MH17. Another analysis of the “testimony” of the “witness” of Komsomolskaya Pravda. ...Who is lying to us and how? What could threaten Russia in this case?

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" distinguished itself again...
This is something!
Let me start with the fact that the “witness” could have turned to representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he chose to turn to Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is quite symptomatic that most of the fuss on this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have “no relation” to either the Boeing 777, or the Buk air defense system, or dead passengers aircraft, neither to the airspace in which the Boeing was shot down, nor to the territory on which the debris fell... As Winnie the Pooh said: “This is not without reason!”
Now let's look at these new "revelations".
1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoye. This is an ordinary airport. Fighter planes and helicopters were based there at that time. Planes flew regularly, bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk"
The question is - how does a person know the combat mission of combat missions if he is not a pilot and does not direct the pilots’ flights?

2. Quote: “missiles were attached to the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case.”
The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! And the Russian military aviation there was not and is not in the Ukrainian sky

3. Quote: “about an hour before the Boeing was shot down, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air.”
And the Russian military at a briefing of the Ministry of Defense claimed that there was only one Su-25 in the air

4. Quote: “after a short time, only one plane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, that’s what they told me.”
Question: where are the separatists’ victorious statements about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead pilots shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of the two downed Su-25s?

5. Quote: “Knowing this pilot a little... (quite possibly when these two planes were shot down before his eyes), he simply had a frightened, inadequate reaction. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fear or for revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft.”
I’ll ask questions, “knowing a little about aviation” - since when have “shy” pilots been flying in combat aviation? I note that the Su-25 “had two missiles”, so “Captain Voloshin” got scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice? In passing, we note that, judging by the wreckage, there is no evidence (yet?) that the plane was hit by two missiles, and not one.
Another question: how can a combat pilot confuse a passenger plane flying in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km/h) and altitude (10 km) with something else during the day, above clouds, with excellent visibility? And the most interesting thing is - what could a civilian plane flying in Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor be confused with, given that there are no other planes in the air, and the separatists have no aviation at all?

6. Quote: “The phrase was said to him when he was taken out of the plane: “The plane is not the same.”
I ask a question that makes all the material of Komsomolskaya Pravda complete nonsense - which plane was “that one”?
By the way, they don’t “take you out” of the Su-25, they crawl out of it. They open the canopy, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they “take out” a stowaway from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant

7. Quote: “Those who were there were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even for one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”
The “witness” contradicts itself - the pilot of the best unit, with extensive combat experience (“... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk”), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses air targets.

8. Quote: “the pilots communicated more with each other, they are so... proud.”
The pilots communicated with each other, but the “witness” knows that they constantly “bombed Donetsk and Lugansk.” In general, it seems to me that the main thing in this material is not “Ukrainian captain Voloshin shot down a Boeing”, but “elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombing Donetsk and Lugansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, sorties continued”

9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The “witness” answer: they can fix the target 3-5 kilometers away.”
The “witness” does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60/R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the intended missile launch was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase “wrong plane” is out of place. And if the launch was made from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason difficult), then how can the pilot know “the right plane” or “the wrong one”?

10. Quote: “The rocket has pretty good speed. Very fast rocket"
A professional (and just a person “in the know”)) would never say that. From a specialist you can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs”, but “very fast” is the talk of the average person. By the way, a speed of Mach 2.5 is not “very fast”, it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, “fast” is more than three Machs, and “very fast” is Mach 3.5 and above.

11. Quote: “The plane can simply raise its nose up, and there is no problem fixing it and launching the rocket.”
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications were produced, these aircraft and missiles participated in most world conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) case of a Su-25 successfully intercepting a high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!

12. Quote: “The flight range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.”
The flight range of this missile is UP TO 10 kilometers. A number of sources indicate “up to 12 km,” but this is a CLOSE air combat missile used against highly maneuverable targets.

13. Quote: “Question: At what distance from the target does this missile explode? Could it get into the case and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally it can hit the body and at a distance of 500 meters it can.”
Here I can only say one thing - the “witness” is a complete idiot...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an airborne radar station, can therefore only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head, which guides the missile towards the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies towards the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there have been such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. In case of a miss, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered; the detonation distance is 5 meters.

14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the scene of the disaster and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very closely. It felt like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer from the “witness”: There is such a rocket. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction continues. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits.”
Enchanting! What happens according to the “witness”: A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, which is why “the shot goes off”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with the explosive charge and destructive elements continues to fly without exploding. And when the shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). So Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a garbage newspaper...
But even if, after laughing it off, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile that the Su-25 carries
But then, I think, the main goal of these “eyewitness revelations” begins - the use of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, etc. by Ukrainian aviation (in Donetsk and Lugansk, of course).
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of Komsomolskaya Pravda “experts” such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.
There (on the KP website) there is a “discussion by the KP military observer of popular versions of the Boeing crash,” but anyone can watch online our joint (with this KP military observer) television broadcast on Dozhd in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , who previously coordinated his participation on television with the Russian Ministry of Defense.
And now, especially for Komsomolskaya Pravda, for the idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read outside it, I give excerpts from the Su-25T flight manual (emphasis mine):
Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and a brief description of aircraft":
"... solves problems of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in conditions of their VISUAL visibility"
Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [24-hour automatic sighting] complex "Shkval":
"KAPC "Shkval" ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Combat use altitude (exceeding the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft is no more than
10000 m;
3. The target’s elevation above sea level is NO MORE than 4000 m;
In other words, any pilot knows that the Su-25T can hit a LOW-SPEED air target with an air-to-air missile in VISUAL visibility conditions, flying at an altitude of NO MORE THAN FOUR kilometers! If we are talking about the Su-25, then its capabilities are even more modest
I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instructions:
"The R-60M missile with a thermal homing head is designed
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional navigation method to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence is that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile’s movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the missile-target line is reduced to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum missile launch range with equal speeds of the carrier and the target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum launch range is 0.3 km. Launch angles - 0/4-4/4. Maximum over-
load of targets hit - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the “8f 5o 0” or “TsVM” mode.

_Rocket R-73. designed to destroy heat-contrasting pilots
controlled and unmanned aircraft enemy day and night.
The R-73 missile has practically no restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, attack directions and interference conditions.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in the ZPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude above 4000 m - in numerical values ​​of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is in the PPS - 650 m, in the ZPS - 350 m.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional method.
naval navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapon variants after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 hardpoints due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the R-73 TGS by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two missiles are suspended from the plane.
An aviation commander making a decision on combat operations or an official developing proposals for making this decision needs to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles."
Please note that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (RR) of the target, i.e. to catch up - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is about the question “the plane is not the same”

Russian expert on combat effectiveness of aviation systems, candidate technical sciences Vadim Lukashevich analyzed the “testimony” of the “witness” of Komsomolskaya Pravda and the interview of the “KP” employee Viktor Barants, who found this “witness”, who, by the way, is a military journalist, publicist, writer, retired colonel, as Wikipedia writes about him.
Lukashevich's analysis contains interesting technical data.

Vadim Lukashevich Facebook post on December 23:

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" distinguished itself again...
This is something!
Let me start with the fact that the “witness” could have turned to representatives of the official investigation and received more than 20 million euros for information about the “specific culprit” of the plane crash, but he chose to turn to Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is quite symptomatic that most of the fuss on this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have “no relation” either to the Boeing 777, or to the Buk air defense system, or to the dead passengers of the plane, or to the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor to the territory where the debris fell... As Winnie the Pooh said: “This is not without reason!”
Now let's look at these new "revelations".

1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoye. This is an ordinary airport. Fighter planes and helicopters were based there at that time. Planes flew regularly, bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk"

The question is - how does a person know the combat mission of combat missions if he is not a pilot and does not direct the pilots’ flights?

2. Quote: “missiles were attached to the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case.”

The question is - in what case? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! But there was and is no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian skies

3. Quote: “about an hour before the Boeing was shot down, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air.”

And the Russian military at a briefing of the Ministry of Defense claimed that there was only one Su-25 in the air

4. Quote: “after a short time, only one plane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, that’s what they told me.”

Question: where are the separatists’ victorious statements about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead pilots shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of the two downed Su-25s?

5. Quote: “Knowing this pilot a little... (quite possibly when these two planes were shot down before his eyes), he simply had a frightened, inadequate reaction. He could have launched missiles at the Boeing out of fear or for revenge. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft.”

I’ll ask questions, “knowing a little about aviation” - since when have “shy” pilots been flying in combat aviation? I note that the Su-25 “had two missiles”, so “Captain Voloshin” got scared twice in a row
Or is he so inadequate that he took revenge on the passenger Boeing twice? In passing, we note that, judging by the wreckage, there is no evidence (yet?) that the plane was hit by two missiles, and not one.
Another question: how can a combat pilot confuse a passenger plane flying in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km/h) and altitude (10 km) with something else during the day, above cloud cover, with excellent visibility? And the most interesting thing is - what could a civilian plane flying in Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor be confused with, given that there are no other planes in the air, and the separatists have no aviation at all?

6. Quote: “The phrase was said to him when he was taken out of the plane: “The plane is not the same.”

I ask a question that makes all the material of Komsomolskaya Pravda complete nonsense - which plane was “that one”?
By the way, they don’t “take you out” of the Su-25, they crawl out of it. They open the canopy, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they “take out” a stowaway from a bus or a rowdy from a restaurant

7. Quote: “Those who were there were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even for one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”

The “witness” contradicts itself - the pilot of the best unit, with extensive combat experience (“... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk”), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses air targets.

8. Quote: “the pilots communicated more with each other, they are so... proud.”

The pilots communicated with each other, but the “witness” knows that they constantly “bombed Donetsk and Lugansk.” In general, it seems to me that the main thing in this material is not “Ukrainian captain Voloshin shot down a Boeing”, but “elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombing Donetsk and Lugansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, sorties continued”

9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The “witness” answer: they can fix the target 3-5 kilometers away.”

The “witness” does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60/R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the intended missile launch was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase “wrong plane” is out of place. And if the launch was made from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or for some reason difficult), then how can the pilot know “the right plane” or “the wrong one”?

10. Quote: “The rocket has pretty good speed. Very fast rocket"

A professional (and just a person “in the know”)) would never say that. From a specialist you can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs”, but “very fast” is the talk of the average person. By the way, a speed of Mach 2.5 is not “very fast”, it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, “fast” is more than three Machs, and “very fast” is Mach 3.5 and above.

11. Quote: “The plane can simply raise its nose up, and there is no problem fixing it and launching the rocket.”

No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications were produced, these aircraft and missiles participated in most world conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) case of a Su-25 successfully intercepting a high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not a single one!

12. Quote: “The flight range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.”
The flight range of this missile is UP TO 10 kilometers. A number of sources indicate “up to 12 km,” but this is a CLOSE air combat missile used against highly maneuverable targets.

13. Quote: “Question: At what distance from the target does this missile explode? Could it get into the case and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally it can hit the body and at a distance of 500 meters it can.”

Here I can only say one thing - the “witness” is a complete idiot...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an on-board radar, so can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head that guides the missile towards the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies towards the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there have been such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. If there is a miss, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered; the detonation distance is 5 meters.

14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the scene of the disaster and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very closely. It felt like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer from the “witness”: There is such a rocket. The principle of the fraction - it breaks, the fraction continues. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits.”

Enchanting! What happens according to the “witness”: A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. the rocket explodes, which is why “the shot goes off”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with the explosive charge and destructive elements continues to fly without exploding. And when the shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). So Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a garbage newspaper...
But even if, after laughing it off, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile that the Su-25 carries

But then, I think, the main goal of these “eyewitness revelations” begins - the use of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, etc. by Ukrainian aviation (in Donetsk and Lugansk, of course).
Well, I consider it beneath my dignity to comment on the thoughts of Komsomolskaya Pravda “experts” such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.

There (on the KP website) there is a “discussion by the KP military observer of popular versions of the Boeing crash,” but anyone can watch online our joint (with this KP military observer) television broadcast on Dozhd in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , who previously coordinated his participation on television with the Russian Ministry of Defense.

And now, especially for Komsomolskaya Pravda, for the idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read outside it, I give excerpts from the Su-25T flight manual (emphasis mine):

Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Purpose and brief characteristics of the aircraft":
"... solves problems of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in conditions of their VISUAL visibility"

Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [24-hour automatic sighting] complex "Shkval":
"KAPC "Shkval" ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Combat use altitude (exceeding the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft is no more than
10000 m;
3. The target’s elevation above sea level is NO MORE than 4000 m;

I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instructions:

"The R-60M missile with a thermal homing head is designed
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional navigation method to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence is that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the missile’s movement towards the target
the angular velocity of the missile-target line is reduced to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the missile. The maximum missile launch range with equal speeds of the carrier and the target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum launch range is 0.3 km. Launch angles - 0/4-4/4. Maximum over-
load of targets hit - 8 units.
During combat use, aiming is carried out in the “8f 5o 0” or “TsVM” mode.

R-73 rocket. designed to destroy heat-contrasting pilots
enemy controlled and unmanned aerial vehicles day and night.
The R-73 missile has practically no restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, attack directions and interference conditions.
The maximum launch range against air targets is:
- in PPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in the ZPS: at a carrier altitude of up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier altitude above 4000 m - in numerical values ​​of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is in the PPS - 650 m, in the ZPS - 350 m.
The missile is aimed at the target using the proportional method.
naval navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapon variants after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 hardpoints due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the R-73 TGS by combustion products of the powder engines of the S-8 missiles.
Two missiles are suspended from the plane.
An aviation commander making a decision on combat operations or an official developing proposals for making this decision needs to know certain specifications, limiting the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles"

Please note that the maximum launch range into the rear hemisphere (RR) of the target, i.e. to catch up - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is about the question “the plane is not the same.”

An interesting interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda military observer Viktor Barants - the same one who, several months ago, live on the Dozhd TV channel, claimed that the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Su-25 aircraft cannon and “holes have already been found in the wreckage of the tail section at the crash site from shells."

http://youtu.be/6C2-qaTt-q4
Now he begins with the fact that “catching up” with the Su-25 and Boeing 777 is “far-fetched.” True, then he again talks about the cannon, about the rocket, again about the cannon... Here is such a weather vane.

So, “debriefing” by Viktor Barants:

http://youtu.be/sB3yM7F-dMI

Time code 02:12
- our experts whom we called...

Let me note that the full name or any other information about any expert is not given!

02:21:
- Who told you that the Su-25 was chasing the Boeing?

The answer is Viktor Baranets, a military observer of the Communist Party on live television on the Dozhd TV channel, the link to whose recording was given above. He was just chasing, otherwise there was no way to shoot its tail section from the onboard cannon

02:52:
- sometimes Su-25s fly out to intercept...

Well done! Attack aircraft fly out to intercept a high-altitude, high-speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of using air defense aviation. Interceptor fighters smoke nervously, and then attack ground targets on the battlefield due to the absence of attack aircraft busy with high-altitude targets.

03:03
- all this talk about “catching up” is just somehow so far-fetched

This is how the military observer of the Communist Party publicly degrades himself - or rather, his broadcast on Dozhd, which, thanks to the Internet, remained online in public access.
I admit - this is exactly how, Viktor Nikolaevich, “far-fetched”, I perceived your words about “shell holes found at the site of the fall of the debris in the tail section of the Boeing” during the television broadcast on Dozhd
I remember then you said that at the training ground, it would probably even be necessary to do experimental shelling to confirm the identity of these holes - well, how did they shoot a lot at the GosNIIAS training ground in Faustovo?

03:08
- no one actually saw... at what altitude it all happened

Here, military observer KP Viktor Baranets casually omits our military, who showed slides at the Ministry of Defense briefing on which the altitude of 10 km was clearly indicated for the Boeing 777 and Su-25

03:25
- we journalists must now... give the floor to professionals, those who sit on the Su-25 aircraft today, who service it, who arm it

And then the floor is given to - who do you think? Igor Korotchenko, as the editor-in-chief of the magazine, who sits a lot in the Su-25, serving it and arming the Kindergarten, has pants with straps!

04:01 says Igor Korotchenko:
- the practical ceiling of the [Su-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so the Su-25 could end up at a flight level of 10 km.

But above, Baranets says that talk about catching up is all “somehow far-fetched”
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling of combat use are completely different things. And the quoted commander-in-chief Mikhailov spoke specifically about the practical ceiling, but not about the combat ceiling, which is significantly lower.

04:22
- the plane was brought to the meeting point

Where is Su-25 ground-to-air radio interception?

04:42 on air again V. Baranets:
- oxygen removes the conversation, could or could not. Let's put an end to it - I could!

It turned out that he could. How about shooting? I repeat - history does not know of a case where a Su-25 successfully fired at a high-speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So there is no point

05:45:
- everyone who saw the holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, say that it is very similar, incredibly similar to shooting from a thirty-millimeter cannon.

Viktor Nikolaevich, you are a LIAR! In the broadcast of the “News” of the TV channel “Russia-1”, shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the military air defense of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces, Mikhail Krush, pointing to a piece of the cockpit trim, clearly said that “this is definitely the result destruction of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of a missile"

The 16:29 timecode also mentions yours truly.
The presenter says: “Blogger Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is confusion - three attack aircraft took off that day, or one attack aircraft, as the Russian military spoke about at the Ministry of Defense briefing. Lukashevich also writes: they say, how can you get confused and not understand that this is a passenger Boeing, that you can use the pilot of the “cracker” as a blackmail, that he didn’t know what his ultimate goal was in this military operation - that’s what can be said to this ?
It's funny, but about the use of the pilot "Drying" for the sake of it - this is entirely on the conscience of the presenter, I did not write anything like that. But God bless him, let’s look at V. Barants’ answer:
- I read these super-ambitious, categorical statements by Lukashevich [I will note in parentheses - I hope that you, Viktor Nikolaevich, will also read my above accusation of lying to you], his argumentation surprised me, and I turned to the specialists who interpreted it for me, and to Lukashevich, I hope , also, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest position as a communications technician. Such a dull position, but very important - he does not know the whole situation at the airfield, around the airfield. Well, three “crackers” took off, left, did he see what happened at a ten-kilometer altitude? No, he just saw one plane."

And since the “secret specialists” of the command post did not explain anything to me, I remain in “categorical” bewilderment - how does a “secret witness” (already funny) with a “modest communications technician” know where they flew (“they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk”), what they bombed with (“volumetric detonating bombs and cluster munitions”), what the pilots say when “they are taken out of the Su-25”, while “the proud pilots speak only among themselves”...

Victor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my “super-ambitious” laugh

They called the wrong person: the Russian TV presenter hoped that the expert would blame Kyiv for the downing of the Boeing, but something went wrong))))

On the air of the “Tamantsev. Results” program, aired the day before on the Russian RBC-TV, the invited guest, a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation systems, Vadim Lukashevich, criticized the report of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the fact of the Boeing crash in the Donetsk region. Judging by the presenter's reaction, he did not expect such statements from the expert. He began to correct him and repeatedly asked the question: “So you think that non-professionals work in the Russian Ministry of Defense?”

"The Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this machine is to work on the ground and directly support troops on the battlefield. Shooting down a plane at an altitude of 11 thousand with the help of a Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors - Su-27, so what if to shoot down, then with an interceptor, which was built for this purpose,” the expert noted.

Lukashevich also cast doubt on the testimony of supposed “eyewitnesses” who were able to unmistakably identify the make of the plane located at such an altitude.

The expert did not accuse the Russian Ministry of Defense of incompetence, but stated that there is an information war going on and Russia is a party to the conflict, and therefore conclusions about the reasons for the fall of Boeing should be made by uninterested persons. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Russian Ministry of Defense is “a party to the conflict, because these people in Donbass are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we transfer the complexes to them or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).

Lukashevich also cited as an example an incident in 1983, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner carrying more than 200 people, allegedly passing it off as a “reconnaissance plane.” “There were also generals with a lot of stars who proved that it was a scout, he entered and left our air space. There were whole diagrams of satellites, but the truth still came out,” Lukashevich said.

Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called the broadcast with Vadim Lukashevich an emergency: “Actually, no one has been commenting on anything on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm official version and put forward additional arguments in its favor. But there was a mistake with Vadim Lukashevich. He did not echo the general, called the version of the Ministry of Defense untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that all is not lost, there are still people who are capable of not singing in a general choir! What would be an ordinary interview on any other television looks like a system failure on Russian television. And it turns out that the powerful propaganda machine can do nothing against the calm confidence of an honest person.”

As the IS group previously reported, a number of senior European politicians have said that Russia has violated all of its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine over the past three months and continues to increase the supply of heavy weapons across the border.

A specialist in the field of aviation science, Vadim Lukashevich, regarding the versions of the Malaysian Boeing crash, and here are the thoughts I had based on this extensive material:
In the modern world, it is almost impossible to deny obvious facts, objects and circumstances of the material world that can be verified. It makes no sense to deny the flight parameters of the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, all moves are recorded. It is also pointless to deny the type of projectile that shot down the Boeing; the signature of the striking elements of the 9M38M or 9M38M1 anti-aircraft missile of the Buk air defense system is unique. The launch site of the rocket is also calculated with exhaustive accuracy; it is pointless and useless to deny it. What to do?
Establish legal grounds for the DPR command about the legality of firing at an air target, and accuse Ukraine of criminal negligence, expressed in the fact that official air authorities did not close the L-980 air corridor at FL330 above the BD zone.
But Ukraine did not have any legal grounds for failure to fulfill its international obligations and the closure of this echelon, because there was no danger to air navigation at this echelon and could not have been otherwise than with the direct participation of a third, unofficial party to the conflict - the Russian Federation, which has weapons capable of damaging targets at this echelon. Ukraine did not use air defense systems against the militants, and there was no official information that the militants could have such weapons, other than through their supply from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Having the sad precedent of the defeat of the IL-76 military aircraft, on June 14, 2014, on approach to Lugansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the ATO area to the flight level 260 (altitude 7900 meters).Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016

So, the question of who exactly shot down the Boeing has been practically resolved - the fighters, the DPR command and the senior political leadership of the Russian Federation, which provides support for the DPR, supplies and command, another thing is who exactly is to blame for the deaths, but here big questions arise and in this sense the quote from Kurginyan and his video message, which Lukashevich cites, are a good help in resolving it.
Kurginyan speaks openly, and the DPR confirms that the Russian Federation is supplying heavy anti-aircraft weapons to the Donbass and warns not to “fly, otherwise we will shoot down and we have something to shoot down.” Ukraine closes the sky over the territory of the ATO, but who is Kurginyan?
Kurginyan is an ordinary provocateur, whose function is to perform a quasi-legal action - to “warn” Ukraine that we have heavy anti-aircraft weapons and will shoot down planes. Ukraine did not heed the warning, did not close the sky, and accordingly, “Ukraine is to blame for everything.” The idea is as simple as three kopecks, we have a just war here for the Russian world, we shoot down the planes of Bandera-fascists, whoever didn’t hide, it’s not my fault.
After the downing of a military IL-76 near Luhansk airport on June 14, 2014, it was clear that this was not the last air casualty. The author of these lines wrote about this. It is likely that this incident was used by the Russian intelligence services as an element of the subsequent monstrous provocation against the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, and the entire body of indirect evidence presented by Lukashevich confirms this conclusion, and from the theory of evidence it is known that some necessary and sufficient the totality of circumstantial evidence acquires the weight of direct evidence.
The author of the report cannot be denied the elegance of his reasoning. Everything is clear, true and correct until the key moment of history, the actual technical details of firing from the BUK air defense system to kill and some other circumstances that are of significant importance, the main of which is public access to information about the movement of aircraft in the specified echelon, from the flightradar-24 website and other services that provide real-time information about the flight of all commercial civil aircraft equipped with enabled transponders (radio beacons).
There is no information in the investigation materials that the transponder of MH17 was turned off, which means that the entire set of its flight data was available to the public, via the Internet, in a simple and easy-to-understand form. Accordingly, the person in charge of the BUK air defense system had every opportunity to avoid accidental launches against random targets not covered by the command’s combat plan.
The DPR anti-aircraft gunners could not help but know that several international air corridors pass over the territory to which the BUK is being deployed, including the L-980 at FL330, through which regular air traffic is carried out.
Moreover, to launch an anti-aircraft missile of the Buk complex of type 9M38M or 9M38M1, it is necessary to enter the missile’s flight mission (x y z v) coordinates and speed of the target.
The procedure for entering a flight mission is quite complex and requires preliminary determination of these parameters using standard radar systems, including in automatic mode, but still, the operator is required to control the key firing parameters according to instructions.
By the time before the immediate launch team, the skies of Ukraine were closed until 260 echelon (altitude 7900 meters).for aircraft of a class below wide-body airliners such as Boeing, with a low flight ceiling. Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016 and the anti-aircraft gunners also knew about this from public sources.
If we follow the reasoning of the author of the report, Lukashevich, and assume that the DPR anti-aircraft gunners were waiting for the Ukrainian AN-26, guided by information from intelligence spies, then why does the author not indicate the estimated flight data of this aircraft, at least from where and where it was flying. The target parameter Z = 10100 and the target speed, more than 700 km/h, should have greatly surprised the DPR anti-aircraft gunners, and then made them doubt the correctness of the decision to kill and double-check the aiming results, correlating them with the available information about the air navigation situation in the area. And not about any dissipation in this matter of defeat civil aircraft in an area of ​​busy aeronautical conditions it is out of the question.
Both the senior and middle command of the anti-aircraft gunners, and the direct launchers and gunner-operators of the Buk, had to know and knew what target they were going to hit and, realizing the significant danger of their actions, foreseeing the possibility or inevitability of the onset of dangerous consequences, desiring their occurrence, they carried out shooting at a civilian aircraft. The senior leadership of the anti-aircraft gunners set a combat mission to destroy a civilian aircraft, the commander gave the launch command, and the executive operator carried out the command.


The respected Vadim Lukashevich, a specialist in aviation science and the author of a voluminous and convincing work, could not have been unaware of these circumstances, but for some reason these essential circumstances were omitted from his report.
Thus, from the totality of information presented by Lukashevich, taking into account the specified additions, regarding the imaginary story with the Ukrainian An-26, facts, circumstances, and other information related to the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, it follows that if the specified information is correct, and There is less and less reason to believe the opposite, then the responsibility for committing a serious crime against humanity lies with the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, who gave the order to conduct a complex of special operations on the territory of Ukraine under the cover of the civilian population, women and children of not only Ukraine, but also the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and a number of others European countries, which the first person of the Russian state hates so much!

