Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

It's amusing that you're so stuck to a very unique missile as an example of what other MANPADS do ... the configuration isn't the same at all, and no, 40g acceleration is not 'nothing for a missile', it's completely uncommon so congrats, you've found a second missile that accelerates at over 20g towards its target other than Sprint.

 

I prefer real documentation to your cherry-picking.

Data on the RedEye rocket motor, which was then used in Stinger (and improved over time).

 

The starstreak rocket motor configuration is completely different from your typical MANPADS.

On 9 January 2017 the Houthi media, Al-Masirah, announced that the F-15 had been damaged but did not crash.

https://www.almasirah.net/details.php?es_id=17971&cat_id=3

It's amusing that you're so stuck to a very unique missile as an example of what other MANPADS do ... the configuration isn't the same at all, and no, 40g acceleration is not 'nothing for a missile', it's completely uncommon so congrats, you've found a second missile that accelerates at over 20g towards its target other than Sprint.

 

I prefer real documentation to your cherry-picking.

Data on the RedEye rocket motor, which was then used in Stinger (and improved over time).

 

The starstreak rocket motor configuration is completely different from your typical MANPADS.

0.5s applies to most single burn MANPADS, for sustain it's about 2-2.5s as shown on video. The Stinger gets to about M2.2 in 2s, sounds like about 40g to me. Depends what you define as typical.

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html

 

The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds

 

RedEye is a different missile.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-43_Redeye

 

Still waiting for data on this 15s burn time MANPADS, I've shown data on a half second one.

 

MANPADS have 10, 15+ sec of burn time. Only the ejection motor is a fraction of a second.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Emu

It's literally in the same sentence:

 

"The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds, and top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 for certain trajactories."

 

You're like a flat earther, denying evidence that's right in front of your eyes.

 

Despite, why don't we talk about how, now that you went up from "less than a second" to 6, the MANPAD theory makes more and more sense. That's what you wanted to disprove originally by saying they burn for "literally less than a second" right?

It's literally in the same sentence:

 

"The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds, and top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 for certain trajactories."

 

You're like a flat earther, denying evidence that's right in front of your eyes.

 

Despite, why don't we talk about how, now that you went up from "less than a second" to 6, the MANPAD theory makes more and more sense. That's what you wanted to disprove originally by saying they burn for "literally less than a second" right?

But we're now talking about whether 40g can be achieved. GGTharos thinks only 12-13g is possible for such a missile.

 

Yes, you're still wrong. In order to get to M2 (ish) from zero, that missile needs a 40g acceleration or so (ballpark, YMMV). That's not particularly likely given the rocket motor configuration - in fact, those are very rare missiles that accelerate so quickly. Given a 12-13g acceleration

 

I'm also yet to see evidence of any current MANPADS burning for 10-15s.

 

And the original debate centred on whether it could still be burning in tail chase against an F-15E that had been on afterburner for 10s and I still say it couldn't because in that time the F-15 has done ~3.5km and no MANPADS will burn for 3.5km, especially once we factor in the climb and non-level/straight path.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Emu

I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?

I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?

 

Showing that a F-15 got hit by a missile I guess.

But we're now talking about whether 40g can be achieved. GGTharos thinks only 12-13g is possible for such a missile.

 

In fact it isn't. Why? Because it's a tiny little tube. The reason starstreak can pull this off is the big fat tube - you have a LOT more area to burn then you do inside stinger.

 

I'm also yet to see evidence of any current MANPADS burning for 10-15s.

 

That's fine, I didn't remember correctly but it's also largely irrelevant.

 

And the original debate centred on whether it could still be burning in tail chase against an F-15E that had been on afterburner for 10s and I still say it couldn't because in that time the F-15 has done ~3.5km and no MANPADS will burn for 3.5km, especially once we factor in the climb and non-level/straight path.

 

Of course it could still be burning. You've made a boat load of assumptions about the aircraft's altitude, speed, when and where from the missile was launched, which missile it was, etc. Unlike a MANPAD, an 'AAM mod' could easily be burning for 15 sec with a two-stage motor. Fuze failures are also no unheard of, so it may have simply failed to detonate.

I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?

Whether a MANPADS missile could catch an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and the rocket motor still be burning.

In fact it isn't. Why? Because it's a tiny little tube. The reason starstreak can pull this off is the big fat tube - you have a LOT more area to burn then you do inside stinger.

 

 

 

That's fine, I didn't remember correctly but it's also largely irrelevant.

 

 

 

Of course it could still be burning. You've made a boat load of assumptions about the aircraft's altitude, speed, when and where from the missile was launched, which missile it was, etc. Unlike a MANPAD, an 'AAM mod' could easily be burning for 15 sec with a two-stage motor. Fuze failures are also no unheard of, so it may have simply failed to detonate.

In fact it is, says so right here.

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html

 

The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds

 

750m/s / 2 = 375m/s^2 = 38g

 

Probably another 1s or so of sustain based on videos.

 

15s instead of 6s? And that 6s is not for the Stinger, it is for RedEye. The trend has been shorter burn and higher speed for newer missiles.

 

https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa-18_grouse_9k38_igla_man-portable_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html

 

Not really, the missile trail is left-to-right, same as aircraft, and top to bottom, so it has to both catch the plane and climb.

 

And so could any completely custom-built missile, but the evidence of such is scarce. The MANPADS claim is garbage though.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Emu

The MANPADS claim is garbage though.

 

:music_whistling:

Whether a MANPADS missile could catch an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and the rocket motor still be burning.

 

10 seconds in burner isn’t long at all.

 

Not really, the missile trail is left-to-right, same as aircraft, and top to bottom, so it has to both catch the plane and climb.

 

In the FLIR video in the original post? :huh:

So, summing up your position Emu:

 

at low altitude there's no way they could have been within the burn time of a MANPADS, which is literally less than a second

 

And that 6s is (...) for RedEye (FIM-43 Redeye was a man-portable surface-to-air missile system - a MANPADS )

 

OK, lets take your 'less than a second' and your 'a fraction of a second', which being generous you'd take at 0.5 second.

 

Accepting your new 6 second figure - that puts your original 'less than a second out by a factor of between 6 and 12, and GG @ 15 seconds out by a factor of 2.5.

I see no reason to accept a 3 second total burn (the only evidence you seem to accept and feed back shows in your own words > 2 seconds, but has nothing to say about maximum burn time), but if we say 3 seconds neither one of you was any nearer.

 

All the videos presented of MANPADS hitting targets show the motor burning at intercept.

The original video shows the motor burning at intercept.

There is nothing in the evidence beyond your assertion that the original video was at an altitude beyond the reach of a MANPADS.

 

You seem happy to accept the plane was hit by an R-73, but despite evidence that ground based SHORADS have been built utilising Heat seeking SRAAMs, you refuse to believe the possibility of one of these being used because - without evidence - you believe that the target aircraft was too high.

Instead - again, without any evidence at all - you claim that the missile was launched by a phantom aircraft flown by an airforce that has no air-worthy aircraft, and did so undetected by the Saudi AWACs in the area, the Saudi fighters in area, and the assets of the USN that are supporting the Saudi's.

 

The truly hilarious thing is that Houthi don't claim to have shot an F-15. They claim to have shot down a Tornado, which the Saudi's acknowledge losing (but, they claim to a 'technical difficulty').

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/saudi-warplane-crashes-yemen-pilots-escape-180107182349027.html

So, summing up your position Emu:

 

 

 

 

 

OK, lets take your 'less than a second' and your 'a fraction of a second', which being generous you'd take at 0.5 second.

 

Accepting your new 6 second figure - that puts your original 'less than a second out by a factor of between 6 and 12, and GG @ 15 seconds out by a factor of 2.5.

I see no reason to accept a 3 second total burn (the only evidence you seem to accept and feed back shows in your own words > 2 seconds, but has nothing to say about maximum burn time), but if we say 3 seconds neither one of you was any nearer.

 

All the videos presented of MANPADS hitting targets show the motor burning at intercept.

The original video shows the motor burning at intercept.

There is nothing in the evidence beyond your assertion that the original video was at an altitude beyond the reach of a MANPADS.

 

You seem happy to accept the plane was hit by an R-73, but despite evidence that ground based SHORADS have been built utilising Heat seeking SRAAMs, you refuse to believe the possibility of one of these being used because - without evidence - you believe that the target aircraft was too high.

Instead - again, without any evidence at all - you claim that the missile was launched by a phantom aircraft flown by an airforce that has no air-worthy aircraft, and did so undetected by the Saudi AWACs in the area, the Saudi fighters in area, and the assets of the USN that are supporting the Saudi's.

 

The truly hilarious thing is that Houthi don't claim to have shot an F-15. They claim to have shot down a Tornado, which the Saudi's acknowledge losing (but, they claim to a 'technical difficulty').

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/saudi-warplane-crashes-yemen-pilots-escape-180107182349027.html

RedEye was replaced by Stinger and as shown in videos, the burn is not more than a few seconds. At least my figure of less than 1s is correct for some MANPADS. GGTharos's figure of 15s is not correct for any and is out by ~12s, for any and all MANPADS.

 

Outright garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=140s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=155s

 

So there's 3 different MANPADS, burning out before hitting, one burning less than a second and 2 burning for 2-3s. Still to see this 15s burning MANPADS or even 6s. When you find one, get back to me. These are also against crappy subsonic drones.

 

The missile is left to right and climbing and the F-15 is also left to right. Hence tail aspect and it's been on afterburner for 10s. The idea that a MANPADS could still be burning upon catching it is a bad joke. That was my original premise. It's also likely the F-15 was beyond the receding target speed of an Igla after 10s on afterburner.

 

An F-15SA flying at altitude is a safe assumption, perhaps you'd care to quote the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low altitude these days to prove me wrong.

 

Your claim they have no airworthy aircraft is inaccurate though since 19 MiG-29s were seized from the YAF. Whether they can fly them is questionable but there is evidence of outside help, e.g. all these increased range Scuds.

 

Who said it was undetected? The coalition had AWACS in Desert Storm and still an F-18 was shot down and I'll bet the pilot was at least as skilled as the Saudi pilot.

 

The truly hilarious thing is that they claimed to have shot down both until the evidence against them became irrefutable.

10 seconds in burner isn’t long at all.

 

 

 

In the FLIR video in the original post? :huh:

Assuming low level, which is fairly unlikely in itself (most likely F-15 was flying above MANPADS ceiling), a fairly standard cruise speed on military thrust would be 300m/s. 10s on afterburner would give supersonic, possibly as much as 400+m/s, giving a distance coverage of 3-4km and a receding target speed which is beyond that of an Igla or Igla-S. The missile also approaches from an angle, so has to travel further. MANPADS burn last maybe up to 3s based on videos, if using a boost-sustain motor. Can a MANPADS travel 3-4km in 3s? Only a Starstreak can in theory based on Vmax but that only burns for 0.5s and is unlikely to be in Houthi hands.

 

If I was being facetious, I could easily point out that 10s in burner is roughly enough to climb beyond the ceiling of an Igla even if it did start at low altitude.

 

And all this rests on the assumption that the Saudis spent a fortune on F-15SAs and equipment to just to fly them like an IL-2. Like I said, post the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low level in the last 20 years. I bet we're talking <1% easily.

 

All I'm doing is assuming a standard high probability combat mission altitude, and that leads me to think air-launched R-73 or maybe surface-launched R-27 but the damage has indicated an R-73.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Emu

Assuming low level, which is fairly unlikely in itself (most likely F-15 was flying above MANPADS ceiling),

 

Who says it's unlikely? Eagles have been known to come down for shows of force. It's quite likely, or, more to the point, regardless of being likely or not, you just don't know and have no basis for your assumption.

 

a fairly standard cruise speed on military thrust would be 300m/s.

No, it wouldn't be - try 180-230 (350-450kts). Beagles don't cruise on MIL - no aircraft does. In fact, those speeds are high for certain types of cruising - but what they are, is the eagle's combat speed.

 

10s on afterburner would give supersonic, possibly as much as 400+m/s,

No it wouldn't. Beagle can't accelerate that fast, neither high nor low. Even a light grey can't pull it off, never mind that your 'cruise speed' statement (which should have been stated as an assumption, not as a knowledge point) is completely off kilter.

 

The missile also approaches from an angle, so has to travel further. MANPADS burn last maybe up to 3s based on videos,

No they don't. And what kind of rocket designer would build a 1sec sustainer for a 2 sec booster? Sustainers operate 2-5 times longer than the booster.

 

As for the angle, you don't really know what you're looking at. The missile could have been launched from fairly short range on the beam.

 

Can a MANPADS travel 3-4km in 3s? Only a Starstreak can in theory based on Vmax but that only burns for 0.5s and is unlikely to be in Houthi hands.

It doesn't need to. You didn't see the launch.

 

If I was being facetious, I could easily point out that 10s in burner is roughly enough to climb beyond the ceiling of an Igla even if it did start at low altitude.

Any such climb by a beagle would drain speed so fast that it would actually extend the missile's ceiling for that particular shot.

 

And all this rests on the assumption that the Saudis spent a fortune on F-15SAs and equipment to just to fly them like an IL-2. Like I said, post the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low level in the last 20 years. I bet we're talking <1% easily.

You may as well say that airliners were flown at > 1000' altitude in the last 20 years.

Statistics are great when studying a population, but mostly useless when looking at an individual.

 

All I'm doing is assuming a standard high probability combat mission altitude, and that leads me to think air-launched R-73 or maybe surface-launched R-27 but the damage has indicated an R-73.

You don't know how these missiles work.

You don't know where that F-15 was.

You don't know where the missile launcher was.

You don't know when it was launched.

You can't judge rocket motor burn time from partial, obscured videos - in fact, it's somewhat challenging to find videos that would give you a very good estimate of SAM/AAM motor burn time in a lot of cases - and in the cases where you do get a good time it applies to that particular missile only.

You don't know the F-15 acceleration graphs (which would have been oh so easy for you to look up)

You don't know F-15 operating airspeeds.

You keep making up an enemy jet that somehow went undetected by lots of sensors, whose existence hasn't been acknowledged by anyone.

You don't have any expertise in judging missile impact damage.

 

You're just making clueless assumptions that contradict reality. This is literally a great example of a logic failure due to bad premises. In your words, complete garbage.

Edited January 23, 2018 by GGTharos

Who says it's unlikely? Eagles have been known to come down for shows of force. It's quite likely, or, more to the point, regardless of being likely or not, you just don't know and have no basis for your assumption.

/QUOTE]

Like I said, show me some stats on how many Eagles have flown combat missions at low altitude in the last 20 years vs those flown at high altitude. Putting your plane in harm's way for no good reason is a show of farce not a show of force.

 

No, it wouldn't be - try 180-230 (350-450kts). Beagles don't cruise on MIL - no aircraft does. In fact, those speeds are high for certain types of cruising - but what they are, is the eagle's combat speed.

Ah, it was a flying Beagle that was shot down... now it all makes since. 180m/s? An Eagle cruises at Mach 0.5? Are we talking Eagles or Beagles here?

 

So the Eagle was doing M0.5 at sea level, just for the sake of proving you right? I thought people only did that on BF4.

 

No it wouldn't. Beagle can't accelerate that fast, neither high nor low. Even a light grey can't pull it off, never mind that your 'cruise speed' statement (which should have been stated as an assumption, not as a knowledge point) is completely off kilter.

A Beagle dog can't but the quickest fighters can go from brakes off to supersonic in <30s, so 650mph to 850mph could easily be around 10s, especially after a slight dive, as someone noted earlier.

 

See page A9-14. 10s from M0.9 to M1.05 at 10,000ft. M0.8-M1.0 in 10s.

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3704

 

No they don't. And what kind of rocket designer would build a 1sec sustainer for a 2 sec booster? Sustainers operate 2-5 times longer than the booster.

Same kind that would forgo the sustainer and build a half second booster to make it hit M4.0. The development trend has been shorter burn and faster speed. Less reaction time for enemy, less change of launch being seen.

 

As for the angle, you don't really know what you're looking at. The missile could have been launched from fairly short range on the beam.

Yeah, maybe the Eagle pilot was landing to take an objective because he thought it was Golmund Railway. That's why he was doing M0.5 at 200ft right but little did he know, it wasn't a flag-run server.

 

It doesn't need to. You didn't see the launch.

Missile trail is left to right, same as direction of aircraft.

 

Any such climb by a beagle would drain speed so fast that it would actually extend the missile's ceiling for that particular shot.

Instantaneous max rate is 60,000+ft/min, that is with upward force and downward force in balance at that instant.

 

You may as well say that airliners were flown at > 1000' altitude in the last 20 years.

Statistics are great when studying a population, but mostly useless when looking at an individual.

Actually probabilities are widely applicable in combat situations, we use them for everything. The 'P' in LPI, LPD, Pk. They are even used for determining combat mission flight profiles and they usually don't lead to a decision to fly at M0.5 at 200ft.:megalol:

 

 

You don't know how these missiles work.

You don't know where that F-15 was.

You don't know where the missile launcher was.

You don't know when it was launched.

You don't know the F-15 acceleration graphs (which would have been oh so easy for you to look up)

You don't know F-15 operating airspeeds.

You keep making up an enemy jet that somehow went undetected by lots of sensors, whose existence hasn't been acknowledged by anyone.

You don't have any expertise in judging missile impact damage.

 

You're just making clueless assumptions that contradict reality. This is literally a great example of a logic failure due to bad premises.

Only you asserted that the enemy jet was undetected. I merely said that the coalition had shed-loads of AWACS in Desert Storm and ground radar and fighters in the air and still an F-18 was shot down by a relatively large aircraft (MiG-25) that somehow caught it unaware.

 

What I know.

 

Chance of MANPADS missile burning for 15s = 0.

Chance of Eagle flying combat mission at M0.5 and 200ft = 0.

Chance it was flying at ~M0.8 at >20,000ft = 99+%

Max receding target speed for Igla ~320m/s.

Chance plane was hit by R-73 = 1.

Typical burn time for SRAAM ~5s.

Missile was still in burn = 1.

Probability missile was air-launched = >0.5.

 

Probability a beagle was involved ~0.

Like I said, show me some stats on how many Eagles have flown combat missions at low altitude in the last 20 years vs those flown at high altitude. Putting your plane in harm's way for no good reason is a show of farce not a show of force.

 

You still don't get it. Stats are worthless. Only the situation at hand is relevant. Stats are for populations :)

 

Ah, it was a flying Beagle that was shot down... now it all makes since. 180m/s? An Eagle cruises at Mach 0.5? Are we talking Eagles or Beagles here?

 

... You didn't know that strike eagles are referred to as eagles? ok, you know now :) (You know, bomb ... eagle ... beagle)

 

So the Eagle was doing M0.5 at sea level, just for the sake of proving you right? I thought people only did that on BF4.

 

It was doing whatever it was doing. 350-450 is combat speed. It could have been doing 600, but since you're wanting to make assumptions about 'cruise speed', the correct assumption is 350-450 knots, ie combat speed, in combat.

 

A Beagle dog can't but the quickest fighters can go from brakes off to supersonic in <30s, so 650mph to 850mph could easily be around 10s, especially after a slight dive, as someone noted earlier.

 

Look up the acceleration charts.

 

See page A9-14. 10s from M0.9 to M1.05 at 10,000ft. M0.8-M1.0 in 10s.

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3704

 

Ok, I was expecting you to look up the right chart but you can't be bothered, so you look up acceleration for a light, clean light grey instead of at least a light grey with CFTs ... Try A9-20 and see if you can adjust for the temp (STD is 15 deg C, in case you don't know) ... and that's STILL not as draggy as a beagle.

You have a habit of picking and choosing bits of info that fit your narrative and it's starting to show a lot :)

 

Same kind that would forgo the sustainer and build a half second booster to make it hit M4.0.

 

No. What a dumb statement.

 

The development trend has been shorter burn and faster speed. Less reaction time for enemy, less change of launch being seen.

 

Sustainers give you range. That's the point - they keep the average speed high. Sustainers operate at 2-5 times the operation length of the booster. get over it.

 

Yeah, maybe the Eagle pilot was landing to take an objective because he thought it was Golmund Railway. That's why he was doing M0.5 at 200ft right but little did he know, it wasn't a flag-run server.

 

Little did you know, it was doing whatever the heck it was doing for whatever reason they had for doing things that way.

 

Missile trail is left to right, same as direction of aircraft.

 

So? That doesn't say anything. A missile launched at the beam can easily appear to do this from a given perspective.

 

 

Instantaneous max rate is 60,000+ft/min, that is with upward force and downward force in balance at that instant.

 

Oh, going off another little number? :D How about no. That instantaneous max rate is only available with a specific climb profile.

 

Actually probabilities are widely applicable in combat situations, we use them for everything. The 'P' in LPI, LPD, Pk. They are even used for determining combat mission flight profiles and they usually don't lead to a decision to fly at M0.5 at 200ft.:megalol:

 

Who is 'we'? Probabilities are great, but they have little application in a specific situation - probabilities are for populations, not individuals.

When you buy a lottery ticket, your probability of winning is 1/whatever. That's quite irrelevant to your play since you either win or lose, you specifically.

 

Only you asserted that the enemy jet was undetected. I merely said that the coalition had shed-loads of AWACS in Desert Storm and ground radar and fighters in the air and still an F-18 was shot down by a relatively large aircraft (MiG-25) that somehow caught it unaware.

 

In fact it wasn't caught unaware. It was blindsided by bureaucracy. There was quite a bit of fallout from that and the USN decided not to allow USAF AWACS to control their flight's permissions to fire any more.

 

What I know.

 

Chance of MANPADS missile burning for 15s = 0.

 

That's fine.

 

Chance of Eagle flying combat mission at M0.5 and 200ft = 0.

Chance it was flying at ~M0.8 at >20,000ft = 99+%

 

Obvious lack of actual knowledge of the incident, in other words, here you know nothing.

 

Max receding target speed for Igla ~320m/s.

 

Not really relevant.

 

Chance plane was hit by R-73 = 1.

 

Wrong again! :) I mean setting probabilities to 0 or 1 pretty much makes you wrong by default :)

 

Typical burn time for SRAAM ~5s.

 

Wrong once more.

 

Probability missile was air-launched = >0.5.

 

Useless assumption with zero proof.

 

Probability a beagle was involved ~0.

 

The beagle was involved.

 

 

So, what you know is basically garbage, and as a result so is your logical conclusion.

You still don't get it. Stats are worthless. Only the situation at hand is relevant. Stats are for populations :)

 

 

 

... You didn't know that strike eagles are referred to as eagles? ok, you know now :) (You know, bomb ... eagle ... beagle)

 

 

 

It was doing whatever it was doing. 350-450 is combat speed. It could have been doing 600, but since you're wanting to make assumptions about 'cruise speed', the correct assumption is 350-450 knots, ie combat speed, in combat.

 

 

 

Look up the acceleration charts.

 

 

 

Ok, I was expecting you to look up the right chart but you can't be bothered, so you look up acceleration for a light, clean light grey instead of at least a light grey with CFTs ... Try A9-20 and see if you can adjust for the temp (STD is 15 deg C, in case you don't know) ... and that's STILL not as draggy as a beagle.

You have a habit of picking and choosing bits of info that fit your narrative and it's starting to show a lot :)

 

 

 

No. What a dumb statement.

 

 

 

Sustainers give you range. That's the point - they keep the average speed high. Sustainers operate at 2-5 times the operation length of the booster. get over it.

 

 

 

Little did you know, it was doing whatever the heck it was doing for whatever reason they had for doing things that way.

 

 

 

So? That doesn't say anything. A missile launched at the beam can easily appear to do this from a given perspective.

 

 

 

 

Oh, going off another little number? :D How about no. That instantaneous max rate is only available with a specific climb profile.

 

 

 

Who is 'we'? Probabilities are great, but they have little application in a specific situation - probabilities are for populations, not individuals.

When you buy a lottery ticket, your probability of winning is 1/whatever. That's quite irrelevant to your play since you either win or lose, you specifically.

 

 

 

In fact it wasn't caught unaware. It was blindsided by bureaucracy. There was quite a bit of fallout from that and the USN decided not to allow USAF AWACS to control their flight's permissions to fire any more.

 

 

 

That's fine.

 

 

 

Obvious lack of actual knowledge of the incident, in other words, here you know nothing.

 

 

 

Not really relevant.

 

 

 

Wrong again! :) I mean setting probabilities to 0 or 1 pretty much makes you wrong by default :)

 

 

 

Wrong once more.

 

 

 

Useless assumption with zero proof.

 

 

 

The beagle was involved.

 

 

So, what you know is basically garbage, and as a result so is your logical conclusion.

Wrong.

 

This is a Beagle.

https://www.pets4homes.co.uk/images/breeds/45/large/fea27d6a2096c6b586d28ab79c5822fd.jpg

 

So you're now making the assumption it's flying at M0.5 at low altitude? Maybe if it landed in front of the rebels they could even hit it with an RPG.

 

I did. M0.8 to M1.0 in 10s for F-15C with less thrust than E.

 

Not a dumb statement at all, the development trend has been for shorter burn and higher speed.

 

A sustainer is not tied to burning for a specific period relative to the booster at all and the video evidence speaks for itself. You were wrong.

 

Yeah, like maybe they were trying to get shot down because they love losing expensive planes, so flew one at M0.5 at 200ft.

 

No it can't, it's left to right, if it was right to left, then it would be mostly head-on.

 

How about yes.

 

Sure they do, they give you the probability of certain parameters in that situation. And the probability of an F-15 adopting M0.5 at 200ft in combat is zero.

 

To my knowledge they needed two methods of ID. IFF and NCTR (F-15s only), or IFF and visual, or IFF and AWACS. But that still doesn't stop the AWACS alerting the friendly fighters either way.

 

After 10s of afterburner and a dive it very much is. But of course this dive to 200ft was at M0.5.:lol::lol::lol:

 

The people repairing it have identified the damage as being from an R-73, so you are wrong in fact as well as theory on your MANPADS assumption.

 

I've already proven the 5s for the AIM-9X with a video, look back.

 

There were no dogs involved.

How do you identify damage as being from a particular missile? Last I checked the damaged stab didn't feature a cartoon like hole with the shape of the missile...

Type of warhead, fragment type, damage pattern, distribution etc. Same way they identified the missile that hit MH17.

Except that's not how they found out what missile that most likely struck MH17, that conclusion was drawn based on missile parts found at the crash site.

 

Finally the warhead of the missile that struck the F-15 didnt actually trigger, so...

Edited January 26, 2018 by Hummingbird

Except that's not how they found out what missile that most likely struck MH17, that conclusion was drawn based on missile parts found at the crash site.

 

Finally the warhead of the missile that struck the F-15 didnt actually trigger, so...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3351549&postcount=94

The cut-off stabiliser is also consistent with an R-73 expanding rod warhead. This shows damage done by an expanding rod warhead during a naval mishap (RIM-7 I think).

 

 

Blast fragmentation warhead of SA-16.

 

 

F-15SA damage.

 

Emu the contractor themselves said that the warhead didn't trigger, i.e. the damage you see is purely from the physical impact of the missile body with the right stab. Had the warhead actually detonated the stricken F-15 would've most likely not been able to continue home to base.