Jump to content

Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen


red_coreSix

Recommended Posts

Hugely unlikely, since the warhead detonation mechanism is dual redundant, requiring at least two failures to fail (contact and proximity). The damage is self-evident from the pictures above, also review the original video in slow-motion. I was wrong at first, there is a definite warhead explosion, it just doesn't do much damage because it's a miss.

 

oaGrio7.png

 

A rod warhead sends out shrapnel in an expanding cone, such that it all hits on a curved line. Add aerodynamic forces and the piece will break off, with no apparent evidence of small shrapnel marks.

 

Other sources say the missile exploded at a flare.

 

 

New info arrived at our desk about the Houthi versus Saudi Eagle shooting of 7 Jan'18. Although the Houthi's claim that they have shot down the #F15SA w/ mod #AA11 #ARCHER (R-73E) aa-missile, #F15 was only hit by some shrapnel after the (unconfirmed!) ARCHER hit a flare.

 

And it wouldn't say much for CUDA, if a direct hit by an inert missile only did minor damage.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So to clear up some random things I've seen posted here.

 

Fighters cruise at around 350-450 knots but that's at altitude so closer to .7-8 Mach or so. True airspeed is going to be around 500. Still though, not nearly fast enough to outrun MANPADS.

 

Mudhens are not an F-15C, they don't accelerate greatly with afterburner. From the FLIR it looks like they were in mil or below until 10 seconds until impact. 10 seconds of AB is enough to maybe accelerate 30-50 kts depending on altitude. Why the Saudis thought it was a good idea to put in afterburner while using flares is beyond me, they didn't even try to maneuver either. Saudis are not good pilots, they will fly within the regime to be shot down by MANPADS then not perform correct defensive tactics to defeat a missile launched at them. They will also run out of gas because the tanker pilot is a female and would rather eject than refuel from a female piloted aircraft (true story.) So when assessing this whole story, remember there will be oddities that come from how strike eagles are operated by Saudi Arabia rather than the US.

 

Modern MANPADS can reach up above 10k feet pretty easily. I don't know how long the burn is but it isn't getting crazy acceleration like an SA-8 for example, it has sustained motors. The warheads on MANPADS are tiny though, so a direct hit even with the warhead going off is still possible to fly with. R-73 has a much larger warhead and with the video shown it would have killed that jet with such a close prox. R-27 has even much larger warhead that would make sure the jet isn't flying. It's really difficult to tell if the warhead actually went off or not but either way it wouldn't surprise me that the F-15 was flying after being hit by a MANPADS and I have a really difficult time thinking it could be an R-73 or R-27.

 

These arguments from Emu are making my head hurt...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How high is 'at altitude'? 350-450kias equals 500ktas at a rather large altitude window between 8000ft and 25000ft.

 

That's kinda what my point was, that fighters aren't going that slow (the .5M that Emu said) just because CAS is 350. It kinda works that way in combat areas too, you want to be at a higher CAS at low altitude and don't need to be as fast at high altitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was me, the typical IAS eagles will fly at is 350-450, depending on what they're doing. That, of course, is typical, which means it doesn't apply everywhere.

Also, I know it's IAS, and TAS will be higher ... depending on altitude.

 

Emu was arguing that there is no way they're going this slow (that the typical cruise speed is 500kts - but cruise speeds tend to be IAS, you don't set TAS or GS usually) I argued that he doesn't know what speed they were moving at, regardless of what is typical or expected given the situation.

 

So we have an aircraft at unknown speed and altitude being hit by a missile. We don't know which missile, but Emu was just swearing up and down that it's not this or that because reasons which only apply to certain specific missiles and not others ... and that's the short of it :)

 

That's kinda what my point was, that fighters aren't going that slow (the .5M that Emu said) just because CAS is 350. It kinda works that way in combat areas too, you want to be at a higher CAS at low altitude and don't need to be as fast at high altitude.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with what you're saying GGTharos, just challenging Emu saying ".5M" and "200ft" being the only way a MANPADS would have a smoke trail hitting an F-15. I don't know enough about Yemen's arsenal to say it was a more modern MANPADS that can climb above 10k feet but the constant ruling out of MANPADS hitting an F-15 unless it is flying low and slow irks me. There's a large envelope the F-15 can operate in that will put it within a MEZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with what you're saying GGTharos, just challenging Emu saying ".5M" and "200ft" being the only way a MANPADS would have a smoke trail hitting an F-15. I don't know enough about Yemen's arsenal to say it was a more modern MANPADS that can climb above 10k feet but the constant ruling out of MANPADS hitting an F-15 unless it is flying low and slow irks me. There's a large envelope the F-15 can operate in that will put it within a MEZ.

The fact you're ignoring is that the missile's motor is still burning when the warhead goes off. I've already shown umpteen videos of Iglas and Stingers in this thread at twilight where the burn time can be easily seen. It's literally 3s, for some MANPADS it's less. That's circa 2km (6,600ft) of travel. Could the F-15 have been inside that range after 10s of afterburner from Mach 0.8 (240m/s), especially with the missile approaching at an angle? Super unlikely.

 

The damage is also inconsistent with the fragmentation warhead of an Igla, the cut off stab is more consistent with a continuous rod warhead. It is also very difficult to see how close the missile got because of the angle (side-on and tail chase). Furthermore, insiders doing the repair have ID'd it as an R-73 that hit/exploded near a flare. So regardless of how much anyone wants it to be a MANPADS, it wasn't.

 

Now here's the problem, some would argue that the Saudi's aren't great pilots but at the same time they argue that there's no way a MiG-29 could have snuck up on one, even though an Iraqi pilot did just that to a USN F-18 pilot in Desert Storm. Dumb enough to fly well below 5,000ft, but not dumb enough to be surprised in air combat? That's a strange claim.

 

So all things considered, I still maintain it was most likely hit by an air-launched R-73.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with what you're saying GGTharos, just challenging Emu saying ".5M" and "200ft" being the only way a MANPADS would have a smoke trail hitting an F-15. I don't know enough about Yemen's arsenal to say it was a more modern MANPADS that can climb above 10k feet but the constant ruling out of MANPADS hitting an F-15 unless it is flying low and slow irks me. There's a large envelope the F-15 can operate in that will put it within a MEZ.

Playing Devil's Advocate... Fly at 20,000ft and you're immune to MANPADS unless you're flying by a mountain. F-15SAs have the necessary hardware to hit targets precisely from that altitude, so why fly lower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact you're ignoring is that the missile's motor is still burning when the warhead goes off. I've already shown umpteen videos of Iglas and Stingers in this thread at twilight where the burn time can be easily seen. It's literally 3s, for some MANPADS it's less. That's circa 2km (6,600ft) of travel. Could the F-15 have been inside that range after 10s of afterburner from Mach 0.8 (240m/s), especially with the missile approaching at an angle? Super unlikely.

 

The damage is also inconsistent with the fragmentation warhead of an Igla, the cut off stab is more consistent with a continuous rod warhead. It is also very difficult to see how close the missile got because of the angle (side-on and tail chase). Furthermore, insiders doing the repair have ID'd it as an R-73 that hit/exploded near a flare. So regardless of how much anyone wants it to be a MANPADS, it wasn't.

 

Now here's the problem, some would argue that the Saudi's aren't great pilots but at the same time they argue that there's no way a MiG-29 could have snuck up on one, even though an Iraqi pilot did just that to a USN F-18 pilot in Desert Storm. Dumb enough to fly well below 5,000ft, but not dumb enough to be surprised in air combat? That's a strange claim.

 

So all things considered, I still maintain it was most likely hit by an air-launched R-73.

 

I didn't see where the insiders said R-73, just saw that original post of the damage and some tweets saying unconfirmed R-73 from the same people who said they shot down the jet even though it was confirmed to have not been shot down. And F-15 could very well be within that range, the 10 seconds of AB does not help as much as you think it does.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate... Fly at 20,000ft and you're immune to MANPADS unless you're flying by a mountain. F-15SAs have the necessary hardware to hit targets precisely from that altitude, so why fly lower?

 

As others mentioned, show of force or strafe. An F-15's standard daylight strafe takes you to to 500' above the target. Show of force is usually down to 500' as well. If they're doing a climb away from the target in mil power (usually done in mil to give less heat signature) they are going be within range of MANPADS for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, i think both sides have made a lot of good points, and some bad, but excuse me if i am missing something obvious.

 

What in the living hecking crap is an f-15 doing so low in the first part of the video?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lkU7oxOmjY

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, i think both sides have made a lot of good points, and some bad, but excuse me if i am missing something obvious.

 

What in the living hecking crap is an f-15 doing so low in the first part of the video?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lkU7oxOmjY

 

Show of force or strafe... or incompetent piloting/doctrine of Saudi pilots. They are by far not the best pilots of western aircraft.

 

Pleasantly surprised by Singapore eagle pilots from my experience, I imagine Japan and SK has good pilots too. Don't judge any aircraft based on its use in the middle east because it it always a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see where the insiders said R-73, just saw that original post of the damage and some tweets saying unconfirmed R-73 from the same people who said they shot down the jet even though it was confirmed to have not been shot down. And F-15 could very well be within that range, the 10 seconds of AB does not help as much as you think it does.

Read the whole thread.

 

 

As others mentioned, show of force or strafe. An F-15's standard daylight strafe takes you to to 500' above the target. Show of force is usually down to 500' as well. If they're doing a climb away from the target in mil power (usually done in mil to give less heat signature) they are going be within range of MANPADS for awhile.

You don't show force by putting expensive military equipment in a position where it can be shot down by cheap military equipment. That's like pulling your pants down as a show of force in a pub brawl.

 

Didn't see any strafing, which would definitely show on FLIR. 500ft or 5,000ft? Also, again note that the rocket motor was still burning from a side-on tail chase after 10s of afterburner. Note MANPADS burn time of ~3s for Igla and Stinger and speed. The damage is not consistent with an Igla warhead either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show of force or strafe... or incompetent piloting/doctrine of Saudi pilots. They are by far not the best pilots of western aircraft.

 

Pleasantly surprised by Singapore eagle pilots from my experience, I imagine Japan and SK has good pilots too. Don't judge any aircraft based on its use in the middle east because it it always a mess.

 

 

 

Yeah, I was being semi-sarcastic ;)

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the whole thread.

 

 

 

You don't show force by putting expensive military equipment in a position where it can be shot down by cheap military equipment. That's like pulling your pants down as a show of force in a pub brawl.

 

Didn't see any strafing, which would definitely show on FLIR. 500ft or 5,000ft? Also, again note that the rocket motor was still burning from a side-on tail chase after 10s of afterburner. Note MANPADS burn time of ~3s for Igla and Stinger and speed. The damage is not consistent with an Igla warhead either.

 

 

 

The damage is also not consistent with getting hit from behind and below, I would think to break off the top part of the vertical stab you would have to hit from the side, video can be deceiving at high zoom levels.

 

 

Also, the contractor fixing the stabilizer probably knows better wether the warhead detonated. The flash was probably what was left of the rocket motor burning off.

 

 

 

 

IMHO

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The damage is also not consistent with getting hit from behind and below, I would think to break off the top part of the vertical stab you would have to hit from the side, video can be deceiving at high zoom levels.

 

 

Also, the contractor fixing the stabilizer probably knows better wether the warhead detonated. The flash was probably what was left of the rocket motor burning off.

 

 

 

 

IMHO

To mind mind the missile came from the side and behind diagonally. A SAM would have to come from below.

 

And if the flash was the rest of the rocket motor burning off it sure as hell wasn't a MANPADS. To be still burning on impact and have enough fuel left for a flash would be quite something for a little iddy-biddy rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To mind mind the missile came from the side and behind diagonally. A SAM would have to come from below.

 

And if the flash was the rest of the rocket motor burning off it sure as hell wasn't a MANPADS. To be still burning on impact and have enough fuel left for a flash would be quite something for a little iddy-biddy rocket.

 

I don't believe it was a MANPADS, I am just pointing out that to break off the top of the vertical stabilizer the missile had to have come from the side slightly, so not a straight tail chase. I'm not trying to be arguementitive, I'm just stating my observations.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the source that the top of the vertical stab was broken off?

 

The contractor I asked said there was no other damage besides the horizontal stab.

Alienware 17 R3: Intel i7 6820HK @ 4 GHz, 16 GB DDR4, GTX 980M, 1TB Samsung NVMe 951 SSD, AW Graphics Amplifier w/ GTX 1080, TM HOTAS Warthog, Oculus Rift CV1, Monstertech, MFG Crosswind, Jetseat KW-908

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To mind mind the missile came from the side and behind diagonally. A SAM would have to come from below.

 

How do we know the F-15 was at 0 degrees bank? If the plane was banked to the right a missile from below can strike the plane side-on.

 

Also I've been hit many times in DCS by SAMs that came from the side or even a little above (such as when I'm flying at low altitude).

 

I think you're making too many assumptions based on a small amount of information. There's just not enough data yet to make these sorts of absolute statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the source that the top of the vertical stab was broken off?

 

The contractor I asked said there was no other damage besides the horizontal stab.

 

Oh, sorry! Totally my fault! I got mixed up and thought it was the vertical stabilizer :doh:

 

 

Please disregard previous comments about the stab.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know the F-15 was at 0 degrees bank? If the plane was banked to the right a missile from below can strike the plane side-on.

 

Also I've been hit many times in DCS by SAMs that came from the side or even a little above (such as when I'm flying at low altitude).

 

I think you're making too many assumptions based on a small amount of information. There's just not enough data yet to make these sorts of absolute statements.

We're assuming a ground-based FLIR, as depicted in the video.

 

Not really, and far better than leaps of faith, like the rocket motor immediately exploding on impact but not the warhead, with no visible spinning of that motor before the explosion and no fragmentation from it. That and a MANPADS motor still having unspent fuel after catching an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and from an angle. The simpler explanation is that it was a continuous rod warhead that cut the stab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're assuming a ground-based FLIR, as depicted in the video.

 

Not really, and far better than leaps of faith, like the rocket motor immediately exploding on impact but not the warhead, with no visible spinning of that motor before the explosion and no fragmentation from it. That and a MANPADS motor still having unspent fuel after catching an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and from an angle. The simpler explanation is that it was a continuous rod warhead that cut the stab.

 

If you want to dissagree with someone who's job is to fix planes on weather the warhead exploded or not, that's your choice. I would think it would be a lot easier to tell if a warhead went off or not than what type of missile it was.

Like I said before I don't believe it was a MANPADS. In the video I linked earlier there is an f-15 flying around fairly low (it seems) presumably in the same country as the one that was hit.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to dissagree with someone who's job is to fix planes on weather the warhead exploded or not, that's your choice. I would think it would be a lot easier to tell if a warhead went off or not than what type of missile it was.

Like I said before I don't believe it was a MANPADS. In the video I linked earlier there is an f-15 flying around fairly low (it seems) presumably in the same country as the one that was hit.

Not really, not many people who fix planes have dealt with SAM strikes, furthermore the pictures show that the damage can be done by a continuous rod warhead. The video also shows a clear and sudden flash on the strike. If the missile hit with the motor still burning and the warhead didn't go off, I would expect the flash to be of longer duration and to see the burning rocket motor violently change direction before the missile was destroyed. I would expect the flash to drag out in distance too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, not many people who fix planes have dealt with SAM strikes, furthermore the pictures show that the damage can be done by a continuous rod warhead. The video also shows a clear and sudden flash on the strike. If the missile hit with the motor still burning and the warhead didn't go off, I would expect the flash to be of longer duration and to see the burning rocket motor violently change direction before the missile was destroyed. I would expect the flash to drag out in distance too.

 

Not if the motor is pulverized, as i would expect it to be.

 

...The flash from the explosion is far larger, even when not shown in IR.

 

I tend to agree with you on this one wink.gif

 

A Dutch Aviation magazine also claims schrapnel. Now a journalist would normally have a source.

 

Haha umm yeah, gotta love those journalists...

 

I doubt the journalist has the stab, I am going to believe the person who has pictures to prove they have contact with those who have the stab.

Until proven otherwise of course... :)

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp review for milk translated from Japanese

"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV

i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...