kolga

Yeah, implying that the op was much lower.

Do you know what over exposed means? It has very little to do with blurry-ness. Oh, sorry, i thought you were talking about the camera when you said that. It would be interesting to know roughly how big you think they are though. Yep, a journalist being right instead of the contractor doing the repair. Why are you making me recover ground that has already been covered? You said this: And i showed you this (proving my point): Yep, and you can see something similar after the intercept. So are you saying that if i go back and look and return with "you never said that, i checked" you will believe me? What about after getting hit with a hellfire? 30mm is a really bad cherry picked example. Nice try, but not nice enough. 1. The hit is not even on FLIR in that video, the truck is near a van when it is hit. 2. The missile isn't even burning at impact. So where is all the proof of your testing experience if its not classified? As do you my friend. But why did you chose the worst sources over the better one? Look at the difference between the first and the second v2's. Quite a few do. look at 21:18 I meant that figuratively, get some image processing software and measure. Then come back and state your findings. Also, it seems more likely that it was an R-27t based on the new video of the second f-15 hit. The R-27 has a 39 kg warhead. There were no real credible sources for the R-73. Show me a video with the a hellfire or brimstone flash glowing like heck way bigger than its actual blast size and than we'll talk. We are talking about a shady used car dealership. That doesn't help your probability much, its still much more likely that it was a sam. Nobody here knows.

Guess that proves F-15's never fly below 30,000 ft!

Interesting, Guess that confirms that its not the OP since it happened yesterday.

This! +1!

Since when were cameras pointing at the sky in midday over exposed? Very important question: roughly how big is the small testing warhead you keep talking about? I am just saying getting hit by a missile at all in any aircraft is an extremely low probability event. I think Mfezi explained this better than i ever could. You were wrong about the missile never targeting the fuselage BTW, but i guess you just think ignore it and it will go away. ;) That is just plain wrong, the missile is clearly visible before and after the flash. Here is the picture: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3426840&postcount=355 I am sure you know its basically impossible for me to prove my side because if i go back and look you will just say i didn't look hard enough. How does the fuel survive the explosion? Well then, where are all those inert strikes on FLIR you speak about? If they are not classified why don't you post some videos of your own? If your initial position was not to trust the video why did you trust a journalist and a fake video over the contractor? I see wild variation in blast size in normal video, and very different handling of flashes in FLIR. Probability would dictate testing being done without warhead wouldn't it? or do you just go with probability when it fits. Look at the difference between the first (no warhead) and the second (with warhead). The first is a big flash and burn, the second goes crazy blows dirt and crap everywhere. Remember, a lot of them are in slow motion. Get out the measuring tape and bring me back some actual data. Also, there is no glow in that video, so its nowhere near being a comparison. He just got it before trying to sell it. You do realize this analogy is about the video being fake don't you? I was just continuing it for fun because it has gotten so far from the beginning. And that has happened like what, once? Wow, super high probability FTW!!!!! Yep, but my position has been derived from what the contractor said since i started posting.

So how much do you think a small test warhead weighs? Camera's pointed at the blue sky are generally the opposite of overexposed. Now who is going against probability? A f-15 getting hit by a missile is a low probability event in itself, and yet, it happened. Umm, no, that is not what i was told by someone who actually had to know that to protect his life. Looking at the video it doesn't look like the missile was pulling very hard near the end anyway so yeah. It never tried? Guess again (look at inset): Hahan nope, look before you leap: So basically you want me to prove your claims? That seems pretty lazy if you ask me. I have never said 12 FPS. My assumption is 24 FPS. Its better than the entire missile exploding violently and than magically there is still stuff to burn. I think you said it best: Like denouncing the contractor who fixed the stab? I see wide variation in blast size especially in normal video. Ok, so how do you know they were armed? Show me the one you have measured to match the size. Unless the dude selling it doesn't know its better than he thinks. This analogy is getting so far of track its hilarious. Like a MiG-29 operated by rebels sneaking up on an F-15 and firing a missile which detonates on a flare that there is no proof for? My position has been based on what the contractor said since i started posting.

Wow, good find. Yes, it looks different, no flares and no smoke trail at impact.

Praying

Nope, it is clearly the actual flame size. Also, how big is the small test warhead? Yep, they tend, but that doesn't mean always. As someone with missile testing experience you should know what you just said is complete garbage, missiles go much much faster than jets causing G loading to be much much higher. You can clearly see it before and after in the clip with flash. Then why do you keep posting? I said we didn't have to continue, but here you are. If you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. In my calc the flash is at full size for 3 frames, so after some more calcs i have come up with this: If there was 1.5 sec of motor left it has the FLIR sig to make the flash and then go on for 9 frames at the size of the leftover glow, which is only visible for 7 or 8 frames. There you have it. Or the media could be right rather than the contractor and someone who has videos of inert FLIR hits :megalol: Where is the proof of your missile testing experience? You can't (and shouldn't) legally post proof, so your opinion is of equal validity to Mfezi's (although for all we know you could be the floor sweeping guy as you have given no details other than naming 2 missiles.). You mean brimstone? (i know they are very similar, but might as well not confuse anyone even more) Yes, zero flash with no motor, as anyone could have predicted. We also have proof that the FLIR in apache handles flashes very different to the OP FLIR. There were more like 5 videos :lol:. It is clearly visible in this one: Sooo.... The gas station analogy doesn't apply when there is a tank full of explosive ammunition and fuel? That is funny. So they are like: "Heck, lets load a 1000kg warhead just in case this works so we have rebuild the testing facility when this fails, i didn't like the decor anyways" :lol: We still haven't bee able to find a 100% verifiable inert strike on FLIR. Unless it was a sweet deal ;) Its fairly clear, don't let the media tell you what to think. Never seen it. Haha, yeah.

That is because its over exposed and glowing. Depends on the circumstances. Ok, the target is crossing pretty darn fast so it seems feasible that the missile wasn't able to pull all the way to the fuselage therefore catching the stab. Just a possibility. But we can see it, its not a long white tube, but its still visible before and after. Then don't make claims your not prepared to back up. But the flash is big for just one frame and in my calc the flash is huge for 3 full frames therefore its perfectly feasible. But only up to a point, if someone said they saw tracks in the snow you could guess that they were made by feet, but without actually looking at them you couldn't tell. Also footprints are always made by feet. :megalol: You are still avoiding what Mfezi has said, Do you believe he is lying or what? look at apache FLIR video, flashes are greyed out, that is very different from what we see in the OP. Remember, you are claiming afterburners are 2m in diameter, if that is not desperate i don't know what is. It was early testing so i highly doubt they had warheads, plus there is other clips in your video of rockets exploding (something to keep in mind is a lot of them are in slow motion, so they look slower) Bigger than what? Well, if you get in your "new" rolls and the steering wheel says little tikes on it you know something is wrong but you don't know if the engine is gone or not, you have to open the hood. But did you read the document? Unless you talk to the physicists once in awhile. It was provided by the Iranian news, so the dude that wrote the article needs to get his butt fired (and the editor who checked it, in any).

Yeah, i was starting to notice the circles we have been making, i just found it such an interesting debate. To Emu: If you want to continue we can keep going, but since we are starting (understatement) to go in circles it may be better to agree to disagree, I hold no hard feeling towards you and i hope i have not come across as attacking you, i meant no offense by anything i posted.

What? Are you talking about FLIR now? If not, we both know that is bogus. Depends on where you hit it. Ok, makes sense, but can an AIM-9x tell the difference between the exhaust and the fuselage? Absence? The missile is hardly visible before and hardly visible after, indicating no dramatic change. Quote yourself claiming personal experience as the source in regards to small warhead in testing. That the missile motor is sustaining 2552 px of FLIR sig per sec while burning, so therefore if you take 1 sec of fuel and burn it in 3 frames you get a flash the size of the OP. your BTU number is irrelevant, hydrazine is not used in solid rocket fuel. Do you expect him to post classified material in a public forum? Do you think he is HRC? The balance of probability is mostly useless in an isolated incident. Technically all FLIR's are "similar", Apache FLIR and the OP FLIR are obviously different in how they handle flashes. The video of the failed V2 launches show explosions quite nicely, you keep proving yourself wrong. Exactly, power, not flash. If you bought a rolls royce and it had a fiat steering wheel it would be 99% fake. This is really OT, but did you actually read the document or just trust the journalist who have little or no experience in this field? So the janitor at GMC knows just as much about computers as the janitor at Dell? Oh, yeah, they are probably not credible...

Oh well since you say so... :lol: The burners are no larger than then the nozzles, which are not larger than 1m, and so 2 cylynders 1m x 10m each comes to 15.7cu meters, the flash comes to 27.6 cu meters. Maybe, maybe not. Sooo.. let me get this straight, The IR missile can't tell between the sun and the plane, but it it somehow knows to be blinded by the sun and to attack the plane? Can the missile think that at all (about anything)? Where is it before it hits? Probably due to the sun angle or something the missile is hardly visible before it hits: Show me the post, you never said personal experience about the small warhead claim. Seems? I have proven that with 1 sec of fuel left it could have produced the flash in the video, with only 1 sec. The original weight doesn't matter. Also, do you believe Mfezi was lying when he said that he has FLIR videos of KE only (no motor) hits that show a flash similar to the OP? Or did you just hope that would be forgotten? Sure, the balance of probability always screams warhead, but we are talking about an isolated incident. So? Show one or two. And it doesn't matter much anyway because apaches FLIR is obviously different from videos we have already seen. The fact that the apache flashes are smaller indicates very different handling of flashes. This is getting tiring, SHOW PROOF THAT ROCKETS DON'T EXPLODE!!!!............ (!) Because explosives have much more power than solid rocket fuel (think shockwave), not flash. Its not 100% real, but we don't know to what extent it is fake. Read the document instead of cherry picking piggy backed articles that mess up facts. In the document it says it has 6 safety interlocks and one was set off and two were broken: "One "set off" by the fall. Two rendered ineffective by aircraft breakup." :joystick: I'll bet he knows more than the guy that sweeps the floors of the Av mags office. And i don't think the janitor qualifies as the contractor either. Oh, ok, who is claiming that? Bonus: Inert hit with stinger flashes pretty good (Start at 4:18): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7b8M

No, the burners are 1m or less their entire length, 2m is absolutely preposterous. If the aim-9 flash was a small warhead you would think the missile would be less intact. Yeah, pretty close to the same size it went in, but its very difficult to tell. Why do they do that then? I know this is nowhere near proof, but FWIW the DCS mig-21 can lock the sun. (I think the FC3 A/C can to, but not sure) Ummm... no, look at the non-slow motion: You never said that about the small warhead claim, i have been asking for seven pages. If it was fired AA like you say (Or SAM with a booster) then it would be a very definite possibility. All we know about the fuel level is there is some left at the intercept, and according to you, the leftover glow supports fuel burning more than it does warhead. Ok....... so..... Why? There are obvious differences in how they handle flashes IE in the apache flashes are greyed out. And your point is......? I have a case with an angle. (What is my case????) No i am saying that under these circumstances and FLIR settings a missile did not detonate and made the OP flash (If its real, which may not be the case) The only incident??????? Are you sure? It doesn't sound like the fuse failed, it said three out of safeties failed implying that the fourth safety worked implying the fuse wasn't triggered. Well it produced one heck of a flash in flir! :megalol: We have a pretty good idea of what the contractor is, we have nothing on the Av mag source. Do you mind telling me what RFCLOS is? I couldn't find anything.

I would really like to hear how you know this. (!)

Praying for the families!

Ok, soo... umm... yeah.... ok. That doesn't change the fact that the Aim-9x flash is bigger than the afterburners, and much higher flame concentration. The object is definitely the missile, but the length is very very hard to judge due to speed and video quality. Then why did an f-18 pilot recently tell me about an incident where a cobra fired an IR missile and it shot up to the sun unexpectedly? I was talking about the definite flash video, the one you claim small warhead, i was saying the missile still being mostly intact supports no warhead a lot more than small warhead. Umm, ok, i would disagree about explosives being over in an instant, but its an invalid discussion anyway because hydrazine is completely irrelevant. If the missile had a small warhead you would think it would not be intact after it detonated (1st video). Yep, i was asking about your claim of small warheads, not normal warheads, sorry for misunderstanding. So all of the sudden there is proof of very little fuel left???:lol: I have proven there to be more then enough potential FLIR signature with only 1 sec of motor left, i have done my part. Yep, would you say the UH-1 and the AH-1 are of similar quality and made by the same firm? Can you clarify what you're talking about??? Then get some photo processing software and get your own measurements! (If you want to know the software i use and my methods just let me know). The angle is irrelevant in this specific case because the explosion is a sphere. But how did it get stuck if the double fuze never fails? ;) Do you mean f-4? Yes, missiles don't disintegrate on impact, but they apparently can make a flash without a warhead. I didn't mean it as a dig against pilots, just that the contractor probably has a greater understanding of the entire situation than a Dutch av mag. Probably? PROBABLY???? There is literally no reference to go off of in that video!!! Yeah, the video definitely is not 100% real, what is hard to tell is to what extent is it fake.....

Definitely! Its not me against you, its a quest for truth!

Nice!

I consider his claim somewhat equal to Mfezi's (points removed due to MAJOR vagueness) You can't just say "I believe this random internet guy, but not this one" they each hold weight until proven otherwise of course.

Ok, so i know that the realness of the video is back in question, but just in case if it is found genuine i'll reply. Soo, your wrong and so you switch topics? AIM-9X flash is bigger than afterburners. Twice as big as what? I thought you said the video was extremely grainy? And yet missiles can lock on the sun, the hottest part. Just because most of the missile is still intact doesn't mean its unscathed, if anything it supports the no-small-warhead position. I was just pointing out that your invalid example of rocket fuel was even more invalid because it is highly explosive, something you kept denying. Yeah, i was referring to the first one. Yep, you have yet to state your source for that knowledge. What is why? There probably being 1 or more seconds left??? That makes no sense. So what you are saying is, that police chopper FLIR and Attack chopper FLIR are the same? That also makes no sense. Also during the flash in the hellfire videos there is a grey overlay on the flash which is not on the OP. The video you posted, the "white hot human" one, I measured the wall next to the dude to get an estimation for 1m, then measured the flash and divided that by the amount of px to make 1m. I am not saying that missiles always explode like heck without warhead, just that they can. Why not? They should know more about the structure than the pilots. What the heck? Like you say Super grainy video. And what are you trying to say?

Good find, makes sense! Looks to abrupt for an intentional roll.

He answered your question, no need to get snarky.

Last time i checked the diameter of afterburners wasn't 10m :lol: The diameter of the flash is about 3.75m (2d area of 11m, 3d volume of 27.6m) (you lose) i don't know, maybe the motor broke off on its way out. Why not? (Please provide some type of proof other than "cause i know") You can hardly see the stab, let alone weather or not its broken. Hydrazine doesn't even seem to be used in solid rockets anyway, also look at this: "Mixing it with oxidising agent dinitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, creates a hypergolic mixture – a mixture so explosive, no ignition is required." Source: https://eic.rsc.org/magnificent-molecules/hydrazine/2000023.article Less fishy than the other AIM-9X test where you claim small warhead and the missile keeps going. Also, we can't tell if its a fireball. Let me try again: Provide your source for how you KNOW they use warheads. Also, you having experience with the meteor you could have just said "I have personally worked with the meteor and they have a small test warhead". This is whats on the literal wiki for it: "A Telemetry and Break-Up System (TBUS) replaces the warhead on trials missiles" Was that really too hard to say? Yep, and we don't know how long it burned before hitting. i would say 1 sec is conservative. We also don't know if anything was burning after, could just be the hot smoke and debris. It is if the motor broke up, more surface area = more burning. You have given no proof/logic/reason as to why the type of FLIR doesn't matter. So what your saying is: No fuel = 28m = 615 Sq m With fuel= 50m = 1963 Sq m 1936-615=1321 In other words the leftover motor (by itself) is 219% more powerful than the warhead by itself? Why don't they just put motor in the front of the missile, it would blow the crap out of anything! :lol: Yep. Thats hilarious! They literally pulled the top image from wiki and claimed it was their new SAM. Bonus: In this image there is a sam hitting a mi-8, going by the length it has a diameter of 10m, 2.6 times the diameter of the AIM-9X flash, and most likely a MANPADS, which means 3kg warhead: Source: