Missile Strike Above LOC

[airomerix]

and

And the missile trails cannot be seen from ground because;

1) The launch aircraft was above 250AGL
2) The target aircraft were above 3000 AGL.

So the question of AMRAAM's descent and leaving a trail is simply not there.

 

[CriticalThought]

Yes it is. AMRAAM is never launched in close quarters. And on 27th none of the missiles were launched in a range lesser than 20 nm.

There is a term called Missile Lofting. AMRAAM is programmed to follow LOFTING under all conditions. The missile is launched, it gains some G's and climbs up. Gains speed and proceeds with the least drag possible. Even if the target is 5 km away, the AMRAAM will rise to a height and then home in from above.

The primary reason why I disagreed with OP's post is because the contrails of missile cannot be seen from ground level due to the fact that from ground, the contrails are only visible if they are formed in Block 2 which is between FL200 to FL350 at most. And AMRAAM's contrails didn't form in block 2 at all on Feb 27. The F-16s themselves were at FL250. So just imagine the LOFT of AMRAAM at that point. The missile would have climbed in excess of 70000 ft and that height the jet streams are formed which don't let contrails stay at all.

Contrails are always formed in stable condition's. By stable conditions I mean stable wind conditions, negative jet streams

Regardless of your claims about altitude, your claim specifically about how contrails form is also incorrect. Contrails form because highly pressurized air finds an opportunity to suddenly expand, thus cooling down and forming water vapor/ice crystals. The contrail will retain its ship in stable condition and disperse quickly in windy conditions, but it will nevertheless form. In clear skies, contrails can be seen for even ballistic missiles, and the AMRAAM's altitude is much lower. That's another false claim debunked.

 

[airomerix]

@Arsalan this guy is displaying intellectual dishonesty by cherrypicking quotes from an unofficial document. Here is the document he is citing:

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zarett...data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

and this is the front page:



It is analysis done by ordinary citizens based on publicly available data. And Mr airomerix has cited the information specifically from a section titled '5. Example Loft scenarios'. The same document also contains information about performance in level flight.

And this is where I lose patience and you say I am getting personal. This is dishonesty and should be dealt with severely. It also brings to question other claims this person has been making on the forum.



Because maybe you have a radar lock but not a heat signature lock. Or you are simply out of WVRs?

Excuse me? Please show me where did I claim I'm using classified information to support my claims?

 

[airomerix]

Regardless of your claims about altitude, your claim specifically about how contrails form is also incorrect. Contrails form because highly pressurized air finds an opportunity to suddenly expand, thus cooling down and forming water vapor/ice crystals. The contrail will retain its ship in stable condition and disperse quickly in windy conditions, but it will nevertheless form. In clear skies, contrails can be seen for even ballistic missiles, and the AMRAAM's altitude is much lower. That's another false claim debunked.

It is debunked because you said its debunked? You have not provided even a single figure to support at what height contrails are formed (and seen from ground).

And thanks for reinforcing my own information. I've already stated that contrails are formed in stable conditions. (so much for debunked claim)

Ballistic missiles leave contrails? Sure. Because they are launched from ground up. Not at 25000 feet like AMRAAMs.

You can do all you want to demean me. I'd be happy to destroy you.

 

[Windjammer]

@Telescopic Sight , are you Sameer Joshi or just copy pasting his fan boy material.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1134674985245528066

 

[Arsalan]

And the missile trails cannot be seen from ground because;

1) The launch aircraft was above 250AGL
2) The target aircraft were above 3000 AGL.

So the question of AMRAAM's descent and leaving a trail is simply not there.

You mean the target aircraft when shot were at 3000 AGL? Please do share the reference to this. This would then settle this debate here.

 

[airomerix]

You mean the target aircraft when shot were at 3000 AGL? Please do share the reference to this. This would then settle this debate here.

Uhh I meant 300AGL. No jet can reach 3000AGL .

You guys have been active on this forum since so long. And you must have friends here n there. Why don't you ask around? Maybe this guy @CriticalThought can do it for you.

So much for debunking claims.

 

[Jango]

I just wish some members took feedback in a more constructive manner instead of getting personal.

Only if wishes were horses!

 

[CriticalThought]

It is debunked because you said its debunked? You have not provided even a single figure to support at what height contrails are formed (and seen from ground).

After having described the physics, I will let the reader lookup the wikipedia page that shows many a fine contrail at various ranges including 25,000 to 40,000 ft. The reader can then search about contrail visibility about which there is extensive literature available. Where is your proof that contrails can't be seen at 70K ft?

And thanks for reinforcing my own information. I've already stated that contrails are formed in stable conditions. (so much for debunked claim)

Comprehension issue. They are always formed, but disperse quickly in windy conditions.

Ballistic missiles leave contrails? Sure. Because they are launched from ground up. Not at 25000 feet like AMRAAMs.

Even more comprehension issues. Their contrails are visible for a very long range. As witnessed by anyone who looks closely at the skies in Karachi during missile tests. Here is a contrail from a test in Australia. How high do you think this object is flying?

I'd be happy to destroy you.

@Arsalan does this look like a threat to you?

 

[Arsalan]

Uhh I meant 300AGL. No jet can reach 3000AGL .

You guys have been active on this forum since so long. And you must have friends here n there. Why don't you ask around? Maybe this guy @CriticalThought can do it for you.

So much for debunking claims.

Fine. So 300AGL. Are you saying that the Indian aircraft when shot was at 300AGL? As i requested, please share any link or evidence of that as that should end this debate.


Sir i am not debunking or supporting any claims here. You are saying that AMRAAM home-in toward the target from top, i asked if that would ALWAYS be the case? Also that do you think it will still be coming in from top in terminal phase when it reaches NEAR the target? No clear answer to either. Because if your answer to first is yes, then i see why you would say that the trail cannot be of the missile. Similarly if your answer to second question is yes as well then we both can understand that it is possible


Personally, i think that this discussion on the thread have taken far too much of a personal touch it is not going anywhere forward anymore.

Will love to learn more about the missile approach path and answer to the two questions i asked.

@CriticalThought @airomerix @Telescopic Sight PLEASE do not get personal. Some of us here will actually like to listen to both sides of argument and learn as much as possible. PLEASE.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is you who is trying day and day again to vomit all over the discussion.

And its called quoting 'RELEVANT' information. I cannot post an entire document to suit your insecurities.

After being caught for intellectual dishonesty, now dig yourself into the ground further.

@CriticalThought @airomerix @Telescopic Sight PLEASE do not get personal. Some of us here will actually like to listen to both sides of argument and learn as much as possible. PLEASE.

Are you for real? What can you learn from someone who is guilty of selection bias?

 

[airomerix]

After having described the physics, I will let the reader lookup the wikipedia page that shows many a fine contrail at various ranges including 25,000 to 40,000 ft. The reader can then search about contrail visibility about which there is extensive literature available. Where is your proof that contrails can't be seen at 70K ft?

I will try to keep this civil and you should behave. Really.

You have repeatedly failed to provide figures to support your claims. Fine granted. My figure of contrail visibility is 5000 feet short. My argument still stands that AMRAAM's flight envelope at lets say 70000 feet cannot be seen from the ground. The burden of proof lies on you. Please tell us how a humans naked eye is able to see contrails forming at 70000 feet?

Comprehension issue. They are always formed, but disperse quickly in windy conditions.

LOL. Since contrails are not sustainable at altitudes exceeding 40000 feet. So they cannot be seen right?

Thank you!

Even more comprehension issues. Their contrails are visible for a very long range. As witnessed by anyone who looks closely at the skies in Karachi during missile tests. Here is a contrail from a test in Australia. How high do you think this object is flying?

View attachment 563027

[/QUOTE]

This jet is anywhere between 25000 to 35000 feet. Whats your point? My point still stands

And this is your problem. You just know how to blantantly state 'Their contrails are visible for a very long range"

WHAT RANGE? STATE THE FACTS AND FIGURES! THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS!

 

[Windjammer]

Ironically, we do see a missile trail from the ground here when the Indian MiG-21 was hit and even hear the explosion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1100666958792527872

 

[airomerix]

Fine. So 300AGL. Are you saying that the Indian aircraft when shot was at 300AGL? As i requested, please share any link or evidence of that as that should end this debate.

I cannot provide that.

Sir i am not debunking or supporting any claims here. You are saying that AMRAAM home-in toward the target from top, i asked if that would ALWAYS be the case? Also that do you think it will still be coming in from top in terminal phase when it reaches NEAR the target? No clear answer to either. Because if your answer to first is yes, then i see why you would say that the trail cannot be of the missile. Similarly if your answer to second question is yes as well then we both can understand that it is possible

So the basic theory which is left to be debunked is. At what range does an AMRAAM typically is while it completes it LOFT performance and homes in towards the target at level flight. Am I correct?

Personally, i think that this discussion on the thread have taken far too much of a personal touch it is not going anywhere forward anymore.

Will love to learn more about the missile approach path and answer to the two questions i asked.

@CriticalThought @airomerix @Telescopic Sight PLEASE do not get personal. Some of us here will actually like to listen to both sides of argument and learn as much as possible. PLEASE.

I agree. I think this guy is only here to prove me wrong. No contribution to the topic at all.

Ironically, we do see a missile trail from the ground here when the Indian MiG-21 was hit and even hear the explosion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1100666958792527872

Ironically, we do see a missile trail from the ground here when the Indian MiG-21 was hit and even hear the explosion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1100666958792527872

How can you distinguish between a trail of an AMRAAM and a Mig-21? What If I tell you it is contrail of the Mig-21 itself?

 

[Windjammer]

I

How can you distinguish between a trail of an AMRAAM and a Mig-21? What If I tell you it is contrail of the Mig-21 itself?

What if i tell you that you can also be wrong....Maybe if one looks closely he will see two contrails, one in start of the footage and one at about 0.10.