The New Malaysian Airliner Loss

The Russian rebels have shot down other planes in the past few days, so this was probably inevitable unless the airlines had routed around that region. I assume they’ll start doing so now. What this means for the war remains to be seen, of course. But on the up side, maybe CNN will finally cover Ukraine.

[Update early afternoon]

The Pentagon is apparently claiming that the missile originated from Russian territory.

30 thoughts on “The New Malaysian Airliner Loss”

  1. While early news stories about aircraft are almost always wrong, this airliner was almost certainly at cruise altitude of about 33,000 feet. No MANPAD missile can reach that high. There reportedly was an air-to-air shootdown of an Ukrainian Su-25 Frogfoot yesterday. This airliner would’ve required a large SAM such as an SA-2 or an air-to-air missile to be shot down. A MANPAD is bad enough but this is a whole ‘nother level of bad.

  2. If the aircraft was at cruise altitude when hit it was probably Russians, not Russian rebels, who shot it down. Rebels would not likely have SAM’s that could reach 30k + feet.

  3. Intersting.

    Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur suggests it should have been cruising at 40,000 feet or so over Ukraine.

    Ain’t no MANPADS that can take down an airliner at 40,000 feet.

    So if it was shot down, it was by someone with a serious SAM system, who, because of the fire control radars, has to have known it was a big jet, not a fighter or fighter/bomber-sized one – and probably saw it coming from a ways away.

    I don’t understand the motive for doing it, myself – as far as I know, the Russians aren’t using heavy bombers at all in Ukraine, and obviously the Ukrainian forces aren’t…

    All this could do is piss off the rest of the world to no useful effect.

  4. It will take some time to sort out the details, as is typical.

    One detail reported is that there were 23 Americans on board. If so, I wonder what President Feck-Free will do.

    1. Obama’s words: “It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy.”

      Gee, what was your first clue, Sherlock? To say he has excrement for brains is to insult excrement.

      All we know for certain right now is that the plane is down and everyone on board is dead. Indications are that whatever downed the plane happened in cruising flight, which is the safest part of any flight. We don’t know for certain that it was shot down but that’s what early reports indicate. Is there any radar or satellite data confirming a missile? If so, I’ve not heard. Could it have been a bomb? Perhaps. Could it have been a mechanical malfunction? While extremely unlikely, it’s not impossible. We just don’t know. Meanwhile, the news networks are reporting whatever rumors and speculation they can find, as per normal operating protocol.

  5. Occam’s razor in my opinion suggests this was probably a disastrous screw-up on someone’s part, not a deliberate attack on a passenger aircraft. The US accidentally downed an Iranian passenger jet in 1988, and the Ukrainians accidentally downed a Russian aircraft in 2001, and in the US case, the radar systems on the navy ship that shot it down were probably better than anything the rebels likely have their hands on.

    I agree with Rand though, that with this being an active combat zone that has had multiple aircraft shoot-downs recently (and where the Ukrainian air force is actively using fighter jets against rebel positions), I really am surprised as heck that anyone would be stupid enough to fly a passenger jet through all of that instead of routing around it.

    ~Jon

    1. Yes, I’m sure they thought it was an AN-26 cargo aircraft like the one they shot down earlier. But I doubt if they did this without help from the Russians.

    2. The Iranian passenger jet while a tragedy was not an accident. The day before the “accident” US forces shot down an Iranian civilian jet that was on a threat vector into one of our carriers. The force of the explosion and evidence on the debris showed the civilian aircraft had been load with explosives.

      The passenger jet was shot down because it was on an identical vector as the previous one. The flight path of the civilian jet (which was far from a normal path) was dictated by the Iranian authorities with full knowledge that we would perceive it as a threat and shoot it down.

      Something is wrong with the current Malaysia Airlines situation.
      1. Russia does not allow rebels to use advance military equipment. They know from experience that it can be turned on them.
      2. Both the anti-aircraft system and the crew would have identified the aircraft as non military. Just the flight path alone would have marked it as civilian.
      3. It would not be good for the Russians if they did shoot down a civilian airliner. They know it would turn World opinion against them and adversely affect their “dispute” with the Ukraine.
      4. I am not sure that the Ukraine has operational systems that can shoot down an aircraft at cruising altitude.
      5. Both the FAA and EASA (JAA) have advised aircraft to stay out of the area for months.
      6. This is the second 777, with the exact same number of people on board, that Malaysia has “lost”.

      1. “The day before the “accident” US forces shot down an Iranian civilian jet that was on a threat vector into one of our carriers. ”

        Can you cite that?

      2. The Vincennes shot down the Iranian airbus as it was climbing to cruise altitude, having mistaken it for an F-111.

          1. Correct. However, during the 6 to 7 seconds the fire control officer had to make a decision, the fire control system indicated the aircraft was on a descending attack vector (similar to the previous incident). As far as I know, no official reason was ever given for the system malfunction.

