Possible circuit board of BUK missile found at crash site
by 
A circuit board which could be part of a homing radar head 9E50M1 part of a BUK 9m38 series missile was recently found at the MH17 crash site. Twitter user Slozhny reported the finding Internet forum mh17.webtalk.ru reported at September 11 2016 about the found debris.
While this is an interesting find, we have to be carefull. Is it indeed a part of a missile? Why was this part not recovered? Has it been at the crashsite all the time? Was it planted? There has been so much misinformation on MH17.
Two elements (integrated circuits) are labeled as mil-spec and have been made in Sep 1986 and Dec 1985.
The part was found about 2,5 km north of the village of Petropavlivka.
The location of the circuit board inside the homing radar head is indicated by the red arrow in the picture below.
Some of the chips shows a date. More close-up photos of the board are here.
Besides the circuit board some parts of the aircraft were found. Clearly visible are parts of what could be the engine nacelle. The Rolls Royce logo can be seen on some of the parts.
This metal piece (161 g) was also discovered at the same site. Nonmagnetic, except the bolt and nut.
by
The boards indicated by the red arrow are likely octagonal ones. This board was “half-octagonal”. Only its left part is absent in the photo, nothing is broken off at the lower edge. Several such boards are visible in the photo of 9E50M1.
I think if anybody wished to associate the finding of a circuit board from a homing radar head 9E50M1 that was somehow embedded or fell together, after hitting, the port side engine nacelle after being ejected from a 9M38M1 missile, that approached from the direction of Snizhne, they would have to consider the TNO report – DSB report, appendix y, page 21. The “best match warhead position” had a z position of 3.7 meters and an elevation of 10 degrees and thus for any components forward of the warhead they would have to be ejected forwards and downward, relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis, at an angle considerably more than 10 degrees in order to contact the port side engine.
The NTO “best match” azimuth angle of -27 degrees would be in the approximate direction of the port engine for forward ejected components but they would also still obviously require the same downward angle considerably greater than 10 degrees in order to make contact.
Such a downward angle, relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis, of ejected components is of course not impossible but the illustrations that I have seen appear to indicate quite a narrow angle of spread for components forward of the warhead.
The circuit board must have been at the very bottom of the radar homing head, if the warhead explosion has to be able to tear it off, near perpendicular to its slightly upward and forward moving trajectory and let it hit the engine. It’s the only way they can be found together. Not impossible of course but this find would raise more questions than answers.
From DSB material they estimate ~150kPa pressure hit left side engine, I expect that to rip engine surface off.
Those pieces drifted with wind to roughly same direction where missile was flying.
So, IMO, pure “luck” if some engine surface pieces were found near the circuit board.
Rest of the engine flew to Hrabove.
sotilaspassi:
I agree that the influences of drag, turbulence and wind direction could indeed cause a lightweight component such as a circuit board to be deposited on the ground near the shattered engine casing. If that was the case and the circuit board did not impact or become embedded in any part of the engine casing then that indicates very little about the missile’s orientation and position relative to MH17 when the warhead detonated.
Sotilaspassi, the used TNO simulation gives not 150 but 65 kPa pressure in the front of the left nacelle caused by the reflection of the blast wave. It’s 2500 kPa near the nose.
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/9afe4498c958appendix-z-tno-report-en.pdf
While your theory is certainly possible, we’re talking about a ‘pound’ of pressure per cm². Being hit by one or more objects right after warhead detonation might be a better fit.
>not 150 but 65 kPa pressure
I stand corrected.
It seems the coloring vs pressure is different in every image TNO produced.
“peak pressure of 5000 kPa is calculated”
No wonder the cockpit was blown to pieces.
Then taking into account:
“The best match is ~1 m closer to the aircraft, resulting locally in a somewhat higher blast loading than presented in this report”
It’s not Sep 1986 and Dec 1985.
“12 неделя 1985 года” means “12 week of 1985”
“9 неделя 1986 года” means “9 week of 1986”
More comments from webtalk: By production cycle final item was produced from late 1986 to middle 1987.
No, manufacture date on Soviet electronic components was indicated as YYMM. So late 1987 at the earliest is the likely time of production of the final item.
No, you are wrong. USSR and Russian electronics write number of WEEKS (first two signs — year, two other signs — number of week from start of the year). Read: http://www.asc-development.ru/markirovka-19.html
I was a professional in electronics in USSR. Don’t tell me bullshit. At that time manufacture date on soviet electronic components was indicated as YYMM.
Where are these dates? I don’t see them on image.
Full photo collection: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Ch6v/PN1SmkgeY
Dates: http://oi63.tinypic.com/vfb4tc.jpg
Real circuit size is 167 mm (diameter):
http://storage4.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0913/h_1473762888_5005791_020fa55e82.jpg
BUK’s rocket diameter: 340-380 mm.
Have you read my first comment above? Do you see the split mounting holes which obviously were at the middle of the board edges? There should be a half of cylindrical space 300+ mm over to cram this board into.
New close up pictures of the board don’t seem to show any evidence of the solder having melted (soft solder used in electronics generally melts at temperatures between 180 and 190 °C) Guess it’s possible the solder wasn’t subjected to a sufficient amount of heat when the warhead detonated?
Most likely warhead top + proximity fuse electronics + some radar components/other circuit boards were between explosive and the found circuit board. So, there might not be enough heat to make the solder melt.
btw. did A-A show how circuit boards look after detonation?
sotilaspassi:
“btw. did A-A show how circuit boards look after detonation?”
If you mean their live test then that was a different situation: the nose components were not accelerated away in a forward direction from a missile traveling at approx 600m/s.
Heat would be the same anyway.
sotilaspassi:
“Heat would be the same anyway.”
Yes I agree at the moment of detonation but the nose cone components would have departed the point of detonation more quickly if they already had a forward speed of ~600m/s at an altitude of 10 kilometers, in very low air temperature, and that may or may not be significant if one wished to compare the remains of possible circuit boards from the crash site and from identifiable boards from A-A’s test.
– at 01:54 it’s difficult to judge how much heat the circuit board might have been subjected to but the direction, speed and spread that at least some of the disintegrated nose components took is evident.
New circuit photos with grate details e.g. production/design number:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/M9Ri/ix94cQYgG
Someone should make a map with location of the circuit board, location where the plane was shot down, and location where heavy parts of engines fell down. PCB is rather light.
BTW Kiev few months ago did a BUK warhead test. http://web.archive.org/web/20160714175617/http://kniise.com.ua/news/news-view/c-vidbulosa-provedenna-naturnogo-eksperimentu-sodo-rozsliduvanna-katastrofi-rejsu-mh17
Someone could grab PCB from site and place it to place where it be found. (Or perhaps the holland committee simply missed it. But if it’s genuine, there should be a lot of more pieces of PCB.)
circuit board fell a few km north from where cockpit landed, also some light engine cover debris fell there
The rest of engines flew 6…8km to east.
It seems kiev detonated only warheads. So, no circuit boards in that case.
“Процес підриву бойової частини та самої ракети”
2 explosions have been made, the warhead and missile separately
Ok.
If true, I hope we learn more how secondary fragments spread + penetrate.
(if SBU wanted to place evidence, they should have a lot of circuit boards from previous BUK training sessions)
“While this is an interesting find, we have to be carefull. Is it indeed a part of a missile? Why was this part not recovered? Has it been at the crashsite all the time? Was it planted? There has been so much misinformation on MH17.”
And who found it and where is it now?
I imagine farmer has collected pieces when he “cultivated” the field.
Yes, but where is it now? It is evidence and it should be handed over to the authorities.
Why is it part of a 9E50M1 radar (9M38M1) and why not of a 9E50 (9M38)?
Because 9M38M1 is the proven murder weapon.
Because it was produced after 9M38 production has ended.
And why is the 9M38M1 the proven murder weapon? Because of the bowties? What if the murder weapon was a 9M38 with a 9N314M warhead?
Bowtie holes in MH17 wreckage, filler holes in wreckage, bowtie shrapnels found. None of the weight of heavy fragments weighted more than bowtie, so, no 9N314 cubes found.
