Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 28 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2018, 11:33 AM   #271
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

The surface of an aircraft travelling at 600mph through air has a signature on any functional FLIR.

I said it is one of the ways the yield of a nuclear device can be accurately estimated. Lastly higher energy heat does indeed lead to larger signatures on FLIR and temperature itself is a measure of average molecule KE (so it does indeed all boil down to energy), hence why the afterburner is larger than non-afterburner and why Hellfire warheads give a bigger flash than 30mm strikes. You can't produce higher temperatures without putting in energy, whether that energy be chemical energy in a warhead or flare, or kinetic energy from a collision.

The FLIR video in question is not that high sensitivity at all. You can clearly see the smoke trail of the missile and the afterburner glow come down to a point at the rear, with smoke thereafter. On super-high sensitivity, these would all appear as spheres.

Last edited by Emu; 02-22-2018 at 12:07 PM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:58 AM   #272
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

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.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 12:13 PM   #273
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Source?
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.


Last edited by Emu; 02-22-2018 at 12:19 PM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 01:42 PM   #274
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,262
Reputation power: 307
GGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant futureGGTharos has a brilliant future
Default

Because flares are priority. You won't see things like in DCS where it's 'oh it's RF let's dump chaff only'.
Flares can also act against any backup optical tracking, and will act in the event of simultaneous RF+IR SAM launches which would not be atypical in a complex SAM net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
SA-2 is RF guided, so why would the aircraft eject flares?
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 02:43 PM   #275
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,497
Reputation power: 12
Hummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really niceHummingbird is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
That is an instrumented AIM-9X, without a warhead. It has a telemetry package in there instead.

The flash you see is from a direct hit to the horizontal stabilizer.
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.
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:21 AM   #276
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
Because flares are priority. You won't see things like in DCS where it's 'oh it's RF let's dump chaff only'.
Flares can also act against any backup optical tracking, and will act in the event of simultaneous RF+IR SAM launches which would not be atypical in a complex SAM net.
So you really think it was one of these?


Last edited by Emu; 02-23-2018 at 10:24 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:23 AM   #277
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
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.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 04:33 AM   #278
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 405
Reputation power: 4
kolga is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
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)
__________________
If the helicopter pilot does not attempt to exit the hazardous reform
regime at its earliest manifestations, in a lack of power screw
falls into the mode of a vortex ring
.- DCS MI-8MTV2 manual translated from Russian
"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4
"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV
i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64
kolga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 11:00 AM   #279
Emu
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 911
Reputation power: 9
Emu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really niceEmu is just really nice
Default

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...&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.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:50 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.