Download - Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
1/77
RESULTS OFFull-scale Real-life Experiment to Analyze
Causes of MH17 Aircraft Crash
Moscow– 2 15
ALMAZ • ANTEYCONCERN
Concern VKO Almaz-Antey
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
2/77
2
1. ELABORATE ON TYPE OF MISSILE
2. VALIDATE CONDITIONS AT WHICH MISSILE HITAIRCRAFT
Main Objectives of Real-life Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
3/77
3Damage Assessment of Boeing-777 MH17
L E G E N D
SEVERE DAMAGES
MODERATE DAMAGES
SLIGHT (RICOCHETING) DAMAGES
DESTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT SUPERSTRUCTURE
INTENSITY OF STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT:
MAIN DAMAGES :
1. Cockpit, primarily the left side
2. Aircraft superstructure, primarily main frames
4. Left wing
5. Left engine
6. Left section of the stabilizer and empennage (tail fin)
3. Cockpit internals
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
4/77
STA 212.5STA 204.5
STA 212.5
4
STA 196.5
STA 196.5 STA 212.5STA 212.5IN FRONT
BEHIND STA 212.5
STA 212.5
Damages to Left-hand Side of Cockpit
Fragment under the outermost left-hand side glass panel
SUB-MUNITIONS WERE MOVING ALONGSIDEAIRCRAFT BODY
RICOCHET(without penetration inside the
body)
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
5/77
FWD
Side viewFWD
View fromabove
View from inside
5Damages to Left-hand Side of Cockpit
Fragment behind the outermost left-hand side glasspanel
S T A 2 2 8 .5
STA 228.5
STA 228.5
228.5
Fragment location in the !" 17body L E G E N D228.5 LAYOUT OF AIRCRAFT SUPERSTRUCTURE ELEMENTS
ENTRY HOLES IN FUSELAGE OUTER SKIN
OPEN-END HOLES IN TRANSVERSAL ELEMENTS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE(MAINFRAMES)
WHITE ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF MOVING SUB-MUNIOTOINS (BY ALIGNINGWITH ENTRY HOLES IN OUTER SKIN WITH HOLES IN MAIN FRAMES)
RED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF MOVING SUB-MUNIOTOINS THROUGHTRANSVERSAL ELEMENTS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE (MAINFRAMES)
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
6/77
S TA 2 3 6
. 5
View from outside
View from inside Side view
FWD
STA 236.5
6Damages to Left-hand Side of Cockpit
Fragment behind the outermost left-hand sideglass panel
SUB-MUNITIONS WERE MOVING ALONGSIDEAIRCRAFT BODY
~ 1 3 m m
Hole formDIAMOND
(HIGH INTENSITY)
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
7/77
STA 236.5
Side view
7Damages to Left-hand Side of Cockpit
Fragment behind the outermost left-hand sideglass panel
SUB-MUNITIONS WERE MOVING ALONGSIDEAIRCRAFT BODY
Alignment of the entry hole with the hole the main frame STA 236.5 clearly illustrates thesubmunition
FWD
S T A 2 3 6 .5
L E G E N D236.5 LAYOUT OF AIRCRAFT SUPERSTRUCTURE ELEMENTS
ENTRY HOLES IN FUSELAGE OUTER SKIN
OPEN-END HOLES IN TRANSVERSAL ELEMENTS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE(MAINFRAMES)
WHITE ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF MOVING FRAGMENTS (BY ALIGNING WITHENTRY HOLES IN OUTER SKIN WITH HOLES IN MAIN FRAMES)
RED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF MOVING DETONATION PRODUCTS
236.5
Fragment location in the !" 17body
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
8/77
STA 236.5
STA 246
STA 254.5
STA 265.5
STA 276.5
STA 287.5
S T A 2 3 6 .5
S T A 2 4 6
S TA 2 5 4
. 5
S TA 2 6 5 .
5
S T A
2 7 6 . 5
8Damages to Roof above Cockpit
C L A
A
A
CLA
STA 276.5
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
9/77
9
236.5287.5 309.5
212.5 332.5246.5
204.5
STA 228.5 STA 236.5
STA 246 – 254.5
STA 265.5 – 276.5
STA 287.5 – 309.5
STA 212.5
STA 228,5
STA 246 – 276.5
STA 287.5 – 309.5
STA 196.5 – 204.5
Damages to Traverse Superstructure (Main Frames)
DAMAGES TO SUPERSTRUCTURE (MAIN FRAMES) ARE LOCATED MUCHFURTHER AWAY FROM DAMAGES TO OUTER SKIN
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
10/77
!
BREAKUP OF MAINFRAMES
10
ENTRY HOLES IN COCKPIT FLOOR
SUPERSTRUCTURE ELEMENTS (MAIN FRAMES)
OPEN-END HOLES IN MAIN FRAMES
BREAKUP OF MAIN FRAMES
LEFT VIEW REAR VIEW
A
A
FWD FWD
FWD
PIC'S CONTROL COLUMN
212.5
WHITE ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF MOVING FRAGMENTS
L E G E N D
Damages to Cockpit’s Internals
Distribution of the damage densityover the cockpit floor
STA 212.5
STA 204.5
RIGHT VIEW
COMPLETE DAMAGE AREA IN COCKPIT FLOOR
FWD
LEFT SIDE OFCOCKPIT FLOOR
B
"
SUB-MUNITIONS WERE MOVING ALONGSIDEAIRCRAFT BODY
Open-end holes on the right-hand side of the control
column cannot be madewithout the body break-upunless the sub-munitions were
moving from the left-handside.
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
11/77
11Damages to the Left Wing and Left-hand Side of Stabilizer
LEFT WING BORE BRUNT OF SHRAPNELS
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
12/77
Front view
12
~ 14 mm
Rear view
Damages to Left Engine
LEFT ENGINE BORE BRUNT OF FRAGMENTS
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
13/77
1
2
FRONT VIEW
REAR VIEW
REAR VIEW
~ 14 mm
REAR VIEW
~ 14 mm
FRONT VIEW
13Damages to Left Engine
Hole FormDIAMOND ~ 14 mm
(HIGH INTENSITY)
TWO OR MORE ELEMENTS OF THE AIRCRAFT BODY CAN BEPENETRATED ONLY BY HIGH-IMPACT ELEMENTS –PRE-FRAGMENTED ELEMENTS OF HIGH OR LOW DENSITY
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
14/77
STA 196.5 – 204.5
STA 212,5
STA 228,5
14Key Conclusions on Aircraft Damages
1. The break-up of the structural members (main frames) in thearea of the left-hand side cockpit canopy could be caused only by asubmunition moving along the aircraft body.
2. The damages to the left engine and left wing were inflicted by
the impact of pre-armed submunitions and fragments of the missilebody.
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
15/77
15
SIMULATION
Real-life Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
16/77
Dynamic model of the warhead
16
* * * * ,
11111-----1-1-1-1-1---
7
1
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-7
-
-
-1
-11
-1
-1
-1
-1
Static model of the warhead
Distribution of density and kinetic energy
NDP EDP
Submunition distribution model
LEGEND
SCALPEL FORMATION SECTOR
DIRECTION OF SCALPEL REAR FRONT
SET-OFF POINT
* * * * ,
11111-----1-1-1-1-1----
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
7
1
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-7
-
-91
-89
-92
-79
-75
-77
-80
-84
-72
-73
-82
-70
-91
-68
-93
-66
-95
-64-62
-60-57
-55-53
-94
-88
-95
-89
-51
-16-16-16-16
40
88
98
88
95
4346
4952
5558
96
60
94
63
92
65
80
69
67
83
78
74
72
76
93
88
91-90
-87
-92-93
-84
-78
-76
-81
-79
-74-72
-70-68
-67-65
-63-61
-58-56
-54 -51-50
-48 -46 33 3638
40 4346
5053
5658
6163
65
6770
76
78
72
74
83
9492
87
90
Specific distribution pattern of submunitions
OVER 42 % OF WEIGHT OF SUBMUNITIONSOVER 50 % OF KINETIC ENERGY
* * * * ,
11111-----1-1-1-1-1---
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-
-
-
-7
-
-
-1
-90
-88
-92
-77
-74
-75
-79
-83
-70
-71
-81
-68
-91
-66
-92
-64
-94
-62 -59
-57-54
-52-50
-93
-87
-95
-88
-47
-5-5-5-5
43
87
95
87
93
4749
5154
57 60
95
62
93
64
91
66
80
70
68
82
78
74
72
76
92
88
90-89
-87
-91-92
-83
-76
-74
-80
-77
-72
-70-68
-66-64
-62-60
-58-55
-52-50 -47
-46-44 -42 38 40
4244 47
4953
5558
6062
646769
71
77
79
73
75
83
9391
86
89
V9 ! 38 ! 1= 600 m/s
Launch from Snezhnoe scenario
VB777 = 252 m/s
V
Version presented by Concern VKO Almaz-Antey
V9 ! 38 ! 1= 730 m/s VB777 = 252 m/s
- 42 #
- 95 #
- 46 #
- 95 #
VPE_MAX = 2580 m/s
VPE_MAX = 2,400 m/s 38 #
95 #
33 #
97 #
- 88 #
- 89 #
V
Specific Pattern of Fragments Front Generated by 9N314M WH
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
17/77
X, km
Z, km
5
10
15
5
10
15
20
5 km
X, km
Z, km
144 6 8 10
16
18
20
9! 38 2
22
X, km
Z, km
144 6 8 10
16
18
20
9! 38 ! 1 2
22
0CONDITIONS AT WHICH MISSILE HITS AIRCRAFT
QHOR = 72 "
Q VER= 20-22 "
+ 6 °-– 6 °
+ 6 °-– 6 °
X
Q HOR
Y
Z
Q VER
17Simulated Results:Concern VKO Almaz-Antey’s Scenario
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
18/77
X, km
Z, km
144 6 8 10
16
18
20
2
22
XL= 7,780
ZL= 17,850
X
Q HOR
Y
Z
Q VER
9! 38 ! 1
V9M38M1 ~ 685 m/s
QHOR = 74.58 "
QVER = 10,49 "
9! 38
V9M38 ~ 733 m/s
QHOR = 73.03 "
QVER= 20.89 "
X
Q HOR
Y
Z
Q VER
18Simulation Results:Concern VKO Almaz-Antey’s Scenario
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
19/77
19Simulation Results:Concern VKO Almaz-Antey’s Scenario
$%"$&"'( Damages :
1. Left wing2. Left engine
- a minimum of 4 submunitions- a minimum of 22 submunitions
l l
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
20/77
20Simulation Results:‘Launch from Snezhnoe’ Scenario
$%"$&"'( Damages :
1. Left wing2. Left engine
- 0 submunition- 0 submunition
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
21/77
21Simulation Results
Concern VKO Almaz-Antey’s Scenario
‘Launch from Snezhnoe’ Scenario
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
22/77
STAGE 1: 9N314M JUL 31, 2015 22
Experiment’s Objectives:
Confirm the submunition trajectory pathConfirm the mechanical (penetrating) impact of submunitions
Run a comparative analysis of damages and submunitions
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
23/77
23Experiment. Stage 1
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
24/77
24
High-speed camera No. 1 10,000 frames/s
Solid obstacle (trap)
High-speed camera No. 2 10,000 frames/s
T – 0.445 ms
T + 12.055 ms T + 59.855 ms
T + 0.483 ms T + 2.183 ms
Confirm Mechanical (Penetrating) Impact of Submunitions
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
25/77
25
1: Aluminum – 2.0 mm
2: Solid foam – 260.0 mm
3: Boards – 750.0 mmI-BEAM
13 # 13 # 8.2mm
7. 63 g 7.73 g
7.91 g
6.84 g 6.27 g 6.86 g 5.23 g 5.90 g
6.58 g 6.79 g
DIAMOND8x8x5 mm
1.88 g 2.01 g
1.82 g 1.76 g 1.85 g 1.73 g 1.59 g 1.87 g
Solid obstacle (trap)
Collected fragments
DIAMOND6x6x8.2 mm
Confirm Mechanical (Penetrating) Impact of Submunitions
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
26/77
26
Retrieval of the submunitions from the solid obstacle(trap)
Confirm Mechanical (Penetrating) Impact of Submunitions
MECHANICAL (PENETRATING) IMPACT BY I-BEAM FRAGMENTS INDURAL EQUIVALENT:
12.2 – 26.3 mm (DEPENDING ON ENTRY ANGLE)
9 3 3 20
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
27/77
DIAMOND (8x8x5 mm)
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
DIAMOND (6x6x8.2 mm)
7.91 g
8.10+ 0,6-–
0.1G
6.02 g 4.53 g6.53 g 7.51 g 7.37 g 7.91 g 7.73 g
2.06 g 1.93 g 2.19 g 2.01 g 1.77 g 1.85 g 2.05 g1.89 g
1.82 g 1.76 g 1.85 g 1.73 g 1.59 g 1.87 g 1.27 g 1.07 g
2.35+ 0.15
-– 0.15 G
2.10+ 0.01
-– 0.17 G
1.89 g
6.35 g 2.44 g 1.93 g + 0.52 g 2.31 g 2.34 g 16.05 g 1.59 g3.62 g 0.74 g 0.57 g
BODY FRAGMENTS
A
B
A B
9N314M JUL 31, 2015 27
9N314M JUL 31 2015
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
28/77
9N314M JUL 31, 2015 28
DIAMOND (8x8x5 mm)
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
DIAMOND (6x6x8.2 mm)
Typical holes from pre-armed submunitions
9N314M JUL 31 2015
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
29/77
9N314M JUL 31, 2015 29
Typical holes frompre-armed I-BEAM type submunitions
Obstacle No. 2 Obstacle No. 4
Obstacle No. 5
A
B
A B CC
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
30/77
30
!" 17
!" 17
!" 17
!" 17!" 17
!" 17
TARGET
Fragments of Missile Bay Body TARGET
TARGET
TARGETTARGET
TARGET
Exterior Appearance of Holes from Warhead Fragments
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
31/77
31
1.0 1.1
1.0
1.1
Damage Assessment
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
32/77
32
Computer Simulation Experiment’s Resuls
Stage One Results of Experiment
d b ( )
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
33/77
33Pre-armed Submunitions (Experiment: Stage 1)
DIAMOND (6x6x8.2 mm)
Original exterior view of pre-armed SM
DIAMOND (8x8x5 mm)
Original exterior view of pre-armed SM
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm) I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
Original exterior view of pre-armed SM
top view &)* %+$,-
STAGE 2 9 ! 38M1 OCT 07 2015
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
34/77
STAGE 2: 9 ! 38M1 OCT 07, 2015 34
Experiment’s Objectives:
Assess the damages the full-size aircraft by submunitionsConfirm the mechanical (penetrating) impact of submunitions
Run a comparative analysis of damages and submunitions
35V l i A l i f P d SM Mi il d Ai f
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
35/77
V9 ! 38 ! 1= 0 m/s VB777 = 0 m/s
35
FRAGMENTS FRONT: Static Position
Velocity Analysis of Pre-armed SM, Missile and Aircraft
36C l l i f F V l i d Di i R di
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
36/77
"Geometry Textbook for 7-11-year schoolstudents,
5 th edition, A. V. Pogorelov, 1995 8 year, paragraph 10,
Addition of Vectors – page 159
"LAUNCHING ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES ,3 rd Edition, F.K. Neupokoev, 1991, Chapter
5. Area of Potential Damage to Target – page188
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i){
V.push_back(Point((LightSplintersInitialPositionType1VectorAfterTurn[i].x + time *(LightSplintersVelocityType1VectorAfterTurn[i].x + MissileVelocityArray.x + PlaneVelocityArray.x)),(LightSplintersInitialPositionType1VectorAfterTurn[i].y + time * (LightSplintersVelocityType1VectorAfterTurn[i].y +MissileVelocityArray.y + PlaneVelocityArray.y)), (LightSplintersInitialPositionType1VectorAfterTurn[i].z + time *
(LightSplintersVelocityType1VectorAfterTurn[i].z + MissileVelocityArray.z + PlaneVelocityArray.z))));}
"
"
Fragment of the program code that includes the addition of the projected velocity vectors of low-intensity
submunitions of a surface-to-air missile and aircraft
36Calculation of Fragment Velocity and Dispersion Radius
!"#$% '(% )*+(%*, -. ,%'/#*'%,0'+*1%2 .3%%, )-22 4%/5%'+-$*226 7% *,,%, '/ '(%
'*+4%'8. /)# .3%%, 4%#%+*'%, 76 9+*45%#'.:.-#4 '(% )*+(%*, 3/)%+; !
37V l it A l i f P d SM Mi il d Ai ft
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
37/77
V9 ! 38 ! 1= 600 m/s VB777 = 0 m/s
37
FAGMENTS FRONT : Based on Missile velocity 600 m/s
V9M38M1
Velocity Analysis of Pre-armed SM, Missile and Aircraft
38V l it A l i f P d SM Mi il d Ai ft
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
38/77
V9 ! 38 ! 1= 600 m/s VB777 = 252 m/s
V
38
FAGMENTS FRONT : Dynamic Position(Missile Velocity 600 m/s, &777 Velocity 252 m/s)
Velocity Analysis of Pre-armed SM, Missile and Aircraft
39Obt i i g Adj t t C ti
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
39/77
39
Dynamic Position(Missile Velocity 600 m/S,Aircraft Velocity 252 m/s)
Static Position(Missile Velocity 0 m/s),Aircraft Velocity 0 m/s)
X
QHOR
Y
Z
Q VER
COLLISION PARAMETERS
V9M38M1 ~ 600 m/s
QHOR = 17 " QVER = 7"
V AIRCRAFT = 252 m/s
. Q VER
. Q HOR
Obtaining Adjustment Corrections
Dynamic to Static Position Conversion 40
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
40/77
Dynamic-to-Static Position Conversion 40
Calculations results of Target-86 airframe damage to provide dynamic-to-static position conversion(9M38M1 SAM and IL-86 airframe)
Number of triangular areas forming the cockpit canopy surface
Number of calculated fragments (pre-armed fragments + body fragments)
Number of processed options–OVER 14 millions
Fragment Coverage Area 41
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
41/77
Fragment Coverage Area 41
Dynamic Position (Missile Velocity 600 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 252 m/s)
Static Position (Missile Velocity 0 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 0 m/s)
V9M38 ! 1 ~ 600 m/s
Q HOR = 17 " Q VER= 7"
V AIRCRAFT ~ 252 m/s
V9M38 ! 1 - 0 m/s
Q HOR = 33.5 " Q VER= 16.5 "
V AIRCRAFT - 0 m/s
QHOR = + 16.5 " QVER= + 9.5 "
ADJUSTMENTCORRECTIONS
Fragment Coverage Area 42
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
42/77
Dynamic Position (Missile Velocity 600 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 252 m/s)
Static Position (Missile Velocity 0 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 0 m/s)
Fragment Coverage Area 42
V9M38 ! 1 ~ 600 m/s
Q HOR = 17 " Q VER= 7"
V AIRCRAFT ~ 252 m/s
V9M38 ! 1 - 0 m/s
Q HOR = 33.5 " Q VER= 16.5 "
V AIRCRAFT - 0 m/s
QHOR = + 16.5 " QVER= + 9.5 "
ADJUSTMENTCORRECTIONS
Entry Hole Angles of Submunitions 43
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
43/77
Dynamic Position (Missile Velocity 600 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 252 m/s)
Static Position (Missile Velocity 0 m/s, Aircraft Velocity 0 m/s)
Entry Hole Angles of Submunitions 43
V9M38 ! 1 ~ 600 m/s
Q HOR = 17 " Q VER= 7"
V AIRCRAFT ~ 252 m/s
V9M38 ! 1 - 0 m/s
Q HOR = 33.5 " Q VER= 16.5 "
V AIRCRAFT - 0 m/s
QHOR = + 16.5 " QVER= + 9.5 "
ADJUSTMENTCORRECTIONS
Distribution of sub-munitions 44
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
44/77
Distribution of sub munitions 44
Dynamic Position(Missile Velocity 600 m/s,Aircraft Velocity 252 m/s)
Static Position(Missile Velocity 0 m/s,Aircraft Velocity 0 m/s)
45Baseline Data for Experiment’s Target Layout
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
45/77
(X38 ! 1)- 250
( Y38 ! 1)
+ 7
, 0 0 0 * *
BAY CENTER 2 (ALIGNMENT POINT)
PLACEMENT ON CRADLE
MC
PRODUCT MASS CENTER
1,500
QVER= 16.5 "
1 , 2
7 3
1,000*
190
VERTICAL PLANE
" Y0" EARTH
** - at a height of object cradle 500 mm at 8 m
X0 X8 m
+ 500**
"0" OF TARGET (CROSSING OF CENTER LINE ANDOBJECT'S NOSE PART)
! 38 ! 1 = 342.6 kg(with exhausted engines)
* - all in mm
45Baseline Data for Experiment s Target Layout
46Baseline Data for Experiment’s Target Layout
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
46/77
PLACEMENT ON CRADLE
MC
HORIZONTAL PLANE
(X38 ! 1)- 250
Q HOR = 33.5 "
- 3
, 3 5 0
(Z38 ! 1)
OBJECT "86" BODY CENTERLINE
X0 OBJECT "86" BODY NOSE
Z0
* - all in mm
BAY CENTER 2 (ALIGNMENT POINT)
PRODUCT MASS CENTER
"0" OF TARGET (CROSSING OF CENTER LINE ANDOBJECT'S NOSE PART)
46Baseline Data for Experiment s Target Layout
! 38 ! 1 = 342.6 kg(with exhausted engines)
47Baseline Data for Experiment’s Target Layout
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
47/77
+ 500 + 500
6,080
Q VER= 16.5 "
QHOR = 33.5 "
Y38 ! 1
Z38 ! 1
X38 ! 1
X
Q HOR
Y
Z
Q VER
9! 38 ! 1
QHOR = 33.5 " Q VER= 16.5 "
+7,000
- 250
- 3,350
47Baseline Data for Experiment s Target Layout
48Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
48/77
Preparatory Work for Experiment
Product 9M38M1
Warheaf 9N314M
9M38M1 MISSILE ARMED AND IS 40 SECONDS INTO FLIGHT
49Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
49/77
Preparatory Work for Experiment
Installation of Target No. 1 (nose part)
Target No. 2(left engine)
50Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
50/77
Preparatory Work for Experiment
Installation of the test bench
51Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
51/77
Preparatory Work for Experiment
Unloading of product 9 ! 38 ! 1
Final preparation stage of warhead 9N314M
52Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
52/77
Preparatory Work for Experiment
Insertion of the warhead into Product 9 ! 38 ! 1
Final stage preparation of Product 9 ! 38 ! 1
53Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
53/77
p y p
Installation of Product 9 ! 38 ! 1 onto the test bench
54Preparatory Work for Experiment
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
54/77
p y p
Deployment of Product 9 ! 38 ! 1
Target No. 1(nose part)
Target No. 2(left engine)
55Experiment: Stage 2
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
55/77
p g
56Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
56/77
Cockpit (left view) Cockpit (view from inside)
Cockpit (front view) Cockpit (top view)
g y
57Hole in Starboard Side
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
57/77
FRAGMENTS RETAINING HIGH VELOCITY FRAGMENTS LOSING HIGH VELOCITY
58Damages
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
58/77
Exit holes on the right-hand side
59Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
59/77
Cockpit (left view)
$/01/0/234 536784/72 2 59:7;4 70/463;? @63A9B9 ;9 75/1
60Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
60/77
A
A
B
B
Typical holes from I-BEAM submunitions(13 # 13 # 8,2 mm)
61Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
61/77
A
A
B
B
"
"
#
#
$
$
!
E
Typical holes from I-BEAM submunitions (13 # 13 # 8,2 mm)
62Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
62/77
Fragment No. 1 Fragment No. 2
Roof structural member (complete with the main frame)of the cockpit behind the left glass panel
Roof structural member (complete with the stringer) ofabove the PIC’s seat
Fragment No. 3
Port side structural element in the area of the PIC’s sidewindow
Fragment No. 4
Roof structural member above the PIC’s seat
63Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
63/77
Fragment No. 5
Port side structural element behind the PIC’s seat
64Locations of Fragments Collection
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
64/77
65Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
65/77
Open-end hole in the stringers
66Damages to Superstructure
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
66/77
Main frames of port side behindthe cockpit canopy
V9M38 ! 1 ~ 600 m/s
QHOR = 17 "
QVER = 7"
Stimulation Results
Break-up of main frames
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
67/77
68Damage Analysis
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
68/77
Before the experiment
Port SideAfter the experiment
69Key Conclusions on Damages to Aircraft
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
69/77
1. On the left-had side the cockpit canopy the SM entered atangle without ricocheting
3. The left engine and left wing are outside of the impact by thefragments front
2. Nature of damages to the aircraft superstructure is totallydifferent from those sustained by !" 17
70Missile Fragments
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
70/77
71Missile Fragments
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
71/77
72Verification of Simulation Results
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
72/77
Experiment’s results Simulationresults
SimulationExperiment’s layout
Position of the missile and the target before the experument
Damages to the nose part of the aircraft
73Submunitions
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
73/77
Retrieval of the I-BEAM submunition
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
74/77
75Pre-armed Submunitions
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
75/77
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
Experiment: Stage 1
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
Original exterior view of IBEAM pre-armedSM
Experiment: Stage 2
I-BEAM (13 # 13 # 8.2 mm)
Test report on warhead9" 314 !
(archive records )
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
76/77
!!Results of Full-size Real-life Experiment @60A453C4;/9
-
8/20/2019 Slideshow van Almaz-Antey
77/77
Type of Missile – 9 ! 38 complete with warhead >9" 314 (without I-beams)
ELABORATION ON TYPE OF MISSILE
VALIDATION OF COLLISION PARAMETERS OFMISSILE AND AIRCRAFT
The parameters of the missile colliding into the aircraft obtained by the
Concern’s team have been validated during the full-size real lifeexperiment.
The most probable location of the missile launch is "93>7