Yemeni Conflict: News #2

TheArmenian wrote:More flip-flop action:

Said this before, such footage is not war, this is predator hunting and going after a disoriented gazelle or something. WTF.
Houthis got some balls. Saudis are terrible at this...

Flip Flops this last year:

TheArmenian wrote:Fire from Flip-flop

0:38 that smells like Serbian 81mm mortar mines boxes

Article on War in Yemen "from the Saudi side of the frontline": http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38239782



Qahir-1 that managed to get past Patriots

A lot of Yemen's missiles pass through Patriot systems. Those things have a poor record.

That is simply what, a modified S-75 missiles for ballistic use? Seems to work quite well in its roll.

I am also interested to know success stories of the Burkan 1 in use.

miketheterrible wrote:A lot of Yemen's missiles pass through Patriot systems.  Those things have a poor record.

That is simply what, a modified S-75 missiles for ballistic use?  Seems to work quite well in its roll.

I am also interested to know success stories of the Burkan 1 in use.

Define "alot", some did go though and its expected to be so. Thing is that most of them landed between nothing and nowhere as they have no means of serious guidance and that is big problem. Patriots have bad reputation since GW1, but since it has pretty good track record. Lets hope we dont get to see how many went though S-300/Buk defences as again some would go though, that is sad faith of us in Air Defence, we cant stop everything, we can try the best we can.

Yes its heavily based on S-75. From which horrid corrosive fuel i had pleasure removing from the storages few years back...

Ill define it as how many patriot failed to intercept. And no, it doesn't have a high success rate. Yemeni BM's still get through regardless whatever that is claimed.

Also, please, don't be retarded. Buk isn't meant to engage BM. S-300V's are.

Actually the current model BUK has a rather good performance against ballistic missiles... its accuracy and performance is rather improved over earlier models...

Personally I would rate even 1980s Soviet SAMs as a better defence against BMs than anything in the west... simply because missiles and systems at different levels have some capability against BMs... unlike the US systems where only the PAC-3 model of patriot has ATBM capability along of course with THAAD... but how many do they even deploy...

Does Patriot have any confirmed kills against enemy aircraft?

I know it got a couple of allied aircraft...

miketheterrible wrote:Ill define it as how many patriot failed to intercept. And no, it doesn't have a high success rate. Yemeni BM's still get through regardless whatever that is claimed.

Also, please, don't be retarded. Buk isn't meant to engage BM. S-300V's are.

Can you like stop calling people retarded when you know nothing about the matter? If you keep doing so i will block you.

Late derivates of Buk have good ABM capabilities aganist threatre BMs or tactical BMs, whichever term you prefer. Actually M3 outperforms S-300P in every aspect there is. However that is not the inteded role of the system, it can be used aganist such targets.

Also i see you once calling someone retarded again i will block you as i am not here to be bullied by highschool kids and wikipedia warriors, ty in advance.

GarryB wrote:Actually the current model BUK has a rather good performance against ballistic missiles... its accuracy and performance is rather improved over earlier models...

Personally I would rate even 1980s Soviet SAMs as a better defence against BMs than anything in the west... simply because missiles and systems at different levels have some capability against BMs... unlike the US systems where only the PAC-3 model of patriot has ATBM capability along of course with THAAD... but how many do they even deploy...

Does Patriot have any confirmed kills against enemy aircraft?

I know it got a couple of allied aircraft...

US never deployed it inside combat zone for the purpose or air defence actually, Israelis did (their fronts are tiny so...) and from what i am aware only manned aircraft kill was one Su-24. Its the only one being ever engaded too from what i am aware. They however did shoot down many UAVs with it though last decade.

Thing with Patriot is that it was forced into ABM role while not really being suitable for it, it was wrong from the start to expect from initial Patriot variants to cope all that well aganist tactical balistic missiles.

People however forget that often missiles are being "let go", as path indicates it wont hit anything. So many of those were claimed as "they failed to intercept", which was the case with the Saudis more than once. But success rate of such intercept is always and with every system not all that bright. Israelis claim slightly over 50% success rate of their Patriots aganist BM which in my eyes is good. If we take in count we were told realistic kill ratio for SA-6 with 2 missiles aganist incoming (this is important - incoming) high subsonic/low-supersonic aircraft is 0,5-0,6.

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Ill define it as how many patriot failed to intercept. And no, it doesn't have a high success rate. Yemeni BM's still get through regardless whatever that is claimed.

Also, please, don't be retarded. Buk isn't meant to engage BM. S-300V's are.

Can you like stop calling people retarded when you know nothing about the matter? If you keep doing so i will block you.

Late derivates of Buk have good ABM capabilities aganist threatre BMs or tactical BMs, whichever term you prefer. Actually M3 outperforms S-300P in every aspect there is. However that is not the inteded role of the system, it can be used aganist such targets.

Also i see you once calling someone retarded again i will block you as i am not here to be bullied by highschool kids and wikipedia warriors, ty in advance.

I highly doubt such systems capabilities unless it is aimed entirely at short range BM's then maybe.  S-300V is far more refined for that roll.

But I am sorry for calling you retarded.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually the current model BUK has a rather good performance against ballistic missiles... its accuracy and performance is rather improved over earlier models...

Personally I would rate even 1980s Soviet SAMs as a better defence against BMs than anything in the west... simply because missiles and systems at different levels have some capability against BMs... unlike the US systems where only the PAC-3 model of patriot has ATBM capability along of course with THAAD... but how many do they even deploy...

Does Patriot have any confirmed kills against enemy aircraft?

I know it got a couple of allied aircraft...

US never deployed it inside combat zone for the purpose or air defence actually, Israelis did (their fronts are tiny so...) and from what i am aware only manned aircraft kill was one Su-24. Its the only one being ever engaded too from what i am aware. They however did shoot down many UAVs with it though last decade.

Thing with Patriot is that it was forced into ABM role while not really being suitable for it, it was wrong from the start to expect from initial Patriot variants to cope all that well aganist tactical balistic missiles.

People however forget that often missiles are being "let go", as path indicates it wont hit anything. So many of those were claimed as "they failed to intercept", which was the case with the Saudis more than once. But success rate of such intercept is always and with every system not all that bright. Israelis claim slightly over 50% success rate of their Patriots aganist BM which in my eyes is good. If we take in count we were told realistic kill ratio for SA-6 with 2 missiles aganist incoming (this is important - incoming) high subsonic/low-supersonic aircraft is 0,5-0,6.

Many of Yemens missiles hit bases and killed dozens or more Saudi troops (Pakistani mercenaries of course cause Saudi's are lazy and incompetent to fight for themselves).  So I wouldn't call it successful.  I believe someone posted an article about the reality of successes and THAAD had quite low success rate (40% or so).  Of course the more missiles you throw at the incoming missile, the higher chance you will hit it.  Shotgun effect.

Late derivates of Buk have good ABM capabilities aganist threatre BMs or tactical BMs, whichever term you prefer. Actually M3 outperforms S-300P in every aspect there is. However that is not the inteded role of the system, it can be used aganist such targets.

Well in the context I would beg to differ.

Obviously if the Saudis were using the BUK and the Houthi the BMs then I would agree because the BUK would be near military targets and the Saudi launched BMs would be aimed at civilian targets so the BUK would have little to do.

The BUK is intended to hit all threats to the targets it is protecting... including BMs... they would not have bothered giving it such capabilities if it was not intended for such roles.

US never deployed it inside combat zone for the purpose or air defence actually, Israelis did (their fronts are tiny so...) and from what i am aware only manned aircraft kill was one Su-24. Its the only one being ever engaded too from what i am aware. They however did shoot down many UAVs with it though last decade.

Plus at least one allied aircraft...

Thing with Patriot is that it was forced into ABM role while not really being suitable for it, it was wrong from the start to expect from initial Patriot variants to cope all that well aganist tactical balistic missiles.

Just like western navies lack of CIWS because they underestimate the anti ship missile, their SAMs lack performance against ballistic threats too... like I said... only THAAD and PAC-3 Patriot were developed for use against BMs.... compared with most Soviet SAMs having some capability in their newer models.

I highly doubt such systems capabilities unless it is aimed entirely at short range BM's then maybe. S-300V is far more refined for that roll.

The interception of a BM is all about accuracy and a system designed to intercept small high speed targets.The ability to direct warhead fragments at a specific part of the target also make them much more effective... no point in shredding a Scud because it is a falling, not flying target... its rear can have more holes than a sieve but as long as the warhead is intact it will still do damage on impact.

GarryB wrote:Just like western navies lack of CIWS because they underestimate the anti ship missile, their SAMs lack performance against ballistic threats too... like I said... only THAAD and PAC-3 Patriot were developed for use against BMs....

Work on Aster 30 BMD capability is ongoing as we speak. Also CIWS is standard in most NATO frigates and destroyers.

Token CIWS... British carriers have one Phalanx system if they are lucky.

Pathetic.

And Aster is getting some ABM capability now.

Do you think the 300km range Iskander with anti armour submunition warheads might be directed are armoured units in rear areas forming up... since forever.

To little too late.

Belarus *****!

https://twitter.com/lostarmour/status/796743050940792832

M82A1 with PO12-50. Normally small derivation in drop, but for the average ranges the sight should be ok. This also shows that the lens on the Soviet optics is far more interesting to use.

TheArmenian wrote:The smell of flipflop-powder

UAE has pressed New AMX56 in the area. Azur System equipped and some have Galix 2 on them.

@The Armenian ( human being )

The problem with all these conflicts in human society . From time immemorial . Is that humans ( insan ) can not recognise other human beings as human beings . Instead they see others as fat , short , black , white , Arab , jew ........Other species do not have this problem . They recognise each other immediately . As long as this disability is not removed and human destroy each other and their environment . Then there is no solution .

Let's talk about the humans in yemen who are killing each other and at the same time are being killed by other humans who travel by airplanes and their food is stopped by other humans who travel by ship in the seas . Sounds different ! The solution is not difficult . Humans are disabled from seeing reality .