Emu

Okay, so that just leaves the Isp and fuel weight for a proper calculation.

Do you have the Vympel link?

Okay, well calculation still supports 20-30kft comfortably. Well outside MANPADS reach.

Where does the added weight come from though? And we still need a source for Isp and fuel weight.:D Okay this site quotes 343kg. http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/air-to-air-missiles-r-27r1 This gives 1227m/s. Now you might say 1000m/s with external forces and average of 750m/s but that's still 13km (43kft). At a 45deg angle = 9km (30kft). And definitely >20kft.

Where's your source for those E masses. 350kg looks very, very wrong. The motor (less than half missile length) diameter is only increased to 260mm from 230mm. A 28% c/s area increase for 40% of the missile's length does not give a 40% increase in weight. More like 11%. Link? If the pilots were suicidal and stupid. The equation you used was wrong though.

You still sure it's not a MANPADS? It looks kind of big for a MANPADS to me.

Well that may be the problem. There's increasing suggestion that these missiles originated outside Yemen, so maybe we are looking at an E model and the burn time is definitely >6s. So assuming a 6/10 ratio, that means 113kg of fuel, and a recalculation yields: Delta V = 2452.5 x ln(219/106) = 1780m/s or ~M5.3@SL and M5.9@11km Add in external forces and you get M4-4.5. Or maybe the E model just has a smaller electronics section. Where's the evidence it weighs 350kg? Even an R-33 only weighs 490kg and that's almost 3 times the c/s area. I know, I just felt like being crappy about it, especially since I struggled to understand what the hell your calculation was supposed to be about due to the error. That MANPADS theory is starting to look very unlikely though, not that it ever was likely. I doubt it. The missile will decelerate very fast in thick air once the thrust is removed. Tail chase, an AIM-120C at SL manages about 5km range on a rear aspect target, even with a ~9s burn. You quoted 219kg but then we're allowing you to come up with figures for fuel weights and Isp with no source whatsoever. But 253kg with 113kg of fuel for E model gives Delta V = 1451m/s. Even a MICA VL is stated to have a ceiling of 10km (33kft) and an R-27ET is huge relative to those and actually available sources state M4.5. 350kg looks wrong to me, unless there's a reputable source.

The video shows the rocket motor burning for ~12s, a long way past 6s for sure. Aside from that your assumptions are garbage. The average speed would not be half the peak due to v^2 drag relationship, not that a peak of M2.2 sounds remotely realistic - pretty sure it's peak will be higher than that of a Stinger. And strange how you're now arguing that an R-27 is past burnout after a 'low' target, when earlier, it could have been a MANPADS that hit whilst still in burn. Do you even think a missile doing 760m/s at 2300m will retain enough energy to make an unpowered intercept 11s later in what appears to be a mostly rear-aspect tail chase? You need to look at the video first, which should correct obvious mistakes and then rethink your maths. Additionally, your calculation is complete BS even for the figures you provided. Ve = g * Isp = 9.81 * 250 = 2452.5m/s Delta V = Ve * ln(Mo/Mf) = 2452.5 * ln(219/151) = 912m/s

DCS is not reality, you only have to look at the zero drag R-24s (don't know if fixed yet) to notice that. The speed depends on altitude and tends to be quoted for a medium altitude. Your assertion that neither missile will reach near those speeds is nonsense without confirming what launch AND travel altitude you're talking about. Yes drag is higher at SL but the SAM doesn't remain at SL throughout its flight, it is only at lower altitude during the slower part of its flight where excess thrust is in abundance. Not on DCS they don't.;) And nope, those wings are pathetically small relative to aircraft wings, they were intended for manoeuvring at high speeds not subsonic. The chase is over long before the missile slows to the same speed as the aircraft if any manoeuvring is involved, hence why energy is more important to missile intercept Pk than manoeuvrability. At low speeds, those small winglets require huge AoA, which quickly bleeds even more energy that it doesn't have. That said, the missile doesn't need to be near that speed to get to 30,000ft in that time, the 1000m/s was quite a conservative average, below Mach 3 (and even a little Stinger can reach M2.6). A missile peaking at M4.5 would average nearer M4 due to the rapid increase in drag with speed. That said 17 x 1000m is still 17km and assuming 45deg angle that amounts to 12km (40kft). So there is plenty of room for the missile to have reached 30kft and then levelled out before the intercept and I think a suggestion of 10kft is definitely wrong as that would amount to an average vertical velocity of only 176m/s, which is lower than the capability of the aircraft it's chasing. And safe to say, the aircraft is well beyond MANPADS intercept parameters, AND DEFINITELY outside MANPADS burn range.

