Vadim Lukashevich biography. MH17: Manipulations by Vadim Lukashevich. What could threaten Russia in this case

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. It makes no sense to deny the flight parameters of the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, all the 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 the official air authorities did not close the L-980 air corridor at FL330 above the database 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 the defeat of the military aircraft IL-76, on June 14, 2014, on approach to the Luhansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the ATO area 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 materials of the investigation 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 top and middle command of the 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 performer - 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 fell out of 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 gave the order to conduct 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 other European countries that the first person of the Russian state hates so much!

They called the wrong one: the host of Russian TV hoped that the expert would blame Kyiv for the fall of the Boeing, but something went wrong))))

On the air of the program "Tamantsev. Results", which aired the day before on the Russian RBC-TV, an invited guest - a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation systems Vadim Lukashevich criticized the report of the Russian Defense Ministry on the fact of the crash of a Boeing in the Donetsk region. Judging by the host's reaction, he did not expect such statements from the expert. He began to correct him and repeatedly asked the question: “So you think that non-professionals work in the Russian Ministry of Defense?”

"The Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this machine is to work on the ground and directly support troops on the battlefield. Shooting down an aircraft at an altitude of 11 thousand with the help of the Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors - the Su-27, so if shoot down, then with an interceptor, which was built for this," the expert noted.

Lukashevich also called into question the testimony of supposedly "eyewitnesses" who were able to unmistakably establish the brand of the aircraft at such a height.

The expert did not accuse the RF Ministry of Defense of incompetence, but stated that an information war was going on and Russia was a party to the conflict, and therefore conclusions about the reasons for the fall of the Boeing should be made by disinterested persons. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Russian Defense Ministry is “a party to the conflict, because these people in the Donbas are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we give them complexes or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).

Lukashevich also cited the example of the 1983 incident, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner with more than 200 people on board, passing it off as a "reconnaissance aircraft". “There were also generals with a mass of stars who proved that it was a scout, he entered and left our airspace. There were whole schemes of satellites, but the truth still came out,” Lukashevich said.

Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called the broadcast with Vadim Lukashevich a state of emergency: “In fact, no one has commented on anything on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm the official version and give additional arguments in its favor. But there was a mistake with Vadim Lukashevich. He did not sing along with the general, called the version of the Ministry of Defense untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that not everything is lost yet, there are still people who are able not to sing in a common choir! What would be an ordinary interview on any other television, looks like a system failure on Russian. And it turns out that the mighty propaganda machine can do nothing to oppose the calm confidence of an honest man.

As the IS group previously reported, a number of senior European politicians have said that Russia has violated all of its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine over the past three months, and continues to increase the transfer of heavy weapons across the border.

Vadim Lukashevich, a Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, candidate of technical sciences, analyzed the "testimony" of the "witness" Komsomolskaya Pravda"and an interview with the KP employee Viktor Barants, who found this "witness", who, among other things, is a military journalist, publicist, writer, retired colonel as Wikipedia says about it.
Lukashevich's analysis contains interesting technical data.

Vadim Lukashevich Facebook post December 23:

"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 the dead passengers of the aircraft, or the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor 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 there was no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky and no

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 Lugansk"), 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 right 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 world 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 ...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an airborne radar, so it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head that aims the missile at engine heat. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there were such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. 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 "Appointment and a brief description of 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;

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.

Rocket R-73. 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 a decision on this decision needs to know individual specifications limiting 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."

An entertaining interview with the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda, Viktor Barants, the same one who a few months ago, on the air of the Dozhd TV channel, claimed that the Boeing-777 was shot down by a Su-25 aircraft gun and "holes have already been found in the wreckage of the tail section at the crash site from projectiles."

http://youtu.be/6C2-qaTt-q4
Now he begins by saying that "catching up" with the Su-25 and Boeing-777 is "far-fetched". True, then he again talks about a cannon, about a rocket, again about a cannon ... Here is such a weather vane.

So, the "debriefing" of Viktor Barants:

http://youtu.be/sB3yM7F-dMI

Timecode 02:12
- our experts, whom we have called...

I will note that the full name or any other information on any expert is not called!

02:21:
- And who told you that the Su-25 was chasing a Boeing?

The answer is Viktor Baranets, a military observer for the KP live on the Dozhd TV channel, the link to which I gave above. It was chasing, otherwise it’s impossible to shoot its tail section from the side cannon

02:52:
- it happens that Su-25s fly out to intercept ...

Well done! Attack aircraft fly out to intercept a high-altitude high-speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of using air defense aviation. Interceptor fighters smoke nervously, after which they attack ground targets on the battlefield due to the lack of attack aircraft occupied by high-altitude targets.

03:03
- all these talks about "catching up" - it's just somehow so far-fetched

This is how the KP military observer publicly lowers himself - more precisely, his broadcast on Dozhd, which, thanks to the Internet, remained on the network for everyone to access.
I confess - that's exactly how, Viktor Nikolaevich, "far-fetched", I perceived your words about "holes from shells found at the site of the fall of debris in the tail section of the Boeing" during a television broadcast on "Rain"
I remember that at that time you said that it would probably even be necessary to do experimental shelling at the training ground in order to confirm the identity of these holes - well, how did they shoot a lot at the GosNIIAS training ground in Faustovo?

03:08
- no one really saw ... at what height it all happened

Here, the KP military observer Viktor Baranets casually lowers our military, who demonstrated slides at the briefing of the Ministry of Defense, on which the height of 10 km was clearly indicated for the Boeing-777 and Su-25

03:25
- we journalists must now ... give the floor to professionals, to those who are sitting on the Su-25 aircraft today, who serves it, who arms it

And here the word is given - to whom would you think? Igor Korotchenko, as the editor-in-chief of the magazine, who sits a lot in the Su-25, serving it and arming the Kindergarten, trousers with straps!

04:01 Igor Korotchenko says:
- the practical ceiling [Su-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so the Su-25 could be at an echelon of 10 km.

But above, Baranets says that talking about catching up is all "somehow far-fetched"
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling of combat use are completely different things. And the quoted Commander-in-Chief Mikhailov spoke specifically about the practical ceiling, but not about the combat ceiling, which is significantly lower.

04:22
- the plane was taken to the meeting point

Radio interception ground-to-board Su-25 where?

04:42 V.Baranets is back on the air:
- oxygen removes the conversation, could or could not. Let's put an end - could!

Turn out - could. How about shooting? I repeat - history does not know the case for the Su-25 to successfully fire at a high-speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So no point

05:45:
- everyone who saw the holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, say that it is very similar, incredibly similar to firing from a thirty-millimeter cannon.

Viktor Nikolaevich, you are a LIAR! On the air of the “News” issue of the Rossiya-1 TV channel, shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the military air defense of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces Mikhail Krush, pointing to a piece of the cockpit lining, clearly said that “this is definitely the result destruction of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of a rocket"

The time code 16:29 also mentions your obedient servant.
The host says: “Blogger Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is confusion - three attack aircraft, or one attack aircraft, took off that day, as the Russian military spoke at a briefing of the Defense Ministry. Lukashevich also writes: they say, how can you confuse and not understand that you have a passenger Boeing in front of you, that you can use the pilot of the "biscuit" in the black, that he did not know what his ultimate goal in this military operation is - that's what you can say to this ?
It's funny, but about the use of the Drying pilot in the black - this is entirely on the conscience of the presenter, I did not write anything like that. But God bless him, let's look at the answer of V. Barants:
- I read these super-ambitious, categorical statements of Lukashevich [in brackets I note - I hope that you, Viktor Nikolayevich, will also read my above accusation of lying to you], his argumentation surprised me, and I turned to the experts who were interpreting me, and Lukashevich, I hope , also, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest position as a communications technician. Such a gray job, but very important - he does not know the whole situation at the airfield, around the airfield. Well, three “crackers” took off, left, did he see what happened at a ten-kilometer height? No, he just saw one plane."

And since the "secret specialists" of the KP did not explain anything to me, I remain in "categorical" bewilderment - as a "secret witness" (already ridiculous) with a "modest job post of a communications technician" knows where they flew ("bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), what they bombed with (“volumetric detonating bombs and cluster munitions”), what the pilots say when “they are taken out of the Su-25”, while “proud pilots only talk among themselves” ...

Viktor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my "super ambitious" laughter

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 dozens of 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 the national competition "Book of the Year" in 2005 at the XVII Moscow International Book Fair. 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 Australian Aborigines, 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 tells about an amazing country on the other side of 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 - soaring above the clouds " lost worlds", 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)

Last night, in the program “Today. The main thing” on the RBC TV channel (July 27, 2014, at 21:00, http://rbctv.rbc.ru/archive/main_news/562949991986206.shtml) I said the following: “From the beginning of all Ukrainian events that began in December last year, now for the first time a situation has arisen when an independent international arbiter has appeared over the warring parties. Therefore, I want to appeal to our viewers so that they now clearly remember: who, what speaks in favor of which version. Because when the conclusion of the [emergency] commission appears ... then the viewers themselves, each of us, will be able to clearly understand who lied to us and how.

I think, as the first conclusions of the commission appear, it is already possible to start compiling a list of liars.

Let's start with fixing an obvious lie, which was such even without the results of an investigation into the circumstances of the death of the Boeing 777 (flight MH17) over Ukraine. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in order to “weight” the lie, official propaganda forces people to lie (or expose as liars) sometimes very well-deserved people.

1. During a public statement by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to media representatives on July 21, 2014, Lieutenant General A. Kartapolov (Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Ministry of Defense) and I. Makushev (Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Air Force), speaking about the presence of the Ukrainian Su -25 next to the "Boeing-777", showed a diagram, which instead of the Su-25 was depicted by the American electronic warfare aircraft EF-111 Raven (see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1.jpg)

2. If you look not at a fragment of the diagram, but at its entirety (http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1b.jpg), then two other aircraft are indicated in the vicinity of the downed Boeing-777 - both Boeing- 778". So, such aircraft - Boeing-778 - do not exist at all!

Flight AIC113 (originally AIC113) Delhi-Bermingham is operated by a Boeing 787-8 and has the ICAO code B788. But the service code is not the type of Boeing 778!

The second Paris-Taipei flight, which, according to the Ministry of Defense, is also operated by a non-existent Boeing 778 aircraft, is actually operated by a Boeing 777-300ER with the ICAO code B77W. One illiterate martinet translated the English transcription of B77W into Russian B77V, and another, moreover, blind-sighted, mistook it for B778, and as a result, our generals got the scheme from the Boeing 778.

Hence the obvious conclusion: our two-star generals to the whole world have publicly demonstrated their ... let's say - poor training. But what is still somehow excusable for a "combined arms officer" is unforgivable for an aviator. Therefore, it is frankly a shame for the head of the General Staff of the Air Force of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ...

3. July 23, 2014 in the evening (20:00) final one and a half hour issue of Vesti (now it has already been deleted from the site http://www.vesti.ru in its original form, there is only one 20-minute fragment left from it to another topic) an interview was presented with an interview with retired Major General of Attack Aviation, Hero of Russia S. Borisyuk.

Borisyuk stated (for this moment, see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti2.jpg) that the Su-25 has a service ceiling of 7000 m, “... but we have repeatedly flown at altitudes of 11, 12 and 13 km, and at this altitude, the Su-25 aircraft was perfectly controlled.

Let me explain: the practical ceiling is the maximum height at which a STEADY HORIZONTAL flight of this type of aircraft is possible. This is known to any student of an aviation university or cadet of a military aviation school. In other words, above the practical ceiling, a steady level flight is impossible - this is a multiplication table. But in the general case NON-HORIZONTAL UNSTEADY flight of an aircraft above the practical ceiling is possible. For example, if you descend slightly above the practical ceiling and, having accelerated strongly, increase the pitch (i.e., raise the nose), then the plane will jump out above the practical ceiling, but then it will fly like a thrown stone, by inertia, first rising and then falling down. Max Height such a parabolic trajectory is called a "dynamic ceiling". The heights named by Borisyuk are kilometers above the practical ceiling - this is a flight to a dynamic ceiling, during which the aircraft is practically not (or extremely poorly) controlled, because there simply is not enough atmospheric density to keep the aircraft in level flight or create the necessary dynamic pressure for effective operation of aerodynamic control surfaces.

Accordingly, the words of S. Borisyuk, Hero of Russia, about the good controllability of the Su-25 at altitudes of 11 ... 13 km are lies.

4. In the same issue of Vesti on the Rossiya-1 TV channel (at 20:00 on 07/23/2014), there was further talk that the Su-25 “... climbed to the flight altitude of the Boeing-777, caught up with it, went into his tail, took aim and fired from a cannon from a distance of 3 ... 5 km ”(see screenshot http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti4.jpg).

Given that steady level flight (kilometers) above the practical ceiling is not possible, this is a delusional lie. Its authors were not even embarrassed that just a few seconds before that, S. Borisyuk clearly said: "The effective range of the Su-25 cannon is 700 meters."

5. The first data of the decoded "black boxes" confirmed that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile: "...the data of the recorders confirmed the EXTENSIVE EXPLOSIVE decompression" (http://www.newsru.com/arch/world/27jul2014/blackbox. html). Two highlighted words dismiss the version of the execution passenger aircraft from the Su-25 side gun.

Accordingly, the words of the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda V. Barants (retired colonel) on the air of the Dozhd TV channel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C2-qaTt-q4 video time code 24:00–24:30) is false.

We are waiting for further data from an independent investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing-777 ...

home » Tunisia » Vadim Lukashevich biography. MH17: Manipulations by Vadim Lukashevich. What could threaten Russia in this case