专家：苏-25用导弹和30毫米口径加农炮击落马航飞机

真够残忍的，我们难道回到了中世纪么？

这是什么节奏菠萝森哥快跑

俄罗斯专家的军事水平真高

苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里

。。。。。睁开眼睛看看吧。这上面哪个蛋孔是30mm加农炮造成的?这种薄皮民用客机。

30mm机炮打上去都是直径几十厘米的窟窿了。

你自己看看这块机翼襟翼的方向和蛋孔入射点。都是迎头攻击的前下方打过来的。此外破损最严重的是机头前部。红外导弹打不出那样的损伤。

俄方雷达显示苏25一直处于尾随状态。根本没法打出迎头的效果。

一个亚音速攻击机不前置的话。跃升之后会落后客机很多。客机一直保持高速巡航。苏25最大平飞速度勉强跟的上。你这个要求人家勉强跃升3000米。刚好到达机炮攻击范围。太难为人了。

。。。。。睁开眼睛看看吧。这上面哪个蛋孔是30mm加农炮造成的?这种薄皮民用客机。

30mm机炮打上去都是直径几十厘米的窟窿了。

你自己看看这块机翼襟翼的方向和蛋孔入射点。都是迎头攻击的前下方打过来的。此外破损最严重的是机头前部。红外导弹打不出那样的损伤。

俄方雷达显示苏25一直处于尾随状态。根本没法打出迎头的效果。

一个亚音速攻击机不前置的话。跃升之后会落后客机很多。客机一直保持高速巡航。苏25最大平飞速度勉强跟的上。你这个要求人家勉强跃升3000米。刚好到达机炮攻击范围。太难为人了。

《新海峡时报》（New Straits Times）是马来西亚的报纸。

没用，不要当大家是傻逼，这样的无耻谎言也能如此理直气壮，欧美制裁毛子是对的。简直是在侮辱死去的乘客

夜没归 发表于 2014-8-7 08:20
苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
二楼啊   SU25说臣妾做不到啊

苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
你确定这是飞机而不是卫星？

夜没归 发表于 2014-8-7 08:20
苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
原来马航飞的是航天飞机

夜没归 发表于 2014-8-7 08:20
苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
俄罗斯空军专家说，就是最老型号的苏-25也能短时间飞到万米高空，只是无法长时间保持这高度。苏联八十年代升级过的苏-25型号可以在万米高空巡航，更新的苏-25型号（也称苏-39）可以在一万二千米高度巡航。

1.06 万公里，好吧，这个加农炮真够得着？我就说兔子的大炮若爆了......

下面是马来西亚的原文：
但是，没有像俄罗斯网站所说的多少公里高度，其他差不多。

http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925

Haris Hussain

KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”.

This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.

In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.

They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country’s core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.

“We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.

“At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April,” the statement read.

Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with “flechettes”, and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.

Parry’s conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.

Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk.

Bociurkiw is a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with OSCE who, along with another colleague, were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after flight MH17 was brought down over eastern Ukraine.

In the CBC interview, the reporter in the video preceded it with: “The wreckage was still smouldering when a small team from the OSCE got there. No other officials arrived for days”.

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machinegun fire; very, very strong machinegun fire,” Bociurkiw said in the interview.

Parry had said that Bociurkiw’s testimony is “as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian, British or Ukrainian governments, each of which has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence.

“That’s powerfully authoritative testimony. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organising to come later,” Parry had said.

Retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko had also weighed in on the new shootdown theory with Parry and pointed to the entry and exit holes centred around the cockpit.

“You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30mm caliber projectile.

“The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes, show shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly.”

He deduced that in order to have some of those holes fraying inwardly, and the others fraying outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s starboard side. This is critical, as no surface-fired missile (or shrapnel) hitting the airliner could possibly punch holes into the cockpit from both sides of the plane.

“It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko’s main discovery. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.

“Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,” Parry had said.



下面是马来西亚的原文：
但是，没有像俄罗斯网站所说的多少公里高度，其他差不多。

http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925

Haris Hussain

KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”.

This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.

In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.

They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country’s core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.

“We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.

“At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April,” the statement read.

Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with “flechettes”, and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.

Parry’s conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.

Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk.

Bociurkiw is a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with OSCE who, along with another colleague, were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after flight MH17 was brought down over eastern Ukraine.

In the CBC interview, the reporter in the video preceded it with: “The wreckage was still smouldering when a small team from the OSCE got there. No other officials arrived for days”.

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machinegun fire; very, very strong machinegun fire,” Bociurkiw said in the interview.

Parry had said that Bociurkiw’s testimony is “as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian, British or Ukrainian governments, each of which has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence.

“That’s powerfully authoritative testimony. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organising to come later,” Parry had said.

Retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko had also weighed in on the new shootdown theory with Parry and pointed to the entry and exit holes centred around the cockpit.

“You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30mm caliber projectile.

“The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes, show shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly.”

He deduced that in order to have some of those holes fraying inwardly, and the others fraying outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s starboard side. This is critical, as no surface-fired missile (or shrapnel) hitting the airliner could possibly punch holes into the cockpit from both sides of the plane.

“It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko’s main discovery. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.

“Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,” Parry had said.

sakainoriko 发表于 2014-8-7 08:21
。。。。。睁开眼睛看看吧。这上面哪个蛋孔是30mm加农炮造成的?这种薄皮民用客机。

30mm机炮打上去都是 ...
而且还是一次跃升就能靠目视捕捉到目标然后完成攻击，SU25没有雷达，火炮都得靠人工操作，一个攻击机能打出这种水平来，魏特曼转世投胎才有这个本事。

夜没归 发表于 2014-8-7 08:20
苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
1.06万公里？明白了。也许是撞上了卫星或者太空碎片了吧。

似乎俄新网网络工作人员输错文字

苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
马航这是航天灰机？

原来马航飞的是航天飞机
航天飞机也没这么高

原来马航飞的是航天飞机
同步卫星轨道才三万六

苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
马航飞行高度已经突破了大气层？

妥了，就是这么回事。

也许是美军的隐形战机打的也说不定= =
反正雷达发现不了

30机炮打在铝制飞机蒙皮上，基本脸盆大小的洞。

按理说如果是山毛榉的话，90千克战斗部的爆炸威力足以撕裂摧毁整个飞机，而不是使得飞机整体坠落！

不怪美国现在不说了

结合毛子给的雷达图，可以做这样的猜测:SU25先发射空空导弹，造成飞机动力损毁，飞行高度下降，但是还可以控制飞行姿态试图迫降，S25以机炮再次攻击，直接击中驾驶舱，导致完全失控坠毁。这样可以很好理解俄罗斯给的雷达图上S25飞行高度几次变更:第一次拉高锁定MH17开始爬升，第二次拉高抬升机头发射导弹，第三次接近MH17以机炮扫射。
就是说不用达到MH17飞机的高度，采用仰角攻击，一样可以击毁MH17。如果按照空空导弹5公里射程算，那么S25恰好在7000米高度，距离MH17水平距离4公里左右，垂直距离3公里。



结合毛子给的雷达图，可以做这样的猜测:SU25先发射空空导弹，造成飞机动力损毁，飞行高度下降，但是还可以控制飞行姿态试图迫降，S25以机炮再次攻击，直接击中驾驶舱，导致完全失控坠毁。这样可以很好理解俄罗斯给的雷达图上S25飞行高度几次变更:第一次拉高锁定MH17开始爬升，第二次拉高抬升机头发射导弹，第三次接近MH17以机炮扫射。
就是说不用达到MH17飞机的高度，采用仰角攻击，一样可以击毁MH17。如果按照空空导弹5公里射程算，那么S25恰好在7000米高度，距离MH17水平距离4公里左右，垂直距离3公里。

这是7.62打出来的孔么？

“飞行高度是1.06万公里”，歼星舰的节奏啊，哈哈

“而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里”，UFO

二毛造的孽？

没用，不要当大家是傻逼，这样的无耻谎言也能如此理直气壮，欧美制裁毛子是对的。简直是在侮辱死去的乘客
是你自己要当，但别将别人都给代表了。
是谁无耻谎言伊拉克有大规模杀伤性武器进行屠杀百万人，你还没将伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器证据拿出来

为什么用SU25对地攻击鸡做这么勉强的事西乌可是有SU27和米格29的啊，从公布的视频看27也能飞

为什么用SU25对地攻击鸡做这么勉强的事西乌可是有SU27和米格29的啊，从公布的视频看27也能飞

也只是可能，到底是怎么坠毁的还是没个定数嘛

夜没归 发表于 2014-8-7 08:20
苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
大神，给跪了！！！马航这都被你给科普到遥远的外太空去了，可最终还是没有逃脱被击落的命运，呜呼哀哉

如果先用空空导弹攻击，这样的导弹对大飞机损伤不会严重到立即解体。但马航受伤后会降低高度，高度降低后，各种可能性都有了.....降到3000米，连高射机枪都有嫌疑了......

空对空，那上次那个导弹发射的卫星图像又是什么情况？
这事最近貌似提的少了，难道已经有默契了？
提一下就是为了讨价还价？

苏-25最高飞行高度是2.5万英尺（7.6公里），而马来西亚航班当时的飞行高度是1.06万公里
呵呵                  

SU-25还没MI-15飞的高？

毛子说过西乌曾要求马航飞机降低飞行高度