BUK air defense system

News Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Recommended Links Poroshenko presidency The Far Right Forces in Ukraine EuroMaidan 101
Why air space over Donesk province was not closed SU-25 fighter BUK air defense system Russian Ministry of Defense press conference Silence of US intelligence Disinformation and obfuscation campaign of Poroshenko government
To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong? Forming Provisional government Nulandgate Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 Mariupol, May 9 events Presidential Elections of May 25. 2014
Neoliberal Propaganda The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Fighting Russophobia Fifth column of globalization Russian Fifth column Humor Etc

Ukrainian BUK system is a modification of the original Russian system with somewhat different and higher technical parameters. See Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SA-17, which also has a naval variant, originally entered Soviet service in 1979, but it has been developed considerably since then, indeed the latest, SA-17, versions have a different Pentagon classification.

It is fired from either a Transporter-Erector Launcher (TEL), with four missiles, or a Transport-Erector Launcher And Radar (TELAR), which I think can carry up to six missiles, depending on version. It is a highly capable system, in service with both the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces.

Some of the technology may have been transferred from the US during the Soviet period by DVD assets in Washington. The SA-17 is similar to the excellent Standard missile, indeed it is sometimes jokingly referred to as the “Standardski”.

The distinction between the TEL and the TELAR is important, because it is being said that Russian separatists captured a Buk launcher, although the evidence consists only of social media reports, a dubious source of information at best. The evidence, such as it is, is equally consistent with the Ukrainians setting the rebels up. The separatists themselves have strongly denied any high-altitude interception capability.

The Buk represented a significant improvement over the SA-6 Gainful which preceded it. There is no doubt that TELAR vehicles can both acquire and launch but significant doubt that a TEL on its own has any target acquisition capability.

So far as I can tell a TEL is basically a launch on visual confirmation of target system, i.e. pretty basic, rather like a shoulder-launched MANPAD. You see the target, point your missile in its rough direction and shoot, relying on the missile’s onboard target acquisition system (typically infra-red with MANPADs and semi-active with the Buk) to achieve lock-on, hoping another target does not get in the way.

The SA-17 is designed to be fired from a command vehicle, that is to say it is not so very different from the SA-6, where you needed three vehicles (radar, command vehicle and launcher). There is not the slightest evidence that the separatists acquired a command vehicle, indeed there is no reliable evidence that they acquired a TELAR. The most they might have got – and I am not buying even that – was a TEL.

If the most they have is a TEL then we can rule them out completely for a beyond visual range engagement, as happened yesterday. Even if they had a TELAR there is no evidence that they have anyone trained on the Buk. I do not buy the argument that it can be used by your average separatist, many of them no brighter than the average journalist or MP (no offense intended), without specialist training. There are no reports at all of the separatists having fired any training rounds, i.e. if it was them they achieved a long-range kill first time they fired the weapon. Not buying.

Missile speed for the 317 version is around Mach 4, giving Captain Leong no chance at all, given that his radars were switched on and no one showed him my work on MH370. An SA-17 warhead is typically around 70 kilos, or 154 pounds (there are different versions of the missile), enough to down a 777. It’s a big bird, around 18 feet long, weighing in at just over 1,500 pounds. It’s large enough for one of the pilots to have spotted its approach in broad daylight, given the good visibility. The solid fuel rocket engine has a burn time of around 15 seconds and leaves a highly visible exhaust trail.

The 317 has a range of about 27-28 miles. That is significant because MH17 was shot down about 25 miles from the Russian frontier. That is getting close to the limit of system capabilities for a launch from Russian territory. US intelligence sources are being quoted today as saying that the missile was fired from within the Ukraine, which makes sense to me, and is one of the reasons why I conclude, provisionally, that the Ukrainians were responsible.

The key argument against usage of BUK system for shooting MH17 down was absence of any witnesses of thick smoke trail from the rocket which should be present in the air for approximately 10 minutes from the launch. 

BUK system consists of several units mounted on track and full capabilities are achieved only with all units present (no less then four). That means that only Ukrainian Army with its 17 batteries near Donetsk was capably to tracking the flight and launching the rocket.  Here is a relevant information from Veterans Today

[Jul 20, 2014] The MH17 Shoot Down over Ukraine

At this time my provisional conclusion is that MH17 was shot down by an air defense battery of the Ukrainian army, from Ukrainian territory, using an SA-17 Buk missile. I respectfully associate myself with the statements of the Russian federal government on the issue.

My estimate is that a 9M317 single-stage, solid fueled missile was used, in semi-active homing mode. The 317 uses a radar proximity fuse and a direct hit can probably be ruled out. That is to say the warhead probably detonated away from the hull, perhaps as much as 50 feet away.

That is consistent with the eyewitness evidence, which is of the plane falling from the sky more or less intact, and breaking apart on impact, and the tight debris field. Although there was a post-crash fire most of the unfortunate victims seem to have died from negative G-forces whilst strapped into their seats.

The fact that most passengers were strapped in suggests that Captain Leong had time to warn his passengers of impending missile impact. There is some evidence that he took evasive maneuvers, correctly diving the aircraft to increase speed and mitigate damage due to explosive decompression.

MH17’s assigned altitude, by Ukrainian air traffic control, was FL330, or 33,000 feet. I suspect that Captain Leong or his first officer saw the incoming and, as indicated, dived, so that interception was at a lower altitude.

There is no evidence that the target fireballed at altitude, which rules out a direct hit on the fuel tanks, although we may find some shrapnel damage.

The mainstream media, who are rushing to blame Russia, or pro-Russian separatists, are showing typical aviation illiteracy, of the sort on display after MH370 was shot down. On that occasion, as regular readers of this column will recall, they did not understand that aviation fuel is light and evaporates. That basic technical deficiency led them to confuse the diesel slick from the sunk Chinese SSK with fuel from the downed airliner.

On this occasion they are reporting at one and the same time, sometimes on the same page, that the airliner was ‘blown out of the sky’ yet fell to the ground intact and broke apart on landing. In the UK the Sun is leading the race to come up with the silliest reporting, with respect. Its front page today was asinine. Its journalistic standards are in freefall to New York Times levels.

If the stricken airliner did not fireball and had time to take evasive action, it also had time to broadcast a Mayday message. The fact that it did not suggests that its radios were being jammed. We will probably find that its ACARS reporting system failed as well, as with MH370. I find it highly significant that there is a media blackout on the status on the ACARS system.

If the ACARS was disabled, or the radios were jammed, then the pro-Russian separatists can safely be ruled out, although as I explain below they can be pretty much ruled out anyway, as they lack the capability.

____________________

The SA-17

The SA-17, which also has a naval variant, originally entered Soviet service in 1979, but it has been developed considerably since then, indeed the latest, SA-17, versions have a different Pentagon classification.

It is fired from either a Transporter-Erector Launcher (TEL), with four missiles, or a Transport-Erector Launcher And Radar (TELAR), which I think can carry up to six missiles, depending on version. It is a highly capable system, in service with both the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces.

Some of the technology may have been transferred from the US during the Soviet period by DVD assets in Washington. The SA-17 is similar to the excellent Standard missile, indeed it is sometimes jokingly referred to as the “Standardski”.

The distinction between the TEL and the TELAR is important, because it is being said that Russian separatists captured a Buk launcher, although the evidence consists only of social media reports, a dubious source of information at best. The evidence, such as it is, is equally consistent with the Ukrainians setting the rebels up. The separatists themselves have strongly denied any high-altitude interception capability.

The Buk represented a significant improvement over the SA-6 Gainful which preceded it. There is no doubt that TELAR vehicles can both acquire and launch but significant doubt that a TEL on its own has any target acquisition capability.

So far as I can tell a TEL is basically a launch on visual confirmation of target system, i.e. pretty basic, rather like a shoulder-launched MANPAD. You see the target, point your missile in its rough direction and shoot, relying on the missile’s onboard target acquisition system (typically infra-red with MANPADs and semi-active with the Buk) to achieve lock-on, hoping another target does not get in the way.

