ED Forums - View Single Post - Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen
View Single Post
Old 02-13-2018, 11:46 PM   #238
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,051

Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Uhhh, I'm talking about training missiles like what ZEEOH6 mentioned.
Inert missiles tend to be used for testing more commonly. Training rounds are generally captive, except for various A2G munitions which may be inert to preserve mock targets for longer.

Originally Posted by kolga View Post
I know, but they are both IR so there should be similarities, and the FLASH was about 20m in diameter, not the explosion, is the afterburner as big as the video when seen in normal camera? No.
Not really, the green video is clearly suffering from glare because it's using lower grade optics like the kind found in goggles, this magnifies any light source. Sure IR makes hot things a bit bigger but the idea the flash was caused just by kinetic friction is preposterous. The plane and missile are both generating friction throughout flight, yet the massive flash only occurs on impact, it's also very sudden and short in duration, not like that associated with a rocket motor combusting. The afterburner is also burning copious amounts of fuel per second to produce that heat. A kinetic only impact would have been entirely absorbed by the AB's heat signature.

Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Not sure what your trying to say here, didn't see any IR video of hits in there.
No but you can see the appreciable difference between kinetic strikes and live warheads and we've already seen a live hellfire in your earlier video on FLIR imagery of similar quality. Now if you image the inert strikes on FLIR, seriously, where does the 20m wide flash come from? There just isn't one. This video also shows live strikes in FLIR, again you're looking at something approximating 20m (would it be roughly the same with no warhead?). I'm sure you can image an inert strike on FLIR and you know it doesn't produce a large flash >20m in diamater but if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to watch.


Originally Posted by kolga View Post
I don't know, doesn't matter, that wasn't the point.

And you know this, how?

Not sure what this means.

I know i said i was 50/50 on detonation now, but due to new posts i am back to more like 90% no detonation.
Well it kind of is all part of the point. The arguments to justify the possibilty of MANPADS have become beyond absurd at this point. They rely on the following being true.

1. The aircraft flying ridiculously low and close to the launcher at a slant range of <2km such that the motor was still burning. Not a tactic any sane air force would use.

2. Every part of the missile immediately exploding on impact except the warhead, which had a dual failure of the proximity fuse and the contact fuse and failed to go off when the rocket motor exploded. So the missile had enough fuel left to cause this explosion the range was so short.


3. The use of some kind of inert training round stored some place in Yemen that Yemenis couldn't ID as a training round.

4. The missile exploded with no warhead on impact, and produced no shrapnel as it came apart, yet had a flash duration similar to a warhead explosion.

Sorry but the complexity and absurdity of the case for MANPADS is now beyond a joke. It's just not a MANPADS. The more sensible explanation is that a larger missile was used, quite possibly from an aerial vehicle like a MiG, against an F-15 flying at a sane altitude (thus explaining the rocket motor still burning), the missile exploded near a flare with a rod warhead that cut off the stab but the plane survived due to it not being a direct hit. I know which argument requires less special conditions.

Last edited by Emu; 02-14-2018 at 12:15 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote