Why voting for a MH17 tribunal and why Putin vetoed it

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At July 29 the Russian Federation used its veto power to block a resolution on a tribunal on MH17. Russia was the only state who vetoed. Venezuela, Angola and China abstained. The tribunal would  have authority to investigate impartially and demand the extradition of suspects, whichever country might be harbouring them

The proposal for a tribunal has been drafted by Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and Ukraine.

Russian arguments to veto the tribunal are:

  • it is too early to establish who did it. The investigation has not finished  precedents of the UNSC creating an international tribunal to bring justice to those
  • Never before a tribunal  for a transportation catastrophe was done by the United Nations. For instance the shotdown of the Iran Air Airbus by the United States Navy was legally handled in court. Churkin said that the plane crash in Ukraine was a crime and posed no threat to international people and security. “It contradicts the United Nations Charter. We believe that the UN Security Council should not tackle such situations,” the Russian diplomat said.
  • a tribunal is too costly and is a slow process. Other tribunals like the one on Rwanda never got serious results.
  • setting up a tribunal before investigations are complete would risk further politicising the incident

The unofficial reason for the veto is article 7. The proposal would mean Putin could be held responsilble for the shot down if proven that Putin send a BUK to East Ukraine.

Article 7

Irrelevance of official capacity

This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

The complete text of the draft proposal is here. and here

Why was the voting for the tribunal set at July 29 and not later when the investigation results were made public.

  • According to Prime Minister Rutte it was preferable to make a decision about the tribunal before the facts and charges have been established precisely in order to avoid politicizing the prosecution process.” (AP)
  • New Zealand is currently holding the Presidency of Council. That fact had a far better chance to get a voting on the tribunal than when the next Presidency of the Council starts. The Precidency rotates each month amongst permanent and temporary members. In September 2015 Russia has the Presidency.

Personally I believe there was another political reason. The countries who proposed the tribunal knew that Russia would veto. A veto is seen by the general public as a indirect confession of guilt.

Another reason to let the voting do now is to show the public the states (the Netherlands, Malaysia etc) did everyting in their power to bring justice.

Other incidents like the shot down of the Iran Air A300 and the Siberian Tu154 were not done in a war zone. The shot down of MH17 could be an act of war as the BUK was most likely positioned in a war zone and used to shot down Ukraine military jets. The downing of the Malaysia Airlines jet in Ukraine may be a “war crime”, the UN’s human rights chief says. (source)

Earlier at July 20 Russia submmitted its own draft resolution.

A copy of the draft resolution obtained by AFP made no mention of a special tribunal, but called for a “full, thorough, transparent and independent international investigation.”

It suggested the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) “could play a more active and appropriate role” in the investigation and that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon nominate a special representative.

It urged “the earliest possible finalization of the investigation” and called on the joint investigation team (the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine) to “keep the Council fully and regularly informed” on its progress.

It insisted on “just and equal access” to the materials of the investigation “by all interested states” and expresses concern that the investigation has not so far ensured “due transparency.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

45 Comments on Why voting for a MH17 tribunal and why Putin vetoed it

  1. Two reason I think they did it and it was a right political decision to show who would block a tribunal.
    Half of Russians believe what the Kremlin sponsored media tells them, Ukraine was at fault.
    This blocking vote showed to them that vova and the Kremlin are not so sure of that statement.
    It also shows the world community that the one nation that vetoed getting the guilty party was done by one of the suspects.
    The vetoers refuse a tribunal that will take the criminal penalties as high as it goes.
    Many Russians see it as being Poroshenko, so for Russia to block it does say a whole lot.
    It says the same to the rest of the world, only one nation vetoed in the UNSC.
    We shall see how many veto vote in the General Assembly.
    The reason the UNSC and a Tribunal should handle it is the results and court case COULD endanger the rest of the world.
    And if the incident was, like I and others have come to believe, an intentional targeting of a civilian aircraft by the Kremlin, it is a UN matter an act of war, and to prevent war, the UN is probably the last chance to stop a global conflict from happening.
    Being a matter of at least 11 nationalities, that is global.
    IT being an intentional act by UA or Russia, is global destruction being waged, both military and financial.
    The chances of it being an accident are very slim.

    Fare thee well

  2. I think they have no plan as such, except to apply as much pressure as possible to Russia, while avoiding presenting any evidence in an open forum.
    If they ever present any evidence to the public that can be publicly examined the whole case against Russia will fall apart.

  3. So They knew, IF Russia’s case is so strong that Ukraine did it as their propaganda has continued to proclaim over and over again with MANY different theories.
    Why do they not want a Tribunal?
    Russians who believe in the Kremlin storyline WANT a Tribunal and were demanding one.

    And the Kremlin says, nope, we are the only one that is going to veto.
    We do not care what our citizens think or the leadership thinks.
    We do not want a Tribunal now, even though a year ago they were asking for one.
    Silly Kremlin!

    Fare thee well

    • Let use Rob’s trick here:
      ” even though a year ago they were asking for one.”
      What is your evidence for Kremlin asking for tribunal a year ago?

  4. liane theuer // August 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm // Reply

    I miss one aspect :
    Russia already has the final DSB report in its hands and may be parts of the JIT report too.
    So they know in wich direction a tribunal would go.
    On the other side Russia is excluded of any proof to verify the accusations.
    Russia has a lot of questions, that are unaswered.
    You should add these answers to your article !
    In the eyes of Russia the whole examination of MH17 is a political motivated farce.

  5. liane theuer // August 9, 2015 at 5:32 pm // Reply

    Another aspect :
    „Churkin claimed that Russia had repeatedly expressed the fact that it would not support the tribunal “due to the fact that the UNSC resolution 2166 didn’t qualify the Boeing tragedy as a threat to international peace and security.” He further added that “it becomes difficult to explain how the event, which wasn’t considered a threat to international peace suddenly becomes one”, and that there were no legal precedents of the UNSC for forming an international tribunal to investigate those indicted behind a transportation catastrophe such as the crash of MH17.“
    http://theowp.org/un-resolution-on-passenger-jet-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-whats-fair/

  6. Admin, you are forgetting one aspect and arguments of Bellingcat sect is already pointing at this scenario. If tribunal was initiated before the final report is published it will allow the investigation committee to keep some evidence secret and not release it to public. As Boggled said many times, they don’t want the assigned guilty party to know everything before hearing. So western powers can continue propaganda war for 3 years minimum without any responsibility for their words. By then people will get tired of topic and then have minimum emotions about it!

    • Justice is slow but sure in the Western Courts, that is why they are emulated world wide.
      There is a procedure for releasing evidence, and it is following that procedure that protects the victim from public prosecution before the trial.
      However, independent investigators are not bound by those protocols and what they find, or journalists find by themselves is usually disseminated in the media.
      Sorry most of the open source data and evidence points to the Kremlin being the likely suspect and their is little other then circumstantial motive presented by the Kremlin and no hard concrete facts.
      Everything they or their media has produced has been full of lies and falsehoods.
      That is why the Kremlin is getting called to task by the media and the global public, even though they do not have ALL the facts and evidence, they have a good amount of evidence and facts.

      Fare thee well

  7. Admin,
    A lot is said about Ukrainian Army bot needing to shoot airplanes because rebels didn’t have Aviation. But from 13 July Ukrs were on high alert expecting full scale invasion from Russia http://m.inforesist.org/v-noch-s-12-na-13-silam-ato-udalos-predotvratit-vvod-rf-na-ukrainu/
    Apparently they destroyed the first Russian armada. I wonder why Bellingcat didn’t find the evidence of that destruction. I’m sure Ukrs could provide exact coordinates. In any case, obviously they would not reduce the alert status after 13 July, as their minister of Defense was proclaiming an imminent Russian invasion every day. For 13 years Ukrainian Anti-aircraft forces had no training. The enemy is at the gates and will invade any moment. Why wouldn’t the BUK operators given a green light to shoot at will. Particularly, after 16 July, when all Ukr officials were shouting their lungs out that Russian plane shoot Ukrainian SU-25 on Ukrainian territory. Do you consider a probability of a trigger happy untrained nobel Ukr warrior doing something stupid in panic. Poroshenko claimed that all Ukr forces were on the ground on July 17. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/22/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-crash/. One of the BUK is assigned to one of the volunteer batalion to provide air cover during sudden attack deep into enemy territory. While all rebels are engaged at Saur-Mogila. So the nobel warrior sees an approaching jet from North (Lughansk) and shoots. Nobody explained him how to interpret the altitude, so he could not realise that it is a passenger jet. And he knew that there are no Ukr planes around. Or he could detect the Ukr SU-25, that Russians detected, and shoot at it. But he accidently marked Boeing. What makes you feel that this scenario is improbable?

    • So Ukraine bring SA-11 TELAR and shot downed civilian airliner which coming via ukrainian ATC guide from Ukraine controlled territory? Please bring undoubt lie, not this trash.

      • Easy, AD. Provide evidence that ATC transmitted to all AA units in the area that civilian aircraft is approaching from that direction. That can put this possibility at rest.

        • Ukraine have SA-11 in Country Air Defense as part of Air Force Command. Structure of tactical usage SA-11 is based on division (TAR+CP+3 batteries -6 TELAR+6 TEL) so all TELAR should be connected to TAR+CP which receive info from ATC and transponders. It is minimal tactical unit which can use Ukrainian Army and russian DoD confirmed this by their INTEL about SA-11 displacments at July 17.
          http://i.imgur.com/bfCuNss.jpg
          They tried to show unusual batteries in Zaroschenskoe, Avdeedvka and Luhansk, but that fake already debunked.
          So gimme a reason why ukraininan SA-11 TELAR can open fire on target which coming from friendly air base Dnipro or Kramatorsk and even have transponder which recognised by Ukrainian ATC at least for 30 minutes before?
          Also im wanna know what looking for TELAR with 120 degree scanning azimuth area if TELAR looking into Ukrainian controlled territory instead of Russia which eventually can use aviation for support separatists? Donetsk – dont have airstrips, Luhansk – too. If you looking on Horlivka from Zaroschenskoe then you trying to control flight from friendly Kramatorsk instead of control flights from Russia (Rostov, Millerovo, etc).
          And last thing which debunk any ukrainian TELAR possible sites – only one missile used. TELAR manual said crew must use one missile only for inbound target since it most easy target with best doppler shift and closest Meeting Point. For all other targets crew must fired two missiles. But B777 have damage pattern only from one missile so where is second missile?

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 11:13 pm //

            So all you have is imaginary doctrine of Ukrainian Air defense that was the not practiced from 2001. You admit that it “should be connected” and not must be connected. And finally the area to the wesy-north-east of suspected Ukr BUK position was rebel controlled area. The Ukr army says that on 17th they have grounded all the planes, unless they lie, so it doesn’t matter from where the plane is coming it is not friendly. admin and Rob always demand URL from others but you seem to lack them in your arguments. Just hot air. I wonder if they will complain about you.

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 11:33 pm //

            And of course you noticed that Russian MOD detected TELAR signals but didn’t detect any TARs. You see we can easily turn this anti-rebel slander into anti-ukranian http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/buk-missile-system-lethal-undiscriminating

          • AD:

            “all TELAR should be connected to TAR+CP”

            Actually, it is interesting that Ukraine deployed BUK’s apparently linked with ST-68UM radar as well. That is what seems to be shown in the infamous July 16 Ukraine video.

            “what looking for TELAR with 120 degree scanning azimuth area if TELAR looking into Ukrainian controlled territory instead of Russia”

            You know the only possibilities are some sort of air defense exercise or else a deliberate targetting.

          • AD:
            A possible scenario is a false flag: Ukraine positioned a BUK TELAR somewhere near Snizhe and launched a missile towards MH17. Unlikely but lets discuss this.
            The area south of Snizhne was not always in full control of the separatists. End of July a convoy of Ukraine drove close to the crashsite towards the south.

            Can you explain in simple words why the VS believes a single Russian TELAR was able to shot down M17 and why a single Ukraine TELAR cannot shot down MH17 deliberately.

            Also you claim that two missiles would have to be used I do not understand. Usage of two missiles is in war circumstance according text book. MH17 might have been shot down on purpose.
            It is a theory and we have to debunk that.

            Stay away the emotions about conspiracy in your reply. I am just interested in your statement Ukraine technically could not have shot down MH17.

          • AD claimed: “They tried to show unusual batteries in Zaroschenskoe, Avdeedvka and Luhansk, but that fake already debunked.”

            what is the evidence they were debunked?

