Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 21 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2018, 11:50 AM   #201
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

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.



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.

https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28901470752769

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Emu; 01-27-2018 at 12:14 PM.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 10:27 PM   #202
Hummingbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,569
Default

Sorry Emu but I trust the contractor more than any theory you can fantasize your way toward.
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 11:04 PM   #203
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

You're probably right, maybe the F-15 was just passing the sun at that moment in the video.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 06:33 PM   #204
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 103
Default

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...
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 08:38 PM   #205
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrz View Post
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.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 08:49 PM   #206
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,601
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RShackleford View Post
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.
__________________

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 02-01-2018, 10:09 PM   #207
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 103
Default

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.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 11:22 AM   #208
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RShackleford View Post
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.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 11:27 AM   #209
Emu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RShackleford View Post
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?
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 06:07 PM   #210
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
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.
RShackleford 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 02:33 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.