Jump to content

Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen


red_coreSix

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Last time i checked the diameter of afterburners wasn't 10m :lol:

 

The diameter of the flash is about 3.75m (2d area of 11m, 3d volume of 27.6m)

 

 

 

(you lose)

 

 

 

i don't know, maybe the motor broke off on its way out.

 

 

 

Why not? (Please provide some type of proof other than "cause i know")

 

You can hardly see the stab, let alone weather or not its broken.

 

 

 

Hydrazine doesn't even seem to be used in solid rockets anyway, also look at this:

"Mixing it with oxidising agent dinitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, creates a hypergolic mixture – a mixture so explosive, no ignition is required."

 

Source:

https://eic.rsc.org/magnificent-molecules/hydrazine/2000023.article

 

 

 

Less fishy than the other AIM-9X test where you claim small warhead and the missile keeps going.

 

Also, we can't tell if its a fireball.

 

 

 

Let me try again:

Provide your source for how you KNOW they use warheads.

 

Also, you having experience with the meteor you could have just said "I have personally worked with the meteor and they have a small test warhead". This is whats on the literal wiki for it:

"A Telemetry and Break-Up System (TBUS) replaces the warhead on trials missiles"

 

Was that really too hard to say?

 

 

 

Yep, and we don't know how long it burned before hitting. i would say 1 sec is conservative.

 

We also don't know if anything was burning after, could just be the hot smoke and debris.

 

It is if the motor broke up, more surface area = more burning.

 

 

 

You have given no proof/logic/reason as to why the type of FLIR doesn't matter.

 

 

 

So what your saying is:

 

No fuel = 28m = 615 Sq m

With fuel= 50m = 1963 Sq m

1936-615=1321

In other words the leftover motor (by itself) is 219% more powerful than the warhead by itself?

Why don't they just put motor in the front of the missile, it would blow the crap out of anything! :lol:

 

 

 

Yep.

 

 

 

Thats hilarious! They literally pulled the top image from wiki and claimed it was their new SAM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bonus:

In this image there is a sam hitting a mi-8, going by the length it has a diameter of 10m, 2.6 times the diameter of the AIM-9X flash, and most likely a MANPADS, which means 3kg warhead:

Source:

 

Heli2.png

The length is 10m. The AIM-9X flash is 2.5-4m, therefore it is not as big in one dimension but the flash in the OP video is twice as big.

 

Oh, the motor section broke off on its own did it? How strange, because the remaining missile seems to be roughly as long as a full missile ~3m.

 

Because IIR missiles target specific areas of the aircraft for maximum damage effect rather than just going after the hottest park. This typically means a mid-fuselage strike. Yet I can see the missile, still intact.

 

You should be careful about interpreting what you read. If no ignition was required, what exactly determines when the motor ignites? Dinitrogen Tetroxide is the oxidiser.

 

The small warhead claim was made for the first intercept image, not the second. The second it a more typical CoM fuselage strike as intended.

 

A source for how I know they use live warheads in some missile tests? :huh::doh:

 

Which is why it's very unlikely the remnant fuel in the missile could cause such a flash.

 

Because they are both systems of similar quality. If one was NVG-like, then it would be vastly different.

 

Where have you derived the 28m figure from for a start? Secondly, yes explosive setting off fuel in air can make a far bigger flash because it's spreading the fuel out over a huge volume.

 

because missiles don't tend to explode without the warhead. One of the early AIM-9s actually stuck in a Chinese MiG, and was promptly copied. And the one in your second intercept video passes straight through.

 

And if the pilot doesn't know, the contractor sure as hell wouldn't.

 

Yup.

 

Yes, a full-size warhead can produce a flash that large in normal video. There's an ASRAAM strike at the end of this video. Full-size warhead. You'll note the glow debris.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came across this tweet suggesting possible image manipulation. After watching the slowed down footage the aircraft orientation is inconsistent before and after the “intercept”.

Good spot, a/c appears to have suddenly rolled to the left IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically, but it looks very glitchy, almost as if it jumps reel from one to the other.

 

And to do what looks like a 90deg uncontrolled roll inadvertently in <0.25s and it suddenly stop at that is curious. Literally in the time it take for that flash, the plane has flipped and then stops - a blink. I don't dispute that an F-15 got hit, since there seems to be two independent sources verifying that, but perhaps my initial impression of this video was correct, i.e. it's a hoax.

 

PS: It would also nicely draw a line under any further (over-)analysis of the video.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upward force on the right side could cause this.

Possibly, but in the video the orientation change is instantaneous or at least occurs completely between frames, carrying no momentum into the following frames(s). Aside from just an orientation change the flight path before and after intercept appears to change completely.

 

I don’t know the reason for manipulating the video or what it would imply. I don’t doubt that the aircraft was damaged in the incident either. Just wanted to point it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video is legit, the aircraft is rolling even before the strike and in the moment just before impact it is in the midst of a roll to the left, thus after the flash you see it belly up. Nothing fishy about it at all.

 

Don't turn this into a pseudo Roshwell incident people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video is legit, the aircraft is rolling even before the strike and in the moment just before impact it is in the midst of a roll to the left, thus after the flash you see it belly up. Nothing fishy about it at all.

 

Don't turn this into a pseudo Roshwell incident people.

We're talking about a video coming from the Houthi militia here. Hardly equivalent.

 

And what would be the consequences of losing a stab mid-roll? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would lead to an apparently controlled manoeuvre.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know posting the names of two missiles doesn't prove anything right? I'm calling BS until you produce evidence.

 

 

He answered your question, no need to get snarky.

"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

I just came across this tweet suggesting possible image manipulation. After watching the slowed down footage the aircraft orientation is inconsistent before and after the “intercept”.

 

 

Good find, makes sense! Looks to abrupt for an intentional roll.

"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, so i know that the realness of the video is back in question, but just in case if it is found genuine i'll reply.

 

 

The length is 10m. The AIM-9X flash is 2.5-4m, therefore it is not as big in one dimension but the flash in the OP video is twice as big.

 

Soo, your wrong and so you switch topics? AIM-9X flash is bigger than afterburners. Twice as big as what?

 

Oh, the motor section broke off on its own did it? How strange, because the remaining missile seems to be roughly as long as a full missile ~3m.

 

I thought you said the video was extremely grainy?

 

Because IIR missiles target specific areas of the aircraft for maximum damage effect rather than just going after the hottest park. This typically means a mid-fuselage strike. Yet I can see the missile, still intact.

 

And yet missiles can lock on the sun, the hottest part. Just because most of the missile is still intact doesn't mean its unscathed, if anything it supports the no-small-warhead position.

 

You should be careful about interpreting what you read. If no ignition was required, what exactly determines when the motor ignites? Dinitrogen Tetroxide is the oxidiser.

 

I was just pointing out that your invalid example of rocket fuel was even more invalid because it is highly explosive, something you kept denying.

 

The small warhead claim was made for the first intercept image, not the second. The second it a more typical CoM fuselage strike as intended.

 

Yeah, i was referring to the first one.

 

A source for how I know they use live warheads in some missile tests? :huh::doh:

 

Yep, you have yet to state your source for that knowledge.

 

Which is why it's very unlikely the remnant fuel in the missile could cause such a flash.

 

What is why? There probably being 1 or more seconds left??? That makes no sense.

 

Because they are both systems of similar quality. If one was NVG-like, then it would be vastly different.

 

So what you are saying is, that police chopper FLIR and Attack chopper FLIR are the same? That also makes no sense.

 

Also during the flash in the hellfire videos there is a grey overlay on the flash which is not on the OP.

 

Where have you derived the 28m figure from for a start? Secondly, yes explosive setting off fuel in air can make a far bigger flash because it's spreading the fuel out over a huge volume.

 

The video you posted, the "white hot human" one, I measured the wall next to the dude to get an estimation for 1m, then measured the flash and divided that by the amount of px to make 1m.

 

because missiles don't tend to explode without the warhead. One of the early AIM-9s actually stuck in a Chinese MiG, and was promptly copied. And the one in your second intercept video passes straight through.

 

I am not saying that missiles always explode like heck without warhead, just that they can.

 

And if the pilot doesn't know, the contractor sure as hell wouldn't.

 

Why not? They should know more about the structure than the pilots.

 

Yup.

 

Yes, a full-size warhead can produce a flash that large in normal video. There's an ASRAAM strike at the end of this video. Full-size warhead. You'll note the glow debris.

 

 

What the heck? Like you say Super grainy video. And what are you trying to say?

"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

and you actually believe him?

 

I consider his claim somewhat equal to Mfezi's (points removed due to MAJOR vagueness) You can't just say "I believe this random internet guy, but not this one" they each hold weight 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

Ok, so i know that the realness of the video is back in question, but just in case if it is found genuine i'll reply.

 

 

 

 

Soo, your wrong and so you switch topics? AIM-9X flash is bigger than afterburners. Twice as big as what?

 

 

 

I thought you said the video was extremely grainy?

 

 

 

And yet missiles can lock on the sun, the hottest part. Just because most of the missile is still intact doesn't mean its unscathed, if anything it supports the no-small-warhead position.

 

 

 

I was just pointing out that your invalid example of rocket fuel was even more invalid because it is highly explosive, something you kept denying.

 

 

 

Yeah, i was referring to the first one.

 

 

 

Yep, you have yet to state your source for that knowledge.

 

 

 

What is why? There probably being 1 or more seconds left??? That makes no sense.

 

 

 

So what you are saying is, that police chopper FLIR and Attack chopper FLIR are the same? That also makes no sense.

 

Also during the flash in the hellfire videos there is a grey overlay on the flash which is not on the OP.

 

 

 

The video you posted, the "white hot human" one, I measured the wall next to the dude to get an estimation for 1m, then measured the flash and divided that by the amount of px to make 1m.

 

 

 

I am not saying that missiles always explode like heck without warhead, just that they can.

 

 

 

Why not? They should know more about the structure than the pilots.

 

 

 

 

 

What the heck? Like you say Super grainy video. And what are you trying to say?

The diameter of the flash is twice as big as the afterburner length.

 

And it is grainy but I can find no other explanation for that long, white object.

 

IIR missiles don't lock the sun but they can be blinded by it. The flash is in the other video, this shot appears to be a through-and-through. Furthermore, it demonstrates that these missiles are fairly sturdy and don't simply obliterate on impact.

 

Not in the same sense as actual explosive, that's why the burning plume continues for some time after, rather than being over in an instant.

 

Well the first one is likely a small warhead, since it's a miss. And if a missile can pass through the fuselage in one piece (2nd one), it can sure as hell pass through a stab in one piece.

 

Come on, there are umpteen examples of live warhead missile tests on YT alone, even without resorting to professional knowledge.

 

Very little fuel left, therefore more likely to be a warhead causing such a large flash.

 

They're of similar quality and probably even made by the same firm in many cases.

 

We've seen two video with the same sized flash.

 

If it's like your other measurements, I'd say very dubious. What is your angle here anyway? Kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead impact?

 

An aircraft ain't that hard, especially these newer composite ones. An AIM-9 stuck in the butt of a Chinese MiG intact, one passed through that F-15's fuselage intact. So your theory here is that both fuses failed and the missile couldn't make it through a thin stab intact??? That's like expecting a brick to be smashed when falling through a twig on the end of a branch.

 

They know more about replacing LRIs and maybe the desk guys know about FMECAs, but they weren't there. And you'd be surprised how much the pilots and crew have to know about the aircraft - I've also had experience qualifying aircrew courseware.

 

Probably a similar size to Hellfire strike in normal video.

 

 

Anyway, in the event this video is BS, which it may well be, the contractor could be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That we agree on.

 

Definitely! Its not me against you, its a quest for truth!

"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 diameter of the flash is twice as big as the afterburner length.

 

Ok, soo... umm... yeah.... ok. That doesn't change the fact that the Aim-9x flash is bigger than the afterburners, and much higher flame concentration.

 

And it is grainy but I can find no other explanation for that long, white object.

 

The object is definitely the missile, but the length is very very hard to judge due to speed and video quality.

 

IIR missiles don't lock the sun but they can be blinded by it. The flash is in the other video, this shot appears to be a through-and-through. Furthermore, it demonstrates that these missiles are fairly sturdy and don't simply obliterate on impact.

 

Then why did an f-18 pilot recently tell me about an incident where a cobra fired an IR missile and it shot up to the sun unexpectedly?

 

I was talking about the definite flash video, the one you claim small warhead, i was saying the missile still being mostly intact supports no warhead a lot more than small warhead.

 

Not in the same sense as actual explosive, that's why the burning plume continues for some time after, rather than being over in an instant.

 

Umm, ok, i would disagree about explosives being over in an instant, but its an invalid discussion anyway because hydrazine is completely irrelevant.

 

Well the first one is likely a small warhead, since it's a miss. And if a missile can pass through the fuselage in one piece (2nd one), it can sure as hell pass through a stab in one piece.

 

If the missile had a small warhead you would think it would not be intact after it detonated (1st video).

 

Come on, there are umpteen examples of live warhead missile tests on YT alone, even without resorting to professional knowledge.

 

Yep, i was asking about your claim of small warheads, not normal warheads, sorry for misunderstanding.

 

Very little fuel left, therefore more likely to be a warhead causing such a large flash.

 

So all of the sudden there is proof of very little fuel left???:lol:

I have proven there to be more then enough potential FLIR signature with only 1 sec of motor left, i have done my part.

 

They're of similar quality and probably even made by the same firm in many cases.

 

Yep, would you say the UH-1 and the AH-1 are of similar quality and made by the same firm?

 

We've seen two video with the same sized flash.

 

Can you clarify what you're talking about???

 

If it's like your other measurements, I'd say very dubious. What is your angle here anyway? Kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead impact?

 

Then get some photo processing software and get your own measurements! (If you want to know the software i use and my methods just let me know). The angle is irrelevant in this specific case because the explosion is a sphere.

 

An aircraft ain't that hard, especially these newer composite ones. An AIM-9 stuck in the butt of a Chinese MiG intact, one passed through that F-15's fuselage intact. So your theory here is that both fuses failed and the missile couldn't make it through a thin stab intact??? That's like expecting a brick to be smashed when falling through a twig on the end of a branch.

 

But how did it get stuck if the double fuze never fails? ;)

 

Do you mean f-4? Yes, missiles don't disintegrate on impact, but they apparently can make a flash without a warhead.

 

They know more about replacing LRIs and maybe the desk guys know about FMECAs, but they weren't there. And you'd be surprised how much the pilots and crew have to know about the aircraft - I've also had experience qualifying aircrew courseware.

 

I didn't mean it as a dig against pilots, just that the contractor probably has a greater understanding of the entire situation than a Dutch av mag.

 

Probably a similar size to Hellfire strike in normal video.

 

Probably? PROBABLY???? There is literally no reference to go off of in that video!!!

 

Anyway, in the event this video is BS, which it may well be, the contractor could be right.

 

Yeah, the video definitely is not 100% real, what is hard to tell is to what extent is it fake.....

"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 AIM-9X flash is likely a small test warhead. The seeker is clearly aiming for the plume and catching a stab edge could not cause the missile to go up in a flash, since one flew straight through the fuselage. That said, the burners are probably near 2m wide in some places, which would quadruple their volume.

 

You can judge it relative to the size of the a/c. It also comes out the same size it went in. probably just had it's wings clipped off, like that plane that went through the Pentagon wall.

 

IR missiles probably did that all the time. IIR missiles will not mistake the sun for the a/c but they can be blinded by the sun.

 

Yes in that clip, it supports no warhead, but the flash is in a separate clip where there is no sign of the missile thereafter.

 

I've told you, personal knowledge. It's usually regularly and not just with missiles, it's the equivalent of a scale model wind tunnel test.

 

How would there be. SRAAMs only burn for about 5s.

 

You haven't though. How much fuel is there even to start with? How long does it burn after impact? Is the missile even likely to come apart after hitting a thin stab? Is the missile even likely to not explode? Not enough, quite long, no and no, are the answers.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Hellfire strikes with flash size similar to video.

 

By angle I mean your case. Are you saying kinetic impact produces bigger flash than live warhead?

 

That is the only such incident and involved 1950s electronics. Early AIM-9s also used a less reliable IR proxy fuse. 1950s fuses have a history of unreliability, which is just as well, because the US would have nuked themselves with a H-bomb, were it not the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961

This is also why there are WWII bombs still being found. Different era altogether but serves to demonstrate why fuses need testing under flight conditions

 

Yep, F4 fuselage. They can make a flash with a small warhead, or if they ignite fuel in the a/c's wings. A rear stab strike from an inert missile won't produce jack.

 

Depends on the source of the Dutch Av magazine and the source at the contractor. The latest theory is that it was a RFCLOS missile, which makes a direct hit very unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is interesting. This was F-15SA , which is a F-15E modified for Saudi with export version of Sniper (ER?) pod, and export version of radar, without ASARS. Not the pure air-air F-15C.

The weapon was a improvised SHORAD SAM IR/UV. Yemeni 'rebels' or other parties, took IRST system from MIG-29C export variant, and R-73 mounted on a railpylon from Mig-29C, which was mounted on a truck. No lasers, no active radar emissions. Total passive engagement. Probably assisted by consistent ingress and egress of F-15SA crews. Clever bastards. I suspect that Russians from factory helped them.

RAND, Boeing, and Raytheon are still studying it. As F-15's MAWS (missile approach warning system) should have started pumping out countermeasures.

Grudgingly we have accept that export versions of R-73 are capable of engaging F-15s.

The Air-Air record of F-15C stands. No F-15 has ever been shot down by another aircraft. F-15E, on other hand, have been hit by SAMs, during Desert Storm, Allied Force, and OIF. But loss rates are low. Less then 10 airframes across 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is interesting. This was F-15SA , which is a F-15E modified for Saudi with export version of Sniper (ER?) pod, and export version of radar, without ASARS. Not the pure air-air F-15C.

The weapon was a improvised SHORAD SAM IR/UV. Yemeni 'rebels' or other parties, took IRST system from MIG-29C export variant, and R-73 mounted on a railpylon from Mig-29C, which was mounted on a truck. No lasers, no active radar emissions. Total passive engagement. Probably assisted by consistent ingress and egress of F-15SA crews. Clever bastards. I suspect that Russians from factory helped them.

RAND, Boeing, and Raytheon are still studying it. As F-15's MAWS (missile approach warning system) should have started pumping out countermeasures.

Grudgingly we have accept that export versions of R-73 are capable of engaging F-15s.

The Air-Air record of F-15C stands. No F-15 has ever been shot down by another aircraft. F-15E, on other hand, have been hit by SAMs, during Desert Storm, Allied Force, and OIF. But loss rates are low. Less then 10 airframes across 25 years.

 

I would really like to hear how you know this. (!)

"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...