2 aperturescience
Please do not misinterprete what I was talking about. I am not an expert in explosive physics and was not discussing it. However, when I read the words like:
- a "mathematical model of a (9N314M) warhead" from TNO (App. X, p. 52),
- "design" II from TNO matches better that design III from Almaz-Antey"
a lot of questions arise.
I.e. TNO claims to know the (top secret) hardware from Almaz-Antey better than the designer and manufacture, bravo! BTW, A-A announced publicly in their press conference that the material they provided earlier to DSB was ignored.
Actually I was talking about the missile trajectory reconstruction, and on this point there are just a couple of pages in App. X: paras 6.19 - 6.20, pp. (60-61). What equations, what parameters? Just a trivial text for public, not for experts.
E.g., it is vaguely written (App. X, p. 60, second sentence in para 6.19) that the "simulation is based on a validated aerodynamic missile fly-out model, a rocket engine thrust profile model and models of the radar seeker, missile guidance logic and autopilot..". Bravissimo!
It usually takes years of work of a missile designer and its subcontrators (seeker, ground radar, autopilot and guidance software, etc.) to develop and validate (by means of many real launchs) all this. No need to say that all these data is top secret.
Imagine that a company in a country that does not produce aircraft would publish some results of their simulations of, say, F-22 combat operations, mentioning that their model is better than that of Boeing. The reaction of the latter is quite predictable. Here we have a similar situation and it is well below the level of engineering discussion.