Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 31 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2018, 08:20 PM   #301
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post

The explosion does indeed continue in the direction the missile was travelling and you can even see the shrapnel that our expert contractor said didn't exist glowing in this little shot.

It's called hot DEBRIS, something which has to appear when a hard object smashes into another above the speed of sound !! Esp. if said object contains volatile rocket fuel!!
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 03:50 AM   #302
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
Those were positions right at the start before I'd watched the video carefully. I usually dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. After learning it really happened my position hasn't changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
...What next? Have you noticed how my account (i.e. air-launched R-73) is the only one that hasn't changed, or been discredited throughout this thread? Why is that I wonder?
Did you know what throughout meant when you typed that?
__________________
"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 03-02-2018, 04:25 AM   #303
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
Nope, they are distinct from each other just before explosion.
You left out the final frame before the flash


The burner glow before they converge is about 5324 px, in the above frame (them together) the burner glow is about 7672 px.

That is called combining.


Quote:
Missile then gets lost in burner plume.
Do you know what a plume is?

Quote:
At impact - a 50m wide flash covering burner plume and aircraft.
Not covering, combined.

Quote:
If it was the heat 'lingering', it would linger in one place and not continue upwards with the momentum of the missile.
look at the exhaust, the leftover glow stays right above it.

Quote:
Already answered that. My initial reaction is to dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. Why did it take you and others so long to decide it wasn't a MANPADS? Your current position is that my initial position was correct, a position I've stated is wrong, so if we continue for a while, perhaps you'll catch up with me.
My first post in this thread was poking fun at the "F-15's never fly below 10,000 ft" thing, my second was clarifying the first, and my third was about the motor exploding. I have never considered MANPADS the most likely.

Quote:
The explosion does indeed continue in the direction the missile was travelling and you can even see the shrapnel that our expert contractor said didn't exist glowing in this little shot.
He didn't say there was no debris (or shrapnel for that matter) that would be stupid, just that there was no shrapnel damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZEEOH6 View Post
...Doesn’t look like it. The contractor didn’t say anything about shrapnel. I will ask though.

ETA: No warhead detonation, all kinetic.
Quote:
Now here's where your theory falls down. If all the motor exploded in one frame (required to produce enough heat to dwarf burner plume, what is this burning far later?
The leftover plume (Smoke and debris).

Quote:
The truth is that a warhead exploded producing a flash of similar size to that of similar sized warhead in other FLIR videos and the rod warhead cut off the stab. If you can show me an inert impact producing a flash of similar size on FLIR then we'll talk, until then all the evidence says warhead. The alternate theories are:

1) MANPADS of extraordinary range.

2) Eagle flying very, very low.

3) Dual redundant warhead fuses fail but rocket motor explodes instantly after missile hits a fairly fragile part of the aircraft that breaks off.

4) Unexpectedly large amount of KE dissipated immediately despite stab breaking off, meaning that it couldn't be dissipated immediately.

JC, it's a warhead. This does not require any unusual circumstances.
No, not all the evidence, just the evidence you like.

BTW why the heck are you still talking at the wall that allegedly still believes its a MANPADS?

Quote:
Rocket failures - could have looked this up yourself. There is nothing as sudden as it the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9fkYIrRwbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8
Haha, thanks for proving my point! Now i see why you stalled for so long, And also the R-73 is a solid rocket motor so its even more irrelevant.

Quote:
You're forgetting that we've already proven that there is insufficient KE available for such a flash, and the rocket motor does not explode in on instant as evidenced in the video.
Nope.

Quote:
The explosion of a 440lb warhead would blind a FLIR, even at that range but from sufficient range, the shape would match the shape in normal vision, only larger.
Ok, what are you talking about.

Quote:
That's why it's hard to see and when the missile warhead goes off, all is lost.
Quote:
If the impact emitted enough heat for a 50m-wide glow, why wasn't the rest of the a/c affected by the heat somehow?
Why doesn't the afterburner melt the plane?

Quote:
You need to know how close the missile is during a proxy detonation in case the telemetry is wrong.
Show your proof then.

Quote:
An interesting point. Burners are not 20-30m in normal video, but they are easily over 10m long and hence far larger than that tidgy-widgy flash in the AIM-9X test. Hence I rest my case, burner are larger than KE impact, even if there was no small warhead in that AIM-9X test.



Normal video. How big is a flare in normal video? very small.

Quote:
Doesn't change the fact that heat is emitted in all directions and covers a volume, not linear or area.
And that doesn't change the fact that i have proven my position mathematically probable.

Quote:
You're forgetting the original topic again - this large 50m-wide flash. We have already shown that the KE is insufficient and clearly not all the missile's chemical resources are spent in one frame, so your theory is bankrupt. And remember, jet fuel twice as high BTU/lb as rocket fuel.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=255
You said earlier the original topic was MANPADS, make up your mind

Quote:
So you have insufficient KE, ... (Post too long)
KE+Motor.

Quote:
You mean a mechanic/grease monkey?
No i mean contractor.

Last edited by kolga; 03-02-2018 at 04:30 AM.
kolga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 09:53 AM   #304
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

To avoid the extraneous garbage in the above post, please address the following points.

1) Afterburners in normal video are larger than the flash from an alleged AIM-9X kinetic strike in normal video, it would therefore figure that they'd be larger in FLIR too, just like flares are smaller than burners in normal video and also smaller in original video in FLIR. But afterburners are considerably smaller than the impact flash in original video, hence, it is not a kinetic strike.

2) Explosion in original video is a similar size to Hellfire explosion on FLIR video. Hence it is a warhead detonation of similar size consistent with an R-73 or similar.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2018, 04:23 AM   #305
kolga
Member
 
kolga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 518
Default

I am actually starting to wonder if your trolling...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
To avoid the extraneous garbage in the above post, please address the following points.
Well, i didn't have a whole lot of time that night due to a possible power failure so i had to wrap it up and post it before i was completely done, but contemplate the following refuse

Garbage like proving the combining effect exists, the famous rocket failure videos being a nothingburger, the glow not continuing upwards, challenging you for proof of a telemetry warhead, ect.

Quote:

1) Afterburners in normal video are larger than the flash from an alleged AIM-9X kinetic strike in normal video, it would therefore figure that they'd be larger in FLIR too, just like flares are smaller than burners in normal video and also smaller in original video in FLIR. But afterburners are considerably smaller than the impact flash in original video, hence, it is not a kinetic strike.
Flares are about 1m x 1m in normal video but 68% of the area of the
1m x 10m burners so its definitely not as simple as "Big in normal = big in FLIR"

Quote:
2) Explosion in original video is a similar size to Hellfire explosion on FLIR video. Hence it is a warhead detonation of similar size consistent with an R-73 or similar.
No, the glow in the video is similar is size to the actual explosion of a hellfire in flir, there is almost no glow 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 03-03-2018, 11:08 AM   #306
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
Flares are about 1m x 1m in normal video but 68% of the area of the
1m x 10m burners so its definitely not as simple as "Big in normal = big in FLIR"
Well it actually seems that it is. Obviously flares are designed specifically to be big on FLIR, yet they are still smaller than the burners, just as in normal video. So the kinetic strike in the AIM-9X test, which is smaller than afterburner on normal video and not designed to be big on FLIR, should definitely be smaller on FLIR, unless flare designers are useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
No, the glow in the video is similar is size to the actual explosion of a hellfire in flir, there is almost no glow in the hellfire videos.
Perhaps the glow is the result of an explosion, followed by a fireball, as is common with most explosions.

So, size matches explosion of a similar sized warhead in FLIR. Size doesn't match size of kinetic strike. And would you expect a missile without a warhead to produce as large a FLIR signature as one without?

I think it's game over at this point and you are just trolling for the sake of it.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2018, 10:10 PM   #307
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 it actually seems that it is. Obviously flares are designed specifically to be big on FLIR, yet they are still smaller than the burners, just as in normal video. So the kinetic strike in the AIM-9X test, which is smaller than afterburner on normal video and not designed to be big on FLIR, should definitely be smaller on FLIR, unless flare designers are useless.
I made a mistake on my previous calculation, it would be 2m x 10m for the burners so that would make it 20 sq m vs 1 sq m And therefore:

In normal video the flare is 5% of burners and in FLIR flare is 68% of burners, that is 13.6 times bigger than it "should" be.

The big difference is that the flare is a continual burn where the motor exploding is not. And also, just because its not designed to be big on flir doesn't mean its not going to be, for example the missile glow before it hits is about 69% of the area of the flare glow, so if the rest of the motor were burned in an instant it clearly has enough potential FLIR signature for the flash in the video.

Quote:
Perhaps the glow is the result of an explosion, followed by a fireball, as is common with most explosions.
As shown in the AIM-9X video the motor blast hangs around too.

Quote:
So, size matches explosion of a similar sized warhead in FLIR. Size doesn't match size of kinetic strike. And would you expect a missile without a warhead to produce as large a FLIR signature as one without?
Like i have said many times, there is no glow in the hellfire videos, you are seeing the actual explosion, whereas in the OP video anything hot is glowing like heck and you can't see anything because its blocked by the enormous glow.

Quote:
I think it's game over at this point and you are just trolling for the sake of it.
If i was trolling i wouldn't be mathematically proving my position, as i have been.

Your running out of evidence.
__________________
"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 03-05-2018, 10:54 AM   #308
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

You've made a mistake in a lot of calculations, it's becoming somewhat of a theme. And you have made yet another, a flare is very close to burner size in normal video and is equal or larger than the flash in that inert strike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdb-LUWT898&t=88s

But the flare is still smaller than the burners in FLIR despite being specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR.

The motor doesn't all burn instantly though as is evident in the video, nor is it capable of doing so to produce such a quick flash, hence why it's usable as a rocket fuel in the first place.

The flash in the AIM-9X video is very small though, far smaller than burners. And yes, if something is specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR, then it will be. An inert strike is clearly not an efficient way of generating heat/IR.

You haven't correctly used maths once and the fact remains.

1) AAM inert strike smaller than burners in normal video, but explosion in OP video is much bigger than burners and bigger than burners an aircraft together..

2) Explosion size in OP video is similar to Hellfire explosion on FLIR, which uses a similar-sized warhead to an R-73 or generic SRAAM. Of all the complicated crap on a missile, the warhead and its fuse are not among them.

3) Heck, it's just extremely likely that a missile used in combat has a warhead that goes off.

The balance of evidence clearly points to a warhead here.

Last edited by Emu; 03-05-2018 at 10:57 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 11:50 PM   #309
Udat
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 400
Default

I'm getting low on popcorn
__________________
Intel i7-950 @stock, Asus P6X58D-E, 3x4GB Corsair Vengeance, Asus GTX 580, Corsair 120GB SSD, Corsair HX 750W PSU
Udat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 04:18 AM   #310
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've made a mistake in a lot of calculations, it's becoming somewhat of a theme.
Show the mistakes if they exist.

Quote:
And you have made yet another, a flare is very close to burner size in normal video and is equal or larger than the flash in that inert strike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdb-LUWT898&t=88s

But the flare is still smaller than the burners in FLIR despite being specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR.
Haha, Wow, who would have thought that in low light over exposed video flares are huge?

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

Quote:
The motor doesn't all burn instantly though as is evident in the video, nor is it capable of doing so to produce such a quick flash, hence why it's usable as a rocket fuel in the first place.
"The video"? Which video? The massive space travel rockets are mostly liquid fuel (R-73 is solid fuel) and they blow up pretty dang fast (look at your second video, rocket #4, it starts on fire and then BOOM. It didn't even hit anything).

Quote:
The flash in the AIM-9X video is very small though, far smaller than burners. And yes, if something is specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR, then it will be. An inert strike is clearly not an efficient way of generating heat/IR.
The flash by my measurements (Based on the wingspan) is about 4 or 5 meters. So a volume of about 33m vs 20m for the burners. I call that bigger.

Quote:
You haven't correctly used maths once and the fact remains.
Just what exactly is "The fact"?

Quote:
1) AAM inert strike smaller than burners in normal video, but explosion in OP video is much bigger than burners and bigger than burners an aircraft together..
Nope as demonstrated

Quote:
2) Explosion size in OP video is similar to Hellfire explosion on FLIR, which uses a similar-sized warhead to an R-73 or generic SRAAM. Of all the complicated crap on a missile, the warhead and its fuse are not among them.


Nope 'cause no bleeding glow in hellfire videos

Quote:
3) Heck, it's just extremely likely that a missile used in combat has a warhead that goes off.
Yep, but that doesn't mean they have a 100% detonation rate.

Quote:
The balance of evidence clearly points to a warhead here.
Other than the dutch journalist I have seen no evidence pointing to detonation.
__________________
"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 12:53 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.