Jump to content

Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen


red_coreSix

Recommended Posts

Not if the motor is pulverized, as i would expect it to be.

Why? The AA-2 was designed from an AIM-9 that got stuck in a Chinese MiG-17 and planes tended to be made of harder steel back then rather than fancy composites. And like I said, I rocket motor won't combust that quick. Go watch videos of rockets motors catching fire and you'll see what I mean. It doesn't happen that quickly. The flaming rocket continues for some time.

 

 

 

I tend to agree with you on this one wink.gif

That was an incorrect statement made before I watched it in slow motion.

 

 

Haha umm yeah, gotta love those journalists...

They probably have a source aside from someone on the internet.

 

 

I doubt the journalist has the stab, I am going to believe the person who has pictures to prove they have contact with those who have the stab.

Until proven otherwise of course... :)

That only means they know what part broke not how it happened. They are not incident investigators. There is no way a rocket motor explodes that quickly from a kinetic impact if the warhead (which has a dual redundant trigger mechanism) fails. And the idea that a MANPADS not only had sufficient fuel to be burning on impact but also enough spare to explode like that is preposterous. Also preposterous is the idea that both a proximity fuse and impact fuse failed but the rocket motor exploded so willingly and fast and yet this sudden explosion also failed to trigger the warhead. That's just a comical assertion. Every part of the missile exploded immediately apart from the part that was supposed to? The contractor needs to rethink that one. I guess this warhead is now just sitting in the sand somewhere having a Hamlet cigar???


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not if the motor is pulverized, as i would expect it to be.

 

Why? The AA-2 was designed from an AIM-9 that got stuck in a Chinese MiG-17 and planes tended to be made of harder steel back then rather than fancy composites. And like I said, I rocket motor won't combust that quick. Go watch videos of rockets motors catching fire and you'll see what I mean. It doesn't happen that quickly. The flaming rocket continues for some time.

 

 

 

 

That was an incorrect statement made before I watched it in slow motion.

 

 

 

They probably have a source aside from someone on the internet.

 

 

 

That only means they know what part broke not how it happened. They are not incident investigators. There is no way a rocket motor explodes that quickly from a kinetic impact if the warhead (which has a dual redundant trigger mechanism) fails. And the idea that a MANPADS not only had sufficient fuel to be burning on impact but also enough spare to explode like that is preposterous. Also preposterous is the idea that both a proximity fuse and impact fuse failed but the rocket motor exploded so willingly and fast and yet this sudden explosion also failed to trigger the warhead. That's just a comical assertion. Every part of the missile exploded immediately apart from the part that was supposed to? The contractor needs to rethink that one. I guess this warhead is now just sitting in the sand somewhere having a Hamlet cigar???

 

Soo, how many times do i have to say don't think it was a MANPADS?

 

I doubt the Houthis have access to perfectly maintained and stored missiles.

Remember, this is a highly anecdotal incident, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but to completely out rule something because its very unlikely doesn't work in this circumstance, it is definitely still relevant though.

 

Is it possible the missile did not actually contain a warhead? yes, very improbable, but still possible.

 

Take a look at this 16 sec in:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/ah-64-apache-in-iraq-compilation-5/1571586734001

 

Hellfire has a 9Kg warhead and the flir is blinded

 

R-73 has 7.4Kg warhead and there is barely a flash???

 

Granted different cameras, lighting, distance, ect.

 

Maybe there was hardly any fuel left and so it didn't take much to finish it off.

Maybe the missile yawed when it hit so the motor was facing the camera briefly.

 

Really all we can do is maybe until the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt comes out.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soo, how many times do i have to say don't think it was a MANPADS?

Well that was my only point here.

 

Is it possible the missile did not actually contain a warhead? yes, very improbable, but still possible.

A missile with no warhead? Manufacturing accident?

 

 

Take a look at this 16 sec in:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/ah-64-apache-in-iraq-compilation-5/1571586734001

 

Hellfire has a 9Kg warhead and the flir is blinded

And the car had a dozen or more gallons of petrol and probably some mortar rounds too.

 

 

R-73 has 7.4Kg warhead and there is barely a flash???

Completely different distances. E.g. how big is a strike Eagle relative to a typical car?

 

proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cargolaw.com%2Fimages%2Fdisaster2000.F15_4.GIF&hash=d8a35870c4ab25b1178453b6a369ae0c

FullSizeRender-10-e1512853257698.jpg?resize=1170%2C621

 

 

Granted different cameras, lighting, distance, ect.

Different everything. It's like throwing a grenade into a gas station and noting that the flash blinds a FLIR and assuming all grenades should do the same minus the gas station.

 

Maybe there was hardly any fuel left and so it didn't take much to finish it off.

Maybe the missile yawed when it hit so the motor was facing the camera briefly.

Or maybe there was a great big flash that was equally as big as the one in your Apache video but it just looked smaller next to a huge 20m-long strike eagle. Place this explosion over the eagle in the images above relative to the cars.

 

oaGrio7.png

 

 

Really all we can do is maybe until the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt comes out.

It's not a MANPADS, I'm 100% sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A missile with no warhead? Manufacturing accident?

 

Or maybe training missile, i doubt they can read Russian, or the explosive compound deteriorating to the point of no longer being explosive.

 

And the car had a dozen or more gallons of petrol and probably some mortar rounds too.

 

Completely different distances. E.g. how big is a strike Eagle relative to a typical car?

 

 

Different everything. It's like throwing a grenade into a gas station and noting that the flash blinds a FLIR and assuming all grenades should do the same minus the gas station.

 

 

Or maybe there was a great big flash that was equally as big as the one in your Apache video but it just looked smaller next to a huge 20m-long strike eagle. Place this explosion over the eagle in the images above relative to the cars.

 

I think you have convinced me a little here, not 100%, but more like 50/50.

As far as the car having gas and stuff, the car also didn't have an afterburner, which complicates the comparison even more.

 

But what i was trying to point out is the blinding effect it had, which would be somewhat independent of blast size i would think (I could be 100% wrong here).

 

Here is a video of a stinger through night vision (skip to 1:22):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Z98YT2cU

 

The flashes are huge and the camera isn't even zoomed in that much.

 

(Again, i am not saying its a MANPADS, just using it as an example)

 

It's not a MANPADS, I'm 100% sure.

 

Well, i'd say we can only be about 90% sure due to lack of official info.

 

 

And the F-15 possibly could have been low as i have pointed out earlier (still not sure if the f-15 in the video is saudi though):

 

...What in the living hecking crap is an f-15 doing so low in the first part of the video?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lkU7oxOmjY

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, the contractor may be wrong about whether or not the warhead detonated. But looking at the damage, there is very little radial damage I would think would be associated with a continous tod warhead (I’ve never seen what that damage would look like). He did say there was no shrapnel of any sort (We have jets with shrapnel damage, not from munitions but from engines shelling out and throwing shrapnel through the fuselage, so I know what that looks like).

 

When we did drone shoots, the missiles did not contain a wathead, just a tocket motor.

 

I’ve been a part way more bombs dropped compared to missiles shot (hundreds of thousands of pounds compared to like 8 missile shots). Duds are really not that uncommon. I know it’s not the same comparison though.

Alienware 17 R3: Intel i7 6820HK @ 4 GHz, 16 GB DDR4, GTX 980M, 1TB Samsung NVMe 951 SSD, AW Graphics Amplifier w/ GTX 1080, TM HOTAS Warthog, Oculus Rift CV1, Monstertech, MFG Crosswind, Jetseat KW-908

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread with interest. I've worked in flight test most of my adult life and over the years have been present during more than a few missile tests (mostly air-to-air, but also a few ground-launched missiles). So I went through some of my videos to remind myself again what different types of impacts/detonations looked like. Each one is usually unique in some way or another, so I couldn't find a video identical to what we saw in the original video of this thread. However, I did find a few direct impacts against target drones where the missile had an inert warhead and where the burn had been fully completed prior to impact, which at least gives some reference for what a pure kinetic impact look like on infra-red. Unfortunately, I can't post these videos on YouTube for obvious reasons. They do look very similar to the original video: The kinetic impact between the missile and target drone usually generates more than enough heat for a pretty spectacular flash on infra-red - not unlike what we saw in this video. Following the flash, we also see most of the hot fragments continue in the direction of original missile travel rather than the wider radial spread that you normally see following an actual warhead detonation (I say normally, because there are of course different types of warheads).

 

In this video, the F-15 is almost completely white from the start of the video and the afterburner and flares both cause a lot of saturation on the video, which tells me the FLIR is at a very sensitive setting - more sensitive than what we would normally use for testing. With that type of sensitivity, a pure kinetic impact should generate more than enough heat to result in the type of flash we see in the video and screen grab. Furthermore, in this video we see that the motor was also still burning at impact, so at least some of the flash may be caused by the (presumably) last little bit of fuel flashing off, causing an even brighter and slightly more prolonged flash.

 

Combined with the lack of damage to other parts of the aircraft, I have to say my personal opinion at this point is that what we see is a direct impact with no warhead detonation. According to this video, if it was indeed an actual warhead detonation, it happened extremely close to the target aircraft. Even a tiny warhead at that type of proximity would normally cause a lot of damage, especially in the form of fragment holes on the surrounding fuselage and vertical tails. So, without further information I feel it is unlikely that what we are looking at is a warhead detonation. Not impossible - as I said every impact I have seen has been slightly different - but based on the video and the damage shown in the pictures, it looks to me like a pure kinetic impact combined, possibly, with a little bit of combustion of whatever amount of fuel was still left in the missile. I wouldn't speculate on why it may not have detonated - there can be a whole myriad of reasons.

 

Besides my opinion on the detonation or lack thereof, I do not think we have nearly enough information to make a final conclusion about the type of missile or exactly under which circumstances it was launched. Emu seems very sure about all the evidence he has posted here and that this evidence is enough to draw very specific conclusions from, but I have worked on enough military accident and incident investigations to be extremely cautious of any evidence that includes something in the line of "a well trained pilot would never..."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe training missile, i doubt they can read Russian, or the explosive compound deteriorating to the point of no longer being explosive.

Training missiles don't tend to fire at all.

 

I think you have convinced me a little here, not 100%, but more like 50/50.

As far as the car having gas and stuff, the car also didn't have an afterburner, which complicates the comparison even more.

 

But what i was trying to point out is the blinding effect it had, which would be somewhat independent of blast size i would think (I could be 100% wrong here).

 

Here is a video of a stinger through night vision (skip to 1:22):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Z98YT2cU

NVG is not the same as FLIR and I think it depends on sensitivity, the target was burning well after being hit in that video, indicating burning fuel. The explosion in the original video is more than 20m in diameter and the aura around it is twice as large again and if the F-15 had actually been hit directly and itsfuel exploded, it would be much bigger.

 

If that were the case (independent of warhead size) then the 30mm HE round in your Apache video would create a similar effect, containing ~50g of filling and travelling at 800+ m/s. I've also seen inert Brimstone tests on IR and they do not produce a flash that size. You can see the clear difference in this video, the two are not confusable.

 

 

The flashes are huge and the camera isn't even zoomed in that much.

 

(Again, i am not saying its a MANPADS, just using it as an example)

How long was the MANPADS motor burning in that video?

 

 

 

Well, i'd say we can only be about 90% sure due to lack of official info.

 

 

And the F-15 possibly could have been low as i have pointed out earlier (still not sure if the f-15 in the video is saudi though):

It could have been low (unlikley in itself) but it would have been travelling fairly fast and given the approach aspect, the missile motor would not have been burning if it was a MANPADS.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, the contractor may be wrong about whether or not the warhead detonated. But looking at the damage, there is very little radial damage I would think would be associated with a continous tod warhead (I’ve never seen what that damage would look like). He did say there was no shrapnel of any sort (We have jets with shrapnel damage, not from munitions but from engines shelling out and throwing shrapnel through the fuselage, so I know what that looks like).

 

When we did drone shoots, the missiles did not contain a wathead, just a tocket motor.

 

I’ve been a part way more bombs dropped compared to missiles shot (hundreds of thousands of pounds compared to like 8 missile shots). Duds are really not that uncommon. I know it’s not the same comparison though.

I posted pictures back on page 7. The continuous rod warhead cuts in a line, tending to cause a failure along that line, whereas fragmentation warheads spray schrapnel everywhere. With a rod warhead the bit breaks off along with the schrapnel, unless very sturdy, like a ship tower.

 

The cut-off stabiliser is also consistent with an R-73 expanding rod warhead. This shows damage done by an expanding rod warhead during a naval mishap (RIM-7 I think).

 

hobartdamage2.jpg

 

Blast fragmentation warhead of SA-16.

 

A-10_Thunderbolt_II_Battle_Damage.JPG

 

F-15SA damage.

 

pecsW8T.jpg

 

In testing, it's common to use no warhead, in training the missile is usually either captive, if using live bait or live if using dead bait.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I searched the thread but did not find a result, did anybody translate what's being said and written in this video?

METEOP

 

i5-6600K OC@4.5Ghz, GTX 1070 OC, 32Gb RAM, M.2 NVMe SSD

Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Rudder Pro, Trackhat Clip, 1080p projector, Custom touchscreen rig, Ikarus touchscreen panel, Voice Attack, ReShade, Simshaker Aviator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted pictures back on page 7. The continuous rod warhead cuts in a line, tending to cause a failure along that line, whereas fragmentation warheads spray schrapnel everywhere. With a rod warhead the bit breaks off along with the schrapnel, unless very sturdy, like a ship tower.

 

 

 

In testing, it's common to use no warhead, in training the missile is usually either captive, if using live bait or live if using dead bait.

 

and heres a picture from another angle showing the additional shrapnel damage caused by said missile (an AIM-7 btw) :

PoEJ3Ep.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, the contractor may be wrong about whether or not the warhead detonated. But looking at the damage, there is very little radial damage I would think would be associated with a continous tod warhead (I’ve never seen what that damage would look like). He did say there was no shrapnel of any sort (We have jets with shrapnel damage, not from munitions but from engines shelling out and throwing shrapnel through the fuselage, so I know what that looks like).

 

When we did drone shoots, the missiles did not contain a wathead, just a tocket motor.

 

I’ve been a part way more bombs dropped compared to missiles shot (hundreds of thousands of pounds compared to like 8 missile shots). Duds are really not that uncommon. I know it’s not the same comparison though.

 

Interesting, Thank you!

 

I've been following this thread with interest. I've worked in flight test most of my adult life and over the years have been present during more than a few missile tests (mostly air-to-air, but also a few ground-launched missiles). So I went through some of my videos to remind myself again what different types of impacts/detonations looked like. Each one is usually unique in some way or another, so I couldn't find a video identical to what we saw in the original video of this thread. However, I did find a few direct impacts against target drones where the missile had an inert warhead and where the burn had been fully completed prior to impact, which at least gives some reference for what a pure kinetic impact look like on infra-red. Unfortunately, I can't post these videos on YouTube for obvious reasons. They do look very similar to the original video: The kinetic impact between the missile and target drone usually generates more than enough heat for a pretty spectacular flash on infra-red - not unlike what we saw in this video. Following the flash, we also see most of the hot fragments continue in the direction of original missile travel rather than the wider radial spread that you normally see following an actual warhead detonation (I say normally, because there are of course different types of warheads).

 

In this video, the F-15 is almost completely white from the start of the video and the afterburner and flares both cause a lot of saturation on the video, which tells me the FLIR is at a very sensitive setting - more sensitive than what we would normally use for testing. With that type of sensitivity, a pure kinetic impact should generate more than enough heat to result in the type of flash we see in the video and screen grab. Furthermore, in this video we see that the motor was also still burning at impact, so at least some of the flash may be caused by the (presumably) last little bit of fuel flashing off, causing an even brighter and slightly more prolonged flash.

 

Combined with the lack of damage to other parts of the aircraft, I have to say my personal opinion at this point is that what we see is a direct impact with no warhead detonation. According to this video, if it was indeed an actual warhead detonation, it happened extremely close to the target aircraft. Even a tiny warhead at that type of proximity would normally cause a lot of damage, especially in the form of fragment holes on the surrounding fuselage and vertical tails. So, without further information I feel it is unlikely that what we are looking at is a warhead detonation. Not impossible - as I said every impact I have seen has been slightly different - but based on the video and the damage shown in the pictures, it looks to me like a pure kinetic impact combined, possibly, with a little bit of combustion of whatever amount of fuel was still left in the missile. I wouldn't speculate on why it may not have detonated - there can be a whole myriad of reasons.

 

Besides my opinion on the detonation or lack thereof, I do not think we have nearly enough information to make a final conclusion about the type of missile or exactly under which circumstances it was launched. Emu seems very sure about all the evidence he has posted here and that this evidence is enough to draw very specific conclusions from, but I have worked on enough military accident and incident investigations to be extremely cautious of any evidence that includes something in the line of "a well trained pilot would never..."

 

Very intriguing, thank you for chiming in!

 

Training missiles don't tend to fire at all.

 

Uhhh, I'm talking about training missiles like what ZEEOH6 mentioned.

 

NVG is not the same as FLIR and I think it depends on sensitivity, the target was burning well after being hit in that video, indicating burning fuel. The explosion in the original video is more than 20m in diameter and the aura around it is twice as large again and if the F-15 had actually been hit directly and itsfuel exploded, it would be much bigger.

I know, but they are both IR so there should be similarities, and the FLASH was about 20m in diameter, not the explosion, is the afterburner as big as the video when seen in normal camera? No.

 

If that were the case (independent of warhead size) then the 30mm HE round in your Apache video would create a similar effect, containing ~50g of filling and travelling at 800+ m/s. I've also seen inert Brimstone tests on IR and they do not produce a flash that size. You can see the clear difference in this video, the two are not confusable.

Not sure what your trying to say here, didn't see any IR video of hits in there.

 

How long was the MANPADS motor burning in that video?

I don't know, doesn't matter, that wasn't the point.

 

It could have been low (unlikley in itself) but it would have been travelling fairly fast and given the approach aspect, the missile motor would not have been burning if it was a MANPADS.

And you know this, how?

 

In testing, it's common to use no warhead, in training the missile is usually either captive, if using live bait or live if using dead bait.

 

Not sure what this means.

 

 

I know i said i was 50/50 on detonation now, but due to new posts i am back to more like 90% no 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and heres a picture from another angle showing the additional shrapnel damage caused by said missile (an AIM-7 btw) :

PoEJ3Ep.jpg

Doesn't look like the same picture, I can't match any part of that with the former picture. But don't forget there were likely things around the missile when it exploded, so you might be looking at secondary shrapnel. But note that the extraneous shrapnel damage is inside the rod, not outside, so that would put it in the part that broke off.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh, I'm talking about training missiles like what ZEEOH6 mentioned.

Inert missiles tend to be used for testing more commonly. Training rounds are generally captive, except for various A2G munitions which may be inert to preserve mock targets for longer.

 

I know, but they are both IR so there should be similarities, and the FLASH was about 20m in diameter, not the explosion, is the afterburner as big as the video when seen in normal camera? No.

Not really, the green video is clearly suffering from glare because it's using lower grade optics like the kind found in goggles, this magnifies any light source. Sure IR makes hot things a bit bigger but the idea the flash was caused just by kinetic friction is preposterous. The plane and missile are both generating friction throughout flight, yet the massive flash only occurs on impact, it's also very sudden and short in duration, not like that associated with a rocket motor combusting. The afterburner is also burning copious amounts of fuel per second to produce that heat. A kinetic only impact would have been entirely absorbed by the AB's heat signature.

 

Not sure what your trying to say here, didn't see any IR video of hits in there.

No but you can see the appreciable difference between kinetic strikes and live warheads and we've already seen a live hellfire in your earlier video on FLIR imagery of similar quality. Now if you image the inert strikes on FLIR, seriously, where does the 20m wide flash come from? There just isn't one. This video also shows live strikes in FLIR, again you're looking at something approximating 20m (would it be roughly the same with no warhead?). I'm sure you can image an inert strike on FLIR and you know it doesn't produce a large flash >20m in diamater but if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to watch.

 

 

I don't know, doesn't matter, that wasn't the point.

 

And you know this, how?

 

 

 

Not sure what this means.

 

 

I know i said i was 50/50 on detonation now, but due to new posts i am back to more like 90% no detonation.

Well it kind of is all part of the point. The arguments to justify the possibilty of MANPADS have become beyond absurd at this point. They rely on the following being true.

 

1. The aircraft flying ridiculously low and close to the launcher at a slant range of <2km such that the motor was still burning. Not a tactic any sane air force would use.

 

2. Every part of the missile immediately exploding on impact except the warhead, which had a dual failure of the proximity fuse and the contact fuse and failed to go off when the rocket motor exploded. So the missile had enough fuel left to cause this explosion the range was so short.

 

OR

 

3. The use of some kind of inert training round stored some place in Yemen that Yemenis couldn't ID as a training round.

 

4. The missile exploded with no warhead on impact, and produced no shrapnel as it came apart, yet had a flash duration similar to a warhead explosion.

 

Sorry but the complexity and absurdity of the case for MANPADS is now beyond a joke. It's just not a MANPADS. The more sensible explanation is that a larger missile was used, quite possibly from an aerial vehicle like a MiG, against an F-15 flying at a sane altitude (thus explaining the rocket motor still burning), the missile exploded near a flare with a rod warhead that cut off the stab but the plane survived due to it not being a direct hit. I know which argument requires less special conditions.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inert missiles tend to be used for testing more commonly. Training rounds are generally captive, except for various A2G munitions which may be inert to preserve mock targets for longer.

 

I'm sorry, i don't know what captive means.

 

Not really, the green video is clearly suffering from glare because it's using lower grade optics like the kind found in googles, this magnifies any light source. Sure IR makes hot things a bit bigger but the idea the flash was caused just by kinetic friction is preposterous. The plane and missile are both generating friction throughout flight, yet the massive flash only occurs on impact. The afterburner is also burning copious amounts of fuel per second to produce that heat.

 

Exactly, you don't see any glare on the afterburner? And how hot is flight friction compared to impact friction? comparing those is, as you say "preposterous".

 

No but you can see the appreciable difference between kinetic strikes and live warheads and we've already seen a live hellfire in your earlier video in IR.

 

yeah, in a normal camera, show me an inert hit in FLIR.

 

Well it kind of is all part of the point. The arguments to justify the possible of MANPADS have become beyond absurd at this point. They rely on the following being true.

 

And your knowledge of the circumstances around the incident are beyond deity. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

1. The aircraft flying ridiculously low and close to the launcher at a slant range of <2km such that the motor was still burning. Not a tactic any sane air force would use.

 

Pull out the Saudi air force operating handbook and show us they absolutely never fly low.

 

2. Every part of the missile immediately exploding on impact except the warhead, which had a dual failure of the proximity fuse and the contact fuse and failed to go off when the rocket motor exploded. So the missile had enough fuel left to cause this explosion the range was so short.

 

Not exploding, breaking up.

 

3. The use of some kind of inert training round stored some place in Yemen that Yemenis couldn't ID as a training round.

 

You know where they got it?????

 

Sorry but the complexity and absurdity of the case for MANPADS is now beyond a joke.

 

 

Again, i am NOT making the case for MANPADS, just saying you can't out rule it.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, i don't know what captive means.

It means it has all the sensors of a live weapon but doesn't fire, it is captive in the launcher or on the launch rail, like a CATM-120.

 

 

Exactly, you don't see any glare on the afterburner? And how hot is flight friction compared to impact friction? comparing those is, as you say "preposterous".

Flight friction is very hot, especially at Mach 2. In your green video everything remotely hot appears as a perfect sphere of light with no definition because it is highly over-exposed. In the original shoot-down video, you can clearly see the shape of the glow and its trail and the F-15 is clearly distinguishable. In your green video, these would all just be balls of light.

 

 

 

yeah, in a normal camera, show me an inert hit in FLIR.

Right back at you, you show me one that produces a 20+m wide flash on imagery of the same quality (not over-exposed). It's not my assertion that it does, it is therefore up to you to prove the positive for a missile of similar size and speed, not for me to prove a negative. On the inert Brimstone video there is nothing even in the way of flame or fire to cause such a flash and a Brimstone weighs 5x what an Igla weighs.

 

 

And your knowledge of the circumstances around the incident are beyond deity. (sorry, couldn't resist)

My explanation doesn't rely on silly things being true. It doesn't require the aircraft to be ridiculously low. It doesn't require a dud missile or an inert training round. It doesn't require militants having IR missiles that are immune to the flare package on an F-15SA.

 

 

 

Pull out the Saudi air force operating handbook and show us they absolutely never fly low.

They're probably not as dumb as you think. They did get 2 kills during Desert Storm.

 

 

Not exploding, breaking up.

And producing a huge flash similar in size to hellfire strikes in FLIR, a missile with a similar sized warhead as an R-73.

 

 

You know where they got it?????

Well there are several possibilities, or impossibilities since we're now being absurd. Either the missile was in storage in Yemen, in which case one would have thought the instructions and labelling would be in Yemeni since that is the norm when supply weapons to a foreign nation. I can directly attest to that. Or Iran supplied Houthis with inert rounds for a bit of a laugh hoping that they would break them open on the 1st of April.

 

Again, i am NOT making the case for MANPADS, just saying you can't out rule it.

I can and have. The plane was in afterburner for 10s, it's done more than 2km, which is the burn range of a Igla/Stinger. The missile approaches at an angle, so has travelled further, even if it flew straight. Hence it can't be a MANPADS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like the same picture, I can't match any part of that with the former picture. But don't forget there were likely things around the missile when it exploded, so you might be looking at secondary shrapnel. But note that the extraneous shrapnel damage is inside the rod, not outside, so that would put it in the part that broke off.

 

So now we're at the point of denying the validity of the picture?

 

The ship was HMAS Hobart which on June 17, 1968, was hit by AIM-7's fired by a US Seventh Air Force Phantom F 4 fighter bomber. HOBART suffered two men killed and seven wounded.

 

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.navalofficer.com.au/?option=com_jevents&task=month.calendar&year=2009&month=11&day=19&Itemid=99

 

 

Another picture showing shrapnel damage:

5343793165_47c8284585_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means it has all the sensors of a live weapon but doesn't fire, it is captive in the launcher or on the launch rail, like a CATM-120.

 

Oh, ok thank you

 

Flight friction is very hot, especially at Mach 2. In your green video everything remotely hot appears as a perfect sphere of light with no definition because it is highly over-exposed. In the original shoot-down video, you can clearly see the shape of the glow and its trail and the F-15 is clearly distinguishable. In your green video, these would all just be balls of light.

Yep, just pointing out that a puny testing stinger can produce a pretty good flash in NVG's under the right conditions (which is not FLIR, as both of us know)

 

Right back at you, you show me one that produces a 20+m wide flash on imagery of the same quality (not over-exposed). It's not my assertion that it does, it is therefore up to you to prove the positive for a missile of similar size and speed, not for me to prove a negative. On the inert Brimstone video there is nothing even in the way of flame or fire to cause such a flash and a Brimstone weighs 5x what an Igla weighs.

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

I have been making the case for R-73 no detonation, not MANPADS!!!!!

You brought up the brimstone video as proof, which it is not, i would love to find video of an inert missile hit in FLIR, but i haven't found one yet.

It's not my assertion that people who have direct knowledge of the incident (like the contractor) are wrong cause i know better, i would say if you have experience with missile tests (like Mfezi) and have video of them to look at (like Mfezi) that you can't show, great, i would trust you.

 

My explanation doesn't rely on silly things being true. It doesn't require the aircraft to be ridiculously low. It doesn't require a dud missile or an inert training round. It doesn't require militants having IR missiles that are immune to the flare package on an F-15SA.

Silly things like "hey guys we are supposed to fix this stab, looks like it was an R-73. man, i can't tell if it went off??? Its obviously an R-73, but how do we tell if the warhead detonated???"

 

I have a question for ya:

If it exploded on a flare, why did the flash happen right as the missile converged with the rear of the f 15?

 

They're probably not as dumb as you think. They did get 2 kills during Desert Storm.

I didn't say they were dumb, just that you can't seem to prove they never fly low.

 

And producing a huge flash similar in size to hellfire strikes in FLIR, a missile with a similar sized warhead as an R-73.

You call that a huge flash? As mentioned earlier, the FLIR seemed to be on a very sensitive setting eg the afterburner, The blinding effect is not directly proportional to the visible blast size.

 

Well there are several possibilities, or impossibilities since we're now being absurd. Either the missile was in storage in Yemen, in which case one would have thought the instructions and labelling would be in Yemeni since that is the norm when supply weapons to a foreign nation. I can directly attest to that. Or Iran supplied Houthis with inert rounds for a bit of a laugh hoping that they would break them open on the 1st of April.

Yeah, i was just throwing that out there as a possible solution, but don't rebels usually get kit from the black market and such? I wouldn't know, just seems to make sense that they wouldn't get all there stuff from conquest.

 

I can and have. The plane was in afterburner for 10s, it's done more than 2km, which is the burn range of a Igla/Stinger. The missile approaches at an angle, so has travelled further, even if it flew straight. Hence it can't be a MANPADS.

Is that going by your speed numbers? By the way if the missile is approaching from the side it has to travel less than a tail chase. But yeah, like i've said, there is a very very low chance of it being MANPADS, like a 3% chance or lower.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like an inert hit, although i'm not sure:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/must-see-missile-hits-insurgent-car/1080538583001

 

looks kind of strange in back hot.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And the car had a dozen or more gallons of petrol and probably some mortar rounds too....

 

UPDATE: Point is null, there are quite a few hellfire shots in this video on non fuel carrying targets, most almost completely blinding the FLIR:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/45-combat-videos/697503921001

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ok thank you

 

Yep, just pointing out that a puny testing stinger can produce a pretty good flash in NVG's under the right conditions (which is not FLIR, as both of us know)

Well yeah, people's eyes glow on NVG under the right conditions but the FLIR imagery in the original video is clearly less over-exposed.

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

I have been making the case for R-73 no detonation, not MANPADS!!!!!

You brought up the brimstone video as proof, which it is not, i would love to find video of an inert missile hit in FLIR, but i haven't found one yet.

It's not my assertion that people who have direct knowledge of the incident (like the contractor) are wrong cause i know better, i would say if you have experience with missile tests (like Mfezi) and have video of them to look at (like Mfezi) that you can't show, great, i would trust you.

You showed a FLIR video of a Hellfire warhead strike, which having similar weight to an R-73 warhead, made a flash of similar size. I think you inadvertently proved my case by underestimating the size of a strike eagle. A Dutch aviation magazine with an inside source suggests R-73 shrapnel too.

 

Silly things like "hey guys we are supposed to fix this stab, looks like it was an R-73. man, i can't tell if it went off??? Its obviously an R-73, but how do we tell if the warhead detonated???"

A missile strike would also produce shrapnel though. A rod warhead will cut things off and the repair people will take the view of, "well this bit is gone and it needs replacing."

 

 

I have a question for ya:

If it exploded on a flare, why did the flash happen right as the missile converged with the rear of the f 15?

Because if you count the time between the flares, the third one would be just releasing just before impact.

 

 

I didn't say they were dumb, just that you can't seem to prove they never fly low.

No but I have proven that Iglas/Stinger only burn for the first 2km and after 10s of afterburner the F-15 has exceeded that distance, even if the missile wasn't taking an even longer path.

 

 

You call that a huge flash? As mentioned earlier, the FLIR seemed to be on a very sensitive setting eg the afterburner, The blinding effect is not directly proportional to the visible blast size.

It's as big as the flash on your FLIR video of a Hellfire strike. Have you seen a jet on afterburner at night in normal video? Have a look before responding.

 

Yeah, i was just throwing that out there as a possible solution, but don't rebels usually get kit from the black market and such? I wouldn't know, just seems to make sense that they wouldn't get all there stuff from conquest.

So they got training rounds instead of live ones from the black market and they got past the blockade? They won't buy from Amazon again.

 

Is that going by your speed numbers? By the way if the missile is approaching from the side it has to travel less than a tail chase. But yeah, like i've said, there is a very very low chance of it being MANPADS, like a 3% chance or lower.

Umm no, I'm assuming a very moderate 250m/s start speed and near sonic after 10s of afterburner, so about 3km total. The missile takes a diagonal route which is longer, even assuming it's straight, which it isn't because the target speed is increasing. It also has to gain altitude if ground launched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE: Point is null, there are quite a few hellfire shots in this video on non fuel carrying targets, most almost completely blinding the FLIR:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/45-combat-videos/697503921001

Link's not working for me.

 

UPDATE: Point is null, there are quite a few hellfire shots in this video on non fuel carrying targets, most almost completely blinding the FLIR:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/45-combat-videos/697503921001

And the flash is similar in size to that on the video from your first Hellfire video. This link is dead too. Might be my ad-blocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a FLIR video of a kinetic only impact involving missile and target of similar speeds making a 20+m wide flash.

 

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):

fpJSviD8D4k?t=148

 

 

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.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, people's eyes glow on NVG under the right conditions but the FLIR imagery in the original video is clearly less over-exposed.

 

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.

 

You showed a FLIR video of a Hellfire warhead strike, which having similar weight to an R-73 warhead, made a flash of similar size. I think you inadvertently proved my case by underestimating the size of a strike eagle. A Dutch aviation magazine with an inside source suggests R-73 shrapnel too.

 

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.

 

A missile strike would also produce shrapnel though. A rod warhead will cut things off and the repair people will take the view of, "well this bit is gone and it needs replacing."

 

The repair people claimed it was an R-73.

(What do you mean by "missile strike"?)

 

Because if you count the time between the flares, the third one would be just releasing just before impact.

 

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.

 

No but I have proven that Iglas/Stinger only burn for the first 2km and after 10s of afterburner the F-15 has exceeded that distance, even if the missile wasn't taking an even longer path.

 

I hereby present to you what i humbly call "The Hiragana Te Interception (て)":

 

(Attached picture)

 

It's as big as the flash on your FLIR video of a Hellfire strike. Have you seen a jet on afterburner at night in normal video? Have a look before responding.

 

Yeah, at night, when camera has to be set on a higher exposure and sensitivity!!!

But actually they look barely bigger (2:12):

 

So they got training rounds instead of live ones from the black market and they got past the blockade? They won't buy from Amazon again.

 

Yeah sure, i doubt they are real picky about where they get their stuff.

Just a possible explanation.

 

Umm no, I'm assuming a very moderate 250m/s start speed and near sonic after 10s of afterburner, so about 3km total. The missile takes a diagonal route which is longer, even assuming it's straight, which it isn't because the target speed is increasing. It also has to gain altitude if ground launched.

 

Yes, you are assuming!

(refer to the て diagram)

 

Link's not working for me.

 

 

And the flash is similar in size to that on the video from your first Hellfire video. This link is dead too. Might be my ad-blocker.

 

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")

 

 

 

 

P.S.

I like the format we are posting in, it makes it easy to reply to each topic effectively!

TheTeIntercept.png.244f9f7ef145362ba780729b92ae1abe.png

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...