EN|RU|UK
  104324

 Russian expert exposed yet another Russian media lies on flight MH17 crash: Komsomolka newspaper degraded into yellow press

Well-known Russian expert on battle effectiveness of military aviation Vadim Lukashevich, Ph.D., analyzed in details an interview of a so-called “secret witness” to Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, where the “witness” claims it was a Ukrainian Su-25 attack jet which supposedly downed MH17 Boeing-777 aircraft. Lukashevich exposed how ridiculously lying Russian propaganda is.

Censor.NET reports citing Lukashevich's Facebook post:

"This is astonishing! Let me start with pointing out that the "witness" could have provided his account to the official investigation group and get a 20-million-EUR reward for information about the "guilty party" of the plane crash, but he chose to contact Komsomolskaya Pravda instead.

"In general, it's quite an interesting observation: the most stir about this topic is in Russia - a country supposedly "having no relation" to Boeing-777 (MH17), to Buk SAM, to the killed flight passengers, to the air space where the Boing was downed, or to the territory were the debris had fallen over… As Vinnie the Pooh used to say in a Russian cartoon, "this must not be accidental!" the expert wrote.

Next, Lukashevich proves how absurd and lying Russian propaganda about Ukraine is:

1. The "witness" claims he was at the airport used for taking off by Su-25 attack jets: "I was on Ukrainian territory, in the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Aviatorske village. This is a regular airport. Fighter jets and helicopters based there at the moment. The airplanes regularly flew and bombed, Su-25 attack jets bombed Donetsk, Luhansk."

Question: how does the person know combat tasks of the sorties, given that he's neither a pilot nor in command of other pilots?

2. Quote: "The aircrafts where armed with missiles to cover themselves in the air. Just in case."

Question: Just in what case? The pro-Russia separatists [allegedly] didn't have any aviation at all! And Russian aviation was not and is not present in Ukrainian airspace.

3. Quote: "Approximately an hour before MH17 downing, three attack jets flew out on a mission."

While Russian military claimed at a Defense Ministry briefing there had only been one Su-25.

4. Quote: "Sometime later, only one aircraft returned, two were downed somewhere in Eastern Ukraine, as I was told."

Question: where are victorious declarations by pro-Russian separatists about downing of two (!) Su-25s, close in time to the MH17 crash? Where are two captured or killed pilots, downed over the separatist-controlled territory? Where are the debris of two downed Su-25s?

5. Quote: "Knowing this pilot a little bit… it's quite possible when two planes were downed in front of him, he was simply frightened, had an inadequate reaction. He could have launched missiles into the Boeing out of frightening or revenge. He might have taken it for some other military plane."

Let me ask a few questions. "Knowing aviation a little bit": when did it happen that military aviation employed "timid" pilots? Let me note that Su-25 "had two missiles", therefore "captain Voloshyn" got scared two times in a row.

Or he was inadequate that much that he revenged the passenger Boeing twice. By the way, debris investigation has not found out (yet?) that MH17 had been hit with two missiles, not one.

Another question is: how can a regular army pilot take a passenger plane, flying along international air-corridor with cruising speed of 900 km/hr at 10-km altitude, for something else in the daylight, above the clouds, with an absolute visibility? And the most interesting part - what a civil airplane could be taken for when flying in Ukrainian airspace along the international air-corridor, given that there are no other planes in the air, and the pro-Russian separatists don't have any aviation at all?

6. Quote: "This phrase was said by him (the pilot) when he was taken out of the plane: "The aircraft was not the one."

I'll ask a question which will make the whole Komsomolka article utterly ridiculous - which aircraft was "the one"?

By the way, one is not "taken out" of a Su-25 attack jet, one gets out of it. A flight cabin is opened; a person stands up in full height, goes over a side of a cabin, and goes down a ladder. Fare jumpers are taken out of buses or troublemakers - from restaurants.

7. Quote: "The ones (pilots) who were there had sufficient experience. The Mykolaiv military unit was the best unit in Ukraine in 2013, as I recall."

The "witness" contradicts himself - the pilot of the elite unit with enough combat experience ("…they have been bombing Donetsk and Luhansk all this time") has inadequate, scary reaction and confuses flight targets.

8. Quote: "The pilots mostly communicated with one another only, that's just how they are… arrogant."

The pilots communicated with one another only, but the "witness" knows that they constantly "bombed Donetsk and Luhansk." I'd notice as a general observation that the main message of this article is not that "the Ukrainian captain Voloshyn downed the Boeing," but that "elite Ukrainian pilots constantly bomb Donetsk and Luhansk," check out the quote: "The sorties continued after this."

9. Quote: "Question: From what distance are these missiles typically fired from? The "witness" said that they could target at a three to five km distance".

The "witness" doesn't know that the maximum launch range of R-60/R-60M missile is seven to 10 km, with the minimum range of 200-250 meters. This triggers a very interesting conclusion: if the suggested missile launch happened from the minimum distance (up to a few kilometers), then the pilot had clearly seen and identified target aircraft and phrase "aircraft is not the one" doesn't apply here. At the same time, if the launch happened from a 10-km distance, at which visual identification is impossible (or hampered for some reason), then how could the pilot possibly know whether "the aircraft was the one?"

10. Quote: "The missile has quite a good speed. It's a very fast missile."

A professional or even an ordinary person with some knowledge on the topic will never say that. An expert could say "over two Mach", "two and a half Mach", but "very fast" is more like the talk of a regular folk. By the way, a speed of 2.5 Mach is not "very fast", it's an ordinary speed for a missile, and "fast" is over three Mach, and "very fast" - 3.5 Mach and above.

See more: New evidence proves that flight MH17 was downed by the terrorists. PHOTOS

11. Quote: "A plane can simply point its nose up, and there's no problem to fix this position and fire a missile."

No problem? More than 700 of Su-25 and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of different modifications have been produced over the past 30 years; these attack jets and missiles participated in the majority of world conflicts in the recent decades, but there was not a single (!) case of a successful intercept of a high speed high altitude target above 10 km by Su-25. I want to stress it out - not even one!

12. Quote: "The missile's range is over 10 kilometers."

The missile's range is UP TO 10 kilometers. Some sources quote as "up to 12 km," but this is a SHORT-range missile used against highly maneuverable targets.

13. Quote: "Question: At what distance from a target does this missile go off? Can it hit a plane's body and explode? Answer: It depends on modification. It could literally hit the plane itself, but also can go off at a 500-meter distance."

My only comment here is that the "witness" is a complete idiot… A Su-25 is not equipped with an onboard radar station; therefore it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared auto-lock head, which automatically targets the missile on an aircraft engine. Therefore a missile flies towards the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there are known cases of this), or in proximity of the one. In case of a miss, a radio or optical trigger goes off at a five-meter distance.

See more: Blogger Exposed Lies of Russian Media About Malaysian Boeing Downing. PHOTOS

14. Quote: "Question: we worked at the crash site and noticed that the missile fragments hit the plane body as a cluster. Looks like a missile exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. The "witness" answered: There is such type of a missile. It operates at a pellet shot principle - it explodes and shots go forward. Then the main part of a missile hits the target."

Hilarious! According to the "witness," a missile flies, then it explodes. I.e. a missile itself explodes, after what "the shots go forward," while the main part of a missile with the explosive charge and striking fragments keeps going without exploding. And when the shots hit the target, a warhead hits (and we shall assume finally explodes) the target. This is how Komsomolka degraded into a tabloid…

But if we assume, after taking a breath from all the laughs about this, that such a missile exists, it cannot be the one that a Su-25 can carry.

From this point, I think, the main goal of this "witness revelations" unwraps - use of barred vacuum bombs, cluster bombs, etc. against Donetsk and Luhansk by the Ukrainian aviation.

Then I consider beneath my dignity commenting thoughts of Komsomolka "experts" like K. Zatulin, V. Solovyev, A. Mamontov and alike posted subsequently after the article.

The medium's website also published "discussion of popular Boeing crash versions by the Komsomolka military analyst." But anyone interested can watch our joint interview (with this expert) on the Dozhd TV Internet channel in order to understand all "objectiveness" of this guy, who confirmed his TV interview participation with the Russian Defense ministry.


Источник: https://en.censor.net.ua/n317819
 
 
 
 up