1. Almaz-Antey dont make stressing field tests for warhead. It is soviet-era developing with obsolete equipment which cannot describe angles of each pellet. Im reading about how warhead tested - firing test was on metal screen (static position) with fly-by missile. Density was not enough for ordered 25m so developers tuned down detonation range for radio-fuse from 25m to 17m. It how "precise" was their knowledge about fragment distribution. So AA only base their data on soviet-era calculations and test. But radilogy (most precise experimentation tool for firing tests of detonation processes and ballistic of fragments) in Soviet Union was very bad. 2. Field tests with moving targets dont show how really moving any pellet. Only how many holes you receive on target Name-X which flown on alt, with speed and intercepted with attack angle. Compare it with army wishes and sell to them this warhead. 3. AA give alot false info and >40% mass of fragments with >50% of kinetic energy is part of their incredible lie. I can explain it but im dont think you really wanna it know. Belivers never need knowledge, their God give them all. But why then you post here? You wanna revert our knowledge into your faith? No way! So AA info im checking with ballistic science and dont find proof on their lie. Do you have proof for their info? 4. Lancet, concentration, perpendicular distribution for most pellets - cannot be used with 9N314 warhead shape. CANNOT. No way for this warhead receive any of these. Or show me how you can receive that results. With science. 5. Do you think science dont work for this actual warhead during field experiment with detonation on Mach 3? Really? You need proof for any changes? Mach 3? Mach 2? Mach 1? How about vector addition? Is it work only on Mach 1? Or TG-24 explosive filling have different detonation speed as function of missile speed? May be warhead shape changes when exploding near B777? Of course, no! Ballistic as science describe any of these changes with tools like Gunrey equation, Taylor angle, Shapiro formula etc. Tools have precision and working range but inside it can describe how actual warhead must work. You must start a picket against Internation Symposium on Ballistic since these guys just eat money without working theory. So what science using Almaz-Antey? Can you provide proof on their firing tests, modified theory or independent source with same results? No, you cannot. But you can spread out false info from AA as Testament from God.