Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 32 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2018, 12:00 PM   #311
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

At 4:00, the flares look similar sized to burners in that video too dude.

Rocket fuel burns, it does not explode in a sudden, brief flash but it does augment warheads explosions afterwards.


1) You're just plain lying now. The burners on the F-22 video are about half the length of the aircraft, or 10m and there are two of them. In the OP video, the flash is wider in diameter than the burner plume and aircraft together, or about 50m. So even based on your own measurements, the flash would need to more than quadruple relative to afterburners in FLIR, or increase in volume >64 fold. The AIM-9X flash is not as long as the burners in these videos. And this assumes that it is a completely inert strike, which it may not be, since it doesn't appear to be a hit in this shot.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=301



And in all those AIM-9X videos there's literally one where it makes any flash, and we're still assuming there is no small charge.

1a) Add to this the fact that the afterburners burn a greater mass of fuel per second than the AAM would have left and the fact that jet fuel has a BTU/lb more than twice as high and it would take 8x70 or 80lbs of rocket fuel to sustain a fireball that large for that long without the help of a warhead to spread it out.

2) Bleeding glow of what? A truck will not glow as bright as a plane in FLIR for obvious reasons. Similar sized flash even with white-hot human.


3) Nope but it makes it 99% likely that it exploded before we even look at the highly supportive evidence and the Dutch source. Then you have that the AIM-9X which produce an inert strike flash, if it was indeed inert, represents about 1% of all inert AIM-9X strikes, the other 99% not producing a flash. So the probability of the warhead not going off is 1% and the probability of it still producing a flash in normal video is also 1%. This means that the chances of no warhead explosion and a flash in normal video is about 1 in 10,000. This is not the probability of a 50m-wide flash in FLIR, just the probability that the warhead failed and it produced a any flash in normal video IF the AIM-9X had no warhead. The other thing to note about that AIM-9X shot is that it's not a very successful firing - an IIR missile is designed to hit CoM not stab-edge - unless they're testing the proxy fuse.

In fact, look at the video again, but this time look at the circular inset at 1:22-1:23. It's missed the a/c and is heading directly for the jet exhaust before the freeze frame. It's a miss. And in the other 2 strikes there is no flash despite far more direct hits, only dust and debris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA





4) The balance of evidence is a 50m wide flash. We've seenat least 2 videos show Hellfires with similar-sized flashes in FLIR and exactly none that show 50m wide flashes from inert AAM strike sin FLIR?

5) Here again is the glowing shrapnel the contractor said didn't exist. Also note the bulge from the sudden explosion and the narrower trail of the burning remnant fuel afterwards.


Last edited by Emu; 03-06-2018 at 02:02 PM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 03:14 AM   #312
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
At 4:00, the flares look similar sized to burners in that video too dude.
In diameter? Yes, that is what i said, but the burners are 10m long so they have far more volume........dude

Also, in my previous calc i figured the burners and flares square instead of round so here is the more accurate numbers (normal video and OP FLIR):

Burners are 15.7 Cu meters
Flare is 0.52 Cu meters
Burners in FLIR are 288,695 Cu px
Flares on FLIR are 164,636 Cu px
So in normal video flare is 3% of burners and in FLIR flare is about 57% of burners. So the flare 19 times bigger (compared to burners) than normal.

Quote:
Rocket fuel burns, it does not explode in a sudden, brief flash but it does augment warheads explosions afterwards.
Like have have said a mega-myriad of times, prove it! (solid fuel)

Quote:
1) You're just plain lying now. The burners on the F-22 video are about half the length of the aircraft, or 10m and there are two of them. In the OP video, the flash is wider in diameter than the burner plume and aircraft together, or about 50m. So even based on your own measurements, the flash would need to more than quadruple relative to afterburners in FLIR, or increase in volume >64 fold. The AIM-9X flash is not as long as the burners in these videos. And this assumes that it is a completely inert strike, which it may not be, since it doesn't appear to be a hit in this shot.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=301


I was talking about normal video, The volume of the AIM-9X flash is about 33 Cu meters and the burners are about 15.7 Cu meters

Quote:
And in all those AIM-9X videos there's literally one where it makes any flash, and we're still assuming there is no small charge.
Look at this:



Very similar sized flash to other AIM-9X hit.

