DSB final report doubts: damage of left wing and left engine nacelle

In a series of posts I will discuss the different opinions of DSB versus Almaz Antey on the location of where the BUK missile was launched from and where it exploded.

Basically DSB states the missile came from an area of 320 square km in size. The missile more or less approached the aircraft head on.

Almaz Antey states the missile came more or less from a south-southeasterly direction (when viewed from the aircraft).

The damage of the aircraft shouldprovide us an indication where the missile exploded.

Introduction to shrapnel and missile remains distribution

The warhead of the missile is located behind the nose and behind the electronics like radar and proximity fuse. In the image below the warhead is indicated in black.

The warhead contains the steel elements which are used to destroy the target. Explosive is located in the core of the warhead. When the explosive explodes, the fragments are distributed in a kind of kone shaped cloud. The exact damage pattern on the target depends on parameters like missile speed, angle to target, target speed and density of air.

The nose-cone and the part of the missile holding the electronics are pushed out more of less into the direction of the missile.

The image below shows the fragmentation pattern.

The small shrapnel will be distributed more or less sideways, down and up. (indicated with 1 in image below)

The remains of the missile body in front of the warhead, the remains of nose cone and electronics will be pushed ahead. (2)

So it is logical to assume the damage of the target ahead of the trajectory of missile has larger holes than the damage located on the side of the missile.

Distribution of fragments when missile launched from Snizhne

This image provides an indication of the distribution of shrapnel when the missile was launched from Snizhne.

The two areas to the side of the missile indicate the shrapnel cloud.

Mind this is a not a 3D model. Fragments are also spread out in a 360 degrees direction.

So the image can be misleading

distribution-snizhne

DSB about the engine intake ring

DSB explains in Appendix X the shrapnel in the warhead as ‘primary fragmentation’ and the remains of nose-cone and electronics as ‘secondary fragmentation’.

At page 25 of the Appendix X some interesting remarks are made.

  • the size of all penetrations (into the left engine intake ring)  was found to range from 1 to 200 mm. Only 5 of the 47 penetrations were in the same 6-14 mm size range as the ones found on the cockpit panel of Figure 14.
  • None of these 5 pentrations penetrated the back plate

So NLR here basically states that only 5 holes could have been caused by a fragment from the warhead. They did not have enough kinetic energy to penetrate the back plate of the engine ring. 

Remind this number of 5!

engine-intake-ring

nl-page25

In Appendix Y written by TNO the damage to the left wing and engine caused by a missile should be begligible.

appendix-y-damage

A closeup of the left engine intake ring can be seen here and here.

This is a picture showing the back of the ring.

DSB states in Appendix X written by NLR:

Appendix-X-secondary-damage

 

At page 60 of the final report, DSB only mentions the location of holes in the engine intake ring. DSB does not state anything about the size nor the amount of energy what must have caused the damage.

dsb-page60

At page 83 DSB states something about the number of holes in the engine intake ring. Over a dozen holes and marks were found in the left engine intake ring and left wing tip.

The ‘over a dozen’ is remarkable low as NLR wrote that on the engine intake ring alone were 47 penetrations.

dsb-intake-ring

At page 124 of the DSB report, DSB states something about the size of holes in intake ring and wings. DSB states the perforation holes in engine intake and left wing tip were significantly larger than those found in the wreckage of the cockpit.

dsb-intake-ring-damage-size

At page 136 DSB states that the damage on wingtip and engine intake was used to determine the trajectory of the missile

dsb-intake-ring-trajectory

DSB failed to document part of the engine cover

In February 2015 a photo was published on a Russian forum showing a part of a  Boeing 777 engine cover. The part is very likely of the left engine and it shows what looks like small damage caused by shrapnel.

However, this part is not documented in the DSB final report. Also Almaz Antey did not mention it in the presentation of October 13, 2015.

This part of the engine cover was found north of Petropavlivka

.

Details of this engine cover in this post.

Almaz Antey about the engine intake ring

Almaz Antey stated at the October 13 pressconference:

The left engine was more than 20 meters located from the position where the missile exploded. The kill range of the BUK warhead is about 17 meters. However, the fragments were able to penetrate the engine forward nacelle (DSB calls this the left engine intake ring) . Also there are many small entry holes on the engine nacelle which indicates that these are caused by fragments of the warhead. The nacelle is made of robust material and only high kinetic fragments could be able to penetrate it.

<needs verification> I understand Almaz Antey states that all holes size 6-14 mm of the left wing and engine intake ring are caused by ricocheting of fragments which hit the cockpit area first.

The reason the engine intake ring is made of more robust material is to make sure it does not get damaged by for instance birds hitting the engine during takeoff and landing.

The holes could also have been caused by debris which separated from the fuselage after the explosion. The left engine intake ring clearly shows blue paint. This could have been from the carpet of the cabine or from fabric from a passenger seat. However it is unlikely debris originating from the fuselage make small holes as seen on the photos of the engine intake ring.

This video made in November 2014 during the recovery shows the lefthand engine nacelle. It clearly shows exit holes as well.

The two photos below were part of the October 13, 2015 presentation of Almaz Antey. It shows many relative small holes.

This photo shows damage to the left wing.

Almaz-Antey-damage-wings

Far more holes sized 6-14 mm ?

Now look at the engine intake ring as photographed by Almaz Antey. While there is no ruler available, at the first sight it appears to be far more than just 5 penetrations sized 6-14 mm.

NLR also stated “None of these 5 pentrations penetrated the back plate ”

If the measurement of Almaz Antey is correct, at least one killing fragment penetrated the back plate. The ruler in black can be seen.

Mind the exit hole is wider than the entry hole. The photo is facing the back plate of the engine intake ring.

penetration-14mm

This slide shows the damage to the left engine intake ring.

engine-nacelle

 

Almaz Antey test results

Almaz Antey had a BUK 9M38M1 equipped with  9N314M warhead missile explode in a test setup. The target was the cockpit of a IL86 aircraft. The test simulated a missile originated from a location near Snizhne. This is the scenario which DSB calculated.

The video about the test is here.

Issues with Almaz Antey test

The issue with this test is that it tests a static situation. Both warhead and cockpit do not have movement. Additionally the air density is much different than at 10km altitude. I am not sure what the effect of these different conditions are.

Also DSB calculated the angle of the missile relative to the horizon was about 10 degrees. (nose up).

Almaz Antey test setup was done with an angle of 22 degrees nose up. So the result of this much higher value is that secondary fragments (nose-cone, electronics, body of missile) does not hit the engine and left wing but will fly over it.

Additionaly MH17 engine was running and thus sucking air into the engine. This would likely result into fragments being sucked into the engine and hit engine intake ring.

The test showed that the left engine was not hit by fragments.

AA-test-left-engine-no-penetrations

Almaz Antey also showed a photo of what DSB calls  ‘secondary fragmentation’. These are the remains of the missile nose-cone, electronics, body, rocket engine etc.

The photo clearly shows these are rather large remains, These cannot have  caused the small holes as observed in the MH17 left engine intake ring.

AA-secondary-fragmentation-remains

Ricochet damage

One of the causes of the damage to the left engine intake ring could be ricochet. It could be shrapnel that hit the cockpit or forward fuselage ricochet on the fuselage and hit the intake ring and the engine cover.

I do not remember having read this scenario in the DSB report.

Conclusion

Based on the Almaz Antey provided photos of the damage to the left engine intake ring, the DSB conclusion that “perforation holes in engine intake and left wing tip were significantly larger than those found in the wreckage of the cockpit” does not seem to be right.

Also the fact that DSB did not mention the damage to the  engine cover onthe righthand side of the left engine  is strange.

Additionally, there are more holes sized 6-14 mm in the intake ring than the 5 stated by NLR.

However the test performed by Almaz Antey is far from being executed under the same conditions as MH17 was shot down.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

51 Comments on DSB final report doubts: damage of left wing and left engine nacelle

  1. I wanted to make a rough estimate of the possible launch zone, provided hit the left engine in the main field of the fragments, but I was lazy this engaged. In addition, it seems intuitively that this is exactly the point to the Ukrainian position. But if you’re interested, I can do it.

  2. Liane Theuer // April 11, 2016 at 9:15 pm // Reply

    DSB didn´t recover the left engine intake ring in their November 2014 mission. WHY ?
    Later the ring appeared in Gilze-Rijen. When was it recovered and by whom ?
    The very same happened with the most important part, the famous part under the cockpit window.

    Why BOTH engine intake rings came apart earlier than the engines itself ? For what reason ?

    This photo has the text “Pieces of the under-wing pod that holds the right Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engine were found nearly 4.7 miles from Hrabove, where both engines were found. Photos of debris show the broken remains of the Rolls-Royce logo and indications of piercing damage” :
    http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/mh17enginepoduzxl18wv4p.jpg

    Is this the right or the left ring :
    http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/vollbildaufzeicw3j4hg5d9n.jpg
    http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/vollbildaufzeicz9dh0tk5wc.jpg

    The engine intake ring is much deeper than the cockpit windows. Still below the red and blue line.
    If the ring was hit by rocket parts, the nose of the rocket must have been slightly downward.

    • Liane: those two pictures are part of the right engine intake ring. The left engine intake ring is complete.
      I am not sure when the left engine intake ring was recovered. It was in Gilze Rijen at the press day.

