Emu

Damn, I bet with that coating defect it will only be 1/500th of the RCS of a Rafale instead of 1/1000th.

Doesn't it jeopardise blade containment in the event of a bird strike?

7-shot pod left wing, 19-shot pod right wing?

The AIM-9X Block 2 is technically.

Vista?

The beginning of the film won't be as good, especially if CGI.

What's the war scenario going to be though?

And the F-16 didn't crash inside Syria either, how convenient.

Cruise missile parts would be retrievable even if they hit and how come no Israeli jets have been shot down if the defences are that good?

It's difficult to identify anything there as part of a cruise missile and where did the shotdown missiles land, surely that would have damaged other buildings?

Good idea.

You were measuring fin length relative to missile length. Fin length is the same, missile length is almost 20% longer. You also failed to spot the change in diameter. 25% out on burn time. But it couldn't because the missile had no fuel left and was still in tact. I was right on all these things. You also showed AIM-9X videos remember. So your take is that inert flashes grow in FLIR by a factor of 20 but explosive warhead flashes only grow by a factor of 2 because glow factor. No we have an explosion with the slightest of gaps between that and the trail. Now in this small gap it could be that the missile lost energy and was no longer flying before auto destruct, or it could be that the missile turned changing the airflow briefly. The conversation surrounds the video, not what a contractor may or may not think. Shown it many times.

1. R-27ET is 4.8m, R-27 is 4.1m. Not 2%. Also has a clear bulge as diameter increases. 2. Yep, out by 25% on burn time. 3. Claiming a flash where there was none, then you begin measuring flashes LOL. 4. Brimstone flash is 20m in normal video and 40m on FLIR, you try claim 1-2m flashes or clouds on normal video become 50m on FLIR. 5. Wasn't wrong. 6. Contractor has drawn bad conclusions. 7. 50m wide flash.

So just to recap: 1) Wrong on R-27 dimensions; 2) Therefore wrong on burn time too; 3) Wrong on presence of flash in AIM-9X video; 4) remaining argument based on whether a 'claimed' flash about 1-2m wide in normal video can be 50m wide on FLIR. Let's see, Brimstone is maybe 15-20m wide in normal video and 40-50m in FLIR. Apache 30mm HE flashes are maybe 1-2m wide in normal video and ~4m in FLIR. Somewhere in there is your answer but you will never admit it.

It does measure thinner, depending on which part of the blur you measure. And where is the smaller piece? Funny how I got the missile right then. And the R-27 is larger, yet you still measured it wrong and crucially, reach the wrong conclusion. And yet a 2,000lb bomb explodes just as fast as a 500lb bomb. Yes it is. First one in video. But for me 35m is sufficiently close to 50m, which you consider atmospheric variation. You had two missiles roughly 20% different in length and you guessed the wrong one. And that was on a bigger, less blurred image. Indeed. Yes it is. It does have a lot to do with combustion though. Or measuring a relatively high res, large picture, getting it wrong and then trying to measure a low res, blurry, small picture. The air is very thin up there, it could lead to measuring errors like those demonstrated already. It's a very big desert, why use an area with a ditch? So you admit to not knowing what is or isn't a flash? Very difficult with these terrible quality videos huh. And yet it seems I am right quite a lot. Right about R-27ET, right about no flash... that you've admitted so far. But you got the presence of a flash wrong too and now you are trying to measure flashes... accurately... despite not even knowing what is or isn't a flash and having got non-time-variant measurements wrong in the past. It's like moving on to calculus without knowing your times table. Les low res than the AIM-9X you claimed to have measured. You also tried measure a flash that you later realised didn't exist.:megalol: It is never going away from the target, it is just going up more than towards the target whilst the motor is burning. It's called energy management. So why bring it up? If something isn't flying, it won't produce tip vortices. The R-27ET. The measurement of the flash that didn't exist was also 100% wrong. Nope. It's now been firmly established that it's an ET, so you were wrong on burn time too and by 25%, or roughly the same as 32m vs 40m.:lol: Contractor knows there is a broken stab, video shows a large flash. Inert missile hitting stab doesn't produce a large flash. 20% out on R-27 dimensions, 25% out on burn time, 100% out on presence of a flash. What a 'glowing' resume. A stab exploding an inert missile motor would be a like an ordinary, single-glazed window exploding a brick that is attached to the back of a metal cylinder that hits the window head first. Nope, I am not seeing it right now. Until you see something, you are not yet seeing it all the time. After they used a crane they just happened to have, to get it out of the ditch.:lol:

In the same image it looks marginally thinner though and we know the missile didn't diet. We also know long objects tend to snap in the centre. It also looks to be one piece in, one piece out. Ergo, it is most likely that the missile is intact... after going through an entire fuselage, not just a thin stab. I said approximately 20%. You're measuring % accuracy down to an amount smaller than the % of blur in the image. Explosion flash 1-2 frames. Rocket motor explosion, many frames. 'Targets' does imply multiple hits. Show the non-FLIR video of this ditch. A 900mph, 50kg nail from above. Wouldn't be surprised if that bursts the tyres or buckles the wheels. So because less than 40m, you argue it's completely different to 50m? How big is a Brimstone flash in normal video? And how big are these little inert puffs in normal video. Explosions at ground level have a greater amount of air to push aside. If one missile is almost 20% longer and you measured the fin ratio, then you are 20% off either way. And that is on a relatively large missile from relatively close up. A miss is not a hit. The only truly safe bet is 100% sure. Damage to ignition system, engine failure. Nope, using precise measuring on an imprecise video is fundamentally flawed. It's like using numbers to 1dp in a calculation and writing the answer to 3dp. It's plain wrong. I just said the air was thin at high altitudes. Well Jeez, it's a big desert, but let's test near this canyon.... Burned out? You claimed there was a flash at first until I pointed out the missile leaving. Yep. The R-27ET in on-topic, it demonstrates why your conclusions are wrong. You could have looked at the lengths and the diameter difference of the rear section. It's more advantageous to use the energy to gain altitude. You do understand that a missile does not just bee-line straight for the intercept point? This is one of the reasons AMRAAM have actually gained in range, better flight profile management. Not really. Looks more like water vapour. How do you know when it stopped flying, the missile's auto-destruction possibly occurred after that point. More like 20%. It's an ET, so definitely wrong on burn time. So look for one instead of posting. Yes I have. 30, 40 or 50m is still similar sized and air pressure affects explosion size. Nope, we're yet to see this huge sudden flash from 1.5s of fuel exploding, not that it even would have after hitting a thin stab nose first. The damaged truck is not in a ditch though.:megalol:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5614707/Syrian-air-defenses-shoot-13-missiles-fired-led-attack-country.html

There is evidence of it being thinner too. So maybe you're just trying to measure to a level of accuracy that isn't possible with a grainy video and not accounting for a possible deflection. 20% larger though, just like 4.9 vs 5.9px. 3 what? What are you supposed to be showing here? Not if an axle breaks completely and your wheels turn sideways. You underestimate the forces pushing it into the ground. 5 tank length gun forward is 48m. It was wrong with R-27ET. That's because the missile missed. Define a safe bet. Combustion ruptured outwards. That isn't the stinger strike and may not even be a flash. You use low quality videos to try make precise measurements and judgements. This is also a form of inaccuracy. Only if it adapts. Like why they built the test track near one. But based on the AIM-9X video a thin stab is not even going to rupture the missile, let alone ignite the fuel. The missile hits nose first, the motor is at the rear. You don't understand trajectories, period. No point even discussing it with you. You keep arguing that it's wrong. And how big is that R-27 you tried measure on the video image compared to the AIM-9X you're also trying to measure.:lol: You failed to measure the R-27 correctly from up close whilst it was going very slowly but are still trying to measure an AIM-9X at full speed from even further away. Do you ever learn. Because then it wouldn't be going up enough. If I look hard enough at that image, I see white puffs everywhere. You made claims about flames and flash, now you're pointing at a feint cloud and saying it's a definite missile strike. Or maybe it's water vapour. One might say: you changed your mind on video being fake too, measured large R-27 image wrong, shouldn't try measure even smaller images. Wrong on burn time. Hasn't produced proof of inert flash on FLIR. Failed to prove a stab can even rupture a missile motor. Failed. Down. Might not even be the same strike.

So is it not simpler to say the missile appears to be largely in one piece and hasn't undergone the obliteration likely to cause the rocket motor to explode, as you first claimed it did in that video? Okay, so 3.8m vs 4.5m for R-27T and R-27ET. Still about 20%. http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/air-to-air-missiles-r-27r1 Yeah, they do. Ever considered that it isn't the same vehicle in the video? Ever considered that the driveshaft was damaged, or the gearbox was damaged, causing drive to be obstructed? You underestimate the momentum of a 50kg object doing 900mph. Probably because the impact did different damage. Already shown. Only by your warped measuring, which has already proven false. A truck crashing after everyone is dead, is hardly relevant. It's a safe bet. Yeah, because the combustion chamber of the jet is perhaps ruptured. No, I need ball park similar sizes and your measuring is garbage. You need a FLIR inert strike showing the same. Showing blurry non-FLIR video doesn't cut it. Very little oxygen up there. But produced a 50m wide flash whilst going through a thin stab? Why not? So why argue for the sake of it if you admit I'm right? You're trying to measure something small accurately on a blurry video without accounting for perspective and angle. That's why. The missile is getting further away and gaining in latitude before chasing the aircraft. That is an extremist. One might say, wrong on R-27, give it up. If the car is going sideways, then yes. You need to look up momentum.

Prove they are to scale, prove it didn't take a deflection. The missile is also ~20% narrower in the shot where it's shorter. Did it go on a diet? Or is it just a blurry image? Where is the large part of the missile leaving the rear stab in the OP video? Widely available. 4.08m and 4.8m. I said they don't explode in 1 frame. Rear transaxle - transmission on rear axle. Which tends to smash them into the ground, possibly breaking the suspension and axle joints. They did, just not in the 1s the video remained on that clip. Where is the FLIR video of an inert hit producing a 50m wide flash. Yep, and getting hit by a Brimstone is a conclusion. Now you're just being silly. If the enemy only has short range, low altitude AA/SAM systems, naturally the enemy will fly above them. And the front of the cloud is easily that far up, the wind will blow everything backward. And it still just looks like a cloud and a very small one. I thought the flash was 20m not 8.9m?:juggle: You may have spent too long in the desert. I'm saying it's impossible to say from that angle but the initial flash couldn't have been very close to the aircraft or it wouldn't have got back. Because the missile is gaining altitude whilst the motor burns, after that it chases the aircraft. So the missile goes from heading nearly directly away from camera to a more perpendicular direction. Not really, it's 10s. You can also see where the tail section increases in width. It's an E variant. So you agree it's an E variant then? If a missile is heading directly away from a camera it wouldn't appear to move at all, irrelevant of how fast it's going. I see nothing except a lot of Akbarring. It's clear as day. I think you'll find you get different sizes of nail and mice. Car was going same speed(ish) and was mostly side-on.

Not really. It's far more likely that the missile is still in tact and took a smaller deflection while passing through the fuselage. 20% is unlikely to break off and it's even more unlikely that it would be the opposite side to the impact side. So again, unlikely, unlikely and unlikely. The lengths of the R-27 and R-27E respectively. They prove me right. You still don't know what a transaxle is. If you hit a 50kg lump doing 900mph, you'll stop pretty fast. So enough momentum exchange to make it crash but not enough to stop it? How convenient. Until you do, you have no case. Introduction. I think the second hit shows the general altitude they fly at. Broken link. And that missile hits more than 3-4 feet up. I thought the truck was 8.9m, has it suddenly shrank? Ah yes, those desert drainage ditches to prevent it flooding. Impossible to say given the angle. I couldn't tell it was sarcasm because you say ridiculous things anyway. I have to explain how angle and perspective impacts on perceived 2D dimensions? No, it is 10s. This is what I pointed out in the first place. The change from 230mm to 260mm. It appears to be going more slowly when the motor is burning because it's going more directly away from the camera to gain altitude, so that when the motor burns out, it only has to go horizontal. That is one of the people using the launcher, not a hit. You can see the change in diameter below the antenna very clearly. As sure as a nail gun can stop a mouse. 0.5 x 2000 x 30^2 = 900,000J 0.5 x 50 x 400^2 = 4,000,000J

A ruler works fine and your picture is inaccurate. It's the thinking behind your measurements which is always flawed. You ignore perspective and change in angle. E.g. could a missile be deflected whilst passing through a fuselage? If the missile is 20% shorter, where is the bit that came off? 4.8/4.1. Nope. Look up what a transaxle is. How much momentum does a 50kg missile doing 900mph have? And your video proves you wrong. The missile passes straight through the roof and vehicle's does not crash afterwards. The amount of mental gymnastics you use rather than just showing a FLIR video of an inert missile strike producing the same sized flash. That makes no sense. But it wouldn't be much lower though, because there is no valid reason for increasing risk. In a non-afterburning engine with a standard convergent nozzle, the engine is much closer to the back. Try getting it at its biggest point. And at first you said it was 20m. That's a very long 20m. Likely because something broke. In the video you posted above, it continues along the road at 1:53. Who knows. SA-2s in Vietnam often detonated >100m away. It obviously wasn't close enough though. You were trying to say it was straight. You don't understand perspective and angle. This is now your 3rd time demonstrating it. The burn time is 10s because it burns for 10s and someone else has already shown it to be an R-27ET. Look at the sides of the missile very closely below where the antenna sticks out. It gets slightly wider, hence E variant. Wow, you really don't understand anything about missile trajectories. An Apache launched Hellfire goes up when it leaves the rails. Does that mean the target is above it? Now think about this really carefully, the missile needs to gain energy, so does it choose to climb most before or after the burn period? There's no hit in that video. Not really, missile has proportions of R-27ET in terms of section lengths and diameters. Only your stubbornness and poor comprehension of angles and perspective prevents you from accepting it, which is why we're still here after 17 pages.

I have measured it, 2.5cm before and after. Actually history has proven your measurements completely wrong with the R-27. But it is nearly 20% bigger. The only way to achieve that is by turning the fuel into an aerosol or dust, which is not the case here. Not if the wheels are still connected to the rear transaxle. And the missile is a 1.8m long bar pinning the vehicle to the road. Hit in different place. Why else would they show that in FLIR? There is information about an R-73 hitting a flare though, and we know a ground launched one is unlikely to reach the altitudes seen in the second video whilst still burning. No, but the missile crashes through the engine itself. You are wrong, as always. Stones thrown up by the tyres, not glowing. And answer me this. The vehicle is under remote control, so how would an inert strike and a hole in the trailer cause the vehicle to crash? Not really, rod warhead, cut stab. Minimal damage. It ain't straight. The speed of the trail diminishes all the way, it's called perspective. And the burn time of the R-27ET, as already proven, is known to be 10s from specs. How on Earth do you suppose you can determine that? What direction is it going in? E.g. if it was going directly away from the camera, the end of the trail would not appear to move at all. You measure without thinking. No we can't because the MANPADS trail continues to just before the point of impact when the missile is steering. And the missile has already been proven to be an R-27ET anyway. So what are you arguing here?

It is relevant because you claimed the AIM-9X was 20% longer before the strike but clearly your measuring is bad. That's why it's called combustion, the flame front propagates across the material. In an explosion, the explosive all goes at once. There is a picture of the hole smack-bang in the vehicle centre-line in the same video. It is an extremely accurate missile. Not at all. Being nailed into the ground plus transmission braking will do it. How do you know who was flying the Yemeni MiG-29? Iranians? Not clear. And from an engine, where fuel is burning, it could be, but the OP strike is not to the engine, it is to a stab, so non-equivalent. Along the road, flash at largest time. Yeah, they randomly switched to FLIR to show the truck hit a ditch... in the desert. Impossible to say from that angle. If you put your finger in front of your eyes, that will be 'in-line' with the plane too. It ain't straight. Nope, because they match with the burn time. Nope, powered flight. We know a MANPADS doesn't burn for 10s though, just as we (or more specifically I), knew it wasn't a MANPADS that hit the plane.