Quote:
1a) Add to this the fact that the afterburners burn a greater mass of fuel per second than the AAM would have left and the fact that jet fuel has a BTU/lb more than twice as high and it would take 8x70 or 80lbs of rocket fuel to sustain a fireball that large for that long without the help of a warhead to spread it out.
Well thats all fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that the missile before it hits has 47% of the FLIR signature of the burners.

Quote:
2) Bleeding glow of what? A truck will not glow as bright as a plane in FLIR for obvious reasons. Similar sized flash even with white-hot human.
Bleeding glow of the explosion. It that video there is more glow than normal but there also seems to be more sophisticated glow suppression in the apache than the OP video.

Quote:
3) Nope but it makes it 99% likely that it exploded before we even look at the highly supportive evidence and the Dutch source. Then you have that the AIM-9X which produce an inert strike flash, if it was indeed inert, represents about 1% of all inert AIM-9X strikes, the other 99% not producing a flash. So the probability of the warhead not going off is 1% and the probability of it still producing a flash in normal video is also 1%. This means that the chances of no warhead explosion and a flash in normal video is about 1 in 10,000. This is not the probability of a 50m-wide flash in FLIR, just the probability that the warhead failed and it produced a any flash in normal video IF the AIM-9X had no warhead. The other thing to note about that AIM-9X shot is that it's not a very successful firing - an IIR missile is designed to hit CoM not stab-edge - unless they're testing the proxy fuse.
This is a good example of not using "maths". For it to be 1% you have to have 100 inert hits and 99 of them have to have no flash.

As for the Dutch source, you still have no proof of the third flare, wrong interval, no bulge, no flare.

Quote:
In fact, look at the video again, but this time look at the circular inset at 1:22-1:23. It's missed the a/c and is heading directly for the jet exhaust before the freeze frame. It's a miss. And in the other 2 strikes there is no flash despite far more direct hits, only dust and debris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA
The horizontal stabs of the F-4 are angled down over the exhaust:



Quote:
4) The balance of evidence is a 50m wide flash. We've seenat least 2 videos show Hellfires with similar-sized flashes in FLIR and exactly none that show 50m wide flashes from inert AAM strike sin FLIR?
That would be great if someone could find an inert hit in FLIR, but alas failure.

Quote:
5) Here again is the glowing shrapnel the contractor said didn't exist. Also note the bulge from the sudden explosion and the narrower trail of the burning remnant fuel afterwards.
Already addressed that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolga View Post
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.
__________________
"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 03-07-2018, 10:52 AM   #313
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

No, the flares were only slightly smaller than the burners in that normal video too, hence it aligns with my reasoning, because they are slightly smaller in FLIR too. There is no transformation from smaller to much larger to support your kinetic strike theory.

You can't compare flares on one video with burners on another, they must be on the same video.

Show me a video of a failed rocket where it produces a sudden flash rather than a growing burn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A

The AIM-9X isn't an inert strike, it's a miss, as the inset proves. That shot clearly went to c0ck because IIR missiles aren't supposed to go for rear extremities. Besides that, two 10m long burner plumes still have more volume and a lot of the heat is invisible in normal video, which is why non-aft jets are invisible. You also forget that on the FLIR video the flash is bigger than the burner plume in all dimensions. Aside from that, what you have is one instance, vs many non-instances multiplied by the small probability that the warhead failed. Ignoring exact figures, that's one unlikely event followed by another unlikely event, which still fails to produce a flash of anywhere near the required size.

No flash there, that's just debris and there are hundred of inert brimstone tests showing just dust and debris too. Full video of that is at 0:45, just debris, even though it's a far more solid hit, hence there should be a greater KE exchange. Lets face it, if you had more than that one dubious example, you would have found a better second example rather than a fake one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-BwMi19JE&t=45s


Tons of them here.
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...brimstne+tests

Quote:
That would be great if someone could find an inert hit in FLIR, but alas failure.
So you expect an inert strike to produce the same sized flash as a live warhead in FLIR? Sorry but that's just illogical. Aside from that, it is you who needs the inert strike in FLIR to support your theory. I already have two examples of a live strike in FLIR to prove mine, so my job is done.

No he said there was no shrapnel. Basically a repair man is not a forensic investigator, otherwise body shops could replace the police who investigate RTAs. But forgetting that, now that we agree there was shrapnel, is it not probable that there was also a warhead, especially when one considers that most missile warheads do go off and that such an event would nicely explain the large flash and shrapnel without having to resort to shoestring theories?

Last edited by Emu; 03-07-2018 at 11:42 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 01:04 AM   #314
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
No, the flares were only slightly smaller than the burners in that normal video too, hence it aligns with my reasoning, because they are slightly smaller in FLIR too. There is no transformation from smaller to much larger to support your kinetic strike theory.

You can't compare flares on one video with burners on another, they must be on the same video.
I am talking about actual flame size, burners are about 1m x 10m cylinders and thus their volume is about 15.7 Cu meters combined, Flares are about 1m x 1m spheres (I am being generous, they are probably smaller) and thus about 0.52 Cu meters, and thus they are much smaller than burners in real life, but in FLIR they are over half the size of burners.

Also, i don't know if i should calc FLIR in area or volume, i think that FLIR would sense in 2D (More heat=more area) rather than More heat=more volume, i don't know, it doesn't change the outcome much but more accuracy is better.

Quote:
Show me a video of a failed rocket where it produces a sudden flash rather than a growing burn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A
The video you just linked to at 0:06, it falls over and explodes like heck (most of them in that video do that as well, especially if they hit something).

Quote:
The AIM-9X isn't an inert strike, it's a miss, as the inset proves. That shot clearly went to (Removed for violation of 1.1) because IIR missiles aren't supposed to go for rear extremities. Besides that, two 10m long burner plumes still have more volume and a lot of the heat is invisible in normal video, which is why non-aft jets are invisible. You also forget that on the FLIR video the flash is bigger than the burner plume in all dimensions. Aside from that, what you have is one instance, vs many non-instances multiplied by the small probability that the warhead failed. Ignoring exact figures, that's one unlikely event followed by another unlikely event, which still fails to produce a flash of anywhere near the required size.
Whats with the "afterburner plume" thing, afterburners don't have plumes and in FLIR they have glows.

Look at the photo i posted in my last post, the stabs on the f-4 are pointed down over the exhaust at the rear, after it hits by the time the next frame is taken the plane has moved forward a few meters and since the blast from the motor is static it stays behind.

Quote:
No flash there, that's just debris and there are hundred of inert brimstone tests showing just dust and debris too. Full video of that is at 0:45, just debris, even though it's a far more solid hit, hence there should be a greater KE exchange. Lets face it, if you had more than that one dubious example, you would have found a better second example rather than a fake one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-BwMi19JE&t=45s

IMG
You have watched at least a hundred of the inert hits?

In the picture that i posted you can see the blast (i circled it) after the dust settles.
You conveniently chose the video that cuts out early, the full video is here at 0:53 (watch at 0.25 speed.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-CeuO1R4WE


Here is another one (AIM-9X test):



Notice they are no longer burning, IE no motor left, IE irrelevant.

Quote:
So you expect an inert strike to produce the same sized flash as a live warhead in FLIR? Sorry but that's just illogical. Aside from that, it is you who needs the inert strike in FLIR to support your theory. I already have two examples of a live strike in FLIR to prove mine, so my job is done.
In the OP video everything glows far bigger than the actual flame size, in the hellfire videos there is a lot less glow and so you can fairly accurately tell the actual flame blast size, and that is what i have been saying for pages.

I tried to measure the hellfire video you posted last and came up with about 28m for the glow at its largest.

Quote:
No he said there was no shrapnel. Basically a repair man is not a forensic investigator, otherwise body shops could replace the police who investigate RTAs. But forgetting that, now that we agree there was shrapnel, is it not probable that there was also a warhead, especially when one considers that most missile warheads do go off and that such an event would nicely explain the large flash and shrapnel without having to resort to shoestring theories?
Read the dang post dude, Neon67 says its strange that there is no shrapnel damage, ZEEOH6 says they will ask, contractor says no detonation hence the lack of shrapnel damage.
__________________
"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 03-08-2018, 11:25 AM   #315
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

The volume is irrelevant in this case. The flash in the AIM-9X video is roughly a sphere. It is less than the width of 1 wing, or half wingspan minus fuselage, which would be 4m. BUT, the wings are at an angle since the plane does not have its belly directly facing the camera. If this angle is ~45deg, then the diameter is <2.8m (11.5m^3 volume vs 15.7m^3, or 1/4 the length of the burner plume. This sphere radiates heat roughly equally in all directions, hence the dimensions of this sphere relative to the burners should be roughly the same in every aspect in FLIR. But the diameter is suddenly more than twice the length of the burner plume.

I'm still seeing only dust and debris.

The inset clearly shows the missile heading towards the plume not a stab at the last minute. It should also be noted that IIR missiles are not designed to strike the rear of the a/c. This is a miss with a small charge to test the proximity fuse.

Yes, literally hundreds, and none of them produce a flash big enough to correspond to 50m wide on FLIR. And again, the live Hellfire flash is only that big on FLIR, so why would an inert strike be the same size?

You have tried to make use of some extremely grainy video to claim a flash. It's not a flash it's just debris and crucially, at actual impact, it is clear that there is no sudden flash from the kinetic impact, nor is there a huge explosion plume thereafter.



Again, why not show the full video. Is that strike even in remotely the same place on the aircraft? Nope. And again, clear evidence of a test warhead. You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that all tests have no live warhead.

On the contrary, it's completely relevant, since most short range missiles will have either no fuel, or very little left at impact.

There's less glow in the Hellfire video simply because the target is not an afterburning jet doing Mach 1. And as you pointed out, the missile's motor had ran out. So there is nothing to glow except the warhead, which produces a sudden flash similar in size to the OP video. Hence my theory is supported. Now go find an inert strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash to support your theory, or don't bother wasting any more of my time.

28m at its largest without unspent rocket fuel. So 40-50m when augmented by unspent fuel, yes? Surely that further proves my case.

The shrapnel damage is the missing stab, the expanding rod cut it off and the rest of the shrapnel can be seen glowing in the video thereafter.

Let me give you an analogy. I ran into a deer once, yet there were no parts of deer stuck in my bonnet. Would the repair shop have been correct in saying no evidence of deer? Yes. Does that mean there was no deer? No.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 03:35 AM   #316
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
The volume is irrelevant in this case. The flash in the AIM-9X video is roughly a sphere. It is less than the width of 1 wing, or half wingspan minus fuselage, which would be 4m. BUT, the wings are at an angle since the plane does not have its belly directly facing the camera. If this angle is ~45deg, then the diameter is <2.8m (11.5m^3 volume vs 15.7m^3, or 1/4 the length of the burner plume. This sphere radiates heat roughly equally in all directions, hence the dimensions of this sphere relative to the burners should be roughly the same in every aspect in FLIR. But the diameter is suddenly more than twice the length of the burner plume.
So, you were wrong on the flare and so you switch to the Aim-9x flash, ok,
So using the length instead of the wingspan (and being generous) i came up with about 3.75m which would make that 27.6 Cu meters, which is 1.75 times the volume of the burners. And also the blast is a solid white hot flame, not barely visible like the burners in daylight.

Quote:
I'm still seeing only dust and debris.
Watch it at 0.25 speed, there is clearly a hot ball of similar size to the other hit after the plane passes.

Quote:
The inset clearly shows the missile heading towards the plume not a stab at the last minute. It should also be noted that IIR missiles are not designed to strike the rear of the a/c. This is a miss with a small charge to test the proximity fuse.
PLUME???????????????

Yes, it heads straight for the glow which the F-4's downturned horizontal stabs are in the way of.

Quote:
Yes, literally hundreds, and none of them produce a flash big enough to correspond to 50m wide on FLIR. And again, the live Hellfire flash is only that big on FLIR, so why would an inert strike be the same size?
Hundreds with the motor still burning on impact?

Quote:
You have tried to make use of some extremely grainy video to claim a flash. It's not a flash it's just debris and crucially, at actual impact, it is clear that there is no sudden flash from the kinetic impact, nor is there a huge explosion plume thereafter.
The missile goes straight through the fuselage so i wouldn't expect to see the flash right when it happened, especially because of the lack of oxygen within the fuselage.

Quote:
Again, why not show the full video. Is that strike even in remotely the same place on the aircraft? Nope. And again, clear evidence of a test warhead. You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that all tests have no live warhead.
Yeah, sorry i thought it was in the other video i posted, here is the link (watch in 0.25 speed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

Clear evidence? You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that they don't trust telemetry (weather they should or not).

Also don't forget the person who has actual missile testing experience:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfezi View Post
...However, I did find a few direct impacts against target drones where the missile had an inert warhead...

Quote:
On the contrary, it's completely relevant, since most short range missiles will have either no fuel, or very little left at impact.
It is completely irrelevant because the missile in the OP video is still burning.

Quote:
There's less glow in the Hellfire video simply because the target is not an afterburning jet doing Mach 1. And as you pointed out, the missile's motor had ran out. So there is nothing to glow except the warhead, which produces a sudden flash similar in size to the OP video. Hence my theory is supported. Now go find an inert strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash to support your theory, or don't bother wasting any more of my time.
Most likely it has to do with military FLIR for blowing crap up Vs. Law enforcement FLIR for chasing bad dudes.

(There is an article that says most likely it was filmed on Flir ULTRA 8500)
Source:https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/0...city-of-sanaa/

Quote:
28m at its largest without unspent rocket fuel. So 40-50m when augmented by unspent fuel, yes? Surely that further proves my case.
No i think it proves you are bad at estimating size (Sorry i couldn't resist, don't take it personally, i try to stay light hearted, no one is going to die.)

I think it shows the difference in FLIR configs more than anything, i think an actual detonation on the OP video would be enormous compared to apache FLIR and settings.

Quote:
The shrapnel damage is the missing stab, the expanding rod cut it off and the rest of the shrapnel can be seen glowing in the video thereafter.
Something else to think about is that the maintenance procedures might be different for a detonation vs a kinetic strike.

Quote:
Let me give you an analogy. I ran into a deer once, yet there were no parts of deer stuck in my bonnet. Would the repair shop have been correct in saying no evidence of deer? Yes. Does that mean there was no deer? No.

Let me fix your analogy:

You're driving down the roads of rural Holland and you hit an animal, you take your car to the mechanic, after work that day he tells a buddy that it looks like they hit a deer, but a car enthusiast magazine from UAE claims you hit a bear, some random guy in London goes "obviously it was a bear!".
__________________
"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 03-09-2018, 11:15 AM   #317
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

I said they are both smaller than afterburner in normal video, and the flare is smaller in FLIR, so you would expect the flash to be smaller as well. Yet, it is twice as big.

Poor quality video footage and the case in point is the actual point of impact where there is no flash, as is typical with inert strikes.

If the stabs were it the way of it, they are the last things you would see in the inset, which shows the seeker perspective but they are not.

All types, and once again, the motor will not produce a sudden flash on impact. Fireball after maybe, but no sudden flash.

WAT!? It is surrounded by oxygen, and you even have jet fuel in there too. The rate of KE exchange should also be far larger. And once again, afterburner - 33lbs/s of 17,000BTU/lb fuel. Solid rocket fuel 8,000BTU/lb, most of it already gone, and it burns for some time afterwards in the OP video. 200lb missile, minus airframe weight, minus electronics, minus 20lb warhead, minus fuel already spent, yet still twice as big a flash???

Furthermore, you can see the goddamn missile in this picture, it is nowhere near where you claim the flash to be.



I have testing experience too, and only the early tests are done with no warhead. I can also tell you that telemetry can't accurately validate a proximity fuse. They are very time and distance specific and you also have to assess the proximity of the blast after the fuse triggers, and there is a delay between the trigger and the blast. Very short, but stuff is moving very fast too. As an exaggerated example, take the SA-2 fired at an SR-71 over the NK DMZ, everything in that missile functioned perfectly but the proximity fuse was too slow, or just about right from the pilot's perspective. Telemetry would probably have declared that a hit because the fuse likely triggered within 20m, but the warhead went off >100m behind the aircraft. Furthermore, that test is not an example of an IIR missile tracking correctly, which it what leads me to believe it's a proxy test.

But likely has less than BTU content required to out-do the afterburners and won't produce a sudden flash either way.

They are both high quality FLIR systems.

Not really - simple analogy: grenade explodes and makes a flash, grenade next to a petrol pump explodes and makes a bigger flash. What's not obvious here?

The maintenance procedure is the same either way. Check for other damage and FOD, replace broken part, ground test, flight test.

If it was a small bear, the damage would look similar. But if FLIR imagery showed something fat with claws standing on its hind legs...
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 06:55 PM   #318
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,569
Default

Ok Emu, exactly what missile testing experience do you have? Time to put up or... yeah you know the rest.
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 10:53 PM   #319
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
I said they are both smaller than afterburner in normal video, and the flare is smaller in FLIR, so you would expect the flash to be smaller as well. Yet, it is twice as big.
The AIM-9X flash is not smaller.

Quote:
Poor quality video footage and the case in point is the actual point of impact where there is no flash, as is typical with inert strikes.
Looking at it again there is a very possible flash right after the missile exits the fuselage:




Quote:
If the stabs were it the way of it, they are the last things you would see in the inset, which shows the seeker perspective but they are not.
It appears they are right at the edge before the inset cuts out, indicating the back end of the missile probably whacked it.

Quote:
All types, and once again, the motor will not produce a sudden flash on impact. Fireball after maybe, but no sudden flash.
And you have yet to provide any proof of that, the videos you keep posting just confirm my position.

Quote:
WAT!? It is surrounded by oxygen, and you even have jet fuel in there too. The rate of KE exchange should also be far larger. And once again, afterburner - 33lbs/s of 17,000BTU/lb fuel. Solid rocket fuel 8,000BTU/lb, most of it already gone, and it burns for some time afterwards in the OP video. 200lb missile, minus airframe weight, minus electronics, minus 20lb warhead, minus fuel already spent, yet still twice as big a flash???
Can you provide a source for your BTU numbers?
Also, you don't know weather the leftover glow is burning or not.

Quote:
Furthermore, you can see the (Removed for violation of 1.1) missile in this picture, it is nowhere near where you claim the flash to be.

IMG
Yeah, of course it is, the flash doesn't follow the missile.

Quote:
I have testing experience too, and only the early tests are done with no warhead. I can also tell you that telemetry can't accurately validate a proximity fuse. They are very time and distance specific and you also have to assess the proximity of the blast after the fuse triggers, and there is a delay between the trigger and the blast. Very short, but stuff is moving very fast too. As an exaggerated example, take the SA-2 fired at an SR-71 over the NK DMZ, everything in that missile functioned perfectly but the proximity fuse was too slow, or just about right from the pilot's perspective. Telemetry would probably have declared that a hit because the fuse likely triggered within 20m, but the warhead went off >100m behind the aircraft. Furthermore, that test is not an example of an IIR missile tracking correctly, which it what leads me to believe it's a proxy test.
Missile testing experience? If so, why didn't you say so before, i asked.
Makes sense about the telemetry not being perfect, but you haven't sold me on the whole tiny testing warhead thing.

Quote:
But likely has less than BTU content required to out-do the afterburners and won't produce a sudden flash either way.
I have mathematically proven that with just one second left it has far more than enough potential FLIR signature to produce the flash in the OP video.

Quote:
They are both high quality FLIR systems.
Yep, but different uses and different users.

Quote:
Not really - simple analogy: grenade explodes and makes a flash, grenade next to a petrol pump explodes and makes a bigger flash. What's not obvious here?
What is not obvious is what your talking about?

Quote:
The maintenance procedure is the same either way. Check for other damage and FOD, replace broken part, ground test, flight test.
Source?

Quote:
If it was a small bear, the damage would look similar. But if FLIR imagery showed something fat with claws standing on its hind legs...

The car was mostly in the way of the FLIR though, and the mechanic probably asked you what you hit also.
__________________
"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 03-10-2018, 12:06 PM   #320
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

2.8m vs >10m. It's smaller. In the FLIR video, the flash is bigger in all dimensions by a factor of 2.

Dust and debris. And there is no reason for the missile to explode after leaving the fuselage. And your argument about insufficient oxygen is also garbage because rocket motors have their own oxidiser.

It appears that the missile is targeting the plume - see black box in inset. That isn't what IIR missiles do normally. So why? Proxy fuse test.

I have shown no videos of rocket failures that show a sudden flash. And you have posted no videos of inert impacts on FLIR with a 50m wide flash. You have ironically posted a live warhead strike with a similar-sized flash. I have nothing to prove at this point, the balance of evidence is in my favour.

Go back in the thread.
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

Sorry, this missile is still intact and nowhere near the claimed flash, where you claim is suddenly exploded.


It indicates where the blast is relative to the aircraft and you can use the small amount of non-destructive damage to model the affect of a larger warhead.

You haven't though. You've shown a 2.8m wide flash, that may not even be inert, and claimed it becomes 50m wide in FLIR and yet a 15-20m wide live Hellfire warhead flash in normal video, only becomes 40m in FLIR. And your theory relies on the probability of warhead not exploding multiplied by probability of 50m wide inert flash. The evidence is not in your favour.

Irrelevant.

Explosive + fuel flash > Explosive only flash.

Knowledge.

The only problem with that theory is that incident happened behind the pilot and all they would feel is something hitting the aircraft. And I doubt it's happened frequently enough to them for them to know the different between shrapnel impact and inert missile impact. Assuming your theory is true. Alternatively, maybe the crew is the Dutch magazines source and they heard a bang followed by crap hitting their plane.
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 02:47 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.