Almaz-Antey's Live BUK explosion tests

Buran

New 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
Instead of relying on someone's short interpretations, especially that of the Western media, listen to the full 2-hour video of Storchevoy (Rosaviation) in English or German or better yet, learn Russian and listen to the primary source.

I've listened to this press-conference in the original form. Storchevoi said (this is a short, rough version) that in February the Dutch in one of the sessions claimed that it was Buk and said Schnitze was the launch spot without presenting proof. Everybody got their ipads and tried searching for it. Then the Ukrainian in this session corrected and said, "you mean Snezhnoe." Storchevoi said that at this point it became obvious to Rosaviation on what's happening.

Almaz-Antey tested Snezhnoe exclusively to test the Dutch's theory. They found the area near Zaroshenskoe by using computer calculations - the proper way.

3. AA presented absolutely stupid presentation which based on wrong idea - simulating dynamic field of strike elements (and damage pattern from it) by static warhead
Of course, you are smarter than the experts in Almaz-Antey. Do you think they didn't take this into account? Their English PDF that william wiley linked above might give some insight (e.g., page 40-44).
 
Last edited:

vvalnik

New Member
Almaz-Antey's experts lied when shown the missile trajectory in the presentation (see slide 49):
http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/rayon-zapuska/2023531 :
23a40c8c161d047d08dc0464a1fca38f.png
This trajectory is for catch-up course of missile

The missile trajectory for a towards course in a vertical projection will look something like this:

2107e491692d79107195d6b9f92a9522.png


This follows from the information presented in this book (see page 23):
http://makware.ru/download/ZRK_BUK_raketa_9M38M1.pdf

9e703d346c2593a1b7803e8eec77297a.png

see page 23 :

30736da340b1d9567d629b3aa98e1b11.png


Elevation angle continuously increases in final part of missile trajectory and can become very large
TNO did not simulate this trajectory option
Therefore, the DSB Report can not explain the damage left engine
I think that the TNO's experts did made a mistake because of ignorance of the characteristics of the missile 9M38M1 guidance system

Sorry for my bad English
 
Last edited:
Elevation angle continuously increases in final part of missile trajectory and can become very large
TNO did not simulate this trajectory option
Therefore, the DSB Report can not explain the damage left engine
I think that the TNO's experts did made a mistake because of ignorance of the characteristics of the missile 9M38M1 guidance system

Sorry for my bad English
How far will the missile be able to fly whilst still having power to keep ascending?
 
Last edited:

vvalnik

New Member
How far will the missile be able to fly whilst still having power to keep ascending?
The maximum missile horizontal range - 35 km.
The maximum missile vertical range - 22 km.
At the first stage missile jet engine runs 15-20 seconds (the missile flies about 15 km. at the first stage)
At the second stage missile continues inertial motion (after the end of the engine runs)
The missile will be able to keep ascending in the second stage to the end of fly. It will thus reduce the speed.
 
Last edited:

ad_2015

Member
The missile trajectory for a towards course in a vertical projection will look something like this:
View attachment 15663
No, its wrong. Missile 9M38M1 dont have such trajectory.
This picture wrong too. It is pure proportional law, but 9M38M1 dont use it (if we dont count missile launched from TEL instead TELAR) 90% of flight time. Missile fired from TELAR (it how MH17 was killed) use radio-command guidance which targetting missile to lead point calculated by computer (by radar data). So missile dont make any rotation on course when flying to MH17 (target which dont change dramatically speed and course so lead point dont changed too).
When range is close enough for receive stable re-emmited signal (and too close for stable tracking target and missile by TELAR radar) missile seeker start guide missile to target by proportional law.
Picture from Eltsin show last stage of missile flight (for MH17 cause) when missile miss target and start to correct course for succesful intercept.
It how SARH work.
Missiles with pure proportional law fly with damping oscillations.
example SA-8

Missile elevation cannot become large as you show on picture. Missile fly by best energy save trajectory. It mean missile dont change elevation when target MH17. Possible elevation angles shown on AA picture with function horizontal range/elevation.
D=14km have elevation angle 30 degree.
D=26km, angle - 5 degree.
It how you throw rock - on close range it can have climbing trajectory, but far range can be hitted only by rock with diving. Object spent kinetic energy and alt for range.
AA have huge error in report when they moved away from MH17 possible launch site of old missile 9M38. It must be much closer, not far.
 

Lixz

New 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.
View attachment 15581
Green circle - strike element before explosion.
Blue circle - strike element after explosion.
Red circle - hole in aluminium target.
MH17 "bow-tie strike elements"
3c990df6c8ebbc75b414745fa6d7fb97.jpg
http://tehrus.livejournal.com/974.html
http://tehrus.livejournal.com/974.html

 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Aircraft
During official investigation m17 statement they said Ukraine air force lost 60 military aircraft, none of those were shot down by BUK.
1. 60 aircraft prior to M17, seems like those east Ukrainians didn't need a BUK to shoot down anything. SA7 and SA10 did the job just fine and east Ukrainians began successful counter offensive against official Ukraine Army because they lost their air force capabilities at that time. There was no need for a BUK because there were no cruise missiles or high altitude bombers to attack. SA10 can down everything Ukraine Air force has in it's inventory!!!
2. M17 was only airplane that was shut down by a BUK in that area or ever in history of mankind.
Why are you bringing SA-10 into the discussion? The SA-10 is a far superior system to the SA-11 and the separatists certainly didn't have operational SA-10s in their inventory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)

Were you referring to the Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher) short-range system operated by the separatists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

The separatists certainly required a system to reach those Ukrainian aircraft that operated outside of MANPADs and any shorter range SAMs that they might have had access to. Can you not see that all the Ukrainians had to do was to fly above the effective ceiling of MANPADs and any shorter range SAM? The Ukrainians were operating reconnaissance aircraft at those heights. A Ukrainian Su-24MR Fencer with a recon sensor could easily map the entire region and border areas with a high altitude run. The separatists certainly required a medium ranged SAM to counter those aircraft operating outside the ceiling of their existing short range systems.
 
The separatists certainly required a system to reach those Ukrainian aircraft that operated outside of MANPADs and any shorter range SAMs that they might have had access to. Can you not see that all the Ukrainians had to do was to fly above the effective ceiling of MANPADs and any shorter range SAM? The Ukrainians were operating reconnaissance aircraft at those heights. A Ukrainian Su-24MR Fencer with a recon sensor could easily map the entire region and border areas with a high altitude run. The separatists certainly required a medium ranged SAM to counter those aircraft operating outside the ceiling of their existing short range systems.
there is no evidence the anti coup forces were interested in reconnaissance aircraft. They were interested in the ones which were bombing civilians
 

Herman Aven

Member
there is no evidence the anti coup forces were interested in reconnaissance aircraft. They were interested in the ones which were bombing civilians
It was also a battle of supply lines and attempt to the ones from the opponent off. Here's a pro-UAF version

From NSDC: ATO troops take control of Savur-Mohyla hill at the border between Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts

Thanks to this victory, a corridor has been opened to supply the units and departments which have been containing the enemy heroically for a significant amount of time, and did not allow new weapon supplies and mercenaries from Russia to cross our border.​

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion#Savur-Mohyla

Another example: Ukrainian Aircraft Shot Down By Separatists, Sky News, Saturday 14 June 2014

Rebel forces wearing camouflage fatigues scoured through the wreckage for ammunition that was intended for government forces.​

Picture of scouring included. The air war was in my view also about supply lines, preventing them and when possible getting the supplies for yourself (including paratroopers trying to get away). As for the often heared claim of Ukraine not having to be on guard against a hostile air force, the following article is showing a glimpse of the actual war thinking already in place before the MH-17 tragedy (other articles can show this more clear).

Ukraine Says Russian Plane Shot Down Its Fighter Jet (New York Times JULY 17, 2014)

The Ukrainian government said on Thursday that a Russian military plane had shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet in Ukrainian airspace the previous evening, a serious allegation of direct intervention by Russia’s armed forces.​

That last new article is rarely quoted but paints a different picture of the ongoing air war, even if the claim would have been false. It changes the supplied perception of Ukraine not being interested in shooting down Russian looking aircraft and as such UAF occupied territory should not be excluded when looking for all possible BUK locations and related attack vectors.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
there is no evidence the anti coup forces were interested in reconnaissance aircraft. They were interested in the ones which were bombing civilians
Of course they were interested in Ukrainian reconnaissance aircraft. They were wanting to reach all Ukrainian military aircraft that flew over their territory regardless of type. The Ukrainian Air Force Antonov AN-30s were a particularly high value target due to the quality of the imagery that they could bring back.

Ukrainian An-30 Clank shot down.


https://www.rt.com/news/164292-ukraine-plane-down-slavyansk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-30
 

BigaC

New Member
Almaz-Antey accidentally give very good info about bow-tie strike elements.
...
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!
Hi ad!

I found your post very informative.
I think I get the point that we should expect less intact bowtie shaped holes.
But I dont understand why the holes are many and clear on Iljushin cockpit?
If the deformation happened at explosion, it doesnt matter the test static of dynamic. Or does?
Though someone recently added photos from site with suspected bowtie holes, why they are more recognisable in Iljushin hull?

thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please keep political characterization out of this discussion. The topic here is the Buk explosion test.
 

ad_2015

Member
Hi ad!

I found your post very informative.
I think I get the point that we should expect less intact bowtie shaped holes.
But I dont understand why the holes are many and clear on Iljushin cockpit?
If the deformation happened at explosion, it doesnt matter the test static of dynamic. Or does?
Though someone recently added photos from site with suspected bowtie holes, why they are more recognisable in Iljushin hull?

thanks
1. Can you bring here hi-res photos of Iljushin's cabin so we can look at holes and found bow-tie sign, please?
2. Dynamic field and holes from it is very different from static explosion. Im alread said why it.
3. Iljushin plane dont fall from alt 10km with destrusction of construction elements. Such destruction (before or after impact with ground) can mask many holes because desctruction can happen between holes and completely hide it (you can see just edge of broken plate).
A-A provide too many lie info so im dont wonder they invent a new one. Accidentally they so inaccurate and incompetent so ppl with science knowledge can debunk their lie.
 

BigaC

New Member
1. Can you bring here hi-res photos of Iljushin's cabin so we can look at holes and found bow-tie sign, please?
2. Dynamic field and holes from it is very different from static explosion. Im alread said why it.
3. Iljushin plane dont fall from alt 10km with destrusction of construction elements. Such destruction (before or after impact with ground) can mask many holes because desctruction can happen between holes and completely hide it (you can see just edge of broken plate).
A-A provide too many lie info so im dont wonder they invent a new one. Accidentally they so inaccurate and incompetent so ppl with science knowledge can debunk their lie.
Thanks for the answer.
I know only the images from their presentation:
But it is true that there is no really big resolution images about parts with holes, but they noticed some bowtie shaped holes, like in 60th page in this doc.
And probably the hit angle also has a large factor, if fragments didnt come roughly perpendicular to hull, but in angle, their shape will be also another.
Btw Im wondering why DSB didnt make a similar experiment, afaik Finland has also similar warheads.
 

ad_2015

Member
Thanks for the answer.
I know only the images from their presentation

But it is true that there is no really big resolution images about parts with holes, but they noticed some bowtie shaped holes, like in 60th page in this doc.
And probably the hit angle also has a large factor, if fragments didnt come roughly perpendicular to hull, but in angle, their shape will be also another.
Btw Im wondering why DSB didnt make a similar experiment, afaik Finland has also similar warheads.
Ok, they found 1 (ONE!) bow-tie hole and circle it. Photos of MH17 have even much more bow-tie holes so A-A provide false info about no presence of bow-tie holes in B777. It is just propaganda trick.
Speed, angle, entry position, orientation, deformation - all will be different from static test.
It why we need SCIENCE which provide theory and allow to build calculation without experimentation (of course after approve by many real tests). DSB give link on math program what they use.
A-A just trying to manipulate with "little" correction of reality so result will blame Ukraine. No bow-tie, absolutely unclear result of test, lying about warhead design and damage pattern etc, difference in public reports and report sent to DSB. Lie once, lie again and again, no trust to them.
P.S. Just one question:
If DSB found bow-tie strike elements in bodies, how it happen if there is no warhead with such splinters or holes outside?
 

BigaC

New Member
P.S. Just one question:
If DSB found bow-tie strike elements in bodies, how it happen if there is no warhead with such splinters or holes outside?
Are you sure do you want to hear?
I think also it is very morbid, but I hear frequently the accusation from pro-russian side, that criminals shot I-beams into bodies. They claim that DSB/NATO got shrapnels from Finland or other place, and shot/prepared fragments into bodies and cockpit. I also found probable bowtite holes on some Ackermann photos, though Im wondering why DSB didnt show these photos or didnt search/find more in their investigation. They know this investigation is very sensitive, they should have collect much they can. (both debris with holes and shrapnel fragments)
Unfortunately this investigation is so politically influenced, that crazy tales are emerging... :(
 

ad_2015

Member
Difference between A-A and DSB is simple.
DSB is open organisation which cooperated with other countries, even with russian A-A and RosAviation. Their report based on info gathered with open and independent methods. Any opinions was citated and make correction in final report. So their info - open, checked, trusted. DSb very interested in true source of MH17 death.
A-A is closed russian military developer and manufacturer. They take a part of Mh17 death as side which provide weapon to separatists and trying hide every truth. Puti's regime in Russia is other reason why company A-A must lie about Mh17 death - Putin open war in Ukraine and deliver troops/weapon to this area. MH17 was victim of this war against Ukraine so Russia interesting in lie about it. They count Ukraine war and MH17 death as part of war against West (NATO and USA) so propaganda war and lie to enemy is good as well.
Many times A-A and Russia caught on falsyfiyng facts about MH17 and they continue do it again and agains.
So A-A as part of Russia lie machnine is interested in hide facts or manipulate with it.
So Finland provided warhead (which can be easy inspected by A-A as service organisation), Dutch exploded warhed and penetrate body of pilots with strike elements, Israel provided Python missile for Su-25, what else?! Its hilarious!
 

Unit0

New Member
Do you agree that maximum ejection angle from AA test is 126 degree? Is warhead disign II a fake warhead through 112 degree angle?
582cff10008539d5f282d4e43368337b.png

d20b8cb21bc5e7610f532a8140a16c9a.png

330009d81dc2c73069767a66ca742ada.png
 

Unit0

New Member
Ejection angle (which i assume you mean launch angle?) is irrelevant to warhead function position.
No, it is not a launch angle.
1572ba1eaf22816d7f1d344865ed6626.png
We know angles and coordinats of warhead position for IL-86 test. We can see a damage of IL-86 cabin. Is it enough to find maximal ejection angle for warhead or to determinate rigth value (112 TNO / 126 AA)?
 

gsobjc

New Member
Nobody mentioned:
- the test N1 (with sheets and a trap) helped to adjust their math model of the warhead and the test N2
(with Il-86) confirmed that model (the observable damage is consistent with the predicted);
- the test N1 confirmed 9N314M's fragment ability to penetrate (12-26 mm of duralumin equivalent);
 

gsobjc

New Member
Now, please, show difference between bow-tie holes in Il-86 and B777.
Different size and proportion, no straight edge.

515983e2c805e57ccf78b6c94f8737a2.png

Most of them are formed (and indistinguishable) by two different ROUNDED holes while
the majority of bow-ties on the IL-86's skin are clearly perceived as from one particular fragment.
 
Last edited:

Unit0

New Member
Nobody mentioned:
- the test N1 (with sheets and a trap) helped to adjust their math model of the warhead and the test N2
(with Il-86) confirmed that model (the observable damage is consistent with the predicted);
I belive in it. But where is a direct visual confirmation (126 degree) in test prsentation? I think 3rd test (warhead + protractor target) will be usefull for public presentation. Also, it will be coffin for DSB report.
 

gsobjc

New Member
But where is a direct visual confirmation (126 degree) in test prsentation?
My post is about the test's goal which is misrepresented in the thread as to confirm the launch site Zaroschenskoe.

I didn't see direct visual confirmation in their presentation. But here is the Russian objection in App. V:
The TNO's winning 'design' has the fragment spray 22 degrees narrower than the AA's:
>>> (126 - 68) - (112 - 76)
22

Which is ~ 30% of the claimed by AA spray. And the DSB's answer was very vague:
******
It is noted that the presentation made by the Russian Federation was not
intended to identify the weapon used. However, the new information on
the characteristics of the warhead that JSC Concern Almaz-Antey provided
the Dutch Safety Board with, was used by both TNO and NLR in their
simulation models.
******

Had the DSB any reasons to consider their 'design' more correct they wouldn't
dodge.

I think 3rd test (warhead + protractor target) will be usefull for public presentation. Also, it will be coffin for DSB report.
Their report is based on fake things - wrong simulations. Any time they try real things (microphones, bow-ties,
hole analysis) they fail.
 

Antidyatel

New Member
Simulations that I've seen so far, including the one on metabunk, are considering constant speed of shrapnel in calculating modified spread due to rocket speed. That is incorrect. Shrapnel had to accelerate first to reach those speeds. Acceleration time is usually in the range of 200 microseconds. If this acceleration period is included one can find that the spread narrows drastically and you get a lancet.
 

gsobjc

New Member
one can find that the spread narrows drastically and you get a lancet.
The sheet 1.1 shows the lancet (it is from the test N1). See the AA's video ~0:39:50.

bad01d62e7127891c9786182f7201355.png

The lancet is just a term for the part of the fragment spray containing 42% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy
(highlighted with the light blue):

1afaed0c13bdf0efa2c4895899cf0e48.png
 

Antidyatel

New Member
The sheet 1.1 shows the lancet (it is from the test N1). See the AA's video ~0:39:50.

The lancet is just a term for the part of the fragment spray containing 42% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy
(highlighted with the light blue):
I meant that software by Mick West used on this forum for confirming or disproving theories based on shrapnel spread is incorrect. In this thread
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-2 it was specifically used to "debunk " A-A presentation of lancet based on spread of shrapnel. This "debunking" I know put in question
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Different size and proportion, no straight edge.
and I see nothing particularly strange about that - for MH17 both the missile and aircraft are moving at high speed, which puts additional strains on fragments and shrapnel that are not present in het static tests.

Moreover the aircraft then falls ~30,000 feet and impacts the ground.

the idea that the holes should be identical seem unreasonable - they are similar enough for me.

Most of them are formed (and indistinguishable) by two different ROUNDED holes while
the majority of bow-ties on the IL-86's skin are clearly perceived as from one particular fragment.
No - that is not the case at all as far as I can see - the holes are essentially the same in many cases and there is no evidence from the photos to make this distinction.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member
Shrapnel had to accelerate first to reach those speeds. Acceleration time is usually in the range of 200 microseconds. If this acceleration period is included one can find that the spread narrows drastically and you get a lancet.
How does that work? Could you maybe put together an improved model that factors in acceleration because I don't quite understand how it would affect the spread. A diagram would probably help me grasp the mechanics a bit better.

Despite perhaps having had too many beers at tonights pub quiz to be confident in my mathematics, I'm pretty sure that in 200 microseconds a plane moving at about 250m/s travels 5cm, a missile moving at 1000m/s travels 20cm and shrapnel starting at 0m/s and accelerating to 2000m/s will also travel 20cm. I'm struggling to see how those sort of figures are going to add up to a significant error in Mick's simulation.
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member
I'm struggling to see how those sort of figures are going to add up to a significant error in the simulation.
The error in the simulation is asserting the attitude of the missile and range to target at the point of function. Without offering good reason to claim this, the rest of the 'test' is flawed, and thats before looking at the other issues such as it being a static test.
 

Antidyatel

New Member
How does that work? Could you maybe put together an improved model that factors in acceleration because I don't quite understand how it would affect the spread. A diagram would probably help me grasp the mechanics a bit better.

Despite perhaps having had too many beers at tonights pub quiz to be confident in my mathematics, I'm pretty sure that in 200 microseconds a plane moving at about 250m/s travels 5cm, a missile moving at 1000m/s travels 20cm and shrapnel starting at 0m/s and accelerating to 2000m/s will also travel 20cm. I'm struggling to see how those sort of figures are going to add up to a significant error in the simulation.
I will try to do it when I'll get free time. But it is quite simple actually. Just understand that acceleration is a vector. You split it into direction along rocket propagation and orthogonal one. In the orthogonal direction the speed goes from 0 to cosine of the initial direction angle. For parallel propagation the speed starts from relative speed of rocket and plane (assuming that they are on parallel courses for simplicity). From equation of motion You can see that within 200 us the ratio of distances that shrapnel travels in this two direction will be changing. Meaning that angle will be rotating away from rocket propagation for shrapnel send in slightly forward direction and for shrapnel sent in backward direction the angle will change in opposite direction. As a result after 200 us you will have a spread much narrower than initial 56 degrees
 

Antidyatel

New Member
missile moving at 1000m/s
That cannot be true. The missile in consideration has a maximum speed of 860 m/s. Considering Snezhnoe launch it was moving with switched off engine for more than 10 seconds before explosion. Gravity and airfriction will decelerate it to at least 750m/s. Although not to critical to the overall discussion
 

jonnyH

Senior Member
The error in the simulation is asserting the attitude of the missile and range to target at the point of function. Without offering good reason to claim this, the rest of the 'test' is flawed, and thats before looking at the other issues such as it being a static test.
Sorry, I think you might have misunderstood me, by "simulation" I meant Mick's geogebra model in the OP, not the AA test.
 
Top