Tags:
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    BUK missile producer Almaz-Antey conducted live explosion tests with a BUK missile placed next to the cockpit of a plane similar in size to the MH17 777.



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Result
    [​IMG]

    RT says:
    The idea (seems to be) to demonstrate that the missile's heading was coming from Zaroshens'ke (Unkranian territory), and not Snizhne (Russian backed rebel territory, closer to the Russian border). To do this they oriented the missile as if it were coming from Zaroshens'ke, which would be a heading of about 20°

    While there is some small distortion from perpective and camera angles, the video provides some axis aligned shots that allow us to gauge the position of the warhead.
    [​IMG]

    MH17 was on a track of 118 degrees, so a head on velocity would be 298°, by comparing the length of the missile in the front and side shots we can calculated [ atan(side/front) ] that the missile is rotated about 35° from a head on approach in this setup, so would have a heading of 298+35 = 333 degrees.

    With the plane and missile in motion, my 2D simulator gives the resulting blast as:
    http://tube.geogebra.org/material/simple/id/FP58nKZJ
    [​IMG]

    With the plane and missile static (as in this live test), it looks like:
    [​IMG]

    A moving missile from Zaroshens'ke looks like:
    [​IMG]

    A moving missile from Snizhne looks like
    [​IMG]

    Hence, based on my 2D simulation, the results of the static test most closely resemble a missile from the Snizhne area. And given my model appears to match the results for the static test, that would imply it is reasonably accurate in terms of static dispersion. The rest is just simple velocity addition.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    1. Missile from Z dont have elevation angle so AA simulation is wrong (because without elevation missile will explode on center of cabine or breach into nose).
    2. Fragment velocity and angle distribution of 9N314 warhead is different since have 2 layers.
    3. That mean velocity and angle will differ from simple (fragments between disclosure angle) with more difference when adding vector speed of plane and missile.
    So AA simulation absolutely wrong with any azimuth angle and very need elevation angle for create looks-like-real damage pattern.
    Anyway, Mick West's tool still show good visible disclosure angle for moving missile in projection thru axis of this missile.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Ole

    Ole Member

    - The "track" of 115° is the displayed heading, the deviation in the region is 8°E, so the nose pointed to 123° true.
    https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...buk-launch-location.t6345/page-16#post-159324

    - For all we know the middle vector between front and rear limit of the fragment sector points 8° to rearward as opposed to being perpendicular in your graphic.
    https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...buk-launch-location.t6345/page-15#post-158876

    - Even the DSB Report calculates with a missile speed of 700 m/s:
    Page 138 and see also table at page 140

    The speed of the missile being 300 m/s lower we can roughly approximate tan^-1 (300/2000) ~=8°

    So in your last graphic the course of the missile needs to be turned by 8+8+8=24 degree, which would make the true course of the missile in that graphic 338°.

    Btw: A missile approaching at a course of ~340° true would fit to the scratch on the wing, if the missile didn't changed course after detonation.
     
  4. Herman Aven

    Herman Aven Member

    Not sure why calculations anywhere would use 1000 m/s missile speed. Based on which data? Just a grab from the web.

    The published report of the Dutch Safety Board lists as resulting speed 730 m/s (table 19 page 140, weapon end speed) with fragment speed ranging between 1100 and 2500 m/s (depending on model and weight).

    Main problem seems to be (to me) still the lack of damage at the right side of the plain in most realistic models. And I do think Mick's model is correct is showing that the strike zone is not that narrow that it would not come out the right side of the plane in a frontal scenario. The damage is just not there in any of the found fragments.
     
  5. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    For a theory to be correct it must explain evidence not ignore it. This is at the heart of scientific inquiry.
    One part of the evidence is fragment damage from the warhead to the left side of the plane.
    The holes are squarish indicating they are not from debris but from warhead fragments.
    It is impossible for a missile coming from Snizhne to cause that damage. Impossible.
    There is a photo of this on page 60 of the report. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf

    Here is another photo.
    70652bf5df3e2c1fb613f8df876db25d.

    Here again is the predicted pattern from a Snizhne launch.
    [​IMG]

    No warhead fragment damage (as opposed to debris) should have been observed on the left wing if the missile came from Snizhne, yet is exists
     
  6. mvdb22

    mvdb22 Member

    What I understand is the testing of AA on that IL86 was to prove a launch from Snizhne does not result in the damage observered on MH17 debris.
    The angle of that missile on wooden construction does not look to be from a Zaroshens'ke launch.

    Have to say the presentation of Almaz Antey was too technical. Most journalist do not know difference between warhead and missile. Let alone they understand vector calculations.
    AA forgot to explain the basics. First question of journalist: what was the purpose of the experment. Then you know you did something wrong/
     
  7. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    there is no evidence that this was their idea. In fact we know they already debunked Snizhne (to their own satisfaction at the very least). You seem to be trying to change their motive. You may believe Snizhne is poossible , they no longer do.
    Having already discounted Snizhne, the idea was to confirm the type of missile.
     
  8. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Why do you think they were trying to discount Snizhne? They moved on. They provided a case why Snizhne was not the launch location previously. If they wanted to do that they would have used the whole plane. They tested to see the shape of the holes and whether MH17 was hit by an older missile or a newer one,.
     
  9. mvdb22

    mvdb22 Member

    Russia makes things very confusing with contradicting statements. Does not make their story reliable.
    Oleg Storchevoy, deputy head of Russia's national aviation regulator, held a press briefing on Wednesday, October 14, in Moscow.
    http://sputniknews.com/video/20151014/1028496652/russia-position-mh17-report.html

    Alec Luhn, reporter in Moscow for The Guardian attended the meeting. Some of the statements made :

    Russian official claims Dutch told investigators #MH17 Buk had launched from "Schnitze," they misheard as "Snizhne"

    Storchevoi denies that Russia calculated #MH17 launch site near Snizhne, as Dutch report says

    #MH17 only gets more confusing. Almaz-Antey said yesterday it tested launch from Snizhne, Storchevoi says it tested launch from Zaroshchenke

     
  10. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    If that is indeed what they are hoping to demonstrate, then they are being wilfully disingenuous. Missiles like these do not fly in straight lines directly to the target, but rather have some clever software that takes the targets trajectory and makes constant predictive adjustments during the flight time.

    It does not chase the target, it plots a converging path to meet it. The on-board seeker then makes fine adjustments so this is a flawed 'experiment' that has been conducted with a conclusion built in.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    My first thought on reading the opening posts was that the static position of the warhead at detonation doesn't tell us much about launch location because these things don't fly in a straight line to the target or follow a projectile path either. But I don't know much about these things and decided not to air that thought until I saw BombDr's post.

    So is this correct? Would the missile's tracking plausibly have caused its course to deviate from linear sufficiently to make the Almaz-Antey "test" a likely farce?
     
  12. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    I would say so. To be able to assert with any kind of accuracy what attitude the missile would have ben relative to the target is slightly absurd, but I think it is likely that the point of the test was to add misdirection. Here are some surface to air corkscrews, and when aircrew see corkscrews in the sky, it usually means their day will be one to remember, or not.




    02. download. figure-10-new.

     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Some footage of BUK firing and not going in a straight line (see 2:00 onwards)
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The Dutch report contains the results of three sets of simulations used to determine the missile launch area, which I've overlaid ona Google Earth background here:
    [​IMG]

    One of there (the two blue areas) is by Almaz-Antey. AA have also gone to considerable lengths to make the case that the most likely launch area is near Zaroshens'kye, just based on the simplistic type of angle analysis I used in the OP.

    I'm not sure of the timeline of the changing AA story.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 3
  15. Vostok

    Vostok New Member

    So i watched the hour long Almaz Antey report yesterday and I'd like to make a few points. (Please correct me if i am wrong).

    It seemed that the main aim of the report was two things, namely; Ruling out that the 9M38M1 missile was used by showing the lack of "H" shaped striking elements in MH-17 as compared to the IL-86 they tested on. Their other point was that, The angle at which the DSB (Dutch Safety Board) suggested the 9M38M1 missile hit the Boeing was inconsistent with what would cause the damage on MH-17 wreckage, saying that if the missile struck MH-17 as the dutch team suggested, there would not be a single striking element present in the left wing or left engine. This was not the case.
    That said, Almaz Antey carried out two tests. The second test (The one with the Ilyushin IL-86 cockpit section) was to test two things.
    1. The damage caused by "H" shaped striking elements, and their lack of presence on the MH-17 wreck
    2. The left wing and engine would be left untouched by the damage

    While there was only a cockpit present in the test, they placed some Aluminium sheet-metal in the correct place to simulate the area of the left engine. After the test, the sheet-metal was untouched
    Ultimately, the test with the IL-86 was to simulate the DSB's conclusion and to show that it was inconsistent with the MH-17 damages
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Surely that area would only be damaged if the missile was moving? So you would expect it to be untouched in this static test?
     
  17. Vostok

    Vostok New Member

    According to Almaz Antey, they performed something like 1 million computer generated simulations (Not an exaggeration, i believe they said that) to determine a compromise for the fact that neither the boeing-777 or the Buk missile were moving. They showed the simulation results (Stationary vs moving) and the damage pattern was very close. But naturally there would be some issues still.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  18. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    The DSB report highlights that ricochet marks were found in the forward fuselage. Could these richochets account for some or all of the damage caused to the port engine intake and the left wing tip? Part of the buk was found in the left wing tip. Some parties are stating that there should be no damage to the port wing or port engine nacelle. Did they take into account the ricochets rather than focusing on the spread pattern purely from the warhead?

    From the DSB report

    The cockpit window frames show areas where debris and warhead fragments didn't penetrate so obviously they had to ricochet off somewhere. How much damage to the left engine nacelle and wing occurred from these ricochets. In addition to the ricochets off the left side of the aircraft, how many ricochets were from pieces that penetrated the left hand side and were then deflected internally back out to hit the engine nacelle?
     
  19. Vostok

    Vostok New Member

    Almaz Antey stated that all the damage on the left wing was due to ricochet for the striking elements. Their main point was that the Dutch Safety Board's concept of the scenario would mean that ricochet was impossible because all striking elements struck the aluminium "Skin" at an angle greater than 30 degrees. Accouding to Almaz Antey, the striking elements of the Buk 9M38M1 missile do not ricochet at angles greater than 30 degrees on the aircraft's aluminium surface.

    To summarize:

    Almaz Antey disagrees with the DSB's conclusion because they state that in the DSB scenario, the missile elements would not ricochet and instead, would penetrate clean through the skin. This was one of the points of their second test with the Ilyushin IL-86, in which case none of the elements ricocheted.

    EDIT: I think i misunderstood something. Almaz Antey is refuting claims that the missile was fired from Snezhnoy, not the Dutch Safety Board claims. My mistake, lost somewhere in translation. Regardless, Almaz Antey claims that, to get results similar to MH-17, the missile must have been fired from Zaroshchenskoe.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    I fail to see how the test can be in any where comparable. The very fact that the missile and the cockpit section were static rules out the fact that the forward momentum of the target aircraft weighing 100+ tons and the forward velocity of the missile, would greatly increase the impact velocity of the missile fragments on the aircraft, and change the distribution pattern of the fragments around the front of the plane and the resultant damage.

    Or am I missing something here?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  21. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    You are right, because it's not. The fact this was on RT (who reported the photoshopped 'satellite' photo of the Ukrainian jet firing a missile as fact) already has me skeptical of any objectivity. Not that this would be a valid argument against the claim.

    But, a static test with an asserted range to target, asserted angle and without the velocities of either the plane of the missile represented certainly looks like someone is trying to make a point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Sigh...where did RT "report it as fact"? IIRC they merely reported it was be touted.

    Do you have link? If not you should withdraw this
     
  23. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Unfortunately, this video is mix of videos from 2 cams so hard to clearly explain what happen with video timings.
    First missile which we see at 1:58 fired from TELAR.
    Second missile fired at 2:10 fired from TEL.
    What difference in it and why first missile fly forward till 2:30, after that make a hook and going to to target.
    This is FIRST missile fired from TELAR. TELAR have own radar which measure target data and transmit to own missile (fired from TELAR) information to where missile should fly. Missile dont have lock on target but only virtual meeting point.
    When missile coming close enough to target then TELAR give command to activate semi-active radar seeker on missile with info azimuth/elevation position of target. So missile can find target, lock re-emission signal and correct flight.
    This SEMI-ACTIVE RADAR HOMING WITH COMMAND GUIDANCE INTERCEPTION.

