Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

 

The explosion does indeed continue in the direction the missile was travelling and you can even see the shrapnel that our expert contractor said didn't exist glowing in this little shot.:lol:

 

 

It's called hot DEBRIS, something which has to appear when a hard object smashes into another above the speed of sound !! Esp. if said object contains volatile rocket fuel!! :doh::doh:

Those were positions right at the start before I'd watched the video carefully. I usually dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. After learning it really happened my position hasn't changed.

 

 

...What next? Have you noticed how my account (i.e. air-launched R-73) is the only one that hasn't changed, or been discredited throughout this thread? Why is that I wonder?

 

Did you know what throughout meant when you typed that?

Nope, they are distinct from each other just before explosion.

 

You left out the final frame before the flash

 

 

The burner glow before they converge is about 5324 px, in the above frame (them together) the burner glow is about 7672 px.

 

That is called combining.

 

 

Missile then gets lost in burner plume.

Do you know what a plume is?

 

At impact - a 50m wide flash covering burner plume and aircraft.

Not covering, combined.

 

If it was the heat 'lingering', it would linger in one place and not continue upwards with the momentum of the missile.

look at the exhaust, the leftover glow stays right above it.

 

Already answered that. My initial reaction is to dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. Why did it take you and others so long to decide it wasn't a MANPADS? Your current position is that my initial position was correct, a position I've stated is wrong, so if we continue for a while, perhaps you'll catch up with me.:lol:

My first post in this thread was poking fun at the "F-15's never fly below 10,000 ft" thing, my second was clarifying the first, and my third was about the motor exploding. I have never considered MANPADS the most likely.

 

The explosion does indeed continue in the direction the missile was travelling and you can even see the shrapnel that our expert contractor said didn't exist glowing in this little shot.:lol:

He didn't say there was no debris (or shrapnel for that matter) that would be stupid, just that there was no shrapnel damage.

 

...Doesn’t look like it. The contractor didn’t say anything about shrapnel. I will ask though.

 

ETA: No warhead detonation, all kinetic.

 

Now here's where your theory falls down. If all the motor exploded in one frame (required to produce enough heat to dwarf burner plume, what is this burning far later?

The leftover plume (Smoke and debris).

 

The truth is that a warhead exploded producing a flash of similar size to that of similar sized warhead in other FLIR videos and the rod warhead cut off the stab. If you can show me an inert impact producing a flash of similar size on FLIR then we'll talk, until then all the evidence says warhead. The alternate theories are:

 

1) MANPADS of extraordinary range.

 

2) Eagle flying very, very low.

 

3) Dual redundant warhead fuses fail but rocket motor explodes instantly after missile hits a fairly fragile part of the aircraft that breaks off.

 

4) Unexpectedly large amount of KE dissipated immediately despite stab breaking off, meaning that it couldn't be dissipated immediately.

 

JC, it's a warhead. This does not require any unusual circumstances.

No, not all the evidence, just the evidence you like.

 

BTW why the heck are you still talking at the wall that allegedly still believes its a MANPADS?

 

Rocket failures - could have looked this up yourself. There is nothing as sudden as it the video.

 

Haha, thanks for proving my point! Now i see why you stalled for so long, And also the R-73 is a solid rocket motor so its even more irrelevant.

 

You're forgetting that we've already proven that there is insufficient KE available for such a flash, and the rocket motor does not explode in on instant as evidenced in the video.

Nope.

 

The explosion of a 440lb warhead would blind a FLIR, even at that range but from sufficient range, the shape would match the shape in normal vision, only larger.

Ok, what are you talking about.

 

That's why it's hard to see and when the missile warhead goes off, all is lost.

If the impact emitted enough heat for a 50m-wide glow, why wasn't the rest of the a/c affected by the heat somehow?

Why doesn't the afterburner melt the plane?

 

You need to know how close the missile is during a proxy detonation in case the telemetry is wrong.

Show your proof then.

 

An interesting point. Burners are not 20-30m in normal video, but they are easily over 10m long and hence far larger than that tidgy-widgy flash in the AIM-9X test. Hence I rest my case, burner are larger than KE impact, even if there was no small warhead in that AIM-9X test.

 

Normal video. How big is a flare in normal video? very small.

 

Doesn't change the fact that heat is emitted in all directions and covers a volume, not linear or area.

And that doesn't change the fact that i have proven my position mathematically probable.

 

You're forgetting the original topic again - this large 50m-wide flash. We have already shown that the KE is insufficient and clearly not all the missile's chemical resources are spent in one frame, so your theory is bankrupt. And remember, jet fuel twice as high BTU/lb as rocket fuel.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3400521&postcount=255

You said earlier the original topic was MANPADS, make up your mind :megalol:

 

So you have insufficient KE, ... (Post too long)

KE+Motor.

 

You mean a mechanic/grease monkey?

No i mean contractor.
Edited March 2, 2018 by kolga

To avoid the extraneous garbage in the above post, please address the following points.

 

1) Afterburners in normal video are larger than the flash from an alleged AIM-9X kinetic strike in normal video, it would therefore figure that they'd be larger in FLIR too, just like flares are smaller than burners in normal video and also smaller in original video in FLIR. But afterburners are considerably smaller than the impact flash in original video, hence, it is not a kinetic strike.

 

2) Explosion in original video is a similar size to Hellfire explosion on FLIR video. Hence it is a warhead detonation of similar size consistent with an R-73 or similar.

I am actually starting to wonder if your trolling...

 

To avoid the extraneous garbage in the above post, please address the following points.

 

Well, i didn't have a whole lot of time that night due to a possible power failure so i had to wrap it up and post it before i was completely done, but contemplate the following refuse :lol:

 

Garbage like proving the combining effect exists, the famous rocket failure videos being a nothingburger, the glow not continuing upwards, challenging you for proof of a telemetry warhead, ect.

 

1) Afterburners in normal video are larger than the flash from an alleged AIM-9X kinetic strike in normal video, it would therefore figure that they'd be larger in FLIR too, just like flares are smaller than burners in normal video and also smaller in original video in FLIR. But afterburners are considerably smaller than the impact flash in original video, hence, it is not a kinetic strike.

Flares are about 1m x 1m in normal video but 68% of the area of the

1m x 10m burners so its definitely not as simple as "Big in normal = big in FLIR"

 

2) Explosion in original video is a similar size to Hellfire explosion on FLIR video. Hence it is a warhead detonation of similar size consistent with an R-73 or similar.

No, the glow in the video is similar is size to the actual explosion of a hellfire in flir, there is almost no glow in the hellfire videos.

Flares are about 1m x 1m in normal video but 68% of the area of the

1m x 10m burners so its definitely not as simple as "Big in normal = big in FLIR"

Well it actually seems that it is. Obviously flares are designed specifically to be big on FLIR, yet they are still smaller than the burners, just as in normal video. So the kinetic strike in the AIM-9X test, which is smaller than afterburner on normal video and not designed to be big on FLIR, should definitely be smaller on FLIR, unless flare designers are useless.

 

No, the glow in the video is similar is size to the actual explosion of a hellfire in flir, there is almost no glow in the hellfire videos.

Perhaps the glow is the result of an explosion, followed by a fireball, as is common with most explosions.

 

So, size matches explosion of a similar sized warhead in FLIR. Size doesn't match size of kinetic strike. And would you expect a missile without a warhead to produce as large a FLIR signature as one without?

 

I think it's game over at this point and you are just trolling for the sake of it.

Well it actually seems that it is. Obviously flares are designed specifically to be big on FLIR, yet they are still smaller than the burners, just as in normal video. So the kinetic strike in the AIM-9X test, which is smaller than afterburner on normal video and not designed to be big on FLIR, should definitely be smaller on FLIR, unless flare designers are useless.

 

I made a mistake on my previous calculation, it would be 2m x 10m for the burners so that would make it 20 sq m vs 1 sq m And therefore:

 

In normal video the flare is 5% of burners and in FLIR flare is 68% of burners, that is 13.6 times bigger than it "should" be.

 

The big difference is that the flare is a continual burn where the motor exploding is not. And also, just because its not designed to be big on flir doesn't mean its not going to be, for example the missile glow before it hits is about 69% of the area of the flare glow, so if the rest of the motor were burned in an instant it clearly has enough potential FLIR signature for the flash in the video.

 

Perhaps the glow is the result of an explosion, followed by a fireball, as is common with most explosions.

 

As shown in the AIM-9X video the motor blast hangs around too.

 

So, size matches explosion of a similar sized warhead in FLIR. Size doesn't match size of kinetic strike. And would you expect a missile without a warhead to produce as large a FLIR signature as one without?

 

Like i have said many times, there is no glow in the hellfire videos, you are seeing the actual explosion, whereas in the OP video anything hot is glowing like heck and you can't see anything because its blocked by the enormous glow.

 

I think it's game over at this point and you are just trolling for the sake of it.

 

If i was trolling i wouldn't be mathematically proving my position, as i have been.

 

Your running out of evidence.

You've made a mistake in a lot of calculations, it's becoming somewhat of a theme. And you have made yet another, a flare is very close to burner size in normal video and is equal or larger than the flash in that inert strike.

 

 

But the flare is still smaller than the burners in FLIR despite being specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR.

 

The motor doesn't all burn instantly though as is evident in the video, nor is it capable of doing so to produce such a quick flash, hence why it's usable as a rocket fuel in the first place.

 

The flash in the AIM-9X video is very small though, far smaller than burners. And yes, if something is specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR, then it will be. An inert strike is clearly not an efficient way of generating heat/IR.

 

You haven't correctly used maths once and the fact remains.

 

1) AAM inert strike smaller than burners in normal video, but explosion in OP video is much bigger than burners and bigger than burners an aircraft together..

 

2) Explosion size in OP video is similar to Hellfire explosion on FLIR, which uses a similar-sized warhead to an R-73 or generic SRAAM. Of all the complicated crap on a missile, the warhead and its fuse are not among them.

 

3) Heck, it's just extremely likely that a missile used in combat has a warhead that goes off.

 

The balance of evidence clearly points to a warhead here.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Emu

I'm getting low on popcorn :(

You've made a mistake in a lot of calculations, it's becoming somewhat of a theme.

 

Show the mistakes if they exist.

 

And you have made yet another, a flare is very close to burner size in normal video and is equal or larger than the flash in that inert strike.

 

 

But the flare is still smaller than the burners in FLIR despite being specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR.

 

Haha, Wow, who would have thought that in low light over exposed video flares are huge?

 

 

The motor doesn't all burn instantly though as is evident in the video, nor is it capable of doing so to produce such a quick flash, hence why it's usable as a rocket fuel in the first place.

 

"The video"? Which video? The massive space travel rockets are mostly liquid fuel (R-73 is solid fuel) and they blow up pretty dang fast (look at your second video, rocket #4, it starts on fire and then BOOM. It didn't even hit anything).

 

The flash in the AIM-9X video is very small though, far smaller than burners. And yes, if something is specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR, then it will be. An inert strike is clearly not an efficient way of generating heat/IR.

 

The flash by my measurements (Based on the wingspan) is about 4 or 5 meters. So a volume of about 33m vs 20m for the burners. I call that bigger.

 

You haven't correctly used maths once and the fact remains.

 

Just what exactly is "The fact"?

 

1) AAM inert strike smaller than burners in normal video, but explosion in OP video is much bigger than burners and bigger than burners an aircraft together..

 

Nope as demonstrated

 

2) Explosion size in OP video is similar to Hellfire explosion on FLIR, which uses a similar-sized warhead to an R-73 or generic SRAAM. Of all the complicated crap on a missile, the warhead and its fuse are not among them.

 

Nope 'cause no bleeding glow in hellfire videos

3) Heck, it's just extremely likely that a missile used in combat has a warhead that goes off.

Yep, but that doesn't mean they have a 100% detonation rate.

 

The balance of evidence clearly points to a warhead here.

 

Other than the dutch journalist I have seen no evidence pointing to detonation.

At 4:00, the flares look similar sized to burners in that video too dude.

Rocket fuel burns, it does not explode in a sudden, brief flash but it does augment warheads explosions afterwards.

 

 

1) You're just plain lying now. The burners on the F-22 video are about half the length of the aircraft, or 10m and there are two of them. In the OP video, the flash is wider in diameter than the burner plume and aircraft together, or about 50m. So even based on your own measurements, the flash would need to more than quadruple relative to afterburners in FLIR, or increase in volume >64 fold. The AIM-9X flash is not as long as the burners in these videos. And this assumes that it is a completely inert strike, which it may not be, since it doesn't appear to be a hit in this shot.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3412633&postcount=301

And in all those AIM-9X videos there's literally one where it makes any flash, and we're still assuming there is no small charge.

 

1a) Add to this the fact that the afterburners burn a greater mass of fuel per second than the AAM would have left and the fact that jet fuel has a BTU/lb more than twice as high and it would take 8x70 or 80lbs of rocket fuel to sustain a fireball that large for that long without the help of a warhead to spread it out.

 

2) Bleeding glow of what? A truck will not glow as bright as a plane in FLIR for obvious reasons. Similar sized flash even with white-hot human.

 

3) Nope but it makes it 99% likely that it exploded before we even look at the highly supportive evidence and the Dutch source. Then you have that the AIM-9X which produce an inert strike flash, if it was indeed inert, represents about 1% of all inert AIM-9X strikes, the other 99% not producing a flash. So the probability of the warhead not going off is 1% and the probability of it still producing a flash in normal video is also 1%. This means that the chances of no warhead explosion and a flash in normal video is about 1 in 10,000. This is not the probability of a 50m-wide flash in FLIR, just the probability that the warhead failed and it produced a any flash in normal video IF the AIM-9X had no warhead. The other thing to note about that AIM-9X shot is that it's not a very successful firing - an IIR missile is designed to hit CoM not stab-edge - unless they're testing the proxy fuse.

 

In fact, look at the video again, but this time look at the circular inset at 1:22-1:23. It's missed the a/c and is heading directly for the jet exhaust before the freeze frame. It's a miss. And in the other 2 strikes there is no flash despite far more direct hits, only dust and debris.

 

 

 

 

 

4) The balance of evidence is a 50m wide flash. We've seenat least 2 videos show Hellfires with similar-sized flashes in FLIR and exactly none that show 50m wide flashes from inert AAM strike sin FLIR?

 

5) Here again is the glowing shrapnel the contractor said didn't exist. Also note the bulge from the sudden explosion and the narrower trail of the burning remnant fuel afterwards.

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Emu

At 4:00, the flares look similar sized to burners in that video too dude.

 

In diameter? Yes, that is what i said, but the burners are 10m long so they have far more volume........dude

 

Also, in my previous calc i figured the burners and flares square instead of round so here is the more accurate numbers (normal video and OP FLIR):

 

Burners are 15.7 Cu meters

Flare is 0.52 Cu meters

Burners in FLIR are 288,695 Cu px

Flares on FLIR are 164,636 Cu px

So in normal video flare is 3% of burners and in FLIR flare is about 57% of burners. So the flare 19 times bigger (compared to burners) than normal.

 

Rocket fuel burns, it does not explode in a sudden, brief flash but it does augment warheads explosions afterwards.

Like have have said a mega-myriad of times, prove it! (solid fuel)

 

1) You're just plain lying now. The burners on the F-22 video are about half the length of the aircraft, or 10m and there are two of them. In the OP video, the flash is wider in diameter than the burner plume and aircraft together, or about 50m. So even based on your own measurements, the flash would need to more than quadruple relative to afterburners in FLIR, or increase in volume >64 fold. The AIM-9X flash is not as long as the burners in these videos. And this assumes that it is a completely inert strike, which it may not be, since it doesn't appear to be a hit in this shot.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3412633&postcount=301

 

I was talking about normal video, The volume of the AIM-9X flash is about 33 Cu meters and the burners are about 15.7 Cu meters

 

And in all those AIM-9X videos there's literally one where it makes any flash, and we're still assuming there is no small charge.

Look at this:

 

 

Very similar sized flash to other AIM-9X hit.

 

1a) Add to this the fact that the afterburners burn a greater mass of fuel per second than the AAM would have left and the fact that jet fuel has a BTU/lb more than twice as high and it would take 8x70 or 80lbs of rocket fuel to sustain a fireball that large for that long without the help of a warhead to spread it out.

Well thats all fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that the missile before it hits has 47% of the FLIR signature of the burners.

 

2) Bleeding glow of what? A truck will not glow as bright as a plane in FLIR for obvious reasons. Similar sized flash even with white-hot human.

Bleeding glow of the explosion. It that video there is more glow than normal but there also seems to be more sophisticated glow suppression in the apache than the OP video.

 

3) Nope but it makes it 99% likely that it exploded before we even look at the highly supportive evidence and the Dutch source. Then you have that the AIM-9X which produce an inert strike flash, if it was indeed inert, represents about 1% of all inert AIM-9X strikes, the other 99% not producing a flash. So the probability of the warhead not going off is 1% and the probability of it still producing a flash in normal video is also 1%. This means that the chances of no warhead explosion and a flash in normal video is about 1 in 10,000. This is not the probability of a 50m-wide flash in FLIR, just the probability that the warhead failed and it produced a any flash in normal video IF the AIM-9X had no warhead. The other thing to note about that AIM-9X shot is that it's not a very successful firing - an IIR missile is designed to hit CoM not stab-edge - unless they're testing the proxy fuse.

This is a good example of not using "maths". For it to be 1% you have to have 100 inert hits and 99 of them have to have no flash.

 

As for the Dutch source, you still have no proof of the third flare, wrong interval, no bulge, no flare.

 

In fact, look at the video again, but this time look at the circular inset at 1:22-1:23. It's missed the a/c and is heading directly for the jet exhaust before the freeze frame. It's a miss. And in the other 2 strikes there is no flash despite far more direct hits, only dust and debris.

 

The horizontal stabs of the F-4 are angled down over the exhaust:

 

 

4) The balance of evidence is a 50m wide flash. We've seenat least 2 videos show Hellfires with similar-sized flashes in FLIR and exactly none that show 50m wide flashes from inert AAM strike sin FLIR?

That would be great if someone could find an inert hit in FLIR, but alas failure.

 

5) Here again is the glowing shrapnel the contractor said didn't exist. Also note the bulge from the sudden explosion and the narrower trail of the burning remnant fuel afterwards.

Already addressed that:

He didn't say there was no debris (or shrapnel for that matter) that would be stupid, just that there was no shrapnel damage.

 

...Doesn’t look like it. The contractor didn’t say anything about shrapnel. I will ask though.

 

ETA: No warhead detonation, all kinetic.

No, the flares were only slightly smaller than the burners in that normal video too, hence it aligns with my reasoning, because they are slightly smaller in FLIR too. There is no transformation from smaller to much larger to support your kinetic strike theory.

 

You can't compare flares on one video with burners on another, they must be on the same video.

 

Show me a video of a failed rocket where it produces a sudden flash rather than a growing burn.

 

The AIM-9X isn't an inert strike, it's a miss, as the inset proves. That shot clearly went to c0ck because IIR missiles aren't supposed to go for rear extremities. Besides that, two 10m long burner plumes still have more volume and a lot of the heat is invisible in normal video, which is why non-aft jets are invisible. You also forget that on the FLIR video the flash is bigger than the burner plume in all dimensions. Aside from that, what you have is one instance, vs many non-instances multiplied by the small probability that the warhead failed. Ignoring exact figures, that's one unlikely event followed by another unlikely event, which still fails to produce a flash of anywhere near the required size.

 

No flash there, that's just debris and there are hundred of inert brimstone tests showing just dust and debris too. Full video of that is at 0:45, just debris, even though it's a far more solid hit, hence there should be a greater KE exchange. Lets face it, if you had more than that one dubious example, you would have found a better second example rather than a fake one.

 

Tons of them here.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brimstne+tests

 

That would be great if someone could find an inert hit in FLIR, but alas failure.

So you expect an inert strike to produce the same sized flash as a live warhead in FLIR? Sorry but that's just illogical. Aside from that, it is you who needs the inert strike in FLIR to support your theory. I already have two examples of a live strike in FLIR to prove mine, so my job is done.

 

No he said there was no shrapnel. Basically a repair man is not a forensic investigator, otherwise body shops could replace the police who investigate RTAs. But forgetting that, now that we agree there was shrapnel, is it not probable that there was also a warhead, especially when one considers that most missile warheads do go off and that such an event would nicely explain the large flash and shrapnel without having to resort to shoestring theories?

Edited March 7, 2018 by Emu

No, the flares were only slightly smaller than the burners in that normal video too, hence it aligns with my reasoning, because they are slightly smaller in FLIR too. There is no transformation from smaller to much larger to support your kinetic strike theory.

 

You can't compare flares on one video with burners on another, they must be on the same video.

 

I am talking about actual flame size, burners are about 1m x 10m cylinders and thus their volume is about 15.7 Cu meters combined, Flares are about 1m x 1m spheres (I am being generous, they are probably smaller) and thus about 0.52 Cu meters, and thus they are much smaller than burners in real life, but in FLIR they are over half the size of burners.

 

Also, i don't know if i should calc FLIR in area or volume, i think that FLIR would sense in 2D (More heat=more area) rather than More heat=more volume, i don't know, it doesn't change the outcome much but more accuracy is better.

 

Show me a video of a failed rocket where it produces a sudden flash rather than a growing burn.

 

The video you just linked to at 0:06, it falls over and explodes like heck (most of them in that video do that as well, especially if they hit something).

 

The AIM-9X isn't an inert strike, it's a miss, as the inset proves. That shot clearly went to (Removed for violation of 1.1) because IIR missiles aren't supposed to go for rear extremities. Besides that, two 10m long burner plumes still have more volume and a lot of the heat is invisible in normal video, which is why non-aft jets are invisible. You also forget that on the FLIR video the flash is bigger than the burner plume in all dimensions. Aside from that, what you have is one instance, vs many non-instances multiplied by the small probability that the warhead failed. Ignoring exact figures, that's one unlikely event followed by another unlikely event, which still fails to produce a flash of anywhere near the required size.

 

Whats with the "afterburner plume" thing, afterburners don't have plumes and in FLIR they have glows.

 

Look at the photo i posted in my last post, the stabs on the f-4 are pointed down over the exhaust at the rear, after it hits by the time the next frame is taken the plane has moved forward a few meters and since the blast from the motor is static it stays behind.

 

No flash there, that's just debris and there are hundred of inert brimstone tests showing just dust and debris too. Full video of that is at 0:45, just debris, even though it's a far more solid hit, hence there should be a greater KE exchange. Lets face it, if you had more than that one dubious example, you would have found a better second example rather than a fake one.

 

IMG

You have watched at least a hundred of the inert hits?

 

In the picture that i posted you can see the blast (i circled it) after the dust settles.

You conveniently chose the video that cuts out early, the full video is here at 0:53 (watch at 0.25 speed.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-CeuO1R4WE

 

 

Here is another one (AIM-9X test):

 

 

Tons of them here.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brimstne+tests

 

Notice they are no longer burning, IE no motor left, IE irrelevant.

 

So you expect an inert strike to produce the same sized flash as a live warhead in FLIR? Sorry but that's just illogical. Aside from that, it is you who needs the inert strike in FLIR to support your theory. I already have two examples of a live strike in FLIR to prove mine, so my job is done.

 

In the OP video everything glows far bigger than the actual flame size, in the hellfire videos there is a lot less glow and so you can fairly accurately tell the actual flame blast size, and that is what i have been saying for pages.

 

I tried to measure the hellfire video you posted last and came up with about 28m for the glow at its largest.

 

No he said there was no shrapnel. Basically a repair man is not a forensic investigator, otherwise body shops could replace the police who investigate RTAs. But forgetting that, now that we agree there was shrapnel, is it not probable that there was also a warhead, especially when one considers that most missile warheads do go off and that such an event would nicely explain the large flash and shrapnel without having to resort to shoestring theories?

 

Read the dang post dude, Neon67 says its strange that there is no shrapnel damage, ZEEOH6 says they will ask, contractor says no detonation hence the lack of shrapnel damage.

The volume is irrelevant in this case. The flash in the AIM-9X video is roughly a sphere. It is less than the width of 1 wing, or half wingspan minus fuselage, which would be 4m. BUT, the wings are at an angle since the plane does not have its belly directly facing the camera. If this angle is ~45deg, then the diameter is <2.8m (11.5m^3 volume vs 15.7m^3, or 1/4 the length of the burner plume. This sphere radiates heat roughly equally in all directions, hence the dimensions of this sphere relative to the burners should be roughly the same in every aspect in FLIR. But the diameter is suddenly more than twice the length of the burner plume.

 

I'm still seeing only dust and debris.

 

The inset clearly shows the missile heading towards the plume not a stab at the last minute. It should also be noted that IIR missiles are not designed to strike the rear of the a/c. This is a miss with a small charge to test the proximity fuse.

 

Yes, literally hundreds, and none of them produce a flash big enough to correspond to 50m wide on FLIR. And again, the live Hellfire flash is only that big on FLIR, so why would an inert strike be the same size?

 

You have tried to make use of some extremely grainy video to claim a flash. It's not a flash it's just debris and crucially, at actual impact, it is clear that there is no sudden flash from the kinetic impact, nor is there a huge explosion plume thereafter.

 

 

Again, why not show the full video. Is that strike even in remotely the same place on the aircraft? Nope. And again, clear evidence of a test warhead. You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that all tests have no live warhead.

 

On the contrary, it's completely relevant, since most short range missiles will have either no fuel, or very little left at impact.

 

There's less glow in the Hellfire video simply because the target is not an afterburning jet doing Mach 1. And as you pointed out, the missile's motor had ran out. So there is nothing to glow except the warhead, which produces a sudden flash similar in size to the OP video. Hence my theory is supported. Now go find an inert strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash to support your theory, or don't bother wasting any more of my time.

 

28m at its largest without unspent rocket fuel. So 40-50m when augmented by unspent fuel, yes? Surely that further proves my case.

 

The shrapnel damage is the missing stab, the expanding rod cut it off and the rest of the shrapnel can be seen glowing in the video thereafter.

 

Let me give you an analogy. I ran into a deer once, yet there were no parts of deer stuck in my bonnet. Would the repair shop have been correct in saying no evidence of deer? Yes. Does that mean there was no deer? No.

The volume is irrelevant in this case. The flash in the AIM-9X video is roughly a sphere. It is less than the width of 1 wing, or half wingspan minus fuselage, which would be 4m. BUT, the wings are at an angle since the plane does not have its belly directly facing the camera. If this angle is ~45deg, then the diameter is <2.8m (11.5m^3 volume vs 15.7m^3, or 1/4 the length of the burner plume. This sphere radiates heat roughly equally in all directions, hence the dimensions of this sphere relative to the burners should be roughly the same in every aspect in FLIR. But the diameter is suddenly more than twice the length of the burner plume.

 

So, you were wrong on the flare and so you switch to the Aim-9x flash, ok,

So using the length instead of the wingspan (and being generous) i came up with about 3.75m which would make that 27.6 Cu meters, which is 1.75 times the volume of the burners. And also the blast is a solid white hot flame, not barely visible like the burners in daylight.

 

I'm still seeing only dust and debris.

 

Watch it at 0.25 speed, there is clearly a hot ball of similar size to the other hit after the plane passes.

 

The inset clearly shows the missile heading towards the plume not a stab at the last minute. It should also be noted that IIR missiles are not designed to strike the rear of the a/c. This is a miss with a small charge to test the proximity fuse.

 

PLUME???????????????

 

Yes, it heads straight for the glow which the F-4's downturned horizontal stabs are in the way of.

 

Yes, literally hundreds, and none of them produce a flash big enough to correspond to 50m wide on FLIR. And again, the live Hellfire flash is only that big on FLIR, so why would an inert strike be the same size?

 

Hundreds with the motor still burning on impact?

 

You have tried to make use of some extremely grainy video to claim a flash. It's not a flash it's just debris and crucially, at actual impact, it is clear that there is no sudden flash from the kinetic impact, nor is there a huge explosion plume thereafter.

 

The missile goes straight through the fuselage so i wouldn't expect to see the flash right when it happened, especially because of the lack of oxygen within the fuselage.

 

Again, why not show the full video. Is that strike even in remotely the same place on the aircraft? Nope. And again, clear evidence of a test warhead. You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that all tests have no live warhead.

 

Yeah, sorry i thought it was in the other video i posted, here is the link (watch in 0.25 speed):

 

Clear evidence? You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that they don't trust telemetry (weather they should or not).

 

Also don't forget the person who has actual missile testing experience:

 

...However, I did find a few direct impacts against target drones where the missile had an inert warhead...

 

 

On the contrary, it's completely relevant, since most short range missiles will have either no fuel, or very little left at impact.

 

It is completely irrelevant because the missile in the OP video is still burning.

 

There's less glow in the Hellfire video simply because the target is not an afterburning jet doing Mach 1. And as you pointed out, the missile's motor had ran out. So there is nothing to glow except the warhead, which produces a sudden flash similar in size to the OP video. Hence my theory is supported. Now go find an inert strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash to support your theory, or don't bother wasting any more of my time.

 

Most likely it has to do with military FLIR for blowing crap up Vs. Law enforcement FLIR for chasing bad dudes.

 

(There is an article that says most likely it was filmed on Flir ULTRA 8500)

Source:https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/09/yemens-shiite-houthis-claim-saudi-f-15-kill-with-sam-over-capital-city-of-sanaa/

 

28m at its largest without unspent rocket fuel. So 40-50m when augmented by unspent fuel, yes? Surely that further proves my case.

 

No i think it proves you are bad at estimating size :lol: (Sorry i couldn't resist, don't take it personally, i try to stay light hearted, no one is going to die.)

 

I think it shows the difference in FLIR configs more than anything, i think an actual detonation on the OP video would be enormous compared to apache FLIR and settings.

 

The shrapnel damage is the missing stab, the expanding rod cut it off and the rest of the shrapnel can be seen glowing in the video thereafter.

 

Something else to think about is that the maintenance procedures might be different for a detonation vs a kinetic strike.

 

Let me give you an analogy. I ran into a deer once, yet there were no parts of deer stuck in my bonnet. Would the repair shop have been correct in saying no evidence of deer? Yes. Does that mean there was no deer? No.

 

 

Let me fix your analogy:

 

You're driving down the roads of rural Holland and you hit an animal, you take your car to the mechanic, after work that day he tells a buddy that it looks like they hit a deer, but a car enthusiast magazine from UAE claims you hit a bear, some random guy in London goes "obviously it was a bear!". ;)

I said they are both smaller than afterburner in normal video, and the flare is smaller in FLIR, so you would expect the flash to be smaller as well. Yet, it is twice as big.

 

Poor quality video footage and the case in point is the actual point of impact where there is no flash, as is typical with inert strikes.

 

If the stabs were it the way of it, they are the last things you would see in the inset, which shows the seeker perspective but they are not.

 

All types, and once again, the motor will not produce a sudden flash on impact. Fireball after maybe, but no sudden flash.

 

WAT!? It is surrounded by oxygen, and you even have jet fuel in there too. The rate of KE exchange should also be far larger. And once again, afterburner - 33lbs/s of 17,000BTU/lb fuel. Solid rocket fuel 8,000BTU/lb, most of it already gone, and it burns for some time afterwards in the OP video. 200lb missile, minus airframe weight, minus electronics, minus 20lb warhead, minus fuel already spent, yet still twice as big a flash???

 

Furthermore, you can see the goddamn missile in this picture, it is nowhere near where you claim the flash to be.

 

 

I have testing experience too, and only the early tests are done with no warhead. I can also tell you that telemetry can't accurately validate a proximity fuse. They are very time and distance specific and you also have to assess the proximity of the blast after the fuse triggers, and there is a delay between the trigger and the blast. Very short, but stuff is moving very fast too. As an exaggerated example, take the SA-2 fired at an SR-71 over the NK DMZ, everything in that missile functioned perfectly but the proximity fuse was too slow, or just about right from the pilot's perspective. Telemetry would probably have declared that a hit because the fuse likely triggered within 20m, but the warhead went off >100m behind the aircraft. Furthermore, that test is not an example of an IIR missile tracking correctly, which it what leads me to believe it's a proxy test.

 

But likely has less than BTU content required to out-do the afterburners and won't produce a sudden flash either way.

 

They are both high quality FLIR systems.

 

Not really - simple analogy: grenade explodes and makes a flash, grenade next to a petrol pump explodes and makes a bigger flash. What's not obvious here?

 

The maintenance procedure is the same either way. Check for other damage and FOD, replace broken part, ground test, flight test.

 

If it was a small bear, the damage would look similar. But if FLIR imagery showed something fat with claws standing on its hind legs...

Ok Emu, exactly what missile testing experience do you have? Time to put up or... yeah you know the rest.

I said they are both smaller than afterburner in normal video, and the flare is smaller in FLIR, so you would expect the flash to be smaller as well. Yet, it is twice as big.

 

The AIM-9X flash is not smaller.

 

Poor quality video footage and the case in point is the actual point of impact where there is no flash, as is typical with inert strikes.

Looking at it again there is a very possible flash right after the missile exits the fuselage:

 

If the stabs were it the way of it, they are the last things you would see in the inset, which shows the seeker perspective but they are not.

 

It appears they are right at the edge before the inset cuts out, indicating the back end of the missile probably whacked it.

 

All types, and once again, the motor will not produce a sudden flash on impact. Fireball after maybe, but no sudden flash.

 

And you have yet to provide any proof of that, the videos you keep posting just confirm my position.

 

WAT!? It is surrounded by oxygen, and you even have jet fuel in there too. The rate of KE exchange should also be far larger. And once again, afterburner - 33lbs/s of 17,000BTU/lb fuel. Solid rocket fuel 8,000BTU/lb, most of it already gone, and it burns for some time afterwards in the OP video. 200lb missile, minus airframe weight, minus electronics, minus 20lb warhead, minus fuel already spent, yet still twice as big a flash???

 

Can you provide a source for your BTU numbers?

Also, you don't know weather the leftover glow is burning or not.

 

Furthermore, you can see the (Removed for violation of 1.1) missile in this picture, it is nowhere near where you claim the flash to be.

 

IMG

 

Yeah, of course it is, the flash doesn't follow the missile.

 

I have testing experience too, and only the early tests are done with no warhead. I can also tell you that telemetry can't accurately validate a proximity fuse. They are very time and distance specific and you also have to assess the proximity of the blast after the fuse triggers, and there is a delay between the trigger and the blast. Very short, but stuff is moving very fast too. As an exaggerated example, take the SA-2 fired at an SR-71 over the NK DMZ, everything in that missile functioned perfectly but the proximity fuse was too slow, or just about right from the pilot's perspective. Telemetry would probably have declared that a hit because the fuse likely triggered within 20m, but the warhead went off >100m behind the aircraft. Furthermore, that test is not an example of an IIR missile tracking correctly, which it what leads me to believe it's a proxy test.

 

Missile testing experience? If so, why didn't you say so before, i asked.

Makes sense about the telemetry not being perfect, but you haven't sold me on the whole tiny testing warhead thing.

 

But likely has less than BTU content required to out-do the afterburners and won't produce a sudden flash either way.

 

I have mathematically proven that with just one second left it has far more than enough potential FLIR signature to produce the flash in the OP video.

 

They are both high quality FLIR systems.

 

Yep, but different uses and different users.

 

Not really - simple analogy: grenade explodes and makes a flash, grenade next to a petrol pump explodes and makes a bigger flash. What's not obvious here?

 

What is not obvious is what your talking about?

 

The maintenance procedure is the same either way. Check for other damage and FOD, replace broken part, ground test, flight test.

 

Source?

 

If it was a small bear, the damage would look similar. But if FLIR imagery showed something fat with claws standing on its hind legs...

 

 

The car was mostly in the way of the FLIR though, and the mechanic probably asked you what you hit also.

2.8m vs >10m. It's smaller. In the FLIR video, the flash is bigger in all dimensions by a factor of 2.

 

Dust and debris. And there is no reason for the missile to explode after leaving the fuselage. And your argument about insufficient oxygen is also garbage because rocket motors have their own oxidiser.

 

It appears that the missile is targeting the plume - see black box in inset. That isn't what IIR missiles do normally. So why? Proxy fuse test.

 

I have shown no videos of rocket failures that show a sudden flash. And you have posted no videos of inert impacts on FLIR with a 50m wide flash. You have ironically posted a live warhead strike with a similar-sized flash. I have nothing to prove at this point, the balance of evidence is in my favour.

 

Go back in the thread.

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

 

Sorry, this missile is still intact and nowhere near the claimed flash, where you claim is suddenly exploded.

 

It indicates where the blast is relative to the aircraft and you can use the small amount of non-destructive damage to model the affect of a larger warhead.

 

You haven't though. You've shown a 2.8m wide flash, that may not even be inert, and claimed it becomes 50m wide in FLIR and yet a 15-20m wide live Hellfire warhead flash in normal video, only becomes 40m in FLIR. And your theory relies on the probability of warhead not exploding multiplied by probability of 50m wide inert flash. The evidence is not in your favour.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Explosive + fuel flash > Explosive only flash.

 

Knowledge.

 

The only problem with that theory is that incident happened behind the pilot and all they would feel is something hitting the aircraft. And I doubt it's happened frequently enough to them for them to know the different between shrapnel impact and inert missile impact. Assuming your theory is true. Alternatively, maybe the crew is the Dutch magazines source and they heard a bang followed by crap hitting their plane.

Ok Emu, exactly what missile testing experience do you have? Time to put up or... yeah you know the rest.

Brimstone and Meteor.

2.8m vs >10m. It's smaller. In the FLIR video, the flash is bigger in all dimensions by a factor of 2.

 

Going off of the fuselage (+ a little) i got 3.75m ie 27.6 Cu meters.

 

Dust and debris. And there is no reason for the missile to explode after leaving the fuselage. And your argument about insufficient oxygen is also garbage because rocket motors have their own oxidiser.

Yeah, i was just shooting from the hip about the oxygen.

 

It appears that the missile is targeting the plume - see black box in inset. That isn't what IIR missiles do normally. So why? Proxy fuse test.

What the heck with the plume?

 

It looks like it lost lock with the fuselage and and re-locked to the exhaust.

The stabs block the exhaust from the side.

 

I have shown no videos of rocket failures that show a sudden flash. And you have posted no videos of inert impacts on FLIR with a 50m wide flash. You have ironically posted a live warhead strike with a similar-sized flash. I have nothing to prove at this point, the balance of evidence is in my favour.

Here is your video:

 

Go back in the thread.

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

"...The heat of combustion of hydrazine in oxygen (air) is 1.941 x 107 J/kg (8345 BTU/lb)..."

 

In air, not with an oxidizer.

 

Sorry, this missile is still intact and nowhere near the claimed flash, where you claim is suddenly exploded.

IMG

The motor exploded, not the whole missile.

 

It indicates where the blast is relative to the aircraft and you can use the small amount of non-destructive damage to model the affect of a larger warhead.

I know why you think they need one, what i want to know is HOW you know they use them.

 

You haven't though. You've shown a 2.8m wide flash, that may not even be inert, and claimed it becomes 50m wide in FLIR and yet a 15-20m wide live Hellfire warhead flash in normal video, only becomes 40m in FLIR. And your theory relies on the probability of warhead not exploding multiplied by probability of 50m wide inert flash. The evidence is not in your favour.

Let me explain:

 

In the OP video the burners are 5,324 px in area

The missile before it hits is 2,552 px in area

The flash is 22,743 px in area

 

So, if the motor had 1 second left and were burned in 3 frames it would produce a flash 20,416 px in area + 5324 = 25,740 Sq px IE more than enough.

 

Irrelevant.

Cut the snark and use real answers.

 

Logic would dictate Different applications = different

 

Explosive + fuel flash > Explosive only flash.

And why is that relevant?

 

Knowledge.

Wow, so enlightening...

 

The only problem with that theory is that incident happened behind the pilot and all they would feel is something hitting the aircraft. And I doubt it's happened frequently enough to them for them to know the different between shrapnel impact and inert missile impact. Assuming your theory is true. Alternatively, maybe the crew is the Dutch magazines source and they heard a bang followed by crap hitting their plane.

The missile is too close to the plane to produce a discernible lag between BOOM and WHACK.

 

 

Maybe the source is the rebels and they don't want to look bad for crappy performance, just as likely.

Still a lot smaller than 10m.

 

So, why would the missile not explode on impact but explode some time after?

 

Which a correctly guiding IIR missile would not do. Very grainy video but I see no broken stab.

 

The chemical reaction is the same either way.

 

Aha... Doesn't this start to sound a little fishy now? Motor exploded but missile continued intact. Where is the fireball following the missile remnants like in the OP video?

 

I've already explained that. Telemetry can't tell you the impact of a proxy burst.

 

You're coming up with number from out of nowhere. You do not know the weight of fuel the missile had in the first place but it burned for more than a second after impact and continued burning off the shot. besides that, the detonation velocity of rocket fuel isn't fast enough for it all to burn in 1-3 frames.

 

I have, it's irrelevant.

 

Because you questioned why the flash in the OP video was bigger than the Hellfire flash. The Hellfire had used all its fuel already.

 

Exactly why the pilot might not have known either way.

 

Well defense-update believes it was hit by a GQM-163A Coyote target drone, which the Yemenis have somehow got hold of and modified as a radio command SAM.:lol:

 

http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

Still a lot smaller than 10m.

 

Last time i checked the diameter of afterburners wasn't 10m :lol:

 

The diameter of the flash is about 3.75m (2d area of 11m, 3d volume of 27.6m)

 

 

 

(you lose)

 

So, why would the missile not explode on impact but explode some time after?

 

i don't know, maybe the motor broke off on its way out.

 

Which a correctly guiding IIR missile would not do. Very grainy video but I see no broken stab.

 

Why not? (Please provide some type of proof other than "cause i know")

 

You can hardly see the stab, let alone weather or not its broken.

 

The chemical reaction is the same either way.

 

Hydrazine doesn't even seem to be used in solid rockets anyway, also look at this:

"Mixing it with oxidising agent dinitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, creates a hypergolic mixture – a mixture so explosive, no ignition is required."

 

Source:

https://eic.rsc.org/magnificent-molecules/hydrazine/2000023.article

 

Aha... Doesn't this start to sound a little fishy now? Motor exploded but missile continued intact. Where is the fireball following the missile remnants like in the OP video?

 

Less fishy than the other AIM-9X test where you claim small warhead and the missile keeps going.

 

Also, we can't tell if its a fireball.

 

I've already explained that. Telemetry can't tell you the impact of a proxy burst.

 

Let me try again:

Provide your source for how you KNOW they use warheads.

 

Also, you having experience with the meteor you could have just said "I have personally worked with the meteor and they have a small test warhead". This is whats on the literal wiki for it:

"A Telemetry and Break-Up System (TBUS) replaces the warhead on trials missiles"

 

Was that really too hard to say?

 

You're coming up with number from out of nowhere. You do not know the weight of fuel the missile had in the first place but it burned for more than a second after impact and continued burning off the shot. besides that, the detonation velocity of rocket fuel isn't fast enough for it all to burn in 1-3 frames.

 

Yep, and we don't know how long it burned before hitting. i would say 1 sec is conservative.

 

We also don't know if anything was burning after, could just be the hot smoke and debris.

 

It is if the motor broke up, more surface area = more burning.

 

I have, it's irrelevant.

 

You have given no proof/logic/reason as to why the type of FLIR doesn't matter.

 

Because you questioned why the flash in the OP video was bigger than the Hellfire flash. The Hellfire had used all its fuel already.

 

So what your saying is:

 

No fuel = 28m = 615 Sq m

With fuel= 50m = 1963 Sq m

1936-615=1321

In other words the leftover motor (by itself) is 219% more powerful than the warhead by itself?

Why don't they just put motor in the front of the missile, it would blow the crap out of anything! :lol:

 

Exactly why the pilot might not have known either way.

 

Yep.

 

Well defense-update believes it was hit by a GQM-163A Coyote target drone, which the Yemenis have somehow got hold of and modified as a radio command SAM.:lol:

 

http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

 

Thats hilarious! They literally pulled the top image from wiki and claimed it was their new SAM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bonus:

In this image there is a sam hitting a mi-8, going by the length it has a diameter of 10m, 2.6 times the diameter of the AIM-9X flash, and most likely a MANPADS, which means 3kg warhead:

Source:

 

Brimstone and Meteor.

 

You know posting the names of two missiles doesn't prove anything right? I'm calling BS until you produce evidence.