>>Those scars looks rather like something hit or slided on that surface - possibly other plane fragments hit that fragment when it was desintegrating in the air - than holes/marks left by small shrapnels from exploding warhead.
>That is also consistent with an expanding rod. It expands as a continuous ring to maximum diameter, typically 45-60 feet before separating. Rod may be inches to feet long.
It's possible that those are scars doen by rods skidding by the surface, but for me it's more likely than heavy steel rods moving at nearly 1000m/s would cut trough any plane surface like hot knife trough butter, leaving clean cuts and not scars, at any angle. For me it looks like something lighter (like other fragments of fuselage) collided with this fragment. Or maybe some parts of missile body other than the rods. I can be wrong though, it's hard to determine without doing some experiments with 1000m/s collisions... :-/.
Definitely not damage from a Con-Rod warhead, as that would have a saw tooth pattern at the impact point if the rods were still connected. The rods will go through normal aircraft structure like a knife through soft butter, but if they hit anything substantial like an engine, undercarriage leg or major casting, the rods in that area will break apart and the damage will become very random. Anyhow the SA-11 / SA-17 isn’t fitted a Con-Rod warhead according to what information is on the internet, but a 50 to 70 lb Blast Fragmentation warhead. Con-Rod warheads are very effective against large targets or smaller targets with a weapon that is limited to a stern / head on attack profile (early Sidewinder or Sparrow) but if you want to engage the range of targets that the SA-11 / SA-17 can be employed against (ARM’s / Cruise Missiles / Helicopters / Supersonic Fighters/ Etc.) at all intercept geometries, a blast fragmentation warhead gives a much higher probability of a kill than a Con-Rod warhead does.