FLIR Video showing shoot down of F-15S over Yemen

Just in, Houthi rebels in Yemen released a video which appears to show the shoot down of an F-15. They used a SAFIRE sensor turret. The fate of the pilot is unknown.

www.youtube.com...

Looks like the F-15 went to full afterburner and dropped flares when it detected the missile. Shockingly flares didnt help.

Houthi Rebels Release FLIR Video Showing Shoot Down of Saudi F-15S Over Yemen

www.thedrive.com...

Downing an F-15 with a Manpad (?) Capturing it on video. Quite a feet. Saudis looking bad as usual.

Questions..
Why didnt the pilot break while dropping flares?
Did the airframe breakup?
Did pilot bail?

a reply to: mightmight

Someone better qualified please correct me, but against a (presumably) IR-guided MANPAD, wouldn't you want to drop flares and pull as much throttle as you could humanly get away with to drop your own IR signature?

Does anyone know what type of missile was fired? They show the sensor/radar thingy (lol) but not the projectile. Crazy video though, it seems dogfight or any air-to-air videos are not that common.

Has there been actual confirmation it was shot down, or just that it was hit? Because all I've found so far is that it was hit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not sure but I didn't see a lot of breakup from the wing which is what looked like took the hit. Also am I mistaken in that going full afterburner is not the best move when trying to dodge an IR missile that's already closed in on you. Like isn't the gist to have the flares be the hotter signature?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Has there been actual confirmation it was shot down, or just that it was hit? Because all I've found so far is that it was hit.

Obviously there is a huge difference...hopefully we’ll get some more accurate info.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Has there been actual confirmation it was shot down, or just that it was hit? Because all I've found so far is that it was hit.

If it is still flyable after that than I want smoking on airlines back.

a reply to: UpsideDownWorld

F-15s are known to be able to take a considerable amount of damage, there are stories of them landing successfully with a wing literally shot off.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: mightmight

Someone better qualified please correct me, but against a (presumably) IR-guided MANPAD, wouldn't you want to drop flares and pull as much throttle as you could humanly get away with to drop your own IR signature?

That's what I thought. I would think kicking in the afterburner would make the countermeasure less effective. Also, the release was awfully late. F15s are notoriously robust though. Remember the Israeli pilot that flew one home on one wing?

a reply to: Barnalby

The most important part is to know there was a launch in the first place. For a manpad, that usually means you or someone else in the flight seeing it with eyeballs first or MAWS gear, which still generally sucks. This is why the US won't fly when they know there is a credible manpad threat.
The second most important part is removing yourself from the seeker field of view and then getting out of dodge. That takes energy which may be why he went to burners, but flying about in Indian country in a low energy state is generally a bad idea all the way around.

If I had to bet, I'd guess he wasn't aware of a launch given that he didn't really manoeuvre. Dropped the flares by rote after a run or flyby, and it didn't work. Or maybe he panicked or couldn't process the info from whatever MAWS gear the Saudis hate on their Eagles fast enough. Have to know where it is quick.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Barnalby

The second most important part is removing yourself from the seeker field of view and then getting out of dodge.

Wouldn't getting out of its field of view require some sharp maneuvers which are generally easier to make if you don't speed up? Legit question, I'm not a pilot.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: UpsideDownWorld

F-15s are known to be able to take a considerable amount of damage, there are stories of them landing successfully with a wing literally shot off.

Not just stories. It happened. Wasn't shot off though, it was a collision during training.

a reply to: face23785

It's all about speed without being too fast. Too slow, you can't maneuver well. Too fast and your maneuvers become really wide. It's all about corner speed, which is your best maneuver speed.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: UpsideDownWorld

F-15s are known to be able to take a considerable amount of damage, there are stories of them landing successfully with a wing literally shot off.

And more often than not it wont end well. No further information yet, but i seriously doubt an F-15 on full afterburner can survive the impact of a SAM warhead. Not really comparable to an A-6 slizing your wing off ar just the right angle. Amazing the aircraft didnt explode on impact.

a reply to: Barnalby

I'm only familiar with one flare countermeasure system and that is CMWS.

We don't export that.

Not everyone has countermeasures installed, and not everyone could afford to.

There are also circumstances in which a flare system will not help you at all; this could have been one of those circumstances.

a reply to: projectvxn

Depending on the missile, flares can be almost totally ineffective. There are some new air to air missiles that have an optical capability in addition to IR.

There were reports a couple years ago that the rebels managed to get an SA-2 back in service, as well as having repurposed air to air missiles into surface to air systems. If this was a MANPADS, it would have a fairly light warhead. The F-15 would have a good chance of surviving even a direct hit.

I'm not convinced that the F-15 was shot down. I would expect some loss of control of the a/c. I didn't see that. The engines were obviously still functioning.
I saw the warhead exploding mostly aft of the fighter.

Plus... if the fighter broke up and went out of control, wouldn't the rebels have filmed and released that... instead of cutting the video?

originally posted by: butcherguy
Plus... if the fighter broke up and went out of control, wouldn't the rebels have filmed and released that... instead of cutting the video?

That was one of the first things I thought as well. If the plane went down, why not include that part? It's possible the plane went down on the other side of a mountain or something, which obviously the camera couldn't capture, so they just cut the video off after the hit, but still makes you wonder. And you'd think they'd go film the wreckage.

a reply to: butcherguy

That's one reason I suspect either MANPADS or a repurposed air to air missile, not a true SAM. An SA-2 would have homed in farther forward on the aircraft. This looks like it was guiding on the exhaust.