Range is dependent on aspect though. Closer ranges in tail chase would pose lesser missiles problems. Equally, Meteor affords AFs the ability to use less aircraft to cover the same amount of airspace in a war scenario. Less sorties equals less cost.

Not your typical scenario, but I'm sure the thrust >> weight though and the calculation is only intended as a ballpark illustration. Equally, the first M1.0 is achieved with only 1/19th of the energy required for M1.0-M4.5, so standstill is a negligible factor. SLAMRAAM also has the same quoted speed as AMRAAM. But even if you half the speeds, you still get ~9km (30kft) from the same calculation, so a minimum of 20kft seems likely, even if the average speed is only 500m/s, which is hugely likely to be an underestimate since these things don't tend to steer very well below M2.0. Additionally, it's a clear day and you can't even see the plane until the fire breaks out.

?

You say tomayto, I say tomato. One is down to Rmax, the other could be described as an Rmin. If the missile has to turn 180deg in a 100m radius, the target is too close for that perspective. Maybe I didn't state my point clearly. If the missile is in parameters and tracking, i.e. heading for an intercept given current a/c trajectory, and has full energy, the aircraft cannot out-manoeuvre it because, as proven above, the missile has a higher rate of turn and doesn't need to turn as much to adjust intercept for any given manoeuvre the aircraft can pull. In the video, the missile is on course for a CoM intercept but the seeker is seen to deliberately shift focus at the last moment.

Not if it's fully energised and capable of pulling 50g it won't. Go do the trig. You'll find that if the missile is very close, manoeuvring is useless because the speed of the missile is such that you'll barely have changed the intercept point before the missile arrives and the proxy fuse goes off. v^2/a = r, v/r = Angular velocity. Aircraft, 9g, 300m/s 300^2/90 =1000m, 300/1000 = 0.3rad/s Missile, 50g, 1000m/s 1000^2/500 = 2000m, 1000/2000 = 0.5rad/s So the missile has a higher angular turn rate but here's the real killer: Missile is 1000m, or 1s away. Assume plane turns instantly through 90deg. Arctan (300/1000) = 16.7deg. So the missile doesn't even need to turn as fast due to the much higher speed.

Or the missile was fired from a different altitude/range.

Vision is based on range, not specifically altitude, and the missile takes 17s to impact, with a peak speed of M4.5, or 1500m/s, so call it 1000m/s average. That's 17km (56,000ft), although, admittedly not directly up, or in a straight line.

Okay, I'll rephrase, the image quality is crap. I'd be guessing. A repair only looks at the damage and you don't know the journalist's source. Yes, it had originally locked CoM but then it seemingly deliberately deviates. That wasn't due to missile manoeuvrability. Before I see a circle with a clear tail. After I see a smaller white dot with no tail. This should at least indicate that the missile is not intact. And need I remind you, I've already mathematically proven that a missile can't produce such a flash with KE alone, so you're trying to undo your own argument that it was fuel here. Clearly the missile's motor can't explode and yet still be running. I also see a missile heading for a miss in the inset. I'm saying I know what I said. You, on the other hand, can't even remember what you said, as shown above. The pickups fuel still burns slower and longer because it needs oxygen from the air for that process, whereas the explosive does not. The speed of the process is quite literally why explosive is explosive. I'm afraid the imagery is indeed in FLIR, what else would it be in? Old school black and white video perhaps? Above you alleged that a missile could produce a flash even if it is intact (the phantom AIM-9X exhaust). I've already proven that a live warhead produces a similar sized flash, the job of proving that an inert missile produces the same-sized flash is yours. Good luck. But we do see that a live warhead of the same size produces a bigger flash than the one in the AIM-9X video. So I'd say my argument looks pretty strong at this point.:D A contractor isn't necessarily the best source. What if the magazine source was RSAF itself? That is not a sudden flash, it very much mimics the burn of the fuel post-flash in the OP video. I need to do that to assess that it's 4-5 vehicle lengths? Nope. Now go measure the live Brimstone flashes vs your AIM-9X test warhead flash. Anywhere even close? Nope. New video is a different intercept. Why would it need to glow bigger than the blast size to prove my case? The flash is a similar size to OP video in FLIR and much bigger than AIM-9X test warhead in normal video. Job done. Shady car dealerships are shady in terms of their honesty, not their knowledge. Well in the second intercept the rocket motor is burnt out 5s before impact, so that is clearly not the same as the previous one. Nobody who wasn't in the plane or firing the missile knows.

Err yeah, you did. You said if you fire a missile in a set of circumstances where it has to pull 92g off the rails to succeed, it will fail. I'm sorely tempted to quote Ace Ventura at this point. You've already put the aircraft in an unreachable place before the intercept has even begun. No different to putting it 500 miles away really. My case was that if the missile is tracking the target after an in-parameters launch, as per the clip, there is no out-turning it unless it runs out of energy, or fails, is decoyed/jammed etc.

Has the rocket motor burned out, yes or no? Is it fair to say that an R-27 rocket motor burns for longer than a MANPADS rocket motor, yes or no? Altitude? That intercept takes a full 17s. Go look at the speed of an R-27 and note the fact it's mostly going up during the flight. Can you be sure it's not at 30,000ft, or at least 20,000ft?

You're creating an entirely fake set of events. The missile in question is already pointed at the target in question. It is my assertion that from that point, the missile can't be lost by fierce manoeuvring so long as it has sufficient energy left. Or put more simply, the aircraft cannot out-turn a fully energised missile, it can only hope to bleed its energy. The Meteor is a weird one because it remains fully energised throughout its flight in most situations. Now back to the clip in question, the AIM-9X rocket motor is still burning, hence fully energised, therefore the F-4 cannot simply lose it. The error won't be exactly zero, that's rarely possible due to the nature of drive signals to actuators and control lag, but it will be small, sufficiently small to still hit the fuselage and not be aiming at the jet exhaust behind the a/c, unless that is the intention of the test, which is probably the case. All you've really said is that it you launch a missile outside launch parameters it won't hit. Well who knew?

You sure it's not a MANPADS there boss? And oh look, the motor of that big ass R-27 has even burned out before reaching the target.

Since they gave blurry images. Told you, I don't know exactly, I only know they use one. But getting hit by a missile thats warhead doesn't explode but somehow manages to break up and explode anyway is an unlikely version of a low probability event. It was me who said the missile always targets the fuselage when operating correctly. That is the rocket exhaust not the missile and the inset shows it is on a course to miss. You have no case. It doesn't 'survive' the explosion but it burns more slowly, like the petrol tank of a terrorist's Toyota pickup after being hit by a 30mm HE round. There are lots of inert brimstone strikes, on FLIR and none produce a flash. See at 40s. You see what you want to see clearly. All terrible sources of information really but they were the best we had. Not necessarily in a World War setting. A huge rocket is going to set fire to anything near it even without a warhead. None produce a sudden brief flash. Measuring tape? You can see the size of the vehicles and the size of the flash. Bring me back a video of an inert SRAAM strike on FLIR producing a 50m wide flash, or anywhere close. I've shown similar sized warheads making flashes of similar magnitude, so it seems your argument is beaten until you can provide some evidence. And I'm sure professional car dealerships just randomly acquire cars they know nothing about and try to sell them. Yeah, it happened once against the most advanced combined air force, with the best surveillance ever seen and against a USN pilot, which is about as good as they get. Since we lack the actual video, nobody really knows what happened.

Don't know exactly TBH. Who is going against probability? You, all the way. Not really. It's not invulnerable to missiles, but most missiles explode and those that don't do not tend to break or explode in a sudden flash the size of a live warhead, as all evidence shows. They informed you wrong. If a missile has enough energy left and it's guiding correctly, it won't miss. Not being able to turn fast enough only occurs when its ran out of energy. The missile in that video was probably intended to test the proximity fuse burst. The missile isn't visible before of after in the clip with the flash. And why would it produce a flash when hitting a thin stab (that the inset clearly shows it missing anyway) and not when smashing through a fuselage full of jet fuel? So your evidence of an inert missile strike flash is a clip where there is no strike. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3425719&postcount=353 I will not recover ground that has already been covered, it's inefficient. The warhead explodes immediately, setting fire to the remaining fuel that burns more slowly. That is how missiles explode. An inert strike with a flash in FLIR would not be classified unless it's rated by the same idiots who stamp ITAR. Of all the unclassified inert strikes on FLIR out there, there's not one that supports your case, yet live warhead strikes support my case. Do you never consider that maybe you should accept that you're probably wrong until you can prove otherwise. The video is faked remember but that doesn't mean a contractor is always right either. I see several FLIR videos showing a similar size warhead making a similar-sized flash, which leads me to believe I'm probably right. How do you know they weren't? And the burning is still nowhere near as fast. All very slow-burning by comparison: I've shown you multiple ones which approximately match the size. And they also show the normal video to FLIR video size contrast and it doesn't go from 2-3m wide to 50+m wide. Unless the guy who's had the car for much longer than you've seen it, doesn't know it as well as you do? You really do like low probability odds don't you. Like an Iraqi MiG-29 creeping up on an F-18. The flare is probable because it exploded in OP video (which is probably false) and a direct hit does more damage. The original topic was the video, and my initial position was that it was fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIz5-v3JWU

Nope. There you go, stretching for the low probability event again. That seems to be a theme necessary to support your argument. Yes, but because jets go much slower, missiles don't have to turn through as great an angle to counter their turn. Missiles only miss because they fail, get jammed/decoyed, or run out of speed. That missile never even tried to go for CoM. You just said you couldn't see it before or after in the clip with the flash. Only in the clip without the flash can you see it before and after. It smashes straight through the fuselage intact, so there's no way a stab is snapping it. It's already backed up, you just have to look. So it's your contention that a) The video is at 12 frames per second and b) a huge amount of the fuel burnt at once but the rest only burnt slowly for 1s. Your hypotheses just get better and better. Tell me another one. I see no videos of inert missile hits with a flash the same size. Feel free to post them. I see no proof, only someone floundering to denounce evidence that doesn't support their case. Well the explosion is, once again, a similar size in FLIR. And again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIz5-v3JWU I think you'll find the launch pad is nowhere near anything important. But we have found live warhead strikes in FLIR that match the size. So it would see reasonable to assume, that the OP video is a live warhead. There's no such thing when buying a dodgy car. Size of the flash tells me what to think. Missiles crashing through fuselages in tact tell me what to think. Other live warhead strikes producing the same sized flash tells me what to think. Dodgy video tells me what to think. I tend to go for high probability explanations. Yet you believe it's reality.

So is the video with the flash from the small test warhead that causes it to break after hitting a thin stab. Not at all, long things tend to snap in the middle. An AIM-9X can pull 50g, an F-4 can pull only 9g at best, at sea level, whilst clean, not wearing drop tanks. In the clip with no flash, yes. In the other clip, you can't see it at all but things don't generally stay in one piece after exploding. They are supporting, you just have to read back, I'm not going to waste my time doing it, having already wasted enough of it talking to you. But the fuel can't all be used in those 3 frames if it's still burning for a full second afterwards. You obviously don't understand the principle chemical equation behind combustion. You can't burn the same fuel twice. Someone could have been wearing shoes on their hands - that is the nature of your argument in this thread. Where's the proof? We have proof of a Hellfire making a similar sized flash in 2 FLIR videos and a large flash in non-FLIR videos (bigger than the AIM-9X with test warhead). We also have a Hellfire with no warhead making zero flash in normal video. We also have an inert AIM-9X smashing staright through an F-4 fuselage intact. The balance of evidence is just hugely stacked against you. Which Apache video? There were two remember. And let me add a third. 9.5m long tank. Explosion flash about 4-5 tank lengths. They were probably targeted at the UK just in case they worked. Bigger than an inert strike. You wouldn't buy it either way though. Dodgy is dodgy. Yep. Yes, physicists often have long conversations with janitors about physics research. Have you watched Good Will Hunting too many times? A bit like the person who provided the spliced FLIR video.