Almaz Antey September 28 2016 press conference statements
by 
Almaz Antey had a press conference at September 28 2016, the same day when Joint Investigation Team presented the first results of the criminal investigation into the downing of MH17.
Almaz Antey stated according this Russia Today article:
- Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down from the village of Zaroshenskoye, which was controlled by the Ukrainian Army at the time of the crash
- Almaz Antey did three experiments
- Dutch-led investigators ignored the damage to three parts of the wreckage
- Almaz-Antey says the results of its experiments show it was a 9М38 missile model with a warhead without the double T-shaped shrapnel which leaves so-called “butterfly-shaped” puncture holes.
A recording of the press conference can be seen here
(russian language)
by
Admin:
The version that I saw of the video had the addition of an English translation, which was difficult to follow and at times perhaps wrong. But one interesting aspect of the conference was the RADAR issue: the translator said that a BUK missile (9M38 or 9M38M1?) would take between 32 and 36 seconds to reach the interception point with MH17 if it had been launched from the position claimed by JIT. For the first 4 seconds of the missile’s flight it would not be detected but there might be up to 4 detections afterwards, a very strong chance of 3 or 2 detections and a near certainty of 1 detection.
Repost of my summary:
More about A-A latest (from 28Sep2014):
-they said DSB used cylinder shape warhead model (not true?), not a barrel model.
-they said DSB had detonator in the rear of the warhead (?) when in real life it is in the front.
-nags that DSB simulator for stationary warhead does not match vs reality for stationary test
-A-A model is based on 20 field test
-real fragment spread is wider than what DSB state (yes I think that we see it on MH17 damage… so detonation had indeed been closer than 4m from fuselage)
-still refer to the incorrectly set up stationary live test done without international observers
-A-A “does not like” that DSB changed warhead detonation from 4m to 2m in final report
-nags about lack of found holes (they ignore that large section of affected cockpit surface is missing/destroyed to tiny pieces)
-nags about holes being spread too evenly
-A-A mixed up warhead distances from 4 to 1.5m, to form the latest propaganda release vs Snizhne
-has done more tests (4…5 tests) (without int. nat. observers) none with moving warhead
-say there is no right side exit holes on MH17 (<- a lie)
-lie that there is no bowtie holes on MH17 wreckage
-repeated their story about radar proof (translator is very poor, hope for transcript one day…)
-etc…
If they had not lied before, perhaps someone could believe in something they say.
If I heard correctly, JIT think A-A's new radar conclusions are baseles.
No info if when JIT should receive the RU Primary radar RAW data.
It would be nice to get the JIt comparison of UA mobile PSR and Rostov PSR datas. (not that it can reveal anything new, though)
It would be nice if JIT or DSB could further clarify damage vs model.
It would be nice to see information of secondary fragment spread from real life test (I have a hunch that Finland did such test already for DSB).
All the static “arena” tests done with 9N314M warheads must be compared. If the fragmentation spread angles are found to be in agreement then the difference in opinion between the DSB and A-A can be resolved. Taking into account the aircraft’s position, altitude, heading and speed plus a calculation based on the agreed missile speed and warhead fragmentation spread angles then the missile’s position and orientation relative to the aircraft, at the moment of the warhead’s detonation, can then be established from the damage pattern on the aircraft.
Essentially it’s the ejection angles of the striking fragments from a warhead carried on a missile traveling at ~700m/s and the damage they inflict on a moving target that determine the direction from which the missile approached immediately before the warhead detonated. At the moment there is continuing disagreement on this issue between the DSB and A-A and it seems as if this argument will continue for some time. Hopefully in the future we will get some results from the Dutch or JIT regarding any “arena” tests that were performed by Ukraine and Finland.
A very comprehensive mapping of the fragment punctures and deflection marks were done by A-A in this presentation. The impact angles were also accurately indicated and it was also good to see that they had included the un-recovered cockpit roof in their graphic which is now correctly positioned – in their previous presentations the cockpit roof sections were not properly positioned.
It now seems certain that the fragment spray did not impact any areas on the fuselage beyond the forward frame of door 1L which means that the warhead must have been just lower than the top of the main body of the fuselage and just inside the line of left side (port side) of the main body when it donated. This would probably be true even when one considers the varying fragment ejection angles from a moving missile provided by both the Dutch and A-A.
It will be interesting to see how any live “arena” detonation tests done by Ukraine and Finland can account for that pattern of damage calculated from the characteristics of a static warhead’s fragmentation spray.