StuntPilot,
I do not underestimate knowledge and expertise of TNO and other organisations from the Netherlands (Ik werkte veel met Nederlandse bedrijven vooral met Dutch Space. Niet voor militaire, maar voor ruimte-projecten. Ook had contacten met NLR, TNO-FEL en sommige kleinere).
Just wanted to say that lack of precise data is critical and none of Russian companies, having just publicly available data, could correctly and accurately reconstruct the trajectory of the Buk either . What A-A disclosed, was definitely some general information. Specific data about guidance, an autopilot, seeker, actuators, etc. are highly classified with IPRs belonging to the MoD. If A-A disclosed these data, we would see them not at a press conference, but "behind the bars". This is, by the way, why I am skeptical about any material from A-A: they also did not disclose details.
They "draw the curves" with no proof, the same as DSB - not serious.
Thanks for pointing to the link with another DSB document. Indeed, the material from p. 94 and onwards looks strange: a childish game "you say "yes", and I say "no". Each side playes its own game and does not want to hear another one.
Regarding an early warning system, yes, shortly after the catastrophe it was heard from the US that their system detected the launch and that they "knew the area where the missile started from."
I assume they indeed had some data as both SBIRS-GEO and SBIRS-HEO satellites are in operation already (SBIRS-LEO, too, but it "addresses" missiles at relatively high altitudes,
AFAIK).
However, the US declined sharing that data (evidence) and this lowers the credibility bar to zero. Also, technically speaking, it is unlikely that SBIRS could provide a highly accurate estimate of the launch point, it is just purposed for "general detection", but not for target acquisition, etc.
So, IMHO, the situation is still well unclear. I am not impressed, neither by the work by DSB, nor by the Russian groups (i.e. what I hear here in the Russian media).