Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 26 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2018, 09:42 AM   #251
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
You've already got one...

The flash you see in the video is merely the remaining rocket fuel igniting as it's dispersed upon impact. A warhead detonation would've created a brighter/larger flash and noticable blast effect, but that didn't appear in the video.

Incase you're wondering what a detonation would look like on FLIR, and this with an AIM-120 warhead, at 2 min 28 sec. (Btw, turn off the sound if you don't want horrible music blasted in your ears):



In short had the warhead detonated upon impact with the horizontal stab then it would've blown it to pieces along with causing a large amount of blast & shrapnel damage to the airframe, rendering it unable to RTB. You simply don't see fighter aircraft survive hits by missiles the size of an AIM-120 or larger where the warhead detonated that close to the airframe.
We've already got one showing a Hellfire warhead (9kg) making a similar 20m wide flash on FLIR.

So again we're back to the assertion that the proximity fuse and the impact fuse failed and the warhead survived the rocket motor exploding too. And this MANPADS had so much fuel left that it made a flash as big as a live Hellfire warhead. A flash larger than afterburners which are burning more than an entire MANPADS weight in fuel every second.

Let's see an inert strike on FLIR.

Last edited by Emu; 02-16-2018 at 10:12 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2018, 10:10 AM   #252
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Peoples eyes glow in NVGs because the NVGs emit IR light and it reflects off of the eyes.
As i pointed out when i originally posted that, its not a direct comparison, just showing that a puny 3kg warhead will put out a pretty good flash in NVGs.
It's nowhere near a direct comparison for reasons already mentioned. Every heat source is a perfect sphere in your video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
But it did not have a similar blinding effect, which is what a was pointing out. The original video is obviously at a much higher sensitivity setting because the afterburner bleeds like heck to a size bigger than that of the f-15 whereas in the hellfire videos there is practically no bleed.
Because the FLIR footage was covering a much wider area. That vehicle in your video is about 5m long, an F-15 is 20m long, it would cover the screen end-to-end and more in your video. Go look what an afterburner looks like at night in normal footage. There is no way in hell there is enough fuel left in a MANPADS to make an impact bigger than afterburner on FLIR.

Afterburner on an F-15E burns more more lbs of fuel per second than the entire weight of an Igla - 33.3lbs vs 23lb (entire missile weight). Subtract 3lbs warhead weight, missile body weight and electronics plus fuel already spent (i.e. more than all of it) and you're telling me that a few pounds of remaining fuel can light up the sky larger than 2 afterburners on an F-15E, even assuming it did all ignite instantaneously, which it wouldn't.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
The repair people claimed it was an R-73.
(What do you mean by "missile strike"?)
No the source of a Dutch Aviation magazine claimed R-73 shrapnel. The repair people only claimed a kinetic strike and specified no missile.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Nope, watch it again, 2 flares then longer than before interval and then missile flashes at the center of the horizontal stab, no third flare.
Not the way I see it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
I hereby present to you what i humbly call "The Hiragana Te Interception (て)":

(Attached picture)
No picture attached.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Yeah, at night, when camera has to be set on a higher exposure and sensitivity!!!
But actually they look barely bigger (2:12):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfcaYJyCb8
Yes but it isn't even FLIR. You massively underestimate how much fuel afterburner uses and overestimate how much fuel a MANPADS has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Yeah sure, i doubt they are real picky about where they get their stuff.
Just a possible explanation.
No because there's a blockade. Leftover Yemeni military hardware is about all they have access to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Yes, you are assuming!
(refer to the て diagram)
What do you imagine this to show? The missile is approaching from a side and rear aspect that's why the trail is left to right, same as a/c. The a/c is also flying more or less straight but accelerating. Therefore the curved path is the missile here assuming proportional navigation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Sorry, its working on my side. Try going to this one and than clicking on the other one from there (in related videos, "45 insane combat videos")
???

The other thing with Hellfire videos is that you get a lot of heated dust kicked up. But I see nothing bigger than ~20m wide in terms of the flash.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2018, 12:37 AM   #253
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

Ok, I don't know if i can say this any more clear.
My position is (and has been) R-73 (ground or air launched) no detonation. (!!!!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
I don't believe it was a MANPADS...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
...Like I said before I don't believe it was a MANPADS...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post

...(Again, i am not saying its a MANPADS, just using it as an example)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
...Again, i am NOT making the case for MANPADS, just saying you can't out rule it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Soo, how many times do i have to say don't think it was a MANPADS?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
...
I have been making the case for R-73 no detonation, not MANPADS!!!!!
I am just prodding your logic because you can't be 100% sure it wasn't a MANPADS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
It's nowhere near a direct comparison for reasons already mentioned. Every heat source is a perfect sphere in your video.
And you post a normal video of an inert brimstone hit and claim its relevant?
Double standard.

Quote:
Because the FLIR footage was covering a much wider area. That vehicle in your video is about 5m long, an F-15 is 20m long, it would cover the screen end-to-end and more in your video. Go look what an afterburner looks like at night in normal footage. There is no way in hell there is enough fuel left in a MANPADS to make an impact bigger than afterburner on FLIR.
I would recommend you watch the other video i posted, it has quite a few FLIR hellfire hits from different zooms and targets.

Quote:
Afterburner on an F-15E burns more more lbs of fuel per second than the entire weight of an Igla - 33.3lbs vs 23lb (entire missile weight). Subtract 3lbs warhead weight, missile body weight and electronics plus fuel already spent (i.e. more than all of it) and you're telling me that a few pounds of remaining fuel can light up the sky larger than 2 afterburners on an F-15E, even assuming it did all ignite instantaneously, which it wouldn't.
Maybe, or it could just add to the afterburner effect.
(I am not making the case for MANPADS, just not outruling it)

Quote:
No the source of a Dutch Aviation magazine claimed R-73 shrapnel. The repair people only claimed a kinetic strike and specified no missile.
Oops, got mixed up going from memory

Quote:
Not the way I see it.
Watch it again on .25 speed. I used a stopwatch and i came up with 3.4 sec between the flares and than 6.3 sec before missile hit (.25 speed).

Quote:
No picture attached.
Look at the bottom of my post, where attachments go.

Quote:
Yes but it isn't even FLIR. You massively underestimate how much fuel afterburner uses and overestimate how much fuel a MANPADS has.
Wow dude, bate and switch much?! You told me to look at normal video of afterburner at night and then complain it isn't FLIR?

Quote:
No because there's a blockade. Leftover Yemeni military hardware is about all they have access to.
Hmm, okay, maybe a dud then.



(its actually possible)

Quote:
What do you imagine this to show? The missile is approaching from a side and rear aspect that's why the trail is left to right, same as a/c. The a/c is also flying more or less straight but accelerating. Therefore the curved path is the missile here assuming proportional navigation.
I am trying to show that you can launch a missile before the aircraft is directly above you.

Quote:
???

The other thing with Hellfire videos is that you get a lot of heated dust kicked up. But I see nothing bigger than ~20m wide in terms of the flash.
Blinding effect and flash are not the same thing. And again, there is no bleed in the hellfire videos.
__________________
"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese
"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 02-17-2018, 10:40 AM   #254
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Well I'm confused here because I keep hearing that MANPADS can't be ruled out. At impact there is a sudden flash, rocket fuel does not burn that quickly just from impact.

I can be 100% sure it wasn't MANPADS, especially if the argument is that it was a kinetic only strike from a missile with 23lb launch vs two afterburners burning 33lbs of jet fuel per second.

You can see the difference relative to a live Brimstone hit and you have seen a live hit in FLIR too. So if a live hit produces a flash of a given size in FLIR and a given size in normal and an inert strike produces a far smaller (non-flash) in normal, ditto for FLIR. It's called reading between the lines.

I have, the entire area covered by the flash is less than 20m.

Well I think this has been ruled it out, especially for a kinetic strike, which was the argument put forward. The two jet engines are burning ~33lbs/second and the BTU/kg of jet fuel is higher than rocket fuel (18443BTU/lb vs 8345BTU/lb) and an Igla weighs 23lbs total at launch. You would also be surprised to note that it's 4361BTU/lb for TNT. See why that afterburner is so large on FLIR now?


The warhead went dud before the rocket motor and electronics? Wonder why they're still scared of unexploded bombs from WWII then.


You could but the direction of both the aircraft and missile are left to right as the video clearly shows. If the missile trail was right to left, then you would have a point. However, the missile will always travel further than the aircraft from launch to intercept due to the fact that it's going more than twice the speed, hence the distance covered in any fixed interval is twice as high.

Yeah they are really. If the area covered by you FLIR is smaller than the area covered by the flash, then it has a blinding effect. Here's a suitably zoomed out view of a Brimstone vs T-72(?) on FLIR (0.55). Flash but entire image is not obscured. A T-72 is less than half as long as an F-15E.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHFwq3rCkw
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2018, 06:28 AM   #255
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Well I'm confused here because I keep hearing that MANPADS can't be ruled out.

As I have said there is probably a less than 3% chance of it being MANPADS.
I definitely agree that it’s extremely unlikely, but I also don’t think it’s possible to rule it out (and some of the reasoning you were giving was sorta weak so I wanted to address that).


If you want to refute the no detonation theory please use the R-73 as example.



Quote:
At impact there is a sudden flash, rocket fuel does not burn that quickly just from impact.
Do you have some type of source to confirm that?

Quote:
I can be 100% sure it wasn't MANPADS, especially if the argument is that it was a kinetic only strike from a missile with 23lb launch vs two afterburners burning 33lbs of jet fuel per second.
It wouldn’t bother me at all if you were 99% sure, it’s just that you seem to believe there is no possible way you can be wrong.

Quote:
You can see the difference relative to a live Brimstone hit and you have seen a live hit in FLIR too. So if a live hit produces a flash of a given size in FLIR and a given size in normal and an inert strike produces a far smaller (non-flash) in normal, ditto for FLIR. It's called reading between the lines.
Actually it’s called assuming different bands of light react the the same all the time.

Quote:
I have, the entire area covered by the flash is less than 20m.
But like I have said many times, there is no bleeding in the hellfire videos.
The afterburner in normal camera is probably about 9m x 1m at the most, but is bigger than the f-15 in FLIR, and since the flash from the missile hit is basically the same look as the afterburner we can’t tell what the actual blast size is (if any).

Quote:
Well I think this has been ruled it out, especially for a kinetic strike, which was the argument put forward. The two jet engines are burning ~33lbs/second and the BTU/kg of jet fuel is higher than rocket fuel (18443BTU/lb vs 8345BTU/lb) and an Igla weighs 23lbs total at launch. You would also be surprised to note that it's 4361BTU/lb for TNT. See why that afterburner is so large on FLIR now?
How is it ruled out? If you have something hot in FLIR and suddenly add more heat, the glow will be bigger no?


And as far as afterburner in FLIR, I found a video that had a typhoon, f-16, and f-22 and the typhoon and f-16 had significantly less glow (relative to their size) than the f-15, but the f-22 had a very similar look to our video. I’ll find and post the video when I get a chance.


Quote:
The warhead went dud before the rocket motor and electronics? Wonder why they're still scared of unexploded bombs from WWII then.
Sure I don’t know, or maybe the remove before flight safety pins weren’t delt with correctly.

Quote:
You could but the direction of both the aircraft and missile are left to right as the video clearly shows. If the missile trail was right to left, then you would have a point.
Maybe the f-15 was going fast enough that when the missile got there it was slightly behind the plane.


Quote:
However, the missile will always travel further than the aircraft from launch to intercept due to the fact that it's going more than twice the speed, hence the distance covered in any fixed interval is twice as high.
Soo, you know exactly when (and at what aspect) the missile was launched?



Quote:
Yeah they are really. If the area covered by you FLIR is smaller than the area covered by the flash, then it has a blinding effect. Here's a suitably zoomed out view of a Brimstone vs T-72(?) on FLIR (0.55). Flash but entire image is not obscured. A T-72 is less than half as long as an F-15E.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHFwq3rCkw


If you watch the hellfire videos you can clearly see the whole FLIR go dark during the blast.






Also, you haven’t explained how the missile can detonate on a flare when it is at the airplane and not cause more damage since the dispensers are on the bottom of the aircraft. And that there is no proof of a third flare.
__________________
"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese
"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 02-18-2018, 10:56 AM   #256
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

The chance of MANPADS is exactly zero due to range and fuel quantity. The likely altitude of the F-15 is just a further problem.

A direct impact would still produce fragmentation-like shrapnel but a cut stab is indicative of a rod warhead.

Source - every rocket failure, plenty of videos.

MANPADS does not burn for long enough to catch an F-15 in tail chase after 10s of aft, even if it was flying stupidly low. Nor should a 2.6lb warhead make as big a flash as a 20lb warhead.

Not really, a missile with no warhead can't produce the same-sized flash as the same missile with a warhead in any band. Quick calc.

KE
0.5 x 50 x 450^2 = 5,062,500J

1kg TNT = 4MJ. Modern weapons use more powerful explosive but lets work with this.
9 x 4,000,000 = 36,000,000
+KE = 41,062,500J

The live missile has 8x the energy, even assuming the inert missile has an inert warhead of equal mass to a live warhead, if not, repeat first calc. with 41kg instead of 50. The heated dust kicked up from a ground explosion also makes the FLIR flash appear bigger.

There is no bleeding because the Hellfire missile motor has burnt out by the time it reaches the target, even though it's far larger than an Igla and is going after an extremely slow ground target.

Bigger than the F-15 but smaller than the flash despite being the net result of 33lbs of jet fuel per second. Quick calc again:

1lb jet fuel = 18,500BTU/lb = 19,517,500J/lb
33 x 19,517,500 = 644,077,500J

KE of Igla at Mach 2
0.5 x 10.8 x 680^2 = 2,496,960J

So the energy of 33lbs of jet fuel is >250 times that of the KE of an Igla, even if it was brought to rest immediately (which it wasn't) and all KE converted to heat.

KE of R-73 - Mach 2.5 at altitude, where Mach 1 ~300m/s.
0.5 x 105 x 750^2 = 29,531,250J

4-5% if missile immediately came to rest with all energy converted to heat instantly, which wasn't even nearly the case, nor could it be from rear aspect, angled approach. Half that at best and realistically nearer a quarter.

The flash is separate, as clearly shown on the video and the addition of an extra 0.4% (Igla) or 4% (R-73) would not be noticeable. I think your argument is mathematically dead here, whether you continue is up to you.

Surprised it flew at all if safety interlocks weren't removed.

In which case the impact and conversion of KE to heat would be even lower.

It really doesn't matter. Call the missile launch point t=0 seconds and the impact point t=x seconds. If the missile is moving faster during that x seconds between launch and impact, which it is, it must have travelled further. You cannot travel faster for a given period of time and travel a smaller distance.

They use the same size warheads, they are in fact based on the same design, but with a new seeker.

A third flare wouldn't be visible until it left the aura of the afterburner. Depending on the type of proxy fuse used, the RF cross-section or light emitted from the flare could trigger the warhead. It is of course possible that the jet caused the proximity burst too. AAMs are not known for having perfect Pk.

Last edited by Emu; 02-18-2018 at 11:10 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 02:46 AM   #257
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

First i want to say its really hard to tell exactly what your talking about when you don't quote what your responding to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
The chance of MANPADS is exactly zero due to range and fuel quantity. The likely altitude of the F-15 is just a further problem.
We don't know range.

Quote:
A direct impact would still produce fragmentation-like shrapnel but a cut stab is indicative of a rod warhead.
Soo, are you saying that a kinetic strike would produce more damage???

Quote:
Source - every rocket failure, plenty of videos.
I would appreciate if you could direct me to one or two that your talking about.

Quote:
MANPADS does not burn for long enough to catch an F-15 in tail chase after 10s of aft, even if it was flying stupidly low. Nor should a 2.6lb warhead make as big a flash as a 20lb warhead.
We don't know the aspect of the launch.

Quote:
Not really, a missile with no warhead can't produce the same-sized flash as the same missile with a warhead in any band. Quick calc.
You can't see heat in the visible band.

Quote:
KE
0.5 x 50 x 450^2 = 5,062,500J

1kg TNT = 4MJ. Modern weapons use more powerful explosive but lets work with this.
9 x 4,000,000 = 36,000,000
+KE = 41,062,500J

The live missile has 8x the energy, even assuming the inert missile has an inert warhead of equal mass to a live warhead, if not, repeat first calc. with 41kg instead of 50. The heated dust kicked up from a ground explosion also makes the FLIR flash appear bigger.
okay, i'm not sure exactly what your trying to say here...

But I agree that a live missile is much more powerful than an inert one!

Quote:
There is no bleeding because the Hellfire missile motor has burnt out by the time it reaches the target, even though it's far larger than an Igla and is going after an extremely slow ground target.
ummm, i'm talking about a live hellfire detonation.

Quote:
Bigger than the F-15 but smaller than the flash despite being the net result of 33lbs of jet fuel per second. Quick calc again:

1lb jet fuel = 18,500BTU/lb = 19,517,500J/lb
33 x 19,517,500 = 644,077,500J

KE of Igla at Mach 2
0.5 x 10.8 x 680^2 = 2,496,960J

So the energy of 33lbs of jet fuel is >250 times that of the KE of an Igla, even if it was brought to rest immediately (which it wasn't) and all KE converted to heat.

KE of R-73 - Mach 2.5 at altitude, where Mach 1 ~300m/s.
0.5 x 105 x 750^2 = 29,531,250J

4-5% if missile immediately came to rest with all energy converted to heat instantly, which wasn't even nearly the case, nor could it be from rear aspect, angled approach. Half that at best and realistically nearer a quarter.


The flash is separate, as clearly shown on the video and the addition of an extra 0.4% (Igla) or 4% (R-73) would not be noticeable. I think your argument is mathematically dead here, whether you continue is up to you.
The fatal flaw in your math is that the kinetic energy would be dumped much faster than 1 second.

so if we take 0.1 sec as example we have a 64,407,750 for the burner which would make the r-73 more like 45% max.

Quote:
Surprised it flew at all if safety interlocks weren't removed.
Yeah, me too

Quote:
In which case the impact and conversion of KE to heat would be even lower.
I was talking about the hypothetical almost not possible MANPADS scenario.

Quote:
It really doesn't matter. Call the missile launch point t=0 seconds and the impact point t=x seconds. If the missile is moving faster during that x seconds between launch and impact, which it is, it must have travelled further. You cannot travel faster for a given period of time and travel a smaller distance.
Exactly, but without knowing exactly when it was launched that means nothing.

Quote:
They use the same size warheads, they are in fact based on the same design, but with a new seeker.
I was pointing you to that video because it had more hits and different angles and targets.

Quote:
A third flare wouldn't be visible until it left the aura of the afterburner. Depending on the type of proxy fuse used, the RF cross-section or light emitted from the flare could trigger the warhead. It is of course possible that the jet caused the proximity burst too. AAMs are not known for having perfect Pk.
But the Dutch journalist claimed it detonated on a flare, which if wrong would bring the sources credibility into question.
Watch the video in .25 and go frame by frame and interpolate the missile position, its literally on the plane.

Here is an (apparent) inert missile hit at 1:22:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA

A pretty big flash (in normal video no less), probably the motor, Who would have thought?


Here is the FLIR afterburner i promised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzD1SCk__g
__________________
"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese
"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 02-19-2018, 10:06 AM   #258
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

We don't need to, the missile is faster, so in the 10s the F-15 was on afterburner the missile would have flown further. We also know the missile doesn't burn that long.

Difficult to answer that. A kinetic impact from an early AIM-9 simply stuck in a Chinese MiG over the Taiwan straight and it flew home after. The missile was then copied by the Soviets to produce the AA-2. But a MANPADS is way more flimsy and lighter

Just look up rocket failures. They burn over a period of time after, they don't produce a sudden, short flash immediately.

Both the missile and plane are travelling left to right. Look at the trail of the missile.

Yes you can see heat in the visible band, it's just not as big, but energy excited airborne electrons to to higher energy states, they then give up that energy as photons, as per a fire.

What I'm trying to say is simple. The maximum amount of heat that can possibly be generated by a kinetic-only strike, is limited by the kinetic energy, which is far lower than the energy in the warhead, hence it can't produce the same sized flash in IR or visible band.

The Hellfire is live but the motor has still burnt out when it reaches the target.

Doesn't really work that way, the afterburners are heating the air continuously, and that heat does not dissipate instantly. And that figure for the R-73 is the absolute theoretical maximum amount of heat a kinetic strike could produce if it hit a solid lead wall, came to rest instantly and produced no sound and still it's less than what the afterburner kicks out in 0.1s, yet it somehow produced a bigger flash that lasted nearer 1s. That should tell you that you're wrong.

The above is the mathematical description of a MANPADS kinetic-only strike with a completely perfect conversion of KE to heat, which is impossible in practice, yet it still falls short of energy requirements.

It was launched before the guy went to afterburner and certainly before flares, which were ejecting 3s before impact.

And the zoomed out view shows a flash similar in size to the flash in the video.

Think you're clutching at straws here. The missile detonated at a flare or on a flare, Minor quibble over wording.

Far smaller than the flash in the video and an AIM-9 is bigger and faster than a MANPADS. You're also looking at an air-launched missile at very close range at medium altitude, big difference. The missile takes a few seconds to impact even launched at this similar altitude and with a faster missile. That should make you rethink the idea of a SAM strike.

Difficult to tell which planes are in afterburner and which aren't. But nearly all fighters have a specific fuel consumption of 1.5-2.0 lb/lbf.hr on reheat.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 03:57 AM   #259
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
We don't need to, the missile is faster, so in the 10s the F-15 was on afterburner the missile would have flown further. We also know the missile doesn't burn that long.
What i am saying is since we don't know when it was launched we can't say how far anything has gone. But seriously are you still going to be bringing up MANPADS? No one actually believe it to be the most likely.

Quote:
Difficult to answer that. A kinetic impact from an early AIM-9 simply stuck in a Chinese MiG over the Taiwan straight and it flew home after. The missile was then copied by the Soviets to produce the AA-2. But a MANPADS is way more flimsy and lighter
Yeah, i am not saying that any time a missile hits something it breaks up, just that in this specific incident it looks like it did. Just as in that incident it didn't.

Quote:
Just look up rocket failures. They burn over a period of time after, they don't produce a sudden, short flash immediately.
I did and i didn't come up with anything other than the video that proves the motor can explode.

Quote:
Both the missile and plane are travelling left to right. Look at the trail of the missile.
The way they are traveling at intercept does not always indicate exact launch aspect.

Quote:
Yes you can see heat in the visible band, it's just not as big, but energy excited airborne electrons to to higher energy states, they then give up that energy as photons, as per a fire.
Have you ever been in a dark room and there is another person, I don;t know about you but I can't see them.

Quote:
What I'm trying to say is simple. The maximum amount of heat that can possibly be generated by a kinetic-only strike, is limited by the kinetic energy, which is far lower than the energy in the warhead, hence it can't produce the same sized flash in IR or visible band.
Yes, i agree, as long as all the parameters are identical.

Quote:
The Hellfire is live but the motor has still burnt out when it reaches the target.
???

I was talking about the blast not bleeding.

Quote:
Doesn't really work that way, the afterburners are heating the air continuously, and that heat does not dissipate instantly. And that figure for the R-73 is the absolute theoretical maximum amount of heat a kinetic strike could produce if it hit a solid lead wall, came to rest instantly and produced no sound and still it's less than what the afterburner kicks out in 0.1s, yet it somehow produced a bigger flash that lasted nearer 1s. That should tell you that you're wrong.
Ok, so after looking at the video again, It looks like the flash goes from 0 to its biggest in one frame so assuming 24FPS:

644,077,500/24=26,836,562.5

So in the lead wall no sound scenario you have 110% of the energy and then if we assume in real life 0.2 of the KE is converted to heat we get 22% plus the rocket motor burning off which makes a large flash perfectly possible.

So is what your trying to say that if there was an explosion of 90% of the energy of afterburners we wouldn't see it at all? To me that is preposterous.

Quote:
The above is the mathematical description of a MANPADS kinetic-only strike with a completely perfect conversion of KE to heat, which is impossible in practice, yet it still falls short of energy requirements.
Yep, i am not arguing MANPADS.

Quote:
It was launched before the guy went to afterburner and certainly before flares, which were ejecting 3s before impact.
How do you know it was launched before the burners? It seems more likely for him to forget to pull out of burner than lighting them with a heat seeking missile inbound.

Quote:
And the zoomed out view shows a flash similar in size to the flash in the video.
It shows a blast the same size, not a glowing flash.

Quote:
Think you're clutching at straws here. The missile detonated at a flare or on a flare, Minor quibble over wording.
There is no evidence of a third flare other than the Dutch journalist. Watch it again frame by frame.

Quote:
Far smaller than the flash in the video and an AIM-9 is bigger and faster than a MANPADS. You're also looking at an air-launched missile at very close range at medium altitude, big difference. The missile takes a few seconds to impact even launched at this similar altitude and with a faster missile. That should make you rethink the idea of a SAM strike.
?????????

My point is a rocket motor can and will explode when it hits an aircraft, something you have vehemently denied.

Quote:
Difficult to tell which planes are in afterburner and which aren't. But nearly all fighters have a specific fuel consumption of 1.5-2.0 lb/lbf.hr on reheat.
I think its pretty clear, when the glow brightly.
__________________
"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese
"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 02-20-2018, 05:16 AM   #260
Mfezi
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
What I'm trying to say is simple. The maximum amount of heat that can possibly be generated by a kinetic-only strike, is limited by the kinetic energy, which is far lower than the energy in the warhead, hence it can't produce the same sized flash in IR or visible band.
Emu, the amount of heat produced does not determine the size of the flash on FLIR. It determines the intensity. In the video from the original post of this thread, the FLIR is set too sensitive. It is very obvious: In the first 20 seconds, the F-15 is completely white and you can clearly see the engine exhaust before afterburner is activated. This is in stark contrast to most infrared videos that I have of missile tests, where the target is a dark grey prior to missile impact. Some FLIR systems will auto-adjust the temperature range, but in this case the aircraft is still bright white in the section of video following the impact, which tells us there was no adjustment over the span of the video.

The result of this overexposed imaging is that you cannot measure the relative intensities anymore. White is white: The heat generated by the aerodynamic friction on the airframe only is enough to saturate it (first 20 seconds), making the airframe appear white in the image. The afterburner saturates it to white. The flares saturate it to white. The impact saturates it to white. The relative size of each of these contributors simply signifies the extent of the heated gas surrounding the source. The amount of heat generated determines the intensity, but that you cannot measure anymore on this video because it is saturated.
Mfezi 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 01:27 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.