Iranian Air Defense Systems

[pin gu]

Houthis Hit Saudi F-15 With Ground-To-Air Missile Over Yemen’s Saada Province (Video)

Houthis missile:

Is it coincidence that IRGC and Iran-backed Yemenis both unveil an air to air missile converted for other purposes almost simultaneously?

oh boy!!!
Things are getting more clear!

The missile that Yemen army used against SA f-15 had a weak warhead . from that video it was clear that missile could not destroy f-15 I don't think IRGC would give them something useless to Yemen army if their intention was making sky of Yemen secure so sending a message or it was really belong to Yemen army equipments wil remain valid options. ( I have zero knowledge/experience in this field just throwing up my ideas here )

 

[mohsen]

The missile that Yemen army used against SA f-15 had a weak warhead . from that video it was clear that missile could not destroy f-15 I don't think IRGC would give them something useless to Yemen army if their intention was making sky of Yemen secure so sending a message or it was really belong to Yemen army equipments wil remain valid options. ( I have zero knowledge/experience in this field just throwing up my ideas here )

Buddy, this missile's warhead is two times bigger than American AIM-120.

Also we can't provide anything in mass, so the only thing which they have, is best for them.

 

[Tajbakhsh]

1.

2.

 

[pin gu]

Now lets look at this from another point :
I think this was first video of hitting missile to SA f-15 unfortunately I could not find the first thread in PDF about it . according to many PDF users in that thread f-15 pilot did a very weird and stupid move : he continued without maneuvering to dodge the missile (simplifying calculation of hitting point???) ( many users questioned his move even some members insulted his intelligence !!! ) . after that missile hitted below of f-15 or destroyed at the very close range of f-15 then f-15 successfully landed in SA .

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/yeme...l-with-sam-over-capital-city-of-sanaa.538161/


Now with second case of failure to completely destroying SA's f-15 at air theory of f-15's having some sort of defensive mechanism at close range to counter incoming missiles from below is much more stronger .

 

[AmirPatriot]

Buddy, this missile's warhead is two times bigger than American AIM-120.

But it is far more inaccurate than an AMRAAM.

he continued without maneuvering to dodge the missile (simplifying calculation of hitting point???)

This could be because of either:

1. Over reliance on technology, thinking it is enough to dispense chaff/flares to evade an incoming missile. In reality, when dispensing these countermeasures the pilot should also be making evasive maneuvers.

2. The pilot may not have even been aware a missile was targetting him. IR guided missiles will not light up on RWR. This may be because of poor intelligence, which would warn pilots that there may be makeshift SAMs in the area. Or the pilot himself may be poorly trained, and may not have looked around to visually spot a missile, with the accompanying trail of smoke.

 

[pin gu]

At 0:46 he used flares/released fuel tanks and at 0:48.5 missile touched( or missile destroyed by f-15 ) his f-15

after using flares it was logical to start maneuvering/turning off his engines or doing something (he didn't). at :047 it was very clear that missile is coming directly to airplane (1.5 second time for ejection which is very short time for reaction but its possible to choose the best option even with consideration of that little time he had for ejection).

For one time we can say yes maybe it was pure luck but if its happens in second time chances of this being luck or something like that is veryyy little .keep it in mind we only talk about cases that we have video of them its possible that the same thing have been happened and there is no video of it .

 

[mohsen]

But it is far more inaccurate than an AMRAAM.

Says who?

 

[AmirPatriot]

Says who?

1. Logic. The R-27T was put into service in 1983, while the AMRAAM was introduced in 1991. The AMRAAM has better electronics which allow it to track the target better.

2. Combat History. The R-27 was used in a war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, with only 1 kill out of 24 shots taken. That is a Pk of 4%. The AMRAAM has 11 kills in 18 launches, so a Pk of 61%.

3. Specifications. The R-27 weighs 100 kg more than the AMRAAM and so is more difficult to get on target.

There is no point getting defensive just because you may like the outcome of something that didn't happen. I too wish that missile had got a good hit on the F-15, but it clearly didn't. You can see in the video, the F-15 is still flying.

 

[Full Moon]

Says who?

Dorood bar shooma. It has been a while Mohsen jan.

How have you been?

 

[mohsen]

1. Logic. The R-27T was put into service in 1983, while the AMRAAM was introduced in 1991. The AMRAAM has better electronics which allow it to track the target better.

2. Combat History. The R-27 was used in a war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, with only 1 kill out of 24 shots taken. That is a Pk of 4%. The AMRAAM has 11 kills in 18 launches, so a Pk of 61%.

3. Specifications. The R-27 weighs 100 kg more than the AMRAAM and so is more difficult to get on target.

There is no point getting defensive just because you may like the outcome of something that didn't happen. I too wish that missile had got a good hit on the F-15, but it clearly didn't. You can see in the video, the F-15 is still flying.

You have to consider the counter measures, almost all planes carry Flares, how many carry ECM pods, let alone activating them?
The thing is that this comparison is essentially pointless, it's like comparing orange with apple.
The are way too many effective Parameters, You say success rate was 4% in that war, I say it's 100% in this war.
Saudis can claim whatever they want, but my brains says that a smoking airplane must be lucky even to return.

 

[AmirPatriot]

how many carry ECM pods

The R-27T is IR guided. ECM would have no effect.

The thing is that this comparison is essentially pointless, it's like comparing orange with apple.
The are way too many effective Parameters, You say success rate was 4% in that war, I say it's 100% in this war.

So why did you bring up the AMRAAM?

Saudis can claim whatever they want, but my brains says that a smoking airplane must be lucky even to return.

There are plenty of cases of damaged aircraft returning to base. If you don't believe the Saudis, you can read up on the experience of our own IRIAF in the sacred defence.

 

[N_Al40]

LOOL...this is just too much!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/978312976821293056

 

[Draco.IMF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/978196780151115776

 

[mohsen]

 

[mohsen]

The R-27T is IR guided. ECM would have no effect.

!
I was referring to AMRAAM's advantage of not facing counter measures (ECM).

So why did you bring up the AMRAAM?

to show that higher warhead weight doesn't necessarily mean anything.

There are plenty of cases of damaged aircraft returning to base. If you don't believe the Saudis, you can read up on the experience of our own IRIAF in the sacred defence.

and how many didn't return?
Question is the probability; Yemenis said they hit it, and published a video. Saudis said it returned to base, without providing any evidence.
today no one believes the Saudis, not even their own allies:
Videos raise questions over Saudi missile intercept claims -defensenews