      • We don’t know why the Ukrainians shot down the plane. Seems to have been deliberate. They could not defeat the anti coup forces so they probably shot down a civilian plane as a false flag. It has worked pretty well. But the truth will come out

        • Good try! So why Russia vetoed international tribunal which will blame Ukraine for deliberate action against civilian plane? Does this should help to separatists in their struggle if Ukraine will be anti-humanity criminal? Then Putin win war in Ukraine without assault on Kiev.
          BUT Putin and his Churkin and Lavrov denied investigation and punishment over terrorists shot downed MH17, so im wonder why? Because they know who did it and it is not Ukraine but Russia with russian specforce invading Eastern Ukraine?
          Also Russia invent zillion version how Mh17 died and even it was not MH17 but MH370 with frozen bodies.
          At same time, Ukraine dont spread out lie about MH17 and help to DSB/JIT.
          Hard to choose who is criminal – who support tribunal or who dont?

    • The two comments above are given in assumptions that you are not part of Bellingcat sect and actually want a fair trial for who ever is brought to it. Rob, AD and boggled are known to me from Bellingcat website and have “stiff necks”, as was defined by Plato.

  8. 2Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 11:13 pm //
    So all you have is imaginary doctrine of Ukrainian Air defense that was the not practiced from 2001.
    ====================
    This doctrine dont changed from 2001 since it only way for use SA-11.
    At same time Russia have SA-11 as Army Air-Defense and have tactical usage of SA-11 TELAR WITHOUT TAR as part of stand-alone batteries (2xTELAR+1-2xTEL). It how SA-11 TELAR was used near Snizhne for shot down MH17 – solo TELAR without connection to TAR/CP.

    You admit that it “should be connected” and not must be connected.
    ======================
    Sorry for my bad english, of course “must be connected”.

    And finally the area to the wesy-north-east of suspected Ukr BUK position was rebel controlled area.
    ======================
    Csn you show map with point which you mean is suspected position of Ukr BUK?

    The Ukr army says that on 17th they have grounded all the planes, unless they lie, so it doesn’t matter from where the plane is coming it is not friendly.
    ===============
    Ukraine provide guide for civilian airliners over their territory so Ukraine know what plane is MH17 and had flighplan with route much before tragedy. So despite on grounded military planes Ukraine know there is no reason for shot down plane which coming from Ukraine territory with well-known flight route and transponder signal recognised a hundred miles before MH17 death place.
    At same time, separatist didnt know about civilian traffic in sky and many times asking Why planes fly here and who allow it? They dont know a presence of other planes then ukrainian militaries (which flow low and cna be spotted without radars) so targetted first plane and kill it even dont tried to recognise what plane it is.

    And of course you noticed that Russian MOD detected TELAR signals but didn’t detect any TARs.
    ======================
    You absolutely WRONG. In russian DoD report we can read about detected TAR Kupol (search radar 9S18), but dont see any sign of TELAR radar 9S35. It strange because MH17 kill is impossible without use of 9S35 radar for detect, lock and illuminate target. And ILLUMINATON MODE for 9S35 radar IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SEARCH MODE. So if russian DoD INTEL (they have COMINT brigade situated near border + radiotechnical equipment of 3 air-defense brigades which can detect such signals too + A-50 AWACS) MUST DETECT ILLUMINATION MODE on frequency 4 GHz (instead of 3 GHz) with well-known (for original developer-manufacturer country) packets and commands. So Russia must bring this fact of work )with triangulation and detection time) on briefing or send it to DSB/JIT immediatelly. It is strong evidence but we dont see it. Only reason why Russia hide a fact of work TELAR radar is real position situated near Snizne aka russian TELAR provided to terrorists.

    • correction
      So if russian DoD INTEL (they have COMINT brigade situated near border + radiotechnical equipment of 3 air-defense brigades which can detect such signals too + A-50 AWACS) can detect 9S18 in search mode then INTEL MUST DETECT ILLUMINATION MODE on frequency 4 GHz (instead of 3 GHz) with well-known (for original developer-manufacturer country) packets and commands.

    • I think you mightier right here. It could not be a mistake by Ukr operative. It was indeed a premeditated murder on the IR side. No bailing out into mistake argument. So now we just need to get physical evidence from Dutch, like chemical analysis of soil from claimed launch site, Buk missile parts, full transcript of ATC and black box. And hope that in order to cover for their new murderous friends they will not try to just rely on photoshoping, Facebook slurs and discredited war criminal Higgins.

