Emu

Well normally how a debate works is one person posts evidence (article, source or whatever) and then you post counter-evidence. I've done my bit. However, here is another. https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/01/up-close-and-personal-with-the-first-saudi-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-eagle-ever-built/ And another. http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15sa/2514-f-15sa-development And another. http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/08/what-has-happened-to-the-boeing-f-15sa/ etc. http://www.deagel.com/news/Saudi-F-15S-Fighter-Jets-to-Get-Digital-Electronic-Warfare-and-Common-Missile-Warning-Systems_n000010217.aspx ditto. http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Systems/ANAAR-57-CMWS_a001337001.aspx

Well I've shown you an article saying that it has, now you show me one saying that it hasn't. Because my Spidey senses and every bone in my body tells me that this video is BS, plus the Yemeni rebels have a history of fictitious claims dating back to the Saudi F-16 shoot down in 2015. Aside from that I've already given half a dozen or more very sound reasons. Actually they don't. The flash from the explosion is far larger, even when not shown in IR. And again, the idea that they were flying an F-15 close enough to the ground for a MANPADS missile to be still in the burn phase is potty. The size of the missile vapour trail relative to the F-15 also suggests that it's not a MANPADS. Just before impact, so supposedly at same distance from observer. This is a PAC-3 vs a QF-4 for comparison. That is one large MANPADS missile for sure.

Depends where the missile is coming from. Climb drop the flares, and then manoeuvre over to one side if the missile is coming from below. Flying in a straight line with full aft certainly isn't the way. The idea is that the missile flies past the flares and you. But you need a screen of flares between you otherwise ECCM discrimination might still be able to see you. Additionally, manoeuvring will make the missile bleed speed... unless it's still in the boost phase.

What does that leave in terms of IR SAMs though? SA-9? And yet again we'd need the aircraft to be flying at 10,000ft to be targetable and far lower still for the missile to be in burn phase, which there is no reason for Saudi aircraft to do. Going back to my link.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294 If the pilot's not aware, why is he popping flares at that exact time? So where's the damage to the plane afterwards? That missile obviously hit something but there wasn't necessarily an explosion, it was a collision, but if it hit that jet in the belly or underside of the wing I would expect to see visible damage.

Err, yes it is and the F-15E on which it's based also has MAWS. Well known fact. Nah, looked more like the AIM-9X tests with inert warheads. Plane appears to continue unaffected. Why would he be unaware or even flying to close to the ground that a SAM still in the burn phase got him? It makes zero sense. The missile also seemed to take off a huge chunk of something but the aircraft just kept flying, not on fire or anything. It's just not right.

Additionally, they claimed a Saudi F-16 was shot down in 2015, but then realised Saudi Arabia didn't have any F-16s. Why is the missile still in the burn-phase at intercept? That plane would need to be practically sitting on the launcher.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294 I'm implying that the strike, with a largely inert warhead, on a non-manoeuvring aircraft that is being tracked by something other than the missile launch vehicle, has all the hallmarks of a test and not live combat. So why cut the footage off, where's the rest? It makes no sense that the plane was even in the missile's range in the first place, makes no sense that he used afterburners and it makes no sense that he didn't manoeuvre, or that no visible damage was done. Compare this with the Su-24 shoot down, where we not only had confirmation but we has mobile phone footage of the plane falling on fire, pilot ejections and what-not from a billion different angles.

This is a video of an F-22 under FLIR, you can see the afterburners and the manoeuvring. The only way to stabilise and make it appear like it's not manoeuvring is for the FLIR to be mounted on another jet mirroring the target's moves. You might use afterburner before dropping the flares to increase energy but not during the release and the idea is to manoeuvre so that the flares end up between you and the missile and the missile is at your 3 or 9 o'clock.

Not as such, but the warhead was clearly very small, in fact so small it looks more like a test with an inert warhead and perhaps there's a clue in that. Radar SAM warheads tend to be much larger. And again, RWR would give away the radar lock and alert the pilot. What radar SAMs hit a fighter jet and leaves it in tact? Why is there no ejection shown? Surely the rebels would want to show that.

Where's the manoeuvring and why would you use afterburners whilst trying to decoy a missile with flares? I'm sure if someone had the time to search every single FLIR Systems promo video on YT they would find the original.

Afterburner.

I mean the nature of the footage looks like test footage or promo footage. It is not taken from the launch vehicle. Secondly, what IR SAM in Yemeni possession could reach 20,000ft? Thirdly, if FLIR on the ground can see the jet, then a LITENING pod on the jet can see the anything on the ground, so no reason to fly low and Saudi F-15SAs have SAR too. Fourthly, they are fitted with MAWS, yet we see no manoeuvre and we see afterburners beings used whilst popping flares. And the footage conveniently cuts off before we see an ejection. Nothing here makes sense at all.

Why would you fly low enough to get hit by MANPADS unless you're in a helicopter? Or any IR missile for that matter, especially when the Saudis have the same precision guided bombs the USAF uses. Equally, I would expect far move damage from a missile capable of reaching high altitude. Nothing about this incident makes any sense. To me this looks like a promo video with Yemen Air Force and new date stamped on it.

Argentine pilots did.

Why would you put your afterburner on while using flares? "Don't pay attention to the flares missile, look over here instead."

Another ship crash in South China Sea. https://www.yahoo.com/news/32-missing-including-30-iranians-sea-collision-china-054526426.html 32 missing, oil tanker on fire after collision off China Associated Press South Korea has sent a plane and coastguard ship to help after an oil tanker collided with a cargo ship off the coast of east China leaving 32 people, mostly Iranians, missing South Korea has sent a plane and coastguard ship to help after an oil tanker collided with a cargo ship off the coast of east China leaving 32 people, mostly Iranians, missing (AFP Photo/ARUN SANKAR) BEIJING (AP) — An Iranian oil tanker collided with a bulk freighter and caught fire off China's east coast, leaving the tanker's entire crew of 32 missing and causing it to spill oil into the sea, authorities said Sunday.

Interesting video about how the Vulcan B2 could carry 30 1,000lb bombs, up from 21.

Or with re-configurable FBW.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21619/Japan_Looks_To_Refit_Izumo_Helicopter_Carrier_For_F_35B_Fighter_Jets#.WkJg5COZOqA

Any idea on the V-shaped 'fins' behind the wings? Tail plane or propeller?

"It's the North Koreans I'm telling ya."

By looking at the way it remained in a fixed place relative to the HUD/Sensor, I would have thought it was something lodged on the actual sensor.

Where did you get that report?

Other stuff from 1991.