Iran-backed Houthis appear to have shot down first US-made Saudi F-15SA fighter jet over Yemen
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
Yemeni Houthi forces shot down a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter jet over the Marib governorate using a surface-to-air missile. The incident occurred during an intensive air campaign involving hundreds of sorties supporting ground operations. Wreckage analysis identified the aircraft as tail number 5539 from the 55th Squadron, highlighting ongoing vulnerabilities in regional air defense suppression and tactical asset survivability.
Visual evidence published by Houthi military media confirmed the destruction of the advanced F-15E-derived dual-seat strike fighter. The engagement demonstrates the persistent combat effectiveness of asymmetric air defense networks operating against modern fourth-generation multirole fighters.
Related topic: US suffers first-ever combat loss of E-3 Sentry early warning aircraft after Iran strikes Saudi airbase
The Houthis appear to have shot down a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA over Yemen’s Marib Governorate on September 16, 2026, using a surface-to-air missile that struck the fighter despite evasive maneuvers and countermeasures. (Picture source: US DoD, Houthis, X/Yuri Lyamin)
On September 16, 2026, the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah and a key component of Iran’s regional network of allied armed groups, appeared to have destroyed a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter jet over Marib Governorate in north-central Yemen during Saudi combat operations in support of Yemeni government forces. Video released by the Islamist movement includes a wreckage with Saudi markings and tail number 5539, a number associated with No. 55 Squadron at King Khalid Air Base. The 5539 was part of the F-15SR retrofit fleet, under which 68 F-15S jets were converted to the F-15SA standard, alongside 84 newly built F-15SAs, giving the RSAF a nominal Advanced Eagle force of 152 F-15SAs before subsequent attrition.
Another video of the claimed shootdown shows passive thermal tracking, missile launch, roughly 24 seconds between launch and interception, a substantial fighter maneuver, about five visible countermeasure releases, afterburner use, and final interception. Ansar Allah called the interceptor a locally manufactured surface-to-air missile but did not name it, making attribution to the Iranian AD-08 Majid or any other specific weapon premature. A 24-second flight at average velocities of 650, 700, 750, and 850 m/s corresponds respectively to missile trajectories of 15.6, 16.8, 18.0, and 20.4 km. The engagement therefore leaves three main questions: how the Houthis detected and tracked the F-15 without apparently using radar, what type of missile could sustain the observed flight time and trajectory, and why the fighter’s evasive maneuvers and countermeasures failed to prevent the missile from staying on course and hitting the aircraft.
The F-15SA retains the F-15E-derived two-seat airframe, measuring 19.45 m long, 13.05 m in wingspan and 5.64 m high, with 56.5 m² of wing area and a maximum takeoff weight of 36,740 kg. Powered by two F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofans, the F-15SA could reach a top speed of Mach 2.5+, a maximum altitude of 18,200 m, and an effective combat radius of 1,840 km on a typical strike mission, while conformal fuel tanks mounted along the fuselage increase internal mission fuel without consuming the principal wing weapon stations. Digital fly-by-wire controls allow the use of two additional outer-wing stations, increasing usable hardpoints from nine to 11 and permitting configurations of up to 12 air-to-air missiles compared to earlier Saudi F-15Ss, for a maximum external load around 13,400 kg.
Its principal sensors include the AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar and AN/AAS-42 Tiger Eyes IRST, supplemented by Link 16, JHMCS and Sniper equipment. The defensive architecture of the Saudi Advanced standard includes DEWS electronic warfare, the AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System, as well as expendable chaff and flare dispensers. The distinction between an F-15SR and a new-build F-15SA therefore matters operationally: an SR began as an F-15S and received its Advanced Eagle capabilities through retrofit, so the exact warning sensors, software standard, dispenser configuration and serviceability of 5539 cannot simply be inferred from the nominal F-15SA equipment list. As noted by the X account @elect_warf, the first phase of the engagement may have occurred outside the missile’s eventual trajectory and without a conventional radar transmission.
Ansar Allah has previously adapted Ultra-8500 electro-optical turrets, delivered to Yemen in 2008 for ground-based surveillance and missile cueing, which have thermal ranges of 20 to 30 km for an F-15-sized fighter jet. The September 16 tracking display uses a green box/reticle different from interfaces seen during earlier Ultra-8500 uses, and potentially consistent with an Iranian Sadid EO/IR sensor incorporating electro-optical, thermal, and laser-ranging systems. If the acquisition occurred at 25 km and launch at 18 km, the air defense crew had 7 km to classify and continuously track the aircraft before firing. An F-15 traveling at 250 m/s would cross that interval in 28 seconds and one traveling 300 m/s in 23.3 seconds. As thermal tracking generates no radar emission, this entire acquisition period could occur without triggering the fighter’s radar-warning equipment during this pre-launch phase.
This is the central tactical difference between the September engagement and a conventional radar-led SAM interception: the first indication inside the cockpit may occur at missile launch or during missile approach rather than when the ground crew initially detects and tracks the aircraft. The 24-second flight time also narrows the missile problem. At 650-850 m/s, the interceptor covers 15.6 to 20.4 km, but this is trajectory length rather than launch range because the F-15 itself moves 6 km at 250 m/s or 7.2 km at 300 m/s during those same 24 seconds. Target heading, missile lead, the fighter’s turn, and interceptor corrections can therefore shift the actual launch geometry by several kilometers. This duration is difficult to reconcile with the Igla, Strela-1, Strela-2, R-60, the R-73-derived Thaqib-1, or the AD-08 Majid.
Longer-range candidates include the R-27-derived Thaqib-2, Saqr/358, and Barq-1 and Barq-2, the latter credited with nominal ranges near 50 and 70 km, although range compatibility does not establish identity. The measurable requirement is a missile capable of remaining guidance-effective for roughly 24 seconds, traveling in the 16 to 20 km class and retaining sufficient terminal energy to correct against an F-15 that changed heading after launch. The fighter’s behavior during those 24 seconds is equally important because the video clearly shows that the F-15SA crew reacted before interception. It changed heading, released countermeasures roughly five times, and subsequently used afterburner before impact. Five releases do not equal five pilot decisions because expendable dispensers can execute programmed sequences, and the comparatively weak thermal signatures leave uncertainty about whether the visible cartridges were chaff, flares, or part of a mixed load.
If chaff predominated, three possibilities become relevant: the aircraft may have received an RF indication during the engagement, its automatic program may have dispensed a mixed response, or the video may simply underrepresent flare intensity. Afterburner improves acceleration but simultaneously increases infrared output, creating a disadvantage against a potential IR seeker while improving the aircraft’s ability to generate separation or impose a higher-energy terminal maneuver. The interceptor nevertheless maintained the engagement through these changes and appears to reach the forward portion of the aircraft rather than simply following the engine exhausts. That geometry does not identify the guidance method, but it shows that the missile retained sufficient control authority and tracking accuracy after the F-15 began defensive action.
The defensive chain on an F-15SR/SA contains separate sensors responding to different signatures, which means “the electronic warfare system failed” is too imprecise to explain the loss. The AN/AAR-57 CMWS detects optical signatures associated with missile launch and approach, while DEWS performs radar-warning and electronic countermeasures against RF threats. Chaff attempts to disrupt radar-guided tracking by generating additional targets, whereas flares attempt to separate an infrared seeker from the aircraft by introducing alternative heat sources. A countermeasure sequence initiated with a missile 15 km away gives the aircraft substantially more time to maneuver and force seeker corrections than one initiated after the missile has closed to 2-3 km. Passive EO/IR acquisition could remove an entire warning stage because the ground tracker may follow the aircraft from 20 to 30 km without generating any RF signal for DEWS to detect.
The next opportunity for warning would then depend on the missile itself: an optical missile-warning sensor might detect launch or approach, while the radar-warning system would become relevant only if radar guidance, illumination, or a transmitting seeker entered the engagement. To reconstruct the sequence accurately, the engagement has to be separated into detection, passive track, range determination, missile launch, onboard missile warning, possible RF warning, expendable release, aircraft maneuver, and terminal guidance. A failure at the final stage does not establish that every preceding defensive subsystem failed, particularly when the aircraft demonstrably reacted before impact. The September 2026 interception also represents a progression from earlier Saudi F-15 encounters over Yemen.
