Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.

It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.

**Soladrin**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.

It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.

All true enough, but, with how the situation there is, I'll still refrain from pointing fingers.

Meanwhile, looked at the ABC news stream for a bit. Wow, all they do is harp on about RUSSIAN missile systems and how terrible they are, as opposed to all those other missile systems.

**LordofHats**

Well its Russian. Therefore communist. Therefore EVIL.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.

Exactly.

**-Shrike-**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.

It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.

It is the most likely situation, although as there are several (somewhat unlikely) theories, I don't think it's worth jumping the gun just yet. If it were shot down with a Surface-to-air missile, it should be relatively straightforward to see where it came from, based on military satellite surveillance.

**whembly**

Is KyivPost just as biased as RT? How reliable are they as a source?

SBU intercepts phone conversations of separatists admitting downing a civilian plane (FULL TRANSCRIPT VIDEO)

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was allegedly shot down by a group of Russian-backed Cossack militants near the village of Chornukhine, Luhansk Oblast, some 80 kilometers north-west of Donetsk, according to recordings of intercepted phone calls between Russian military intelligence officers and members of terrorist groups, released by the country’s security agency (SBU).

One phone call apparently was made at 4:40 p.m. Kyiv time, or 20 minutes after the plane crash, by Igor Bezler, who the SBU says is a Russian military intelligence officer and leading commander of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. He reports to a person identified by Ukraine’s SBU as a colonel in the main intelligence department of the general headquarters of the armed forces of the Russian Federation Vasili Geranin regarding the shot down plane, which is about to be examined by the militants.

The second intercepted conversation released by the Security Service of Ukraine was apparently between militants nicknamed “Major” and “Greek” immediately upon inspection of the crash site.

“It’s 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft,” Major is recorded as saying, as he admitted to seeing no weapons on site. “Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”

In the third part of conversation Cossack commander Nikolay Kozitsin talking to an unidentified militant cynically suggests that the Malaysia Airlines airplane could've been carrying spies, as, otherwise, it would have no business flying in that area.

Read the full transcript of an intercepted phone call below:

Igor Bezler: We have just shot down a plane. Group Minera. It fell down beyond Yenakievo (Donetsk Oblast).

Vasili Geranin: Pilots. Where are the pilots?

IB: Gone to search for and photograph the plane. Its smoking.

VG: How many minutes ago?

IB: About 30 minutes ago.

SBU comment: After examining the site of the plane the terrorists come to the conclusion that they have shot down a civilian plane. The next part of the conversation took place about 40 minutes later.

“Major”: These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those cossacks who are based in Chernukhino.

“Grek”: Yes, Major.

"Major": The plane fell apart in the air. In the area of Petropavlovskaya mine. The first “200” (code word for dead person). We have found the first “200”. A Civilian.

“Greek”: Well, what do you have there?

“Major”: In short, it was 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft.

“Greek”: Are many people there?

“Major”: Holy sh__t! The debris fell right into the yards (of homes).

“Greek”: What kind of aircraft?

“Major”: I haven’t ascertained this. I haven’t been to the main sight. I am only surveying the scene where the first bodies fell. There are the remains of internal brackets, seats and bodies.

“Greek”: Is there anything left of the weapon?

“Major”: Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.

“Greek”: Are there documents?

“Major”: Yes, of one Indonesian student. From a university in Thompson.

Militant: Regarding the plane shot down in the area of Snizhne-Torez. It’s a civilian one. Fell down near Grabove. There are lots of corpses of women and children. The Cossacks are out there looking at all this.

They say on TV it’s AN-26 transport plane, but they say it’s written Malaysia Airlines on the plane. What was it doing on Ukraine’s territory?

Nikolay Kozitsin (a Cossack commander): That means they were carrying spies. They shouldn’t be f…cking flying. There is a war going on.

**Iron_Captain**

whembly wrote:
Is KyivPost just as biased as RT? How reliable are they as a source?

Kyiv Post is the RT of Ukraine, so arguably, they are even more biased because Ukraine is directly involved in this whereas Russia is not. Also note that it is the SBU that 'intercepted' this, which would be the same as the seperatists releasing an 'intercepted' phonecall that says Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down.
I am not saying it could not be authentic, but it should be taken with a grain of salt until more evidence comes along

**Jihadin**

At times. I kind of wish Romney had won

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
At times. I kind of wish Romney had won

As much as I would like that to happen... do you really believe Romney would've intervened?

**LordofHats**

Well we certainly wouldn't have had to deal with any of that Birther nonsense.

**Witzkatz**

Jihadin wrote:
At times. I kind of wish Romney had won

Well, THAT's kind of a leap.

**chaos0xomega**

LordofHats wrote:
Well we certainly wouldn't have had to deal with any of that Birther nonsense.

*facepalm*

**-Shrike-**

Jihadin wrote:
At times. I kind of wish Romney had won

Well, that was random.

Regarding the 'intercepted phone conversations', until further evidence comes along, I would treat them with a grain of salt. I don't exactly see how a recorded conversation between two unknown people proves anything in particular, to be honest.

**Jihadin**

Might have had a different outcome overall being Obama and Romney view Putin differently.

US Intel ruled out Ukraine shooting the missile

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:

US Intel ruled out Ukraine shooting the missile

Help a brother out... source?

**Jihadin**

Live. Shepard Smith

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Live. Shepard Smith

K... we'll start seeing it from other sources.

**Jihadin**

Seems the Sep fired the missile being three Ukraine military aircraft was shot down in same AO. So not sure if the weapon system was captured by the Sep's at the base and moved or it was provided by the Putin/Russia and moved there.

**LordofHats**

Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.

**Iron_Captain**

LordofHats wrote:
Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.

I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?

**LordofHats**

Iron_Captain wrote:
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.

Oh certainly. When I say culprit I merely mean as in 'who done it' not as an accusation that someone's trying to blast civies out of the sky. The most extreme groups on the planet don't even go there (except for that one time like, in the 80s or something).

**Jihadin**

Iron_Captain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?

A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc

I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out

**-Shrike-**

I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.

**Jihadin**

Jihadin wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?

A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc

I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out

Now that I mention it. Why would a SA fire on it if the IFF transponder was broadcasting....

**Iron_Captain**

Jihadin wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?

A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc

I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out

Are you referring to the A-10 aircraft? I have no military experience, but I would think an A-10 (or a Vulcan gun system for that matter) is quite a bit simpler than an advanced anti-air missile system. An A-10 can be operated by just a single person who knows how to fly. A Buk system would require a lot of people (and materiel) and more know-how than can be gotten from a manual. The operators would have to be trained to use such systems.

**Jihadin**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?

A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc

I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out
I have no military experience, but I would think an A-10 is quite a bit simpler than an advanced anti-air missile system. An A-10 can be operated by just a single person who knows how to fly. A Buk system would require a lot of people (and materiel) and more know-how than can be gotten from a manual. The operators would have to be trained to use such systems.

KK I see where I lost you

The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.

All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:

Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.

Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.

How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.

General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.

Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.

Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.

Operating Instructions. This section covers;

Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.

PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.

Operation Under Usual Conditions.

Operation Under Unusual Conditions.

Operation of Special Purpose Kits.

Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.

Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.

References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.

Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.

**LordofHats**

-Shrike- wrote:
I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.

Eh probably getting ahead of myself really

I can't recall any specific instance of a group shooting a civilian liner out of the sky. Bombs on planes, and rockets shot over air strips I've heard of, but missiles blowing them away midflight? Feel free to inform me if you got anything. Aviation is not something I follow at all. I wanna say I vaguely remember something like it happening in Africa. EDIT: I found Iran Air 655 but that was a US feth up, not a terrorist act and I distinctly feel like the one I'm thinking of was a terrorist act.

**Iron_Captain**

Jihadin wrote:

KK I see where I lost you

Spoiler:

The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.

All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:

Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.

Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.

How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.

General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.

Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.

Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.

Operating Instructions. This section covers;

Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.

PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.

Operation Under Usual Conditions.

Operation Under Unusual Conditions.

Operation of Special Purpose Kits.

Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.

Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.

References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.

Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.

Ach so.
But I still highly doubt you can learn how to operate an advanced anti-air missile system from a manual.

LordofHats wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.

Eh probably getting ahead of myself really I can't recall any specific instance of a group shooting a civilian liner out of the sky. Bombs on planes, and rockets shot over air strips I've heard of, but missiles blowing them away midflight? Feel free to inform me if you got anything. Aviation is not something I follow at all. I wanna say I vaguely remember something like it happening in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

**curran12**

Why not? You need your devices to be used in the field in less than ideal circumstances.

**Jihadin**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

KK I see where I lost you

Spoiler:

The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.

All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:

Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.

Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.

How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.

General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.

Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.

Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.

Operating Instructions. This section covers;

Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.

PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.

Operation Under Usual Conditions.

Operation Under Unusual Conditions.

Operation of Special Purpose Kits.

Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.

Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.

References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.

Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.

Ach so.
But I still highly doubt you can learn how to operate an advanced anti-air missile system from a manual.

Dash 10 has lots of pictures