Aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich. Expert Vadim Lukashevich analyzes in detail the nonsense of "Komsomolskaya Pravda"

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" again excelled ...
This is something!
I'll start with the fact that the "witness" could apply to representatives of the official investigation and receive more than 20 million euros for information about the "specific culprit" of the plane crash, but he preferred to turn to Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is very symptomatic that the most fuss about this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have "nothing to do" with either the Boeing-777, or the Buk air defense system, or dead passengers aircraft, or to the airspace in which the Boeing was shot down, or to the territory where the debris fell ... As Winnie the Pooh said: "This is w-w-w for a reason!"
Now look at these new "revelations".
1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which the 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. Fighters and helicopters were based there at that time. bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Luhansk”
The question is - how does a person know the combat mission of sorties if he is not a pilot and does not direct the flights of pilots?

2. Quote: "missiles were hung on the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case."
The question is for what occasion? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! And the Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky was not and is not

3. Quote: "about an hour before the downing of the Boeing, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air."
And the Russian military, at a briefing by 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, I was told so"
Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead airmen shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of two downed Su-25s?

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

6. Quote: “The phrase was said by 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 - what kind of plane was "that one"?
By the way, they don’t “take out” the Su-25, they get out of it. They open the lantern, 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 brawler from a restaurant

7. Quote: “Those who were there, they were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”
The “witness” contradicts himself – a pilot of the best part, with extensive combat experience (“... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Luhansk”), 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 Luhansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, sorties continued”

9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The answer of the "witness": for 3-5 kilometers they can fix the target.
"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 range of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the alleged 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 aircraft” 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 difficult for some reason), then how can the pilot know whether this is the plane or the wrong one?

10. Quote: “The rocket has a pretty good speed. Very fast rocket
A professional (and just a person "in the subject")) will never say that. You can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs” from a specialist, but “very fast” is the conversation of an inhabitant. By the way, the 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 higher.

11. Quote: “The plane can just turn its nose up, and there is no problem fixing it and launching a rocket.”
No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications have been produced, these aircraft and missiles have participated in most of the world's conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) Case of successful interception of the Su-25 high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at a height of 10 km. I emphasize - none!

12. Quote: "The 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 NEAR air combat missile used against highly maneuverable targets.

13. Quote: “Question: This rocket explodes at what distance from the target? Can it get into the hull and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally can in the body and at a distance of 500 meters can "
Here I can only say one thing - the “witness” is a complete idiot ...
Su-25 is not equipped with airborne radar station, therefore, it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head, which directs the missile to the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there were such cases), or in its immediate vicinity. 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 crash site and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very tightly. It feels like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer of the "witness": There is such a rocket. The principle of fraction - it is torn, the fraction goes. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits "
Enchanting! What happens according to the "witness": A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. a rocket explodes, due to which “the shot goes”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with an explosive charge and striking elements continues to fly without exploding. And when a shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). In this way, Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a rubbish newspaper ...
But even if, after laughing, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile carried by the Su-25
But then, I think, the main goal of these "eyewitness revelations" begins - the use by Ukrainian aviation (essno, in Donetsk and Lugansk) of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, and so on.
Well, I consider it below my dignity to comment on the thoughts of the “experts” of the Komsomolskaya Pravda such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.
In the same place (on the KP website) there is a “discussion by the military observer of the KP of popular versions of the Boeing crash”, but anyone can watch our joint (with this military observer of the KP) television broadcast on Dozhd on the network in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , which previously coordinated its participation in television with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
And now, especially for Komsomolskaya Pravda, for 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 the tasks of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in the conditions of their VISUAL visibility"
Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [round-the-clock automatic sighting] system" Shkval ":
"KAPK" Flurry "ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Height of combat use (excess relative to the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft flight is not more than
10000 m;
3. Exceeding the target above sea level NO MORE THAN 4000 m;
In other words, any pilot knows that the Su-25T can hit with an air-to-air missile a LOW-SPEED aerial target in VISUAL visibility conditions, flying at an altitude NOT MORE THAN FOUR kilometers! If we are talking about the Su-25, then its abilities are even more modest
I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instruction:
"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 method of proportional navigation to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence lies in the fact that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the movement of the rocket to 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 rocket overload. The maximum launch range of a missile with equal velocities of the carrier and 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 overload
Ruzka hit targets - 8 units.
In combat use, aiming is carried out in the "8f 5o 0" or "TsVM" mode.

_R-73 rocket. designed to defeat heat-contrast pilots
enemy airborne 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 jamming conditions.
The maximum launch range for air targets is:
- in PPS: at the height of the carrier up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in ZPS: at the height of the carrier up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier height above 4000 m - in numerical values ​​of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is 650 m in the PPS, and 350 m in the ZPS.
The missile is guided to the target by the method of proportional
navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapons after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 suspension points due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the TGS R-73 by combustion products of the powder engines of S-8 missiles.
Two rockets are suspended on the plane.
An aviation commander who makes a decision on combat operations or an official who develops proposals for making this decision needs to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles.
I draw your attention to the fact that the maximum launch range in the rear hemisphere (ZPS) of the target, i.e. in pursuit - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is to the question "the plane is not the same"

The plane crashes of this and last years have become significant for Russia. The crash of a Malaysian Boeing, the blown up charter flight over Egypt, the downing of a Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force turned out to be not only tragedies, but also events that entail a lot of consequences for our country. Each plane crash was followed by concealment of information, contradictory versions, mutual accusations of the parties and complications in Russia's relations with other states. In addition, each of these catastrophes, seemingly so different, entailed contradictions within the country. The authorities do not want to admit their mistakes and be responsible for the deaths of people, and some citizens diligently avoid the collective sense of guilt, as well as the fear that invariably arises after recognizing that the political ambitions of those in power are more important than the lives of ordinary people.

Your own version of each of the three plane crashes« » presented by an aviation expert, ex-designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, candidate of technical sciences Vadim Lukashevich.

Malaysian Boeing

July 17, 2014. Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 operated a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Was knocked over eastern part Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. There were 283 passengers and 15 crew members on board. They all died.

- About how it was shot downMalaysian Boeing over the Donbass in July 2014, a lot of versions were expressed. Which version are you leaning towards and why?

It makes no sense to talk about any versions. There is final report Dutch security service. With absolute certainty, we can say that the plane was shot down by the BUK anti-aircraft missile system from the area controlled by the separatists, there is a map there. This is no longer a version, but a proven fact.

“So there’s nothing more to talk about?”

By and large, yes. There are people who do not admit this, but this is just a demonstration of their level of understanding of the problem. Because there was an international commission that worked for more than a year, collected all the information and facts and set it all out in a report, including the claims of the Russian side and the answers to them. There is a document approved, entered into force. It indicates an area, about 300 square kilometers, from where an anti-aircraft missile could be launched. Now we are waiting for the results of the Dutch prosecutor's investigation, which will specifically indicate what kind of BUK it was, how it got there, who launched it, who gave the order, and so on. That is, there will be personal responsibility.

- But the version that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile has been circulating in the Russian media for a long time.

The main purpose of such versions was misinformation, distraction, creation of "white noise" so that any helpful information disappeared, drowned in this chaos, became invisible.

- How quickly did it become clear that the plane was shot down from the BUK and from a certain area?

For me, as a specialist, it was clear that this was an anti-aircraft missile launched from the ground almost immediately, as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first video of poor quality appeared on July 17th. And photos of the wreckage of the aircraft began to appear from the 18th.

The question on BUK is already different. Of all the versions that then arose, BUK most of all fit the observed picture. From the photographs and videos that appeared on the Internet, it was possible to follow how he was transported, how he moved on his own, that is, how he went from Russia to Ukraine and then was hastily taken back. There were data of radio interception and so on. Everything spoke in favor of Buk. Therefore, after two weeks, in mid-August, it was absolutely clear that it was an anti-aircraft missile, and 90-95% - that the BUK fired from the territory controlled by the separatists. This situation finally became clear on September 13 this year, when the report was published.

Why was it necessary to promote the implausible version that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter? Draw different schemes, show them on TV? Did you think that for the laymen this would do?

On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation for a very undemanding viewer and the fact that if you say “halva” a lot, it will become sweeter in your mouth. Then, we remember the postulates of Dr. Joseph Goebbels that the more monstrous the lie, the easier it will be believed. These methods were clearly used, they are in service with the propaganda machine, and not only ours. Naturally, it was just necessary to create a kind of background where it would constantly sound that Ukraine was to blame, that it was their BUK or attack aircraft. The more frenzied the campaign is, the clearer it becomes that "the hat is on fire on the thief." Our media did not pursue the goal of establishing the truth. Generally.

When an investigation is carried out, evidence, evidence, evidence is first collected. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are examined, the least likely ones are rejected.

But in our media the situation was different.

Judging by the way they put forward their assumptions, there was nothing to do with the search for truth. An information war was waged, and the more idiotic the versions looked, the more clumsy they were made, the more obvious it was. Only when the idiotic versions ran out did Almaz-Antey [an aerospace defense concern that conducted its own investigation of the disaster] emerge.

- After all, the media understood that the truth would come out sooner or later, didn’t they really think what face they would appear with?

For me, this is also a question. The information campaign was either done by idiots, or these people simply did not look ahead. If I were in the place of our media or those who oversee them, I would gather specialists from the very beginning, find out how things are going, and do everything right. And we began to attract specialists only in the spring of this year, when the whole world already clearly knew that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down from a BUK. Only when it became clear that there was no way out, the media attracted the developers of this installation, asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to sculpt a version that a BUK fired at the plane, but Ukrainian, and not from Snizhne or Torez, but from Zaroshchinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves into a corner so much that they forgot that, according to all reports, Zaroshchenskoye was also in the rear of the separatists.

- But then the main version became that Ukraine is still to blame, because it did not close the sky for flights.

Here the wine is very peculiar. Suppose there is a warehouse, a storekeeper sits inside, and the watchman outside must close the door. The watchman went out of need without closing the door. And a murderer and a robber entered the warehouse and killed the storekeeper. Of course, the watchman is to blame for not closing the door, but this is an indirect fault, not a direct one.

It's the same here. Someone launched a rocket and destroyed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country in whose airspace the plane is located is responsible for flight safety. It carries out the wiring, provides dispatching support and receives a transit fee for these services. Now, as I understand it, the airspace over any combat area will be closed, regardless of the height of the echelon. And not as it was over Ukraine - up to 9,700 meters the space is closed, and above - I don’t want to fly.

But the blame for the murder, for the death of people, of course, lies with those who dragged this BUK there, who provided all the logistics, who gave the order for the combat system to be on the territory from where the rocket was launched, who ordered to press the "start" and who launched the rocket. The prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be in two or three months, will establish this.

- What could threaten Russia in this case?

Criminal responsibility. And what will be the court or tribunal, what will be the jurisdiction and so on, what will be the evidence, is not yet clear. This is a lawsuit that will not go quickly.

Note that there is still no tribunal. And Russia was against him, which is also significant, because if we have nothing to do with it, then what difference does it make to us, and if the stigma is down, then what kind of criminal will agree to a trial of himself?

But the affected countries, primarily Holland, will stand up for another court, for an international tribunal. And anyway, sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes do not have a statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not withdraw from this process. If we are really innocent, then at the tribunal there will be not only accusers, but also defenders, and it will be possible to demand expertise, evidence, and rechecking of evidence. But if we are to blame, then we will push the horn to the end.

But the current Russian government is also not eternal. The court of history awaits us in any case, and the fact that Russia in every possible way resisted the establishment of the truth in this matter will remain in history.

The main functions of a technical investigation are to establish what happened and develop some measures to prevent the recurrence of such a situation in the future. The disaster arose due to two reasons: Ukraine, which did not close the airspace, and BUK. Which and whose exactly - this is no longer the sphere of technical calculation and not the task of ICAO [International Organization civil aviation from English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is a criminal investigation conducted by the Dutch prosecutor's office. When we wait for the conclusion, there will be a new surge of attention to this story, now the topic is not closed, but frozen.

Charter flight from Egypt

October 31, 2015. The A321 aircraft of the Russian company Kogalymavia was flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg. Crashed about half an hour after departure, 100 km south of the administrative center of the province of North Sinai, the city of El Arish near locality Al Hasna. The plane had 217 passengers and seven crew members. No one survived.

The version about the technical deterioration of the Kogalymavia aircraft flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg was one of the first. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Russian authorities finally admitted that with our charter flight there was also a terrorist attack. And how quickly can you understand what caused the disaster?

There is an interesting point here. Imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to a terrorist attack or not? They said for a long time that this is a technical version, and we are studying everything. And when it became clear that terrorism was sweeping the planet, then we condescended to admit that there was a terrorist attack on our plane. Although by this moment we had already evacuated all the holidaymakers from Egypt, and separately from the luggage, thereby recognizing de facto that this was precisely a terrorist attack.

- And not only us.

Yes, everything was already clear to everyone, but we did not admit it. And if Paris didn't exist, how long would we have been fooling around?

- And why did we play the fool? The recognition of the terrorist attack casts a shadow on our military policy in Syria?

Absolutely and absolutely. On November 25, I was on the air of “Rights to vote” (a TVC program), so there one speaker agreed to the point that he said: anyway, this plane would have been blown up, even if we had not climbed into Syria. This is bullshit because there is a very clear chronological causal relationship. Until recently, our Russian aircraft haven’t exploded for a very long time, I don’t even remember when last time abroad, our plane was killed in a terrorist attack. And here we are starting on September 30 an air operation against ISIS * [an extremist organization banned in Russian Federation], nominally, we are bombing Syria, and exactly one month later, on October 31, a plane explodes over Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: this is us. We answer: no, technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. We again refer to technical reasons. The terrorists are distributing a video of them handing out candy to children in honor of the "heroic" destruction of a Russian plane. And we say again: no, this is a technical reason.

And only after the story in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, this is ISIS* . Naturally, by recognizing the attack, we recognize its connection with our air operation in Syria. That is why, immediately after recognition, we begin to respond by intensifying the air operation.

It is a shame that we dragged our confession to the last, and the president, having declared national mourning, did not appear anywhere at all.

- Perhaps he did not want to be associated with some kind of negativity - this affects the rating.

This means that your rating is inflated. If it is high as a result of respect, the fact that you are doing everything right and people appreciate you, then such grief, on the contrary, unites the nation. And if you are afraid that the manifestation of human feelings, grief, sympathy for the dead will destroy your rating, then your rating is worthless. Yes, and to yourself.

- By the way, French President Francois Hollande came out to the people immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris.

When different leaders of states appear on the spot, talk to the relatives of the dead, express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and that's it.

Let's return to the lost Russian aircraft. How difficult is it to carry explosives on board and is it possible to talk about the negligence of the airport services or was there some kind of collusion?

Everything suggests that the airport services took part in this case, because random people do not get on board. Everyone who can get there, in the staff of the airport, airfield services, is always checked, there are no random people there. If the explosives were not carried by one of the passengers, then this is one hundred percent of a ground services employee. Why he became like this is a question for the airport security service.

How great is the danger now that other Russian aircraft may be exposed to a similar danger, as Russia continues military operations in Syria?

I believe that it is very high, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, Americans are at risk virtually wherever there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. It's the same with us. Under threat are all planes flying to Russia from abroad, from where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists. Some of our personalities foolishly took a stick and decided for fun, in order to show how macho they are, to scratch the anthill with a stick. Then it turned out that it was no longer an anthill, but a hornet's nest. And in the end it turned out that it was a bear's lair. Well, that's all, now the situation is uncontrollable, because our special services are not able to ensure the safety of all aircraft departing from all foreign airports. Hence the hysteria - to ban Russians from flying abroad.

But we have radical Islamists inside the country as well. Can something similar happen on domestic flights?

Inside the country, they are more controlled by our special services than any airport in Kuwait or in the Emirates. After all, our special services simply do not exist there. And our airports have some.

Su-24

November 24, 2015. A Russian Su-24 bomber was flying a combat sortie into Syria. He was shot down near the Turkish-Syrian border by the Turkish Air Force. One of the two pilots was killed.

Now there is a heated debate about whether or not our Su-24 bomber flew over the territory of Turkey, or whether the Turks had the right to shoot it down. How can you comment.

To begin with, any country has the right to defend its national sovereignty, including airspace, by any means at its disposal. They had the right to shoot down our plane. Another thing is that they could perform a number of procedures: warn, fly up, shake their wings, and so on.

- But our plane flew over their territory too quickly for this.

It must be understood that this was not the first violation. We launched a military operation in Syria on 30 September. The first violations occurred on October 3 and 4, but we did not recognize them. Then we violated the Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to confess, we received an official note of protest. Our ambassador in Ankara was summoned and this document was handed to him. On October 7, we received a second note and, accordingly, were forced to issue a formal apology through diplomatic channels. After that, a number of procedures were developed to prevent this from happening. We have signed statements stating that the violation of Turkish borders by our pilots will not be repeated. On October 16, the Turks shot down a drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. And only after this "non-consciousness" did the Turkish authorities, whose patience snapped, officially declare that henceforth they would shoot down any aircraft over its territory, no matter if it is manned or unmanned. It was stated clearly, and we knew about it.

By the way, today we admitted that our military aircraft violated Israeli airspace. Here is your answer - who is violating what ...

- It is clear that the diplomats knew about it. Did the pilots know about this?

The President of Turkey stated this. Accordingly, our president, who is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, knew about it. Whether this knowledge reaches our pilots, the President of Turkey does not care, he has already made a public statement. After this, objections like “I didn’t know”, “I didn’t want to” do not work.

The next situation is simple. We are not bombing ISIS*. If we look at the map, the place where we bomb and where our plane crashed is 100-160 kilometers west of their territory. In fact, thanks to the wreckage of the Su-24 that fell "in the wrong place", we were caught by the hand.

Until now, it has been said that in a maximum of one flight out of ten we shoot at the Islamic State. I came across information that only two flights this month were aimed at ISIS*.

I want to clarify: according to some reports, our planes bombed territories inhabited by Turkmens, who are considered ethnic Turks in Turkey.

They are fighting against Bashar al-Assad, and we bombed them. In order to bombard targets located near the Turkish border, you need to enter the territory of Turkey, which crashes into the territory of Syria with a long appendix - this is the problem. That is why we violated Turkish airspace, otherwise it is difficult for an aircraft to fight there.

On October 17, the Turks announced that they would shoot down any target over their territory, and after the terrorist attack over Sinai, we decided to respond to the terrorists and increased the intensity and number of sorties. So it was only a matter of time before our plane was shot down. They just waited and finally caught us.

On November 24, two of our planes were approaching this appendix. In the air, quite far from the border, were Turkish F-16s. Five minutes before our pilots, as the planes approached, they began to warn that they were approaching Turkish airspace and demand to change course. This was heard by a Norwegian pilot who was nearby. Lebanese pilot passenger aircraft also heard these conversations. Our planes, ignoring warnings, crossed Turkish territory in either nine or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But it's not that important. Then they bombed the target, turned around and flew back. And when they violated the border again, after they ignored all the warnings, one of our aircraft was shot down, the second left.

This is the version of the Turkish side. They immediately presented the data of objective control, immediately provided all the data to the UN. The talks of the pilots were shown on television, but it is not a fact that they were not fabricated. The important thing is that the Turks did it quickly. And we got hysterical that since they did everything so quickly, they were preparing in advance. In fact, if you have data, then publishing it is very simple. But if you are going to rig them, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later that our data appeared. Moreover, this is not the data of objective control, but a map on which the flight path of our “dryers” is allegedly drawn. They, according to the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin's statement about a stab in the back, diligently flew around the ledge of Turkish territory in an arc. Well, where is the data of our radars, where is the data from satellites with geo-referencing of Su-24 flight routes? Our General Staff again got off with color handwritten pictures.

What is the probability that the truth is on the side Russian Ministry defense?

I have very little faith in the fact that an aircraft on a combat course towards a target would make such a gigantic turn in order to fly around this territory. I am inclined to believe Turkey, not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation works, how a bomber attacks, and I imagine that in this situation it is much easier, more efficient and more accurate to attack in a straight line. A flyby is about thirty seconds, this is a very large arc under overload. The pilot is forced to think not about the fact that he has a target ahead of him, that he needs to aim at it and accurately bombard it, but that he must fly around this territory in a long and complex arc.

- Why did the downed plane come as a surprise to us and was perceived precisely as a stab in the back?

- Not so long ago I was a participant in one of the discussions on television. Off the air, when we are gathered before it, and after, when we remove our makeup, we, remaining opponents, communicate with each other and talk about what no one will say on the air. So, all these “hawks” unanimously said that “the Turks will hide themselves”, that “they have nowhere to go”, that they “will shut up anyway”, that “they will send us notes of protest, object, be indignant, but they can do nothing and swallow everything. We perfectly understood that we were provoking Turkey, but we were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called stab in the back is just Turkey's unexpected refusal to tolerate our violations of their airspace farther.

Perhaps, especially after the Paris attacks, the calculation was that Russia and the NATO countries, including Turkey, now have a common enemy, and therefore our military operations in Syria will, if not approved, then at least not encounter interference from potential allies.

Here it should be noted that in general our “joint struggle with the West against international terrorism” is largely a fiction. Just until a certain time, this fiction suited everyone, because a bad peace is better than a good war.

America fought the terrorists who staged September 11th for them. The roots of this terrorism and its financial cushion are the Taliban, whose economic base is in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It is no coincidence that America's main enemy - Osama bin Laden - was destroyed in Pakistan.

For us, Russia, terrorism is the Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but its financial and economic roots are the Middle East, first of all Saudi Arabia. While we were chasing Basasev and Khottab across the Caucasus, we openly talked about the fact that they were financed by the Saudis. In other words, speaking about the joint fight against international terrorism, Russia and Western countries meant all the same different terrorism. But before the start of the Syrian events, this more or less suited everyone.

And in Syria, we faced the Western coalition head-on. The West is fighting ISIS* in Syria, supporting the "moderate" opposition fighting against Assad. We are fighting there against all the opponents of Assad, while the main blows are delivered not against ISIS *, but against the most powerful opponents of Assad, which are precisely the “moderate opposition”. In fact, we are already fighting in Syria with the Western coalition, but so far indirectly, by proxy. The incident with our Su-24 is the first "hot" collision directly. But if we do not stop, then not the last, and today's violation of Israeli airspace by us is another confirmation of this.

A simple question - on what violation of its airspace will Israel begin to shoot down our planes?

* ISIS, Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are extremist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.

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

For more than 12 years, the history of astronautics, and in particular - aerospace and reusable transport systems, have become for me the main non-working business of life (as literature for A.P. Chekhov). Internet portal The site you are currently on has been in existence since 1998. During this time, it has become generally recognized as the most authoritative source of information on space transport systems, periodically confirming this with reviews, reviews, relevant prizes and titles ("The 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). We are currently working on two parallel versions: v 4.0 on DVD-Rom and v5.0 on a Blue-Ray disc.
I have several dozen publications on the history of cosmonautics, on the economics and efficiency of aerospace systems, collaborating with the journals "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 in 2005 at the XVII Moscow International Book Fair in the national competition "Book of the Year". Literary Prize named after A. Belyaev (May 2006)

In August 2009, my monograph "Cosmic Wings" was published, which was very favorably received not only by readers and critics, but also by the media.
Work on the next book, conceived as a continuation of the first, continues.

In addition to books, I collaborate with several television channels (First, Russian, Zvezda, etc.). Several films were shot with my participation, including three episodes of the Shock 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 (technographics) and am the winner of several thematic exhibitions.

But there are also interests not related to astronautics. In the first place, I would note both travel and photography. With my camera I have visited almost fifty countries of the world. Of particular value to my collection of photographs are pictures 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 a few photo panoramas:

The first book about my travels "Venezuela" was published by the Moscow publishing house "Tape of Wanderings" at the end of 2011. This book is for those who, since childhood, dreamed of distant lands, animals unknown to science, or pirate treasures on lost islands. She talks about amazing country on the other side the globe, which still retains corners of the earth that no man has yet set foot on. Reserved islands appear before readers caribbean, wild tropical jungles of the Orinoco delta, impregnable plateaus - "lost worlds" hovering above the clouds, on which the fantasy of A. Conan Doyle settled dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures.

In this book, I share with readers my direct impressions of Venezuela through the example of real stories that happened to me and my friends. It is written in a simple, lively language, with humor, designed for easy reading and contains over half a thousand unique photographs. The book is intended for a wide range of concerned readers who seek to push the usual boundaries of the world around us.

The next passion is collecting cars with airbrushing, the themes of which are based on my personal travel experiences. Airbrushing deserves a separate story, because. it is separate and very interesting world(exhibitions, presentations, TV shows, publications, etc.), but here I will only show my laureates:

Collectible cars are a whole world of enthusiastic people. And of course - meetings with friends, trips in each other's cars:

(graphic files are expanded in an enlarged format - resolution 3 888х2 592 pix. and with a size of about 5M b)

A specialist in the field of flying sciences Vadim Lukashevich about the versions of the Malaysian Boeing disaster, and here are my thoughts on the essence of this extensive material:
In the modern world, it is almost impossible to deny the obvious facts, objects and circumstances of the material world that can be verified. Deny flight parameters Malaysian Boeing flight MH17 does not make sense, all moves are recorded. It is also pointless to deny the type of projectile that shot down the Boeing; The rocket launch site is also calculated with exhaustive accuracy, it is pointless and useless to unlock it. What to do?
Establish legal grounds for the DPR command on 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 OBD zone.
But Ukraine had no legal grounds for not fulfilling its international obligations and closing this echelon, because there was no danger to air navigation at this echelon and could not be otherwise than with the direct participation of a third, unofficial party to the conflict - the Russian Federation, which possesses weapons capable of hitting targets at this level. Ukraine did not use air defense systems against the militants, and there was no official information that the militants could have such weapons, except through their delivery from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Having a sad precedent of defeating the military aircraft IL-76, on June 14, 2014, on approach to the Luhansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the area of ​​the ATO to the echelon 260 (height 7900 meters).Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016

So, the question of who exactly shot down the Boeing is practically resolved - anti-aircraft gunners, the command of the DPR and the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, which provides support for the DPR, supplies and command, another thing is who exactly is guilty of the deaths of people, but here big questions arise and in this sense of a quote from Kurginyan and his video message, which Lukashevich cites, help a lot in resolving it.
Kurginyan speaks in plain text, and the DNR members confirm 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 close 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 we will shoot down planes. Ukraine did not heed the warning, did not close the sky, respectively, "Ukraine is to blame for everything." The idea is as simple as three pennies, we have a just war for the Russian world here, we are shooting down the planes of the Bandera-fascists, whoever did not hide, I am not to blame.
After the downing of the military IL-76, near the Lugansk airport on June 14, 2014, it was clear that this was not the last air victim. The author of these lines wrote about this. It is likely that this incident was used by the special services of the Russian Federation as an element of the subsequent monstrous provocation against the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17 and the entire set of circumstantial 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 reasoning. Everything is clear, true and correct up to the key moment in history, the actual technical details of firing from the BUK air defense system to kill and some other circumstances of significant importance, the main of which is public access to information about the movement of the aircraft in the specified echelon, from the flightradar-24 website and other services that provide real-time information on the flight of all commercial civil aircraft equipped with activated transponders (radio beacons).
There is no information in the investigation materials that the MH17 transponder 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 at random targets that were not covered by the combat plan of the command.
The anti-aircraft gunners of the DPR could not have been unaware that several international air corridors pass over the territory on which the BUK is being deployed, including the L-980 at the FL330 echelon, through which regular air traffic.
Moreover, in order to launch an anti-aircraft missile of the Buk type 9M38M or 9M38M1 complex, it is necessary to enter the flight task (x y z v) coordinates and target speed for the rocket.
The procedure for entering a flight mission is quite complicated and requires a preliminary determination of these parameters using standard radar installations, including in automatic mode, but all the same, the operator is required to control the key firing parameters according to the instructions.
By the time before the immediate launch command, the sky of Ukraine was closed until 260 echelon (height 7900 meters).for aircraft of a class lower than wide-bore 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 flew. The target parameter Z = 10100 and the target speed of more than 700 km / h should have greatly surprised the anti-aircraft gunners of the DPR, 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 about any rasp ** ve in this matter of defeat civil aircraft in the area of ​​a busy air navigation situation, there can be no question.
Both the higher and middle command of anti-aircraft gunners, and the direct launchers and gunners-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 onset, they produced shooting at civilian aircraft. The top leadership of the anti-aircraft gunners set a combat mission to destroy a civilian aircraft, the commander gave the command to launch, the executor - the operator carried out the command.


Dear Vadim Lukashevich, a specialist in flight sciences and the author of a voluminous and convincing work, could not have been unaware of these circumstances, but for some reason these significant circumstances were excluded from his report.
Thus, from the totality of information provided by Lukashevich, taking into account the indicated additions, regarding the imaginary history with the Ukrainian An-26, facts, circumstances, other information related to the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, it follows that if the specified information is correct, and there are fewer and fewer reasons to believe the opposite, then the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, which ordered the conduct of a complex of special operations on the territory of Ukraine under the cover of the civilian population, women and children, not only of Ukraine, but also of the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, bears the blame for the committed grave crime against humanity and a number of others European countries, which the first person of the Russian state hates so much!