Emu

Big radar, BVR.

You'll have a job to find any that carry the Exocet antiship missile though.

Based on real encounters around that era (Gulf of Sidra incidents), I would say MiG-23s.

True.

Urm... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010218091901544

You're probably right, maybe the F-15 was just passing the sun at that moment in the video.

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. And it wouldn't say much for CUDA, if a direct hit by an inert missile only did minor damage.

The cut-off stabiliser is also consistent with an R-73 expanding rod warhead. This shows damage done by an expanding rod warhead during a naval mishap (RIM-7 I think). Blast fragmentation warhead of SA-16. F-15SA damage.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3351549&postcount=94

Type of warhead, fragment type, damage pattern, distribution etc. Same way they identified the missile that hit MH17.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/brahmos-missile-with-800-km-range-to-be-tested-this-year/story-Ne4Svt9n2H2ecjEfwAbq6H.html

Wrong. This is a Beagle. https://www.pets4homes.co.uk/images/breeds/45/large/fea27d6a2096c6b586d28ab79c5822fd.jpg So you're now making the assumption it's flying at M0.5 at low altitude? Maybe if it landed in front of the rebels they could even hit it with an RPG. I did. M0.8 to M1.0 in 10s for F-15C with less thrust than E. Not a dumb statement at all, the development trend has been for shorter burn and higher speed. A sustainer is not tied to burning for a specific period relative to the booster at all and the video evidence speaks for itself. You were wrong. Yeah, like maybe they were trying to get shot down because they love losing expensive planes, so flew one at M0.5 at 200ft. No it can't, it's left to right, if it was right to left, then it would be mostly head-on. How about yes. Sure they do, they give you the probability of certain parameters in that situation. And the probability of an F-15 adopting M0.5 at 200ft in combat is zero. To my knowledge they needed two methods of ID. IFF and NCTR (F-15s only), or IFF and visual, or IFF and AWACS. But that still doesn't stop the AWACS alerting the friendly fighters either way. After 10s of afterburner and a dive it very much is. But of course this dive to 200ft was at M0.5.:lol::lol::lol: The people repairing it have identified the damage as being from an R-73, so you are wrong in fact as well as theory on your MANPADS assumption. I've already proven the 5s for the AIM-9X with a video, look back. There were no dogs involved.

Ah, it was a flying Beagle that was shot down... now it all makes since. 180m/s? An Eagle cruises at Mach 0.5? Are we talking Eagles or Beagles here? So the Eagle was doing M0.5 at sea level, just for the sake of proving you right? I thought people only did that on BF4. A Beagle dog can't but the quickest fighters can go from brakes off to supersonic in <30s, so 650mph to 850mph could easily be around 10s, especially after a slight dive, as someone noted earlier. See page A9-14. 10s from M0.9 to M1.05 at 10,000ft. M0.8-M1.0 in 10s. http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3704 Same kind that would forgo the sustainer and build a half second booster to make it hit M4.0. The development trend has been shorter burn and faster speed. Less reaction time for enemy, less change of launch being seen. Yeah, maybe the Eagle pilot was landing to take an objective because he thought it was Golmund Railway. That's why he was doing M0.5 at 200ft right but little did he know, it wasn't a flag-run server. Missile trail is left to right, same as direction of aircraft. Instantaneous max rate is 60,000+ft/min, that is with upward force and downward force in balance at that instant. Actually probabilities are widely applicable in combat situations, we use them for everything. The 'P' in LPI, LPD, Pk. They are even used for determining combat mission flight profiles and they usually don't lead to a decision to fly at M0.5 at 200ft.:megalol: Only you asserted that the enemy jet was undetected. I merely said that the coalition had shed-loads of AWACS in Desert Storm and ground radar and fighters in the air and still an F-18 was shot down by a relatively large aircraft (MiG-25) that somehow caught it unaware. What I know. Chance of MANPADS missile burning for 15s = 0. Chance of Eagle flying combat mission at M0.5 and 200ft = 0. Chance it was flying at ~M0.8 at >20,000ft = 99+% Max receding target speed for Igla ~320m/s. Chance plane was hit by R-73 = 1. Typical burn time for SRAAM ~5s. Missile was still in burn = 1. Probability missile was air-launched = >0.5. Probability a beagle was involved ~0.

Assuming low level, which is fairly unlikely in itself (most likely F-15 was flying above MANPADS ceiling), a fairly standard cruise speed on military thrust would be 300m/s. 10s on afterburner would give supersonic, possibly as much as 400+m/s, giving a distance coverage of 3-4km and a receding target speed which is beyond that of an Igla or Igla-S. The missile also approaches from an angle, so has to travel further. MANPADS burn last maybe up to 3s based on videos, if using a boost-sustain motor. Can a MANPADS travel 3-4km in 3s? Only a Starstreak can in theory based on Vmax but that only burns for 0.5s and is unlikely to be in Houthi hands. If I was being facetious, I could easily point out that 10s in burner is roughly enough to climb beyond the ceiling of an Igla even if it did start at low altitude. And all this rests on the assumption that the Saudis spent a fortune on F-15SAs and equipment to just to fly them like an IL-2. Like I said, post the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low level in the last 20 years. I bet we're talking <1% easily. All I'm doing is assuming a standard high probability combat mission altitude, and that leads me to think air-launched R-73 or maybe surface-launched R-27 but the damage has indicated an R-73.

