Tags:
  1. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Detonator inside ПИМ предохранительно-исполнительный механизм safety-executive device and stay on top of warhead (edge close to nose part).
    [​IMG]
    On left side is nose part of missile - compartment #1 with seeker, radio-fuse, autopilot. Diameter of missile is 340 mm.
    Warhead situated in compartment #2 with varied diameter from 340mm to 400mm (#7 on picture is missile skin).
    Compartment #3 (rocket engine and power supply) have already diameter 400m.

    Missile 9M38M1 have two-stage rocket engine, but one-stage missile. First and second stages of rocket engine (which in really all together so missile have only one stage) is specially designed hole inside propellant grain. Shape of hole during first stage have progressive surface of burn - with time surface which burn opening more and more fuel burn so missile receive a big impulse with time. Shape of hole during second stage have a regressive surface of burn - with time surface burn have same surface or even reduced and missile receive same impulse or lowering with time but spent much lesser fuel then progressive hole.
    So missile at first stage quickly gain speed (even with high elevation angle). After that missile change fast gain speed on slow gain but with more time. Look on picture
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
  2. Stepan_Sotnikov

    Stepan_Sotnikov New Member

    Hi, I have long followed the discussion.
    It considered in detail the trajectory of the particles and the angles entering. But sending a rendezvous trajectory missiles target. Algorithms guided missiles at the target is not so much. Taking the dogma of the explosion, the missile could not have come from this side. Rockets always aim at a spot with very little advance.
    Method chase.
    The method of parallel rapprochement.
    Method three points.
    But if the opposite approach and sharp corners, these algorithms are very similar.
    The difference in koordinat on the approach of not more than 15-30 meters. But in any case the rocket sees the goal as a (spot lights up) or (visible spot). And moves
    at him with a slight advance (outrunning). Advance (outrunning) 1/3 of the visible stains(object) + delta speed. it will not exceed 15 meters. With a length of 70 meters Boeing it had to happen in the near center of the object but not before target.
    .
    For the explosion before the plane it is necessary to choose between two conditions. Or it flies at an acute angle to the object to meeting point
    . Or catching up with him and there perelt.
    I would like to say that a possible approaching missiles was not a simple party. Then the explosion in front of the plane and an angle stacks entering on a course contrary to guidance systems.
    very interesting investigation - point start,
    but there are a lot of questions and possibilities of fraud
    a lot of facts in dispute. not much reliable facts.
    We the media lies. Both you and us. The Ukrainian government is lying, but the Russian government is lying. And I would like to know the truth. By listening to this that said Ukraine and Russia, and try to understand where everyone lied.
    Sorry for my english, I'm from Russia.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.
      1.jpg
      File size:
      175.2 KB
      Views:
      0
    • 2.
      2.jpg
      File size:
      100.4 KB
      Views:
      0
    • 3.
      3.jpg
      File size:
      88.7 KB
      Views:
      0
    • 4.
      4.jpg
      File size:
      148.8 KB
      Views:
      0
    • 5.
      5.jpg
      File size:
      152.2 KB
      Views:
      0
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
  3. Rob

    Rob Member

    Sure. But a wide cone rules out a perpendicular "lancet".
     
  4. Rob

    Rob Member

    Since the top-detonator/"back-firing" Almaz Antey cone does not make any engineering sense (they should turn the warhead around and gain 18% kinetic energy, AND a better aimed cone) I just became an extreme skeptic of Almaz Antey's claims.

    On the detonator graph : Why are you so convinced that the left side is top ?
    Doesn't that arrow (marked with letter A) indicate that the top is on the right ?
    And how do we know that we are looking at a 9N314M1 warhead here any way ?

    And even if it is a 9N314M1 warhead, how do we know that the outer layer fragments move much faster than the inner heavier ones ? And if they do, then why did you designate your 2 cones with velocities 1773-2309 m/s and 1945-2704 m/s respectively ? That is not that much of a difference. And where did you get these speeds, and their spreads, from in the first place ? And within these spreads, which fragments (back-side or front-side) have the highest velocity ?

    What I'm saying is that there are a number of basic engineering issues with the Almaz Antey claims about WHERE (which direction) this warhead deposits which fragments and at which velocity (including Almaz Antey's dynamic perpendicular "lancet") that simply do not make engineering sense.