On January 8, 2018, an RSAF F-15 was engaged by a Houthi surface-to-air missile, with thermal imagery showing the fighter accelerating and releasing countermeasures before being struck or damaged; the aircraft was not confirmed destroyed. On March 21, 2018, another F-15 was attacked over Saada, and Saudi authorities acknowledged that a SAM had been fired at 3:48 p.m. local time but said the fighter returned to its base and landed safely. The March 26, 2015 F-15S loss belongs to a different category: the fighter crashed into the Gulf of Aden during the opening phase of Operation Decisive Storm, both crew members ejected, and a U.S. Air Force HH-60G recovered them, while hostile fire and technical failure remained competing explanations.
The 2026 event differs because the sequence ends with an F-15 destroyed on Yemeni territory and the crew’s fate remains unknown. Houthi air defense capabilities have also broadened since the 2018 engagements, while repeated MQ-9 shootdowns have demonstrated an ability to engage targets well beyond the low-altitude helicopter and tactical drone category. The operational issue is whether this sensor-to-shooter sequence can be repeated against Saudi aircraft flying recurring routes over Marib. Yahya Saree claimed more than 450 Saudi F-15 and Typhoon strikes during the week from Khamis Mushait and Taif against Taiz, Lahj, Al Jawf, Hajjah, Marib, Saada and Al Bayda. Repeated sorties may have allowed the Houthis’ mobile air defense teams to prepare headings, altitude bands, timing, and ingress or egress corridors for this interception.
Explore More Defense News
• Land Defense News• Naval Defense News• Defense Aerospace News
Written by Jérôme Brahy
Jérôme Brahy is a defense analyst and documentalist at Army Recognition. He specializes in naval modernization, aviation, drones, armored vehicles, and artillery, with a focus on strategic developments in the United States, China, Ukraine, Russia, South Korea, Türkiye, and Belgium. His analyses go beyond the facts, providing context, identifying key actors, and explaining why defense news matters on a global scale.
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
Yemeni Houthi forces shot down a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter jet over the Marib governorate using a surface-to-air missile. The incident occurred during an intensive air campaign involving hundreds of sorties supporting ground operations. Wreckage analysis identified the aircraft as tail number 5539 from the 55th Squadron, highlighting ongoing vulnerabilities in regional air defense suppression and tactical asset survivability.
Visual evidence published by Houthi military media confirmed the destruction of the advanced F-15E-derived dual-seat strike fighter. The engagement demonstrates the persistent combat effectiveness of asymmetric air defense networks operating against modern fourth-generation multirole fighters.
Related topic: US suffers first-ever combat loss of E-3 Sentry early warning aircraft after Iran strikes Saudi airbase
The Houthis appear to have shot down a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA over Yemen’s Marib Governorate on September 16, 2026, using a surface-to-air missile that struck the fighter despite evasive maneuvers and countermeasures. (Picture source: US DoD, Houthis, X/Yuri Lyamin)
On September 16, 2026, the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah and a key component of Iran’s regional network of allied armed groups, appeared to have destroyed a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter jet over Marib Governorate in north-central Yemen during Saudi combat operations in support of Yemeni government forces. Video released by the Islamist movement includes a wreckage with Saudi markings and tail number 5539, a number associated with No. 55 Squadron at King Khalid Air Base. The 5539 was part of the F-15SR retrofit fleet, under which 68 F-15S jets were converted to the F-15SA standard, alongside 84 newly built F-15SAs, giving the RSAF a nominal Advanced Eagle force of 152 F-15SAs before subsequent attrition.
Another video of the claimed shootdown shows passive thermal tracking, missile launch, roughly 24 seconds between launch and interception, a substantial fighter maneuver, about five visible countermeasure releases, afterburner use, and final interception. Ansar Allah called the interceptor a locally manufactured surface-to-air missile but did not name it, making attribution to the Iranian AD-08 Majid or any other specific weapon premature. A 24-second flight at average velocities of 650, 700, 750, and 850 m/s corresponds respectively to missile trajectories of 15.6, 16.8, 18.0, and 20.4 km. The engagement therefore leaves three main questions: how the Houthis detected and tracked the F-15 without apparently using radar, what type of missile could sustain the observed flight time and trajectory, and why the fighter’s evasive maneuvers and countermeasures failed to prevent the missile from staying on course and hitting the aircraft.
The F-15SA retains the F-15E-derived two-seat airframe, measuring 19.45 m long, 13.05 m in wingspan and 5.64 m high, with 56.5 m² of wing area and a maximum takeoff weight of 36,740 kg. Powered by two F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofans, the F-15SA could reach a top speed of Mach 2.5+, a maximum altitude of 18,200 m, and an effective combat radius of 1,840 km on a typical strike mission, while conformal fuel tanks mounted along the fuselage increase internal mission fuel without consuming the principal wing weapon stations. Digital fly-by-wire controls allow the use of two additional outer-wing stations, increasing usable hardpoints from nine to 11 and permitting configurations of up to 12 air-to-air missiles compared to earlier Saudi F-15Ss, for a maximum external load around 13,400 kg.
Its principal sensors include the AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar and AN/AAS-42 Tiger Eyes IRST, supplemented by Link 16, JHMCS and Sniper equipment. The defensive architecture of the Saudi Advanced standard includes DEWS electronic warfare, the AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System, as well as expendable chaff and flare dispensers. The distinction between an F-15SR and a new-build F-15SA therefore matters operationally: an SR began as an F-15S and received its Advanced Eagle capabilities through retrofit, so the exact warning sensors, software standard, dispenser configuration and serviceability of 5539 cannot simply be inferred from the nominal F-15SA equipment list. As noted by the X account @elect_warf, the first phase of the engagement may have occurred outside the missile’s eventual trajectory and without a conventional radar transmission.
Ansar Allah has previously adapted Ultra-8500 electro-optical turrets, delivered to Yemen in 2008 for ground-based surveillance and missile cueing, which have thermal ranges of 20 to 30 km for an F-15-sized fighter jet. The September 16 tracking display uses a green box/reticle different from interfaces seen during earlier Ultra-8500 uses, and potentially consistent with an Iranian Sadid EO/IR sensor incorporating electro-optical, thermal, and laser-ranging systems. If the acquisition occurred at 25 km and launch at 18 km, the air defense crew had 7 km to classify and continuously track the aircraft before firing. An F-15 traveling at 250 m/s would cross that interval in 28 seconds and one traveling 300 m/s in 23.3 seconds. As thermal tracking generates no radar emission, this entire acquisition period could occur without triggering the fighter’s radar-warning equipment during this pre-launch phase.
This is the central tactical difference between the September engagement and a conventional radar-led SAM interception: the first indication inside the cockpit may occur at missile launch or during missile approach rather than when the ground crew initially detects and tracks the aircraft. The 24-second flight time also narrows the missile problem. At 650-850 m/s, the interceptor covers 15.6 to 20.4 km, but this is trajectory length rather than launch range because the F-15 itself moves 6 km at 250 m/s or 7.2 km at 300 m/s during those same 24 seconds. Target heading, missile lead, the fighter’s turn, and interceptor corrections can therefore shift the actual launch geometry by several kilometers. This duration is difficult to reconcile with the Igla, Strela-1, Strela-2, R-60, the R-73-derived Thaqib-1, or the AD-08 Majid.
Longer-range candidates include the R-27-derived Thaqib-2, Saqr/358, and Barq-1 and Barq-2, the latter credited with nominal ranges near 50 and 70 km, although range compatibility does not establish identity. The measurable requirement is a missile capable of remaining guidance-effective for roughly 24 seconds, traveling in the 16 to 20 km class and retaining sufficient terminal energy to correct against an F-15 that changed heading after launch. The fighter’s behavior during those 24 seconds is equally important because the video clearly shows that the F-15SA crew reacted before interception. It changed heading, released countermeasures roughly five times, and subsequently used afterburner before impact. Five releases do not equal five pilot decisions because expendable dispensers can execute programmed sequences, and the comparatively weak thermal signatures leave uncertainty about whether the visible cartridges were chaff, flares, or part of a mixed load.