A simple listing of achievements and places of work, as a rule, does not give a complete picture of a person. What is he like outside of work? What does he do, what interests him? Therefore, I’ll add a few more words about myself.

For more than 12 years now, the history of astronautics, and in particular aerospace and reusable transport systems, have become the main non-working activity of my life (like literature for A.P. Chekhov). Internet portal , which you are currently on, has been around since 1998. During this time, it has generally become the most authoritative source of information on space transport systems, periodically confirming this with reviews, reviews, corresponding prizes and titles (“Best site on astronautics”, etc.).
Over the past 10 years, based on the materials of the portal and my own archives, I have released 4 editions of the multimedia encyclopedia "Buran" (the latest version v3.50 was released on 3 CDs).
Currently, work is underway on two parallel versions: v 4.0 on DVD-Rom and v5.0 on Blue-Ray disc.
I have several dozen publications on the history of astronautics, on the economics and efficiency of aerospace systems, collaborating with the magazines “Cosmonautics News”, “Russian Space”, “Aviation and Cosmonautics”, “Aerospace Review” and others.

He was a member of the team of authors of the encyclopedia “World Manned Cosmonautics”, which has no analogues in the world, which won the national competition “Book of the Year” in 2005 at the XVII Moscow International Book Fair.
Work on the next book, intended as a continuation of the first, continues.

In addition to books, I collaborate with several television channels (First, Russian, Zvezda, etc.). With my participation, several films were shot, including three episodes of the “Strike Force” program, and several independent television projects were implemented.
In addition, I am a consultant (on Russian cosmonautics) for Europe's largest private technical museum in the cities of Sinsheim and Speyer.

As you can see from the design of the portal and the book "Space Wings", I am engaged in computer graphics (technography) and am a laureate of several thematic exhibitions.

But there are also interests not related to astronautics. In the first place I would mention travel and photography at the same time. I have visited almost fifty countries around the world with my camera. Of particular value to my collection of photographs are photographs taken on the Nazca plateau in Peru, in Machu Picchu, on Lake Titicaca, on Easter Island, in the Galapagos, in Tibet, in the Fiji archipelago, among the aborigines of Australia, in Tasmania, in numerous reserves and national parks, and in many other amazing, exotic or hard-to-reach places.

Here are just some photo panoramas:

The first book about my travels, “Venezuela,” was published by the Moscow publishing house “LenTa Wanderings” at the end of 2011. This book is for those who, since childhood, have dreamed of distant countries, animals unknown to science, or pirate treasures on lost islands. She talks about amazing country on the other side globe , which has still preserved corners of the earth that no human has ever set foot on. Readers are presented with protected islands Caribbean Sea, wild tropical jungle of the Orinoco Delta, inaccessible plateaus - soaring above the clouds"

lost worlds ", on which the imagination of A. Conan Doyle settled dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. In this book, I share with readers my direct impressions of Venezuela using the example

My next hobby is collecting airbrushed cars, the themes of which are based on my personal travel experiences. Airbrushing deserves a separate story, because... it's separate and very interesting world(exhibitions, presentations, TV shows, publications, etc.), but here I’ll just show my winners:

Collectible cars are a whole world of passionate people. And of course - meeting with friends, traveling in each other’s cars:

(graphic files are opened in enlarged format - resolution 3 888x2 592 pix. and with a size of about 5M B)

 

It might be useful to read:

• How to get on an excursion to Antarctica?;
• Czech Republic Troy Castle. Troja Castle in Prague. Ancient winery and museum;
• Böcklin and his “island of the dead” A cultural phenomenon of its time;
• Air tickets to Crimea Air tickets to Crimea will become cheaper;
• What you can and cannot take with you;
• Open left menu Heviz How to get from Budapest to Lake Heviz;
• Cable car in Nha Trang (Vinpearl) The longest cable car in the world Vietnam;
• Kamenets-Podolsk fortress - a historical monument of Ukraine Life outside the walls of the Kamenets-Podolsk fortress;