Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

F-15Es being shot down? That's public knowledge.

 

F-15C? One damaged by another F-15C, AIM-9. It was repaired and put back in service - wrong switch setting for Master Arm during exercise.

 

F-15J shot down by F-15J. Same situation as above.

 

Allegedly one Israeli F-15A damaged by R-60 in a furball.

The AIM-9X flash is likely a small test warhead. The seeker is clearly aiming for the plume and catching a stab edge could not cause the missile to go up in a flash, since one flew straight through the fuselage. That said, the burners are probably near 2m wide in some places, which would quadruple their volume.

 

No, the burners are 1m or less their entire length, 2m is absolutely preposterous. If the aim-9 flash was a small warhead you would think the missile would be less intact.

 

You can judge it relative to the size of the a/c. It also comes out the same size it went in. probably just had it's wings clipped off, like that plane that went through the Pentagon wall.

 

Yeah, pretty close to the same size it went in, but its very difficult to tell.

 

IR missiles probably did that all the time. IIR missiles will not mistake the sun for the a/c but they can be blinded by the sun.

 

Why do they do that then?

 

I know this is nowhere near proof, but FWIW the DCS mig-21 can lock the sun. (I think the FC3 A/C can to, but not sure)

 

Yes in that clip, it supports no warhead, but the flash is in a separate clip where there is no sign of the missile thereafter.

 

Ummm... no, look at the non-slow motion:

 

I've told you, personal knowledge. It's usually regularly and not just with missiles, it's the equivalent of a scale model wind tunnel test.

 

You never said that about the small warhead claim, i have been asking for seven pages.

 

How would there be. SRAAMs only burn for about 5s.

 

If it was fired AA like you say (Or SAM with a booster) then it would be a very definite possibility.

 

You haven't though. How much fuel is there even to start with? How long does it burn after impact? Is the missile even likely to come apart after hitting a thin stab? Is the missile even likely to not explode? Not enough, quite long, no and no, are the answers.

 

All we know about the fuel level is there is some left at the intercept, and according to you, the leftover glow supports fuel burning more than it does warhead.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Ok....... so..... Why?

There are obvious differences in how they handle flashes IE in the apache flashes are greyed out.

 

Hellfire strikes with flash size similar to video.

 

And your point is......?

 

By angle I mean your case. Are you saying kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead?

 

I have a case with an angle. (What is my case????)

No i am saying that under these circumstances and FLIR settings a missile did not detonate and made the OP flash (If its real, which may not be the case)

 

That is the only such incident and involved 1950s electronics. Early AIM-9s also used a less reliable IR proxy fuse. 1950s fuses have a history of unreliability, which is just as well, because the US would have nuked themselves with a H-bomb, were it not the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961

This is also why there are WWII bombs still being found. Different era altogether but serves to demonstrate why fuses need testing under flight conditions

 

The only incident??????? Are you sure?

 

It doesn't sound like the fuse failed, it said three out of safeties failed implying that the fourth safety worked implying the fuse wasn't triggered.

 

Yep, F4 fuselage. They can make a flash with a small warhead, or if they ignite fuel in the a/c's wings. A rear stab strike from an inert missile won't produce jack.

 

Well it produced one heck of a flash in flir! :megalol:

 

Depends on the source of the Dutch Av magazine and the source at the contractor. The latest theory is that it was a RFCLOS missile, which makes a direct hit very unlikely.

 

We have a pretty good idea of what the contractor is, we have nothing on the Av mag source.

 

Do you mind telling me what RFCLOS is? I couldn't find anything.

I would say up to 2m. The AIM-9X is not intact in the clip with a flash, you're confusing it with the clip without a flash.

 

Not really, it's fairly obvious. If it was going to break, it would likely snap near the centre.

 

Of course, because an IR missile has no real way to tell the sun from a large, closer heat source. IIR missiles see a picture similar to B/W TV. So they can be blinded by the sun but they will not think that it's the aircraft they originally targeted.

 

Look closely at what? Where is the long white object like in the other image.

 

Yes I did.

 

Seems unlikely and the weight of fuel is fairly small to begin with.

 

Yes, the burning after the initial flash is fuel. But why would the missile come apart after hitting a stab if it can bust through a fuselage intact? Why would the warhead not explode? is that likely. The balance of probability just screams warhead.

 

Not in all Apache videos.

 

Similar size flash likely points to similar sized warhead. Similar speed of flash, both likely explosive. Does rocket fuel explode as fast as HE? No. Think about this. If it did, far more effective missiles could be designed without a warhead. Or bulk production of rocket fuel would be used, instead of rocket fuel and HE.

 

It's not real though. Hence why the whole notion of trying to tie the video with what the contractor said is doomed to failure.

 

That was the one switch that failed.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/21/4755600/us-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-accident-1961

But the point is that 1950s electronics was garbage. it's like using AIM-4 performance from the Vietnam War as basis for determining future air warfare tactics.

 

That was a warhead.

 

Not really, the contractor source could be the guy who sweeps the floors.

 

Radio Frequency Command Line Of Sight. Or the missile guidance equivalent of pin the tail on the donkey.

I would say up to 2m. The AIM-9X is not intact in the clip with a flash, you're confusing it with the clip without a flash.

 

Oh well since you say so... :lol:

 

The burners are no larger than then the nozzles, which are not larger than 1m, and so 2 cylynders 1m x 10m each comes to 15.7cu meters, the flash comes to 27.6 cu meters.

 

Not really, it's fairly obvious. If it was going to break, it would likely snap near the centre.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Of course, because an IR missile has no real way to tell the sun from a large, closer heat source. IIR missiles see a picture similar to B/W TV. So they can be blinded by the sun but they will not think that it's the aircraft they originally targeted.

Sooo.. let me get this straight, The IR missile can't tell between the sun and the plane, but it it somehow knows to be blinded by the sun and to attack the plane?

 

Can the missile think that at all (about anything)?

 

Look closely at what? Where is the long white object like in the other image.

Where is it before it hits? Probably due to the sun angle or something the missile is hardly visible before it hits:

 

Yes I did.

Show me the post, you never said personal experience about the small warhead claim.

 

Seems unlikely and the weight of fuel is fairly small to begin with.

Seems? I have proven that with 1 sec of fuel left it could have produced the flash in the video, with only 1 sec. The original weight doesn't matter.

 

Also, do you believe Mfezi was lying when he said that he has FLIR videos of KE only (no motor) hits that show a flash similar to the OP? Or did you just hope that would be forgotten?

 

Yes, the burning after the initial flash is fuel. But why would the missile come apart after hitting a stab if it can bust through a fuselage intact? Why would the warhead not explode? is that likely. The balance of probability just screams warhead.

Sure, the balance of probability always screams warhead, but we are talking about an isolated incident.

 

Not in all Apache videos.

So? Show one or two. And it doesn't matter much anyway because apaches FLIR is obviously different from videos we have already seen.

 

Similar size flash likely points to similar sized warhead. Similar speed of flash, both likely explosive. Does rocket fuel explode as fast as HE? No. Think about this. If it did, far more effective missiles could be designed without a warhead. Or bulk production of rocket fuel would be used, instead of rocket fuel and HE.

The fact that the apache flashes are smaller indicates very different handling of flashes. This is getting tiring, SHOW PROOF THAT ROCKETS DON'T EXPLODE!!!!............ (!)

 

Because explosives have much more power than solid rocket fuel (think shockwave), not flash.

 

It's not real though. Hence why the whole notion of trying to tie the video with what the contractor said is doomed to failure.

Its not 100% real, but we don't know to what extent it is fake.

 

That was the one switch that failed.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/21/4755600/us-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-accident-1961

But the point is that 1950s electronics was garbage. it's like using AIM-4 performance from the Vietnam War as basis for determining future air warfare tactics.

Read the document instead of cherry picking piggy backed articles that mess up facts.

 

In the document it says it has 6 safety interlocks and one was set off and two were broken:

 

"One "set off" by the fall. Two rendered ineffective by aircraft breakup."

 

That was a warhead.

:joystick:

 

Not really, the contractor source could be the guy who sweeps the floors.

I'll bet he knows more than the guy that sweeps the floors of the Av mags office. And i don't think the janitor qualifies as the contractor either.

 

Radio Frequency Command Line Of Sight. Or the missile guidance equivalent of pin the tail on the donkey.

Oh, ok, who is claiming that?

 

 

 

Bonus:

Inert hit with stinger flashes pretty good (Start at 4:18):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7b8M

Edited March 17, 2018 by kolga

The glow expands outwards after the nozzles.

 

Definitely. If you were to snap a plank of wood, would it snap near the centre or near an edge?

 

An IR missile can't tell the difference, an IIR missile can but its sensor can still be overloaded. Like shining a bright light in your eyes at night, you'll know it's not what you're looking for, but you still won't be able to see what you're looking for.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence, besides you can just make it out.

 

I've said personal experience of testing a few times, hence why Hummingbird chirped in (no pun intended).

 

How have you proven it? What mass is one second of fuel? What is the BTU? The flash is twice that of burner size, 8x volume. Rocket fuel generally has half BTU/lb of aviation fuel, so you'd need 8x33lbs, or 264lbs, which is more than the weight of the missile.

 

Where's the evidence?

 

One instance which is unlikely to go against the balance of probability.

 

Go back and search the thread, they've already been posted. I'm not going to trawl back for them. FLIR is similar.

 

Indicates absence of combustible fuel and/or slightly different FLIR (but similar). Show me proof that rockets do explode with a flash that sudden instantly? So far you've demonstrated the ability of inert missiles to crash through much harder parts of a fighter intact, with no flash. You've pretty much disproved your own theory.

 

Bingo, explosives have much more power than solid rocket fuel.

 

Fake is fake. There is no 'to what degree', it's fake.

 

Not in that link. Guardian misunderstood the facts. it was a faulty switch that saved the day, the bomb thought it had been dropped.

 

Yup.

 

Probably knows about the same.

 

Admittedly the same defence publication that thinks a Coyote drone is a Yemeni SAM.

 

http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

Even though I have on occasions got caught up in the argument when I realised "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" & so understand your collective desire to get the other person to realise their mistake, you realise that if after 356 posts, and reaching the point that you're just going round and round re-hashing the same arguments, that if you haven't convinced each other yet, you're probably not going to, don't you ?

 

Remember:

Having the last word is not the same as being right.

You can be right, and let the other person have the last (wrong) word.

The glow expands outwards after the nozzles.

 

What? Are you talking about FLIR now? If not, we both know that is bogus.

 

Definitely. If you were to snap a plank of wood, would it snap near the centre or near an edge?

 

Depends on where you hit it.

 

An IR missile can't tell the difference, an IIR missile can but its sensor can still be overloaded. Like shining a bright light in your eyes at night, you'll know it's not what you're looking for, but you still won't be able to see what you're looking for.

 

Ok, makes sense, but can an AIM-9x tell the difference between the exhaust and the fuselage?

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence, besides you can just make it out.

 

Absence? The missile is hardly visible before and hardly visible after, indicating no dramatic change.

 

I've said personal experience of testing a few times, hence why Hummingbird chirped in (no pun intended).

 

Quote yourself claiming personal experience as the source in regards to small warhead in testing.

 

How have you proven it? What mass is one second of fuel? What is the BTU? The flash is twice that of burner size, 8x volume. Rocket fuel generally has half BTU/lb of aviation fuel, so you'd need 8x33lbs, or 264lbs, which is more than the weight of the missile.

 

That the missile motor is sustaining 2552 px of FLIR sig per sec while burning, so therefore if you take 1 sec of fuel and burn it in 3 frames you get a flash the size of the OP. your BTU number is irrelevant, hydrazine is not used in solid rocket fuel.

 

Where's the evidence?

 

Do you expect him to post classified material in a public forum? Do you think he is HRC?

 

One instance which is unlikely to go against the balance of probability.

 

The balance of probability is mostly useless in an isolated incident.

 

Go back and search the thread, they've already been posted. I'm not going to trawl back for them. FLIR is similar.

 

Technically all FLIR's are "similar", Apache FLIR and the OP FLIR are obviously different in how they handle flashes.

 

Indicates absence of combustible fuel and/or slightly different FLIR (but similar). Show me proof that rockets do explode with a flash that sudden instantly? So far you've demonstrated the ability of inert missiles to crash through much harder parts of a fighter intact, with no flash. You've pretty much disproved your own theory.

 

The video of the failed V2 launches show explosions quite nicely, you keep proving yourself wrong.

 

Bingo, explosives have much more power than solid rocket fuel.

 

Exactly, power, not flash.

 

Fake is fake. There is no 'to what degree', it's fake.

 

If you bought a rolls royce and it had a fiat steering wheel it would be 99% fake.

 

Not in that link. Guardian misunderstood the facts. it was a faulty switch that saved the day, the bomb thought it had been dropped.

 

This is really OT, but did you actually read the document or just trust the journalist who have little or no experience in this field?

 

Yup.

 

Probably knows about the same.

 

So the janitor at GMC knows just as much about computers as the janitor at Dell?

 

Admittedly the same defence publication that thinks a Coyote drone is a Yemeni SAM.

 

http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

 

Oh, yeah, they are probably not credible...

Even though I have on occasions got caught up in the argument when I realised "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" & so understand your collective desire to get the other person to realise their mistake, you realise that if after 356 posts, and reaching the point that you're just going round and round re-hashing the same arguments, that if you haven't convinced each other yet, you're probably not going to, don't you ?

 

Remember:

Having the last word is not the same as being right.

You can be right, and let the other person have the last (wrong) word.

 

 

Yeah, i was starting to notice the circles we have been making, i just found it such an interesting debate.

 

 

To Emu:

 

If you want to continue we can keep going, but since we are starting (understatement) to go in circles it may be better to agree to disagree, I hold no hard feeling towards you and i hope i have not come across as attacking you, i meant no offense by anything i posted.

In the F-22 video, it expands outwards.

 

You'd be hard-pushed to snap it near the end.

 

Yes, an AIM-9X is IIR and sees a greyscale image of the target.

 

You don't know that if you can't see anything.

 

I'm not apart to waste time dredging through back-posts.

 

The fuel doesn't burn in 3 frames though, it continues burning until it goes off shot after the initial flash from the warhead.

 

The balance of probability is always relevant in determining what likely happened. Footprints in the snow are likely made by someone walking on their legs, not their hands.

 

You're making assumptions to validate your claim again. You have no evidence of this. The possibility of them being different is one you introduced to refute compelling evidence that you are wrong. Do you see how desperate that is?

 

V2s had warheads, 1000kg warheads.

 

So why does the same weight of explosive make a bigger flash in both normal video and FLIR?

 

If it was two chassis welded together you mean?

 

I've read several stories about it.

 

Yep. Cleaning the toilets in physics department doesn't make you know more about physics.

 

They usually are regarded as credible actually, they just need to sack the person who provided that photo.

Even though I have on occasions got caught up in the argument when I realised "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" & so understand your collective desire to get the other person to realise their mistake, you realise that if after 356 posts, and reaching the point that you're just going round and round re-hashing the same arguments, that if you haven't convinced each other yet, you're probably not going to, don't you ?

 

Remember:

Having the last word is not the same as being right.

You can be right, and let the other person have the last (wrong) word.

 

I don’t disagree with you Weta, however this quote comes to mind:

 

Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.

In the F-22 video, it expands outwards.

 

That is because its over exposed and glowing.

 

You'd be hard-pushed to snap it near the end.

Depends on the circumstances.

 

Yes, an AIM-9X is IIR and sees a greyscale image of the target.

Ok, the target is crossing pretty darn fast so it seems feasible that the missile wasn't able to pull all the way to the fuselage therefore catching the stab. Just a possibility.

 

You don't know that if you can't see anything.

But we can see it, its not a long white tube, but its still visible before and after.

 

I'm not apart to waste time dredging through back-posts.

Then don't make claims your not prepared to back up.

 

The fuel doesn't burn in 3 frames though, it continues burning until it goes off shot after the initial flash from the warhead.

But the flash is big for just one frame and in my calc the flash is huge for 3 full frames therefore its perfectly feasible.

 

The balance of probability is always relevant in determining what likely happened. Footprints in the snow are likely made by someone walking on their legs, not their hands.

But only up to a point, if someone said they saw tracks in the snow you could guess that they were made by feet, but without actually looking at them you couldn't tell. Also footprints are always made by feet. :megalol:

 

 

 

 

 

You are still avoiding what Mfezi has said, Do you believe he is lying or what?

 

You're making assumptions to validate your claim again. You have no evidence of this. The possibility of them being different is one you introduced to refute compelling evidence that you are wrong. Do you see how desperate that is?

look at apache FLIR video, flashes are greyed out, that is very different from what we see in the OP. Remember, you are claiming afterburners are 2m in diameter, if that is not desperate i don't know what is.

 

V2s had warheads, 1000kg warheads.

It was early testing so i highly doubt they had warheads, plus there is other clips in your video of rockets exploding (something to keep in mind is a lot of them are in slow motion, so they look slower)

 

So why does the same weight of explosive make a bigger flash in both normal video and FLIR?

Bigger than what?

 

If it was two chassis welded together you mean?

Well, if you get in your "new" rolls and the steering wheel says little tikes on it you know something is wrong but you don't know if the engine is gone or not, you have to open the hood.

 

I've read several stories about it.

But did you read the document?

 

Yep. Cleaning the toilets in physics department doesn't make you know more about physics.

Unless you talk to the physicists once in awhile.

 

They usually are regarded as credible actually, they just need to sack the person who provided that photo.

It was provided by the Iranian news, so the dude that wrote the article needs to get his butt fired (and the editor who checked it, in any).

So is the video with the flash from the small test warhead that causes it to break after hitting a thin stab.

 

Not at all, long things tend to snap in the middle.

 

An AIM-9X can pull 50g, an F-4 can pull only 9g at best, at sea level, whilst clean, not wearing drop tanks.

 

In the clip with no flash, yes. In the other clip, you can't see it at all but things don't generally stay in one piece after exploding.

 

They are supporting, you just have to read back, I'm not going to waste my time doing it, having already wasted enough of it talking to you.

 

But the fuel can't all be used in those 3 frames if it's still burning for a full second afterwards. You obviously don't understand the principle chemical equation behind combustion. You can't burn the same fuel twice.

 

Someone could have been wearing shoes on their hands - that is the nature of your argument in this thread.

 

Where's the proof? We have proof of a Hellfire making a similar sized flash in 2 FLIR videos and a large flash in non-FLIR videos (bigger than the AIM-9X with test warhead). We also have a Hellfire with no warhead making zero flash in normal video. We also have an inert AIM-9X smashing staright through an F-4 fuselage intact. The balance of evidence is just hugely stacked against you.

 

Which Apache video? There were two remember. And let me add a third. 9.5m long tank. Explosion flash about 4-5 tank lengths.

 

 

They were probably targeted at the UK just in case they worked.

 

Bigger than an inert strike.

 

You wouldn't buy it either way though. Dodgy is dodgy.

 

Yep.

 

Yes, physicists often have long conversations with janitors about physics research. Have you watched Good Will Hunting too many times?

 

A bit like the person who provided the spliced FLIR video.

So is the video with the flash from the small test warhead that causes it to break after hitting a thin stab.

 

Nope, it is clearly the actual flame size. Also, how big is the small test warhead?

 

Not at all, long things tend to snap in the middle.

Yep, they tend, but that doesn't mean always.

 

An AIM-9X can pull 50g, an F-4 can pull only 9g at best, at sea level, whilst clean, not wearing drop tanks.

As someone with missile testing experience you should know what you just said is complete garbage, missiles go much much faster than jets causing G loading to be much much higher.

 

In the clip with no flash, yes. In the other clip, you can't see it at all but things don't generally stay in one piece after exploding.

You can clearly see it before and after in the clip with flash.

 

They are supporting, you just have to read back, I'm not going to waste my time doing it, having already wasted enough of it talking to you.

Then why do you keep posting? I said we didn't have to continue, but here you are. If you make a claim, be prepared to back it up.

 

But the fuel can't all be used in those 3 frames if it's still burning for a full second afterwards. You obviously don't understand the principle chemical equation behind combustion. You can't burn the same fuel twice.

In my calc the flash is at full size for 3 frames, so after some more calcs i have come up with this:

 

If there was 1.5 sec of motor left it has the FLIR sig to make the flash and then go on for 9 frames at the size of the leftover glow, which is only visible for 7 or 8 frames. There you have it.

 

Someone could have been wearing shoes on their hands - that is the nature of your argument in this thread.

Or the media could be right rather than the contractor and someone who has videos of inert FLIR hits :megalol:

 

Where's the proof? We have proof of a Hellfire making a similar sized flash in 2 FLIR videos and a large flash in non-FLIR videos (bigger than the AIM-9X with test warhead). We also have a Hellfire with no warhead making zero flash in normal video. We also have an inert AIM-9X smashing staright through an F-4 fuselage intact. The balance of evidence is just hugely stacked against you.

Where is the proof of your missile testing experience? You can't (and shouldn't) legally post proof, so your opinion is of equal validity to Mfezi's (although for all we know you could be the floor sweeping guy as you have given no details other than naming 2 missiles.). You mean brimstone? (i know they are very similar, but might as well not confuse anyone even more) Yes, zero flash with no motor, as anyone could have predicted. We also have proof that the FLIR in apache handles flashes very different to the OP FLIR.

 

Which Apache video? There were two remember. And let me add a third. 9.5m long tank. Explosion flash about 4-5 tank lengths.

 

There were more like 5 videos :lol:. It is clearly visible in this one:

 

Sooo.... The gas station analogy doesn't apply when there is a tank full of explosive ammunition and fuel? That is funny.

 

They were probably targeted at the UK just in case they worked.

So they are like:

"Heck, lets load a 1000kg warhead just in case this works so we have rebuild the testing facility when this fails, i didn't like the decor anyways" :lol:

 

Bigger than an inert strike.

We still haven't bee able to find a 100% verifiable inert strike on FLIR.

 

You wouldn't buy it either way though. Dodgy is dodgy.

Unless it was a sweet deal ;)

 

Yep.

Its fairly clear, don't let the media tell you what to think.

 

Yes, physicists often have long conversations with janitors about physics research. Have you watched Good Will Hunting too many times?

Never seen it.

 

A bit like the person who provided the spliced FLIR video.

Haha, yeah.

Edited March 21, 2018 by kolga

Nope.

 

There you go, stretching for the low probability event again. That seems to be a theme necessary to support your argument.

 

Yes, but because jets go much slower, missiles don't have to turn through as great an angle to counter their turn. Missiles only miss because they fail, get jammed/decoyed, or run out of speed. That missile never even tried to go for CoM.

 

You just said you couldn't see it before or after in the clip with the flash. Only in the clip without the flash can you see it before and after. It smashes straight through the fuselage intact, so there's no way a stab is snapping it.

 

It's already backed up, you just have to look.

 

So it's your contention that a) The video is at 12 frames per second and b) a huge amount of the fuel burnt at once but the rest only burnt slowly for 1s. Your hypotheses just get better and better. Tell me another one.

 

I see no videos of inert missile hits with a flash the same size. Feel free to post them.

 

I see no proof, only someone floundering to denounce evidence that doesn't support their case.

 

Well the explosion is, once again, a similar size in FLIR.

 

 

And again.

 

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

 

I think you'll find the launch pad is nowhere near anything important.

 

But we have found live warhead strikes in FLIR that match the size. So it would see reasonable to assume, that the OP video is a live warhead.

 

There's no such thing when buying a dodgy car.

 

Size of the flash tells me what to think. Missiles crashing through fuselages in tact tell me what to think. Other live warhead strikes producing the same sized flash tells me what to think. Dodgy video tells me what to think. I tend to go for high probability explanations.

 

Yet you believe it's reality.

One thread down. Posted by FistofZen.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205020

I wonder if that is a different F-15 as we see flames after the impact, which isn't the case in the video I posted. But there is that weird roll thing so I'm not sure.

One thread down. Posted by FistofZen.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205020

 

Wow, good find.

 

I wonder if that is a different F-15 as we see flames after the impact, which isn't the case in the video I posted. But there is that weird roll thing so I'm not sure.

 

Yes, it looks different, no flares and no smoke trail at impact.

Nope.

 

So how much do you think a small test warhead weighs?

 

Camera's pointed at the blue sky are generally the opposite of overexposed. Now who is going against probability?

 

There you go, stretching for the low probability event again. That seems to be a theme necessary to support your argument.

A f-15 getting hit by a missile is a low probability event in itself, and yet, it happened.

 

Yes, but because jets go much slower, missiles don't have to turn through as great an angle to counter their turn. Missiles only miss because they fail, get jammed/decoyed, or run out of speed. That missile never even tried to go for CoM.

Umm, no, that is not what i was told by someone who actually had to know that to protect his life. Looking at the video it doesn't look like the missile was pulling very hard near the end anyway so yeah.

 

It never tried? Guess again (look at inset):

 

You just said you couldn't see it before or after in the clip with the flash. Only in the clip without the flash can you see it before and after. It smashes straight through the fuselage intact, so there's no way a stab is snapping it.

Hahan nope, look before you leap:

 

...The missile is hardly visible before and hardly visible after, indicating no dramatic change...

 

It's already backed up, you just have to look.

So basically you want me to prove your claims? That seems pretty lazy if you ask me.

 

So it's your contention that a) The video is at 12 frames per second and b) a huge amount of the fuel burnt at once but the rest only burnt slowly for 1s. Your hypotheses just get better and better. Tell me another one.

I have never said 12 FPS.

 

My assumption is 24 FPS.

 

Its better than the entire missile exploding violently and than magically there is still stuff to burn.

 

I see no videos of inert missile hits with a flash the same size. Feel free to post them.

I think you said it best:

 

What? Like posting classified information online. Call BS all you like.

 

I see no proof, only someone floundering to denounce evidence that doesn't support their case.

Like denouncing the contractor who fixed the stab?

 

Well the explosion is, once again, a similar size in FLIR.

 

 

And again.

 

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

I see wide variation in blast size especially in normal video.

 

I think you'll find the launch pad is nowhere near anything important.

Ok, so how do you know they were armed?

 

But we have found live warhead strikes in FLIR that match the size. So it would see reasonable to assume, that the OP video is a live warhead.

Show me the one you have measured to match the size.

 

There's no such thing when buying a dodgy car.

Unless the dude selling it doesn't know its better than he thinks.

This analogy is getting so far of track its hilarious.

 

Size of the flash tells me what to think. Missiles crashing through fuselages in tact tell me what to think. Other live warhead strikes producing the same sized flash tells me what to think. Dodgy video tells me what to think. I tend to go for high probability explanations.

Like a MiG-29 operated by rebels sneaking up on an F-15 and firing a missile which detonates on a flare that there is no proof for?

 

Yet you believe it's reality.

My position has been based on what the contractor said since i started posting.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

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

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.

 

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?

Edited March 22, 2018 by Mfezi
Grammar

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

 

I18v1vkNAKc [/url]

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

Not shot down. F-15 missile tanking confirmed by multiple RL incidents. No DM fix required ;)

 

PS: SA confirmed that the aircraft returned to base apparently, but let's wait to be sure.

 

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

Not sure why there would be a debate ... Chaparral is an example, though that sidewinder is slightly modified for SAM duty.

The Serbs showed off SAM versions of R-60s and 73's IIRC.

 

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

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1271216/saudi-arabia

 

Edit: Just realized this link was posted in the other thread earlier today. Oops.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Sweep