If chaff predominated, three possibilities become relevant: the aircraft may have received an RF indication during the engagement, its automatic program may have dispensed a mixed response, or the video may simply underrepresent flare intensity. Afterburner improves acceleration but simultaneously increases infrared output, creating a disadvantage against a potential IR seeker while improving the aircraft’s ability to generate separation or impose a higher-energy terminal maneuver. The interceptor nevertheless maintained the engagement through these changes and appears to reach the forward portion of the aircraft rather than simply following the engine exhausts. That geometry does not identify the guidance method, but it shows that the missile retained sufficient control authority and tracking accuracy after the F-15 began defensive action.
The defensive chain on an F-15SR/SA contains separate sensors responding to different signatures, which means “the electronic warfare system failed” is too imprecise to explain the loss. The AN/AAR-57 CMWS detects optical signatures associated with missile launch and approach, while DEWS performs radar-warning and electronic countermeasures against RF threats. Chaff attempts to disrupt radar-guided tracking by generating additional targets, whereas flares attempt to separate an infrared seeker from the aircraft by introducing alternative heat sources. A countermeasure sequence initiated with a missile 15 km away gives the aircraft substantially more time to maneuver and force seeker corrections than one initiated after the missile has closed to 2-3 km. Passive EO/IR acquisition could remove an entire warning stage because the ground tracker may follow the aircraft from 20 to 30 km without generating any RF signal for DEWS to detect.
The next opportunity for warning would then depend on the missile itself: an optical missile-warning sensor might detect launch or approach, while the radar-warning system would become relevant only if radar guidance, illumination, or a transmitting seeker entered the engagement. To reconstruct the sequence accurately, the engagement has to be separated into detection, passive track, range determination, missile launch, onboard missile warning, possible RF warning, expendable release, aircraft maneuver, and terminal guidance. A failure at the final stage does not establish that every preceding defensive subsystem failed, particularly when the aircraft demonstrably reacted before impact. The September 2026 interception also represents a progression from earlier Saudi F-15 encounters over Yemen.
On January 8, 2018, an RSAF F-15 was engaged by a Houthi surface-to-air missile, with thermal imagery showing the fighter accelerating and releasing countermeasures before being struck or damaged; the aircraft was not confirmed destroyed. On March 21, 2018, another F-15 was attacked over Saada, and Saudi authorities acknowledged that a SAM had been fired at 3:48 p.m. local time but said the fighter returned to its base and landed safely. The March 26, 2015 F-15S loss belongs to a different category: the fighter crashed into the Gulf of Aden during the opening phase of Operation Decisive Storm, both crew members ejected, and a U.S. Air Force HH-60G recovered them, while hostile fire and technical failure remained competing explanations.
The 2026 event differs because the sequence ends with an F-15 destroyed on Yemeni territory and the crew’s fate remains unknown. Houthi air defense capabilities have also broadened since the 2018 engagements, while repeated MQ-9 shootdowns have demonstrated an ability to engage targets well beyond the low-altitude helicopter and tactical drone category. The operational issue is whether this sensor-to-shooter sequence can be repeated against Saudi aircraft flying recurring routes over Marib. Yahya Saree claimed more than 450 Saudi F-15 and Typhoon strikes during the week from Khamis Mushait and Taif against Taiz, Lahj, Al Jawf, Hajjah, Marib, Saada and Al Bayda. Repeated sorties may have allowed the Houthis’ mobile air defense teams to prepare headings, altitude bands, timing, and ingress or egress corridors for this interception.
Explore More Defense News
• Land Defense News
• Naval Defense News
• Defense Aerospace News
Written by Jérôme Brahy
Jérôme Brahy is a defense analyst and documentalist at Army Recognition. He specializes in naval modernization, aviation, drones, armored vehicles, and artillery, with a focus on strategic developments in the United States, China, Ukraine, Russia, South Korea, Türkiye, and Belgium. His analyses go beyond the facts, providing context, identifying key actors, and explaining why defense news matters on a global scale.