The SA-17 is designed to be fired from a command vehicle, that is to say it is not so very different from the SA-6, where you needed three vehicles (radar, command vehicle and launcher). There is not the slightest evidence that the separatists acquired a command vehicle, indeed there is no reliable evidence that they acquired a TELAR. The most they might have got – and I am not buying even that – was a TEL.

If the most they have is a TEL then we can rule them out completely for a beyond visual range engagement, as happened yesterday. Even if they had a TELAR there is no evidence that they have anyone trained on the Buk. I do not buy the argument that it can be used by your average separatist, many of them no brighter than the average journalist or MP (no offense intended), without specialist training. There are no reports at all of the separatists having fired any training rounds, i.e. if it was them they achieved a long-range kill first time they fired the weapon. Not buying.

Missile speed for the 317 version is around Mach 4, giving Captain Leong no chance at all, given that his radars were switched on and no one showed him my work on MH370. An SA-17 warhead is typically around 70 kilos, or 154 pounds (there are different versions of the missile), enough to down a 777. It’s a big bird, around 18 feet long, weighing in at just over 1,500 pounds. It’s large enough for one of the pilots to have spotted its approach in broad daylight, given the good visibility. The solid fuel rocket engine has a burn time of around 15 seconds and leaves a highly visible exhaust trail.

The 317 has a range of about 27-28 miles. That is significant because MH17 was shot down about 25 miles from the Russian frontier. That is getting close to the limit of system capabilities for a launch from Russian territory. US intelligence sources are being quoted today as saying that the missile was fired from within the Ukraine, which makes sense to me, and is one of the reasons why I conclude, provisionally, that the Ukrainians were responsible.

______________________

Kiev Must Have Known It Was MH17

The next thing to note about the SA-17 is that it has a sophisticated phased-array fire control radar, capable of target differentiation. Assuming, as I am prepared to assume, that it was the Ukrainian army, then they must have known that it was MH17. A freely available phone app was all they would have needed to tell them where the flight was.

The target was flying along a designated airway at a typical altitude for a civilian airliner, probably with an active transponder until it was taken down after entering Ukrainian airspace. It was not maneuvering, at least not until it saw the incoming, and could not conceivably have been confused for a military aircraft, not least as it had been directed to the kill zone by Ukrainian air traffic control.

____________________

Why MH17?

It seems that the motive was to discredit Russia, and that nice man President Putin in particular. The Ukrainian attack on MH17 was obviously planned well in advance.

The preparations may have included fake entries on social media websites to the effect that the rebels had acquired an SA-17 launcher. So far as is known there were no persons of interest on board the plane, unlike MH370, save for the poor AIDS researchers.

It is wildly improbable that it is a coincidence that both shot down aircraft were Malaysian. Someone is making a point. Malaysian Airlines are being taken down. If you have any frequent flyer miles on Malaysian use them up now, preferably on a partner airline.

The Administration has also rounded on the Russians and the rebels. Its claim that the rebels were to blame is obvious nonsense, which is unlikely to have been supported by professional intelligence officers, who would have had access to pretty much the same ELINT as the Russians.

I entirely support Moscow’s claim to be in possession of ELINT data indicating that the target was painted by Ukrainian fire control radar, probably the organic fire control radar of a Ukrainian SA-17 battery.

The total inability of the Administration to give the co-ordinates of this alleged rebel-controlled SA-17 launcher is telling. All that President Obama could say today was that the missile was fired from within a rebel-held area.

That, with respect, is an obvious lie, since the NSA would have overheads, as well as the ELINT data. If the attack genuinely came from a rebel-held area then you can bet your bottom dollar the Administration would be handing out the evidence.

It is likely that the attack was cleared by Kiev in advance, high up the payroll, with both Berlin and the White House. The FAA, which is penetrated and was implicated in helping to set up the Turkish Airlines DC-10 Paris Air Disaster, seems to have helped in setting up the rebels as patsies. The presence of only one US citizen on board carried obvious political attractions for the White House.

One must recall that the covert German DVD intelligence organisation has thoroughly penetrated the Obama Administration, at a senior level, and is in effective control of the German federal government. It is the world’s only intelligence agency which regularly attacks commercial airliners.

The Russians have never knowingly shot down a civilian airliner on a designated airway. I leave out of account KAL007 and the earlier KAL Boeing 707 incident, as those aircraft were well off course, were intercepted at night and had violated Soviet airspace without authorisation.

There is no reason at all to suppose that the Soviet fighter pilots thought they were attacking a Boeing 747, indeed there is no reliable evidence that KAL007 was even showing her navigation lights. As I point out in Spyhunter there are unanswered questions about that incident.

... ... ...

Availability of BUK system of the side of confederate fighters is hotly disputed. Yarema stated that they do not have such system.

Moreover in standard version of BUK, the autonomous radar in TELAR vehicle can only track targets flying below 6500 meters . But again Ukrainian BUK is a modernized one, so it is unclear what exact technical capabilities such autonomous radar has had in the Ukrainian version of BUK.

[Jul 19, 2014] Memories, recollections, guesses and speculations about MH17

Jul 18, 2014 | vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

keyhoti1:

I got some information on the Buk system.

It requires a minimum of four vehicles - five if extra missiles are carried, or the launch vehicle is not loaded.

The three other vehicles are for detection, aiming and control.

A highly trained crew of 15-17 personnel is required, so it all points to the Junta eh, given all else.

22 июля 2014 | 19:59

У ЛИБЕРАCТОВ НЕТ АРГУМЕНТОВ. У НАС ЕСТЬ В ПОЛЬЗУ ОПОЛЧЕНЦЕВ.

1.У ополченцев нет "БУК".
Генпрокурор Украины Виталий Ярема заявил ,что у ополченцев Донбасса нет на вооружений украинских ракетных комплексов "БУК".

Официальный представитель Пентагона Джон Керби / У США нет подтверждений передачи ополченцам комплексов "БУК" из России или вины ополченцев за крушение Малайзийского Boeing./

Россия не могла передать БУК ополченцам по двум причинам. Нет необходимости , поскольку украинские самолеты летают на высоте 5000 км.Для того чтобы сбить на этой высоте достаточно имееть ПЗРК.У ополченцев достаточно ПЗРК и они ими сбили несколько самолетов.Другая причина это отсутствие гарантии. В любой момент украинцы могут захватить.Если украинцы захватят "БУК" ,не могу даже предствить как поступит запад . Поэтому трудно поверить ,что Россия передала БУК ополченцам.

2.Ополченцы передали черный ящик. Если бы они сбили самолет , не передали бы черный ящик.Сказали бы не нашли.т.е. у них есть уверенность ,что украинцы сбили.

3.Ополченцы не могут сбит бойнг потому что специалисты ,которые управляют БУК знает на 10000 км. высоте летают гражданские самолеты.

4.Хунта слишком старается доказать ,что ополченцы сбили самолет (на воре шапка горит).Если ополченцы виноваты ,нет необходимости монтажом заниматься .Уже разоблочили видео материалы Авакова ,где он показывает Красноармейск вместо Краснодона.Вместо телефонных разговоров ополченцев обнапродовали бы разговоры диспечера с пилотом.

5.Почему диспечер просил изменить маршрут и снизить скорость ? на эти вопросы украинская сторна не отвечает.

6.Порошенко сообщил ,что в тот момент украинские самолеты не находились на этом пространстве.Но космические съемки показыает ,что был самолет.Люди тоже говорят ,что видели два самолета. Зачем президент врет?

7. Американцы не показывают свои снимки.Почему ? Если бы самолет сбили ополченцы ,они бы все материалы представили бы.

 


Top updates

Bulletin Latest Past week Past month
Google Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

July17-19 Week of July 20-26 Week of July 27- Aug 2 Week of Aug 3-9

Статьи Lenta.ru Бывший СССР Катастрофы Вне зоны ответственности

"Бук"

В версии с тем, что малайзийский лайнер B777 был сбит ракетой зенитного комплекса "Бук" или "Бук-М1" (более поздние версии - "Бук-М1-2" и "Бук-М2" - были разработаны после распада СССР и на Украину не поставлялись), есть несколько уязвимых мест, из-за чего вся гипотеза выглядит сомнительной.

По сообщениям украинских и российских СМИ, у падения малайзийского самолета множество свидетелей, которые, помимо прочего, заявляли и о том, что самолет сбил штурмовик Су-25 с украинскими опознавательными знаками. Вопрос о способности человеческого зрения разглядеть тип и принадлежность самолета на высоте десяти тысяч метров можно не рассматривать.

Интересно другое. Ракета зенитного комплекса "Бук" в силу своих конструктивных особенностей оставляет за собой отчетливый дымный след, который способен держаться в воздухе до десяти минут. Однако в течение нескольких часов свидетельских показаний о таком следе не появлялось. Они начали появляться только днем 18 июля. В частности, украинский портал РКМ выложил фотографию дымного следа зенитной ракеты, якобы пущенной по малайзийскому "Боингу". Достоверность фотографии неизвестна, но, по данным РКМ, ее обнародовал Геращенко, уточнив, что пуск был произведен из третьего микрорайона города Торез.

Следует отметить, что для комплексов "Бук-М1", способных распознавать цели классов "самолет", "вертолет" и "баллистическая ракета", вероятность поражения крупной воздушной аэродинамической цели составляет 60-70 процентов. В частности, по этой причине огонь из комплекса по самолетам ведется не менее чем двумя последовательными пусками ракет. Это означает, что у запуска ракет из зенитного комплекса такого типа просто должны быть свидетели. Точную же информацию о том, был ли произведен запуск ракет-перехватчиков, могут дать только средства объективного контроля.

Например, данные радиолокационной станции "Воронеж-ДМ" в Краснодарском крае или систем контроля в Ростовской области России.

Кроме того, комплексы "Бук-М1" в полном своем составе, то есть вместе со станцией обнаружения и целеуказания и командной машиной, способны поражать воздушные цели на высоте до 18 тысяч метров и на дальности до 25 километров. Эти параметры сильно зависят от высоты и скорости полета летательного аппарата, обнаруженного радаром системы. Полным набором этих машин располагают только украинские военные. Тем не менее, если 27 пусковых установок "Бук-М1" расположены в пригороде Донецка, как это утверждает Министерство обороны России, малайзийский лайнер вероятнее всего находился вне зоны их поражения.

В конце июня 2014 года донецкие ополченцы объявили о захвате воинской части А-1402 противовоздушной обороны. По информации украинских властей, вся боеспособная техника была вывезена из этой части до захвата. Ополченцы же утверждали, что в их распоряжении оказался комплекс "Бук". Позднее в сети были опубликованы несколько фотографии, из которых следовало, что донецкие ополченцы располагают по меньшей мере одной самоходной огневой установкой комплекса "Бук-М1". Она может быть использована как самостоятельная боевая единица для поражения воздушных целей, однако без системы обнаружения и целеуказания для нее доступны только цели на высоте не более шести тысяч метров.

http://echo.msk.ru/blog/georgy_mirsky/1364820-echo/23 июля 2014 | 01:43

Не получается. У Бука радиус порядка 30 км только по низковысотным целям. Если цель на высоте 10 000 – то радиус работы Бука не более 10 км. Этот сектора Боинг идущий на высоте 10 000 и со скоростью восемьсот проскочит за время порядка одной минуты, а Бука только время развертывания 5 минут.

Чтобы сбить Боинг Буквально должен заранее знать где пойдет цель и ждать в засаде на маршруте. Но – никто не знал что этот боинг который всегда летал на 200 км южнее над Херсоном вдруг загонят аж к Донецку. Никто ее знал – кроме украинских диспетчеров.

vdanilovtsev
У ополченцев есть только самоходная огневая установка СОУ 9А310. Отсутствует станция обнаружения и целеуказания СОЦ 9С18 "Купол". Собственная РЛС 9С35, если она присутствует, малоэффективна, переключение из дежурного в боевой режим составляет 20 секунд, за это время Боинг уйдет на 5 километров. Нереально. А вот ошибка ПВОшников Украины в процессе обучения новичков вполне реальна.
============================================
Если у ополченцев отсутствует "Купол", не значит, что не могли "подсветить" другие (угадайте кто))).
Если собственная РЛС 9С35 такое барахло, то для чего же она создавалась? Вроде "БУК" предназначен для защиты танковых колонн на марше, а там далеко не всегда "купол" использовать можно.
Про обучение новичков совсем смешно. Если так рассуждать, то и стратегическую ракету можно сдуру запустить))) Вы на военной кафедре тоже сразу с реальными ракетами пуски отрабатывали? Или все таки постепенно, с теории и с макетов начинали?
Видео Кургиняна - фальшивка?
Радость Стрелкова по поводу АН-26, тоже фальшивка?

22 июля 2014 | 19:35

Мирский где-то не здесь.

"16 июля около 19.00 со стороны РФ осуществлена очередная провокация. Военный самолет ВС РФ нанес ракетный удар по самолету Су-25 ВС Украины, который выполнял задачи на территории Украины", - сообщил дрожащим голосом спикер информационного центра СНБО Андрей Лысенко на брифинге 17 июля.

Поэтому расположенные в Авдеевке и Грузско-Зарянском батареи ПВО "Kупол", включающие в себя несколько комплексов БУК-М1, уже были в состоянии готовности. И какой-то рагуля не выдержал... Доступа к установкам со стороны независимых экспертов НЕТ.

22 июля 2014 | 21:02

..."Собственная РЛС 9С35, если она присутствует, малоэффективна, переключение из дежурного в боевой режим составляет 20 секунд, за это время Боинг уйдет на 5 километров. Нереально"...

Чушь полная! Зачем на боевом комплексе "малоэффективная РЛС"?! Собственная РЛС находит цель сканируя сектор переданный ей со станции обнаружения на дальностях превышающих дальность стрельбы комплекса. После чего переходит со сканирования на автосопровождение цели. Пуск ракеты по определению происходит в момент входа цели в зону поражения. И что это за "переход из дежурного в боевой режим"? Само развёртывание комплекса осуществляется заранее. Подача высокого напряжения на локатор происходит мгновенно!
..."за это время Боинг уйдет на 5 километров"... это прекрасно, что цель стала ближе на 5 км!
Короче чушь полная.

  • 23 июля 2014 | 00:29

    Мирский - известный пропиндосник. Все его доказательства зиждятся на аксиоме о безупречной порядочности его американских кумиров. Ну а казаки, что с них возьмешь. Накачались горилкой и запустили ракету на 10 000 метров. Вся либеральная рать, здесь на Эхе, свято верит в непогрешимость западного истеблишмента и порочность России.

  • anna_folc

    23 июля 2014 | 01:08

    Россияне быстро забыли, как яростно Главнокомандующий ВВС Российской Федерации Карнуков отрицал "причастность Киева" не потому, что "Украина была дружественным государством". А потому, что это были СОВМЕСТНЫЕ российско-украинские учения, стрельбы проходили с полигона, хотя и находящегося на территории Украины, но принадлежащего ЧФ РФ, старшим офицером, руководящим учениями, был российский начальник полигона, а сам Карнуков лично пристуствовал при злосчастном пуске. Со сбитым израильским самолетом еще веселее. Тогда не просто учения были совместными, а РФ (это - её зона) не закрыла свой участок (в пределах досягаемости пусков) для гражданских.



  • Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2020 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: February, 09, 2021