    And it will be hard to debunk or explain these issues without having more verifiable info about this warhead.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  5. mvdb22

    mvdb22 Member

    This image shows some more details
    [​IMG]
     
  6. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    1. Forgot about lancet - it stupid lie which dont have any proofs in warhead design. If you following this myth and try describe anything with it then im dont know why Hollow Charge Shell was invented if can have lancet with Round Bomb.
    Hollow Charge Shell is cause when shape of warhead surface concentrate surface material in certain direction and narrow beam. Gibbouse surface cannot have by any magic trick.
    2. Im show pic with compartment #2 (warhead and safety-executive device). Missile have 2 diameters and compartment # 2 is interjacent between D=340mm of compartment #1 (seeker+fuse+autopilot) and D=400mm of compartment #3 (rocket). How you can place warhead with detonator on bottom if on picture detonator close to narrow part.
    3. 'A' mean Section View - direction where you look when see left picture or view from top to bottom.
    4. My angles and speeds is result of calculation for individual fragment distribution by angles and speed for 2 layers. Outer layer have better speed (dont spent energy for throwing another layer as inner layer with work as liner for outer projectors, also accelleration happen in first timing when pressure is highest and liner dont have gas leaking) and have angles moved back by Taylor angle (by one-side detonation wave). Inner layer have some lower speed (by many proccess like energy exchange with outer layer, gas leaking, acoustic reflection of pressure waves from layer with opposition reflected waves to high pressure, increasing volume) and dont have Taylor angle (acceleration happen mostly when warhead already fully detonated). In both cause speed which receive pellet depend from Gurney velocity (best speed which can receive pellet for such amount of explosive, fragments and filling type) and from position in warhead or shape of warhead. Pellets situated on edges have lowest speed but pellet close to detonator have most lowest speed (low amount of explosive). Im dont understand why you so worry about detonator place? Detonator place for 9N314 warhead only move back by 8 degree light pellets cuboids 8x8x5mm weght 2.35 gramm which have mass 32% from total mass of fragments.
    5. Detonator on top is offten cause. Reason is very simple!
    Radio-fuse have radiation pattern so react on target under certain angle. So when missile meet another missile as target then top-side detonator dont allow pellets miss a target by moving their angles to forward (by Taylor angle) = miss zone for fast flying little target.
    6. Best speed for 'barrel' warhead have pellets in middle of gibbouse. They fly to angle close to perpendicular (light pellets from outer layer perpendicular+Taylor angle).
     
  7. Rob

    Rob Member

    Yes. I've seen that picture.
    And also this warhead schematic :

    [​IMG]

    which originates from you, right ? (Incidentally, where did you find this schematic) ?

    This schematic is also consistent with that cone shape of the missile around the warhead. And yes, I understand, it all seems to indicate that the primer is at the top.

    But these are all statements by authority.

    And it still it does not make any engineering sense to do so (they loose 18% kinetic energy and disperse the fragment cone).

    Now what ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  8. Ole

    Ole Member

    It was emphasized several times in this thread, that it may not be an intelligent idea to squeeze out the last millijoule of kinetic energy, if that comes at the cost of narrowing the shrapnel cone and thus reducing the hitting probability.
     
  9. Rob

    Rob Member

    I'm sorry AD. I do not understand that.
     
  10. Rob

    Rob Member

    I'm sorry Ole. But we are not talking about millijoule's. We are talking about 18% of kinetic energy of the high energy fragments. And moreover, a narrowing of the shrapnel cone, which Almaz Antey calls a "lancet".
    Not to mention that the "hitting probability" is not necessarily increased with a backward blasting cone.
     
  11. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joq said "I've got declassified papers concerning another warheads."

    Could you share these with us ?
     
  12. Rob

    Rob Member

    I'm sorry Joq, but that reference refers to several dozens of documents.

    Which document is the one that shows "static fields of heavy frag (~4 g) limited between
    [~70*-90*, 1500-2000 m/s (top primer)] to [~70*-80*, 1600-2200 m/s (rear)]
    while the light frag fields (~2.5 g) were [~90*-110*, 2000-2800 m/s] and [~80*-100*, 2200-2000 m/s] resp. " ?
     
  13. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joq, here at metabunk, there is a "no click" policy.
    So, with all due respect, if you have a point, please make it. Don't let me look for it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  14. Ole

    Ole Member

    Haven't we been through this already?
    This is not even physics this is simple euclidean geometry.

    The volume of space which comes into the kill radius during the flight of the missile is a cylinder along the missile's flight path. The volume of this cylinder and thus the hitting probability is maximized by concentrating the shrapnel in a plane perpendicular to the missile's flight path because that increases the volume of the cylinder. It also has the benefit of maximizing the damage by concentrating the shrapnel in the detection angle of the proximity fuse.

    And to the physics of the problem I linked to a paper in a previous post, which describes how the penetration depth decreases with rising speed of the bullets due to the melting of the bullets. So it might not be a smart idea to maximize the speed of the shrapnel at all cost.
     
  15. Ole

    Ole Member

    Concerning the heading the preliminary report states the following:

    Page 20:
    Page 33:
    So the longitudinal axis pointed to 115° magnetic. The magnetic declination in the area is +8° or 8°E.
    http://www.magnetic-declination.com/Ukraine/Torez/2704646.html

    http://www.schoolofsailing.net/true-and-magnetic.html
    Then the longitudinal axis (the nose) pointed to 123° true (the tail pointed to 303° true), leaving an angle of 11° to the true bearing to the alleged launch site south of Snizhne.

    I updated my copy of Mick's tool accordingly:
    For a missile coming from 314 degrees putting the point of detonation here (where it most likely is):
    123_front.
    it is impossible to have so many impacts on the front window frames, and only one small impact on the part with the wipers:
    original_.

    Putting the point of detonation here:
    123_rear.
    has the problem that the impacts close to the bulkhead can't be explained:

    The impact angles of ~45° in the copilot's seat can't be explained either:


    So from what I can gather from the internet, there is not much probability left for the Snizhne scenario.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    You again look on damage pattern from only one flat projection. Mick's simulation show only horisontal pojection without any inclination/elevation of missile and on same height.
    Look how picture change (and penetration angles and areas too) if use 3D draw of cone with B777.
    Overview of rear side missile cone, horisontal and vertical projections and close look on cabine area.
    Picture for missile from Snizhne direction:
    [​IMG]

    White area (on cabine) is area where damage started (pink area is border of cone where damage not present or rare). Also 3D model show how roof can be damaged from outside.
    Look inside cabine - captain chair in damage area, co-pilot partially, but zone below - with bunch flight instruments untouched by pellets!
    It how attack and elevation of missile cone change picture dramatically!
    P.S. IT just example without real dynamic angles, just for show 3D difference from simple model.
    For compare im created picture for missile from Z:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  17. Ole

    Ole Member

    I find it interesting, where you put the spot of the detonation and what inclination of the missile you chose.

    This can't explain:

    - tangential impacts on roof parts:
    [​IMG]

    - lack of impacts on the starboard outside wall of the cockpit:
    [​IMG]

    - longitudinal impacts parallel to the skin on the port side between cockpit and entry door:
    [​IMG]

    So even with the shrapnel distribution and the inclination you choose, this is more a case against Snizhne than it is a case for Snizhne.
     
  18. Rob

    Rob Member

    Ole. Thank you for showing that if you make enough unwarranted assumptions, you can fool yourself into believing anything. To the point where it has no relation anymore to reality.
     
  19. Ole

    Ole Member

    Agree.
     
  20. Rob

    Rob Member

    Even if the direction of your red arrows is warranted by the damage on the right side of the cockpit roof (which has not been shown yet), then this suggests only that the point of detonation was left and front and above of the cockpit.
    Which is entirely consistent with a Snizhne launch.

    In fact, this right side cockpit roof damage is inconsistent with a Zaroshens'kye launch, since it would require fragments to be fired about 30 degrees backward. Which even in your 'adjusted' tool does not occur.

    The starboard outside wall is shielded from the Snizhne detonation point left, in front and above the cockpit.
    Fragments would need a LOT of punch (in through the left side wall, through the cockpit, and out through the right wall) to make significant damage there. Not to mention that this section if almost entirely outside of the Snizhne main blast direction (using Mick's tool, not your twisted form).

    It is neither clear where exactly this section is located, nor which holes you believe were made by the same fragments, and which ones by different fragments.

    I'm sorry Ole, but that is simply not convincing.
     
  21. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    1. Your tangential damage is damage from pellets which glance shot a skin with gibbouse. Pellets which have angle more then glance penetrated skin just before this scratches and detached a part of skin with all construction.
    2. Im dont understand where you see lack of impacts on the starboard outside wall of the cockpit? Damage here is fully understandable if you look on cone/cylinder fuselage part, not just flat surface.
    [​IMG]
    3. Same with - longitudinal impacts parallel to the skin on the port side between cockpit and entry door!
    Why you claim it is impossible for missile from Snizhne direction? Is it trolling?
    [​IMG]
    How green lines cannot be allowed by damage pattern for missile from S?
     
  22. Ole

    Ole Member

    It may be shielded from the inside, though obviously there are impacts to the pilots seats and the cockpit floor, so the shielding is limited. What matters more in this context is that AD_2015's model predicts damage to the outside, which isn't shielded:
    ad_2015_roof_wall.
    [​IMG]


    Maybe you want to take a look at this post:
    https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-9#post-157692


    No need for that.
     
  23. Ole

    Ole Member

    The impacts to the part between cockpit and door are only slightly from above to below:
    angle1.


    If the opening angle of your cone gets wider, there should be damage to the rear starboard quarter of the roof piece:
    ad_2015_roof.
    wohin.
    BtDFa6tCEAADYzh._large.

    If you define it as that.
     
  24. Rob

    Rob Member

    To which Rob said
    To which Ole said
    Which is a post by "mvdb22" which shows this picture in relation to yours :

    [​IMG]

    with the argument by "mvdb22" that "That wooden rod provides some insight of possible trajectory" and "A Snizhne launch could impossible create these holes!".

    A post that you voted up with "agree".

    Apart from the question if this is really the same piece as the one you show, let us look at that "wooden rod" (which is really only a flexible sunflower stem). See how it goes through a hole in one bulkhead, then over the next one, and the miraculously through the third one ?

    And that is a "possible trajectory" in your (and "mvdb22"'s) opinion ? And your sole evidence for your "longitudinal impacts parallel to the skin" where "A Snizhne launch could impossible create these holes!" ? Even though we don't even know exactly where this piece fits on the plane ?

    I'm with AD_2015 on this one. There is trolling going on here, big time, and not just by you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  25. Ole

    Ole Member


    I don't know why you think the sunflower stem (which ceases to be flexible when dried) goes through the third bulkhead, from the angle it is plain impossible. But it goes through the first one, which isn't of infinite thinness, thus indicating to a certain degree the trajectory within this first bulkhead, and then points nicely to the graze on the second bulkhead. There is also this trajectory:
    [​IMG]
    And there are a lot more impact marks in the bulkheads then in the skin, even though the cross section of the bulkheads is much smaller than the cross section of the skin.
    [​IMG]
    If you are still in doubt which piece this is you may want to take a look at the reconstruction. In this photo you can see it to the right middle, the door step is clearly visible:
    original (1).

    Another problem that AD_2015's Shnizhne model has, are the impact angles on the copilot's seat. According to AD_2015's model the impact angles on that seat should be almost vertical:
    ad_2015_roof_.

    But they are close to horizontal:


    As mentioned before, I think this is the only point in which we agree.
     
  26. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Why you again and again post photos with damages but dont try compare 3d model with it? It is trolling, when troll dont need result but just flood topic.
    Look on yellow lines - it how missile from S can have any angles limited by cone beam.
    [​IMG]
    And you scalp of roof is damaged by another pellets limited by second cone.
    [​IMG]
    Its just weird picture without calculated angles of cones, just for show how 3D model can describe damage pattern from S and cannot describe damage from Z. Do you have 3D model for missile from Z? Post it here, not alone damage holes!
    P.S. Lol, now you calling 30 degree angle is horisontal?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  27. Ole

    Ole Member

    Thanks for adjusting the point of detonation.
    Now I don't see that many impacts immediately above the copilot's center window:
    [​IMG]
    Also you may want to adapt the copilot's seat a little to the back in your model, because now it appears to be out of the shrapnel sector.
    d176253b0da81296faada45dcd7432cc.
    If I measure correctly, your missile trajectory now has an angle of 23° to the longitudinal axis of the plane. The bearing to Snizhne only has an angle of 11°. Apart from that, the missile is still climbing, which puts it much closer to Torez.


    And one request to the mods: If there is really so much trolling as claimed, they may want to put a word in here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  28. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Sure you dont see, because im dont show real point of detonation with real dynamic angles.
    But you dont show even how missile from Z can penetrate co-pilot chair or roof.
    GFYI
     
  29. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    1. Show we damage what you talking about, angles to this damage in both projections on plane and stop post this picture without explanation how it damaged!
    2. If you look again on co-pilot chair then you can easy see chair have VERTICAL part. This VERTICAL part punctured on photo and punctured on 3D model. If you decline to see facts but prefer have selective vision only on one projection of plane then why you spent your time here? GFYI
    3. No one dont know what certain position of TELAR for missile called missile from Snizhne! So im open to place possible launch location to any loc with any azimuth and elevation angles. Dont like it? Show your facts and simulation. GFYI
    Im wonder why this topic is flooded by your repeated pictures with only words No. Is it site of consortiumnews or Russia Today?
     
  30. Ole

    Ole Member

    BTW: What happened to this shrapnel distribution?
     
  31. Ole

    Ole Member

    Even though I run the risk of outing me as an agent of RT, let me rephrase my question like this:
    Why is there such a difference in impact density between A and B:
    A_B.
    A_B_.
    The frame that is located between A and B is the one in the green circle:
    Between_A_B.
    A_B__.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  32. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    My English is bad so im repeat questions:
    1. Holes on photo with damage - visible, without digging what u mean or what you wanna be. HOLES.
    2. Angles on plane scheme in vertical and horisontal projection of damage track or at least position of hole on plane.
    Im tired from letters A, B, rings, photos from Censor.NET which show again and again same damages without explain how it happen. Im dont work on you and my information is based on calculations but you just flooding topic with a ton of pictures of same damage. So my opinion have proofs but your have only "Im believe because im seen photos". You dont analyse it, you just copy-paste without anything adding to it.
    So you have to choose - be specific and useful or go to hell with all russian trolls which spent a year and flooded a ton of pictures rod damage, non-fresh bodies, bullets, Su-25, satellite pictures of Su-27 attacking B777, satellite pictures of ukrainian TELARs. You just one kind of them with faith in missile from Z without damage pattern. If you think im will describe each black dot on photos which you wanna show as damage from Z then you wrong.
    [...]
    And re-read what im said about roof, may be then you start think, dont attach photo by photo without mind.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2015
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    From the official report:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  34. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    So am I reading this figure correctly? Does it say that the most likely origin of the SAM is within territory held by pro-russian rebels?
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  36. Ole

    Ole Member

    TNO_.

    I'm not convinced that the damage pattern is a good match. I don't see the predicted damage above the copilot's front window. The above allegedly is the best match they could get resulting in an approach angle of 27 degree relative to the x-Axis.

    I.e. The missile would have approached at a true course of 330°, which would be the course from Saur Mogilya.

    How would a simulation look like with the an approach angle bigger than 27°? at least the damage above the copilot's window would give a better match.


    I don't find the "stringing" they used to identify the point of detonation documented. In this thread there are some good posts identifying the point of detonation much closer.
     
  37. Gridlock

    Gridlock Active Member

    FYI report available here (their web site is currently offline);

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf

    Edited - at no point does the report mention evasive manoeuvres, which obviously would drastically alter the combined trajectory? I assume there's simply no way they could have reacted at all?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  38. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    From left, above and ahead!
     
  39. ad_2015

    ad_2015 Member

    Well, i see NLR read carefuly my posts about 9N314 warhead and fragment distribution.
     
  40. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    Almaz-Antey back in June 2015 claimed during their detailed presentation that it was a 9M38M1. They also suggested at the time that the M1 was no longer used by Russian Forces which was a bit of a white lie.

    Now they have changed their tune and claim that it was a 9M38 with the caveat of they can't understand why M1 fragments are amongst the evidence.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-disaster.html

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17....-major-errors/

    As someone has pointed out on PPRuNe. "Sounds like they have been told what to, "understand"!"

    http://www.pprune.org/9146195-post31.html

    The question is who is pulling Almaz-Antey's strings here?