0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,360 $
JUNE 2021

Yemeni Air Defense Forces Attack Two UAE F-16 Warplanes Over Sanaa (Video)

Support SouthFront

Yemeni Air Defense Forces Attack Two UAE F-16 Warplanes Over Sanaa (Video)

Click to see the full-size image

On March 26, the Yemeni Air Defense Forces [loyal to the Houthis] attacked two F-16 warplanes of the UAE Air Force over the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. However, no missile het the jets. As a result of the attack, the F-16 warplanes retreated from the area.

The UAE is one of the member states of the Saudi-led coalition, which invaded Yemen in 2015.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Harbord Hamond

Love it. Good for Yeman. God bless you.


How do you feel about Putin supporting Saudi Arabia at the UNSC? Putin voted to continue making all weapons sales to Yemen illegal, while competing with the West to sell World War class russian weapon systems to the saudis.

Only Iran is an ally to the people of Yemen, and then only cos “Yemen war HOT, Iran war NOT”.

Anyway in this war Russia is an ally of KSA- no doubt about it. Which is why Southfront spends so much time boosting KSA. When it comes to palestinian victims of neo nazi jews, like Ahed Tamimi, southfront is as silent as Putin.


Do you run a sites ? Go ahead make one if the narrative don’t suit you.

Robert Harbord Hamond

I think Russia sees arms exports as important leverage. Many people believe the UK and USA create wars to feed their weapons export economy. If Russia can get ahead of them, potentially it can curb this economic policy, so that UK and USA have to look at other exports or even internal economic growth. In the long term, this makes sense. As for voting to stop all weapons sales to Yemen, as we know from Western politics, what is said and done are quite regularly the opposite. As for Putin and Lavrov, in the round, I see them setting a good example of modern politics which requires honesty. My kind of politician Dr Alice Weidel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe2CtQfwu40


Would have been better with a direct hit but at least they warned them off.

Richard M

Ole Syed be done crapted hisself!


What kinds of SAMs used?



Dmitry Lunyov

Soviet ** probably from 60s


according ruskiefans these models are better then any american ones. so, dont understimate the ussrussian technique :)

Dmitry Lunyov

This technique shot down hundreds of American aircraft in Vietnam, I do not think it is necessary to explain that after 40 years of missiles likely will not even catch up with the modern aircraft


sure, in that time were good. but in early 80ties in bekaa valley old ;)

and dont explain to me, but for idiots in this forum, who write, that those russian weapons in syria can stop yanks.

LR captain

cause yank tanks have crap drivers and Russian 1960’s RPG can go through 260 mm armor. solmon



26cm is nothing. and this is old type of armor. today is nothing.

Steve Bell

You mean like those merkava tanks that turned into incinerators in 2006?


russian kornets took out 12 merkavas out of 400. how many kornets were used? this is not victory. in that time merkavas did not have active armor. today would have much less chance hezbollah members. anyway, hezbollah lost most of its good warriors in syria.

John Whitehot


in ’73 egypt shot down tens, if not hundreds of israeli jets because its air defences were manned by soviet personnel, which in turn lost only ONE(1) battery to the israeli “revenge”.

The only reason the IAF still existed is that the US replaced every israeli loss basically on the fly.

in Lebanon there weren’t Soviet crews with Syrians, yet you are crediting israeli sources, which is what has to be avoided if one is looking for the truth.

Graeme Rymill

“if one is looking for the truth”
What colour is the grass at Khmeimim Air Base in December and January after rain?


John Whitehot

again that feeble buzzing coming from below.

it seems to repeat the words “colour”, “grass” or something, but it gets weaker every time.

nice movie though.

Graeme Rymill

Time to go and have that shower John! :-)


Not SAMS. Aircraft missiles, close call, surprised the Jets can’t outrun these missiles since they are launched from ground and cannot accelerate much.


Houthis should use smart mobile phones in their missiles to convert their surface to surface missiles into surface to air missiles. Through mobile phones they can control it remotely and target any fighter jets. It’s so easy. It just need a simple circuit to control actuators in missile. The smart mobile phone has everything that need for a surface to air missile. It has camera, compass, GPS, Accelerometer, proximity sensor etc. Houthis can use mobile camera for tracking the fighter jets.

Amine Mansouri

waaaaaw, can you do it?

Terra Cotta Woolpuller

You use the Flir video system actually works and is used by many currently, “James bond handbook style” made easy to use.


Phone CPU’s are way to slow to use in a situation like that, and why on earth would you need GPS on a SAM?
If it was that easy, every man and his dog would have missile guidance systems.
Most SAM’s use IR detectors or radar to home in on the target.


Where I have mentioned to use GPS. I said to use camera for tracking.

“Houthis can use mobile camera for tracking the fighter jets.”

IR and Radar seekers are used in SAM and in AAM that are self controlled. In remote controlled radar one does not need IR or Radar seekers.


Visible cameras suffer from atmospheric distortion and haze over long distances. Then these missiles fly to Mach 3 or 4 you would get too much latency.


At high speed there will be no haze. I have seen rocket that travel at Mach 24 with optical cameras. The nowadays smart mobile phones are super computers. There will be no latency.

John Whitehot

it doesn’t matter, the missile starts up already locked-on, the camera is only needed for acquisition.


He is not talking about optical seekers but missiles with television guidance. These type of rockets did not have much operational use until today. Then they were used mostly on ground targets where they can be distinguished only by visual means. A jet usually is painted blue and the camera can be blinded.

John Whitehot

if we are talking about radar guided missiles with an auxiliary camera like S-125 or S-75, then the camera serves as a boresight of the radar beam, when ECM conditions render the radar scope unusable.

The camera is only employed by the operator to acquire the target, but it’s always the engagement radar that locks and guides the missile, not the camera.

if instead we are talking about strela-10 kinds of systems, these function more or less like IR SAMs, but guided by visible light instead of IR. They can overcome flares and IR dazzlers, but they highly depend on the weather conditions and visibility.

In any case, they are SACLOS kinds of weapons and won’t fire without a lock-on (at least if the users do not override the guidance system and basically use them as rockets, but it’s not the case of the above video where missiles are shown maneuvering)


they went too the moon with a small fraction of a modern phone cpu..

John Whitehot

IF they went to the moon… Lmao

Concrete Mike

Well if you have access to a toa statio. Try it. i found the prisms 10 years ago in college. Wona case of beer out of it

John Whitehot

what’s a toa station?

assuming it’s a receiving radio set, it’s not that difficult to send an unmanned space ship to the moon with recorded messages to be radioed back to earth.

the astronauts would be silently waiting in earth orbit until the pantomime is complete and then re-enter.

i don’t have a clear opinion on the matter – imho the probability that lunar landings were a scheme is somehow less than that they were real. not much less though.

Concrete Mike

Ah my bad that a typo. Total station, its a high precision survey instrument. Its got a laser in it to determine range. Neat peice of equipment. Leica makes my favorite one.

John Whitehot

ah ok, but that’s something that has been answered several times, Russians put mirrors on the moon as well, without sending astronauts on it and instead using probes.


Speed not processing power, and the computers on the early German designed(von Braun) moon missions did not use the computers for real time course corrections.
The data was processed in advance, and then the fastest computer in the world, the human mind did the actual maneuvering.


Further thoughts, why use a computer at all, direct electronic control is much faster than any computer.

John Whitehot

“Speed not processing power”

that is not exact, more speed means more calculations per second, hence more processing power.

“The data was processed in advance, and then the most powerful computer in the world, the human mind did the actual maneuvering”

not really. The human was limited to point the craft at a precalculated direction and perform precalculated length burns. On later capsules (Apollo, Soyuz), there was an autopilot pointing the craft and making the burns. Men would rather manage the spacecraft and perform the scientific tasks given to them.

It doesn’t take much processing power to “go to the moon”, most of the operations needed are basic trigonometry that is taught in 8th grade.

To make a comparison, it’s a more difficult, demanding task, to achieve a dock with another craft in orbit, than go to the moon, as it needs constant calculations and corrections, and even with modern hardware and software is still done with a man-in-the-loop.

“Modern computers mostly use operating systems to interface between the CPU and the user software. The GPS chip also runs an OS internally, as does the camera”

Unless you want the user, astronaut or others, to input millions of assembly commands into a console every minute, you need an OS.


I think your missing my point, which is a device that is custom built to complete a specific task is faster than a programmable device. The bios on a PC is basic IO code, the bios interfaces with the machine code in the display and harddrive. The OS sits above the bios and the software sits above the OS. It’s about the level of abstraction, at a core level you are still turning a transistor on and off.

As for astronauts writing asm, again you are missing the point that if the control software talks directly to the CPU, you don’t need to waste CPU clock cycles on maintaining the OS. To the astronaut he simply uses the control software, no asm required, no OS required.

But get beyond computers, anything a computer can do, can be done with stand alone hardwired components, you only use a computer, because you can program it to do many different things, and reduce the component count of a device. Televisions are a perfect example, the old hardwired transistor TV’s would work the moment you hit the power, new TV’s, that use microprocessors are slower to start from cold, because you have to wait for it to go through its boot process, that’s why they now have standby.

PS most of the math for the Apollo missions was done using slide rule’s.

John Whitehot

“As for astronauts writing asm, again you are missing the point that if the control software talks directly to the CPU, you don’t need to waste CPU clock cycles on maintaining the OS. To the astronaut he simply uses the control software, no asm required, no OS required.”

I think you are missing an essential point – that CPUs are the only way to solve the problems in a spacecraft.

You suggest “custom built” devices, that would mean that you ‘d have to build one piece of hardware and relative software for every specific single task you need you spacecraft to perform.

It should be pretty clear that it’s unfeasible, that you can’t just put in as many buttons and levers as there are commands. You should also develop and build specific diagnostics for every single device, and – snare rolls – some form of generic control platform that checks that every single switch does not create conflicts or problems instead of solving them. You’d also need to put one (it’s an exageration, but conceptually right) astronaut to control every single switch. Forget enqueing, just order the astronauts to coordinate themselves. Jeez you gotta be kidding.

frankly, i don’t know how it can be that a person that understands abstraction layers does not understand this basic concept, about putting an interface between man and spacecraft.

to resume:
a complex device made up of many components must be interfaced with humans at its most general level – humans cannot design, produce, or control anything you are suggesting.

Concrete Mike

I think someone mentioned here how they do it. It’s a soviet ssm . Guidance is optical through the ground flir camera. Something like that anyways, pretty creative if you ask me,


Thank you.

chris chuba

I recall reading in another South Front article that they were using air-to-air missiles launched from the ground that have semi-active homing like infra-red. The problem is that they lose a lot of their range because they were designed to be launched from the wing of a jet.


Yes they can use a boaster stage of rocket.

Pave Way IV

Semi-active only applies to radar homing, Chris. That would be the R-27R model. The Houthis are using the R-27T with an infrared seeker head. All IR missiles are passive – the target self-illuminates so there is no need for missile-based illumination (active seeking) or ground-station based illumination (semi-active seeking). The only trick the Houthis would need is to figure out how to signal the missile to start tracking (uncage the seeker) on the ground to acquire the target. They may be able to launch the missile without a target and tell it to look for its own. You just have to have the missile aimed roughly at the target – the off-boresight capabilities for the R-27T’s seeker are easy to find.

The R-27T’s range from the ground is limited, but this is a medium-range air-to-air missile with a 70km range. It’s probably effective at a 10km slant range from the ground to incoming or traversing targets. Like any shoulder-fired SAMs, the Houthis R-27s are probably useless for chasing (tail-on) jet aircraft moving away from the firing point, and certainly so if they’re at altitudes above 10km. That still leaves you a lot of potential targets well above anything a shoulder-fired SAM could reach.

I’m guessing the FLIR on the ground is just for finding targets at night manually or observing the results. I doubt it has any communication or interaction with the missile’s guidance. THAT would be quite a feat.

John Whitehot

“I’m guessing the FLIR on the ground is just for finding targets at night manually or observing the results”

Not necessarily.

R-27T and ET have the same IR seeker the earlier marks of R-73 sported.

This seeker has at least two ways of acquisition – one is on cues from the launching platform (mostly, Sukhois and Migs), the other is direct – the missile head itself acts as the acquiring mean.

The reason Houthis are using these missiles is this second mode, as it does not need a firecontrol system to transfer target data to the missile.

The task is done by boresighting a camera with the missile seeker head, which sends back a lock-on audio tone to the user when it locks.
This mode has a smaller angle of acquisition than the primary, FCS slaved one, for several reasons, primarily for security (to engage the intended target and not one near it)

It does not matter what kind of camera is slaved to the missile seeker, as long it’s “crosshair” is properly aligned and the operator receives audio confirmation.

So the FLIR may as well been used as the acquisitor – not considering that today most FLIR cameras are also able of normal optical operation.

Pave Way IV

AFIK, the R-27Ts use a 36T seeker. The R-27T1 and R-27ET1 use the MK-80 (Kopp). Both are scanning types, not imaging types.

The Yemeni MiG-29s fire control system might produce a radar-like image with the missile’s own 36T or MK-80 scanning detector, but there’s nothing like a VGA output on the missile. All that analog conversion would have to happen on the aircraft, and that is only for a radar-like sweep display. Converting that to a digital signal the FLIR would understand and syncing/aligning it with the FLIR video for aiming would be quite a remarkable feat. If the R-27T use a focal-plane array imaging IR – something like a digital camera CCD – then the task might be less difficult.

I’m not saying it’s not possible, John. It just seems unnecessary given the R-27T’s FOV – close is close enough when launching it.

John Whitehot

“AFIK, the R-27Ts use a 36T seeker. The R-27T1 and R-27ET1 use the MK-80 (Kopp)”

I’m talking about the baseline R-73 and R-73 versions, which are the ones likely in houthis inventory, and of course they are scanning types – there is no imaging seeker in production or development in Russia that I know of.

This isn’t relevant though.

“Converting that to a digital signal the FLIR would understand and syncing/aligning it with the FLIR video for aiming would be quite a remarkable feat”

Perhaps I explained poorly.

The FLIR video does not need to send or receive any data to the missile seeker. It is simply boresighted to it.

This means that the cycle is:

Operator scans the sky with FLIR.
Operator aims its FLIR crosshair on target.
R-27T seeker, being boresighted to the FLIR, locks-on the target, by its OWN means (or doesn’t Lock-On, it could happen that the missile is unable to lock on the target seen by the FLIR camera, but this isn’t relevant)
Operator gets lock tone and launches.

This mode has been made to make aircraft like SU-25s, which lack FCRs and OLS, to be able to fire their AAMs anyway, and it dates back to the R-60 IR missiles.

Concrete Mike

Cool thanks for clarifying that for us.my memory is pretty bad now thanks hockey LOL. You always bring alot to the conversations and we thank you.


creative idea



Jim Prendergast

Nice try! Need something slightly bigger.


S400’s :)


Get em next time.

Eventually darwin gets his man considering all that polluted inbred dna the saudis have…

Concrete Mike

There’s one g-suit now filled with crap


It was filled with crap before, too.


Most likely a Paki or Zionist mercenary pilot.


Google is offering every one 98 dollars/h… & giving each week reliably paychecks .. any individual can also have this career!!on Friday I bought a top of the range Buick just after making $15422 this-past/five weeks .no doubt it is nicest-job however you wo’nt forgive yourself if you do not hop over to this.!sw693w:➩➩➩ http://GoogleSpotOnlinePartTimeJob/get/99$/perhour ♥f♥♥♥x♥♥♥i♥♥♥j♥i♥f♥y♥s♥♥♥m♥l♥♥p♥♥h♥p♥♥z♥♥s♥♥a♥s♥j♥x♥♥j♥♥♥k♥♥♥l♥p♥♥k♥♥♥h::!dw232u:kjoi

John Whitehot


Concrete Mike

Lol yup


It was close


I love the Houthis they are truly warriors


Kudos to the Ansarollah, they have learnt to improvise a lot and now have repaired some of their Soviet era SAMS. It is a matter of time before the UAE scumbag mercenary pilots are shot down.

Brad Isherwood

It’s comic genius to fire on House of Saud,
Whose air defence Flys all over the place and hits their own.
Unless Raytheon intentionally shipped them Patriot with Monday morning after Friday the 13th guidance package

Hey Houthi, ….you haven’t sunk a Saudi warship in a while.
How about another warship : )


Wish them more luck next time

Muhammad Zulkiffli

Syiah Dajjal laknatullah go to HELL

Nigel Maund

There’s a definite need to down some of these F16’s as the KSAAF will lose confidence and stay high with their bombing runs. Near misses remain misses and are irrelevant. The missles being used by the Yemeni’s are old technology and pose no real threat to the KSAAF.


Old technology missiles for old technology planes. F16 first flight 1974, the F16 had its 44th birthday in January. They were a fantastic plane in their day, but they are very old.


It seems the missiles are manually guided that or it lacked proper path correction system. It seems clear in this video that the missiles were improvised.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x