Appendix A | 7 / 9

A.1.5 Design III, terminal velocity 730 m/s
The simulation result is shown in Figure A.6. The most favourable warhead position
and orientation fulfils the match conditions. Figure A.7 shows an alternative
warhead position and orientation, mentioned in a study by Almaz Antey [8]. This
case fulfils the set matching condition in a very limited fashion.

Figure A.6: Impact pattern (above) and corresponding fragment trajectories (below) of warhead design III,
velocity 730 m/s, position [0.5 m, -2.3 m, 3.4 m], orientation [-24°, 7°] and number of hits 1254.

Appendix A | 9 / 9

A.2 Summary
The results are summarised in Table A.1. The best match with the observed
damage on the airplane is found with design II and a SAM terminal velocity of
730 m/s. The poorest match is found with design III, a SAM terminal velocity of
730 m/s and the stated warhead orientation according to Almaz Antey [8].

Table A.1: Result of the damage matching procedure. Warhead position (X, Y, Z) and orientation
(azimuth, elevation) in the reference coordinate system.

The results show that:
• It is possible to match different positions and orientations for different
warhead designs; finding a single combination for the point of detonation
and orientation is not possible.
• The found detonation points are inside a limited solution space. The
warhead position changes only by a little across the different simulation
cases. The results are sensitive for the warhead orientation. This is due to
the close proximity of the point of detonation.

Appendix B | 2 / 7

Figure B.1: Cross-sectional views of three warhead design by which it is physically possible to eject the fragment mass with
the angles and velocities specified in Table B.1. From left to right: cylindrical (design A), barrel shaped (design B)
and tapered (design C). The red dots mark the starting point of the detonation by which the explosive charge
(yellow) ejects the fragment on the casing (blue).

B.3 Simulated fragment hit pattern
The geometric centres of the three warhead designs are put on the specified
detonation position and simulated for the two terminal velocities. The orientation of
the warhead is varied to obtain a damage resembling the actual damage.

Appendix B | 4 / 7

B.3.2 Design B, terminal velocity 500 m/s
The simulation result is shown in Figure B.2. The corresponding warhead
orientation in the reference coordinate system is -40° azimuth en 5° elevation.
The match conditions are not fulfilled under the most favourable orientation.

Figure B.2: Fragment impact pattern (above) and corresponding fragment trajectories (below) of warhead
design B, velocity 500 m/s, position [0.8 m, -1.6 m, 2.0 m], orientation [-40°, 5°] and number of hits
897.

Appendix B | 6 / 7

B.3.4 Design A, two terminal velocities
The best match for warhead design A with SAM terminal velocity 500 m/s (see
Figure B.1) is compared with the best match for 800 m/s in Figure B.4. The match
for the higher terminal velocity is less fitting because the damage area decreases.

Figure B.4: Fragment damage pattern of warhead design A, position [0.8 m, -1.6 m, 2.0 m]. On left: velocity
500 m/s, orientation [-35°, 0°]. On right: velocity 800 m/s, orientation [-25°, 0°].
B.3.5 Design B, two terminal velocities
The best match for warhead design B with SAM terminal velocity 500 m/s (see
Figure B.2) is compared with the best match for 800 m/s in Figure B.5. The match
for the higher terminal velocity is less fitting because the damage area decreases.

Figure B.5: Fragment impact pattern of warhead design B, position [0.8 m, -1.6 m, 2.0 m]. On left: velocity
500 m/s, orientation [-40°, 5°]. On right: velocity 800 m/s, orientation [-25°, 0°].
B.3.6 Design C, two terminal velocities
The best match for warhead design C with SAM terminal velocity 500 m/s (see
Figure B.3) is compared with the best match for 800 m/s in Figure B.6. The match
for the higher terminal velocity is less fitting because the damage area decreases.