Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

It's not burning up, he's lighting the afterburner.

You mean the halo coming up at 0:20? At first I thought the afterburner was on from the start of the video but hey you might be right!

The Saudis are not even claiming they didn't lose a plane. One of their F15s crashed, they admitted this. The reason, however, according to them is a 'technical glitch'. Engines blown to pieces probably counts as a technical glitch.

This IR video looks real enough. Plane flying, you can see heat from the exchaust, then flares, some maneuvering, afterburner and a missile hit.

I`m sure the pilot was well trained

I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you.

You don't know how high he was, it makes a lot of sense if he was flying in MANPAD range, which can be quite high for modern designs. Why would he fly low? We don't know, could be a ton of reasons.

What do you mean by promo video?

I mean the nature of the footage looks like test footage or promo footage. It is not taken from the launch vehicle. Secondly, what IR SAM in Yemeni possession could reach 20,000ft? Thirdly, if FLIR on the ground can see the jet, then a LITENING pod on the jet can see the anything on the ground, so no reason to fly low and Saudi F-15SAs have SAR too. Fourthly, they are fitted with MAWS, yet we see no manoeuvre and we see afterburners beings used whilst popping flares. And the footage conveniently cuts off before we see an ejection.

Nothing here makes sense at all.

One thing I find very odd though is: why is there a fireball before the missile hits?

Afterburner.

The Saudis are not even claiming they didn't lose a plane. One of their F15s crashed, they admitted this. The reason, however, according to them is a 'technical glitch'. Engines blown to pieces probably counts as a technical glitch.

 

This IR video looks real enough. Plane flying, you can see heat from the exchaust, then flares, some maneuvering, afterburner and a missile hit.

Where's the manoeuvring and why would you use afterburners whilst trying to decoy a missile with flares?

I'm sure if someone had the time to search every single FLIR Systems promo video on YT they would find the original.

I mean the nature of the footage looks like test footage or promo footage. It is not taken from the launch vehicle. Secondly, what IR SAM in Yemeni possession could reach 20,000ft?

Everybody in this thread assumed it was an IR SAM. Is there any proof of that or am I missing something?

Where's the manoeuvring and why would you use afterburners whilst trying to decoy a missile with flares?

 

I'm sure if someone had the time to search every single FLIR Systems promo video on YT they would find the original.

It looks like the afterburners take a different angle from the rest of the plane. The image could be stabilised somehow to make it look like there's no maneuvering.

Re the afterburner, if you absolutely want to get out of there RIGHT NOW, the AB is probably the first thing you'd reach for too. How did you evade the last missile fired at you IRL?

Everybody in this thread assumed it was an IR SAM. Is there any proof of that or am I missing something?

Not as such, but the warhead was clearly very small, in fact so small it looks more like a test with an inert warhead and perhaps there's a clue in that. Radar SAM warheads tend to be much larger. And again, RWR would give away the radar lock and alert the pilot. What radar SAMs hit a fighter jet and leaves it in tact? Why is there no ejection shown? Surely the rebels would want to show that.

I mean the nature of the footage looks like test footage or promo footage. It is not taken from the launch vehicle. Secondly, what IR SAM in Yemeni possession could reach 20,000ft? Thirdly, if FLIR on the ground can see the jet, then a LITENING pod on the jet can see the anything on the ground, so no reason to fly low and Saudi F-15SAs have SAR too. Fourthly, they are fitted with MAWS, yet we see no manoeuvre and we see afterburners beings used whilst popping flares. And the footage conveniently cuts off before we see an ejection.

 

Nothing here makes sense at all.

Can you provide a source where it says they are fitted with MWS?

I don't get why you think it looks like test footage, are you implying the missile and the explosion is shopped or what? And for the footage cutting off, the plane didn't seem all that damaged after the hit, it might have been able to continue flying for quite a while, out of the sensors range. It only makes no sense if you're trying really hard for it to make no sense.

Not as such, but the warhead was clearly very small, in fact so small it looks more like a test with an inert warhead and perhaps there's a clue in that. Radar SAM warheads tend to be much larger. And again, RWR would give away the radar lock and alert the pilot. What radar SAMs hit a fighter jet and leaves it in tact? Why is there no ejection shown? Surely the rebels would want to show that.

How do you know it was an F-15SA? The Saudis also fly F-15C.

It looks like the afterburners take a different angle from the rest of the plane. The image could be stabilised somehow to make it look like there's no maneuvering.

 

Re the afterburner, if you absolutely want to get out of there RIGHT NOW, the AB is probably the first thing you'd reach for too. How did you evade the last missile fired at you IRL?

This is a video of an F-22 under FLIR, you can see the afterburners and the manoeuvring.

The only way to stabilise and make it appear like it's not manoeuvring is for the FLIR to be mounted on another jet mirroring the target's moves.

You might use afterburner before dropping the flares to increase energy but not during the release and the idea is to manoeuvre so that the flares end up between you and the missile and the missile is at your 3 or 9 o'clock.

Can you provide a source where it says they are fitted with MWS?

 

I don't get why you think it looks like test footage, are you implying the missile and the explosion is shopped or what? And for the footage cutting off, the plane didn't seem all that damaged after the hit, it might have been able to continue flying for quite a while, out of the sensors range. It only makes no sense if you're trying really hard for it to make no sense.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

I'm implying that the strike, with a largely inert warhead, on a non-manoeuvring aircraft that is being tracked by something other than the missile launch vehicle, has all the hallmarks of a test and not live combat.

So why cut the footage off, where's the rest?

It makes no sense that the plane was even in the missile's range in the first place, makes no sense that he used afterburners and it makes no sense that he didn't manoeuvre, or that no visible damage was done. Compare this with the Su-24 shoot down, where we not only had confirmation but we has mobile phone footage of the plane falling on fire, pilot ejections and what-not from a billion different angles.

Additionally, they claimed a Saudi F-16 was shot down in 2015, but then realised Saudi Arabia didn't have any F-16s.

Why is the missile still in the burn-phase at intercept? That plane would need to be practically sitting on the launcher.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

That's not a source, it doesn't even state what system is being used. I can't find anything on the SAs having a MAWS anywhere...

I'm implying that the strike, with a largely inert warhead, on a non-manoeuvring aircraft that is being tracked by something other than the missile launch vehicle, has all the hallmarks of a test and not live combat.

 

It makes no sense that the plane was even in the missile's range in the first place, makes no sense that he used afterburners and it makes no sense that he didn't manoeuvre, or that no visible damage was done. Compare this with the Su-24 shoot down, where we not only had confirmation but we has mobile phone footage of the plane falling on fire, pilot ejections and what-not from a billion different angles.

What is a largely inert warhead if I may ask? There is clearly an explosion, MANPADs don't have huge warheads, look at other footage of MANPADs hitting aircraft, it looks exactly the same.

It makes no sense that the plane was even in the missile's range in the first place, makes no sense that he used afterburners and it makes no sense that he didn't manoeuvre

Of course it makes sense if he was unaware...

That's not a source, it doesn't even state what system is being used. I can't find anything on the SAs having a MAWS anywhere...

And it it doesn't even have to be an F-15SA in the video. It can just be an F-15S or F-15C.

That's not a source, it doesn't even state what system is being used. I can't find anything on the SAs having a MAWS anywhere...

 

 

 

 

What is a largely inert warhead if I may ask? There is clearly an explosion, MANPADs don't have huge warheads, look at other footage of MANPADs hitting aircraft, it looks exactly the same.

 

 

 

Of course it makes sense if he was unaware...

Err, yes it is and the F-15E on which it's based also has MAWS. Well known fact.

Nah, looked more like the AIM-9X tests with inert warheads. Plane appears to continue unaffected.

Why would he be unaware or even flying to close to the ground that a SAM still in the burn phase got him?

It makes zero sense.

The missile also seemed to take off a huge chunk of something but the aircraft just kept flying, not on fire or anything. It's just not right.

Err, yes it is and the F-15E on which it's based also has MAWS. Well known fact.

 

Nah, looked more like the AIM-9X tests with inert warheads. Plane appears to continue unaffected.

 

Why would he be unaware or even flying to close to the ground that a SAM still in the burn phase got him?

 

It makes zero sense.

 

The missile also seemed to take off a huge chunk of something but the aircraft just kept flying, not on fire or anything. It's just not right.

No it doesn't. Link a source if you know better. It's not an inert warhead, there is an explosion visible...

 

You might use afterburner before dropping the flares to increase energy but not during the release and the idea is to manoeuvre so that the flares end up between you and the missile and the missile is at your 3 or 9 o'clock.

How are you going to get the flares between you and missile, so that missile is 90 degree to you?

Even when flare dispenser launch flares away from you, they fairly quickly gets left behind.

And with flares there is a another problem, as the IR missiles don't stop seeking after they pass the flare (or even hit it), but they will keep searching a heat source again and seek to it, until three things happens:

1) the missile self-destruct timer ends

2) the missile impact fuze gets triggered

3) the missile proximity fuze gets triggered

The 2 and 3 option doesn't get triggered by a flare, instead it requires either large metal reflection (RF fuze) or large reflection (laser fuze). And impact fuze requires large impact force.

That is why you do not want flare to be between you and missile, as the missile will fly past it back to you.

What you want is to get the flare be as close to your engine blume when you launch them, while minimizing engine power to minimum, keep your trajectory to similar to flares in the launch time that flares and engine are both "same ball park" and your engine gets blocked by flare, and then separate far and away from the flare so once the IR missile pass it, it doesn't find you again.

Why is the missile still in the burn-phase at intercept? That plane would need to be practically sitting on the launcher.

This makes me think it might not be a manpad.

Next time I bet he'll fly with labels on... :lol:

No it doesn't. Link a source if you know better. It's not an inert warhead, there is an explosion visible...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

missile launch detection system

If the pilot's not aware, why is he popping flares at that exact time?

So where's the damage to the plane afterwards? That missile obviously hit something but there wasn't necessarily an explosion, it was a collision, but if it hit that jet in the belly or underside of the wing I would expect to see visible damage.

This makes me think it might not be a manpad.

What does that leave in terms of IR SAMs though? SA-9? And yet again we'd need the aircraft to be flying at 10,000ft to be targetable and far lower still for the missile to be in burn phase, which there is no reason for Saudi aircraft to do. Going back to my link.

When it comes to weapons, the F-15SA can carry almost anything in the inventory. In the incredible image above showing an “extreme multi-role loadout” it packs: 2x AIM-120AMRAAMs, 2x AIM-9X Sidewinders, 2x AGM-84 SLAM-ERs, 2x AGM-88 HARMs, 6x GBU-54/B Laser JDAMs, and 8x GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

Again, not a source. Have you actually tried looking for info anywhere else except that article. Because if you did you would see that you find nothing on that topic, that page is the only place where it is mentioned. If that enough to convey you, okay...

If the pilot's not aware, why is he popping flares at that exact time?

Maybe he's popping them preemptively? Why are you so stuck on your side of the story? Is is that hard to believe?

So where's the damage to the plane afterwards? That missile obviously hit something but there wasn't necessarily an explosion, it was a collision, but if it hit that jet in the belly or underside of the wing I would expect to see visible damage.

What are you expecting? A huge explosion, shattering the plane in an epic fireball? Again, look at MANPAD intercepts, they look a lot like this...

Arabs have gotten plenty of high tech weapons like M1 Abrams blown up by the enemy by not using them correctly.