I doubt 9M38 is not used anywhere in the world any more, they are over 30 year old, 20 years over their “best before” date.
“9M38 with a 9N314M warhead?”
Does it exist?
Yes, why not
at Frogfoot
Why would it exist. (sure you can claim whatever you wish but…)
To me it seems public material indicate 9M38 missiles do not have 9N314M warhead with bow-ties.
Info updates to:
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/
Forgot that also DSB had some info that indeed “M” warhead can be also on 9M38 missile.
So it seems pretty much proven that there has existed a 9M38 + 9N314M cobination.
9M38 as the warhead carrier would seem to put the launch spot very close to Torez, according to Almaz-Antey math.
((+ would be extremely surprising if rebels had 9M38, when it generally seem to be replaced with 9M38M1 model everywhere))
Would be lovely if A-A could make English versions of their material. Images like this can be very misleading.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ba_XLjE4agQ/Vh4VhdwDqCI/AAAAAAAAM6M/5bUXfw1yEog/s640/BUKshrapnel%2B%252811%2529.png
stilapassi said: 9M38 as the warhead carrier would seem to put the launch spot very close to Torez, according to Almaz-Antey math.
Where did Almaz Antey say that?
What are you qualifications to make your claim? Do you have any qualifications?
sotilaspassi:
“9M38 as the warhead carrier would seem to put the launch spot very close to Torez, according to Almaz-Antey math.”
I think that is partially true but A-A said it was taken out of context. From my reading of the DSB report I got the impression that simulations were done by the Dutch to establish the position and orientation of a 9M38M1 missile relative to MH17 when the warhead detonated. It seems the Dutch established the missile’s elevation angle (pitch) and from that, when the altitude and position of MH17 was considered, the data was passed to A-A who then calculated a theoretical distance to a missile launch site. One assumes also that the azimuth angle of the missile, also provided by the Dutch, enabled A-A to consider the missile’s heading and thus calculate the coordinates of that launch site area. A missile type was not confirmed so A-A provided two theoretical areas for the DSB draft report where 9M38 and 9M38M1 might have been involved.
Later, as you know, A-A challenged the data provided by the Dutch regarding a 9M38M1’s position and orientation at the moment of detonation after they had examined the actual wreckage and photographs of the wreckage and calculated an entirely different launch area from that which was included in the DSB draft and final reports.
at Tony
>Where did Almaz Antey say that?
DSB report page 145 last paragraph + figure 64.
If the circuit board is from a 9E50 radar, then this 9E50 radar and the 9M38 missile carrying it was produced late 1986. So when do you think production of the 9M38 has ended?
1983
No,1986
at Frogfoot
M1: “entered service with the Soviet Army in 1984”
Where is your info from that 9M38 would have been production until 1986?
http://image.tsn.ua/media/images3/original/Aug2014/384042289.jpg
August 2014. Look at the right container. “9M380868463x3”. So Russia in July 2014 had some 9M38 produced in 1986.
at slozhny
Interesting find.
I wonder what missile is in that container…
Did Russia use 9m38 in 2014 …
It’s very interesting, thanks for sharing.
It’s the same picture Bellingcat used to prove that the 53rd Brigade was in the possession of 9M38M1 missiles:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/03/evidence-the-russian-military-supplied-the-type-of-missile-used-to-shoot-down-mh17/
But it also proves that the 53rd Brigade was in the possession of 1986 9M38 missiles.
Production of 9M38 stopped by an undisclosed date of 1986 (according to Almaz-Antey’s statement). But a random IC produced in September 1986 on the circuit board from a homing radar seeker indicates it’s highly unlikely that the end item (missile) was produced before production of 9M38 stopped. So if the PCB is really from a missile of the 9M38 series, it’s almost definitely from 9M38M1.
Reusable containers, in contrast to the missiles. In 9M38 missiles, M38M1 9M317 and the same size, length 5500, diameter 400, in one and the same container can be transported by any sort. The inscription on the shipping container may not reflect the content.
It could be they had 9M38 from old stock especially for rebels.
But because bowties frags + bowtie holes + fiĺer holes exist and no heavier than bowtie frag was found, rebels shot with m1.
Maybe, but it also may be that the new missiles placed in those containers that are left, to change them makes no sense, missiles sizes are the same. If you replace all missiles immediately label the outside does not matter.
sotilaspass:
Please provide information regarding were you saw a 13mm x 13mm “bow-tie” shaped hole or impact mark, i.e. with two irregular opposite edges and two straight opposite edges, in the skin or structures of MH17.
I have analysis document in the works.
Just do not compare with the tests done by professional+proven liars, the Almaz-Antey.
They used rigged setup and unknown build of warhead etc.
sotilaspassi:
“I have analysis document in the works.”
Thanks for your reply, I was hoping that you might provide a link to evidence that is consistent with at least one “bow-tie” shaped hole or impact mark caused by a 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm “bow-tie” shaped fragment, that is consistent with a 9N314M warhead, depicted in a photograph of the MH17 wreckage.
There do appear to be many holes that are consistent with 13mm x 13mm x 8mm and 8mm x 8mm x 5mm cube shaped fragments depicted in photographs of the MH17 wreckage and due to the apparent absence of “bow-tie” shaped holes perhaps that suggests a 9N314 rather than a 9N314M warhead was involved.
However the DSB did state that the damaged remains of perhaps two or three possible “bow-tie” shaped, low grade steel fragments were recovered and is it on this evidence that you are asserting that a 9N314M warhead was definitely involved?
There exist bowtie shape holes, some more typical, some less. Also filler holes seem to exist. And none of the heavy fragment weight point to 9N314. 8 bowtie matching found.
Example1 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsN0zRtW8AELzg8.jpg
To see the true shape of a hole, you need to turn the affected part around and try to see the shape from the direction where the fragment flew from. That fine bowtie hole is from below the pilot window.
Example2 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsXiZMnWcAApC73.jpg
Some parts of MH17 wreckage (like areas of the “dashbopard”) was affected by very rare light fragments. This is an area where you should find affect purely by bowties and fillers from warhead tail.
Then the fragment analysis https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsXiYbYW8AA2Mel.jpg
sotilaspassi:
Thanks for the links to the two photographs. Example 1 does have an irregular shape but you have not given an indication of it’s size. Example 2 I seem to remember being consistent with a component being pulled away from it’s mounting in the “dash board” area. And importantly your fragment analysis does not include the metallurgical composition of the fragments which differentiates them into groups.
Firstly, the question was whether 9M38 were still manufactured during (some period of) 1986. They were. Secondly, all new missiles are supplied in containers. Containers from utilized missiles are returned to the factory or processed as scrap metal. There is no reason to put a new missile in an old container for a long-distant transportation. The more so without redrawing the ID code on it. It’s obviously a gross violation of military service regulations. And it’s August 2014, near the border with Ukraine, exactly where Russian military hardware crossed it to be delivered to the “separatists”…
” Containers from utilized missiles are returned to the factory”
But it’s not even clear how much maintenance and refurbishment Ukraine was performing or capable of themselves. They certainly had the industry and expertise. And after 2005 (end of maintenance claimed Almaz-Antey) also the motive. And in 2007 Ukraine was *certainly* selling BUK with discount to Georgia to shoot at the Russians. My guess would that some warranty and maintenance came with it. Certainly nothing “returned to factory”. Why not re-use cases? Might even serve a purpose — Ukraine is known to be leader in illegally exporting big weapons all over and then you don’t label following “military standards”.
Just another side of things. Russian military hardware crossing is still the most likely solution — but so did Ukraine knew well in advance.
Hugh Eaven, the whole point is that Russia HAD some 9M38 in July 2014. It is clear for what reason the Buk with being in excess supply 9M38M1 could be delivered to Ukraine: just to shoot down Ukrainian warplanes. But IF the “destroyed” 9M38 were delivered instead, a plausible reason could be that the Russian high command did want to shoot down something that was planned to be denied as done by “separatists”, and to accuse UAF of that. You see?
