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


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2018, 10:58 AM   #271
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
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, 11:13 AM   #272
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
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 11:19 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 12:42 PM   #273
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,547
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, 01:43 PM   #274
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,568
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, 09:21 AM   #275
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
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 09:24 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 09:23 AM   #276
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
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, 03:33 AM   #277
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
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)
__________________
"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 02-24-2018, 10:00 AM   #278
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
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
Old 02-25-2018, 12:19 AM   #279
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

I will ask again:

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?


This is a very important question to answer for my to be able to understand your position!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
I run through para by para, quicker that way.
Yeah its quicker, but it doesn't always seem to work out i.e:
12th paragraph on my post:
"By all means show us the evidence then.

See attached images, and interpolate missile position."

12th paragraph on your post:
"That's still the blast happening in roughly the same spot but the aircraft continues away from that spot at ~600-700mph."

that doesn't really make sense unless i am misunderstanding something.


Quote:
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
Yeah but that same air is also leaving at 600MPH, so its not really much of a factor.

And as i have proven, all the KE that the missile dumps happens in one frame because the glow is past the stab in the next frame, therefore having nothing to dump KE with.

(by the way, to go frame by frame just put it on 0.25 speed and click play pause quickly)

Quote:
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.
Afterburners are chemical energy also so its a perfect comparison according to what you keep saying:

"...temperature itself is a measure of average molecule KE (so it does indeed all boil down to energy)"

Quote:
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.
[/QUOTE]


Look at the frame just before the hit, the missile is clearly on course to hit one of the stabs, and by the time the next frame was taken the blast had drifted due to the speed on the F-4.
__________________
"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 02-25-2018, 12:22 AM   #280
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
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.

Just semi-sarcastically challenging him for a source.


Also, i am trying to stay semi-light-hearted, its not like whoever happens to be wrong in this gets burned at the stake or something.
__________________
"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
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 01:05 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.