Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Situation in Yemen

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
    That's a fair point actually. You would expect the footage from the actual launch vehicle.

    To me this looks like a promo video with Yemen Air Force and new date stamped on it.
    I could not find any data on what SAM they have but if those are older systems they would not have such capability.

    Comment


    • Meh, don't buy it. Why would you put the FLIR sensor on a separate vehicle and have to try communicate, that sounds more technically challenging, not as useful and not in keeping with rebel tactics. Looks like test footage with an inert warhead? Why did the footage cut off? They also have a poor record on claims. Remember the Saudi F-16 shot down in 2015?

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
        Meh, don't buy it. Why would you put the FLIR sensor on a separate vehicle and have to try communicate, that sounds more technically challenging, not as useful and not in keeping with rebel tactics. Looks like test footage with an inert warhead? Why did the footage cut off? They also have a poor record on claims. Remember the Saudi F-16 shot down in 2015?

        Why is the missile still in the burn-phase at intercept? That plane would need to be practically sitting on the launcher.
        More chellenging that for example trying to integrate US made FLIR with an older soviet SAM model. According to info i found Yemen had bunch of 60-70s gear in AD.

        ps. I am not convinced its orginal either but its nothing i didn't heard of being used in terms of AD.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Asheren View Post

          I could not find any data on what SAM they have but if those are older systems they would not have such capability.



          Comment


          • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
            Why would you put your afterburner on while using flares? "Don't pay attention to the flares missile, look over here instead."
            Some SAMs – especially many MANPADS – have a suprisingly limited maximum velocity. The SA-7, for example, has a maximum speed of only ~500 m/s (~ 1120 mph). In such circumstances, simply attempting to outrun the missile, in a Mach 2.5+ capable F-15, is a viable strategy.

            Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
            Meh, don't buy it. Why would you put the FLIR sensor on a separate vehicle and have to try communicate, that sounds more technically challenging, not as useful and not in keeping with rebel tactics. Looks like test footage with an inert warhead? Why did the footage cut off? They also have a poor record on claims. Remember the Saudi F-16 shot down in 2015?

            Why is the missile still in the burn-phase at intercept? That plane would need to be practically sitting on the launcher.
            The Houthis have often made inflated claims; however, on those occasions that they've actually backed up their claims with footage, they've usually been pretty accurate (e.g. HSV Swift, etc.). Certainly the Houthis have been a better source of information than the Saudi MoD.

            Also, Saudi doesn't operate F-16s. Were you thinking of the Moroccan aircraft that crashed in May 2015?

            FLIR would be mounted separately simply to capture footage; I doubt that it plays any part in the SAM as a whole, except potentially for initial target acquisition. It's simply there to catch footage, in the same way other insurgent groups capture footage of ATGM hits / Car bombings / etc. Hitting a Saudi warplane is a big deal, propaganda-wise, and the Houthis want to have it on tape.

            Why is the missile still in burn phase? It could very well be 'right over the launcher', especially considering that the GCC has pretty much wiped out all the early-warning radars in the country; practically any engagement would have to be at close range, due to the need for visual target acquisition.

            Also, if this were a 2K12 Kub / SA-6, the missile would be ramjet powered, which would have a much longer burn-time than rocket-powered projectiles.

            Originally posted by Asheren View Post

            More chellenging that for example trying to integrate US made FLIR with an older soviet SAM model. According to info i found Yemen had bunch of 60-70s gear in AD.

            ps. I am not convinced its orginal either but its nothing i didn't heard of being used in terms of AD.
            Later models of the S-125 (SA-3) included an optional optical tracking channel for use in ECM-heavy environments. It's not inconceivable that you could just slew the FLIR with the existing equipment.

            Additionally, a few internet sources have stated that Yemen had stocks of SA-9 and SA-13 IR-guided missiles, which are fire-and-forget. If one of these were used, there are no technical hurdles to overcome, because the FLIR is simply for video capture.

            Finally, I've also heard murmurings that the Houthis have been retrofitting ex-airforce R-27Ts and R-73 missiles, formerly meant for Yemen's MiG-29s, as makeshift SAMs. If these missiles were used, it wouldn't be surprising to find commercial equipment being used to create such a makeshift anti-aircraft system.


            Comment


            • Originally posted by AAMC View Post

              Some SAMs – especially many MANPADS – have a suprisingly limited maximum velocity. The SA-7, for example, has a maximum speed of only ~500 m/s (~ 1120 mph). In such circumstances, simply attempting to outrun the missile, in a Mach 2.5+ capable F-15, is a viable strategy.
              They have an even more limited service ceiling and simply flying above 20,000ft avoids them.


              Originally posted by AAMC View Post
              The Houthis have often made inflated claims; however, on those occasions that they've actually backed up their claims with footage, they've usually been pretty accurate (e.g. HSV Swift, etc.). Certainly the Houthis have been a better source of information than the Saudi MoD.

              Also, Saudi doesn't operate F-16s. Were you thinking of the Moroccan aircraft that crashed in May 2015?

              FLIR would be mounted separately simply to capture footage; I doubt that it plays any part in the SAM as a whole, except potentially for initial target acquisition. It's simply there to catch footage, in the same way other insurgent groups capture footage of ATGM hits / Car bombings / etc. Hitting a Saudi warplane is a big deal, propaganda-wise, and the Houthis want to have it on tape.

              Why is the missile still in burn phase? It could very well be 'right over the launcher', especially considering that the GCC has pretty much wiped out all the early-warning radars in the country; practically any engagement would have to be at close range, due to the need for visual target acquisition.

              Also, if this were a 2K12 Kub / SA-6, the missile would be ramjet powered, which would have a much longer burn-time than rocket-powered projectiles.
              No, they claimed an F-16, which was wrong for the very reason you've stated.

              A relatively large missile like a SLAMRAAM has a 9s burn, so even it would be burnt out before it caught a receding target at 20-30+kft, which is the typical sortie altitude.

              If it were an SA-6, the impact, which was clearly visible from the debris, along with the 60kg warhead would have completely wiped the F-15 out and you wouldn't use flares against SARH missile.

              The theory being touted now is that it was an R-27T launched from the ground.

              https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...0&postcount=63

              Turns out one did get hit but not shot down, which figures since the IAF landed an F-15 with just one wing. Also, it wasn't a SAM.

              https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...6&postcount=93
              Last edited by PJ94; 11-01-2018, 03:21 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
                They have an even more limited service ceiling and simply flying above 20,000ft avoids them.
                Sometimes, stuff happens, and for whatever reason, you enter the SAM's engagement envelope. For instance, a French Mirage 2000 was downed in 1995 by an Igla MANPAD - shootdowns against jet fighters can happen. Furthermore, this is the Saudi Air Force that we're talking about here; I think that I can be confident in saying that their operational doctrine and practice is probably inferior to, say, the USAF or IAF.

                Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
                The theory being touted now is that it was an R-27T launched from the ground.

                https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...0&postcount=63

                Turns out one did get hit but not shot down, which figures since the IAF landed an F-15 with just one wing. Also, it wasn't a SAM.

                https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...6&postcount=93
                Considering that the Saudis did admit to losing an aircraft on Jan. 7th (Houthis claimed it was a Tornado), it seems that we've got two separate incidents - A twin-seat jet downed on Jan. 7, and then an F-15 damaged by SAM on the same day.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AAMC View Post

                  Sometimes, stuff happens, and for whatever reason, you enter the SAM's engagement envelope. For instance, a French Mirage 2000 was downed in 1995 by an Igla MANPAD - shootdowns against jet fighters can happen. Furthermore, this is the Saudi Air Force that we're talking about here; I think that I can be confident in saying that their operational doctrine and practice is probably inferior to, say, the USAF or IAF.



                  Considering that the Saudis did admit to losing an aircraft on Jan. 7th (Houthis claimed it was a Tornado), it seems that we've got two separate incidents - A twin-seat jet downed on Jan. 7, and then an F-15 damaged by SAM on the same day.
                  Catch up dude. The aircraft landed safely and is being repaired and it was an AAM (R-73), not a SAM.
                  https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...6&postcount=93

                  There was neither a shootdown nor a SAM hit.

                  Comment


                  • Do you know the definition of SAM?
                    It does not matter that Archer or Alamo was used, it was employed from the ground - means SAM!, kind of houti version of israeli SPYDER or german IRIS-T SL

                    And now rethink your last sentence...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by username View Post
                      Do you know the definition of SAM?
                      It does not matter that Archer or Alamo was used, it was employed from the ground - means SAM!, kind of houti version of israeli SPYDER or german IRIS-T SL

                      And now rethink your last sentence...
                      It wasn't fired from the ground though if you read my link. It was fired from a MiG-29. An R-73 would not still be in the burn phase, which lasts about 5s max, at 20-30kft, especially not in a tail chase scenario.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post
                        It wasn't fired from the ground though if you read my link. It was fired from a MiG-29. An R-73 would not still be in the burn phase, which lasts about 5s max, at 20-30kft, especially not in a tail chase scenario.
                        From what???DD
                        O boy, lay down that khat.
                        And where did you get that eagle was flying above 20k', nor it was a tail chase situation, the missile came from starbord .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by username View Post

                          From what???DD
                          O boy, lay down that khat.
                          And where did you get that eagle was flying above 20k', nor it was a tail chase situation, the missile came from starbord .
                          https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28901470752769
                          https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28758025560065
                          http://www.scramble.nl/orbats/yemen

                          The FLIR was to right side and rear of F-15, missile approached up from left, hence mostly tail chase. Apparently it hit the 3rd flare and exploded causing minor damage but the plane landed safely afterwards.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post

                            https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28901470752769
                            https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28758025560065
                            http://www.scramble.nl/orbats/yemen

                            The FLIR was to right side and rear of F-15, missile approached up from left, hence mostly tail chase. Apparently it hit the 3rd flare and exploded causing minor damage but the plane landed safely afterwards.
                            So basically you are saying the Saudi coalition doesn't have air superiority.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PJ94 View Post

                              https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28901470752769
                              https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/stat...28758025560065
                              http://www.scramble.nl/orbats/yemen

                              The FLIR was to right side and rear of F-15, missile approached up from left, hence mostly tail chase. Apparently it hit the 3rd flare and exploded causing minor damage but the plane landed safely afterwards.
                              There were 2!!! happenings that day. One Tornado down and Eagle hit.
                              There were no MiGs in the air and most probably both planes ate heaters.
                              In the FLIR video the missile coming from the side (beam dragish) and bites on last flare and explodes due to its proximity fuse, the warhead of AA-11 for example has an effective radius range of approx. 3,5m.
                              The pilot was lucky enough that his dumb! move to use flairs and afterburner at the same time was not rewarded with the Darwin Award.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X