2G airliner.
My employer stopped overflying Ukraine several weeks ago, when it was advisory only.

[Askold]

I don't want to touch the political debates here even with a 10 meter pole...


The "Donetsk Republic" troops/separatists/rebels/goons have Anti Air missile system (or several systems) which is probably BUK M1. They bragged earlier that they stole one such system from the Ukrainian military and it is also possible that they "stole" more from Russia. (Apparently for some reason Russian troops drove some military vehicles to the border and then just forgot about them when they walked back to their base and those nasty separatists went and took them. Oh dear.)

The thing is that BUK M1 has a targeting radar so the vehicle can lock onto a target and launch missiles without the command vehicle. But it cannot identify those targets, that is what the command vehicle is for.

You see, if this was done "professionally" by an organised military they would have the command units and other troops identifying planes and might even run a ground control and actually (this is a wild idea) contact the planes and ask them what business they have rather just shooting everything they see. But the separatists do not have the capability to do that and even though this particular plane ALWAYS flew over Ukraine it had drifted a bit from the regular route since they were dodging a storm. So if the SAM troops even bothered to check when and where planes fly over them this particular one would have been an oddity. Still, they saw a plane they didn't recognise and shot it down without bothering to see what kind of plane it is so I have no sympathy for these trigger happy murderers.

Ok, I will mention one political bit. I was watching RT with some friends after we heard about the news and the Russian versions of this "accident" (that is what they called it initially) would have been hilarious if almost 300 people hadn't just been killed.

-They joked about Malaysian planes falling down regularly and wondered if this was yet another accident. (Stay classy RT)

-They had an expert from USA talking about how reckless it is to fly over a warzone. (Ok, this particular flight routinely flew over east Ukraine, Afghanistan and along the border between Pakistan and India, so yeah, the airline management are risk takers with other peoples lives.)

-They implied that the Kiev Goverment troops had shot down this plane, like the earlier incident few years ago when they accidentally shot down an civilian plane.

-They claimed that the rebels had no weapons cabable of doing this.

And the final straw:
-The final version that they have settled on is that this was an Ukrainian failed assassination attempt on Putin. Apparently Putin's plane flew over that area just few minutes before the Malaysian plane and the two planes look similar which is why the Ukrainian fighter planes shot the wrong plane down. ...Don't ask me why Putin would have been visiting east Ukraine...



The fact is that unless this was a false flag attack the Ukrainian troops have no reason to use SAM. The separatists have no air force and concidering that the separatists did make that claim of having shot down an Ukrainian plane at the same exact place on the same exact time before redacting it the odds are that they did this by mistake.

EDIT:

Actually, someone claimed that according to his calculations if the Crew was only using the radar on the BUK they would have about 140 second window to choose wether or not to shoot the plane, perhaps even less. Add to that that the Friend or Foe identification system would only recognise planes belonging to the same military (for example you could put the Russian code that would show Russian planes as friendlies) and has no way to identify civilian planes or planes belonging to other militaries. So the crew had a very short time to choose wether to shoot or to let the plane pass by.

The rebels are not gaining any sympathy points with their excuses and claims:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dead-days.html

[rcaf_777]

I seem to remember seeing something in popular mech about a laser deflection system that was being developed for civilian airlines?

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I dont agree with appeasing Russia for one big reason - its never worked in the past. With anyone. In fact appeasement has usually led to wars breaking out because of mis-calculations that the other side was too weak and that they wouldnt reply this time because they didnt all the other times.

Remember Hilter kicked off Big Mistake Number Two for the Germans on the assumption that he had gotten away with it by remilitarizing the Rhineland and the Saar, built submarines and battleships in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, taken over Czechoslovakia and Austria - so why should anyone mind if he settles accounts with Poland?

Oh, good. I'm not the only one who has noticed that Putin seems to be using Hitler's 1938 Playbook. It amused me in a horrifying way when Putin was accusing the Ukraine government of being Nazis, when his Russian government was the one most emulating the Nazis in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Olefin

And Russia has nuclear weapons - but frankly I dont think even Putin is stupid enough to actually do something that he knows will end with his homeland a radioactive wasteland in the cause of defending the right of his boyos to shoot down unarmed airliners.

<snip>

And its time we grew a set and actually had the guts to stand up to Putin because frankly if the British and French had done that in 1936 or 1938 we may not have had Europe look like a moonscape by 1945.

Or are we saying that any country that has atomic weapons can act like barbarians and we will let them get away with it?

Two points.

• In September 1938, at the time of the Sudentenland Crisis, Chamberlain met with the heads of the British military and asked if they were ready to fight a war with Germany. They told him no, they weren't, that they needed more time. With that knowledge, he went to Munich and appeased Germany. However, also in September 1938, the British military started calling up and training their army and RAF reserves, and factories started running around the clock.
  
• You always have the question with nuclear weapons how far you can push someone before they strike back. Could we threaten Putin with losing Moscow or Volgograd? Yes. Can he offer to trade it for Chicago or LA or Miami? Yes. Hmmm.

The shooting down of the Malaysia Air liner certainly ups the ante in eastern Ukraine. Is the United States (or France, Britain, German or the Netherlands) ready to send boots on the ground? I don't think so yet.

Uncle Ted