Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

I just love how we're at the point where another aircraft was directed by the FLIR and then shot down the F-15 but the simple solution that the F-15 was flying low and was hit by a MANPAD is somehow complete madness...

Yes because that tactic was proven to be madness during Desert Storm. Jeez, if you know your enemy has no medium/high altitude air defences, what kind of dunce flies at low altitude just to give them a chance? And the contractor doing the repair has already said it was an R-73. Why is it unlikely? MiG-29 directed by ground or air-based FLIR, also using IRST, sneaks up on F-15 passively, with no warning until the missile is launched. That would pretty much explain everything, without requiring any strange missile modifications, unorthodox use of AAMs as SAMs, or inexplicable low-altitude flight.

And I just love how an R-73 launched by a plane is madness, even though it completely explains everything, with provable knowns but a somehow the novelty of a ground-launched one, possibly with added booster motor and low altitude flight for random reasons is the more likely account.

Additionally, it's unlikely that MANPADS would still be burning in a chase scenario against a lit F-15 at any altitude. These missiles typically top out at Mach 2 (or less) and reach that speed within the first 100m or less. If we were to talk Starstreak, which is one of the bigger, faster MANPADS, that reaches max speed in a fraction of a second.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/starstreak-ii

So the MANPADS explanation doesn't hold water in any possible scenario, low altitude or not.

Seriously? Computer graphics that look like that? Not even Hollywood blockbusters have been able to make something that looks that real...

You're kidding me right? Half the world thought video from DCS was of the BUK that took down MH17. On FLIR it would be super easy because the quality and detail is so low.

Fake FLIR footage is probably easier to make than photorealistic stuff...

 

And that's an early noughties game that can be ran with very limited processing power. It is also entirely manufactured CG, not modified footage.

@Blackadam, the point of post was that if target is in parameters of the your weapon, it does not matter if you are throwing rock or using DIY A2A missile SAM.

We have no data on the flight parameters of this incident. What was speed? Altitude? Range? All is specualation including what actually happened. But that does not mean it is impossible to use R27T family.

 

I have attached one photo of improvised R60 and R73 DIY SAMs.

Who made this though? Has it been tested? Which fins are actually actuated? Has the control accounted for the extra weight, different dimensions? Rocket science is a complicated, and 10-1 this rocket skews off into a building on launch.

Yes because that tactic proven to be madness during Desert Storm. Jeez, if you know your enemy has no medium/high altitude air defences, what kind of dunce flies at low altitude just to give them a chance? And the contractor doing the repair has already said it was an R-73.

 

And I just love how an R-73 launched by a plane is madness, even though it completely explains everything, with provable knowns but a somehow the novelty of a ground-launched one, possibly with added booster motor and low altitude flight for random reasons is the more likely account.

You have no proof for anything that you're saying here. If you're so sure of your opinion why not back it up? Do you know if the F-15 flew high? Where has the contractor said it was an R-73? Why would you believe him? What aircraft would have launched that R-73? Why wasn't it detected and shot down way before getting to the F-15?

In the end you're as clueless as anyone here, you went from claiming it makes no sense at all to it being a SAM, fake all together and now it's supposed to have been another aircraft.

Who made this though? Has it been tested? Which fins are actually actuated? Has the control accounted for the extra weight, different dimensions? Rocket science is a complicated, and 10-1 this rocket skews off into a building on launch.

These are Serbian DIY from '99 war. Boosters never have movable fins, they are only used to get the missile off the launcher... anyways, dont be so confident that nobody else knows what they are doing.

After the war there was a project to convert R13M for short range SAM. However due budget problems, it never went operational.

These are Serbian DIY from '99 war. Boosters never have movable fins, they are only used to get the missile off the launcher... anyways, dont be so confident that nobody else knows what they are doing.

What I'm saying is that it's not a simple operation to build an ad-hoc booster and have a stabilised missile with no testing or modelling whatsoever. There were a hell of a lot of V-2 crashes before one ever flew properly and we're talking about Houthi rebels here.

You have no proof for anything that you're saying here. If you're so sure of your opinion why not back it up? Do you know if the F-15 flew high? Where has the contractor said it was an R-73? Why would you believe him? What aircraft would have launched that R-73? Why wasn't it detected and shot down way before getting to the F-15?

 

In the end you're as clueless as anyone here, you went from claiming it makes no sense at all to it being a SAM, fake all together and now it's supposed to have been another aircraft.

Oh the evidence is there you'd just like to pretend it doesn't exist.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-96-10/pdf/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-96-10.pdf

The aircraft casualty rate (that is, aircraft DOD identified as lost to Iraqi

action or damaged in combat) for the aircraft we reviewed was 1.7 aircraft

per 1,000 strikes. This rate was very low compared to planners’

expectations and historic experience. The combination in the first week of

the war of a ban on low-level deliveries for most aircraft and a successful

effort to suppress enemy air defenses (SEAD) that greatly degraded radar

surface-to-air (SAM) missiles and the Iraqi integrated air defense system

(IADS) resulted in a reduction in the average number of aircraft casualties

per day from 6.2 during the first 5 days to about 1.5 for the remaining

38 days of the campaign. If the aircraft combat casualty rate for the first

5 days had continued throughout the war, a total of about 267 coalition

aircraft would have been casualties. Avoiding low altitudes, 48 aircraft

were actually damaged in combat during the entire war, and an additional

38 were combat losses.

 

The attrition rate (including both loss and damage) of all combat aircraft

was especially low when they flew at medium and high altitudes and at

night. For example, only one-third of the Air Force casualties occurred

above 12,000 feet, and only one-quarter of the coalition aircraft casualties

occurred at night. The attrition rate at low altitudes was notably higher

because of the continuing presence of antiaircraft artillery (AAA) and

portable infrared (IR) SAMs—systems that are also generally less effective

at night. Nonetheless, AAA and IR SAMs, perceived before the campaign to be

lesser threats than radar-guided SAMs, were responsible for four times

more casualties than radar SAMs. (See app. II for additional information

and analysis on aircraft losses and damage.)

And this was against an enemy that actually had medium and high altitude air defences.

I've done nothing but back up my opinion. The tweets suggest it too. An R-73 fired A2A explains why the missile was still in burn and why the aircraft could be reached at sortie altitude in tail chase with the missile still in burn. None of the other explanations do that, they all rely on something unlikely in the explanation, e.g. flying at low altitude in a Middle-Eastern summer despite a vast array of sensors and an enemy which only has low altitude defences. Modified AAMs used as SAMs, which probably still wouldn't be in burn phase in a tail chase at altitude.

Damn, maybe it was just an AAM fired as an AAM and an aircraft that didn't appear damaged and a video cut short because the aircraft survived. But no, an R-60 with a half an SA-2 spliced up its butt makes a more interesting explanation right?

A MiG-29 seized from the previous YAF could have launched it. Perhaps it was detected by AWACS etc. but remained passive, so that the F-15 couldn't zero in on it.

As a SAM shoot down it does make no sense at all. As a MANPADS shoot down, as claimed by yourself, it's an impossibility.

Low flights by F-15's or any other fighters are nothing new or unexpected, even in contested zones. It's called a 'show of force' and it has been used plenty of times. Strafing also requires a dive to lower altitude.

You can't just assume the guy was 'flying high'.

Oh the evidence is there you'd just like to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-96-10/pdf/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-96-10.pdf

Except this isn't "evidence", this is you taking data from an unrelated conflict involving another air force, which may have difference procedures and may be trained differently, and twisting it to fit your agenda.

I've done nothing but back up my opinion. The tweets suggest it too. An R-73 fired A2A explains why the missile was still in burn and why the aircraft could be reached at sortie altitude in tail chase with the missile still in burn. None of the other explanations do that, they all rely on something unlikely in the explanation, e.g. flying at low altitude in a Middle-Eastern summer despite a vast array of sensors and an enemy which only has low altitude defences. Modified AAMs used as SAMs, which probably still wouldn't be in burn phase in a tail chase at altitude.

No you haven't, you've just been changing it. And how is it that it is "unlikely" the F-15 simply flew low, for whatever reason, and was in the WEZ of MANPADs, but all these other theories, including them "missing" a MiG-29 or the footage being somehow faked are treated almost factual. It makes no sense.

As a SAM shoot down it does make no sense at all. As a MANPADS shoot down, as claimed by yourself, it's an impossibility.

I didn't claim anything, show me where I did. It's just the theory that doesn't involve other fighter jets that were completely ignored, modified AAMs shot from trucks or faked footage. Occam's razor and all that...

Low flights by F-15's or any other fighters are nothing new or unexpected, even in contested zones. It's called a 'show of force' and it has been used plenty of times. Strafing also requires a dive to lower altitude.

 

You can't just assume the guy was 'flying high'.

Strafing was only used in Afghanistan by F-15Es where JDAMs could have endangered civilians, there was exactly one example involving an F-15E. Without getting political, let's just say, this has not been an issue in Yemen.

Show of force? It would be more like a stretch for stupidity. I can demonstrate force by eliminating targets at will with PGMs from 30+kft, and I know which puts the fear of God into the enemy more. If I kill them from 30kft, they don't even get to see me or know I'm there, I might not be there and they still think I am.

Furthermore, I will state the obvious again. If I know the enemy only has low altitude air defences and I have PGMs that I can deliver from above the service ceiling of their air defences, why oh why would I endanger my life and a $XX million plane unnecessarily?

Except this isn't "evidence", this is you taking data from an unrelated conflict involving another air force, which may have difference procedures and may be trained differently, and twisting it to fit your agenda.

Yes, here the enemy actually had medium and high altitude SAM defences, which low level flight was used to evade, yet still low level flight resulted in several times higher casualties. Whereas in Yemen, there are no such medium and high altitude SAMs. So it's evidence x 10.

No you haven't, you've just been changing it. And how is it that it is "unlikely" the F-15 simply flew low, for whatever reason, and was in the WEZ of MANPADs, but all these other theories, including them "missing" a MiG-29 or the footage being somehow faked are treated almost factual. It makes no sense.

Because even 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, unless they were parked on a tree directly above the launcher. In fact, the video alone shows 1s of burn time, so it's no MANPADS low altitude or not. Even the size of burn is wrong.

I didn't claim anything, show me where I did. It's just the theory that doesn't involve other fighter jets that were completely ignored, modified AAMs shot from trucks or faked footage. Occam's razor and all that...

You've asserted MANPADS all along, a quick check of page 2 and 3 of this thread shows this very clearly.

Problem is that it's already been ruled out for any number of reasons and is actually a worse explanation than a ground-launched AAM given the video.

1) Medium-high altitude sortie height 99.9% likely. Air forces do not spend billions on PGMs and targeting pods so they can endanger their 100 million dollar jets with the use of WWII tactics anyway.

2) Burn time is wrong.

3) Size of plume is wrong.

4) Speed is likely wrong too.

I think you vastly overestimate the kinetic envelope of MANPADS. Sure they got some kills on coalition aircraft travelling at 200ft in Desert Storm, but they're mainly designed for hitting helicopters, whether an SA-7 or Igla could catch a jet going supersonic in tail chase at even 5,000ft is questionable and the burn phase would definitely be long over.

Yemen had 19 MiG-29s which fell into the hands of rebels.

Yes, here the enemy actually had medium and high altitude SAM defences, which low level flight was used to evade, yet still low level flight resulted in several times higher casualties. Whereas in Yemen, there are no such medium and high altitude SAMs. So it's evidence x 10.

That's not evidence, period. That another air force that may do things differently, you can't just assume these things. What if they were out of munition and had TIC and did a show of force, all possibilities that you never considered.

Because even 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, unless they were parked on a tree directly above the launcher. In fact, the video alone shows 1s of burn time, so it's no MANPADS low altitude or not..

Strange, when I look at footage from different MANPADs, like Igla, I see that they have a burn time quite a bit longer than the Stinger. Weird how this works, actually looking stuff up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZAUb9iA5TM

Burn time is wrong.

We see the missile literally one second, we don't know the altitude of the aircraft and you're talking about burn time. You're so oblivious it's hilarious.

3) Size of plume is wrong.

No it isn't this is IR, hot plumes will look bigger than they do in visible light.

That's not evidence, period. That another air force that may do things differently, you can't just assume these things. What if they were out of munition and had TIC and did a show of force, all possibilities that you never considered.

If you'd been tracking PGM sales to RSAF, you'd know that claim holds no weight.

Let's take this real slow, I said that low altitude flights are more dangerous, you said I had no evidence for anything I was saying, so I proved you wrong with a link. Only you fail to see this.

Strange, when I look at footage from different MANPADs, like Igla, I see that they have a burn time quite a bit longer than the Stinger. Weird how this works, actually looking stuff up...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZAUb9iA5TM

 

 

 

Except those videos don't show what you think. Smoke trail != burn. The burn time is the bright fire period, which is a fraction of a second. I suppose you think airliners have rocket motors burning too.

I suggest you watch your second video very carefully. The motor is clearly not burning at 30s when the jet is struck.

At 60s here you'll see a far larger AAM with far longer burn time in an intercept at low altitude. The burn is spent well before the intercept. Burn time 3-4s, intercept 20s. Initial target distance? Easily WVR but difficult to say.

Can you still honestly say you think it's a MANPADS SAM burning away with a giant plume after a lit Eagle?

We see the missile literally one second, we don't know the altitude of the aircraft and you're talking about burn time. You're so oblivious it's hilarious.

That's just the problem, the burn time for a MANPADS is less than 1s. So even if that missile came straight out of the pipe mid-air just as it came on view, it's still wrong. And the plume is too large if you look at the other videos. A MANPADS travels literally a few hundred feet before the motor is burnt out, after that it has to rely on being much faster than the target it hopes to intercept. You are massively overestimating missile burn time and MANPADS kinetic envelope and I really can't state that enough.

No it isn't this is IR, hot plumes will look bigger than they do in visible light.

My video shows IR at the end, and it is still way smaller.

MANPADS have 10, 15+ sec of burn time. Only the ejection motor is a fraction of a second.

I'm just going to stop, you're misreading everything I write and change it to make it fit your agenda.

MANPADS have 10, 15+ sec of burn time. Only the ejection motor is a fraction of a second.

So they have a longer burn time than an AMRAAM then? Which is 9s BTW. So 15s burn time with a Vmax of Mach 2. That's 15s at 680m/s or 10.2km of burn time but an effective range of only 5km and a ceiling of 3.5km? Most MANPADS auto self-destruct before 15s.

Is there a point at which people simply stop talking rubbish?

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/starstreak-ii

The rocket motor system accelerates the missile to greater than Mach 3 in a fraction of a second.

Perhaps someone should also go look-up the maximum receding target speed of an Igla and get back to me on whether it can keep up with a lit Strike Eagle... and still be in burn no less.:megalol:

http://www.slovenskavojska.si/en/armament-and-equipment/artillery-and-air-defence/igla-man-portable-surface-to-air-missile-system/

Maybe you should get your hands on actual rocket motor data ...

Why dont we just stop arguing with him. As far as im concerned his credibility ended a long time ago. Dogfights TV as source surely beats Kopp, no?

Maybe you should get your hands on actual rocket motor data ...

Is that your best comeback after being shown the clear mathematical flaw in your claims? 15s LOL. I even know which internet source you guessed that figure from. I'll give you a clue, the gap between self-destruct and initial boost does not provide the burn time but of course, quick Google and type without multiplying speed by time as a simple verification of your assumption. But thanks for talking down to me, very much appreciated.

Why dont we just stop arguing with him. As far as im concerned his credibility ended a long time ago. Dogfights TV as source surely beats Kopp, no?

Yes, God forbid we should actually listen to the pilots who were there, we should instead take everything from Mr. Kopp who has multiple obvious errors.

Lastly, I couldn't care less how you're concerned but thanks for sharing.

Fake FLIR footage is probably easier to make than photorealistic stuff...

 

I'm not so sure about that, I've yet to see anything that looked downright real, and the example you provided only serves to clearly illustrate that as it looks incredibly fake.

You're kidding me right? Half the world thought video from DCS was of the BUK that took down MH17. On FLIR it would be super easy because the quality and detail is so low.

Way more than half the world don't know jack all about what the real thing looks like.

If it's so super easy I wonder why no'one as managed to do it yet.

I'll try one last time, watch this video (which I've linked before):

https://youtu.be/KZAUb9iA5TM?t=11

And now, please do try and enlighten me about that "less than a second" burn time of MANPADs, okay? Or is this video fake maybe?

I'm not so sure about that, I've yet to see anything that looked downright real, and the example you provided only serves to clearly illustrate that as it looks incredibly fake.

That was an entirely CG'd example made for both old and mediocre computer hardware, there is also a lot of ground detail to model. Faking something mid-air would be far easier, no CG required. Take one FLIR video of an F-15 flying and one of a missile intercept, splice the two together and line them up. Not saying that happened anymore because it no longer fits the evidence, I made the incorrect assumption that the Houthis had no aircraft but it would be easy as pie to do.

Way more than half the world don't know jack all about what the real thing looks like.

 

If it's so super easy I wonder why no'one as managed to do it yet.

Hollywood is in colour and has lots of detail. But you don't even need CG for this, it could be done by just splicing two videos together and FLIR mid-air nicely blurs all the detail.

I'll try one last time, watch this video (which I've linked before):

 

https://youtu.be/KZAUb9iA5TM?t=11

 

And now, please do try and enlighten me about that "less than a second" burn time of MANPADs, okay? Or is this video fake maybe?

It's not fake, you're just making the bad assumption that smoke/vapour means the motor is still burning.

Anyone remember this AIM-120 intercept envelope? Range against receding target at sea level when fired from a aircraft doing M0.8-1.0 (ish)? 5km. 5km for this relatively huge missile. So take a guess at the range of a ground-launched Igla against an F-15 that's had the afterburners on for 10s, starting at a speed of maybe M0.8? Especially given that it has a peak receding target speed of 320m/s (M0.94). No chance, especially not with the motor still burning. If I sound adamant about this, it's because I'm certain beyond certain.