Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 19 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2018, 07:37 PM   #181
SinusoidDelta
Member
 
SinusoidDelta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 817
Default

I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?
SinusoidDelta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 07:38 PM   #182
razo+r
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SinusoidDelta View Post
I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?
Showing that a F-15 got hit by a missile I guess.
__________________

Rig: Maximus VII Ranger, 4790K @ 4.00 Ghz, MSI GTX 980 Ti, 16 GB non-oc RAM, 250 GB SAMSUNG EVO 850 SSD, 2TB HDD, Win 10 64-bit
razo+r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 07:52 PM   #183
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
But we're now talking about whether 40g can be achieved. GGTharos thinks only 12-13g is possible for such a missile.
In fact it isn't. Why? Because it's a tiny little tube. The reason starstreak can pull this off is the big fat tube - you have a LOT more area to burn then you do inside stinger.

Quote:
I'm also yet to see evidence of any current MANPADS burning for 10-15s.
That's fine, I didn't remember correctly but it's also largely irrelevant.

Quote:
And the original debate centred on whether it could still be burning in tail chase against an F-15E that had been on afterburner for 10s and I still say it couldn't because in that time the F-15 has done ~3.5km and no MANPADS will burn for 3.5km, especially once we factor in the climb and non-level/straight path.
Of course it could still be burning. You've made a boat load of assumptions about the aircraft's altitude, speed, when and where from the missile was launched, which missile it was, etc. Unlike a MANPAD, an 'AAM mod' could easily be burning for 15 sec with a two-stage motor. Fuze failures are also no unheard of, so it may have simply failed to detonate.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 10:08 PM   #184
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SinusoidDelta View Post
I apologize for speaking out of turn but what is the significance of this to the original topic?
Whether a MANPADS missile could catch an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and the rocket motor still be burning.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 10:18 PM   #185
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
In fact it isn't. Why? Because it's a tiny little tube. The reason starstreak can pull this off is the big fat tube - you have a LOT more area to burn then you do inside stinger.



That's fine, I didn't remember correctly but it's also largely irrelevant.



Of course it could still be burning. You've made a boat load of assumptions about the aircraft's altitude, speed, when and where from the missile was launched, which missile it was, etc. Unlike a MANPAD, an 'AAM mod' could easily be burning for 15 sec with a two-stage motor. Fuze failures are also no unheard of, so it may have simply failed to detonate.
In fact it is, says so right here.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html

Quote:
The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds
750m/s / 2 = 375m/s^2 = 38g

Probably another 1s or so of sustain based on videos.

15s instead of 6s? And that 6s is not for the Stinger, it is for RedEye. The trend has been shorter burn and higher speed for newer missiles.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._pictures.html

Not really, the missile trail is left-to-right, same as aircraft, and top to bottom, so it has to both catch the plane and climb.

And so could any completely custom-built missile, but the evidence of such is scarce. The MANPADS claim is garbage though.

Last edited by Emu; 01-22-2018 at 10:22 PM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 10:22 PM   #186
Sweep
Senior Member
 
Sweep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Your Left 7 @3,000ft
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
The MANPADS claim is garbage though.
__________________
"Salt Shaker" - Long live v1.2.2, home of the 10 minute flight
Sweep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 12:54 AM   #187
SinusoidDelta
Member
 
SinusoidDelta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Whether a MANPADS missile could catch an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and the rocket motor still be burning.
10 seconds in burner isn’t long at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
Not really, the missile trail is left-to-right, same as aircraft, and top to bottom, so it has to both catch the plane and climb.
In the FLIR video in the original post?
SinusoidDelta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 06:23 AM   #188
Weta43
ED Testers Team
 
Weta43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aro Valley Wellington New Zealand
Posts: 6,602
Default

So, summing up your position Emu:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu#136
at low altitude there's no way they could have been within the burn time of a MANPADS, which is literally less than a second
Quote:
Originally Posted by emu
And that 6s is (...) for RedEye (FIM-43 Redeye was a man-portable surface-to-air missile system - a MANPADS )
OK, lets take your 'less than a second' and your 'a fraction of a second', which being generous you'd take at 0.5 second.

Accepting your new 6 second figure - that puts your original 'less than a second out by a factor of between 6 and 12, and GG @ 15 seconds out by a factor of 2.5.
I see no reason to accept a 3 second total burn (the only evidence you seem to accept and feed back shows in your own words > 2 seconds, but has nothing to say about maximum burn time), but if we say 3 seconds neither one of you was any nearer.

All the videos presented of MANPADS hitting targets show the motor burning at intercept.
The original video shows the motor burning at intercept.
There is nothing in the evidence beyond your assertion that the original video was at an altitude beyond the reach of a MANPADS.

You seem happy to accept the plane was hit by an R-73, but despite evidence that ground based SHORADS have been built utilising Heat seeking SRAAMs, you refuse to believe the possibility of one of these being used because - without evidence - you believe that the target aircraft was too high.
Instead - again, without any evidence at all - you claim that the missile was launched by a phantom aircraft flown by an airforce that has no air-worthy aircraft, and did so undetected by the Saudi AWACs in the area, the Saudi fighters in area, and the assets of the USN that are supporting the Saudi's.

The truly hilarious thing is that Houthi don't claim to have shot an F-15. They claim to have shot down a Tornado, which the Saudi's acknowledge losing (but, they claim to a 'technical difficulty').

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/0...182349027.html
__________________
Cheers.
Weta43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 10:04 AM   #189
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weta43 View Post
So, summing up your position Emu:





OK, lets take your 'less than a second' and your 'a fraction of a second', which being generous you'd take at 0.5 second.

Accepting your new 6 second figure - that puts your original 'less than a second out by a factor of between 6 and 12, and GG @ 15 seconds out by a factor of 2.5.
I see no reason to accept a 3 second total burn (the only evidence you seem to accept and feed back shows in your own words > 2 seconds, but has nothing to say about maximum burn time), but if we say 3 seconds neither one of you was any nearer.

All the videos presented of MANPADS hitting targets show the motor burning at intercept.
The original video shows the motor burning at intercept.
There is nothing in the evidence beyond your assertion that the original video was at an altitude beyond the reach of a MANPADS.

You seem happy to accept the plane was hit by an R-73, but despite evidence that ground based SHORADS have been built utilising Heat seeking SRAAMs, you refuse to believe the possibility of one of these being used because - without evidence - you believe that the target aircraft was too high.
Instead - again, without any evidence at all - you claim that the missile was launched by a phantom aircraft flown by an airforce that has no air-worthy aircraft, and did so undetected by the Saudi AWACs in the area, the Saudi fighters in area, and the assets of the USN that are supporting the Saudi's.

The truly hilarious thing is that Houthi don't claim to have shot an F-15. They claim to have shot down a Tornado, which the Saudi's acknowledge losing (but, they claim to a 'technical difficulty').

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/0...182349027.html
RedEye was replaced by Stinger and as shown in videos, the burn is not more than a few seconds. At least my figure of less than 1s is correct for some MANPADS. GGTharos's figure of 15s is not correct for any and is out by ~12s, for any and all MANPADS.

Outright garbage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=140s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=155s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DmQ_tE0t5U&t=228s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z8OzGUffg&t=84s

So there's 3 different MANPADS, burning out before hitting, one burning less than a second and 2 burning for 2-3s. Still to see this 15s burning MANPADS or even 6s. When you find one, get back to me. These are also against crappy subsonic drones.

The missile is left to right and climbing and the F-15 is also left to right. Hence tail aspect and it's been on afterburner for 10s. The idea that a MANPADS could still be burning upon catching it is a bad joke. That was my original premise. It's also likely the F-15 was beyond the receding target speed of an Igla after 10s on afterburner.

An F-15SA flying at altitude is a safe assumption, perhaps you'd care to quote the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low altitude these days to prove me wrong.

Your claim they have no airworthy aircraft is inaccurate though since 19 MiG-29s were seized from the YAF. Whether they can fly them is questionable but there is evidence of outside help, e.g. all these increased range Scuds.

Who said it was undetected? The coalition had AWACS in Desert Storm and still an F-18 was shot down and I'll bet the pilot was at least as skilled as the Saudi pilot.

The truly hilarious thing is that they claimed to have shot down both until the evidence against them became irrefutable.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 10:15 AM   #190
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SinusoidDelta View Post
10 seconds in burner isn’t long at all.



In the FLIR video in the original post?
Assuming low level, which is fairly unlikely in itself (most likely F-15 was flying above MANPADS ceiling), a fairly standard cruise speed on military thrust would be 300m/s. 10s on afterburner would give supersonic, possibly as much as 400+m/s, giving a distance coverage of 3-4km and a receding target speed which is beyond that of an Igla or Igla-S. The missile also approaches from an angle, so has to travel further. MANPADS burn last maybe up to 3s based on videos, if using a boost-sustain motor. Can a MANPADS travel 3-4km in 3s? Only a Starstreak can in theory based on Vmax but that only burns for 0.5s and is unlikely to be in Houthi hands.

If I was being facetious, I could easily point out that 10s in burner is roughly enough to climb beyond the ceiling of an Igla even if it did start at low altitude.

And all this rests on the assumption that the Saudis spent a fortune on F-15SAs and equipment to just to fly them like an IL-2. Like I said, post the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low level in the last 20 years. I bet we're talking <1% easily.

All I'm doing is assuming a standard high probability combat mission altitude, and that leads me to think air-launched R-73 or maybe surface-launched R-27 but the damage has indicated an R-73.

Last edited by Emu; 01-23-2018 at 10:28 AM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:09 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.