      • Liane Theuer // April 12, 2016 at 6:46 pm // Reply

        Marcel, do you agree on this :
        “If the ring was hit by rocket parts, the nose of the rocket must have been slightly downward.”

        I think this is important.
        DSB in their video of the missile approaching MH17 shows a completly different flight path of the missile.

        • I really do not know. I think it is hard to tell under what circumstances the left engine intake ring could have been hit by secondary fragments.
          Also, the ring was most likely hit by objects originating from the aircraft. This explains the blue paint on the intake ring

  3. In that particular picture from the metabunk applet a couple of parameters have incorrect values.

    Missile speed (from S) should be around 730 m/s.
    Frag speed should be 2400 m/s

    Also, the Mick West’s model did not include a slightly backwards shooting by the warhead. The ignition is at the front of the warhead causing a slight turn of the cone backwards in a static case (The front ignition point is somewhat inferior to the rear one energy-wise, but probably was chosen by the designers to better optimize hit probability for targets with high lateral speed. This is a bit involved subject).

    Overall the cone on that picture has to be rotated by a few degrees, for the damaging beam to get more perpendicular to the forwards axis of the plane. As if the author was trying to tweak the parameters to make the observed damage area fit the simulated damage area for the S-launch better. If you do things thoroughly, the Mick’s applet is a good tool to show that the S-launch requires a lot of stretch, while Z-launch matches easily.

    • Hey “expert”, did you finally read Ieltsin book that you were so recomending.
      It has interesting things for you. Particularly about shooting with foreign illumination (чужой подсвет, page 8), meaning when one TELAR is shooting the missile, while another TELAR or Kupol are guiding it to target. There was also a clear explanation of how proximity fuse works with its own ILLUMINATING antenna (fig 9), independent of signal from TELAR. you might find it interesting information about the time delay allowed for frequency hoppong in presence of radio electronic suppression and time delay between loss of target and self destruction. It is important to actually read your source instead of using someone else selected quotes from it.

      • Can you be more specific? You’ve found something that I was talking about to be incorrect?

        • Antidyatel // April 12, 2016 at 3:05 am // Reply

          Our original discussion was here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-study-shows-buk-videos-are-fake/#comment-15707
          You missed my reply.
          Your incorrect claims were:
          1) buk missile launched from one TELAR cannot be redirected by another TELAR or Kupol. Function of missile control with “foreign illumination” is one of BUK’s integral features
          2) you claimed that proximity fuse relies on signal from TELAR for detonation, which is false. Which is not true.
          3) if you read about the time for feequency hopping and self destruction if signal from target or TELAR is lost at particular frequency, you could better understand the purpose of 8 literal frequencies pre installed on the rocket.

          • > 1) buk missile launched from one TELAR cannot be redirected by another TELAR or Kupol. Function of missile control with “foreign illumination” is one of BUK’s integral features

            The illumination has to be on the frequency the missile listens at. Therefore for a foreign illumination to work:
            -A “foreign illumination” mode needs to be turned on a TELLAR.
            -A corresponding liter for the frequency entered on a TELAR, which needs to be first synchronized with the illuminating station. Do you expect Ukraine to send the liter to the rebels for their Kupol to illuminate a target on the frequency that the rebel’s missile will listen at?
            -The quartzes in the exchangeable blocks need to be set on the same physical frequencies. The physical frequencies corresponding to different liters is a guarded secret and differ from country to country.
            -Right blocks (one out of four) have to be plugged/selected in.

            You seem to have problems with grasping the simple idea for why the system works this way.

            > 2) you claimed that proximity fuse relies on signal from TELAR for detonation, which is false. Which is not true.

            Please, show me where I said that.

            > 3) if you read about the time for feequency hopping and self destruction if signal from target or TELAR is lost at particular frequency, you could better understand the purpose of 8 literal frequencies pre installed on the rocket.

            Where did you get this frequency hopping from?

          • Antidyatel // April 12, 2016 at 4:36 am //

            They don’t need to know the frequencies in advance. They just need to detect the frequency used by launchkng TELAR and use the same frequency on another TELAR or KUPOL. I hope I don’t need to give you links to such technologies. Israel is selling those that can be attached on the fighter jet and then re emitted coherent signal for destructive interference.

            For the case of missile redirection launching TELAR will not know that some thing is wrong and will kot change that frequency.

            Heee is your quote regarding proximity fuse “Also note that the quote mentions that the seeker sends the signals to the fuse, specifically the one about the approach velocity to modulate the explosion delay (find somewhere else in the book).”

            Don’t you see what is wrong in your statement? Even though you aee supposedly quoting the originl text.

          • Antidyatel,

            > They don’t need to know the frequencies in advance. They just need to detect the frequency used

            Don’t they detect the frequency because they want to know it? I was pretty sure that an argument with a specialist like you would descent into a silly argument about terminology, decoding unclear statements, etc.

            > I hope I don’t need to give you links to such technologies.
            That technology is called “frequency scanting”. A couple or replies ago I mentioned it (Eugene: “I don’t think that a frequency scanning function is available on Kupol.”), So, you don’t have to show me something that I mentioned to you first.

            > Israel is selling those that can be attached on the fighter jet and then re emitted coherent signal for destructive interference.

            The scanning is not instantaneous, it requires time. Even if the magic Israeli device is installed on the plane and detects the illuminating frequency by the device, there is no guarantee that that particular frequency can be radiated by Ukrainian Kupol on the ground. On the ground they need to have a corresponding quartz handy. You cannot just dial the frequency in the Kupol via keyboard. And the quartz are not marked with the physical frequencies because they are secret (read the bloody book).

            > For the case of missile redirection launching TELAR will not know that some thing is wrong and will kot change that frequency.

            Furthermore it physically cannot. But I notice you are diverging.

            > Here is your quote regarding proximity fuse “Also note that the quote mentions that the seeker sends the signals to the fuse[..]”[..]

            The seeker is the forward antenna block on the missile and not the Kupol on the ground, like you thought.

            So what about the frequency hopping on a Buk? You’ve mentioned it and have gone silent. It is not supported by Buk, is it?

            Now given this my reply, go back and refine the answer on my question “You’ve found something that I was talking about to be incorrect?” You haven’t managed to pinpoint anything what I said to be incorrect. On the other hand in this particular conversation you’ve managed to tell the amount of nonsense that is off the scale. If you continue this conversation I’ll go back and gather the nonsense you said in another summary.

            Man you’ve got quite a character. Most other people in you place would decide to cut the loses and go home, but in an attempt to preserve your face you keep returning but only getting more humiliation.

        • Hey Professor “Bloated Arrogance”,

          If you don’t know the meaning of “in advance”, arguing terminology will be really pointless with you.

          “So, you don’t have to show me something that I mentioned to you first.”
          Oh, sorry, your majesty. How could I not notice your irrelevant statement. Why exactly do I need to use Kupol for detecting radar frequencies, when there aee multitude of systems specifically designed for it and can be limked to command post? Please enlighten.
          (read the bloody book) – exactly. What can be seceet about the frequency ? You do understand how anti-radiatiom missiles work, don’t you? And they can differentiate specific radar not jyst by frequency but also modulation pattern. The Israel system that I talked about even goes further and matches the pahse of the incoming signal and just cancels it coherently. You are funny to assume magic from a system built in 80s.
          “So what about the frequency hopping on a Buk? You’ve mentioned it and have gone silent. It is not supported by Buk, is it?”

          Let me use your words from one of the earlier posts.I was hinting that the information is coming from textbooks, haven’t you noticed?

          All you had to do is to do is to look for 3 seconds and 1.3 seconds specifications.
          But ok let me give you:
          “При этом команда «Самоликвидация» выдается в ПИМ, если в течение (3±1) с не произойдет повторного захвата цели радиолокационной ГСН.”
          “программная перестройка несущей частоты за 1,3 с”

          Not so difficult isn’t it. But you are welcome to argue on terminology and say that “перестройк несущей частоты” should not be translated as frequency hopping.
          But do you know why they need that perestroika? It is a measure against ARMs. And you know what is the modern measure against ARMs? Decoy missiles that transmit at radar frequency and make the ARM to divert the coarse slightly. But funny thing, before launching tjose missile the requirement is for RLS to stop adjust (перестроить) frequency to the one used in decoy, use it for few seconds and then switch off. And all because frequency hopoing became inadequate agaimst modern ARMs.

          So go ahead professor. Vomit your arrogant garbage further.

          • Oh, God. Frequency hopping is a technique when both a transmitter and a receiver synchronously change the frequency in a deterministic pseudo-random manner. Buk’s illumination transmitter does not change its frequency. So, claiming that frequency hopping is employed simply means that you either do not understand what the term means, or you do not know how Buk works.

            What you might have taken to be ‘frequency hopping’ is missile’s seeker continuously tracking ever changing reflected frequency. That frequency is changing due to the varying Doppler shift which, in turn, drifts due to changing missile’s and the target’s velocity vectors. I guess reading the book has not helped you much.

