Malaysia Air Flight 17 shot down, how to prevent this?

Non-military aviation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 20:09

tjodalv43 wrote:On a kind of side note, I find it ironic how out of touch the media is with surface to air technology. Every source I've seen at some point has made some comment to the effect of "how it must have been a highly advanced modern system to be able to reach up and hit an airliner at 34,000 feet flying at 500 mph." Even today in Obama's address he said something along those lines. While the SA-11/17 is highly advanced, pretty much every strategic SAM and most tactical SAMs anywhere in the world today would find a cooperative, non-maneuvering, airliner-sized RCS target to be well within its capabilities. I guess I'm just surprised at how amazed they are that a missile could hit a cruising airliner. I mean, an SA-2 shot down a plane flying waaaay higher and that was over 50 years ago!


The media has absolutely no idea and very very little memory of such events. To have to wheel out "experts" each time something like this just illustrates how low the intellectual level of the press is at these days. They're completely out of touch.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 23:03

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Ok, if it's not cost feasible to install defensive technology and training.

What can we do to make the airliners avoid flying over conflict zones?

The only way I can think of is a FAA rule / mandate / law that prevents airlines from flying over conflict zones and each countries FAA counterpart do the same thing.

It's not worth risking lives, PR, etc.


The US FAA and the UK equivalent both sent out NOTAMs to avoid that area back in April. But this does not apply to a non US or UK air carriers.

FAA NOTAM 4/7677

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... e_sfar.pdf
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 23:04

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
tjodalv43 wrote:On a kind of side note, I find it ironic how out of touch the media is with surface to air technology. Every source I've seen at some point has made some comment to the effect of "how it must have been a highly advanced modern system to be able to reach up and hit an airliner at 34,000 feet flying at 500 mph." Even today in Obama's address he said something along those lines. While the SA-11/17 is highly advanced, pretty much every strategic SAM and most tactical SAMs anywhere in the world today would find a cooperative, non-maneuvering, airliner-sized RCS target to be well within its capabilities. I guess I'm just surprised at how amazed they are that a missile could hit a cruising airliner. I mean, an SA-2 shot down a plane flying waaaay higher and that was over 50 years ago!


Yeah, it's sad how ignorant general media is of actual military capabilities.

Most SAM systems should be able to down any civilian airliner, regardless of altitude.

Most people get confused between a MANPAD (eg. Stinger) and a SAM unit. MANPADs generally can't reach beyond 10,000 ft.. but there is many more of them accessible to hostile insurgents.

Truck mounted SAM systems like the SA-11 can hit targets like a U-2 at over 80,000 ft. This is a significantly more advanced system than a couple of old missiles bolted to a pickup truck.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 23:27

neurotech wrote:Most people get confused between a MANPAD (eg. Stinger) and a SAM unit. MANPADs generally can't reach beyond 10,000 ft.. but there is many more of them accessible to hostile insurgents.

Truck mounted SAM systems like the SA-11 can hit targets like a U-2 at over 80,000 ft. This is a significantly more advanced system than a couple of old missiles bolted to a pickup truck.


True, maybe there needs to be a PSA about the difference between MANPADS and SAM units placed on YouTube.

=D
Offline

tjodalv43

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 20:23
  • Location: Texas

Unread post22 Jul 2014, 05:37

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video ... homepage-t

CNN's "expert" explaining the idea that's being thrown around. Good luck with that chaff. These people just don't get it. The only practical way for an airliner to not get shot down by a SAM that's trying to shoot it, is to not be in a MEZ.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 688
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post07 Jun 2016, 22:57

MH17 crash: Big Buk missile part found in Ukraine

International investigators have published a photo of a large Buk missile component found at the MH17 airliner crash site eastern Ukraine.

Image

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) image shows a "Venturi", which emits propellant gases, like a car exhaust.

Dutch prosecutors want more information from Russia about the Buk, which they say killed 298 people aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in July 2014.
Previous

Return to Civil and General Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests