Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

It's also clearly visible in the slow motion footage at 0:42 min:

 

As can be seen a large chunk of the missile continues on out of frame after having gone through the horizontal stab.

That looks more like debris than a flash and in the other image the stab is still attached.

MANPADS is definitely impossible for this video, even in a horribly contrived set of unrealistic circumstances for reasons already alluded to. There was a reason for lighting the burners and it was probably to escape the range of a MANPADS, only it wasn't a MANPADS. Additionally, IR missiles have no lock warning, so any warning would have coming after launch.

 

The flash proves it. A small missile strike with no warhead will not light up the sky brighter than afterburner.

 

It looks like it missed the aircraft entirely, so what made it explode if it was inert.

 

Sure you can be sure. A MANPADS motor burns for 2-3s or 2km maximum. It is not catching an F-15 after 10s of afterburner form rear aspect with its motor still burning, even if the F-15 was skimming the tree-tops. However, more realistically, even if the F-15 was unusually low, it would still have to climb 2km to even get to the same altitude.

 

Yes, but it would produce visible heat as well, not just kick up a little dust.

 

That isn't what you've been saying though. In the case of a Hellfire you were claiming that inert strikes can produce a flash of similar size and they can't. Therefore when a live Hellfire strike has the same-sized flash as in the video, it seems logical that a warhead of similar size went off.

 

Because YT doesn't have frame advance and that flash lasts far longer than 1 frame. You could easily look up those rocket failures on YT if you had intellectually invested yourself in a fundamentally flawed argument.

 

Of course there's no glow, the target is travelling at 30mph vs 600mph. The quality of the FLIR is similar though. You're also wrong though, the glow of the missile can be seen even though the motor has expired, hence my point on skin friction.

 

I do not know the amount of energy in a flare, but it is stored chemical energy, so the amount of energy could well be very large and it is purpose-built to emit large IR signature.

 

People argued a case for MANPADS earlier.

 

If you want to get from A-B fast you would use afterburners, but if loitering over a combat zone something would have to provoke their use.

 

That's still the blast happening in roughly the same spot but the aircraft continues away from that spot at ~600-700mph.

 

It's in the video if you look carefully, the bottom of the afterburner aura bulges slightly before the flash.

 

Proximity fuse triggered burst, just as the Dutch Aviation magazine source stated.

 

So what's your point? Afterburners are hot? Yes we know. On the same FLIR most fighter afterburner will be the same size relative to the aircraft for reasons already mentioned.

 

Sheesh. When you've mathematically proved someone wrong and they just keep going.

Due to your response being hard to decipher (since you don't quote what exactly what your replying to) and your Stuck-on-MANPADS-ness i am going to start with a fresh post to avoid any confusion.

Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger?

Also, do you believe a 2x1x8 Inch flare canister can put out 75% of the energy per sec as the afterburners?

As for the Aim-9X video, its inert, there is no question, a 9.36Kg warhead does not do what happened in the video.

(I have to leave now, i'll try and post the rest tomorrow)

I run through para by para, quicker that way.

The burners have have many orders of magnitude more energy than the KE of either a MANPADS or R-73 and are burning continuously, heating the air around them continuously.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3401607&postcount=257

Again, chemical energy, designed purely for putting out heat and IR emissions. It's a bit like asking if a tiny chaff or TRD can put out the same RCS as a 20m long aircraft.

I see no evidence, missile appeared to miss and I'm still waiting for an inert strike to produce a 20+m wide glow on FLIR of similar quality.

I will ask again:

Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger?

This is a very important question to answer for my to be able to understand your position!!!

I run through para by para, quicker that way.

Yeah its quicker, but it doesn't always seem to work out i.e:

12th paragraph on my post:

"By all means show us the evidence then.

See attached images, and interpolate missile position."

12th paragraph on your post:

"That's still the blast happening in roughly the same spot but the aircraft continues away from that spot at ~600-700mph."

that doesn't really make sense unless i am misunderstanding something.

The burners have have many orders of magnitude more energy than the KE of either a MANPADS or R-73 and are burning continuously, heating the air around them continuously.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3401607&postcount=257

Yeah but that same air is also leaving at 600MPH, so its not really much of a factor.

And as i have proven, all the KE that the missile dumps happens in one frame because the glow is past the stab in the next frame, therefore having nothing to dump KE with.

(by the way, to go frame by frame just put it on 0.25 speed and click play pause quickly)

Again, chemical energy, designed purely for putting out heat and IR emissions. It's a bit like asking if a tiny chaff or TRD can put out the same RCS as a 20m long aircraft.

Afterburners are chemical energy also so its a perfect comparison according to what you keep saying:

"...temperature itself is a measure of average molecule KE (so it does indeed all boil down to energy)"

I see no evidence, missile appeared to miss and I'm still waiting for an inert strike to produce a 20+m wide glow on FLIR of similar quality.

Look at the frame just before the hit, the missile is clearly on course to hit one of the stabs, and by the time the next frame was taken the blast had drifted due to the speed on the F-4.

You're even taking the claim seriously?

 

SA-2 is RF guided, so why would the aircraft eject flares? Secondly, SA-2s are freaking huge. They have a 440lb warhead and could take F-4s down from a burst 120m away. Neither the missile motor's signature nor the flash is even close in size to that required for an SA-2, which is 35ft long. There's no flying away if an SA-2 explodes that close to you. Also not the shape of the blast in the picture below, see how a trail continues in the direction of the missile's flight.

 

Just semi-sarcastically challenging him for a source.

Also, i am trying to stay semi-light-hearted, its not like whoever happens to be wrong in this gets burned at the stake or something.

The only 'evidence' needed here is the knowledge that this was an instrumented shot. The telemetry package in that missile is the reason why the video is available.

That package replaces the warhead. Period.

The only 'evidence' needed here is the knowledge that this was an instrumented shot. The telemetry package in that missile is the reason why the video is available.

That package replaces the warhead. Period.

Let's face it, there are a dozen instrumented shots and you picked just one because none of the others show anything like what you want. I still don't think that was a direct hit, nor do I think that little flash would be over 20m wide on FLIR. Equally, there are more direct impacts in the same videos that sown no spark or flash. the flash is also tiny.

Kolga - The order of magnitude comparison is clear, the KE available is tens of times too low to produce a flash bigger than the burners. Even if it were all perfectly converted to heat, which would involve the missile coming to a dead stop.

Yes it is a factor, hence why there is a trail after the afterburner plume. The air is also heated by travelling over the aircraft at 600-700mph beforehand.

Nope go back, the explosion happens for longer. See 0:46-0:47. Still of similar size to aircraft. Files attached. Probably continues longer if it wasn't off-shot. In the second shot it is longer than afterburner plume and a/c together and similar in shape to SA-2 explosion above (but smaller obviously). A kinetic strike produced a plume 50m long? Possibly even a MANPADS kinetic strike according to some. Come now. In the first shot it also eclipses the afterburner and a/c. It's quite possible this explosion is even happening in the foreground in front of a/c, making it look bigger, whilst also creating the illusion of a strike.

I do not know the energy content of a flare but I expect it is pretty high. Also see 3rd attachment, the diameter of flare on FLIR is ~1/3rd, as a cubed function, that makes it only 1/27th of volume of afterburner plume. Whereas explosion at ~2 times is 8 times bigger volume.

Perhaps there is a small charge to set off the missile in the event of a miss for safety reasons but I can't see any stab fragments and they appear to remain attached.

Let's face it, it was an instrumented shot without a warhead.

Let's face it, there are a dozen instrumented shots and you picked just one because none of the others show anything like what you want. I still don't think that was a direct hit, nor do I think that little flash would be over 20m wide on FLIR. Equally, there are more direct impacts in the same videos that sown no spark or flash. the flash is also tiny.

I WILL ASK AGAIN:

Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger?

(that would be wrong by the way)

Kolga - The order of magnitude comparison is clear, the KE available is tens of times too low to produce a flash bigger than the burners. Even if it were all perfectly converted to heat, which would involve the missile coming to a dead stop.

Umm, no, the KE is not dumped over 1 sec.

Yes it is a factor, hence why there is a trail after the afterburner plume. The air is also heated by travelling over the aircraft at 600-700mph beforehand.

So like 120 deg compared to like 3200 deg? Wow, thats serious preheating going on!!!

Nope go back, the explosion happens for longer. See 0:46-0:47. Still of similar size to aircraft. Files attached. Probably continues longer if it wasn't off-shot. In the second shot it is longer than afterburner plume and a/c together and similar in shape to SA-2 explosion above (but smaller obviously). A kinetic strike produced a plume 50m long? Possibly even a MANPADS kinetic strike according to some. Come now. In the first shot it also eclipses the afterburner and a/c. It's quite possible this explosion is even happening in the foreground in front of a/c, making it look bigger, whilst also creating the illusion of a strike.

An explosion gets bigger as it happens, not smaller.

Also, looking at it again i noticed the blast (probably the rocket motor exploding) stays in roughly the same spot whereas it looks like the missile and debris continue, indicating an inert hit.

I do not know the energy content of a flare but I expect it is pretty high. Also see 3rd attachment, the diameter of flare on FLIR is ~1/3rd, as a cubed function, that makes it only 1/27th of volume of afterburner plume. Whereas explosion at ~2 times is 8 times bigger volume.

Umm, no, the flare glow is about 50 pixels tall and the burners are about 65 (granted they are longer) i don't know about you but that does not look like 1/3.

Also, there is no slight bulge and no evidence of a third flare.

Perhaps there is a small charge to set off the missile in the event of a miss for safety reasons but I can't see any stab fragments and they appear to remain attached.

I don't think so, can't find anything to suggest that.

Something to think about is that the missile glow before is hits is about 45 pixels high, meaning that the rocket motor is putting out a fair bit of heat per second when controlled, meaning the amount of heat produced by an explosion of the motor would be pretty impressive.

Let's face it, it was an instrumented shot without a warhead.

Test shots require some indicative way of testing the proximity fuse.

I WILL ASK AGAIN:

 

Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger?

 

 

(that would be wrong by the way)

 

 

 

Umm, no, the KE is not dumped over 1 sec.

 

 

 

So like 120 deg compared to like 3200 deg? Wow, thats serious preheating going on!!!

 

 

 

An explosion gets bigger as it happens, not smaller.

 

Also, looking at it again i noticed the blast (probably the rocket motor exploding) stays in roughly the same spot whereas it looks like the missile and debris continue, indicating an inert hit.

 

 

 

Umm, no, the flare glow is about 50 pixels tall and the burners are about 65 (granted they are longer) i don't know about you but that does not look like 1/3.

 

Also, there is no slight bulge and no evidence of a third flare.

 

 

 

 

I don't think so, can't find anything to suggest that.

 

 

Something to think about is that the missile glow before is hits is about 45 pixels high, meaning that the rocket motor is putting out a fair bit of heat per second when controlled, meaning the amount of heat produced by an explosion of the motor would be pretty impressive.

There is no KE with 90% of the energy of the burners, so it's a false question.

Well the movement hasn't stopped even after one second, and a 50m long plume can be seen.

Quite possibly more than that.

Yes, an explosion does, not a KE impact.

Nope, the shape of the explosion mirrors the SA-2 photo.

Looks like a third to me and definitely less than a half. It would also be good if you could find a BTU/lb figure for the flares.

I saw a bulge and I doubt the plane was just pleased to see it.

They would need a way of verifying the proximity fuse if you think about it. Can't test that with no warhead, so maybe they used a small warhead.

Depends how much fuel you think an R-73 has. AIM-9s only burn for around 5s. Missile failures also tend to be more erratic in shape.

Test shots require some indicative way of testing the proximity fuse.

Sure, the fuze functions and sends the fire signal. Instrumentation measures the miss distance and all of this data is sent out by the telemetry package. No need for a warhead.

There is no KE with 90% of the energy of the burners, so it's a false question.

What the heck? I said if there were hypothetically an explosion at the afterburners with 90% of the energy of the burners, do you think it would be invisible?

Well the movement hasn't stopped even after one second, and a 50m long plume can be seen.

What i was saying is that if it was a kinetic strike all the energy that was dump would have to be dumped at that one frame. Just like when a bullet goes though something it can only dump energy as its traveling through the object, even if it continues after.

Quite possibly more than that.

Did a quick calc and found 170 deg f with an ambient temp of 95 deg f and a speed of 650 MPH TAS

So, i was off by 50 deg and my point still stands.

Yes, an explosion does, not a KE impact.

Actually a kinetic impact does also.

Nope, the shape of the explosion mirrors the SA-2 photo.

 

IMG

Yeah, it could indicate either way.

Looks like a third to me and definitely less than a half. It would also be good if you could find a BTU/lb figure for the flares.

Yeah maybe, when i have some time i will try and see if i can get an exact measurement.

I have been looking for a BTU/lb and haven't been able to find anything yet...

I saw a bulge and I doubt the plane was just pleased to see it.

????? It was pleased to see what? (!)

Can you provide some sort of evidence for the bulge?

They would need a way of verifying the proximity fuse if you think about it. Can't test that with no warhead, so maybe they used a small warhead.

I think it has been established that there is no warhead on telemetry missiles.

Depends how much fuel you think an R-73 has. AIM-9s only burn for around 5s. Missile failures also tend to be more erratic in shape.

Guess i will have to ask again, can you please provide something to back up your claim regarding rocket failures, i have not been able to find anything.

Sure, the fuze functions and sends the fire signal. Instrumentation measures the miss distance and all of this data is sent out by the telemetry package. No need for a warhead.

Wouldn't give a clear indication of where the missile was relative to a/c at the time. Proximity measurement could be wrong. Besides, the flash is brief and trivial compared to that in the OP video.

What the heck? I said if there were hypothetically an explosion at the afterburners with 90% of the energy of the burners, do you think it would be invisible?

 

 

 

*What i was saying is that if it was a kinetic strike all the energy that was dump would have to be dumped at that one frame. Just like when a bullet goes though something it can only dump energy as its traveling through the object, even if it continues after.

 

 

 

Did a quick calc and found 170 deg f with an ambient temp of 95 deg f and a speed of 650 MPH TAS

 

So, i was off by 50 deg and my point still stands.

 

 

 

Actually a kinetic impact does also.

 

 

 

Yeah, it could indicate either way.

 

 

 

Yeah maybe, when i have some time i will try and see if i can get an exact measurement.

I have been looking for a BTU/lb and haven't been able to find anything yet...

 

 

 

????? It was pleased to see what? (!)

 

Can you provide some sort of evidence for the bulge?

 

 

 

I think it has been established that there is no warhead on telemetry missiles.

 

 

 

 

Guess i will have to ask again, can you please provide something to back up your claim regarding rocket failures, i have not been able to find anything.

There isn't though, so it's irrelevant. It's like asking, "what if the sun was in the shot." It wasn't, the end.

Technically a bullet is dumping KE from the moment it leaves the barrel. After it hits a human a rifle bullet will spin and dump KE rapidly thereafter. The explosion visibly continues upwards in the video, so it is still dumping KE. I.e. there was no sudden dump of all KE. But you are right, a KE dump would be very short, and would not take place over several seconds like in the video, or get bigger and crucially, the missile would stop, or at least see a massive reduction in upwards momentum, which isn't apparent in the video, not nearly, the a/c and missile explosion continue at roughly the same speed and in the same direction.

Now calculate the temperature a KE missile strike would generate and the area it would be confined to. A larger surface area or volume takes more heat energy to raise the temperature by X degrees. You could probably do a calc to determine the force required to overcome drag and then multiply by distance per second to work out the energy involved to overcome air resistance.

Nope, a KE impact transfers energy only for a short period. *You even said this yourself only 2 paragraphs above. You are now effectively arguing with yourself even.

Not really, it's pretty clear.

It's there just before impact, very subtle.

You can't visibly see if the missile is close enough to target with telemetry, due to potential for faults. The flash is also very small, not much bigger than a/c rudder in diameter, order of magnitude smaller than huge explosion in video, which grows to 50m after a second.

There isn't though, so it's irrelevant. It's like asking, "what if the sun was in the shot." It wasn't, the end.

The reason it matters is because you said you think the flash is not a combination of both the burners and the strike, so i am asking you if you think something has to be over 100% of the burners to be visible.

Technically a bullet is dumping KE from the moment it leaves the barrel. After it hits a human a rifle bullet will spin and dump KE rapidly thereafter. The explosion visibly continues upwards in the video, so it is still dumping KE. I.e. there was no sudden dump of all KE. But you are right, a KE dump would be very short, and would not take place over several seconds like in the video, or get bigger and crucially, the missile would stop, or at least see a massive reduction in upwards momentum, which isn't apparent in the video, not nearly, the a/c and missile explosion continue at roughly the same speed and in the same direction.

Yes, I know about terminal ballistics, what i meant was the bullet can only dump large amounts of KE when in contact with the target.

"or get bigger" what???

The explosion does not continue upwards, the debris does.

Yes, roughly the same speed, but i think most of the flash would come from the motor exploding anyway.

Now calculate the temperature a KE missile strike would generate and the area it would be confined to. A larger surface area or volume takes more heat energy to raise the temperature by X degrees. You could probably do a calc to determine the force required to overcome drag and then multiply by distance per second to work out the energy involved to overcome air resistance.

You are forgetting a very important component, the motor.

Nope, a KE impact transfers energy only for a short period. *You even said this yourself only 2 paragraphs above. You are now effectively arguing with yourself even.

All i said was an explosion and a kinetic strike both get bigger as they happen, not after, not before, which is true. The end.

Not really, it's pretty clear.

Not really, its not :megalol:

(We could go on like this for a while...)

It's there just before impact, very subtle.

Nope, like, seriously nope. Prove it.

You can't visibly see if the missile is close enough to target with telemetry, due to potential for faults. The flash is also very small, not much bigger than a/c rudder in diameter, order of magnitude smaller than huge explosion in video, which grows to 50m after a second.

I believe GG has actual reason to believe what he said about telemetry missiles, as in not guessing.

Its normal video, do the afterburners look bigger than the a/c in normal video? No.

Ok, so i have done some measuring:

The burners are about 5,324 px

The flare is about 3,660 px

so that makes it about 68% of the burners.

The flash is 22,743 px

The burners + the missile in the frame just before the flash are 7,672 px ( interesting how that works out, because if you add them up apart you get about 7,876, so within margin of error)

The missile by itself is 2,552 px

So if there were 1 second of rocket motor left, and it was burned in 1 frame it would produce a flash roughly 61,248 px big.

The flash is not a combination of the burners with something, it is a far bigger separate explosion that grows for over a second and stretches to over 50m in length.

So why is it not over in an instant then? Clearly not a kinetic impact.

The explosion does indeed continue upwards, the images attached earlier show it. The explosion plume grows to over 50m.

So make up your mind, is it a kinetic strike, or an exploding rocket motor that somehow blew up so readily as if a warhead had gone off, whilst the warhead itself failed?

The sudden flash at the beginning is not indicative of a rocket motor catching fire and see above point. You're clutching at straws here, the more reliable explanation is that it was a warhead.

No, a kinetic strike would give off heat energy instantly and the amount given up here is not large enough to cause such a flash.

The shape of the explosion is exactly the same.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3409697&postcount=288

Yes, it is. Very slight bulge in the burner plume.

So do I, as in not guessing.

The flash is pathetically small, not even rudder size.

Your measurements are wrong and you're failing to understand that it's a volume, cubic dimension, not a linear one. So even 60% diameter would be ~20% volume.

Err, no, and the explosion plume clearly does not last for just one frame. Try again. Plus, rocket motors do not give a sudden 50m wide flash like that.

Equally, my explanation does not rely on suddenly exploding rocket motors despite failed warheads, or extremely low flying aircraft, or incredible long range MANPADS... or other such concoctions established to evade the probable.:lol:

And to be honest, this whole thing started on whether it could be a MANPADS or not, but now that's been made look completely ridiculous, the conversation has diverged onto a strawman topic which arose during that debate, i.e. the kinetic strike theory, which is in fact an admission that the MANPADS strike argument has been dropped.

Then we examined the kinetic energy flash theory, which was proven mathematically false, so then we moved onto the kinetic strike plus immediately exploding rocket motor theory...

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?

Correction: The whole debate started with you Emu claiming the video was fake.

Since that notion was debunked the thread has devolved into a myriad of theories from your side as to what missile did it. Then you claimed that it exploded, eventhough all evidence available contradicts this. For some reason you then got stuck on disproving it could've been manpads, and then went as far as pretty much flat out stating that it was an R-73 period.

Meanwhile the rest of us are just sitting back watching the thread in disbelief at how far you've been able to drag this on...

(i.e. air-launched R-73)

made me spill my afternoon coffee....

And to be honest, this whole thing started on whether it could be a MANPADS or not, but now that's been made look completely ridiculous, the conversation has diverged onto a strawman topic which arose during that debate, i.e. the kinetic strike theory, which is in fact an admission that the MANPADS strike argument has been dropped.

 

Then we examined the kinetic energy flash theory, which was proven mathematically false, so then we moved onto the kinetic strike plus immediately exploding rocket motor theory...

 

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?

Wow, this is literally the last thing i expected you to say in this thread.

Lets take i little stroll down memory lane, shall we?

My third post in this thread:

...The flash was probably what was left of the rocket motor burning off.

You brought up KE, not me.

Now for your roller coaster:

Not as such, but the warhead was clearly very small, in fact so small it looks more like a test with an inert warhead and perhaps there's a clue in that....

I'm implying that the strike, with a largely inert warhead, on a non-manoeuvring aircraft that is being tracked by something other than the missile launch vehicle, has all the hallmarks of a test and not live combat....

...Nah, looked more like the AIM-9X tests with inert warheads. Plane appears to continue unaffected....

...Because my Spidey senses and every bone in my body tells me that this video is BS, plus the Yemeni rebels have a history of fictitious claims dating back to the Saudi F-16 shoot down in 2015....

So it's now supposed to have been an R-73 fired A2A, which makes far more sense.

 

https://twitter.com/statuses/950828901470752769

 

https://twitter.com/statuses/950828758025560065

Wrong.

 

This is a Beagle.

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

 

 

...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....

Wrong.

 

This is a Beagle.

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

 

 

...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....

And then on to your current position.

You asked for it.

My position has not changed since i started posting in this thread.

The flash is not a combination of the burners with something, it is a far bigger separate explosion that grows for over a second and stretches to over 50m in length.

It is actually, the burners by themselves are about 5324 px and when the missile is converged with the burners they are about 7672 px, so there is a definite combining effect.

So why is it not over in an instant then? Clearly not a kinetic impact.

All the heat is created in an instant and then lingers for a while after i.e. the smoke from the motor exploding and debris. If its clear why did it take you so long to decide it was a warhead detonation?

The explosion does indeed continue upwards, the images attached earlier show it. The explosion plume grows to over 50m.

Nope. The aircraft travels directly away from it, the angle is deceiving.

So make up your mind, is it a kinetic strike, or an exploding rocket motor that somehow blew up so readily as if a warhead had gone off, whilst the warhead itself failed?

I have never "made up my mind" like you, i have been discussing the evidence to try and find the truth about what happened.

And actually my third post on this thread was about the motor exploding so ha!

The sudden flash at the beginning is not indicative of a rocket motor catching fire and see above point. You're clutching at straws here, the more reliable explanation is that it was a warhead.

Until you can show me the myriad of videos you keep claiming exist about slow gentle rocket motor failures your point is null.

No, a kinetic strike would give off heat energy instantly and the amount given up here is not large enough to cause such a flash.

Ya know what? Heat doesn't just disappear after its created.

And your forgetting the motor.

The shape of the explosion is exactly the same.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3409697&postcount=288

Yeah pretty similar, but as you would say "But thats not FLIR!"

Yes, it is. Very slight bulge in the burner plume.

Where, show me. The missile glow is obscuring the entire rear underside of the A/C so there is no way you could see it anyway.

So do I, as in not guessing.

Care to share?

The flash is pathetically small, not even rudder size.

And last i checked afterburners are not 20m by 30m large.

Your measurements are wrong and you're failing to understand that it's a volume, cubic dimension, not a linear one. So even 60% diameter would be ~20% volume.

Guess what, you are looking at area measurements, not linear. What you failed to understand is that 5324 px is an extremely large linear dimension for that low of resolution.

Err, no, and the explosion plume clearly does not last for just one frame. Try again. Plus, rocket motors do not give a sudden 50m wide flash like that.

Oh, so we are talking about plumes now? Who in the heck would expect a plume to last less than 1 second let alone a frame? :megalol:

Equally, my explanation does not rely on suddenly exploding rocket motors despite failed warheads, or extremely low flying aircraft, or incredible long range MANPADS... or other such concoctions established to evade the probable.:lol:

My explanation does not rely on trusting a random Dutch journalist opposed to the contractor doing the repair.

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.

It is actually, the burners by themselves are about 5324 px and when the missile is converged with the burners they are about 7672 px, so there is a definite combining effect.

 

 

 

All the heat is created in an instant and then lingers for a while after i.e. the smoke from the motor exploding and debris. If its clear why did it take you so long to decide it was a warhead detonation?

 

 

 

Nope. The aircraft travels directly away from it, the angle is deceiving.

 

 

 

I have never "made up my mind" like you, i have been discussing the evidence to try and find the truth about what happened.

 

 

And actually my third post on this thread was about the motor exploding so ha!

 

 

 

Until you can show me the myriad of videos you keep claiming exist about slow gentle rocket motor failures your point is null.

 

 

 

Ya know what? Heat doesn't just disappear after its created.

 

And your forgetting the motor.

 

 

 

Yeah pretty similar, but as you would say "But thats not FLIR!"

 

 

 

Where, show me. The missile glow is obscuring the entire rear underside of the A/C so there is no way you could see it anyway.

 

 

 

Care to share?

 

 

 

And last i checked afterburners are not 20m by 30m large.

 

 

 

Guess what, you are looking at area measurements, not linear. What you failed to understand is that 5324 px is an extremely large linear dimension for that low of resolution.

 

 

 

Oh, so we are talking about plumes now? Who in the heck would expect a plume to last less than 1 second let alone a frame? :megalol:

 

 

 

My explanation does not rely on trusting a random Dutch journalist opposed to the contractor doing the repair.

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

Missile then gets lost in burner plume.

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

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

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:

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:

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

So you have insufficient KE, even if it were expended immediately, and the rocket fuel does not all burn immediately as evidenced by duration (nor is it chemically designed to). The missile is also unlikely to have more than 33lbs of rocket fuel left (especially if MANPADS, which doesn't even weigh 33lbs total), and rocket fuel has less than half BTU/lb of jet fuel, even if it did. So we are once again back to a warhead to fill the energy gap, create a sudden and huge flash and scatter missile debris and burning fuel over such a huge area.

You mean a mechanic/grease monkey?