  6. Interesting that this is the second 777 that Malaysian Airliners has lost to strange circumstance.

    1. It’s only the second 777 to be completely lost, and only the third to be involved in a fatal accident. The first fatal accident with a 777 was July 6, 2013 Asiana Airlines 214 at SFO. The 777 had nearly 20 years of continuous service without a major issue, but this last year 12 months haven’t been good. None of the fatalities involved problems with the aircraft design or equipment.

      1. I agree. I believe the 777 is an outstanding and safe aircraft. Don’t mistake my comments as aspersions on Boeing or the 777, I may not like the way Boeing runs some of its business units but I don’t have an issue with the 777.

        1. I didn’t at all think you were making aspersions about the 777. It is just amazing to me how spotless the 777 program has been for incidents and then these 3 events occur relatively rapidly. When I say rapidly, consider that Asiana Air 214 was the first jumbo jet fatality in the US since American Airlines 587. Air travel is very safe, and the 777 is a stellar performer. It’s a real shame it makes the news we these events.

  7. As others have pointed out the shootdown could only have happened using a serious SAM equipment, the media is reporting a Buk mobile missile system as the instrument in question. The question now is whether the particular piece of equipment implicated was one that had been seized by rebel forces from Ukrainian inventory or if it was donated to the cause from Russian territory through the marvelous charity of dear uncle Vladimir.

    In any event, hopefully this event helps delegitimize Putin’s little Ukrainian intervention.

  8. It is painfully obvious that it was the Russians, or their stooges, who destroyed that airplane. The ‘rebels’ have no air force to speak with so the Ukrainians have little reason to be aggressively operating their air defenses like that. Missile batteries are not something you give to ‘insurgents’ with no training so they can operate it. It is rather obvious these were basically Russian Army volunteers dressed up as insurgents who screwed up big time.

  9. The “rebels” *ARE* Russian forces, so whether it’s the “rebels” or regular Russian forces is a moot point.

    From day 1 of the crisis, when “pro Russian Militia” seized the government building in the Crimea, it’s been glaringly obvous (and easily provable) that the majority of these “milita” and “rebels” are Russian special forces. That’s why they wear masks (The Ukranians, with a few photos or “rebels” without masks, matched them to photos of the same people taken a few years ago during Russian military exercises; they’re Russian forces). Further, the accents of the “rebels” tend to be St. Petersburg and Moscow, not Ukraine (the regional accent difference is as easy to pick up for a native speaker as it would be for me to note a Boston accent or a NY accent or a Southern accent).

    The real proof, though, is in the equipment. Looks at some pics of the “rebels”. Any pics will do. Take not of their uniforms, especially the webbing and other gear; it’s all the same, as are their weapons. There has never, in all of history, been a real rebel outfit with that level of equipment consistency (and much of it isn’t items found in the Ukrainian military).

    The “rebels” are clearly and provably primarily Russian forces under Russian command.

    And, the “rebel” commander tweeted that they’d shot a plane down. (since deleted, but the internet keeps all).

    What’s puzzling me the most was why the heck was the plane overflying the area? An area where high-altitude aircraft (including a big transport) have recently been shot down. There were NOTAMs up for the region (enough to prevent any American carrier from flying over it) so why the heck were Malaysian airlines, plus others, still flying through there?

    1. The Buk, looks like a pretty complex weapons system, not something amateurs are likely to be operating, so likely either a Russia crew, or formerly Ukrainian military personnel who’ve defected to the rebels. (Ukraine also has the Buk).

      1. You’re right, it’s quite complex. If memory serves, it’s a 3 vehicle system.

        It’s possible that a defecting Ukrainian crew could run it but more than likely the “rebels”, who are largely Russian military, ran it. The tweet by the “rebel” commander claiming credit for what he thought was a Ukrainian transport is pretty definitive as to who’s to blame IMHO.

  10. Do we know for certain that it wasn’t a bomb on board? The fact it was lost over Ukraine might have nothing to do with it, if someone is sabotaging Malaysia Airlines.

  11. Do we know for certain that it wasn’t a bomb on board?

    If the news reports are to be believed, there is satellite and other “national technical means” evidence of a missile. DSP could probably detect the launch but SBIRS could do it better (it has a staring sensor capability). There’s also ELINT and SIGINT. I’m told there was a JSTARS monitoring the area as well. I’m sure they’re analyzing the data to determine the launch point and other incriminating evidence.

    From what I’ve read, it takes a crew of up to 40 trained operators to run a BUK system. There’s the missile transporter/erector, a radar, and a command and control truck. This isn’t something that untrained rebels are likely to be able to operate. So, as noted above, they’re either Russian forces or former Ukrainian forces who were trained on the system. However, what’s the likelihood of a rebel force just happening to have defectors who have all the skills necessary to operate a sophisticated SAM system? Not impossible, but unlikely.

  12. First guess, it is a major screw-up by an over-excited local Russian commander. I can’t see a reasonable scenario where Russia (Putin) would stand to gain much by this being deliberate. He doesn’t need any casus belli greater than he already has, no need to manufacture one. Who stands to gain? No one I can see, so, probably a screw-up.

Comments are closed.