            > [..] But you are welcome to argue on terminology and say that “перестройк несущей частоты” should not be translated as frequency hopping.
            > “программная перестройка несущей частоты за 1,3 с”

            This is probably not from the book but from other sources. It applies to Kupol only. This has nothing to do with target illumination. The changing beam frequency is indeed an anti-ARM feature, but for the search beam only. You have to understand that the need to protect the search beam from anti-radiation missiles is significantly greater than the need to protect the
            illumination beam. Because the latter is only used for a few seconds, while the former continuously. Plus those hearing the illumination beam usually don’t live for much longer. To somewhat protect the illumination beam from ARMs there is a “quiet launch” mode on Buk, when the missile is launched without the illumination beam, which only gets switched on later, when the missile gets close to the target.

            > Why exactly do I need to use Kupol for detecting radar frequencies, when there aee multitude of systems specifically designed for it and can be limked to command post? Please enlighten.

            Well, originally you did not mention that the kamikaze plane will be carrying a specialised frequency detecting equipment, such as the Israeli device (originally you did not even know that frequencies, might be involved, but I am diverging). Ok, let’s from now on assume it does. I’ll list the required inventory for your plan later in this reply.

            > What can be seceet about the frequency?

            It’s indeed not hard to measure a frequency. But there are complementary measures employed, making it worthwhile to keep the frequencies secret. If you’ve noticed there are four possible frequency defining blocks. Not all of them are used during training, some are locked up to be used only in a war time. The frequencies from those locked up blocks are not known to potential adversaries, nor even to own soldiers, up until the war. Note again, that the illumination beam is switched on rarely for short periods of time. So, in a war time, even if it gets detected by a specialised equipment on a warplane, the warplane will only have a few seconds to telegraph the detected frequency home, before the missile says “Hello”. Not many planes survive a Buk missile encounter.

            Now let’s list the inventory needed to accomplish the Antydyatel’s fantasy called “re-targeting rebels’ Buk from a UAF fighter onto a Boeing”. To remind you, the plan is the following. Rebels aim their Buk at an UAF fighter and shoot. At the same time Ukraine switches on their own Kupol and start illuminating Boeing located behind the UAF fighter. The fighter does an evasive manoeuvre and the missile hits the Boeing instead. So, what is needed for this plan, in view of the new information? This is the inventory:

            #1) Ukraine fighter jet equipped with special apparatus, presumably Israeli, that detects a Buk illumination beam, measures its frequency and the direction. Then this information is sent to Ukraine Kupol on the ground.

            #2) On the ground we’ll need a hacked Kupol, capable of tuning on any frequency entered via keyboard. The existing frequency setting module based on quartz crystals needs to be ripped off and replaced with a new custom module that allows generating signal of any given frequency.

            #3) We’ll need a highly skilled technical personnel on the ground who can recalculate the frequency detected by the fighter, to the needed radiation frequency for Kupol, so that the missile that is flying at the fighter at this very moment accepts the signal as its own. This recalculation is pretty complicated due to the Doppler shift depending on the planes’ arbitrary configuration. We’ll need someone more skilled than a physics PhD Antydiatel, who has a pretty poor understanding of how Doppler shift can be calculated for a configuration of moving objects.

            #4) For the fighter we’ll need a pilot with an eyesight of an eagle to be able to spot the missile on approach. Because the pilot will have to start making an evasive manoeuvre only when the missile is quite close. This is to make sure that the missile has switched to the seeker guidance, otherwise his manoeuvre may have no effect (the missile has not re-targeted).

            #5) The pilot will need to have Jedi reflexes for the plan to work and if he wants to survive. Because he’ll have only a few seconds for an evasive manoeuvre before the missile arrives.

            Now, to some people like me this may sound a bit of a stretch for a workable plan. But never mind, we’ve been assured by a true specialist in the field whose “impeccable” track record can be summarised in the following list, merely collected from this conversation:

            -Antydiatel does not know that before hitting the Boeing a Buk missile would have travelled un-powered for a long distance (10-15km) and would have no thick plume.
            -Antydyatel has demonstrated that he does not fully understand how the Doppler shift works.
            -Antydyatel does not know that a Buk missile can differentiate on a signal frequency. He thought that a missile just looks for any radio emission to aim at.
            -Antydyatel does not know what the missile’s seeker is.
            -Antydyatel claims that Buk employs frequency hoping. And he claims this after claiming that he’s been reading the Buk textbook.

            (The list keeps growing, with Antydiatel adding more items almost every time he replies.)

  4. Imho there are some unconclusive finds concerning this very important topic of damage assessments.

    DSB says the engine nacelle was hit 47 times by frags of 1-200 mm, of which 5 were 9-16mm.

