MH17 down near Donetsk

[DaveReidUK]

Good euphemism.

No euphemism, simply a statement of the findings that are supported by the evidence to date.

"The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft"

With the usual caveats that accompany a preliminary report including, in this case, the statement that further work will include (among other things)

"forensic examination of wreckage if recovered and possible foreign objects, if found"

[5 APUs captain]

Air-ground communication is published on:

??? ?????? :: ??????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? MH17 / ???????????

[wondering]

Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead? If so, where are the remains of the SAM missile used? The smoking gun?

I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?

[GunpowderPlod]

Have the bodies of the flight crew been recovered?
Were they sujected to autopsy in the Netherlands?
Have their autopsy reports been released?
Do they reveal shrapnel?
Has the shrapnel been identified?
Is the shrapnel from a Buk SAM?
I would be very surprised if the answer to any of these questions is negatve.

Thankyou: The most interesting news came from the chairman of the Dutch safety board. He explained to the press that metal fragments (using the word 'sharpnel' would imply missile parts) were recovered from the bodies of the pilots and these fragments were now being investigated wether these are parts of the airplanes or something else.

[bbrhuft]

The rebels shot down an AN-26 transport plane above 21,000 feet on Monday 14th of July over the village of Izvaryne, ~95 km to the west of MH17 crash site. There was a realisation at the time that the Rebels had used a more advanced missile system.

According to a press release the transport aircraft was cruising at more than 21,000 feet, which should normally make it out of reach of most small arms and simpler shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) used successfully by the separatist forces in the east of Ukraine. Some Ukrainian sources even blame the Russian military to have fired the “more advanced” missile from Russian territory. If true, that would mean the first direct fire from the Russian military in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine: "Latest AN-26 downing more advanced"

[MATELO]

Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead?

Absolutely.

[Sober Lark]

The prelim report 2.4.3 touches on the subject and I think most of us realise the clear skies over Ukraine today show us correlation isn't causation but it sure is a hint.

[silverstrata]

wondering

Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead? If so, where are the remains of the SAM missile used? The smoking gun?

I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?

Yes, the damage is definitely from a fragmentation warhead, and not from a gattling-gun or a contact warhead.

The missile would have been semi-vaporised. It is unlikely that any pieces would be found, especially as investigators have had no access to the site. As the report states, no forensic investigation was allowed, and all analysis is merely from the photos.

Regards burning, the forward fuselage section in my previous post shows evidence of inflight fire/smoke damage. The smoke staining is directionally streaked, demonstrating this was inflight. The rivet and paint streak gradients indicate that the source was to the upper left of the cockpit. This would be consistent with charring and staining from the intense heat of the warhead as it exploded nearby, and sent fragments and a supersonic heat-wavefront from the upper aft left, down to the lower forward right.

Interestingly, the smoke staining pattern seems to indicate that the aircraft was fully pressurised when the staining happened. You will note that there is less staining on the riveted sections, in comparison to the panels in between. This is probably due to the fuselage panels bowing out slightly, due internal pressurisation, in between the stronger structural elements of frames and stringers. Like the panels on a quilt bed-spread, the fuselage panels also bow outwards (slightly) when the aircraft is pressurised. Again, this indicates that the smoke staining happened at cruise altitude, (just) before the fuselage was ruptured.

So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.

[MartinM]

So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.

I remember that video and it is not linked to MH17 although some people claimed so. The video for reference that was used referencing to MH17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RnDhZDQwYI

[anonymousdefender]

Why plane must burn if no fuel in strike place?

[wondering]

Why plane must burn if no fuel in strike place?

Apparently, the high velocity of the fragments causes such a high friction on impact and therefore heat that the aircraft starts burning. Just hearsay.

[Uberteknik]

Quote: "The missile would have been semi-vaporised."


Not true. The missile fore-body immediately behind the seeker and guidance electronics, contains the fragmentation warhead.


Detonation will still leave a large part of the rocket motor and control fins intact which can then fly uncontrolled with residual fuel burn. Even if the motor is punctured in the explosion, it will cause the structure to tumble uncontrollably but unlikely to break it up completely. Don't forget, this is a SAM system capable of high-g manoeuvres (typically 30 - 50g) of monocoque construction and so of very high strength.


Given the initial kinetic energy of the missile at detonation (typical velocity 800 - 1000 m/s at altitude), large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point.


These parts will reach the ground perhaps tens of kilometres from the main crash area and therefore makes the missile parts recovery area huge.

[Sober Lark]

"..large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point. These parts will reach the ground perhaps tens of kilometres from the main crash area and therefore makes the missile parts recovery area huge"


From what you say, is it feasible that the closest aircraft to MH17 mentioned in the report (2.5.3) could also have been in danger?

[anonymousdefender]

Apparently, the high velocity of the fragments causes such a high friction on impact and therefore heat that the aircraft starts burning. Just hearsay.

Not enough heat for start burn metal. Also penetration distribute heat from kinetic energy on all penetrated layers (with losing that energy) instead of one point absorption (in cause of armored object like tank).

[anonymousdefender]

Detonation will still leave a large part of the rocket motor and control fins intact which can then fly uncontrolled with residual fuel burn

9M38M1 have rocket fuel for 20 seconds of flight so when this missile can hit Boeing it already dont have any energy except inertia.

Don't forget, this is a SAM system capable of high-g manoeuvres (typically 30 - 50g) of monocoque construction and so of very high strength.

9M38M1 have limitation on full rocket (on start) 19g. After use all fuel rocket decrease her limitation to 13g.

Given the initial kinetic energy of the missile at detonation (typical velocity 800 - 1000 m/s at altitude), large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point.

But missile dont plane and cannot glide. Her aerodynamics is very unstable so only a few seconds flight after detonation possible (with yaw or pitch in any random direction during expllosion) and dont have a way for compensate increasing distortion of flight.

[DaveReidUK]

From what you say, is it feasible that the closest aircraft to MH17 mentioned in the report (2.5.3) could also have been in danger?

Hard to conceive of a ballistic trajectory that would result in fragments arriving at a point 30km away from MH17, but at the same altitude.

[DCS99]

Raises more questions than it answers

For example:
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
What more was on the ATC transcipts

The Dutch were under massive pressure to produce a report, but what has been published today is limited information in extremis.

[wondering]

@anonymousdefender,

this information comes from an ex Warsaw Pact colonel having worked with Soviet made SAMīs in the air defence role. So make of it what you want.

[IcePack]

So the report still leaves this:- AnderweltOnline: Shocking Analysis of the ?Shooting Down? of Malaysian MH17 open to interpretation.

Wonder if we will ever really know the truth.

[anonymousdefender]

@wondering this information comes from company which producing SA-11