Flight MH17: IN scientific research Institute air force of the Russian defense Ministry refuted the conclusions of the Dutch Commission
The Plane Boeing-777-200
About new important facts of the investigation and, in part, the investigative
14.01.2016 on the website of Federal air transport Agency published a letter from the Deputy head of the Agency, the authorized representative of the Russian Federation in the investigation of the crash 17.07.2014 Boeing-777-200 9M-MRD (MH17) O. G. Storchevoy in the security Council of the Netherlands (DSB), under whose auspices was held the investigation of the accident, and submitted on 13 October last year the Commission’s final report on the investigation of the causes of the disaster.
In Russia this report have been seriously criticized. She sounded 14.10.2015 G. at the press conference O. G. Storchevoy in MIA “Russia today”, which was actually presented Russia’s position in relation to published 13.10.2015 in results. It is enough to quote from the speech Storchevoy: “the Level of irrationality in the report simply reads off scale”.*
Since then three months it took the Russian experts for re-examination, due to too large differences between their results and the contents of the report. Thus were confirmed the existing and installed the new facts of unreasonableness presented by the Dutch results. In the final part of the letter they described as “important new facts pointing to the incorrectness of the information provided in the final report”.
This raises a number of questions about specific data, as well as methods of establishing these facts. They agreed to answer technical expert of the Russian Commission’s chief researcher, research center (Lyubertsy) Central air forces scientific research Institute of the Ministry of defense of Russia, previously — 13ГосНИИ (ERAT VVS), Vice-President of the society of independent investigators of aviation accidents, doctor of technical Sciences Zakhar Omarov Galimzhanovich, familiar to readers of the journal “Aviapanorama” according to the article “a Study of aviation technology: terminology incident and the phenomenon of GosNII ERAT”.
Reference: Z. G. Omarov, 30 years of service and experience in research Institute has completed more than 150 research facilities emergency and failed aviation equipment, most of which related to investigation of aviation accidents and incidents. About two dozen aviation events investigated were due to the use of live ordnance on aircraft. The most famous of them the General public has become investigating the cause of the crash of Tu-154 RA-85693 of airline “Siberia”, which was shot down on 4 October 2001 the Ukrainian air defenses over the Black sea.
–You have attended many events organized investigating aviation accident 17.07.2014 Dutch side. What are the areas of research, and on what basis the Russian experts involved in the investigation, as well as which character is this work? Is there a difference in the style of Russian technical experts and Dutch?
–First of all, I want to note that fact in the investigation, we did not participate. Russian specialists under the leadership Storchevoy Oleg Georgievich, as well as representatives of Ukraine, Malaysia, USA, UK, Australia, Belgium, Germany and the ICAO DSB periodically invited to review the progress of the investigation. In addition to the reports discussed, we were allowed to explore the aircraft’s fragments were taken from Donbass. At the end of the next meeting of the DSB, as homework, formulated a list of interesting questions that guest had to answer. Here it is, in fact, consisted of all our participation in this process.
It is possible, under certain circumstances, we and the representatives of other countries, it is limited to the role allotted to us. Moreover, the Russian Federation in investigated aviation event has no relation. However, there are two aspects, professional and humanitarian, which did not allow us to do so.
Will start with the second. Yes, on Board was not Russian citizens. But innocent people have died, among whom were children. And they perished not because of aircraft malfunctions or errors of crew, and the application of civil passenger aircraft to military means of destruction. This circumstance can not leave anyone indifferent.
Professional aspect “painted” in the process of communication with the Dutch experts. Frankly, the first time we have come across such an original approach to the investigation of aviation events.
During the first meeting in which I had to participate, and it was in February of 2015, the Dutch reported that the plane, in their opinion, was shot down by anti-aircraft missile complex “Buk”. Moreover, it was stated quite some modification of this rocket and, moreover, indicated even the area where it was put.
Frankly, we were quite surprised. Because before it happened the survey of fragments of the plane with holes, and there was not a single fragment with carved areas, which would indicate the conduct of any laboratory tests.
I want to draw attention to this dialogue that I had with a prominent expert.
–I asked a question: “Excuse me, but you have researched combat damage on fragments of the plane?”.
–Answer: “No. We only plan to do”.
–Question: “how do you determine that the plane was shot down by a missile SAM “Buk”?”.
–Answer: “We are from the Internet found out that the plane could have been hit by either aircraft gun, type GSH-23, aircraft or missile type R-60, or anti-aircraft missile “Buk”. One found in the wreckage of the steel pieces, in our opinion, resembles the shape of a “butterfly”. And we know that the explosive part one of the modifications missiles “Buk” has striking elements in the form of “butterflies”. Consequently, three versions of the last selected”.
The logic, as they say, iron. Something it reminds me of our school exam. Dutch experts, apparently, have a good University education. However, for this education is not enough. Of course, the necessary experience, but even this is not important. You need to know or, at least, at least conceptually, to understand the methodology of investigation of such aviation events.
So in February, with the purpose of objective evaluation of the characteristics of funds that hit the plane, it was decided to perform independent research. In our Institute the methodology was developed in 80-ies of the last century and repeatedly and successfully applied in the area of both military and civil aviation.
In this case, there was one feature that was the fact that the object of the research was not the real fragments of the plane and have their pictures taken with the permission of the DSB during our visit to Holland. I note that the photos were made in a special way, allowing to carry out all the necessary measurements.
As a result, the specialists of Central research Institute of the air force coped with the task, and the conclusions of this work formed the basis of the official position of the Russian Federation on this issue.
–What, in Your opinion, is the most critical issue in the investigation of the causes of this aviaperelety?
–From the methodological point of view, this case differs from all previous ones, in which I had to participate. I mean the safety of the wreckage. Previously we usually had to deal with a very small number of poorly preserved fragments. In particular, in 2001, when the investigation of the crash of Tu-154 of airline “Siberia”, which was shot down over the Black sea area, was investigated only small fragments of the plane that floated to the surface.
Now the quality of the investigation was defined mostly by quality of the work of the investigators. In this regard I want to mention one salient point. To reliably determine the parameters of the operational part of the means of destruction is possible only by the characteristics of combat damage, that is, roughly speaking, the holes on the fragments of the plane. For this you need to accurately determine the position of a point explosion with respect to the aircraft.
The Dutch, having at its disposal the fragments of the aircraft, has calculated that this point was located to the left of the plane, at a distance of approximately 4 m from the glazing of the cockpit. Our calculation, made from photographs, also showed that the point of the explosion was located to the left of the cockpit, but it was located at a distance not further than 1.6 m from its glazing.
Inexperienced person would say: “So what? It’s a difference of about two meters. Does it really matter? Moreover, people believed on real hardware, and you – the photos. So, you could be wrong”. By the way, we really had to hear such remarks, and not just from the Dutch.
Actually this difference is of fundamental importance. If the explosion occurred at a distance of 1.6 m, then the density fragmentation of the field it could not be warhead missiles SAM “Buk”, nor by weight, nor by number of damaging elements.
At the August 2015 meeting of experts, the Dutch showed great, in my opinion, full-scale mockup of the forward fuselage, made of fragments of the plane. It was shown in the media during the presentation of the final report of the DSB.
Now. This layout allowed, as they say, “hardware” check the correctness of the calculations. The audit took place in public in the presence of all delegations, and clearly demonstrated the correctness of our results. Mentioned Oleg Georgievich (Deputy head of the Federal air transport Agency O. G. Storchevoy. – Approx. ed.) at a press conference on 14 October last year.
The most striking thing is that Dutch is not confused. The fact that they never bothered at least prikidochno to evaluate the characteristics of the warhead, not on abstract models, and, as they say, for hardware. It was, apparently, not necessary. But why bother to count the point of explosion?
Well, we figured. And it turned out that the warhead weight of the missile that hit the plane actually was in 2.0…2.5 times less than the mass of the warhead of the missile complex “Buk”.
– Dutch Commission was acquainted with your results?
–Yes. On the same August meeting, the representatives of all the delegations were not only familiar with these results, but also with how those results were obtained. In this sense, our conscience is clear. We didn’t hide it.
Nice, DSB had to think and, at least, to check our findings. However, this did not happen. The Dutch just pretended that nothing was heard nor seen.
In the above-mentioned letter of the authorized representative of the Russian Federation in the investigation of the crash of flight MH17 stated “significant new facts”. In particular, it was noted “the discrepancy contained in the report characteristics of the fragments characteristics of submunitions warhead 9Н314М”.
–Indeed, with those pieces there occurred a strange and, I would say, “murky” history.
We were informed that all was found about seven dozen of shards, twenty of whom, according to the Dutch experts, are striking elements of the warhead missiles SAM “Buk”.
They committed were not confused by the fact that from 7000…8000 damaging elements, which is loaded warhead missiles SAM “Buk” (depending on modification) detected only 0.25% of their total number, which is not consistent with the ratio of input and output holes on the fragments of the plane.
Moreover, these twenty pieces in size considerably less damaging elements missiles “Beech” and differ from them in form.
As already mentioned, initially we were brought the shard, in appearance something resembling a “butterfly”. We were weighed, and the weighing was conducted publicly in the presence of Dutch and other delegations. We even have a photograph of this fragment, where it is placed on the scale, the dial of which shows the value “5.5 g”.
And then clarified some, frankly, suspicious of the nuances. One of them is associated with the history of the discovery of this fragment. All detected fragments were supplied with a kind of “passport”, which indicates where and under what circumstances the shard was discovered, was given his picture and dimensions.
The shard butterfly passport was not… We asked the question: “Why?” and received the answer: “All the other fragments were removed by forensics, that’s not. But don’t worry – this shard was seized from fragments of “Boeing”.
Specialists of Central research Institute of the air force, having at its disposal a picture of this “butterfly” and data on its size and weight, completed a pilot study and found that, taking into account the deformation and the mass loss, its original dimensions were at least twice smaller than the destructive element of the type “butterfly” missiles “Beech”.
Next. Read the final report of the DSB. There, in the table on page 92 indicates that the mass of this “butterfly” is not a 5.5 g, and 6.1 g.
Чỳдно, isn’t it?
By the way, I want to mention one caveat associated with the fragments. The report pictures of them scaled in such a way that the inattentive reader the impression of roughly the same size pieces. Actually it is not, it helps to pay attention to the special corner line in the frame.
And, finally, about the material of these pieces. I still can’t understand why the Dutch experts determined the brand of steel, which made these pieces? Because it is a critical identification feature, which can be used to identify the type of funds that hit the plane. However, it is a fact.
–That is, the Central research Institute of the air force deny the withdrawal of the Dutch the fee of the defeat of the “Boeing” anti-aircraft missile complex “Buk”. But in the final Commission report contained photographs of the fragments of the missiles, which were allegedly found at the crash site. How would You comment on it?
–The history of these fragments is also very mysterious. The fact is that no one has seen them. I mean that they had not seen the representatives of the delegations. Throughout the investigation, and even in the draft of the final report of the Commission, which was officially circulated to all interested countries in the summer of 2015, they had no speech.
And suddenly, at the last August meeting, the Dutch suddenly showed photographs of these fragments. Let me clarify: not the fragments themselves, but only their photos.
Well, well. Let’s say that the Commission worked, has written a letter, drawn up and published a draft report and then suddenly, suddenly found the wreckage of the plane fragments of the rocket. Honestly, it’s hard to believe. However, the meeting had turned out in the Ukraine shortly before that, produced experimental launches of missiles SAM “Buk” at targets.
And then strange that at the August meeting were shown photos of five fragments of rockets, and in the final report there are only three. What about the other two? Where did they go? In General, again for some unknown “stuff”.
If you do not pay attention to all of these, frankly, suspicious of the nuances, the following can be noted. The fact of the discovery at the crash site of the plane fragments of the rocket is not proof of the destruction of the aircraft the missile. The task of the experts consists in establishing a link between combat damage on fragments of the plane and the missile. In other words, you need to perform a comparative study of battle damage and recovered fragments as well as fragments of the rocket. And this, as I have already noted, was not done.
–Now, a Dutch Commission was wrong about the type of missile that struck the Boeing 777 of flight MH17. What, in Your opinion, in this case the plane was shot down?
Specialists of Central research Institute of the air force has calculated some characteristics of the warhead of this rocket, the possible angles of approach to the airplane and executed the analysis of possible system aiming at the target. I can say that our results really disprove the conclusion that the plane was shot down by a missile from the composition of type ZRK “Beech”. Most likely it was a missile of class “air-air” with a mass of high-explosive warhead is not more than 33 kg (warhead weight missile “Buk” is 70 kg. Approx. ed.). Warhead was equipped compact striking elements in an amount of not more than 4000 pieces of the Rocket likely had a thermal imaging homing head matrix type or passive radar.
Note that missiles with similar characteristics in service of the Russian space forces does not and never has been.
To identify the type of missile that hit the Boeing, it is necessary to continue research already with its real fragments and splinters seized. If we provide the opportunity to work with the hardware, then this problem will be resolved within one and a half to two months.
Interview conducted by Pavel Ivanov, chief editor of the magazine “Aviapanorama”, candidate of technical Sciences, senior researcher.
*From the editor: In the minds, at least, the Russian participants of the press conference O. G. Storchevoy 14.10.2015 G. will certainly question Griboyedov’s Chatsky: “And judges who?”. After reading the letter to the authors of the final report on the investigation of causes of accident the question may sound differently: “the experts… who?!”. The answer gives this interview is one of the leading Russian scientific and technical experts, in respect of its functions in this investigation, and received at the Central research Institute of the air force, the defense Ministry results.