Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

Well there goes the debate about the possibility of A2A weapons being used as SAM's.

The R-77 variant is the R-77-PD ZRK / RVV-AE-ZRK - RVV-(PD-)ZRK Surface-to-air.

Yesterday was shot down another F-15 in Yemen, using a ground based R-27T, if it's in range KAPUT!

 

I18v1vkNAKc [/url]

Pfft, that's totally fake....

Disclaimer: Sarcasm may appear in above comment.

Janes 360 cite SA Military that the F-15 pilot was able to extinguish the fire and returned to base.

http://www.janes.com/article/78774/saudi-arabia-says-f-15-survived-sam-hit-over-yemen

Don't know exactly TBH. Who is going against probability? You, all the way.

Since when were cameras pointing at the sky in midday over exposed?

Very important question: roughly how big is the small testing warhead you keep talking about?

Not really. It's not invulnerable to missiles, but most missiles explode and those that don't do not tend to break or explode in a sudden flash the size of a live warhead, as all evidence shows.

I am just saying getting hit by a missile at all in any aircraft is an extremely low probability event.

They informed you wrong. If a missile has enough energy left and it's guiding correctly, it won't miss. Not being able to turn fast enough only occurs when its ran out of energy. The missile in that video was probably intended to test the proximity fuse burst.

I think Mfezi explained this better than i ever could.

You were wrong about the missile never targeting the fuselage BTW, but i guess you just think ignore it and it will go away. ;)

The missile isn't visible before of after in the clip with the flash. And why would it produce a flash when hitting a thin stab (that the inset clearly shows it missing anyway) and not when smashing through a fuselage full of jet fuel? So your evidence of an inert missile strike flash is a clip where there is no strike.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3425719&postcount=353

That is just plain wrong, the missile is clearly visible before and after the flash. Here is the picture:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3426840&postcount=355

I will not recover ground that has already been covered, it's inefficient.

I am sure you know its basically impossible for me to prove my side because if i go back and look you will just say i didn't look hard enough.

The warhead explodes immediately, setting fire to the remaining fuel that burns more slowly. That is how missiles explode.

How does the fuel survive the explosion?

An inert strike with a flash in FLIR would not be classified unless it's rated by the same idiots who stamp ITAR. Of all the unclassified inert strikes on FLIR out there, there's not one that supports your case, yet live warhead strikes support my case. Do you never consider that maybe you should accept that you're probably wrong until you can prove otherwise.

Well then, where are all those inert strikes on FLIR you speak about?

If they are not classified why don't you post some videos of your own?

The video is faked remember but that doesn't mean a contractor is always right either.

If your initial position was not to trust the video why did you trust a journalist and a fake video over the contractor?

I see several FLIR videos showing a similar size warhead making a similar-sized flash, which leads me to believe I'm probably right.

I see wild variation in blast size in normal video, and very different handling of flashes in FLIR.

How do you know they weren't? And the burning is still nowhere near as fast. All very slow-burning by comparison:

Probability would dictate testing being done without warhead wouldn't it? or do you just go with probability when it fits.

Look at the difference between the first (no warhead) and the second (with warhead). The first is a big flash and burn, the second goes crazy blows dirt and crap everywhere.

Remember, a lot of them are in slow motion.

I've shown you multiple ones which approximately match the size. And they also show the normal video to FLIR video size contrast and it doesn't go from 2-3m wide to 50+m wide.

Get out the measuring tape and bring me back some actual data.

Also, there is no glow in that video, so its nowhere near being a comparison.

Unless the guy who's had the car for much longer than you've seen it, doesn't know it as well as you do? You really do like low probability odds don't you.

He just got it before trying to sell it.

You do realize this analogy is about the video being fake don't you? I was just continuing it for fun because it has gotten so far from the beginning.

Like an Iraqi MiG-29 creeping up on an F-18. The flare is probable because it exploded in OP video (which is probably false) and a direct hit does more damage.

And that has happened like what, once? Wow, super high probability FTW!!!!!

The original topic was the video, and my initial position was that it was fake.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIz5-v3JWU

Yep, but my position has been derived from what the contractor said since i started posting.

If I read you correctly, you are claiming that if a missile needs to turn through a very small radius while at speed (i.e. it has not run out of energy - maybe the motor is still even burning), it will be able to make that turn regardless of the radius? So, let's say for example we have a missile that was launched just prior to a head-on cross so it leaves the rail at 300 m/s (Mach 1) and has to complete a 180 degrees, let's say 100 m radius turn to track the target. This equates to a centripetal acceleration requirement of 900 m/s^2 or about 92g, which has to be maintained for a full 180 degrees. You are claiming that this is not really a problem and not only will the missile make the turn, but it will also hit the target dead centre? How about a smaller radius (50m, for example) or tracking a maneuvering target once the missile is up to its maximum speed (let's say 700+ m/s depending on what kind of missile we are talking about)? Are you saying there is no physical limit, or just that it is negligible?

 

From what you wrote, you also appear to suggest that modern missiles:

a) have a 100% Pk for any shot taken within range, regardless of relative aspect on launch (of course, assuming it is guiding and no failure occurs) and

b) Not only is the Pk 100%, but it will hit exactly where it is intended to. In other words, you are saying it will have a zero miss distance, implying both the guidance error and the navigation error will always be exactly zero at impact, resulting in a mean miss distance of zero with a CEP (or MRE or whichever statistical accuracy metric you prefer) also of zero or, at least, an extremely small number.

 

So, all those graphs you have seen over the years (you claim you worked on Meteor) showing different CEP values based on relative launch aircraft and target aspects through the launch envelope can now be dispensed with. In fact, based on what you wrote, the CEP values for the areas inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope should not only reduce to zero or very close to zero, but you also appear to suggest that the boundary of those graphs that are usually specifically defined by the manoeuvering capability of the missile can also be removed?

 

Or, maybe what you wrote is not really what you meant?

This! +1!

Janes 360 cite SA Military that the F-15 pilot was able to extinguish the fire and returned to base.

 

http://www.janes.com/article/78774/saudi-arabia-says-f-15-survived-sam-hit-over-yemen

Interesting, Guess that confirms that its not the OP since it happened yesterday.

Yesterday was shot down another F-15 in Yemen, using a ground based R-27T, if it's in range KAPUT!

 

I18v1vkNAKc [/url]

Guess that proves F-15's never fly below 30,000 ft!

Since when were cameras pointing at the sky in midday over exposed?

 

Very important question: roughly how big is the small testing warhead you keep talking about?

 

 

 

I am just saying getting hit by a missile at all in any aircraft is an extremely low probability event.

 

 

 

I think Mfezi explained this better than i ever could.

 

 

You were wrong about the missile never targeting the fuselage BTW, but i guess you just think ignore it and it will go away. ;)

 

 

 

That is just plain wrong, the missile is clearly visible before and after the flash. Here is the picture:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3426840&postcount=355

 

 

 

I am sure you know its basically impossible for me to prove my side because if i go back and look you will just say i didn't look hard enough.

 

 

 

How does the fuel survive the explosion?

 

 

 

Well then, where are all those inert strikes on FLIR you speak about?

If they are not classified why don't you post some videos of your own?

 

 

 

If your initial position was not to trust the video why did you trust a journalist and a fake video over the contractor?

 

 

 

I see wild variation in blast size in normal video, and very different handling of flashes in FLIR.

 

 

 

Probability would dictate testing being done without warhead wouldn't it? or do you just go with probability when it fits.

 

 

Look at the difference between the first (no warhead) and the second (with warhead). The first is a big flash and burn, the second goes crazy blows dirt and crap everywhere.

 

Remember, a lot of them are in slow motion.

 

 

 

Get out the measuring tape and bring me back some actual data.

 

Also, there is no glow in that video, so its nowhere near being a comparison.

 

 

 

He just got it before trying to sell it.

 

You do realize this analogy is about the video being fake don't you? I was just continuing it for fun because it has gotten so far from the beginning.

 

 

 

And that has happened like what, once? Wow, super high probability FTW!!!!!

 

 

 

Yep, but my position has been derived from what the contractor said since i started posting.

Since they gave blurry images.

Told you, I don't know exactly, I only know they use one.

But getting hit by a missile thats warhead doesn't explode but somehow manages to break up and explode anyway is an unlikely version of a low probability event.

It was me who said the missile always targets the fuselage when operating correctly.

That is the rocket exhaust not the missile and the inset shows it is on a course to miss.

You have no case.

It doesn't 'survive' the explosion but it burns more slowly, like the petrol tank of a terrorist's Toyota pickup after being hit by a 30mm HE round.

There are lots of inert brimstone strikes, on FLIR and none produce a flash. See at 40s.

You see what you want to see clearly.

All terrible sources of information really but they were the best we had.

Not necessarily in a World War setting. A huge rocket is going to set fire to anything near it even without a warhead.

None produce a sudden brief flash.

Measuring tape? You can see the size of the vehicles and the size of the flash.

Bring me back a video of an inert SRAAM strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash, or anywhere close. I've shown similar sized warheads making flashes of similar magnitude, so it seems your argument is beaten until you can provide some evidence.

And I'm sure professional car dealerships just randomly acquire cars they know nothing about and try to sell them.

Yeah, it happened once against the most advanced combined air force, with the best surveillance ever seen and against a USN pilot, which is about as good as they get.

Since we lack the actual video, nobody really knows what happened.

Pfft, that's totally fake....

 

Disclaimer: Sarcasm may appear in above comment.

You sure it's not a MANPADS there boss? And oh look, the motor of that big ass R-27 has even burned out before reaching the target.

If I read you correctly, you are claiming that if a missile needs to turn through a very small radius while at speed (i.e. it has not run out of energy - maybe the motor is still even burning), it will be able to make that turn regardless of the radius? So, let's say for example we have a missile that was launched just prior to a head-on cross so it leaves the rail at 300 m/s (Mach 1) and has to complete a 180 degrees, let's say 100 m radius turn to track the target. This equates to a centripetal acceleration requirement of 900 m/s^2 or about 92g, which has to be maintained for a full 180 degrees. You are claiming that this is not really a problem and not only will the missile make the turn, but it will also hit the target dead centre? How about a smaller radius (50m, for example) or tracking a maneuvering target once the missile is up to its maximum speed (let's say 700+ m/s depending on what kind of missile we are talking about)? Are you saying there is no physical limit, or just that it is negligible?

 

From what you wrote, you also appear to suggest that modern missiles:

a) have a 100% Pk for any shot taken within range, regardless of relative aspect on launch (of course, assuming it is guiding and no failure occurs) and

b) Not only is the Pk 100%, but it will hit exactly where it is intended to. In other words, you are saying it will have a zero miss distance, implying both the guidance error and the navigation error will always be exactly zero at impact, resulting in a mean miss distance of zero with a CEP (or MRE or whichever statistical accuracy metric you prefer) also of zero or, at least, an extremely small number.

 

So, all those graphs you have seen over the years (you claim you worked on Meteor) showing different CEP values based on relative launch aircraft and target aspects through the launch envelope can now be dispensed with. In fact, based on what you wrote, the CEP values for the areas inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope should not only reduce to zero or very close to zero, but you also appear to suggest that the boundary of those graphs that are usually specifically defined by the manoeuvering capability of the missile can also be removed?

 

Or, maybe what you wrote is not really what you meant?

You're creating an entirely fake set of events. The missile in question is already pointed at the target in question. It is my assertion that from that point, the missile can't be lost by fierce manoeuvring so long as it has sufficient energy left. Or put more simply, the aircraft cannot out-turn a fully energised missile, it can only hope to bleed its energy. The Meteor is a weird one because it remains fully energised throughout its flight in most situations. Now back to the clip in question, the AIM-9X rocket motor is still burning, hence fully energised, therefore the F-4 cannot simply lose it. The error won't be exactly zero, that's rarely possible due to the nature of drive signals to actuators and control lag, but it will be small, sufficiently small to still hit the fuselage and not be aiming at the jet exhaust behind the a/c, unless that is the intention of the test, which is probably the case.

All you've really said is that it you launch a missile outside launch parameters it won't hit. Well who knew?

All you've really said is that it you launch a missile outside launch parameters it won't hit. Well who knew?

I said no such thing. Read my post again.

Guess that proves F-15's never fly below 30,000 ft!

Has the rocket motor burned out, yes or no?

Is it fair to say that an R-27 rocket motor burns for longer than a MANPADS rocket motor, yes or no?

Altitude? That intercept takes a full 17s. Go look at the speed of an R-27 and note the fact it's mostly going up during the flight. Can you be sure it's not at 30,000ft, or at least 20,000ft?

I said no such thing. Read my post again.

Err yeah, you did. You said if you fire a missile in a set of circumstances where it has to pull 92g off the rails to succeed, it will fail. I'm sorely tempted to quote Ace Ventura at this point.

You've already put the aircraft in an unreachable place before the intercept has even begun. No different to putting it 500 miles away really. My case was that if the missile is tracking the target after an in-parameters launch, as per the clip, there is no out-turning it unless it runs out of energy, or fails, is decoyed/jammed etc.

Err yeah, you did. You said if you fire a missile in a set of circumstances where it has to pull 92g off the rails to succeed, it will fail. I'm sorely tempted to quote Ace Ventura at this point.

 

You've already put the aircraft in an unreachable place before the intercept has even begun. No different to putting it 500 miles away really. My case was that if the missile is tracking the target after an in-parameters launch, as per the clip, there is no out-turning it unless it runs out of energy, or fails, is decoyed/jammed etc.

OK, I'll give it to you that you are right and that, specifically, the first part of my post did not deal with a launch inside the kinematically feasible envelope.

However, I should point out there is a big difference in the reason why it cannot hit the target between what I described in the first part of my post and your 500 mile example: When 500 miles away it doesn't have the energy to reach the target. What I described was a maneuvering limitation, not an energy limitation. Trying to make such a turn will also eat up energy but the reason the turn cannot be made is due to additional factors, such as maximum achievable normal force (usually a function of the missile shape, its wings and other lift producing surfaces such as strakes), its ability to produce a pitching moment (control surfaces and thrust vectoring) and of course the ability of the tracking head to maintain the target within its field of view throughout the maneuver. In my example, the missile would attempt the turn, miss the target, but still have enough energy left to continue flying for a significant distance after it missed the target.

I completely disagree with your "case" as you put it: If the missile is tracking and the launch was in parameters it definitely does not guarantee a hit. How can you even claim that? Missile engagement envelopes (I'm not talking about what is shown in the aircraft system - I mean the detailed envelopes usually carefully defined during development via a combination of testing and Monte Carlo analysis) look different for a non-maneuvering target than for a maneuvering target. The target may initially not be maneuvering, placing it well inside the non-maneuvering target envelope when the missile is fired. However, if the target maneuvers after launch, the envelope changes and then the missile may or may not hit the target. It can miss because it doesn't have the energy to get to the target once the target starts maneuvering, it can miss because the missile cannot generate enough load factor to make the turn even though it has more than enough energy to keep going long after it passed the target, or it can miss due to the inherent accuracy of the missile in that particular set of conditions.

This last point deals with the second part of my original post and which was the part I wanted you to read again. There I talked about the finite CEP's INSIDE the kinematically feasible launch envelope. The graphs that show those variations, which you must have seen before if you have worked with real world missile testing, imply that no missile has perfect accuracy. Typically, the more it has to maneuver the less accurate it becomes and the larger the CEP. When launched inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope the missile by definition has both the energy and the maneuvering ability to hit the target, but it never has perfect accuracy and a number of factors cause that accuracy to degrade. For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air. That is about as close to perfect accuracy as you will get, but it still will not hit exactly on the desired point of impact (DPI) every time. And although it may have that small a CEP for that simplest of geometries, even the most modern and maneuverable missiles can have CEPs with a radius larger than the principle dimensions of the target when they are expected to maneuver significantly, implying that it can very well miss the target even though it is fully capable of both tracking it and reaching it kinematically, which of course is the reason why they are fitted with proximity fuses. The AIM-9X in that video had to maneuver significantly in order to hit the target, so it definitely was not the optimal launch trajectory by any means. That it hit the target was impressive, but there is no reason to believe it hit the target exactly on the DPI. If it did, it would have been a fluke.

And as a postscript, I am well aware that not all manufacturers use CEP or only CEP to define accuracy: Mean miss distances, mean radial error (MRE), individually stated range error probable (REP) and deflection error probable (DEP), range and deflection bias and various other measures that statistically describe the accuracy of the weapon relative to the DPI are used. The point is that a missile is yet to be constructed that will hit the center of the target or whatever might define the DPI perfectly every time, even when the conditions are optimal.

Has the rocket motor burned out, yes or no?

 

Is it fair to say that an R-27 rocket motor burns for longer than a MANPADS rocket motor, yes or no?

 

Altitude? That intercept takes a full 17s. Go look at the speed of an R-27 and note the fact it's mostly going up during the flight. Can you be sure it's not at 30,000ft, or at least 20,000ft?

If it was above 30k', you would not see the flames coming from it nearly that easily. The jet in the new video is likely between 10-20k'.

Since they gave blurry images.

Do you know what over exposed means? It has very little to do with blurry-ness.

Told you, I don't know exactly, I only know they use one.

Oh, sorry, i thought you were talking about the camera when you said that.

It would be interesting to know roughly how big you think they are though.

But getting hit by a missile thats warhead doesn't explode but somehow manages to break up and explode anyway is an unlikely version of a low probability event.

Yep, a journalist being right instead of the contractor doing the repair.

It was me who said the missile always targets the fuselage when operating correctly.

Why are you making me recover ground that has already been covered?

You said this:

... That missile never even tried to go for CoM...

And i showed you this (proving my point):

That is the rocket exhaust not the missile and the inset shows it is on a course to miss.

Yep, and you can see something similar after the intercept.

You have no case.

So are you saying that if i go back and look and return with "you never said that, i checked" you will believe me?

It doesn't 'survive' the explosion but it burns more slowly, like the petrol tank of a terrorist's Toyota pickup after being hit by a 30mm HE round.

What about after getting hit with a hellfire? 30mm is a really bad cherry picked example.

There are lots of inert brimstone strikes, on FLIR and none produce a flash. See at 40s.

Nice try, but not nice enough.

1. The hit is not even on FLIR in that video, the truck is near a van when it is hit.

2. The missile isn't even burning at impact.

So where is all the proof of your testing experience if its not classified?

You see what you want to see clearly.

As do you my friend.

All terrible sources of information really but they were the best we had.

But why did you chose the worst sources over the better one?

Not necessarily in a World War setting. A huge rocket is going to set fire to anything near it even without a warhead.

Look at the difference between the first and the second v2's.

None produce a sudden brief flash.

Quite a few do. look at 21:18

Measuring tape? You can see the size of the vehicles and the size of the flash.

I meant that figuratively, get some image processing software and measure. Then come back and state your findings.

Also, it seems more likely that it was an R-27t based on the new video of the second f-15 hit. The R-27 has a 39 kg warhead.

There were no real credible sources for the R-73.

Bring me back a video of an inert SRAAM strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash, or anywhere close. I've shown similar sized warheads making flashes of similar magnitude, so it seems your argument is beaten until you can provide some evidence.

