Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran

[ErwinS]

Originally Posted by EDML

1. After the missile exploded the search head will be gone. Destroyed, evaporated, whatever.
2. The search head would be found where the missile hit - many miles away (if it was a missile) and not at the crash site.

I tend to disagree
TOR | Lugansk News Today
http://lugansk-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/InRussia.jpg

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by Interflug

9M331 missile heads look like that after explosion of the charge below them. Pictures can be found on the internet from combat use e.g. recently in Syria.
But agreed, no evidence is there to show a link in time and location to the Tehran crash site. The picture could be from anywhere and anytime.

Here is an example
TOR SAM | Lugansk News Today

[Feathers McGraw]

The warhead on the missile is designed to cause an annular blast throwing its folded continuous rod outwards, the explosive force travelling axially towards the seeker head will be significantly reduced. The bolted structure of the seeker is pretty strong, it would not be damaged easily.

Other photos taken near the crash site show an area with 2 parallel low concrete walls quite close together, it is possible that the seeker could have lodged in the airframe and then fallen out during the ground impact sequence.

This is a statement of possibility, like everyone else here I have no magical insight.

[C441]

I would have thought given the acrimony between Iran and the US at the minute that all sorts of surveillance data would available to the US that would have quickly indicated a rocket/missile launch in Iran. Even a quick event such as this would not have gone unnoticed I would have thought thus, unless the US is sitting on it's hands (data), they would quickly have confirmed or discounted the missile theory.

[OldnGrounded]

Originally Posted by Interflug

9M331 missile heads look like that after explosion of the charge below them. Pictures can be found on the internet from combat use e.g. recently in Syria.
But agreed, no evidence is there to show a link in time and location to the Tehran crash site. The picture could be from anywhere and anytime.

OK, I'll bow to superior knowledge, although it's certainly counter-intuitive that the seeker head would be so well preserved after detonation of the warhead and falling from, what 4-5K' AGL here?

[jimmievegas]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Image circulating on social media, Babak Taghvaee is an expat Irani propaganda writer:

Corrected that for you.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by ErwinS

Boeing Neo??/ Ehmmm you mean MAX.

100% sure UIA did those inspections.

Ah, no, he's thinking the 737NG, which is what this thread is about.
That being said, the chance there is any connection between this crash and the Southwest fan blade issue is close to zero.

[OldnGrounded]

Originally Posted by C441

I would have thought given the acrimony between Iran and the US at the minute that all sorts of surveillance data would available to the US that would have quickly indicated a rocket/missile launch in Iran. Even a quick event such as this would not have gone unnoticed I would have thought thus, unless the US is sitting on it's hands (data), they would quickly have confirmed or discounted the missile theory.

It's virtually certain that both the US and Iran have comprehensive radar coverage of the relevant airspace and the US will also have satellite imagery. Others may, as well. It seems extremely unlikely that a missile track would not have been recorded somewhere.

[Lord Farringdon]

Originally Posted by Thruster763

Well the pictured head is certainly consistent with a TOR -M1 missile and is not from a ballistic missile (too small). There is no reason why the seeker head of the missile would be distroyed in the detonation. It is ahead of the charge and from the photo has a fairly substantial looking domed structure at the rear. It is surprising what close to the charge will survive a detonation. Lots of forensics from detonations have led to convictions in the past. I have personally seen an optical seeker head thar survived detonation remarkably well.

I might be wrong..(gosh, we could all be) but I think the design of these munitions is like shaped charge ie that are very directional. This particular missile system is for killing small fast maneuvering targets (read other rockets) in a defense role. As such it is unlikely to ever be able to actually hit the target directly. It would rely on proximity fusing and a concentrated fragmentation field that is designed to kill a target it may be flying past (crossing paths with) rather than one directly ahead of it. So yeah, the head may have simply been separated at time of charge ignition without actually being hit by the charge. All spec of course but the image gives some clues. 1. the seek head has been separated from the charge without being destroyed by the charge. 2.The seek head appears to have suffered little impact damage suggesting it wasn't attached to the missile body when it hit hit ground.

The assumptions from this seem to suggest this particular round wasn't a dud ie the charge ignited and that since it is a missile defense system, it is not a ballistic missile and is therefore very unlikely to be an image from 'dud' rockets launched by Iran on American bases in Baghdad.

So this seeker head had a starring role in something. But until we can determine where and when it was found, there remains no connection to this 'accident'.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Back door

How will the FAA or Boeing even get the information required to make an informed decision to check the engines if Iran won't cooperate. I am thinking a fleet wide check might come up soon if even the slimmest of information indicates a uncontained engine failure.....

If it was an uncontained engine failure, the high energy debris will remain with +/- 5 degrees of the plane of rotation. Any engine debris outside that arc would have insufficient energy to penetrate the aluminum structure, so any shrapnel holes outside that arc didn't come from the engine.

[Coborn C6]

Originally Posted by C441

I would have thought given the acrimony between Iran and the US at the minute that all sorts of surveillance data would available to the US that would have quickly indicated a rocket/missile launch in Iran. Even a quick event such as this would not have gone unnoticed I would have thought thus, unless the US is sitting on it's hands (data), they would quickly have confirmed or discounted the missile theory.

The US appear to be willing to let things die down - hence Trump's "standing down" remark. If they have evidence it was a rocket/missile then saying so now could re-ignite the tension. The evidence could still come out in due course as the investigation progresses.

If it wasn't a rocket/missile then the US have nothing to gain by saying so at the moment. The truth will come out in the investigation, but in the meantime there is no harm to the US position of leaving the cause of the crash as an open question, especially whilst there is speculation of an Iranian own goal.

And possibly the US wouldn't want to reveal exactly what their capabilites are at the moment when it relates to looking at things going on inside Iran.

[Lord Farringdon]

Originally Posted by Coborn C6

The US appear to be willing to let things die down - hence Trump's "standing down" remark. If they have evidence it was a rocket/missile then saying so now could re-ignite the tension. The evidence could still come out in due course as the investigation progresses.

If it wasn't a rocket/missile then the US have nothing to gain by saying so at the moment. The truth will come out in the investigation, but in the meantime there is no harm to the US position of leaving the cause of the crash as an open question, especially whilst there is speculation of an Iranian own goal.

And possibly the US wouldn't want to reveal exactly what their capabilites are at the moment when it relates to looking at things going on inside Iran.

Agree. All sorts of contradictory statements being made by Iran and Ukraine, social media all over the place, phony attacks on US air bases where it seems missiles were deliberately targeted onto vacant areas of the airfields to avoid casualties, and no doubt a US surveillance system in overdrive that would have spotted a mouse running for cover and would certainly know the whereabouts of any missile system launchers and command modules and if they had been fired.

We may not be in a hot war, but the only thing we can be sure of is that old adage:

"Truth is the first casualty of war".

[PJ2]

Originally Posted by patrickal

Isn't it quite possible that if a portion (or all) of a wing failed at that point due to aerodynamic forces, that the rapid release of fuel in the slipstream would create a fireball which could be perceived as an explosion? Much like the fireball which erupted at the breakup of the Space Shuttle Challenger was caused by the failure of the main tank. In that case, It appeared to be an explosion, but in true defined terms, it was not.

Agree, the term "explosion" was imprecise. What you have described is exactly what I was thinking including the example you used: fire-weakened structural failing under load, likely a wing spilling its load of fuel.

PJ2

[Callsign Kilo]

You can understand that due to the sheer volume of 737 flights worldwide on a daily basis, this devastating crash of a 3 year old airframe in a part of the world that has seen an unprecedented amount of alarming activity in recent days is being regarded by some as slightly more than coincidental.

[JPJP]

Originally Posted by tdracer

If it was an uncontained engine failure, the high energy debris will remain with +/- 5 degrees of the plane of rotation. Any engine debris outside that arc would have insufficient energy to penetrate the aluminum structure, so any shrapnel holes outside that arc didn't come from the engine.

Both of the recent accident aircraft (SW1380 & SWA3472) had high energy debris outside of that arc I believe. Hence the work being carried out on CFM56-7 engines.

Wether that’s relevant to this accident, I don’t know. Happy to be corrected.

[malr]

Since this is the clueless speculation thread:
Why could it not be both?
An engine malfunction and an error of the air defence?

I would expect an engine failure (uncontained or other) would be a natural result of the aircraft being hit with a fragmentation warhead...some of the frag is certain to destroy the engine. It seems plausible that you'd see both frag damage and uncontained engine failure damage.

[slfool]

MH17 damage report

There is a comprehensive report for the MH17 shootdown that explains the consequences of a SAM strike.

https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/med...pendix_nlr.pdf

[exosphere]

Sorry gents, but the video posted everywhere showing the last 30 seconds of this tragic flight shows everything but an engine fire. The all thing is a fireball breaking up several times before final impact.

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by EDML

1. After the missile exploded the search head will be gone. Destroyed, evaporated, whatever.
2. The search head would be found where the missile hit - many miles away (if it was a missile) and not at the crash site.

I can tell you that is incorrect the search head would be destroyed. That’s not the way missile warheads function. They are designed to throw out a expanding cone of fragments almost like a big net. They blow straight out from the missile not forward, I would expect the guidance section to survive.
I would not however expect to find the guidance section with the wreckage unless it got embedded with the aircraft.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by Interflug

Since this is the clueless speculation thread:
Why could it not be both?
An engine malfunction and an error of the air defence?
737 turns back with engine failure, one engine on fire, looking like a rocket in the night sky.
Now heading TOWARD Tehran coming from a western direction.
SAM batteries around Tehran on highest alert, expecting incoming retaliation strike, less than two hours after they started a volley of rockets toward US bases in Iraq.
...

Originally Posted by Avman

Actually, quite a plausible scenario!

I agree. If you've ever seen compressor stalls at night, they can make the engine look like it is in afterburner.

I can see where the gap between the last ADS-B position and the debris field implies a possible right turn back toward the field. But this may have been after an initial explosion as the plane fluttered down out of control in flames. Kinda like the story that has already run about how 'the pilot' avoided the madrassa and crashed the plane into a soccer field instead.

A journalist from an opposition party media operation claims to have verified the turn back to the field through his online forensics: