The pressconference of Almaz-Antey has two major errors

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At June 2 Almaz-Antey , the state run Russian  manufacturer of the BUK surface to air missile system, held a pressconference. The main goal of the pressconference was to proof the company was not responsible for the downing of MH17. The company  is hit by the economic sanctions of the EU. ‘We are suing EU for unjustified sanctions against us’ Almaz-Antey  stated.

The purpose of today’s conference is to prove our non-involvement in the MH-17 tragedy,” Almaz-Antey said to reporters.

Reuters reports here about the pressconference. Russia Today did live updates on its blog here.

New York Times reported  that Almaz-Antey based their conclusions only on photos of debris & didn’t analyze/collect frags.

Russia Today covered the press conference as well. At the end some attention for Bellingcat as well.

Almaz-Antey published a video on YouTube explaining (In Russian language) the results of their research.

This is a full recording of the  pressconference in English language (90 minutes)

The video has some interesting information on missile, warhead and fragments sizes. Like shown on this screenshot taken of the video.



Almaz-Antey stated that they did investigation on the downing of MH17. The results, illustrated by many slides (see the bottom of the post) are:

  1. MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile
  2. The exact type of missile was a 9M38M1 carrying a 9N314 warhead.
  3. The 9M38M1 missile  is out of production since 99. Ukraine Armed Forces still had 991 of those missiles its arsenal in 2005, when it held talks with Almaz-Antey on prolonging their lifespan.
  4. The BUK 9M317 missile type employed by the Russian Armed Forces is out of the question here, as the shape of the fragments does not match the damage caused to the aircraft according to the head engineer Mikhail Malyshevsky
  5. The Russian armed forces now mainly use a 9M317M warhead with the BUK system.
  6. The version of Buk used against MH17 out of production before company was founded in 2002. Using this as case against sanctions
  7. Snizhne could not be the launch location based on the damage observed
  8. The launch location must have been around the village of Zaroschinskoe
  9. If it were fired from Sninzhne, “the entire front end of the cabin would have been blown off” 
  10. Ukraine is responsible for downing MH17. Although this was not said as clearly by the company.

Bye bye SU-25?

Month after month Russian media and internet trolls tried to convince the public  MH17 was shot down by one or more SU-25’s. For many reasons that was nonsense.

At May 6  Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a leaked report. It stated MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from  Zaroschinskoe. This was the first indication of a shift towards the BUK theory by the Russian government. However the report was full of errors. Read the analyze here.

And now at June 2 the Russian manufacturer also confirms MH17 must have been shot down by a BUK missile. But by Ukraine armed forces!

Is this the end of the SU-25 theory? No, as the next day Russia published the name of an Ukraine armed forces employee who witnesssed an Ukraine SU-25 returning to base with no air to air missiles. See the publication “Name of eyewitness released. This Ukriane air force employee saw SU-25 return with no missile “by  Ria Novosti

The issues with Almaz-Antey claims

There are two major issues with the statements.

  1. The statement the 9M38M1 missile is only in use by Ukraine is not true. A BUK system can use 3 type of missiles. The older 9M38 (not in use anymore) , the 9M38M1 (used by both Russia and Ukraine)  and the newer 9M317 ( in use by Russia but not by Ukraine). The 9M317 can easily be recognized as it has shorter chords (the vins located on the missile). There are many pictures showing the 9M38M1 missile is still being used by the Russian Armed Forces.
    Photos posted on Russian social media show the 9M38M1 missile in active duty near the Ukraine border.For a detailed description of the BUK system see this post.At June 3 Bellingcat posted a new blog with evidence Russia does still use the 9M38M1 missile. Missile crates clearly show 9M38M1

    And here a picture published by the Kremlin in 2013 during a visit to Armenia

This is a video recorded at June 24 2014. It clearly shows many BUK vehicles including trucks which are likely carrying the missiles.
Here a photo taken in March 2014 during an excersise.

2. The second issue is the launch location. Russian MoD presented satellite pictures of the area close to Zaroschinskoe. The photo shows a couple of BUk systems. However Bellingcat showed that these photos were fake. Investigators of German Correct!v went to the village. Nobody saw a BUK in the area.At May 12 Novaya Gazeta again publishes on MH17. This time an expert explains it is impossible a missile was shot from Zaroschinskoe. A 9M38M1 will use the closest route towards the target. As MH17 flew in a straight line, the shortest route will target the middle section of the righthand side of the fuselage. The missile would explode about 17-10 meters in front of the aircraft. This means the righthand side  engine would be destroyed and the fueltanks  of the wing on the right would explode. This did not happen.

The slides presented

The images below show the many slides presented during the pressconference. The photos below are taken by Igor Korotchenko and were all Tweet-ed. See his timeline for all the photos.

This blogpost has all the slides in a high resolution.




Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

54 Comments on The pressconference of Almaz-Antey has two major errors

  1. Why did Almaz use (almost) the same pictures that were used in the NG’s “leaked” report?

  2. Gabriele Wolff // June 2, 2015 at 10:50 pm // Reply

    What is the meaning of your posting?

    What sort of missile did you recognize on the Paris Match-Buk-foto in Donezk and on the Lugansk Buk published by the the Minister of Internal Affairs Avakov?

    And how many?

    • What do you mean Gabrielle with “what is the meaning of your posting? I guess it must be clear what the meaning is.
      The meaning is:
      1- Russian government conclude the Su-25 was nonsense and not accepted by public. They know the DSB will conclude MH17 was shot down by BUK missile.
      So Russia changed story into BUK. But Ukraine BUK did it. Which cannot be proven as Russia used 9M38M1 missile as well.

      The Paris Match photo does not show clearly what the type of TELAR is. Cannot see missiles.
      The Luhansk video clearly shows 9M38M1 missiles and at least one missile missing.

  3. Marilyn Justice // June 3, 2015 at 12:27 pm // Reply

    The Russian gov’t didn’t put on the press conference – the company did. Russia made no claims, therefore Gov’t made no conclusions.

    In fact, today, this “Russian investigators reveal identity of key witness in MH17 crash – on RT

    • You know that Viktor Ivanov, Chairman of the Boards of Almaz-Antey, is an old KGB crony of Putin?

      • Marilyn Justice // June 5, 2015 at 3:03 am // Reply

        Who cares? – that still doesn’t qualify as a “Russian government” claim you are being purposely misleading.

  4. Gabriele Wolff // June 3, 2015 at 5:11 pm // Reply

    Ms. Justice already mentioned what I would have answered. Almaz-Antey didn’t rule out a jetfighter scenario btw.

    Mark Salonin, the second Nowaja Gaseta expert, did get it wrong. Which trajectory whatever: the missile sets itself in front and above the target. If you look at the pictures from the tweets you have published you see why a Snischne Buk is impossible and a Buk from Zaroschinskoe possible.

    Funny – I just see two missiles on both fotos. Avakov himself detectes just two when posting his Lugansk Buk video on July 18.

    So now Bellingcat will look for oldfashioned Russian missiles in his Buk convoy fotos from June and July 2014. Armenian fotos won’t do it. Unfortunately the infamous Buk 3_2 had no missiles…

  5. “Almaz-Antey didn’t rule out a jetfighter scenario btw.”

    Because the Ukraine forces were aiming with a buk at their own jetfighters? Get a life, Ms. Wolff!

  6. The reason for hiding I do not know. They must have a good reason. There are plenty of photos of the cockpit section while still at the crashsite. So we know the damage on the leftside. Shown in yesterdays pressconference as well.

  7. “Investigators of German Correct!v went to the village. Nobody saw a BUK in the area.”
    Investigators of German Correct!v found witnesses in a definitively wrong village pointing in the definitively wrong direction. The Investigators of German Correct!v even found beer bottles in the wrong field in november and called it an “investigation” and a “report”.
    Correct!v found nothing proves what?

  8. Thanks for your explanation.
    Funny to see the Russian apologists commenting here. Disgusting at the same time.

  9. Gabriele Wolff // June 4, 2015 at 12:16 am // Reply

    I knew that Bellingcat would try to look out for old missiles in their favoured Russian convoy. But as usual everything stops in Alexejewka, far away from the Ukranian border.

    • Lets get back to the basic: manufacturer of BUK missile states Russia does not use the 9M38M1 anymore.
      So people search on internet and find many pictures of the 9M38M1 missile in use.
      So the conclusion is Almaz lied about that.

      There was no reason to prove 9M38M1 was seen in East Ukraine. The TELAR seen in various places was camouflaged.

  10. Hector Reban // June 4, 2015 at 6:12 am // Reply

    Bellingcat traces the old BUKs in a trainingmission and at a parade. Both images probably display obsolete missile platforms with dummy payloads.

    So when the manufacturing claims these old BUKs are not being used any more, they obviously mean “not being used in combat theaters”.

    But clearly Bellingcat caught an easy detectable lie again and includes training and parades in active military deployment.

  11. Hector Reban // June 4, 2015 at 8:55 am // Reply

    I said ¨probably¨. Neither parades nor – I guess – trainings use state of the art fully payloaded missiles. All evidence Bcat presents are from parades and training.

    Of course one may assume the company is lying, but a scientific approach would suggest one should look for other possibilities too.

    So the question is: what did this spokesperson of Almaz-Antey really meant?

    In my view, regarding the proof Bellingcat offers, he meant ¨not in use in serious defense or combat operations¨.

    But maybe you are able to post evidence of 9M38M1 missiles in active deployment.

    • What the public will think seeing the pressconference is that Russia does not use the 9M38M1 missile. You can think of other explanations but seeing the propaganda this does not make sense. There are various pictures showing the 9M38M1 missile being used on trucks and even an actual launch during an excersise. Russian equipment has been spotted in Eastern Ukrainie. The invasion in Eastern Ukraine is not an excersise. So this excersise thing Putin said is nonsense. You have the full right to believe whatever you want to believe.

      Having said that, I do not jump to conclusions. A 9M38M1 missile seen near the border does not mean it was used in Eastern Ukraine. I have not seen a smoking gun evidence proving a Russian supplied 9m38M1 did shot down MH17.

  12. Hector Reban // June 4, 2015 at 9:27 am // Reply

    @admin: Did Putin said 9M38M1 missiles were only used at excercises?

    OK, maybe you are right and there is a slow replacement. I only watched the Bellingcat show material.

    But I´m still wondering why the company man (also when in accordance with Ru MoD) would tell a lie which is so easily debunked.

    Seems to be the case in almost all dismissals of their official claims. Are they bad liers or what?

    • There are so many lies told by the Russian MoD. See my blog and Bellingcat for that. Route change, fighters on radar, location of the BUK on trailer all lied. Mind lots of the newsstory are targeted at internal comsumption in Russia. Do you think the average Russian citizen will do his own research? No, that consume what is being told by the press.
      Why do yuo think Almaz added that they do not rule out the usage of a SU-25? Weird if they tell 90 minutes about a missile.

      Russia are very bad liers. However Ukraine is also suspicious.

  13. There is no objectively reason that a BUK rocket exclude an additional SU-25 attack. There is the Russia witness from the Dneprpetrowsk airfield and an interview in the crash area. Both people registered 3 planes, two lost and one with Air-to-Air rockets. Are these witnesses independent? I do not know an explanation of the circular holes in MH17 without SU-25.

    • Hans ever heard of propaganda? The story about a SU-25 is complete nonsense. A lot based on a few round holes and a OSCE man who believed the cockpit was shot by machinegun. Did you do your own research on the holes found in the aircraft? 99,99 are not perfectly round? Have you seen photos of 30mm cannons? Totally different than the damage on MH17.
      Also on July 17 none SU-25 of Ukraine was lost. That was a couple of days later.
      If you believe these stories you did not do your homework properly.

  14. Amazing that you base everything on and trust completely in the conclusions of an untrained civilian in England, Mr. Higgins, but dismiss the lengthy and detailed analysis of the engineers of the manufacturer of the missile of how the missile system works and where it would have been launched from based on the observed damage.

    The Snizhne launch site has not had much credibility from the beginning based on the flight path, flight distance, crash site, and observed damage.

  15. Gabriele Wolff // June 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm // Reply

    I suggest to watch the whole press conference from June 2 (91 minutes) to decide whether the explanations about the functioning of a BUK-missile are convincingly ruling out Snishne and what Almaz Antey really said about the use of the old type of missile in the Russian army. I saw the video yesterday and can’t recall whether he did mention this topic. I just noted that about minute 53 it was mentioned that the production stopped in 1999 and the firm was founded in 2001.

  16. Hector Reban // June 5, 2015 at 5:05 am // Reply

    @admin: Frau Wolff, as thorough as always 🙂

    Probably the manufactured wants to evade liabilities and a lift off of sanctions: They themselves didn’t manufacture the missiles and, according to the russian press, they suggested active use of this older type of missiles in Ukraine.

    Concerning the replacement, the wiki says the Russians has a replacement schedule for 2020 to replace 70% of the 9K37 missiles. So they already are replacing newer types than 9M38M1 missiles.

    However that doesn’t rule out they still have a limited amount of 9M38M1 missiles in use.

  17. I’m going to post the same request here that I did on Bellingcat regarding this press conference and the evidence presented, which is extremely strong in suggesting the launch location was south of Shakhtarsk.

    Thank you in advance.


    If you are certain of this real evidence you have presented regarding the Snizhne launch site then you should be able to refute the conclusions of the manufacturer of the BUK system, Almaz-Antey, regarding the explosion pattern of the fragments in the warhead and the damage one would expect them to inflict upon the plane, the missile flight path that can be concluded based on the damage which determines the direction of flight, and the azimuth of the missile as it exploded which determines the range it was fired at from the target. All of their conclusions are entirely against everything this website has put forth over the past 10 months on MH17 regarding the firing location of the BUK missile that took down MH17. An impartial reader would think you would have a significant interest in refuting their presentation on these key points.

    So if you are so certain, then please demonstrate where Almaz-Antey is wrong regarding the physics of the interception of the plane by the missile they designed and the path of the fragments out of the warhead they designed and into the plane.

    Almaz-Antey’s conclusions are not even “rocket science”. Many of us who are not trained weapons experts or even amateur weapons experts but who are engineers have been making the same point on other internet sites based on the location of the debris field and plane speed captured on radar (which indicates a ballastic descent following a spiral to the left), the damage patterns seen on the wreckage, the distance to detection and interception vs. the TELAR’s functional range operating without a KUPOL radar and command post since July of last year.

    • Hector Reban // June 5, 2015 at 1:51 pm // Reply

      Dutch blogger Erik Toonen made a calculation back in august which lead to the conclusion that a spot south from Shakhtars’k seemed the most likely launch spot. And he ruled out Snizhne too.


      • These calculations were incorrect since the final readout of the MH17 FDR location is much further ahead of what Erik Toonen assumed.

  18. Robert (alias Erkie999) // June 5, 2015 at 4:37 pm // Reply

    A BUK missile,regardless the typ, works with a proximityfuse. A BUK-missile is most effective when the detonation is at a certain distance from the object to be destroyed. To my knowledge this is around 10 meters, but the exact distance is not really relevant.

    The promixityfuse is the mechanisme which starts the proces for detonation. According to the slide number 40 the direction of the missile (horizontal and vertical) and the position when detonation took place, is roughly 15 meters to late.It roughly approaches MH17 from below and starboard side, so the proximityfuse should start working then and not pass the airplane first and detonate at the other side of the plane.

    (The animation on slide 40 doesn’t correspond with what he told before: the specialist estimated the detonation took place 3-4 meters from the plane and on the animation on slide 40 it looks more like 0,5 meter.)

    What is more interesting when looking at slide 11 and slide 40/41/45. At slide 11 the angles of spreading is shown, if you look very carefully to spreadingpattern, more fragments will be spread backwards then foreward. If you draw a perfect horizontal line through the heart of the explosive part (red section) the angle foreward compared to this horizontal line will be smaller then the angle backwards. My estimation (i will make calculations later) foreward angle: 26-27 degrees and backward angle 29-30 degrees. But on slides 40/41/45 is a spreadingpattern shown which is clearly in foreward direction. The foreward angle on slide 40/41/45 (nr 40 is most clear on this) shows an angle of 45-46 degrees or more and backword angle of 10-11 degrees or less.

    At slide 11 was told, this pattern was a result of test and 95% was within these limits of 56 degrees. The other 5% were all with a deviation of 2-3 degrees.

    Why are they inconsistent with the spreading pattern?
    If slide 11 is correct (is result of real test) then slides 40/41/45 is incorrect and how reliable are still their conclussion around the location/spot of detonation and firingpoint (location of TELAR)?

  19. The company makes an easily refuted claim. But if someone has to say something false in order to bring to the world’s attention that the missile came from Ukrainian territory with a missile that Ukraine possesses then it better a company says this than the Russian MOD

  20. 1) Bellingcat/Moses,E. Higgins “research” is proofed nonsense
    In respect to Syrian poison attack, and also in respect to MH 17. Propaganda stories. Even the german “SPIEGEL” has now learnded this
    lesson, the alledgedly faked russion satellite photos are not faked, a real forensic expert in Spiegel online declared!
    So forget Bellingcat.
    2) Look at your analysis from December “Limited damage to cockpit suggests missile exploded about 15 m in front, left and just about cockpit”

    Compare this with the findings of the experts from the producer of BUK. The say, studying the damage pattern, it c o u l d have been a BUK 9M38(M1.And if, coming from underneath, exploding 4-5 m in front of the left side of the cockpit. Vert.angle 20-22 degrees, horizontal angle 72-78 degrees.

    Supposedly launching area because of these findings : south of

    Normally the whole thing would be very easy, if the commission officials findings would not be controlled by Ukraine, we would know what type of schrapnel (“high energy objects”) were found in the bodies of the pilots.The investigaters know it since October!
    Because we d ont know, Russia is not in the commision, I think, that Russia and to a lesser extend also the separatists can be ruled out in downing MH 17.

    It is a political reason in favour of US geopolitics, why we dont get the truth, the results which alledgedly proof, that Ukraine did it either by accident during an exercise (Ukraine stated before July 17 that russian planes supposedly shot down ukrainian planes) or by confusing with Putins plane, originally planned (but changed) heading for Rostock/Don excactly the flight path of MH17.

  21. Arnold Greidanus // June 8, 2015 at 4:35 pm // Reply

    In the Almaz Antej press conference the speakers clearly state that they have made an analysis of the types of impact, which lead them to conclude it was a 9M38M(1). They also say a chemical analysis of the holes in the wreckage and missile fragments found should be made to reach a final conclusion. As for the fighter jet theory, they do not address that one, but just say their investigation was restricted to the S2A-missile option.

    As for the launch site: in the presentation the missile trajectory of a 9M38M(1) has been described as well. The shorter the distance the steeper the trajectory. From a horizontal distance above 22 km the missile follows a horizontal glide during the last few km’s. (In the video this is addressed as from 43m40s). Launched from Zaroshchen’ske the missile will approach steeply from below, as is shown in the animation at 45m20s of video, which seems to be correct since the horizontal distance is a bit over 16 km.

    However, launching from Zaroshchen’ske the TELAR radar would not aim for the nose of the Boeing, but for a larger surface, e.g. the middle of it.

    What is also not addressed clearly in the presentation is the way the surface is impacted over time, since the Boeing has a speed of 250 m/s where as the three types of fragments with differing weights reach speeds varying from 1430 to 2480 m/s.

    Furthermore: the horizontal and vertical angles leading to the engagement point can also be achieved if one mirrors the trajectory. In that case the missile could be launched somewhere in the area of Chernukhino… This possibility isn’t addressed either.

    It seems to me that the AA press conference had to adhere to Russian government policies, hence the Zaroshchen’ske launch spot. What struck me is that during the Q&A session afterwards no foreign correspondent was given the opportunity to raise a question. Only representatives of the (pro)Russian press were given the floor.

    For now, the AA press conference does not provide any decisive answers.
    Which doesn’t mean the Snizhne launch site has to be the correct one. A launch from a more East-North-Eastern position would be more plausible IMHO, but then: I certainly am no rocket scientist 😉

  22. 1. The press-conference was done by Almaz-Antey company. Not the Russian governmnt. The company’s motivation is to prove that the sanctions against it are politically motivated and unjusty. So the message of the article confusing these entities is a speculation IMHO.
    2. The company didn’t blame anyone of commiting the crime. It has much more honesty and diplomacy than all the western media and diplomats taken altogether. Only the court, the judge with prosecutors and advocats in a fair competitive trial can say if someone is guilty in the crime. Not any newspaper.
    Moreover the company didn’t say that the MH-17 was shot down by BUK. So the first ‘conclusion’ is another pure speculation. The company told that IF it was BUK systems THEN it would be this type of rocket and provided its reasons which were not really covered in the piece of… information here.
    3. The argument that the rockets of previous version were taken out of production before the estblishing of the company doesn’t remove a possibility that Russian army can have these rockets. Moreover these rockets were sold to different other countries than Ukraine (armenia for instance which photo together with Putin is another speculative argument that proves nothing – in theory aggressive armenians could send their BUK launcher to Ukraine and perform an attack, which is nonsense of course, but in theory it is possible)
    4. Novaya Gazeta is not a decent source of information. Their opinion comparing to the article under discussion blames Putin of every sin possible since his very beginning. But their arguments for some reason weere mentioned much more then the arguments of the specialists from Almaz Antey. If anyone wants the information from this pressconference I suggest to learn russian. Because this article is about the evil bad Putin and nothing else.
    Thanks for reading.

  23. The missile could not have been launched from Chernukhino. The damage pattern on the plane is on the wrong side and angle for that. The BUK intercepted the plane in such a way that it didn’t damage the right side, and the primary damage runs top center to bottom left. The damage pattern would be mirrored if it came from the north, and the right side would be perforated, not the left, given the momentum of the missile.

    • so tell us more about the work of proximity fuse and max delay for the initial explosion? and dont forget the forward movement of the shraplenels during the explosion. so andrew, try again please.

      • I’m not forgetting anything about movement. There is literally almost no shrapnel damage to the right side of the plane. So the missile did not explode on the right side, or send any shrapnel through the right, then the missile did not approach from the rear, the front, or the left.

        The missile approached from left and also in front, the shrapnel was expelled outwards along the length of the plane (relative momentum from warhead explosion) and forward into the left side (relative momentum of the missile). Almez-Antey clearly explained all of this although it was already obvious for months to anyone who had seen the damage to the plane’s skin. The interception at the front occurs because the missile system is calculating a interception based on the closing of two vectors to a common point – the plane and the missle, which is the front of the plane. It would not try to calculate a path into the side of the plane since the relative movement would jeapordize the fragments hitting the plane, which might mostly pass the missile and fragments by.

        The Snizhne location with its forward interception requires one to believe that the fragments were expelled forward from the missile warhead with no expulsion to the missile’s left through the right side of the plane. You are free to do so but it would be a really strange warhead design – more like having a canon firing shotgun shells.

  24. Arnold Greidanus // June 10, 2015 at 10:44 am // Reply

    @Andrew I don’t know which Chernokhino you’re referring to. I mean the area approx. at 48 degr 20’44.46″ N and 38 degr 32’57.41″
    That’s the approx. area where a 77 degrees line from last FDR position would lead to when mirrored.
    As I stated I don’t think this is the area of the launch spot, I was only pointing out that – following the reasoning of AA engineers – this might be possible as well.

  25. This article makes a mistake when it claims bellingcat showed the photos were fake. The Russians had other photos of the buks, which bellingcat does not even look at. These photos are of two buks around Zaroschinskoe.
    One can view these other images after the 4 minute mark on the video the MOD released 21 July 2014

  26. Also even the Almaz Antey is right that does not mean an SU25 was not also involved. There will be evidence on the plane and maybe in the bodies of the pilots. This sort of evidence will trump internet speculation if Kiev does not use it’s veto to stop it being released to the public

  27. Location of the rockets at the explosion of the head does not determine the launch site.
    A rocket can do just loop before it hits the target.
    All because, it has its own engine and rudders.
    Therefore, the analysis of engineers from Almaz-Antey is telling fortunes from coffee grounds.
    In addition, engineers are dishonest with the analysis of trends bullet holes.

    • BUK can not do loop after flying 24+km:
      -because BUK is out of rocket fuel after about 15km of flight.
      -and because it can not receive TELAR sent radar echo from target, if it misses it. (BUK missile radar receiver has only view to forward)

      BUK will go directly to the crossing of target’s and it’s own flight path (especially when MH17 did not maneuver).
      BUK is designed to fly fast to target and if it manages to fly by it, closer than from 17m distance, it is a sure kill. In RU BUK methology, they launch two missiles at once, if the target somehow avoids missile #1, to me it seems impossible to avoid #2. (at BUK max range it is still able to do 13G-15G changes to it’s flight path)

  28. “New York Times reported that Almaz-Antey based their conclusions only on photos of debris & didn’t analyze/collect frags.”

    Around 7:16 there are sth I heard they got material from international commitee but couldnt publish it? Or did I misunderstand? I assumed they had access to DSB’s fragments or it is about only watching the debris in Netherlands?

    About holes, at around 9:00, they compared them with a photo made from an earlier Buk-drone excercise and seemed they found very similar damages.

    Another interesting fact, the timestamp in video I forgot to notice, that AA helped by experts also took part in 2001 Air Siberia Investigation and identified the S-200 fragments.

    In summary, I have very weird feelings. Almaz-Antey is a factory conglomerate and includes most part of NPO Novator, the original designer of missile. Novator also had/has experience in design and production of air-air missiles. For me, they seems have all knowledge to identify the shrapnels and missile. But not sure about launch locations, there may be many unknown factors.

    Anyone heard sth about that maybe DSB will use their results in final report?

  29. sotilaspassi // April 15, 2016 at 11:28 am // Reply

    1. Almaz Antey is fully controlled and owned by Russian government
    2. we see from numerous recent photographs that Russian border area is filled with BUK M1 systems and <M2 missiles.
    3. in late 2013/early 2014:
    “We are now in the midst of planned rearmament to replace Buk-M1 with Buk-M2. We expect to receive Buk-M3s starting from 2016,” Maj. Gen. Alexander Leonov told
    Read more:

    • sotilaspassi // April 15, 2016 at 11:36 am // Reply

      +”The rationale was that the BUK-M1 was no longer used by the Russian military,”
      “But the fact that the BUK-M1 is no longer officially used by the Russian military hardly means that there are none remaining in its arsenal, or that the missiles could not have been transferred to separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.”

      +”Almaz-Antey came to the conclusion it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from BUK’s older line of defense systems, namely the BUK-M1. The missiles in question are widely deployed by a number of post-Soviet states, including Ukraine, but have been replaced by a newer make in Russia. ”

      But yeah, futile discussion.
      M1 (& BUK M1-2) was fully in use but being slowly replaced with M2 in 2014.

    • sotilaspassi // April 20, 2016 at 10:01 am // Reply

      A-A is paid by RU government to produce “maskirovska for the media”.

      “it is believed Ukraine does.”
      We have evidence Ukraine uses M1 systems. But not about what specific missiles it has.

      In the end:
      No matter what BUK missile model was used. It came from ahead. Was it the TELAR that rebels had? or some other lonely non-photographed TELAR? Or was it some other large (radar invisible / long diostance) missile?

  30. sotilaspassi // April 15, 2016 at 11:59 am // Reply

    >if it were fired from Sninzhne, “the entire front end of the cabin would have been blown off”

    Then they demonstrated how “their Snizhne scenario” did much less damage on IL86 than what happened to MH17 in real life.

    Almaz-Antey look like bunch of amateurs and RU government puppets.

  31. “Admin would do well to look closely at the Almaz Antey presser and confirm for himself the contextual basis of Almaz Antey’s statement which has lead to misinterpretation by trolls and the myth of the missiles propaganda and to add a section in the article to this effect.”

    I agree. It will do us all some good to review the work of Almaz Antey in the light of what we know today.

    It is not without reason that Russia complains to this day that their contribution has been ignored, cherry picked and misrepresented in western media.

  32. sotilaspassi // April 22, 2016 at 1:54 pm // Reply

    I say the wording of A-A has been very intentional and carefully set for (Kreml run) media like RT and sputnik to use. +Their reporters are native russia speaking so I doubt they did mistake in how to interpret.

  33. sotilaspassi // April 22, 2016 at 1:58 pm // Reply

    btw. Is there any indication anywhere Ukraine use old 9M38 missiles?
    How they have kept them working. Missiles need maintenance & component replacements.
    (eg. 80% of TOW missiles fail after 5 years beyond it’s “best before date”, I tried.)

  34. sotilaspassi // April 22, 2016 at 2:10 pm // Reply

    Did A-A state why they did not simulate the proper “the entire front end of the cabin would have been blown off” -style Snizhne launch????

    They look insanely incompetent!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.