Location of BUK TELAR in field indicates a high flying aircraft was the intended target

It is likely the BUK TELAR which shot down was positioned in a field such that it could only target high flying aircraft.

It was positioned close to a series of trees. It could be the centimeter-wave radar of the BUK TELAR  just can’t work through trees.  (needs confirmation)

Each SA-11 transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) was equipped with a 9S35 Fire Dome X-band multi-mode engagement radar under a radome on the front of the rotating launch platform, which provided tracking and CW illumination for the missile seekers. The radar, which has search, track and illuminator functions, can scan through a 120-degree arc, independent of the movement of the launch platform. (GlobalSecurity)

The intended target likely was an Ukraine Air Force transport aircraft flying in the same airway, same direction  as MH17.

Photo by Jeroen Akkermans

The image below shows the line of sight of the BUK TELAR from the launch location determined by JIT towards the location where the missile exploded. Distance from the radar towards the trees is about 30 to 40 meters.

The image below shows the radar beam of the BUK TELAR. It is possible due to the trees, the intended target being the Antonov, was shown on radar only for a short time. Likely the BUK crew switched on radar at the latest moment to prevent detection by SU-25’s.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

5 Comments on Location of BUK TELAR in field indicates a high flying aircraft was the intended target

  1. X-band microwaves are absorbed by vegetation, heavily scattered/reflected/diffracted from multiple scatterers within the canopy structure of trees, and even those passed straight through become partly depolarized.

  2. The AN-26 theory is not supported by the verbal evidence provided by separatists. In comments here
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-bellingcat-report-identifying-khmuryi-the-major-general-linked-to-the-downing-of-mh17/
    I pointed out at separatists own words:
    1) When a group of separatists arrived to the crash site, they talked about a downed “sushka” or “Sukhoi”, this is a Su fighter jet. See
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/arrival-of-the-separatists-at-the-crash-sites/
    2) In his phone call soon after the crash, Khmury (Dubinsky) talked about a downed “sushka”.

    Neither the separatists (1), nor Khmury (2) said any single word about AN-26. They were convinced that the plane downed was “sushka”.

    The “news” about AN-26 in the Strelkov-Info account in VKontakte originated either from locals, who mistook Boeing for a cargo plane, or from an SBU agent among Khmury’s men.

    Another plane (planes) were certainly in the area at the time of the crash. See this news item in a Ukrainian publication:
    http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3393856-v-donetskoi-oblasty-upal-passazhyrskyi-samolet-smy
    “…according to locals, an unknown plane was flying simultaneously with the passenger plane”.
    See this overview of eyewitnesses:
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/overview-of-eyewitness-reporting-seeing-military-aircraft/
    One witness, Tatyana Timchenko, director of the Torez orphanage, was interviewed by a Ukrainian TV channel, Hromadske.tv. Timchenko said that on 17 July after 4 pm she was at home when she heard the sound of a fighter jet. She explained that that sound had got familiar to her on previous days, so she had easily recognized it. Then Timchenko heard a bang, she got out of her house and ran to the orphanage. There, the staff and the children were shocked and crying: three bodies fell in the orphanage’s backyard.

    One of the participants in the MH17.webtalk.ru forum, with the nickname Separatist, was in the Snizhne area on 17 July. He, too, heard the sound of a fighter jet, with its engines in an enhanced mode (на форсаже, as he said.)

    Given all the above, I have no doubt that Ukrainian jets were in the area on 17 July. Apparently, Ukraine used some tricks to hide the military planes from radars. It might have been some jamming technique plus a special paint (spray).

  3. The trouble with this scenario it requires the Russians scrubbing radar data (and being aware the Ukrainians were going to refuse to hand over any and/or pretend not to have any) of objects that would support their original thesis.

    Their original thesis was that another aircraft had been in the vicinity – and they tried very hard to convert a falling piece of debris into that aircraft – so why would they remove a genuine unidentified aircraft?

    I think the problem everyone is having is not accepting that the Ukrainians are misdating items of evidence they hand over. So the Buk smoke trail is genuine – it just dates from the day before. It is unlikely that the Buk would return to the exact same location the next day for reason they would think the Ukrainian airforce might go looking for them. On the other hand, they seemed to have kept it somewhere in the Torez area.

    The same problem exists for the Lugansk airport drive-by footage. The Orion and Delfin transcripts have to relate to this drive-by footage
    https://www.politie.nl/themas/mh17-call-for-witnesses-transcription-english.html
    But there is no indication that MH17 has been downed and this line alone: “Got it. Well, I have arranged it for the evening. …[inaudible] it …[inaudible] at/for around 5-6 o’clock/hours” would appear to rule it out for being an early morning drive past.

    So the Lugansk footage probably relates to transporting the Buk from Russia on the evening of the 14th or 15th, after the Antonov had been downed on July 14, but before they had acquired the camouflage net that can be seen in the Paris Match photo: “Well, the sooner the better. It has to be loaded, camouflaged and driven away.”

    • It is impossible the plume photo by Pavel was made on the day before. The shadows match exactly the time the missile was launched (plus a few minutes)

      • Strictly speaking that isn’t impossible. It is either quite unlikely or someone planned it that way.

        Since neither side managed to detect the Buk missile by radar, the only remaining system that could pick it up would by the US SBIRs system:

        If it was an explosion flash traveling at 900 km/hr in a west to east direction, it must have been an cockpit bomb

        If it was an explosion flash traveling approximately the same speed in an east to west direction, it would have been a Buk missile from Torez

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*