Slozhny: “.. and to accuse UAF of that”.
There is a simpler reason possible for your proposed scenario. Moving “decommissioned” (who knows even captured, back in 2008) hardware over the border is easier to distance from than modern, military active stuff, which then would become hard to maintain that it was not a 100% Russian military operation. Way riskier in terms of legalities during the aftermath.
After the MH-17 incident it seemed to me there were less restrictions anymore and then you see way more modern material appearing all over the place. Why still bother after all? Or if Russia really believed in a set-up initially, the gloves now came off.
Anyway, in terms of geopolitics, Russia already wanted since decades to move closer to Europe and worked hard on distancing US/UK from the European continent. Ukraine has been the Atlantic theater to stop that Russian ambition. Everything Russia did and is doing now seems to be geared to get to the original goal again. That’s why I still don’t think Russia lies (much) -less than their opponents anyway. Their end game is to make Ukraine and the US seem completely unreliable for Europe. Timing becomes everything. Anyway, just my thoughts, it might in the end all be internal power struggles.
Hugh Eaven, you logic strikes dumb any rational person:
1) Russia … worked hard on distancing US/UK from the European continent. …
2) Ukraine has been … to stop that Russian ambition.
3) Everything Russia … is doing now … get to the original goal again.
4) That’s why I still don’t think Russia lies (much) – less than their opponents anyway.
I think discussing with you is a senseless thing. Sorry.
Just see it as introduction in “realpolitik” and European history, pre-2014 at least. The various longer term goals of various camps. You can find much the same with international academic analysis of the various long-term geopolitic goals of the larger players in this game. It can be dismissed but it does not mean “support for” or any other sectarian, conspiratorial theory you might prefer.
You really don’t think Russia’s goal would be to aim for a shift to some kind of Eurasian block with Russia as strong, dominant, partly “leading” member? And that the NATO-US hold on EU needs to lesson for that strategy? That Germany are France are the actual focus of the dance, not some Ukraine or Poland?
Anyway you perhaps prefer to believe Illarionov spectacular dreams of “invasions” (as if anyone could afford!). For every country he was (partly) right on, he predicts another few invasion not happening. The usual: too much brain, too little common sense outside his expertise.
And I forgot to mention, Ukraine 2014 happened because their key geographic position and overall balance in power in West Europe (the “trust” level):
1. to remain more or less firm in Russian influence sphere was crucial for longer term eurasian plans.
2. to be drawn succesfully into EU-US/NATO sphere would be near disaster for all longer term eurasian plans.
It’s about moves and counter-moves over the head of Ukrainian people. They see usually not further than their own imaginary borders and I cannot blame them.
Russia now will use this crisis to have EU-members doubt the US/NATO (“Atlantian”) plans even more openly as they surface because they it have risked too much (war on continent) and it would backfire more if waiting long enough. This is already happening actually in Europe (check out Dutch referendum as one example) – no “pro-Russia moves” but generally anti-EU, anti-NATO policy moves all over the place.
That’s called “strategy”: banking on natural developments and preferences of nation-states and their distinct people.
New info about the murder weapon manufacturing date has been published, rocket engine section has been manufactured 15.12.1986.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd9aorpU0AA91Sh.jpg
Sotilaspassi. If i remember correctly you were one of the first members of this community who referred to the Slide 71 in Almaz Antey live test Slide show ( http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=284722224&access_key=key-qtfE8MB3HxMrZ1r7qtZI).
There we can see the residue of compartment 4 of an exploded BUK-missile.
However you call the slightly damaged cylinder in the figure ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd9aorpU0AA91Sh.jpg) a murder weapon. (The JIT uses much more inaccurate expressions.)
I think that piece is not from exploded BUK-missile and it has not fallen down from 10 000 meters.
Unless there will be forensic arguments on the contrary I think that cylinder must be considered as another suspicious evidence like the steel ball in the window frame of MH17. In that window frame there were traces of previous damaging hits by larger pieces before the steel ball was locked in the slot (maybe by that tiny corroded steel plate).
I wonder if there are any signs in the BUK-casing of contact with the hull of MH17.