SA-11 warhead
http://i.imgur.com/wDXYVth.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EwKyK92.jpg

Found this image on a Russian forum. I couldn't read a word of it but thought the image was interesting. Can't vouch for accuracy. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6...0%BE%D0%B5.PNG

I noticed that there are several characteristic cuts through apparently massive structures like the window frames and spars:

Click on image for larger version:

http://s18.postimg.org/htbo361i1/cuts_txt_small.jpg

Sources are the Akkermans images
Paris Match
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtJZ75iIIAA6Ry-.jpg:large
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugo...7_original.jpg
http://www.patrasevents.gr/imgsrv/f/full/889451.jpg

Edit:I agree with SAMPUBLIUS comment below. It looks more like breaks than cuts.

"I noticed that there are several characteristic cuts through apparently massive structures like the window frames and spars"

For me it's looks rather like points of breaking, not cuts.

"Found this image on a Russian forum. I couldn't read a word of it but thought the image was interesting. Can't vouch for accuracy. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6...0%BE%D0%B5.PNG"

The spread of debris is consistent with the radar picture of MH17 shotdown presented by Russian side on conference.
With the difference, that the target Russians called "an Ukrainian Su-25" that was hovering in place - was actually created by parts of MH17 falling down.

The light parts of fuselage broken by missile explosion or by explosive decompression & airflow, went nearly straight down, creating new "radar target" near the place of missile hit (the one called "Su-25")

The heavy part of lower nose and cockpit area, that broke off, flew ballistic a little further to south-east in direction of Rozsypne.

The main part of the plane turned a little to the left and continued to fly the east or north-east for several kilometers (as can be seen on Russian radar picture), then finally broke in flight (separated stabilisers and other parts found some distance from main wreckage) and has fallen near Grabove.

There isn't too much leverage on the window frames.

re 2nd Aug 2014 06:43 ole ole
 

agree that window frame parts are broken, not cut. Either an aluminium machined forging or titanium machined forging. Had it been any kind of ' cut', the edges would be relatively smooth. The granular structure of the surface is the best clue to breakage. In other venues, a first look at the broken edge would also be somewhat typical of a fatigue break- which was obvioulsy NOT the cazse here.

On the Russian version of the forums discussed downed Boeing missile air-to-air type R-27 (Su-27 or MiG-29). The version with the SA-11 improbable due to the absence of contrails and sound, which are difficult to hide, regardless of who produced the missile launch. United States promised, but did not provide the satellite picture rocket launch.

Although each version is certainly entitled to their existing.

As I said about 50 pages ago there were thunderstorms just to the South of MH17's path and along the path there was fairly consistent high cloud cover (up to around FL320).

"On the Russian version of the forums discussed downed Boeing missile air-to-air type R-27 (Su-27 or MiG-29). The version with the SA-11 improbable due to the absence of contrails and sound, which are difficult to hide, regardless of who produced the missile launch. United States promised, but did not provide the satellite picture rocket launch. "

I wonder if on those Russian forums they can answer some very simple question about those theories:

- who could fire that R-27 missile ? Whose plane ? Russian plane would be most likely, because the missile would have to come on head-on course so be fired from south-east (!).

- why there is no such plane on radar data, even on radar data presented by Russian side on their conference ? If ukrainian fighter was there to shoot at MH17, Russians would be first to show radar data confirming that.

- doesn't the R-27 contain a continuos-rod type warhead ? The visible damage is consistent with fragmentation warhead.

citation: "All versions of the R-27 missile are equipped with the same 39kg Rod warhead initiated by radar-proximity and impact fuses."

- Why is the R-27 discussed ? Why is it a favorite, and not some other missile like R-33 ? I guess the R-27 is favorite because it's used by Ukrainian forces too.

- No contrails from SA-11 missile, right ? And shoudn't A2A R-27 missile leave a contrails too ? In the same way as Buk missile ?

By the way, there was a picture of column of smoke that was said to be smoke of the SAM missile going into the air, as seen in direction of Shizhne minutes after the shootdown.

edit: http://www.sat24.com/history.aspx choose date and time (17 July 2014, time 16:00 - that's 14:00 UTC) and you can see cloud cover at the very right edge of the map.