    Second missile fired from TEL. TEL dont have radar and receive initial target info from radar of TELAR or TAR. That mean missile dont receive any radio command guidance and save RC channels for other missiles. When missile starting radar seeker already have initial position of target which receive on TEL. After safety time (2-4 seconds of unguided flight) radar seeker activate lock on target and trajectory changed (on video this moment at 2:18 since video is twicely slowed for better effects). Missile going to intercept target and trajectory dont changed.
    This is PURE SEMI-ACTIVE RADAR HOMING, without RC.
    Summary both missiles intercept target but first missile lock target (and change trajectory) later then second missile.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  24. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    AFAIK RT.com didn't publish the image - Pravda.ru did in this article and it was repeated on Russian State news services as reported here in the Mirror.

    From the Pravda article:

     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Perhaps I was careless with my language, and instead of 'reported as fact' should have written 'uncritically repeated conspiracy theories and Kremlin misdirection'.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  26. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Almaz-Antey accidentally give very good info about bow-tie strike elements. Need just pay attention to their slides.
    First slide show typical damage from bow-tie strike elements which AA trying to find on planes.
    83b107d1ce402bf18ad1b663a0cd8269.
    Green circle - strike element before explosion.
    Blue circle - strike element after explosion.
    Red circle - hole in aluminium target.
    And this manipulation!
    Look how slightly damaged bow-tie strike element after explosion and penetration. It happen because Almaz-Antey used specific engineering tool for study high speed penetrations called light-gas gun!
    Construction of this gun prevent damage to accelerated object (compared with warhead explosion) since explosion pressure and temperature received by rupture disk in high-pressure coupler.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun#/media/File:Light-gas_gun.svg
    So bow-tie DONT LOSS SHAPE and leave accurate hole same as initial strike element.
    Another story is
    Second slide
    5a44aae4544928ab3bc9bc8e116e8e36.
    have bow-tie strike elements AFTER EXPLOSION.
    Im marked 2 rows:
    1 row contain 3 strike elements which save initial shape. But look how different they look with compare to almost untouched strike element from previous slide!
    2 row contain 7 strike elements which mis-shaped and cannot leave specific hole.
    Conclusion: 70% of heavy bow-tie strike elements lose their shape before hitting target!
    Attention: this deformation is result of explosion! Strike elements dont penetrate plane skin and construction but removed from special TRAP which save objects from mechanic deformation.
    On this slide AA manipulated with photo of holes - they did very low scale photos of holes so we cannot find specific holes.
    And last manipulation is static experimentation. Without vector adding of speed (inital speed of strike elements, speed of missile and speed of target) fragments of warhead receive different speed and coming to plane surface under angles close to ideal (perpendicular to strike elements surface) because warhead dont moving! It completely change hole shape!
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Where did they do that? And how did you source it to the Kremlin?
     
  28. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    My post above links to state owned media that repeated the claims.
     
  29. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Bow-tie strike elements. Why it lose shape even before penetration.
    Warhead 9N314M have 2 layers of strike elements.
    fac198e904c76d293955168343e9fdb3.
    Inner layer contain 1870 bow-tie heavy strike elements with 1870 filler strike elements between them.
    Outer layer contain 4100 square strike elements.
    Layers isolated from explosive filling, between them and from open air with textile.
    During explosion inner layer work as liner and prevent gas leaking at first moment. Elements of inner layer have outnourmos thermal and pressure stress from explosion from one side. At same time inner layer exchange energy with outer layer, it is adding stress to inner elements from another side.
    As result bow-tie elements start to lose shape and receive oblateness.
    In extreme cause bow-tie elements can even lose shape completely and decay on 2 debris. It happen if bow-tie element situated in area with highest pressure - middle of warhead (in really this area start approx. at 1/4 and continue to 3/4 of warhead length).
    Very interesting why inner layer contain bow-tie elements, instead of old design with only square elements (heavy and light).
    Technically, square elements have very good penetration on high speed - sharp edge can "cut" target material with lower density. Also square have best ratio weight/size. But warhead 9N314M lose heavy strike elements - square, during development. Why it happen despite on square penetartion?
    As im said - inner layer work as liner for outer layer during explosion. Liner prevent gas leaking during time when elements receive acceleration from explosive force as gas pressure per square. Very important on this stage prevent destruction (decay or mis-shape with holes between nearby elements) for elements which isolate gas. Previous design with square elements reveal a problem - square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal - direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere. Spheres have holes for gas leaking between them, also shpere have lesser penetration. Outnormous pressure during explosion can even destroy square on a few debris which can be too small for penetrate armored targets (main idea of heavy strike elements is penetration of armored targets like close-support war plane Su-25 or A-10).
    6379e3baa535a7977710e9b1d2441e4c.
    All these troubles solved with new design exchanged square heavy elements for bow-tie elements.
    Bow-tie shape still have weight and sharp edges but more protected from sphere exploding (bow-tie have lesser length of edges so density not so low). That mean layer with bow-tie transmit more energy to outer layer before gas leaking play role. Also bow-tie elements even when decay on a few debris produce only one main big debris with little losing of weight or two debrises with almost half of weigth each. This is enough for designed effect - penetration of armored targets.
    How good bow-tie layer as liner? Outer layer receive speed up to 2400 m/s. It have only a few difference from Gurney equation fragment speed (maximum speed which can receive strike element for warhead case shape, weight ratio, explosive) near 3000-3100 m/s.
    For example, inner layer with bow-tie lose some many energy in exchange and after it receive additional force from explosion only when gas-leaking happen so bow-tie strike elements receive almost half of inner layer speed - near 1200-1800 m/s.
    Conclusion - bow-tie elements will lose shape in most causes so Almaz-Antey slide with typical hole is manipulation and lie.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  30. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    Ok, I lost track a bit. Which missile does A-A claim was used contradicting the dutch report?
     
  31. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    It is the specific warhead on the Buk that is in dispute.

    The Dutch Safety Board has the warhead down as the 9N314M. (Cubic, Irregular and Bow-Tie fragments)

    The Russians are suggesting that the warhead must have been the 9N314. (Cubic and Irregular fragments)

    The Russians can't work out why Bow-tie warhead fragments have been found in the wreckage and in human remains.

    Bow-tie fragments were recovered from the body of the Captain of MH17 and other human remains.

    Do a Control F search for bow-tie in the report.

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  32. Unit0

    Unit0 New Member

    This test is surprise for numerics-gmbh (Split-X developer).

    View attachment 6a7530730593856cdf0511e49d7e1c92.bmp_.jpg

    IL-86 dont have strip without impacts. It must be in static too, if it is based on angle density for fragments. It woud be intresting to look at Split-X result for zero rocket velocity.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  33. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Here is what the report said on page 95
    Not awfully strong evidence
     
    • Like Like x 1
  34. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    AA have also said
    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151015/1028572179/mh17-mistakes-report.html

    Added in edit: It was not AA but Oleg Storchevoy, the deputy head of Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency,
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  35. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Another "Haisenko" expert which lie about missiles. Where Oleg Storchevoy (ex-pilot) so good learn how work radar-fuse on missiles? In cabin of TransAero's B-737?
     
  36. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    So what reason killed MH17, strong evidence, please?
     
  37. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Can you show strip without impacts on fragment distribution for static warhead?
    d982b6dc3df51ae044688b95805dc41e.
     
  38. Unit0

    Unit0 New Member

    The more I look at this picture, the more doubts. I understand how it was resulted in modeling. But i suppose that BUK developers spend a much time looking a right warhead form, fragment size and etc. The strip without impacts is obviously contradicts to the creation of a dense stream of fragments.
     
  39. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    The strong evidence is that the left engine cowling has fragment holes. Which means Ukraine the Americans some Dutch and your good self are mistaken about the missile coming from Snizhne.
     
  40. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    How so? You need to demonstrate why this makes everyone mistaken, not just assert it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4