Emu

The R-27ET is 18% longer but basically your measurements are pure guesswork and lead to false conclusion, that much is proven. You couldn't even count burn time correctly either. Nope, slow flash taking many frames. Cuts power between the engine and the transaxle, leaving the vehicle still in gear but with no motive force to overcome friction. Also, 1.8m long missile nailing it into the ground briefly. Happened to an even more experienced USN pilot in 1991. Could make out any bright orange, just looked white. Poor quality video. But it's also non-equivalent because the missile strikes the jet engine, even a bird in there can cause problems. In this case a stab is hit. The truck is 3.5cm long, flash is 20cm long in the same axis. Only by your inaccurate conclusions. I suppose they just switched to FLIR to show it crashing into a ditch huh? I wouldn't say so. You don't need to draw a line when it's than obvious.:D Nope. Camera is in vertical plane, missile is at ~45deg to camera. The end nearer the camera will appear longer. Nope, there are clearly extra bends up to 0:12. Nope, we didn't. Missile steering before impact could have briefly changed contrail, this R-27ET is done smoking 7s before impact. And I think the fact it's an R-27ET has been proven here, hence burn period must be 10s due to specification.

Your R-27 measurements were off by 20%. Therefore none of your measurements are trustworthy. Yep. That video proves me right. It will if it goes straight through the driveshaft. Why else would it crash and stop? Your entire argument is one of compounding coincidences. Debris cloud. No sudden flash. How exactly? HE warhead at front with dual fuse fails to explode but rocket motor at rear does? So far my assessments have proven more accurate than yours wrt dimensions. We do have live FLIR hits and inert Brimstone FLIR hits. There's no way of knowing that it's precisely in line. The aircraft is 20m long, the flash is maybe 50m wide. It's like trying to measure fin to length ratios without knowing what angle the fins are at, i.e. very silly and leads to incorrect conclusions. Very jagged edge. Surely you could have measured that? And you were wrong to do so because the missile is at an angle. I have no clue what you're even getting at. You can see the extra bends in the trail develop after 0:08 and 0:10. A contrail would have continued to the point of impact and nope, the trail has extra bends after 0:10. And you've already been proven wrong on the missile type, so the burn time must be 10s.

I'm getting tired of your terrible measurement just like with the R-27. There's almost a 20% difference in length between the R-27 and R-27E and you got that wrong. Nope. The fireball develops far more slowly than an explosion. I think you should ditch your argument. 1. Just a coincidence again. 2. Another coincidence. And AIM-9Xs have a smokeless motor so you wouldn't know that. 3. No evidence that they do. 4. But the rocket motor at the other end of the missile did explode? :D ~6 times vehicle length. I see live warheads making similar sized explosion in FLIR, non-live missiles making no explosion. and live warheads making far bigger flashes in normal video. What is the height difference between the camera and aircraft though? Definitely not straight. Of course it matters. The apparent width of the fins relative to the aircraft depends on what angle the missile is rolled through. I.e. if the fins are perpendicular to the viewing direction, they will appear bigger. The trail only appears to slow down because the missile is further away and things further away seem smaller. Crikey! You mean like the burn time?

Only you think there's 20% difference and your R-27 measurements are clearly wrong so... Technically no. Petrol will only explode when in a fine mist under extremely high pressures. That's what causes 'knock' or detonation in engines. A ditch in a desert? For drainage?:lol: Well that's basically why your argument fails on every front. 1) The warhead is dual fused and very unlikely no to explode on impact. 2) Evidence shows an inert missile is likely to crash through with no explosion. 3) The only thing besides the warhead capable of exploding is in the rear, and the missile impacts from the front. 4) Your theory requires the rocket motor at the rear to explode without triggering the warhead at the front. 20m is by your terrible measuring. I see no evidence of such. You can't tell if it's in-line with the plane or not from that angle. I'm afraid it is not straight. How do you know what angle the fins are at? The explosion occurs at 0:19, at least 5-7s after trail ends 0:12-0:14. It is impossible to tell how far that distance is but the missile could theoretically (based on speed) do 4-5km in 5s. So the trail just happens to continue for the same length of time that an R-27E burns for? Again, your theories rely on perverse twists of fate and low probability events compounding each other.

You have a point actually.

Your imagination. Different blurring effect. Nose cone came off. The motor section is in the rear though. Honestly? I don't know what to say to your ad-hoc guesswork on measurements. No, it's rapid combustion. You should watch the episode of Mythbusters where they produce a movie car bomb explosion and then a real car bomb explosion to understand the difference. 0:40 is when the missile hits and it's a desert. There is more evidence that when you crash into something head-on, it is not your ass that explodes or gets damaged. Not really. No flash vs flash in FLIR. You haven't one single inert missile impact glowing in FLIR. It's literally impossible to tell how close it is due to the angle. Well look at the lower side of that missile between the front and rear fins. You're measuring single %s from a missile image where the bottom of the missile isn't even straight to within 5%. Confidence inspiring. Looks like there's and extra bend in the smoke trail more like and where is the timer? Non-E rocket motor ends here after 6s.

The answers are all the same. The entire missile came out and still travelling in the same direction and in a straight line, hence in one piece, perhaps minus fins. The flash will not occur so fast. Technically true. A petrol station will rapidly combust emitting a fireball. You can see the dust when it hits. Black missile on black and white. The missile doesn't break up though. And the motor is at the back of the missile, so even by your theory that the missile came out slightly shorter, it would be the bit at the front affected. So not only is there no flash when crashing through the fuselage, and the missile exiting in one piece, the motor is at the wrong end of the missile to be affected (unless the warhead goes off). And the one in the OP allegedly only crashed through a thin stab. A quarter ton missile being so badly disintegrated after hitting a thin sheet of metal/composite that its rear end explodes? Wow, so 8.9m became about 20m? Like I said, your measuring sucks. Not if it was a proximity burst. Altered image - look at the lower side behind the front fins and before the rear fins. And are you seriously suggesting that the missile's trail just happens to last for the specified length of time of an R-27E burn time, even though it's actually an R-27. How very convenient. Show it at 0:10 and 0:12 then. Well yes. I'm going only by the video.

Apart from the sudden abrupt roll that all took place behind the flash.

You can't possibly measure from that video all you can give is a ballpark assessment. Did you measure to the end of the blur or the start of the blur? They undergo combustion, which is a slower process than an explosion. Read the title. "Targets" plural, i.e. more than one shot. Funny that there is when it explodes with a live warhead then. So in your opinion, a live warhead explodes with visible light and IR light but an inert strike has no visible light, but the same amount of IR light?:lol: How exactly, when live warhead only produce a flash the same size? The instant flash is bigger than 8.9m in the picture I posted. Ah, the missile gave off an instant brief flash, but left no burn marks, how curious. As I said, your measuring sucks. It's definitely an R-27E as noted by wider rear section diameter and burn time. I mean, do you not consider it curious that this burn time/contrail lasts for exactly the specified burn time of an R-27E? But you like low probability explanations, which are the foundation of your very shaky case.

I got the same length before and after but the blur is so bad it makes measuring difficult. And you seem to forget that it has already been mentioned that a long thin object is hugely unlikely to snap near it's ends. So again you opt for the low probability event. Seems to be a theme. There is a subtle difference between combustion and explosion that few understand and you aren't one of them. Different strike. Title says 'targets' plural. So all the fairly random energy transfer during the strike goes into non-visible light. That's a remarkably selective chaotic energy transfer. Glows like heck. Very scientific. I'm yet to see this second example of an inert strike producing such a flash. Until I do, you have no case. There is smoke in the OP video. Note missile tail. A missile producing all the infra-red heat on impact, must surely have left burn marks. A saw no hit in that test. And I think we can agree that an R-27 of any variety has a greater range and speed than any MANPADS. You'll also notice how thin that trail is and how quickly it dissipates afterwards. The R-27 trail is thick and pronounced and lingers longer. You can also see that the rear half(ish) of the R-27 after launch is wider than the front half, therefore R-27E.

Well you and Hummingbird need to go away and decide whether the video is real or not. But frankly the idea of an R-27 scoring a direct hit is almost as unlikely as the warhead failing.... and the missile exploding anyway.... with a flash that mimics a warhead perfectly.... and not leaving any burn marks. No goldfish, my statement in no way contradicts yours.

I see a feint trail. You're clutching at straws, there are gaps elsewhere in that contrail too. Why, because it's a contrail. in fact, if you look at near where the missile has turned, the gaps appear there, so just before impact, it's probably turning too.

This missile isn't going to explode if it remains intact. A petrol station will explode too, but it doesn't emit a sudden flash lasting one frame. Hit at 0:40. You can also see there isn't even the slightest hint of a spark in normal video. You said an inert strike can make as big a flash as a live warhead, yet even inert + small warhead doesn't. Your measuring sucks. No, glow factor is something you invented. It is not a scientific term at all.

Clearly either the video or the contractor must be wrong, because they both contradict each other. But most people think that sudden roll happened and stopped a little too quickly and all conveniently behind the flash. Kolga thinks this too. The video being faked doesn't mean the shootdown didn't happen. I care not for your opinion but how is comparing different missile test videos unscientific? Or discussing KE for that matter.

It smokes all the way to impact, with the trail getting gradually narrower all the way. The R-27 stops a full 5s before impact.

Test footage shows inert missile crashing straight through fuselage with no damage to missile body and hence no fuel explosion. Test footage of inert Brimstone shows no flash in FLIR. Test footage shows small AIM-9X test warhead giving much smaller flash than live Brimstone. Test footage shows similar-sized warhead giving similar-sized flash in FLIR in multiple Brimstone videos. Your only explanation for all these points that clearly disprove your theory is 'glow factor', which is just something you've made up. So basically, your explanation for not being able to prove something is something else you can't prove, i.e. glow factor.

Modern IIR ones don't, but the R-27ET is not a modern IIR missile and the envelope part is questionable. You can see a cloud behind the a/c about 22s in. Given that you can't actually see the a/c until it's hit, that cloud must be quite big.

It's at least until 0:12 but it should be out by 0:08 if it was an R-27 non-E variant. Nice try, but if it was a contrail, then it would not cease for 5s before impact.

And the general consensus is that the first video wasn't but yes, we had a good long discussion about MANPADS too.

So in summary, you believe that an inert missile could have caused that huge 50m flash on the basis of no other similar FLIR, the fact that the missile could have spontaneously exploded, even though other inert missile footage shows a clear through-and-through. And the fact that a small test warhead produced a non-FLIR flash nowhere near as big as live 9kg warheads, which produce a similar sized flash to the OP video in FLIR. I have an alternative theory. Maybe it was a nuclear warhead. Most videos of such warheads show a completely different-sized flash, but that could just be the glow factor. So this is clearly a sound theory.

Additionally, unless it's your assertion that the 2nd missile didn't explode either, given the pilot successfully recovered, it's unlikely that this missile got very close with its 39kg warhead. And indeed, the R-27s track record in the Ethipian-Eritrean conflict shows that it's not the kind of missile that can generally make a direct hit.

Nope, it's 10-12s, which makes it an E model. Missile takes off at 0:02 and rocket trail still moving at 0:12 and possibly up to 0:14. If you want to dispute that, go take a frame grab at 0:08 and 0:10, or 0:09 and 0:12, but I think you know you're just trolling.

Poor video quality. I know they're used but I don't design or make them. And neither do you. Or it may not. The retargeting looked quite deliberate. The kinetic energy was proven to be nowhere near enough to produce the same sized flash as a warhead + fuel, especially given the modest transfer (e.g. the missile that continues straight through), hence why you fell back on the KE + fuel theory, which you now go back on when it doesn't suit. If the motor is running, there has to be a tail, if the motor not running then there must have been a warhead, otherwise the missile would smash clean through the thin stab. You can't even remember that your own theory relied on KE + fuel. It's like arguing with a goldfish. You can't remember back far enough to realise you're wrong. But they still burn more slowly than a warhead, hence why they're suitable for use as rocket fuel. Nobody wants rocket fuel that reacts like high explosive, it just means the rocket will explode as soon as it's ignited. This should be obvious, Jeez! Err... yes, the hit is in the FLIR part at 0:40. What? Of course there's glow. There's glow even in normal video. What the hell are you watching? Looks like a debris cloud to me, but as usual you've chosen the worst possible video quality you could find to try and blur out the facts. Next you'll probably show Charlie Chaplin using one. The same might be true at the contractor's. No it doesn't, the burn last seconds. Look at the normal video, there is no flash suppression in those. The live warhead flashes are many times bigger than the AIM-9X flash, yet the FLIR videos are the same size as the one in the OP video and the inert Brimstone strikes in FLIR have no flash. Equally, the inert AIM-9X strikes crash straight through intact, so there is no fuel explosion. It should be starting to become obvious that you're wrong by now. Not at all. It's very possible they were both down to different causes. Other reports have suggested radio command SAMs in operation too. But you're assuming different glow. Glow is something you've invented to cover up a lost argument. The inert strikes crash straight through. A thin stab simply isn't going to break up a compact 90kg missile. So fuel is retained. Inert strikes with Brimstone show no flash at all in such circumstances. So the glow is irrelevant because there is no flash to begin with. I wouldn't. They know exactly what's wrong with the junk they're selling you. I think my argument from the start was that given typical sortie altitude, a surface launched MANPADS would not reach, and a surface launched AAM would struggle to be still in burn at impact. Does this second video contradict either of those assertions. I think not. I'd imagine they would be. It's called an incident report.

Any worse than guy on internet?

I like verifiable sources. But cutting a long story short, I think 343kg, 250s Isp and 135kg fuel still supports my case. 1230m/s peak, 17s flight time. It could have been at 20-30kft... ...but certainly well beyond MANPADS range, otherwise Russians would have 10kg missiles on their wings instead of 343kg ones.