Show me a video with the a hellfire or brimstone flash glowing like heck way bigger than its actual blast size and than we'll talk.

And I'm sure professional car dealerships just randomly acquire cars they know nothing about and try to sell them.

We are talking about a shady used car dealership.

Yeah, it happened once against the most advanced combined air force, with the best surveillance ever seen and against a USN pilot, which is about as good as they get.

That doesn't help your probability much, its still much more likely that it was a sam.

Since we lack the actual video, nobody really knows what happened.

Nobody here knows.

You sure it's not a MANPADS there boss? And oh look, the motor of that big ass R-27 has even burned out before reaching the target.

Yeah, implying that the op was much lower.

Err yeah, you did. You said if you fire a missile in a set of circumstances where it has to pull 92g off the rails to succeed, it will fail. I'm sorely tempted to quote Ace Ventura at this point.

 

You've already put the aircraft in an unreachable place before the intercept has even begun. No different to putting it 500 miles away really. My case was that if the missile is tracking the target after an in-parameters launch, as per the clip, there is no out-turning it unless it runs out of energy, or fails, is decoyed/jammed etc.

To build on what Mfezi has said, if you are right behind a plane and launch, if the missile is near the plane and it pulls a 9g turn, the missile will have a very hard time following it.

To build on what Mfezi has said, if you are right behind a plane and launch, if the missile is near the plane and it pulls a 9g turn, the missile will have a very hard time following it.

Kolga, I'm not sure I agree completely with you, but of course it depends on the type of missile and it also depends on whether the target is already at 9g or needs to build up from 1 to 9g. That particular scenario is one where most modern missiles should do pretty well - especially the ones that also use thrust vectoring.

Let's say your scenario starts out like the one example that I described in my last post (target basically at 1g). This is what I wrote: "For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air." Now, if the target maneuvers at 9g from there and we assume it is a very maneuverable target flying at a speed where he is capable of a high g onset rate and therefore can get to 9g quickly, something like an AIM-9X or IRIS-T would probably still be able to follow. However, and this is maybe what you were getting at, the CEP for the changing geometry will get bigger so the missile's accuracy would degrade as it tries to follow the target. It is therefore possible the missile might miss, but since it would still be able to get to the target kinematically (it has the energy and the maneuvering capability), if it misses it will most likely be a very close miss and the proximity fuse will still take care of things.

You will note I use a lot of words like "probable" or "possible" - it really depends on so many things that every statement you make usually needs to be qualified. Even if pretty much everything is known about the target and missile and launch geometry, we still end up with dealing with things like CEP, which is a statistical measure. The problem is never really completely deterministic. Throw in external inputs like turbulence and gusts and suddenly your accuracy and repeatability goes down even if everything else stays the same. This is why I disagree with so many of Emu's definitive statements.

Do you know what over exposed means? It has very little to do with blurry-ness.

 

 

 

Oh, sorry, i thought you were talking about the camera when you said that.

It would be interesting to know roughly how big you think they are though.

 

 

 

Yep, a journalist being right instead of the contractor doing the repair.

 

 

 

Why are you making me recover ground that has already been covered?

 

You said this:

 

 

And i showed you this (proving my point):

 

 

 

Yep, and you can see something similar after the intercept.

 

 

 

So are you saying that if i go back and look and return with "you never said that, i checked" you will believe me?

 

 

 

What about after getting hit with a hellfire? 30mm is a really bad cherry picked example.

 

 

 

Nice try, but not nice enough.

 

1. The hit is not even on FLIR in that video, the truck is near a van when it is hit.

 

2. The missile isn't even burning at impact.

 

 

So where is all the proof of your testing experience if its not classified?

 

 

 

As do you my friend.

 

 

 

But why did you chose the worst sources over the better one?

 

 

 

Look at the difference between the first and the second v2's.

 

 

 

Quite a few do. look at 21:18

 

 

 

I meant that figuratively, get some image processing software and measure. Then come back and state your findings.

 

Also, it seems more likely that it was an R-27t based on the new video of the second f-15 hit. The R-27 has a 39 kg warhead.

 

There were no real credible sources for the R-73.

 

 

 

Show me a video with the a hellfire or brimstone flash glowing like heck way bigger than its actual blast size and than we'll talk.

 

 

 

We are talking about a shady used car dealership.

 

 

 

That doesn't help your probability much, its still much more likely that it was a sam.

 

 

 

 

Nobody here knows.

Okay, I'll rephrase, the image quality is crap.

I'd be guessing.

A repair only looks at the damage and you don't know the journalist's source.

Yes, it had originally locked CoM but then it seemingly deliberately deviates. That wasn't due to missile manoeuvrability.

Before I see a circle with a clear tail. After I see a smaller white dot with no tail. This should at least indicate that the missile is not intact. And need I remind you, I've already mathematically proven that a missile can't produce such a flash with KE alone, so you're trying to undo your own argument that it was fuel here. Clearly the missile's motor can't explode and yet still be running. I also see a missile heading for a miss in the inset.

I'm saying I know what I said. You, on the other hand, can't even remember what you said, as shown above.

The pickups fuel still burns slower and longer because it needs oxygen from the air for that process, whereas the explosive does not. The speed of the process is quite literally why explosive is explosive.

I'm afraid the imagery is indeed in FLIR, what else would it be in? Old school black and white video perhaps? Above you alleged that a missile could produce a flash even if it is intact (the phantom AIM-9X exhaust).

I've already proven that a live warhead produces a similar sized flash, the job of proving that an inert missile produces the same-sized flash is yours. Good luck. But we do see that a live warhead of the same size produces a bigger flash than the one in the AIM-9X video. So I'd say my argument looks pretty strong at this point.:D

A contractor isn't necessarily the best source. What if the magazine source was RSAF itself?

That is not a sudden flash, it very much mimics the burn of the fuel post-flash in the OP video.

I need to do that to assess that it's 4-5 vehicle lengths? Nope. Now go measure the live Brimstone flashes vs your AIM-9X test warhead flash. Anywhere even close? Nope.

New video is a different intercept.

Why would it need to glow bigger than the blast size to prove my case? The flash is a similar size to OP video in FLIR and much bigger than AIM-9X test warhead in normal video. Job done.

Shady car dealerships are shady in terms of their honesty, not their knowledge.

Well in the second intercept the rocket motor is burnt out 5s before impact, so that is clearly not the same as the previous one.

Nobody who wasn't in the plane or firing the missile knows.

If it was above 30k', you would not see the flames coming from it nearly that easily. The jet in the new video is likely between 10-20k'.

Vision is based on range, not specifically altitude, and the missile takes 17s to impact, with a peak speed of M4.5, or 1500m/s, so call it 1000m/s average. That's 17km (56,000ft), although, admittedly not directly up, or in a straight line.

Yeah, implying that the op was much lower.

Or the missile was fired from a different altitude/range.

To build on what Mfezi has said, if you are right behind a plane and launch, if the missile is near the plane and it pulls a 9g turn, the missile will have a very hard time following it.

Not if it's fully energised and capable of pulling 50g it won't. Go do the trig. You'll find that if the missile is very close, manoeuvring is useless because the speed of the missile is such that you'll barely have changed the intercept point before the missile arrives and the proxy fuse goes off.

v^2/a = r, v/r = Angular velocity.

Aircraft, 9g, 300m/s

300^2/90 =1000m, 300/1000 = 0.3rad/s

Missile, 50g, 1000m/s

1000^2/500 = 2000m, 1000/2000 = 0.5rad/s

So the missile has a higher angular turn rate but here's the real killer: Missile is 1000m, or 1s away. Assume plane turns instantly through 90deg. Arctan (300/1000) = 16.7deg. So the missile doesn't even need to turn as fast due to the much higher speed.

OK, I'll give it to you that you are right and that, specifically, the first part of my post did not deal with a launch inside the kinematically feasible envelope.

 

However, I should point out there is a big difference in the reason why it cannot hit the target between what I described in the first part of my post and your 500 mile example: When 500 miles away it doesn't have the energy to reach the target. What I described was a maneuvering limitation, not an energy limitation. Trying to make such a turn will also eat up energy but the reason the turn cannot be made is due to additional factors, such as maximum achievable normal force (usually a function of the missile shape, its wings and other lift producing surfaces such as strakes), its ability to produce a pitching moment (control surfaces and thrust vectoring) and of course the ability of the tracking head to maintain the target within its field of view throughout the maneuver. In my example, the missile would attempt the turn, miss the target, but still have enough energy left to continue flying for a significant distance after it missed the target.

 

I completely disagree with your "case" as you put it: If the missile is tracking and the launch was in parameters it definitely does not guarantee a hit. How can you even claim that? Missile engagement envelopes (I'm not talking about what is shown in the aircraft system - I mean the detailed envelopes usually carefully defined during development via a combination of testing and Monte Carlo analysis) look different for a non-maneuvering target than for a maneuvering target. The target may initially not be maneuvering, placing it well inside the non-maneuvering target envelope when the missile is fired. However, if the target maneuvers after launch, the envelope changes and then the missile may or may not hit the target. It can miss because it doesn't have the energy to get to the target once the target starts maneuvering, it can miss because the missile cannot generate enough load factor to make the turn even though it has more than enough energy to keep going long after it passed the target, or it can miss due to the inherent accuracy of the missile in that particular set of conditions.

 

This last point deals with the second part of my original post and which was the part I wanted you to read again. There I talked about the finite CEP's INSIDE the kinematically feasible launch envelope. The graphs that show those variations, which you must have seen before if you have worked with real world missile testing, imply that no missile has perfect accuracy. Typically, the more it has to maneuver the less accurate it becomes and the larger the CEP. When launched inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope the missile by definition has both the energy and the maneuvering ability to hit the target, but it never has perfect accuracy and a number of factors cause that accuracy to degrade. For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air. That is about as close to perfect accuracy as you will get, but it still will not hit exactly on the desired point of impact (DPI) every time. And although it may have that small a CEP for that simplest of geometries, even the most modern and maneuverable missiles can have CEPs with a radius larger than the principle dimensions of the target when they are expected to maneuver significantly, implying that it can very well miss the target even though it is fully capable of both tracking it and reaching it kinematically, which of course is the reason why they are fitted with proximity fuses. The AIM-9X in that video had to maneuver significantly in order to hit the target, so it definitely was not the optimal launch trajectory by any means. That it hit the target was impressive, but there is no reason to believe it hit the target exactly on the DPI. If it did, it would have been a fluke.

 

And as a postscript, I am well aware that not all manufacturers use CEP or only CEP to define accuracy: Mean miss distances, mean radial error (MRE), individually stated range error probable (REP) and deflection error probable (DEP), range and deflection bias and various other measures that statistically describe the accuracy of the weapon relative to the DPI are used. The point is that a missile is yet to be constructed that will hit the center of the target or whatever might define the DPI perfectly every time, even when the conditions are optimal.

You say tomayto, I say tomato. One is down to Rmax, the other could be described as an Rmin. If the missile has to turn 180deg in a 100m radius, the target is too close for that perspective.

Maybe I didn't state my point clearly. If the missile is in parameters and tracking, i.e. heading for an intercept given current a/c trajectory, and has full energy, the aircraft cannot out-manoeuvre it because, as proven above, the missile has a higher rate of turn and doesn't need to turn as much to adjust intercept for any given manoeuvre the aircraft can pull.

In the video, the missile is on course for a CoM intercept but the seeker is seen to deliberately shift focus at the last moment.

Vision is based on range, not specifically altitude, and the missile takes 17s to impact, with a peak speed of M4.5, or 1500m/s, so call it 1000m/s average. That's 17km (56,000ft), although, admittedly not directly up, or in a straight line.

:doh: