Emu

Basically look how far away the missile is when burnout occurs and tell me how likely it is that the F-15 was that close to the launcher.

Yes, if it uses a boost/sustain motor, you're looking at 2-2.5s, otherwise less, but nothing like 10-15s (as some suggested) and not enough to still be burning after catching a Strike Eagle that's been on afterburner for 10s from the rear. You also realise some of that footage is in slow motion - note launch? Not really, it's entirely possible the air surveillance assets saw it but were unable to accurately direct the Eagle in time. It's like saying how did the Syrians get a jet shot down by an F-18 with Syrian and Russian assets monitoring the air space? Perhaps the F-15SA pilot was just caught unaware in that moment.

You say that as if you're having difficulty understanding. Vapour trail != motor still burning, just as not all aircraft wingtips have burning rocket motors attached to them. If you were actually aware of the burn time for various AAMs, you wouldn't even begin to think that a MANPADS motor burns that long. Early AIM-9s only burned for about 2s and they're about twice the length and diameter of a typical MANPADS but you think they burn for 10s. Aside from this, it's already been posted that it was an R-73, so it's not even up for debate. The only question remaining is ground launched or air-launched. It's been heavily suggested that it may have been a MiG-29 (air-launched) and for me that's the most likely scenario.

So what's the issue with taking first hand eyewitness testimony from the pilots? If there's a better source feel free to share but then what source could there be that didn't first take combat information from the pilots?

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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/

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

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

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. 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. 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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Highly suggests it though and an R-73 wouldn't still be burning from a ground launch at sortie altitude. The simple explanation here is that the missile was launched A2A, but if people want to believe it was modified with a DIY booster motor because of a picture not taken in Yemen, then fine.

Yes, because a SAM motor would not have still been burning at regular sortie altitude unless it was a huge SAM, in which case the damage would have been much larger and the warhead would have whited-out the FLIR. What probably happened is the FLIR directed a Yemeni aircraft on to the back of the F-15, which wasn't expecting any A2A.

Yes, by an aircraft with an R-73, not by a ground launched missile. This has already been leaked by the people repairing the aircraft, which was not shot down. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3351426&postcount=93 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3351549&postcount=94

And it could have been, wouldn't be hard to do and God knows the SAM shoot down theory held no water whatsoever.

I have a source stating Mach 5+ for the PAC-2(?) used in Desert Storm.

I'd swear it says, "Capt. BEAVIS."

No doubt, I think IRIS-T already claims anti-AAM capability and it isn't special among other NATO AAMs of the same class.