It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft. There are echoes of Iran Air Flight 655 here ...
It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft. There are echoes of Iran Air Flight 655 here ...
A transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) is the same as a TEL but also incorporates part or all of the radar system necessary for firing the missile(s). Such vehicles have the capability of being autonomous, greatly enhancing their effectiveness. With this type of system, each vehicle can fight regardless of the state or presence of support vehicles.
“quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft” — yeah, I also think so. The important difference with Flight 655 and MH17 is USS Vincennes was there legally. The cruiser wasn’t smuggled to some international terrorists who say they’re independent freedom fighters, like it happened with Buk M1 which downed MH-17.
"Surface-to-air missile systems and complexes of division level are characterized by their long range and firepower and are equipped with surface-to-air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor."
2. No they did not need to do that, it was enough to park it closer to the zone
3. I am not sure what is this gibberish about, I did not mention anything about SBU or anybody else saying anything.
Thanks for the downvotes, even when you are obviously wrong. It is just showing how much HN lost its way.
The report isolates the region the missile could have been launched from, based on the damage pattern from the warhead's projectiles and MH17's flight path, to a very small number of square kilometers, all of which are firmly ensconced in separatist territory.
These missiles have a fairly short range.
The report and the missile's Russian manufacturer agree about the very limited number of missile models that the warhead could have been mounted on.