    AA showed in their slideshow (slide 21) they expected 5 hits from primary preformed frags in the left nacelle area.

    http://imgur.com/E8zmeL7

    Furthermore there are some double penetrations, some fragments pierced through the double layers of the nacelle, which could only be caused by high-impact elements (secundary fragments would not be high-kinetic after they traveled 20 m fromd detonation to the target area). AA counts 8 full piercings (slide 13).

    http://imgur.com/OBkbw2e

    So these things seem to corroborate a south-south-east launchsite. There are, however, two things that bother me.

    1. Though AA encircles a big piercing (double penetration), it is not explained how this big hole could originate from a 6-14 mm high-kinetic, high-impact primary fragment.

    2. If the amount and deviation in size of the hits DSB found is correct, it begs the question what causes the discepancy between the AA simulation and the factual situation.

  5. sotilaspassi // April 12, 2016 at 7:45 am // Reply

    “The test showed that the left engine was not hit by fragments.”
    There seems to be at leats two holes, so A-A lied (again).
    + their missile was positioned so that the secondary fragmentation cone shot to the sky. (deliberately)
    (but their demo also show how the remains of the missile fly in every direction when non-moving missile detonates)

    • The angle of the missile used by AA for the test is indeed not correct. I updated the text of the blog.

    • The elevation of the missile would account for the approach from a Snizhne compliant launch site. Do you think the missile in a dynamic condition had an elevation of zero degrees or something, so coming in horizontally to hit the left wing side right on? Then you are wrong.

      They calculated the deviation of elevation and azimuth angles with other tests and calibrated accordingly to simulate dynamic conditions in a static test.

      To falsify this you should come up with sound proof, not with the argument about a that cone was directed to the sky.

      Remember also the missile has been designed to hit the cockpit area, not the wing area. Collateral damage is dependent of distance and so of the incoming angles of the missile.

      • sotilaspassi // April 12, 2016 at 9:10 am // Reply

        Missile was positioned so that the main fragmentation hits the plane body like it would hit with a moving missile and plane.
        This made the main shrapnel cone to hit the plane in approximately right angle. But at the same time the secondry fragment cone went wrong.

        • No, both azimuth AND elevation were calibrated to adjust for static conditions.

          Its due to the 2D model it looks like the secundary frags hits the left engine straight on, but I guess in dynamic 3D conditions most of the parts would blow right under the wing (Snizhne detonation) or over it (south-south east detonation).

          You could watch the DSB reconstruction of the incoming missile to see at which elevation the missile approaches the plane. Cone into the sky (which, besides, is false for dynamic conditions at a launch distance of 26 km).

          • Hector, this was a rare case when sotilaspassi was not talking rubbish. AA found the additional orientation (two parameters, like you say) for the left side shrapnel “beam” to match the dynamic case. However this does not make the forward “beam” to match the dynamic case and even less so the right side “beam”. I hope you get what I mean.

            Mathematically speaking, AA managed to approximate a shear transformation by a rotation transformation in a small sector. But you cannot replace a shear by a rotation everywhere. (“Shear” here is not an exactly correct term, but again, you should get the idea)

          • Eugene, I understand the corrolary, but not the physics entirely at this time.

    • Sotilaspassi: “The test showed that the left engine was not hit by fragments.” There seems to be at leats two holes, so A-A lied (again).

      Were have you seen the left target in the snizhne compliant test was hit by two fragments?

      • sotilaspassi // April 12, 2016 at 9:07 am // Reply

        For example the picture of the plate on this page shows three spots where sun shines through the plate. So there are holes on the plate.
        (if they were there before detonation, A-A should have said so)

        • Do you mean you see some white spots? Well, I see a big horizontal white crack too, but I think thats due more to picture quality than to the target being hit.

  6. Admin:

    I understand Almaz Antey states that all holes size 6-14 mm of the left wing and engine intake ring are caused by ricocheting of fragments which hit the cockpit area first.

    Imho AA implicitly states there *is* some ricocheting, as shown in slide 14 (damage assessment MH17), but that only high-kinetic primary frags could have hit the left wing area.

    http://imgur.com/2m5mbgC

    A Snizhne compliant detonation would NOT cause ricocheting, says AA, according to slide 69.

    http://imgur.com/Misq5cm

    In fact DSB must sustain that the damage done by small frags has arrived by ricocheting instead of high-kinetic frags.

    Thats why they claim they haven’t seen small full penetrations through the nacelle, where AA shows 8.

  7. Liane Theuer // April 12, 2016 at 8:58 pm // Reply

    That clearly demonstrates : It is impossible to hit the left intake ring with secondary fragments.
    The nose-cone should be tilted about 40 degrees down. This means that the missile has fallen from the top to the target.
    In my opinion that makes a lauch from Snizhne impossible.

