Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?

ad_2015

Member
Are you suggesting the field test of an actual missile approaching a target in the actual atmosphere at realistic speeds could not differ much from laboratory experiments and calculations? In fact, Almaz-Antey makes exactly that point during their presentation stressing field tests for establishing the most effective kill zone. In other words, throwing some text book at them seems to be nicely preempted here by AA. Calling it all lies does not change a thing. It's pointless to dismiss a claimed result coming from a undisclosed set of field tests. And it's also not possible to accept it as proof. So other approaches are needed but not just dismissing the whole engineering as lie.



Those two images show different things but angles are the same. The first image in the static realm and only maximum distribution angles while the second image shows some actual dynamic situation, implying all the backwards aimed fragments receive forward thrust resulting in the highest energy in the red zone, which AA claims to has >40% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy of the resulting explosion. This effect might be reached when mounting the heaviest fragments lower in the warhead pointing backwards but perhaps there are other effects as well. It's true that lancet is close to double in mass and energy of what any generic formula would suggest. It's perhaps surprising but not necessarily false unless people can show me field experiments of this actual warhead being detonated at Mach 3. ....
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.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Those two images show different things but angles are the same. The first image in the static realm and only maximum distribution angles while the second image shows some actual dynamic situation, implying all the backwards aimed fragments receive forward thrust resulting in the highest energy in the red zone, which AA claims to has >40% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy of the resulting explosion. This effect might be reached when mounting the heaviest fragments lower in the warhead pointing backwards but perhaps there are other effects as well. It's true that lancet is close to double in mass and energy of what any generic formula would suggest. It's perhaps surprising but not necessarily false unless people can show me field experiments of this actual warhead being detonated at Mach 3. ....
No Herman, Almaz Antey's claim that in the dynamic picture >40% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy is in a "lancet" perpendicular to the missile heading is verifiably (and thus necessarily) FALSE.

And neither is "that lancet is close to double in mass and energy of what any generic formula would suggest.". It is MUCH worse than that.

This has been pointed out many times in the past 560 posts over 15 pages, but for you, let us do this one more time.

We start with Almaz Antey's static fragment distribution pattern :



Note that Almaz Antey states that 96% of the fragments end up in that 56 deg spread.
Which means that only 4% (reasonably to assume 2% on each side) ends up outside this spread.

Now, to find the relative velocity of the fragments w.r.t. the aircraft, simply apply velocity vector addition to this static distribution pattern.

Remember this is MATH, applicable to any relative motion in our Universe !

Using Mick's tool for this math, using reasonable fragment and missile and plane velocities, we obtain a dynamic velocity distribution pattern something like the one on the right in this picture :



Compare that to Almaz Antey's "lancet" (in the left image depicted in red/purple) which almost entirely falls OUTSIDE of the dynamically adjusted Almaz Antey static distribution pattern.

Thus, only something like 2% of the fragments end up in Almaz Antey's "lancet", and decidedly NOT the >40% that Almaz Antey is claiming. And remember we ONLY applied MATH to their static distribution pattern to obtain this (factor of 20) flaw in their claims.

So by simple math, Almaz Antey has been proven WRONG in their claim that >40% ends up in their (nearly perpendicular) "lancet".

For kinetic energy, it gets worse.

The dynamic velocity fragment distribution results from Mick's tool suggest that the fragments closest to the 90 deg angle have the lowest relative velocity. With missile speed 1000 m/s and fragment speed 2000 m/s, velocity of these 'back-firing' fragments that would end up in Almaz Antey's "lancet" will have about 14% reduced relative speed, which (with Ek=mv^2) implies about 26% less kinetic energy in these fragments than the average in the blast cone.

Which means that only 1.5 % of kinetic energy goes into Almaz Antey's "lancet" and decidedly not the >50% that they claim.

So can we finally agree that Almaz Antey deceived us all on this issue ? And that their claims of a perpendicular dynamic lancet are thus simply nonsense ? And thus, that noone should use Almaz Antey's "lancet" graph (or any derived graphs) any more as an argument, because it is simply BUNK.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
No Herman, Almaz Antey's claim that in the dynamic picture >40% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy is in a "lancet" perpendicular to the missile heading is verifiably (and thus necessarily) FALSE.

And neither is "that lancet is close to double in mass and energy of what any generic formula would suggest.". It is MUCH worse than that.

This has been pointed out many times in the past 560 posts over 15 pages, but for you, let us do this one more time.

We start with Almaz Antey's static fragment distribution pattern :



Note that Almaz Antey states that 96% of the fragments end up in that 56 deg spread.
Which means that only 4% (reasonably to assume 2% on each side) ends up outside this spread.

Now, to find the relative velocity of the fragments w.r.t. the aircraft, simply apply velocity vector addition to this static distribution pattern.
What you refer to as static distribution pattern actually is just the description of the outer limits of the distribution. How the distribution looks like within those limits we don't know.

Remember this is MATH, applicable to any relative motion in our Universe !

Using Mick's tool for this math, using reasonable fragment and missile and plane velocities, we obtain a dynamic velocity distribution pattern something like the one on the right in this picture :

Here it would be helpful to know more about what reasonable numbers you plugged into Mick's tool.

If we look at the BUK warhead we can see the rear ~40% are concave. If a convex warhead shape makes the fragment spray angle wider, then a concave warhead shape will focus the fragments. At the same time these rear 40% of the warhead comprise the fragments which are accelerated to the highest velocity:
warh_guerney.jpg
So I would expect there to be a focused "beam" of fragments towards the rear end of the spray sector which is formed by the rear 40% of the warhead. Taking into account that this is the zone of max acceleration of fragments it seems plausible for this beam to carry 50% of the kinetic energy.

Additionally we learnt in post #560 that the average speed of the BUK is 850 m/s, so we can expect that after a long approach it's speed will be even lower at intercept. With a tuned version of Mick's tool I get this picture:

copy.jpg
Now imagine the rear half of the spray sector focused and you are quite close to AA's claim.
 

akindhacker

New Member
Additionally we learnt in post #560 that the average speed of the BUK is 850 m/s, so we can expect that after a long approach it's speed will be even lower at intercept
AA stated in their report that the missile speed at intercept was calculated to be 730 m/s. This may have not been translated properly, as it seems to be unknown on this forum.
 

ad_2015

Member
What you refer to as static distribution pattern actually is just the description of the outer limits of the distribution. How the distribution looks like within those limits we don't know.


Here it would be helpful to know more about what reasonable numbers you plugged into Mick's tool.

If we look at the BUK warhead we can see the rear ~40% are concave. If a convex warhead shape makes the fragment spray angle wider, then a concave warhead shape will focus the fragments. At the same time these rear 40% of the warhead comprise the fragments which are accelerated to the highest velocity:
View attachment 13754
So I would expect there to be a focused "beam" of fragments towards the rear end of the spray sector which is formed by the rear 40% of the warhead. Taking into account that this is the zone of max acceleration of fragments it seems plausible for this beam to carry 50% of the kinetic energy.

Additionally we learnt in post #560 that the average speed of the BUK is 850 m/s, so we can expect that after a long approach it's speed will be even lower at intercept. With a tuned version of Mick's tool I get this picture:

View attachment 13755
9N314M warhead dont have any concave. You wrong or trying appeal to this shape of concave warhead

Surface is close to arc of outer ring.
Now compare shape of warhead surface with 9N314 surface

Surface have gibbous as arc of inner ring with R=532 mm. Pellets flying by perpendicular to surface + Taylor angle. So gibbous sent equally to forward and back pellets from middile part (with Taylor angle rotate from detonator end - to backward for 9N314). Pellets from Zone1 and Zone4 cannot have enough big angles and speed (must pass structures of warhead's ends and missile), Pellets from Zone 3 flying on disclosure angles for cylinder warhead with correction on higher energy from Zone 2 + taylor angle.
Bad thing for your theory and AA is

upper picture show velocity distribution for cylinder warhead. Cylinder warhead have raising velocity to opposite end from detonatior side (except edge). You can see this on this curve.
But barrel-shaped warhead have maximum of speed near middle since Gurney velocity for sphere warhead is higher then for cylinder warhead.
And if you calculate fragment distribution for barrel warhead then you found - best speed have fragments flying in all directions (middle part of barrel give a wide beam), not only one.
Warheads with detonator on end have little change of pellets distribution in opposite side with Taylor angle but it is very low amount ( you can see this Taylor angle for light pellets = 8 degree and Taylor angle for heavy pellets = 0 degree).
At same time, for receive 40% distribution in backward side, need to have 40% of pellets with static angle
(for missile speed a= 1000m/s, pellet speed c= 2000 m/s) γ => 120 degree.
But static beam width by AA info is only 68-124 degree and no heavy pellets with more then 112 degree.

So you want say - all light pellets (which even dont have 40% of fragments mass - cuboids 8x8x5 mm with weight 2.35gramm x 4100 =weight 9635 gramm or 32%) must fly under beam from 120 to 124 degree? Really? Who can believe in it?
Fail!
So we see - no one trick for receive lancet on 90 degree dont work!
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
What you refer to as static distribution pattern actually is just the description of the outer limits of the distribution. How the distribution looks like within those limits we don't know.


Here it would be helpful to know more about what reasonable numbers you plugged into Mick's tool.

If we look at the BUK warhead we can see the rear ~40% are concave. If a convex warhead shape makes the fragment spray angle wider, then a concave warhead shape will focus the fragments. At the same time these rear 40% of the warhead comprise the fragments which are accelerated to the highest velocity:
View attachment 13754
So I would expect there to be a focused "beam" of fragments towards the rear end of the spray sector which is formed by the rear 40% of the warhead. Taking into account that this is the zone of max acceleration of fragments it seems plausible for this beam to carry 50% of the kinetic energy.

Additionally we learnt in post #560 that the average speed of the BUK is 850 m/s, so we can expect that after a long approach it's speed will be even lower at intercept. With a tuned version of Mick's tool I get this picture:

View attachment 13755
Now imagine the rear half of the spray sector focused and you are quite close to AA's claim.
Ole, why did you apply a 8 degree backward angle to the fragment pattern ?
 

Rob

Member
a) It's the Taylor angle:

b) It's the average between the limits for the higher speed fragments.
I don't get it.
That picture suggests that the polar angle is some 80-85 degrees, and thus pointing FORWARD (10 to 5 degrees) rather than 8 degrees backward as you suggest.
 

Ole

Member
I don't get it.
That picture suggests that the polar angle is some 80-85 degrees, and thus pointing FORWARD (10 to 5 degrees) rather than 8 degrees backward as you suggest.
taylor.jpg
This image describes a warhead that has its detonator on the rear end, creating a forward diverging spray zone. The 9N314 has its detonator on the front end, thus creating a backward diverging spray zone.
 

ad_2015

Member
Dynamic field of strike elements for 34 heavy pellets (inner layer).


Distribution of heavy pellets, amount per 5 degree step:
44, <49 - 4
49, <54 - 4
54, <59 - 5
59, <64 - 6
64, <69 - 5
69, <74 - 6
74 - 77 - 4

Energy distribution of heavy pellets, percent per 5 degree step
44, <49 - 11,51%
49, <54 - 11,7%
54, <59 - 17,46%
59, <64 - 21,46%
64, <69 - 14,67%
69, <74 - 16,91%
74 - 77 - 6,28%
 

Joq

Closed Account
Experts, help needed to explain:
'Spray angle (95 pct of frags) - 36 degs
Field limits - 76-112 degs
Heavy frags (~30 pct of total pellets mass) field - 72-90 degs'
Could this be 'a lancet'?

And:
'Fuse beam angle - 70 / 76 degs'
Does it mean that distribution of frags giving in dynamic?

Thanks and sorry if terms are wrong.
 

ad_2015

Member
Dynamic field of strike elements for 60 light pellets (outer layer, cuboids 8x8x5 mm, 2.35 gramm).