@SAMPUBLIUS

Thanks for the professional answer! Point taken, it looks more like break than cut.

More human remains found

More human remains recovered at Ukraine site

Anything in cruise can form a contrail under certain conditions. It requires that the air be supercooled. I've seen contrails off propeller tips.

Passenger, the actual CVR recordings are seldom (if ever?) released to the public - only the transcript is released. I've listened to exactly one - and that because I was directly involved in the investigation. Suffice to say it wasn't a pleasant experience...


Even the transcripts (and FDR data) is generally kept tightly controlled until the investigation report is released - if there is something 'significant' it may be released to the public in a general sense during a press conference held by the investigating authority (e.g. the NTSB public statement a few days after Asiana that there was no evidence of an aircraft malfunction)

On the Russian version of the forums discussed downed Boeing missile air-to-air type R-27 (Su-27 or MiG-29). The version with the SA-11 improbable due to the absence of contrails and sound, which are difficult to hide, regardless of who produced the missile launch. United States promised, but did not provide the satellite picture rocket launch.



On Russian aviation forums there are about two dozen professionals. All of them laugh on the fighter and AAM theory.


R-27 (and R-73 just in case) has an expanded rod warhead.

Another leak on the CVR tape:
http://www.nst.com.my/node/19598

click img to enlarge:
http://s28.postimg.org/vzbu5gv1p/spar_small_rot.jpg

http://s24.postimg.org/gxvhrv1ut/Boe...it_flipped.jpg

The frame of the center port windshield is visible to the bottom right, and must have been detached at the time later images were shot.

A friend just sent me these

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e984n8mw8...oX0RsgkSjbfUna


Looks like the heads of the screws that secures the cockpit windows popped off.

Lots of pot marks and burn marks.

P5_030 shows some flight instrument panelling with distinctive shrapnel marks and some sooting.
I think its the Captain's side of the center pedestal, you can see the throttles and levers above it.

RE 3rd Aug 2014 05:09 cockpit windows (Livery man )
 

Nope- look close at ' posts - screws '. the ' plus sign indentations ' are known as "Phillips head screw heads " commonly used in aircraft. Single slot screw heads are rarely used.

Just what and how they held anything is not too obvious, but most likely the glass/plastic/multiple layer windscreen.

Same images in higher resolution:
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_039.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_038.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_030.jpg

That same frame is visible still attached to the spar in the other image above.

WHOOOAAA-
 

U.S. official: Spy plane evaded Russian tracking - CNN.com

Note dates and timing and locations

Washington (CNN) -- The Cold War aerial games of chicken portrayed in the movie "Top Gun" are happening in real life again nearly 30 years later.
A U.S. Air Force spy plane evaded an encounter with the Russian military on July 18, just a day after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by a suspected surface-to-air missile that Ukraine and the West allege was fired by pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine.
The RC-135 Rivet Joint fled into nearby Swedish airspace without that country's permission, a U.S. military official told CNN. The airplane may have gone through other countries' airspace as well, though it's not clear if it had permission to do so.... goes on

The US and Russia have been doing elint surveillance on each others doorstep for decades. Usually barely in international waters, as was the case this time, when the rc-135 experienced a radar lock. Normally the surveillance planes just have a few close passes by the host country's fighters, no big deal. Russia's IL-20's were recently shooed away from the UK and Turkey's coastlines. Nothing new here, except for the radar lock.

What RADAR lock
 

NO mention of a radar lock !!

Please do not extrapolate from reference to TOP GUN movie by so called journalist - especially from CNN on a slow news day .:ugh:

When a radar "tracks" a target (as in azimuth and elevation) it is about as locked on as it gets. A periodic radar sweep is one thing, tracking a target is entirely a different matter.

To me the bolts/screws are sheered and the post with the inset phillips head is a locating pillar, in can't secure anything as it has no head flange, and therefore suffered no stress when whatever was secured by the others departed with great force.

777 cockpit window info
 

Apologies if this is a repeat request, is there info on the fusing of the missile available, where both the contact and proximity fuse are located?

BUK-M1 dont have contact fuse (naval BUK-M1-2 have it) but only proximity fuse (9E241M1) with initiate range 17m or lesser with angle 120 degree or more.
http://i.imgur.com/QLNG8Bt.jpg

1 - semi-active radar homing
2 - proximity fuse
3- warhead
Checking a fuse

GR, why?

As the proximity fuse must initiate the explosive train before the missile reaches the target it follows that it must be in the nose.

Impact fuzing is more problematical.

It will function as a result of a sudden deceleration. It could be behind the warhead but that risks breakup of the warhead before detonation. It follows that it will behind the proximity fuse system but close to it. Best position is as far forward as possible.

Actually, not true. modern missiles often use a laser prox situated in the body of the missile well back from the nose seeker system - as is the warhead.

Certainly impact fuzing for some missiles was electrical contact on the fins. These had small warheads though and the idea was to allow the warhead to be inside the target before detonation. Partial destruction of the detonator was allowed for and it would still function for a short time (2-3 msec) after damage.

Every missile I have known [OK not that many] has the proximity fuse placed to trigger the warhead in the most effective way, usually close to the warhead position itself.

I was asking because of the thermal damage to the cockpit area remains.

The explosion must have been very close indeed.

What is the point of all the Where's Waldo forensic photos with arrows and such?

1. Possible 2 missiles was fired (each from different position)
2. Fat target like 777 is very easy target - big radar cross-section, high alt, no speed, no maneurs, no electronic warfare, no chaffs, etc.
Radar equipment of SA-11 produced for kill targets with RCS=1sq.m.

obvious
 

33M, obviously the point of a detailed forensic analysis, using incomplete information and lots of arrows, is to accomplish two key objectives:

1. To illustrate how knowledgeable the poster is
2. To illustrate flaws in Boeing's design that made this plane (and ostensibly others in its commercial lineup) extremely susceptible to being destroyed by a meager 6m long SAM going Mach 3+

I'm sure once Boeing sees these detailed forensic analyses their future planes will resemble the A-10 and/or Su-25.

I tend to believe theory #1 more

lmao at your post 33M - good one :D

Buk PK is pretty high anyway for a large a/c target - presuming whoever it was thought they were firing at a transport aircraft. Not sure two at once would be SOP, especially if you only have four. If fired from Schizne then there would be time for a second shot if the first misses.

Where it will go off will depend a lot on target radar profile (to the fuse radar), missile and approach angle. There are some combinations of missile/target/approach that result in zero PK (at least in simulation) usually due to the fuse triggering too soon. Note - if I ever knew details of any examples they are long forgotten, not that I could say anyway.

In this case, if the missile was approaching from directly below (or above) and fused at the side of the cockpit, then, yes, that looks a bit late.

On the other hand, if it is approaching from the front, maybe slightly to one side, it could be exactly as designed/expected. Depends on which part of the a/c the fuse will "see". It may be the wing box and/or engine fan that is the biggest return or centre of it. Fuse distance seems most often quoted as 17m, although I have seen other numbers (large radius zone, this is a big warhead). By my reckoning, approaching from front slightly to one side, 17m from wing box / engine on a 777 would put you right about the cockpit window...

I would have thought it was to supply information to the debate as to where the missile hit and what direction it flew, so possibly who fired it.

I also appreciate their aircraft/airframe knowledge and the photoshop skills.

One thing it has certainly confirmed is the crew never knew what hit them it was instant

about warhead of missle
 

Accordingly this
http://www.ctro.hr/universalis/175/d...1606332201.pdf
On the 7th slide there are interesting captured frames of detonation of the projectile. The peculiarity is that detonation generates relatively a narrow stripe of small fragments and this somehow should be portrayed on the fuselage but distance play a key role in that case.
On the 9th slide there is interesting graph about velocities distribution of the fragments.

Between the sudden decompression and the blast wave of the warhead detonation, it was instant for everybody.

That recorded rebel speculation that the plane had been carrying corpses is, of course, nonsense. But it was based on observations that the bodies were not bleeding, looked like they were dead before they hit the ground. Without going into morbid details, I can only say that a close look at the available photos confirms this.

I have trouble believing it was "instant" death for all on board. A couple of seconds at least for some, I feel that a small few would have had only a couple to few seconds of realising something is wrong before death.