    • AD:

      “At same time, separatist didnt know about civilian traffic in sky and many times asking Why planes fly here and who allow it?”

      Everyone on July 16 saw civilian flight in the air. There are pictures of them and their contrails on discussion groups from eastern Ukraine. This is a red herring.

      “They dont know a presence of other planes then ukrainian militaries (which flow low and cna be spotted without radars) so targetted first plane and kill it even dont tried to recognise what plane it is.”

      AD, do you think a TELAR looking for military planes between 1 and 10 km would ever find a civilian plane above 10 km? Wouldn’t the 7 degree angle of the radar not find the civilian plane? So you’d deliberately have to be looking high with the radar, leaving yourself blind to lower flying fights until they are almost on top of you to find a civilian plane at height. Why would rebels only look very high for planes with their TELAR and ignore potential fighters at 1-4 km?

      Also, wouldn’t it be blindingly obvious from the radar sweep settings in the TELAR at the decision to launch that the radar was tracking a plane at a great height and speed and not a lower and slower AN-26? How could an operator make such a mistake?

      “In russian DoD report we can read about detected TAR Kupol (search radar 9S18), but dont see any sign of TELAR radar 9S35.”

      How would Russia detect radar signals TELAR being sent towards the interior of Ukraine? Wouldn’t they be blind to such signals?

      • To be fair it was my statement that Russian MOD detected TELAR signals. I was wrong. MoD report talks about Kupol signals. But of course, TELAR’s signal directed from Snezhnoe to the West will be impossible for Russians to detect. So that statement of AD is dubious

        • Typical error of noob. For COMINT not difference what direction of radar which emmitted signal.
          1. Any radar have side lobes of radiation pattern.
          2. Target such as B777 re-emmit signals from radar to all directions (via curve surface)
          COMINT brigade can detect, receive and positioned signal even from a few Watts source like mobile radiostation. Radar 9S35 have output power 2 kiloWatts in illumination mode.
          But very important is frequency of illumination mode which can be easily separated from usual search mode of 9S35 and 9S18 radars etc.

          • Antidyatel // August 11, 2015 at 11:39 am //

            How cute! Let’s use Rob tactics. What are the direction vectors for TELAR side lobes?
            Does radar signal reflected (not emitted) by the plane indicate the location of radar location? What equipment should COMINT unit have to do this triangulation and how many of them?

    • AD, if you support the Kursk scenario – lone BUK delivered over night by Russians from the Kursk convoy to shoot down MH17 by mistake – can you explain to me what the tactics behind this sanctioned move could be?

      To send in a stand alone BUK without back-up from a TEL would be a very irrational thing to do. Shoot up some 4 BUKs and then carry it to the waste yard for military equipment in Snizhne, btw not far away from Lenin Street, doesn´t seem efficient use of scarce available high-end weaponry.

      Shooting a BUK after being led by an incompetent spotter who can´t see the difference between a cargo plane flying at 5000m and 450 km/h and a passenger jet flying at 10 km at a speed of 900 km/h, seems to allude to the assumption this Russian crew couldn´t be very competent either.

      What is your explanation for this second assumption?

      • Hector:
        first of all Russia could not provide a complete BUK-battery. This would make it clear Russia was directly involved in the war.
        An alibi for the usage of a single BUK would be telling the world a BUK was stolen from the Ukraine army. Hence the usage of a non-army truck and lowloader.

        So here is the alibi to provide one or more Russian BUKs.

        The BUKs were required by the separatists to win the battle against Ukraine air force.

        Russia would not mind sending some BUKs to Eastern Ukraine. Money is not an issue. Geo polictics are important. (Crimea)

        nobody knows why a BUK crew pressed that button. Did they knew they target a civil aircraft? Did they believe they targeted a SU-25 and missile had an error and retargeted? Was the missile guidance system compromised? We do not know and I very much doubt we are ever going to know what happened in that BUK.

        • Hector Reban // August 17, 2015 at 8:56 am // Reply

          This alibi circulated in pro-Kiev military thinktanks after the raid on airforce base A-1428 when was claimed the Russian news fabricated a story to creat a cover for Russian providing of a BUK themselves.

          This was of course disseminated through “third party experts”, because Ukrainian officials contradicted eachother in various statements, according to the needs of the moment (see my blogpost “… Other BUK, other day”.

          Nevertheless this story still can’t give any explanation why the Russians would have handed over only 4 missiles without any back-up.

          Ok. the separatists might have downed a few SU’s or AN’s more, but what’s the point to that? Or would it be the planning to reload this highly valued asset in Russia all the time?

          • Hector: can you provide me more proof for your statement: “Nevertheless this story still can’t give any explanation why the Russians would have handed over only 4 missiles without any back-up.”

            How are you so sure Russia only provided 4 missiles?

            Novaya Gazeta published a story saying the BUK used missiles stolen from Ukraine army base. No evidencem, only according sources of newspaper.
            http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/69181.html

          • No, you are right, of course.

            Maybe the Russians supplied THREE Buks, as some Ukrainian officials claimed after the 17th (three BUKs fleeing over the border in the night of the 17/18th). But then again, if they could provide three BUKs they could provide TELs and TARs too.

            But the official story, to which I was referring, is that a stand-alone BUK – without any support – was handed over to the DNR to move to the Snizhne frontline. Of course I can´t prove this one or the other BUKs were NOT there as I can´t prove there weren´t any lapricorns involved 😉

            I was only asking AD, the specialist, what would be the strategic/tactical motivations for this action.

            And I wanted to know if he believed in the official assertions some very stupid spotter called in. Maybe there was a BUK, but the official fatal mistake narrative seems to be incredible.

      • Mr.Bushkin // July 12, 2016 at 10:59 am // Reply

        Indeed. Osa, Tunguska, Tor or Pantsir would make more sense than a single Buk TELAR in this case, since they are designed to operate autonomously.

  9. Andrew // August 11, 2015 at 2:02 am //
    “all TELAR should be connected to TAR+CP”
    Actually, it is interesting that Ukraine deployed BUK’s apparently linked with ST-68UM radar as well. That is what seems to be shown in the infamous July 16 Ukraine video.
    ==================
    Re-read again. All TELAR in ukrainian army must be connected to TAR+CP.
    1. Fact of work 36D6 (ST-68UM) radar dont mean this is only source for receive information about sky.
    2. CP can receive information from any radar which unified with data protocol, it why CP need as chain between TELAR and 9S18 or any other radar.

    “what looking for TELAR with 120 degree scanning azimuth area if TELAR looking into Ukrainian controlled territory instead of Russia”
    You know the only possibilities are some sort of air defense exercise or else a deliberate targetting.
    ===============
    Again, please explain why TELAR looking for Ukraine territory over Kramatorsk if source of danger is russian military airbase Millerovo? Since SA-11 TELAR can look only for 120 degree it abit hardly to redirect radar after each second from main direction (on Russia) to mythical direction (on Kramatorsk).
    Another thing is radial speed whoch always forgotten by russian trolls.

  10. 2Antidyatel // August 11, 2015 at 11:39 am //
    How cute! Let’s use Rob tactics. What are the direction vectors for TELAR side lobes?
    =======================
    Lol noob!
    All direction, all. Radar dont have fixed direction but rotate with radar/missile carriage and during scanning. So all direction side-lobes.

    Does radar signal reflected (not emitted) by the plane indicate the location of radar location?
    ==================================
    Lol, again dumbass question. Im dont talk about positioning of TELAR via re-emitted signal from B777 but FACT OF WORKING TELAR IN ILLUMINATE MODE when MH17 died. Russia detect search mode of multiple TAR but hide fact of working 9S35M1 radar in search or fire mode. That mean:
    1. NO TELAR in Zaroschenskoe (or Russia detect 9S35M1 radar here or just fact of 9S35M1 radar illumination on B777)
    2. TELAR was on separatist controlled territory so Russia want to hide where situated a source of emittion signal.

    What equipment should COMINT unit have to do this triangulation and how many of them?
    ==========
    http://i.imgur.com/p25f9A6.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/dwEjt18.jpg
    even one set of SIGINT Vega can scan all area of Eastern Ukraine with precision at least 5 km (for one scan time).

    • AD:
      I object using the terms noob, fool, dumb, dumbass etc which seems to be your way of adding authority to your comments . However it does not add to your authority at all.
      Please respect other opinions and refrain from now on from using this language if you want to make your point!

      • I tend to agree with the admin AD, the descriptive adjectives do not add to your very thorough precise knowledge of the BUK system and other technical aspects of the incident.
        Do not stoop to their proKremlin tactics or maybe it is just acting old and crotchety and will fight any fact just because that is their personality.

        A ‘dumb question’ to someone who has been in the military for 10 years, may be a very intelligent question for someone who spent his whole life in accounting.

        My Grandfather always told me the stupidest question is the question not asked.

        You improve your comments by not including the insults.
        People will read Antidyatel and others comments and make their own opinion of people like that.
        I tend to agree with your adjectives and I can make that opinion by myself without you pointing it out.

        Your statements are all the stronger by avoiding the name calling.

        I know emotions can run high, but try to keep this in mind when you make your comment.
        And yes, I am just as guilty of you letting a few unneeded adjectives getting added to my comments.
        And I am probably one of the worst people to be making this criticism type comment to you.
        I am trying to work on my faults admin, I am trying.

        Fare thee well

    • Ayayay. AD, Fire Dome is operating in X-band (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html) which is in the range of 6- 12 Ghz (sometimes defined as 7 to 11 Ghz). Where did you get the 3 and 4 Ghz values (this is S-band)?
      Both 9S18 and 9S35 can guide the same missile towards the target. Why would you imagine that the missile has a receiver tuned to different frequencies?
      Here is the link from Soviet encyclopedia about the phased array antenna. BUK M1 is using one. There is no mechanical steering. Strange that as an “expert” you are not aware of such basics. The beam is scanned electronically by matching phase of different emitters in the array. For BUK M1 the scanned sector is limited to 120 degrees. Now draw it from Snezhnoe towards the approaching plane and see what you get. Also, Side-lobes in phased array antennas are minimized.
      In order to distinguish search and illumination mode one should look for modulated and CW signals. Problem with CW signals is that you can’t really recover them from noise, when the signal is very low. Which is not a problem for missile receiver as the missile approaches the plane. While for the distant receivers the task is extremely hard. Of course they can rely on the Doppler effect, so the only chance is actually to detect the reflection from a moving target, like plane. But as you mentioned yourself the nose of the plane will reflect in all directions, so you get 1/r^2 power attenuation against distance. Plus, only a fraction of the primary beam will be scattered in that direction. Show me one example of detecting CW reflection at such large distances that you are proposing.

      • Sorry, my bad it is 3 and 4 cm – wavelength instead of frequency. But that still mean ILLUMINATION MODE is easy for detect.

      • One second! Did im hear PESA?
        PESA is ONLY RUSSIAN radar of SA-17 TELAR. If you wanna detect PESA working in Eastern Ukraine then you can directly towar Putin to jail.

        • Where did you exactly read PESA?

          • Here is the link from Soviet encyclopedia about the {phased array antenna. BUK M1 is using one. There is no mechanical steering.} Strange that as an “expert” you are not aware of such basics. {The beam is scanned electronically by matching phase of different emitters in the array.} For BUK M1 the scanned sector is limited to 120 degrees. Now draw it from Snezhnoe towards the approaching plane and see what you get. {Also, Side-lobes in phased array antennas are minimized.}

          • That does not sound like AESA to me, it does sound like an implication of PESA radar.
            Antidyatel gets caught again in crafting a hidden lie, that he will mark up to an error in his interpretation of the Soviet manual.

            Fare thee well

  11. admin, Is it just me noticing that Antidyatel has suddenly increased trigonometry and seemingly new knowledge of radar installations exponentially?
    It is eerie, almost like Andrew is writing for him or someone that has worked with a BUK for about ten years or so is writing for him.
    Honestly, I have not noticed that about his other comments.
    It almost seems like a new person making a comment to me.
    I could be wrong, but it is strange to see it.
    Delete this please admin if you feel it is inappropriate, but it looks extremely strange and that is why I point it out.

    Fare thee well

    • DOn’t worry Boggled. I just changed my stile, after few categorical request from admin to tone down the aggression. I have M.Sc in physics, so it is easy for me to notice that AD is not stating valid argument, in-spite of his aplomb. Which doesn’t mean that I’m always right. For example I screwed up on drag force in argument with Rob by 2 orders of magnitude. Had to concede the mistake.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*