Distribution of light pellets, amount per 5 degree step:
<55 - 5
<60 - 8
<65 - 8
<70 - 5
<75 - 5
<80 - 6
<85 - 7
<90 - 7
<95 - 9

Energy distribution of light pellets, percent per 5 degree step
<55 - 7.3%
<60 - 17.17%
<65 - 16.63%
<70 - 7.67%
<75 - 7.42%
<80 - 10.07%
<85 - 11.34%
<90 - 10.23%
<95 - 12.15%
 

Ole

Member
How do you know the 9N314 has its detonator on the front end ?
see:
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damage-to-mh17-indicate-or-exclude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-3#post-156822

and:
from this post:
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damage-to-mh17-indicate-or-exclude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-13#post-158268
 

ad_2015

Member
Someone posted calculation for missile Range and Speed as function of time and elevation angle of missile.
I think it 9M38M1

If so then AA was right - missile speed on range 15 km is near 750 m/s. Im sorry.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Someone posted calculation for missile Range and Speed as function of time and elevation angle of missile.
I think it 9M38M1

If so then AA was right - missile speed on range 15 km is near 750 m/s. Im sorry.
AD, this graph suggests that the missile is still increasing speed up till some 22 km.
So apparently the engine is still burning.
That appears to be inconsistent with an engine burn time of less than 20 seconds,
and also appears to be inconsistent with an average speed of 850 m/s.
 

Rob

Member
The starboard wingtip (upper photo):

I don't see any shrapnel damage.

Ole, thank you for findiing that right wing tip.
But why did you expect any damage on the right wing ?
After all, it is quite far from the detonation point (R^2 law rules).
Not to mention that it is shielded from the detonation point by the hull of the plane.
 

Rob

Member
Barrel-shape warheads dont have LANCET. Look on picture from science work.
Thanks AD.
This static fragmentation distribution graph seems to suggest that the fragments blast FORWARD (less than 90 degrees). Is that applicable to the 9N314 warhead ?
 

ad_2015

Member
Thanks AD.
This static fragmentation distribution graph seems to suggest that the fragments blast FORWARD (less than 90 degrees). Is that applicable to the 9N314 warhead ?
No, taylor angle move pellets to opposite side then detonator. Detonator for 9N314 warhead positioned on top so taylor angle move pellets some to backward.
But, 9N314 warhead have 2 layers -
1. inner with 34 heavy pellets X-shape 13x13x8.2 mm weight 8.1 gramm and with 34 light pellets cuboids 6x6x8.2 mm weight 2.1 gramm (between X-shape pellets)
2. outer with 60 light pellets cuboids 8x8x5 mm weight 2.35 gramm

At first moment, outer layer have maximum speed as projector with inner layer as liner. Speed and direction of pellets in this layer depend from Taylor angle and Modified Gurney velocity for one-side detonation. It why light pellets on AA picture have disclosure angles 72-124 degree (taylor angle 8 degree to backward) and highest speed is 2480 m/s - sbest speed of pellets from outer layer.
But at same moment, inner layer as liner for outer layer lost speed (as energy exchange with outer layer). This delay allow to warhead filling fully exploded - now it not one-side detonation but cause of momentary detonation when only shape of warhead describe speed and direction. So heavy pellets dont have Taylor angle and AA show it on pic as angles 68-112 degree (taylor angle is zero). Another effect is huge loss of speed since fully exploded warhead mean increasing volume so inner layer expanded in size and it open gas leakage between pellets. It why AA show pic with speed 1430 m/s which is lowest speed of inner layer pellets.
 

ad_2015

Member
AD, this graph suggests that the missile is still increasing speed up till some 22 km.
So apparently the engine is still burning.
That appears to be inconsistent with an engine burn time of less than 20 seconds,
and also appears to be inconsistent with an average speed of 850 m/s.
Look how it work:
 

Ole

Member
Ole, thank you for findiing that right wing tip.
But why did you expect any damage on the right wing ?
After all, it is quite far from the detonation point (R^2 law rules).
Not to mention that it is shielded from the detonation point by the hull of the plane.
Actually I don't expect shrapnel damage to either wing because any scenario appears unlikely, that has shrapnel or missile debris flying into the direction of the tanks, because then the fuel most likely would ignite before hitting the ground. Obviously that didn't happen.

And yes, there seems to be a shielding effect. The orange areas in the following two photos must be the floor elements around the number 1 entry doors.

Starboard:
Port:

I can't detect any shrapnel traces on either side.

PS:
The port element can also be seen lying behind the cockpit on this reconstruction photo:

The fact that they only put the port element there - and not the starboard one - might indicate the port element has shrapnel damage and the starboard element not?
 
Last edited:

mvdb22

Member
From the usage of debris by the DSB in the reconstruction as seen on these leaked photos we cannot conclude anything. Many parts around the cockpit were not used when photos were taken. DSB told the photos show a temporary reconstruction. Not the final one.
 

Rob

Member
Look how it work:
Thanks AD ! That helps.
However, the range of this missile is only 20 km (at altitude), and even down to 17 km for target close to the surface.

I understand that 9M38M1 has a range of some 35 km.
So even though this graph explains the physics of missile flight very nicely, it don't think that this is describing a 9M38M1.
 

ad_2015

Member
Thanks AD ! That helps.
However, the range of this missile is only 20 km (at altitude), and even down to 17 km for target close to the surface.

I understand that 9M38M1 has a range of some 35 km.
So even though this graph explains the physics of missile flight very nicely, it don't think that this is describing a 9M38M1.
Still think it 9M38M1 - two-stage rocket engine and worktime 20sec.
Possible these graphs for firing tests of missile on range 20km with difference elevation angles.
 

ad_2015

Member
Redo calculation for missile speed 750 m/s.
Dynamic field of heavy pellets for missile from Zaroschenskoe. Plane speed 250 m/s, attack angle 75 degree.
Sorry, but no lancet and no perpendicular or backwards angles for X-shape + l-cuboids.

This picture work for horisontal projection thru missile axis.

Distribution by number and energy from 15 to 55 degree with step 5 degree:

 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
see:
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damage-to-mh17-indicate-or-exclude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-3#post-156822

and:
from this post:
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damage-to-mh17-indicate-or-exclude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-13#post-158268
Thank you. Yes I read that section.
Yet there is something conceptually wrong with this "backward" firing AA cone for (outer layer) lighter fragments only, and something wrong with mounting the primer at the top (except for special cases).

Here is the issue :
Suppose you have this warhead with the primer at the top. It will blast the lighter (high speed) outer fragments 8 degrees backward. There are two issues with that :
(1) Every fragment that you blast backward looses velocity (and thus kinetic energy) in the dynamic field (w.r.t. the plane). For 8 degrees, you loose something like 5% velocity, and thus 9% kinetic energy w.r.t. a perpendicular fired fragment.
(2) If your highest speed fragments fire backward, the cone will widen. You can see that in AD's picture above (in post #593) : The backward firing green high speed fragment cone is notably in a different direction than the slower moving perpendicular red cone of heavy fragments.

In other words, if you just turn this warhead around (and thus have the primer in the back) you achieve TWO useful things simultaneously :

(1) dynamic velocity of the outer layer fragments will increase by some 10 % (2x5%), and thus kinetic energy of these fragments increases 18% (2x9%).
(2) the fast moving (green) cone is moved 16 degrees (2x8 deg) further forward, more in line with the slower heavier (red) cone, and thus the overall fragment cone has less dispersion.

So, from an engineering point of view, if that primer is at the top, and the outer layer fragments indeed blast backward as AA claims, they should have turned the warhead around to achieve a tighter fragment cone (a "lancet"), and even increased kinetic energy in that lancet.

So I'm sorry, but I don't believe that primer is at the top, and I don't believe AAs claim that the high speed outer layer (lighter) fragments blast backward.

It just does not make any engineering sense.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Come to think of it, it sounds very much like an AA attempt to gain another 16 degrees in their angle-of-approach problem from Zaroshens'kye.
 

Ole

Member
Come to think of it, it sounds very much like an AA attempt to gain another 16 degrees in their angle-of-approach problem from Zaroshens'kye.
You mean this drawing,

looking like if it was from the 80s or 90s, was tampered in those times by the predecessor of AA knowing that in 2015 AA would need to claim a top mounted detonator?
 

Rob

Member
You mean this drawing,

looking like if it was from the 80s or 90s, was tampered in those times by the predecessor of AA knowing that in 2015 AA would need to claim a top mounted detonator?
No Ole, I did not say that.
I just outlined why it does not make any engineering sense to mount the primer at the top.
So the issue becomes : WHERE exactly is the detonator in that graph, and exactly HOW is this warhead mounted on the missile ?
 
Last edited:

Joq

Closed Account
WHERE exactly is the detonator in that graph, and exactly HOW is this warhead mounted on the missile ?
On the top (left).

Wide cone gives you an advantage to hit a target in case of a miss.
 
Last edited:
Top