Emu

In the F-22 video, it expands outwards. You'd be hard-pushed to snap it near the end. Yes, an AIM-9X is IIR and sees a greyscale image of the target. You don't know that if you can't see anything. I'm not apart to waste time dredging through back-posts. The fuel doesn't burn in 3 frames though, it continues burning until it goes off shot after the initial flash from the warhead. The balance of probability is always relevant in determining what likely happened. Footprints in the snow are likely made by someone walking on their legs, not their hands. You're making assumptions to validate your claim again. You have no evidence of this. The possibility of them being different is one you introduced to refute compelling evidence that you are wrong. Do you see how desperate that is? V2s had warheads, 1000kg warheads. So why does the same weight of explosive make a bigger flash in both normal video and FLIR? If it was two chassis welded together you mean? I've read several stories about it. Yep. Cleaning the toilets in physics department doesn't make you know more about physics. They usually are regarded as credible actually, they just need to sack the person who provided that photo.

The glow expands outwards after the nozzles. Definitely. If you were to snap a plank of wood, would it snap near the centre or near an edge? An IR missile can't tell the difference, an IIR missile can but its sensor can still be overloaded. Like shining a bright light in your eyes at night, you'll know it's not what you're looking for, but you still won't be able to see what you're looking for. Absence of evidence is not evidence, besides you can just make it out. I've said personal experience of testing a few times, hence why Hummingbird chirped in (no pun intended). How have you proven it? What mass is one second of fuel? What is the BTU? The flash is twice that of burner size, 8x volume. Rocket fuel generally has half BTU/lb of aviation fuel, so you'd need 8x33lbs, or 264lbs, which is more than the weight of the missile. Where's the evidence? One instance which is unlikely to go against the balance of probability. Go back and search the thread, they've already been posted. I'm not going to trawl back for them. FLIR is similar. Indicates absence of combustible fuel and/or slightly different FLIR (but similar). Show me proof that rockets do explode with a flash that sudden instantly? So far you've demonstrated the ability of inert missiles to crash through much harder parts of a fighter intact, with no flash. You've pretty much disproved your own theory. Bingo, explosives have much more power than solid rocket fuel. Fake is fake. There is no 'to what degree', it's fake. Not in that link. Guardian misunderstood the facts. it was a faulty switch that saved the day, the bomb thought it had been dropped. Yup. Probably knows about the same. Admittedly the same defence publication that thinks a Coyote drone is a Yemeni SAM. http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

I would say up to 2m. The AIM-9X is not intact in the clip with a flash, you're confusing it with the clip without a flash. Not really, it's fairly obvious. If it was going to break, it would likely snap near the centre. Of course, because an IR missile has no real way to tell the sun from a large, closer heat source. IIR missiles see a picture similar to B/W TV. So they can be blinded by the sun but they will not think that it's the aircraft they originally targeted. Look closely at what? Where is the long white object like in the other image. Yes I did. Seems unlikely and the weight of fuel is fairly small to begin with. Yes, the burning after the initial flash is fuel. But why would the missile come apart after hitting a stab if it can bust through a fuselage intact? Why would the warhead not explode? is that likely. The balance of probability just screams warhead. Not in all Apache videos. Similar size flash likely points to similar sized warhead. Similar speed of flash, both likely explosive. Does rocket fuel explode as fast as HE? No. Think about this. If it did, far more effective missiles could be designed without a warhead. Or bulk production of rocket fuel would be used, instead of rocket fuel and HE. It's not real though. Hence why the whole notion of trying to tie the video with what the contractor said is doomed to failure. That was the one switch that failed. https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/21/4755600/us-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-accident-1961 But the point is that 1950s electronics was garbage. it's like using AIM-4 performance from the Vietnam War as basis for determining future air warfare tactics. That was a warhead. Not really, the contractor source could be the guy who sweeps the floors. Radio Frequency Command Line Of Sight. Or the missile guidance equivalent of pin the tail on the donkey.

The AIM-9X flash is likely a small test warhead. The seeker is clearly aiming for the plume and catching a stab edge could not cause the missile to go up in a flash, since one flew straight through the fuselage. That said, the burners are probably near 2m wide in some places, which would quadruple their volume. You can judge it relative to the size of the a/c. It also comes out the same size it went in. probably just had it's wings clipped off, like that plane that went through the Pentagon wall. IR missiles probably did that all the time. IIR missiles will not mistake the sun for the a/c but they can be blinded by the sun. Yes in that clip, it supports no warhead, but the flash is in a separate clip where there is no sign of the missile thereafter. I've told you, personal knowledge. It's usually regularly and not just with missiles, it's the equivalent of a scale model wind tunnel test. How would there be. SRAAMs only burn for about 5s. You haven't though. How much fuel is there even to start with? How long does it burn after impact? Is the missile even likely to come apart after hitting a thin stab? Is the missile even likely to not explode? Not enough, quite long, no and no, are the answers. Irrelevant. Hellfire strikes with flash size similar to video. By angle I mean your case. Are you saying kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead? That is the only such incident and involved 1950s electronics. Early AIM-9s also used a less reliable IR proxy fuse. 1950s fuses have a history of unreliability, which is just as well, because the US would have nuked themselves with a H-bomb, were it not the case. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961 This is also why there are WWII bombs still being found. Different era altogether but serves to demonstrate why fuses need testing under flight conditions Yep, F4 fuselage. They can make a flash with a small warhead, or if they ignite fuel in the a/c's wings. A rear stab strike from an inert missile won't produce jack. Depends on the source of the Dutch Av magazine and the source at the contractor. The latest theory is that it was a RFCLOS missile, which makes a direct hit very unlikely.

That we agree on.

The diameter of the flash is twice as big as the afterburner length. And it is grainy but I can find no other explanation for that long, white object. IIR missiles don't lock the sun but they can be blinded by it. The flash is in the other video, this shot appears to be a through-and-through. Furthermore, it demonstrates that these missiles are fairly sturdy and don't simply obliterate on impact. Not in the same sense as actual explosive, that's why the burning plume continues for some time after, rather than being over in an instant. Well the first one is likely a small warhead, since it's a miss. And if a missile can pass through the fuselage in one piece (2nd one), it can sure as hell pass through a stab in one piece. Come on, there are umpteen examples of live warhead missile tests on YT alone, even without resorting to professional knowledge. Very little fuel left, therefore more likely to be a warhead causing such a large flash. They're of similar quality and probably even made by the same firm in many cases. We've seen two video with the same sized flash. If it's like your other measurements, I'd say very dubious. What is your angle here anyway? Kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead impact? An aircraft ain't that hard, especially these newer composite ones. An AIM-9 stuck in the butt of a Chinese MiG intact, one passed through that F-15's fuselage intact. So your theory here is that both fuses failed and the missile couldn't make it through a thin stab intact??? That's like expecting a brick to be smashed when falling through a twig on the end of a branch. They know more about replacing LRIs and maybe the desk guys know about FMECAs, but they weren't there. And you'd be surprised how much the pilots and crew have to know about the aircraft - I've also had experience qualifying aircrew courseware. Probably a similar size to Hellfire strike in normal video. Anyway, in the event this video is BS, which it may well be, the contractor could be right.

We're talking about a video coming from the Houthi militia here. Hardly equivalent. And what would be the consequences of losing a stab mid-roll? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would lead to an apparently controlled manoeuvre.

The roll is way to fast to stop that suddenly IMO. It's also highly convenient that the entire roll takes place during the period the aircraft is covered by the flash.

Theoretically, but it looks very glitchy, almost as if it jumps reel from one to the other. And to do what looks like a 90deg uncontrolled roll inadvertently in <0.25s and it suddenly stop at that is curious. Literally in the time it take for that flash, the plane has flipped and then stops - a blink. I don't dispute that an F-15 got hit, since there seems to be two independent sources verifying that, but perhaps my initial impression of this video was correct, i.e. it's a hoax. PS: It would also nicely draw a line under any further (over-)analysis of the video.

Good spot, a/c appears to have suddenly rolled to the left IMO.

The length is 10m. The AIM-9X flash is 2.5-4m, therefore it is not as big in one dimension but the flash in the OP video is twice as big. Oh, the motor section broke off on its own did it? How strange, because the remaining missile seems to be roughly as long as a full missile ~3m. Because IIR missiles target specific areas of the aircraft for maximum damage effect rather than just going after the hottest park. This typically means a mid-fuselage strike. Yet I can see the missile, still intact. You should be careful about interpreting what you read. If no ignition was required, what exactly determines when the motor ignites? Dinitrogen Tetroxide is the oxidiser. The small warhead claim was made for the first intercept image, not the second. The second it a more typical CoM fuselage strike as intended. A source for how I know they use live warheads in some missile tests? :huh::doh: Which is why it's very unlikely the remnant fuel in the missile could cause such a flash. Because they are both systems of similar quality. If one was NVG-like, then it would be vastly different. Where have you derived the 28m figure from for a start? Secondly, yes explosive setting off fuel in air can make a far bigger flash because it's spreading the fuel out over a huge volume. because missiles don't tend to explode without the warhead. One of the early AIM-9s actually stuck in a Chinese MiG, and was promptly copied. And the one in your second intercept video passes straight through. And if the pilot doesn't know, the contractor sure as hell wouldn't. Yup. Yes, a full-size warhead can produce a flash that large in normal video. There's an ASRAAM strike at the end of this video. Full-size warhead. You'll note the glow debris.

What? Like posting classified information online. Call BS all you like.

Still a lot smaller than 10m. So, why would the missile not explode on impact but explode some time after? Which a correctly guiding IIR missile would not do. Very grainy video but I see no broken stab. The chemical reaction is the same either way. Aha... Doesn't this start to sound a little fishy now? Motor exploded but missile continued intact. Where is the fireball following the missile remnants like in the OP video? I've already explained that. Telemetry can't tell you the impact of a proxy burst. You're coming up with number from out of nowhere. You do not know the weight of fuel the missile had in the first place but it burned for more than a second after impact and continued burning off the shot. besides that, the detonation velocity of rocket fuel isn't fast enough for it all to burn in 1-3 frames. I have, it's irrelevant. Because you questioned why the flash in the OP video was bigger than the Hellfire flash. The Hellfire had used all its fuel already. Exactly why the pilot might not have known either way. Well defense-update believes it was hit by a GQM-163A Coyote target drone, which the Yemenis have somehow got hold of and modified as a radio command SAM.:lol: http://defense-update.com/20180111_yemeni_sam.html

Brimstone and Meteor.

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.

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...

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.

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

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?p=3412633&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. 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.

You've made a mistake in a lot of calculations, it's becoming somewhat of a theme. And you have made yet another, a flare is very close to burner size in normal video and is equal or larger than the flash in that inert strike. But the flare is still smaller than the burners in FLIR despite being specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR. The motor doesn't all burn instantly though as is evident in the video, nor is it capable of doing so to produce such a quick flash, hence why it's usable as a rocket fuel in the first place. The flash in the AIM-9X video is very small though, far smaller than burners. And yes, if something is specifically designed to be as large as possible on FLIR, then it will be. An inert strike is clearly not an efficient way of generating heat/IR. You haven't correctly used maths once and the fact remains. 1) AAM inert strike smaller than burners in normal video, but explosion in OP video is much bigger than burners and bigger than burners an aircraft together.. 2) Explosion size in OP video is similar to Hellfire explosion on FLIR, which uses a similar-sized warhead to an R-73 or generic SRAAM. Of all the complicated crap on a missile, the warhead and its fuse are not among them. 3) Heck, it's just extremely likely that a missile used in combat has a warhead that goes off. The balance of evidence clearly points to a warhead here.

Well it actually seems that it is. Obviously flares are designed specifically to be big on FLIR, yet they are still smaller than the burners, just as in normal video. So the kinetic strike in the AIM-9X test, which is smaller than afterburner on normal video and not designed to be big on FLIR, should definitely be smaller on FLIR, unless flare designers are useless. Perhaps the glow is the result of an explosion, followed by a fireball, as is common with most explosions. So, size matches explosion of a similar sized warhead in FLIR. Size doesn't match size of kinetic strike. And would you expect a missile without a warhead to produce as large a FLIR signature as one without? I think it's game over at this point and you are just trolling for the sake of it.

To avoid the extraneous garbage in the above post, please address the following points. 1) Afterburners in normal video are larger than the flash from an alleged AIM-9X kinetic strike in normal video, it would therefore figure that they'd be larger in FLIR too, just like flares are smaller than burners in normal video and also smaller in original video in FLIR. But afterburners are considerably smaller than the impact flash in original video, hence, it is not a kinetic strike. 2) Explosion in original video is a similar size to Hellfire explosion on FLIR video. Hence it is a warhead detonation of similar size consistent with an R-73 or similar.

Nope, they are distinct from each other just before explosion. Missile then gets lost in burner plume. At impact - a 50m wide flash covering burner plume and aircraft. If it was the heat 'lingering', it would linger in one place and not continue upwards with the momentum of the missile. Already answered that. My initial reaction is to dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. Why did it take you and others so long to decide it wasn't a MANPADS? Your current position is that my initial position was correct, a position I've stated is wrong, so if we continue for a while, perhaps you'll catch up with me.:lol: The explosion does indeed continue in the direction the missile was travelling and you can even see the shrapnel that our expert contractor said didn't exist glowing in this little shot.:lol: Now here's where your theory falls down. If all the motor exploded in one frame (required to produce enough heat to dwarf burner plume, what is this burning far later? The truth is that a warhead exploded producing a flash of similar size to that of similar sized warhead in other FLIR videos and the rod warhead cut off the stab. If you can show me an inert impact producing a flash of similar size on FLIR then we'll talk, until then all the evidence says warhead. The alternate theories are: 1) MANPADS of extraordinary range. 2) Eagle flying very, very low. 3) Dual redundant warhead fuses fail but rocket motor explodes instantly after missile hits a fairly fragile part of the aircraft that breaks off. 4) Unexpectedly large amount of KE dissipated immediately despite stab breaking off, meaning that it couldn't be dissipated immediately. JC, it's a warhead. This does not require any unusual circumstances. Rocket failures - could have looked this up yourself. There is nothing as sudden as it the video. You're forgetting that we've already proven that there is insufficient KE available for such a flash, and the rocket motor does not explode in on instant as evidenced in the video. The explosion of a 440lb warhead would blind a FLIR, even at that range but from sufficient range, the shape would match the shape in normal vision, only larger. That's why it's hard to see and when the missile warhead goes off, all is lost. If the impact emitted enough heat for a 50m-wide glow, why wasn't the rest of the a/c affected by the heat somehow? You need to know how close the missile is during a proxy detonation in case the telemetry is wrong. An interesting point. Burners are not 20-30m in normal video, but they are easily over 10m long and hence far larger than that tidgy-widgy flash in the AIM-9X test. Hence I rest my case, burner are larger than KE impact, even if there was no small warhead in that AIM-9X test. Doesn't change the fact that heat is emitted in all directions and covers a volume, not linear or area. You're forgetting the original topic again - this large 50m-wide flash. We have already shown that the KE is insufficient and clearly not all the missile's chemical resources are spent in one frame, so your theory is bankrupt. And remember, jet fuel twice as high BTU/lb as rocket fuel. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3400521&postcount=255 So you have insufficient KE, even if it were expended immediately, and the rocket fuel does not all burn immediately as evidenced by duration (nor is it chemically designed to). The missile is also unlikely to have more than 33lbs of rocket fuel left (especially if MANPADS, which doesn't even weigh 33lbs total), and rocket fuel has less than half BTU/lb of jet fuel, even if it did. So we are once again back to a warhead to fill the energy gap, create a sudden and huge flash and scatter missile debris and burning fuel over such a huge area. You mean a mechanic/grease monkey?

Those were positions right at the start before I'd watched the video carefully. I usually dismiss all terrorist claims as BS until proven otherwise. After learning it really happened my position hasn't changed.

And to be honest, this whole thing started on whether it could be a MANPADS or not, but now that's been made look completely ridiculous, the conversation has diverged onto a strawman topic which arose during that debate, i.e. the kinetic strike theory, which is in fact an admission that the MANPADS strike argument has been dropped. Then we examined the kinetic energy flash theory, which was proven mathematically false, so then we moved onto the kinetic strike plus immediately exploding rocket motor theory... What next? Have you noticed how my account (i.e. air-launched R-73) is the only one that hasn't changed, or been discredited throughout this thread? Why is that I wonder?