    Admin wrote :
    “The exact damage pattern on the target depends on parameters like missile speed, angle to target, target speed and density of air.“

    There is another factor:
    Where is the detonator located in the warhead – front, middle or rear ?
    As the DSB didn´t know it, they have adopted the middle. But that could be wrong.

    “Density of air” plays a very minor role, I guess.

    • Detonator of the 9N314M is at the front. So fragments are sprayed backwards. The final vector depends on speed of missile.

    • Liane: your statement is NOT correct.
      >>There is another factor:
      >>Where is the detonator located in the warhead – front, middle or rear ?
      >>As the DSB didn´t know it, they have adopted the middle. But that could be wrong.

      Appendix Y, page 15 states that DSB used a model with detonator in the front for calculations,

  8. The requirement of conditional probability cannot think. It is a very conservative rule which always can be compromised somewhere in the discussion. Here, it simply tells us no rocket parts are found in the left engine cowling ring. Hence, there is no proof this hole is made by rocket parts.

    Like DSB, you might not need alternative explanations since you already imagined the scenario of the rocket parts. But then you have to look at the engine, several centimeters away from that cowling ring. Now you don’t require rocket parts because for the demolished motor you have already quite a different explanation. Are we cherry picking from the facts? Do we have a tunnelvision?

    Maybe the cowling ring is damaged by the crash or damaged purposely by criminals on the crash site. So, though rocket parts are very likely, it has not yet been proven:

    http://tinyurl.com/hjo5cnp
    http://tinyurl.com/hc2y7ac

    We found no butterflies in the hull or windshields, therefore we disconfirmed bowties. We had to. We found a lot of squares in the hull, parallelepipeds with diamond shape. Do we need to find real squares in the wreckage? Not directly, since we found too many diamonds to expect sabotage by criminals.

    http://tinyurl.com/hzcy85w

    So we are bargaining with the rule. We earlier found a peculiar piece of an alleged rocket part enclosed in the left wing. We are inclined to take it for granted as belonging to the rocket which shot down MH17 because it perfectly follows the conditional probability.

    But now we have a problem. If the hole in the cowling ring is not certain, then the part in the left wing might also be placed by criminals after the crash. So the rule of conditional probability also can deceive us.

    The last discussion is about the (rocket) part in the cockpit frame. We are inclined to consider this object as not belonging to the plane.

    http://tinyurl.com/je4qn6y

  9. What about the root of the left wing? There are traces of shrapnel? If the left engine was in the main area of the fragments, so the wing between the fuselage and the left engine could be too. This is true for the most likely launch range of about 22 km where the trajectory elevation angle for BUK close to zero degrees.

    • sotilaspassi // April 13, 2016 at 11:20 am // Reply

      Launch range is closer to 26km, IMO.
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2welpNRUNMUi1nRDQ
      To me it seem that missile was launched immediately when it came in range for launch of M1 missile.
      According to A-A the missile should have been comin down in -5′ angle.
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wSnMzME12cjdoNkk
      But DSB indicated the angle must have been +7′ or more, 17′ angle to be the best match according to them.

      IMO. the missile might have been coming down like A-A indicates it, but nose (of missile and MH17) was slightly up at the time of detonation.

      • sotilaspassi // April 13, 2016 at 11:23 am // Reply

        The missile detonation location on map is within ~hundred meters from where the plane was at 13:20:03.

      • It is immaterial here. When shooting with short distances with a positive elevation angle of the trajectory of BUK it is possible under certain combinations of angles that the left engine within the side of the cone of ​​shrapnel, and the wing between the fuselage and the engine – no.

        For close to zero or negative elevation angles, if the engine was in the main area of the ​​shrapnel, and the wing too.

        The presence or absence of shrapnel damage the wing between the engine and the fuselage can give an answer to the question was the left engine in a side area of ​​shrapnel or debris in the axial.

        Then there are people like to devote much time to the study of wreqs pictures, so I wanted them to know whether this part of the left wing preserved and whether traces of shrapnel there?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA1jR-isdkQ

      • Sotilaspassi, If the range is close to 26km, and I believe you are right, then it cannot be a 9M38 missile. According to this: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/
        If this information is correct, these missiles have a range of 5-24 km. If not, then what do we know about a BUK M1 for certain?

        • You do not have to make such data as the final truth. Airliner is very easy target, and range of defeat can be much larger.

          Furthermore, these data are included in direct conflict with the calculations of AA in its presentation.

          http://s011.radikal.ru/i315/1604/6d/9e1b4c1a27f1.png
          http://s017.radikal.ru/i435/1604/c8/3715855bfaa5.png

          According to these data, 9M38 missile has great energy capabilities than 9M38M1. This is very important nuance.

          This is why the DSB lingers with the exact type of missile. Because all of the options are bad.

          Rocket 9M38M1 due to a lower speed and larger the angle of inclination at the same distance in the problem of the search starting position shows in the direction of Ukraine. The warhead 9N314 (without bow-tie) also mix the starting point in the direction of Ukraine in calculation.

          Option, which is suitable to accuse pro-Russian forces in the downing MH17 – is a chimera, a missile 9M38 with a warhead 9N314M1.

          However, the manufacturer (AA) states that such an option was never produced. 9M38 missiles are always equipped with a warhead 9N314, and 9M38M1 rocket always with warhead 9N314M1.

          And further, in the Russian missile 9M38 on the application has been removed from service, but still there in the Ukraine.

          • sotilaspassi // May 28, 2016 at 10:01 am //

            A-A said UA had 991 M1 missiles in 2005 and wanted more.
            So why would they use the dead super old nonM1 model.

          • sotilaspassi // August 31, 2017 at 10:17 am //

            old stuff, but anyway…

            “However, the manufacturer (AA) states that such an option was never produced. 9M38 missiles are always equipped with a warhead 9N314, and 9M38M1 rocket always with warhead 9N314M1.”

            Almaz-Antey said that they had no good information of BUKs, missiles and production from soviet times. 9M38 and 9M38M1 were produced concurrently for a while.

            (From damage and found frags, we know 9N314M warhead was used in the missile vs MH17.)

            >And further, in the Russian missile 9M38 on the application has been removed from service, but still there in the Ukraine.

            Both Ukraine and Russia had both missile models available.
            In reuters photo from summer 2014 we see that Russia was transporting 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles on a truck in rostov area.
            Russia was equipping rebels, so also “rebels” had access to both missiles.

  10. sotilaspassi // April 13, 2016 at 11:01 am // Reply

    The artistic version would need some corrections…
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wU2xjUDByd1RhcTA

    Do we have “hard” specs for the secondary cone?
    From A-A video we see the missile fragments spreads in every direction.
    In DSB material the secondary cone is shown pretty wide.
    In Finnish material the cone seems more narrow.
    I have not yet seen specs for it, nor a detonation test for it.

  11. Hugh Eaven // April 13, 2016 at 8:14 pm // Reply

    Still using faulty speculative model here, I see. Missile speed (assuming spec of mach3) is not 1000 m/s but ~880 m/s at 10km altitude.

    For example: http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm

    Either way, still doesn’t seem to match observed damage patterns well.

    • I’ve already noted incorrect data on the picture in one of the first posts. Though I was mistaken a bit. According to Almaz Antey missile speed from Snezhnoe would be around 600 m/s, (not 730m/s, which would be the speed from Z).

    • sotilaspassi // May 28, 2016 at 9:44 am // Reply

      BTW finnish sources state 1 250 m/s (3,5 Mach) max speed for BUK M1.

  12. Charles Wood // April 14, 2016 at 10:27 am // Reply

    Two points on this article:

    As far as I understand the absolute velocity of the missile was close to 800 m/s not 1000m/s as shown in your metabunk diagram. (Source somewhere in the Almaz Antey report)

    The Almaz Antey report also stated that in their test they changed the fusing to simulate the 800 m/s missile velocity.

    Looking at the actual structure of the warhead (as seen in a diagram in a metabunk comment) the warhead is normally fused to fire at one end so it detonates as a linear charge with a significant retrograde component. In effect the particle pattern becomes orthogonal to the trajectory of the missile in fixed frame of reference rather than as a forward cone as shown on the metabunk diagram.

    FYI military explosives typically detonate with a velocity of 4,000 m/s to 10,000 m/s so a warhead 400mm long will take around 100us to 40us

  13. Charles Wood // April 14, 2016 at 12:33 pm // Reply

    Re Almaz Antey test.

    The engine was running at cruise thrust but the aircraft was travelling at around Mach 0.9 so there would be negligible ‘suction’ as such. Air is captured by the advancing engine and compressed. And no, it’s not a ramjet, it’s a turbofan. But at high Mach numbers there is some element of ram compression from the inlet geometry.

    Inside the engine the main fans accelerate the air for thrust and the core compresses air for combustion with pressure/velocity profiles that are extremely complex to explain.

  14. sotilaspassi // April 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm // Reply

    Wanted to analyze how explosion vs shrapnel spread from detonation and quickly drafted this from A-A material…
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wX0RFd1B5SFdkNE0

  15. Roman Golubev // July 26, 2016 at 2:03 pm // Reply

    I remember seeing a photo where rubbing and long cut traces on top wing surface of what looked a like left wing had a clear green tinge, similar to the colour of the BUK missile. From what I’ve read on the underpaint used for these planes, no green primer is used for that. This doesn’t contradict the report’s hypothesis.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*