Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 29 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2018, 12:26 AM   #281
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,547
Default

The only 'evidence' needed here is the knowledge that this was an instrumented shot. The telemetry package in that missile is the reason why the video is available.
That package replaces the warhead. Period.
__________________

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 02-25-2018, 10:25 AM   #282
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
The only 'evidence' needed here is the knowledge that this was an instrumented shot. The telemetry package in that missile is the reason why the video is available.
That package replaces the warhead. Period.
Let's face it, there are a dozen instrumented shots and you picked just one because none of the others show anything like what you want. I still don't think that was a direct hit, nor do I think that little flash would be over 20m wide on FLIR. Equally, there are more direct impacts in the same videos that sown no spark or flash. the flash is also tiny.

Last edited by Emu; 02-25-2018 at 10:50 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 10:43 AM   #283
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Kolga - The order of magnitude comparison is clear, the KE available is tens of times too low to produce a flash bigger than the burners. Even if it were all perfectly converted to heat, which would involve the missile coming to a dead stop.

Yes it is a factor, hence why there is a trail after the afterburner plume. The air is also heated by travelling over the aircraft at 600-700mph beforehand.

Nope go back, the explosion happens for longer. See 0:46-0:47. Still of similar size to aircraft. Files attached. Probably continues longer if it wasn't off-shot. In the second shot it is longer than afterburner plume and a/c together and similar in shape to SA-2 explosion above (but smaller obviously). A kinetic strike produced a plume 50m long? Possibly even a MANPADS kinetic strike according to some. Come now. In the first shot it also eclipses the afterburner and a/c. It's quite possible this explosion is even happening in the foreground in front of a/c, making it look bigger, whilst also creating the illusion of a strike.



I do not know the energy content of a flare but I expect it is pretty high. Also see 3rd attachment, the diameter of flare on FLIR is ~1/3rd, as a cubed function, that makes it only 1/27th of volume of afterburner plume. Whereas explosion at ~2 times is 8 times bigger volume.

Perhaps there is a small charge to set off the missile in the event of a miss for safety reasons but I can't see any stab fragments and they appear to remain attached.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.png
Views:	101
Size:	391.8 KB
ID:	179860   Click image for larger version

Name:	10.png
Views:	106
Size:	344.5 KB
ID:	179861   Click image for larger version

Name:	101.png
Views:	95
Size:	392.3 KB
ID:	179862  


Last edited by Emu; 02-25-2018 at 10:50 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 02:15 PM   #284
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,547
Default

Let's face it, it was an instrumented shot without a warhead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Let's face it, there are a dozen instrumented shots and you picked just one because none of the others show anything like what you want. I still don't think that was a direct hit, nor do I think that little flash would be over 20m wide on FLIR. Equally, there are more direct impacts in the same videos that sown no spark or flash. the flash is also tiny.
__________________

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 02-25-2018, 09:26 PM   #285
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?


(that would be wrong by the way)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Kolga - The order of magnitude comparison is clear, the KE available is tens of times too low to produce a flash bigger than the burners. Even if it were all perfectly converted to heat, which would involve the missile coming to a dead stop.
Umm, no, the KE is not dumped over 1 sec.

Quote:
Yes it is a factor, hence why there is a trail after the afterburner plume. The air is also heated by travelling over the aircraft at 600-700mph beforehand.
So like 120 deg compared to like 3200 deg? Wow, thats serious preheating going on!!!

Quote:
Nope go back, the explosion happens for longer. See 0:46-0:47. Still of similar size to aircraft. Files attached. Probably continues longer if it wasn't off-shot. In the second shot it is longer than afterburner plume and a/c together and similar in shape to SA-2 explosion above (but smaller obviously). A kinetic strike produced a plume 50m long? Possibly even a MANPADS kinetic strike according to some. Come now. In the first shot it also eclipses the afterburner and a/c. It's quite possible this explosion is even happening in the foreground in front of a/c, making it look bigger, whilst also creating the illusion of a strike.
An explosion gets bigger as it happens, not smaller.

Also, looking at it again i noticed the blast (probably the rocket motor exploding) stays in roughly the same spot whereas it looks like the missile and debris continue, indicating an inert hit.

Quote:
I do not know the energy content of a flare but I expect it is pretty high. Also see 3rd attachment, the diameter of flare on FLIR is ~1/3rd, as a cubed function, that makes it only 1/27th of volume of afterburner plume. Whereas explosion at ~2 times is 8 times bigger volume.
Umm, no, the flare glow is about 50 pixels tall and the burners are about 65 (granted they are longer) i don't know about you but that does not look like 1/3.

Also, there is no slight bulge and no evidence of a third flare.

Quote:
Perhaps there is a small charge to set off the missile in the event of a miss for safety reasons but I can't see any stab fragments and they appear to remain attached.

I don't think so, can't find anything to suggest that.


Something to think about is that the missile glow before is hits is about 45 pixels high, meaning that the rocket motor is putting out a fair bit of heat per second when controlled, meaning the amount of heat produced by an explosion of the motor would be pretty impressive.
__________________
"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 02-26-2018, 09:27 AM   #286
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
Let's face it, it was an instrumented shot without a warhead.
Test shots require some indicative way of testing the proximity fuse.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 09:39 AM   #287
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
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?


(that would be wrong by the way)



Umm, no, the KE is not dumped over 1 sec.



So like 120 deg compared to like 3200 deg? Wow, thats serious preheating going on!!!



An explosion gets bigger as it happens, not smaller.

Also, looking at it again i noticed the blast (probably the rocket motor exploding) stays in roughly the same spot whereas it looks like the missile and debris continue, indicating an inert hit.



Umm, no, the flare glow is about 50 pixels tall and the burners are about 65 (granted they are longer) i don't know about you but that does not look like 1/3.

Also, there is no slight bulge and no evidence of a third flare.




I don't think so, can't find anything to suggest that.


Something to think about is that the missile glow before is hits is about 45 pixels high, meaning that the rocket motor is putting out a fair bit of heat per second when controlled, meaning the amount of heat produced by an explosion of the motor would be pretty impressive.
There is no KE with 90% of the energy of the burners, so it's a false question.

Well the movement hasn't stopped even after one second, and a 50m long plume can be seen.

Quite possibly more than that.

Yes, an explosion does, not a KE impact.

Nope, the shape of the explosion mirrors the SA-2 photo.




Looks like a third to me and definitely less than a half. It would also be good if you could find a BTU/lb figure for the flares.

I saw a bulge and I doubt the plane was just pleased to see it.

They would need a way of verifying the proximity fuse if you think about it. Can't test that with no warhead, so maybe they used a small warhead.

Depends how much fuel you think an R-73 has. AIM-9s only burn for around 5s. Missile failures also tend to be more erratic in shape.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 12:28 PM   #288
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Test shots require some indicative way of testing the proximity fuse.
Sure, the fuze functions and sends the fire signal. Instrumentation measures the miss distance and all of this data is sent out by the telemetry package. No need for a warhead.
__________________

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 02-27-2018, 01:32 AM   #289
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
There is no KE with 90% of the energy of the burners, so it's a false question.
What the heck? I said if there were hypothetically an explosion at the afterburners with 90% of the energy of the burners, do you think it would be invisible?

Quote:
Well the movement hasn't stopped even after one second, and a 50m long plume can be seen.
What i was saying is that if it was a kinetic strike all the energy that was dump would have to be dumped at that one frame. Just like when a bullet goes though something it can only dump energy as its traveling through the object, even if it continues after.

Quote:
Quite possibly more than that.
Did a quick calc and found 170 deg f with an ambient temp of 95 deg f and a speed of 650 MPH TAS

So, i was off by 50 deg and my point still stands.

Quote:
Yes, an explosion does, not a KE impact.
Actually a kinetic impact does also.

Quote:
Nope, the shape of the explosion mirrors the SA-2 photo.

IMG
Yeah, it could indicate either way.

Quote:
Looks like a third to me and definitely less than a half. It would also be good if you could find a BTU/lb figure for the flares.
Yeah maybe, when i have some time i will try and see if i can get an exact measurement.
I have been looking for a BTU/lb and haven't been able to find anything yet...

Quote:
I saw a bulge and I doubt the plane was just pleased to see it.
????? It was pleased to see what? (!)

Can you provide some sort of evidence for the bulge?

Quote:
They would need a way of verifying the proximity fuse if you think about it. Can't test that with no warhead, so maybe they used a small warhead.
I think it has been established that there is no warhead on telemetry missiles.

Quote:
Depends how much fuel you think an R-73 has. AIM-9s only burn for around 5s. Missile failures also tend to be more erratic in shape.

Guess i will have to ask again, can you please provide something to back up your claim regarding rocket failures, i have not been able to find anything.
__________________
"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 02-27-2018, 10:32 AM   #290
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
Sure, the fuze functions and sends the fire signal. Instrumentation measures the miss distance and all of this data is sent out by the telemetry package. No need for a warhead.
Wouldn't give a clear indication of where the missile was relative to a/c at the time. Proximity measurement could be wrong. Besides, the flash is brief and trivial compared to that in the OP video.
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 07:15 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.