RedEye was replaced by Stinger and as shown in videos, the burn is not more than a few seconds. At least my figure of less than 1s is correct for some MANPADS. GGTharos's figure of 15s is not correct for any and is out by ~12s, for any and all MANPADS. Outright garbage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=140s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=155s So there's 3 different MANPADS, burning out before hitting, one burning less than a second and 2 burning for 2-3s. Still to see this 15s burning MANPADS or even 6s. When you find one, get back to me. These are also against crappy subsonic drones. The missile is left to right and climbing and the F-15 is also left to right. Hence tail aspect and it's been on afterburner for 10s. The idea that a MANPADS could still be burning upon catching it is a bad joke. That was my original premise. It's also likely the F-15 was beyond the receding target speed of an Igla after 10s on afterburner. An F-15SA flying at altitude is a safe assumption, perhaps you'd care to quote the percentage of F-15E combat sorties flown at low altitude these days to prove me wrong. Your claim they have no airworthy aircraft is inaccurate though since 19 MiG-29s were seized from the YAF. Whether they can fly them is questionable but there is evidence of outside help, e.g. all these increased range Scuds. Who said it was undetected? The coalition had AWACS in Desert Storm and still an F-18 was shot down and I'll bet the pilot was at least as skilled as the Saudi pilot. The truly hilarious thing is that they claimed to have shot down both until the evidence against them became irrefutable.

In fact it is, says so right here. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html 750m/s / 2 = 375m/s^2 = 38g Probably another 1s or so of sustain based on videos. 15s instead of 6s? And that 6s is not for the Stinger, it is for RedEye. The trend has been shorter burn and higher speed for newer missiles. https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa-18_grouse_9k38_igla_man-portable_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html Not really, the missile trail is left-to-right, same as aircraft, and top to bottom, so it has to both catch the plane and climb. And so could any completely custom-built missile, but the evidence of such is scarce. The MANPADS claim is garbage though.

Whether a MANPADS missile could catch an F-15 after 10s of afterburner and the rocket motor still be burning.

But we're now talking about whether 40g can be achieved. GGTharos thinks only 12-13g is possible for such a missile. I'm also yet to see evidence of any current MANPADS burning for 10-15s. And the original debate centred on whether it could still be burning in tail chase against an F-15E that had been on afterburner for 10s and I still say it couldn't because in that time the F-15 has done ~3.5km and no MANPADS will burn for 3.5km, especially once we factor in the climb and non-level/straight path.

0.5s applies to most single burn MANPADS, for sustain it's about 2-2.5s as shown on video. The Stinger gets to about M2.2 in 2s, sounds like about 40g to me. Depends what you define as typical. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html RedEye is a different missile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-43_Redeye Still waiting for data on this 15s burn time MANPADS, I've shown data on a half second one.

You are kidding right? 40g is nothing for a missile. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak/ https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/starstreak-ii Mach 3.5 in half a second, or about 240g. Video shows misisle burns for a couple of seconds only. Here again. Give it up, you were wrong with 15s and wrong again with 6s. And here again. AIM-9X here, and still only 5s.

Basic maths has already badly let you down, so I wouldn't go back there. Remember your 15s claim. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3361866&postcount=141 And yeah, wrong again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=140s

It is hopeless because you're categorically wrong. Night makes it easier to see the rocket burn and it ends after 2-2.5s. You can determine a lead angle without seeing the target during the period in question? Ever considered that the target changed direction while you couldn't see it? Same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail It's almost as daft as a 15s MANPADS motor burn.

Err... no, it just clearly stops burning. I've also shown you evidence of burn time straight from the manufacturer for boost only MANPADS. Which is what I said, it is only visible upon impact. SO how you determined lead angles prior is hilarious. I've gliders produce contrails. Chemtrails? What? Clouds are water vapour. Easily, most losses and near misses are due to not seeing an opponent,.

Smoke trail, look at this video at 3:48, the lighting and atmospheric conditions are perfect for showing when the motor burns out. Now imagine that was an F-15E that had just had it's afterburners on for 10s. Nope, can't see it. I've watched in 10 times fullscreen on a 32 inch monitor and still can't see it but have noticed a lot of marks on my screen, which need cleaning, so thanks for that. Perhaps you could circle it. Simples. You can see the bright glow, that is the burn. A contrail can occur in the absence of any motor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail And a little hint, cloudy skies aren't necessarily produced by rocket activity either. And of course, all this argument surrounds the assertion that the Saudis had spent billions buying what are probably the most advanced Eagles out there only to waste their tech. by flying them at low altitude. I suppose when stealth jets enter service they will fly them at low altitude too, just so that their technological advantage is completely nullified.

Yes, damn straight. Look in Weta's video, that is a boost sustain motor and still lasts only 2s. Look at your second video back in this post. Same deal in your video. Look back at the other video you initially posted. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3361736&postcount=137 That aircraft is pretty low at 0:30 and is the missile motor still burning? Nope. Lead angle blah, blah, etc. There's no way you can induce that from the video. You can't even see the target, only the impact. And how they guide depends on the missile and target range. E.g. using proportional guidance all the way would bleed a lot of energy if the aircraft was manoeuvring. Go to 3:48 in this video, you can clearly see the burn time of ~2-2.5s.