Emu

Not if they have IRST and HMCS. Well the S-400 missiles are a lot faster but theoretically it's possible. However the stated speed of the KS-172 is Mach 4, so that's easily interceptable.

Would also be a shame if such a large and expensive missile was shot down by a sidewinder before it got there.

I also doubt you could cut through jamming from that range.

Ah I see. It was a fair question.

Actually none of those fit, but neither does an X-47B with wings folded, since at the 'fold' there is a point, whereas it should be straight.

Surely it's this:

Did Google Earth Just Unveil Lockheed’s Mysterious Mach-6 Spy Plane? (PHOTO) https://sputniknews.com/military/201801111060688459-google-earth-unveil-us-spy-plane/

Depends on what it was supposed to show. In the sense that it was supposed to show an F-15 being shot down by a SAM, it was completely fake for all the reasons mentioned. 1. Missile still in burn phase. 2. Minimal damage. 3. Video cut-off. All valid critiques of the original claim. And when there are that many inaccuracies, of course people will be sceptical of the authenticity.

1,650lbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172

Well it depends what you're trying to prove. Going back to the original claim of a SAM shoot down, it was neither a SAM nor a shoot down. It was an AAM up close, hence why still in burn phase, and the aircraft landed safely afterwards and is being repaired, hence why the video cut and aircraft continued seemingly unaffected. If I recall the Israelis landed an Eagle with 1 wing, so this damage is minimal.

I think 1 in 27 works out to 0.04, which even makes the AIM-4 look good.:lol:

Well they're based on real pilot interviews which has to be at least as good as Word Press and Pierre Sprey right?

It is not known whether they used ECM and I need only refer you to the Dogfights TV series to find a source for evasive manoeuvres performed by the adversaries, which included notching. Many of the confrontations in Desert Storm actually didn't involve numerical superiority either in that specific fight. Although it's great to meet you on yet another forum Picard.

Err... 59% is the actual combat Pk. Drone firing tests were more like 98-99%. The AIM-9, as used by F-15s had a Pk of 67% in Desert Storm. The lower overall Pk was down to accidental firings by F-16s due to a known problem.

So it's now supposed to have been an R-73 fired A2A, which makes far more sense. https://twitter.com/statuses/950828901470752769 https://twitter.com/statuses/950828758025560065

The capture of said weapons was likely anticipated before supply.

2015 - Jettisoned tanks and weapons. Beqaa Valley - There was one damaged F-15 that was admitted, the other one is completely unconfirmed. No reason not to confirm since many were confirmed. https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060008/http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47 The F-15 had lots of flying hours. Back on topic, I would expect to at least see some damage trail emerge from the back of the F-15 after the alleged hit if it was damaged.

Out of curiosity, why? Although I agree that IR missiles are very short range and low ceiling. An R-27T (been theorised earlier) needs to be within 20km to gain lock and the R-27's combat Pk isn't the best even when used A-A as intended.

One went down to an SA-2E in Desert Storm, but that's more of a large strike it lucky flak pipe than a missile.

Perhaps that's because the F-15 has gone through several wars and faced far stiffer opposition with no losses. Yet here we're expected to believe that some DIY terrorists have shot it down because of the worst quality video in history and one of the shortest.

Oh dear, 'grounded that F-35'. Now this has reached comedy levels. Plus, it's evident from the video IMO that the missile did directly strike something (visible debris and quite a bit of it), it just wasn't the aircraft, which continued flying. Not exactly what you would expect from an R-27 strike, if that's what is now being claimed. That's because the video poses so many questions. The aircraft continues flying as normal, as if nothing has happened, hardly suggestive of a warhead strike but the missile seems to have debris around it, as mentioned already. Looks like 2 videos spliced together.

Are the Saudis down an F-15 though. The F-15 they admitted crashed was back in 2015 when Houthis claimed they shot down an F-16 and since then they've claimed a Tornado and a Typhoon, both of which have been denied.

That's more likely to be able to attain the range/altitude and gain on an afterburning Eagle that fast but I would expect much more immediate damage from a 40kg warhead. How long is the burn time on an R-27?

Began in 2012, safe to say most planes have already got this upgraded missile warning system. Anyway, stop clutching at straws. The video is obvious BS for a dozen other reasons, as already mentioned. 1. MANPADS aren't that big. 2. A missile that large does more damage, possibly edited. 3. F-15 flying so close to ground that missile was still in the burn phase. 4. Looks like test footage. 5. Missile seems to hit something pretty hard but where is the damage and the aircraft doesn't even seem phased at all, no change in direction, fire in the wings being shown, then video suddenly cuts. 6. Bad track record of source. First claimed F-16 in 2015, RSAF has no F-16s. Claimed Tornado shot down just after RSAF stated crash. This time RSAF don't even say they've lost a plane. Another garbage claim on RSAF Typhoon last October. 7. Is it even an F-15? Never mind what variant. Clear garbage is clear garbage and the track record of the source is terrible.