F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by Canada_EH




The F-117's where fielded in Panama but I have very little info on there actions as I was under the impression that they where to attack the leader at the time forget his name my mind slipped but where called back?



Manuel Noreiga. Noriega was about to implicate Bush The First in the drug trafficking from Columbia specfically Operation Watch Tower as exposed by Col. Cutolo after he was murdered. (Cutolo knew he was going to be eliminated so he put everything in a notarized document to be released upon his murder).




posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I can't understand why you'd think he was at all uniformed, or 'fatuous'.

He makes a perfectly logical standpoint, and someone of your supposed history, Mr. Lear, should understand how classified information is held within the military superstructure.

Then to say, 'Well I don't have to tell you how I know what I know!' further disproves the reliability of any theories you have regarding the F-117.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by Iblis




Then to say, 'Well I don't have to tell you how I know what I know!' further disproves the reliability of any theories you have regarding the F-117.



Many feel as you do Iblis and I can certainly understand.

Thanks for sharing your feelings here on this thread, they are greatly appreciated.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Well lets talk about Panama first. My 2 teenage girls went to school with many of the F-117A detachment (based at Tonopah) teenage daughters in 1989. If you don't think teenagers pay attention to what Dad does you are mistaken. And if you don't think I pay attention to what my daughters have to say you are mistaken again.

With that in mind I would say that my sources for the losses in Panama are signigicantly better than yours which probably come from from Pentagon news sources.

And in case you are not getting a clear picture here let me say that the Pentagon would never, under any circumstances admit that any F-117A's were lost on its very first international mission. Never.

Thanks for your post.



I flew in Panama from just before the war until after it was over and I saw no AAA or rockets, nor was there any intel of any ground to air during our premission briefs, so I'm not sure what they had that took out the F-117 you suggest. I actually landed at Howard the day of the invasion and saw nothing. A few planes did get a bullet hole here and there from small arms but all of them were either landing or taking off since small arms are only slightly effective below 5000 feet.

F-117 should had been called B-117 since they are mainly a bomber and at the alt they drop only the bigger SA rockets could had reached them, and once again I do not think they had any large rockets.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did that was truely a golden BB



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by Xtrozero



I flew in Panama from just before the war until after it was over and I saw no AAA or rockets, nor was there any intel of any ground to air during our premission briefs, so I'm not sure what they had that took out the F-117 you suggest.


Actually I didn't say how they were lost because I don't know.


F-117 should had been called B-117 since they are mainly a bomber and at the alt they drop only the bigger SA rockets could had reached them, and once again I do not think they had any large rockets.


You are correct. For years they made us call the F-117A the "Stealth Fighter" when in fact all it was was a mini-bomber.


I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did that was truely a golden BB


As I say, I don't know how they were lost, if in fact 2 were lost. It may have been a midair. But there was definately 1 lost.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Iblis




Then to say, 'Well I don't have to tell you how I know what I know!' further disproves the reliability of any theories you have regarding the F-117.



Many feel as you do Iblis and I can certainly understand.

Thanks for sharing your feelings here on this thread, they are greatly appreciated.


Being thankful doesn't answer 'many people's' questions.

I find it amazing the complete lack of anything you can commit to any discussion save your own wild opinion.

Sad.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Being thankful doesn't answer 'many people's' questions.

I find it amazing the complete lack of anything you can commit to any discussion save your own wild opinion.

Sad.


I know you havent spent a ton of time on ATS Iblis but you are right that what John says you either have to take or leave it. very rarely will John go into mush detail regarding sources or "facts". Its something that I have come to take into account when reading his posts and info and that you should do as well but to continue to question John has proved fruitless for just about anyone on the Aviation forums. Infact this is probably the best I've seen John behave in a while.

John thanks for the bit more of info that was the name that had slipped my mind and I have seen a number of documentries on the invasion and treatment on the civlian life. Not nice stuff. As for the F-117's if any where lost I do think the fact of enemy fire is 99% false with the tech and the observations of people on the ground. To narrow this down it would take alot of work and the fact that you Mr. Lear believes that goverments can cover anything up would have a hard time taking my facts for facts.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Well actually the Blackbird flew significantly higher and faster than the Mig-25, and it had a AoA limit of 8 degrees.... It cruised very very close to that... so it would technically have an unstart or stall first.


But the Blackbird were still vulnerable to interception by either the Mig-25 or Sa-5 which is why deep overflights of the USSR did not take place after the first one went down in flames.

In fact the Mig-25 could destroy it's engine in the effort to briefly get to the same speed as the Sr-71 but that would not normally be required as the Mig-25 could actually carry and fire missiles at that speed.

Any proof that the Mig-25 could pull more than 3g's going over Mach 2.8?

Yeah:


That said, the MiG-25's published 4.5G limit (2.2G with full tanks and weapon loadout) is believed only to exist to satisfy safety regulations; the airframe is widely reported to have a slightly more-respectable 'without deformation' handling limit of 5.0-6.5G. Either way it is considerably less puny when one considers it applies throughout the Foxbat's entire speed range. How many aircraft can pull 4Gs at mach 2.5? One one occasion, during dogfight training a Foxbat was inadvertantly subject to 11.5G stress without breaking up, although the airframe had to be written off due to deformation.

The MiG-25 also used to hold a speed record of 2,319.12km/h or 1,449.45mph over a 1000km closed circuit with 1000kg and 2000kg payloads, set on March 16, 1965. These records were both beaten by a considerable margin by the SR-71 and the YF-12A respectively on July 27, 1976 and May 1, 1965. Presumably the USAF didn't see fit to bother trying for the 100km closed circuit record, which the SR-71 would have undoubtedly shattered.

everything2.com...



Oh and by the way, the F-22 requires significantly less maintainence than the F-15....


I really, REALLY doubt that but even if so i don't see how that makes it 'better' considering the massive price tag.


But I do agree with you that the USAF should design planes without such heavy use of stealth. IMO it should be a secondary design aspect... not primary.


Well if your smart enough to figure that out maybe your name is not such a misnomer.
I am all for stealth but i feel too much were compromised in the mistaken belief that surprise could be gained; not that surprise is bad thing but one must not sacrifice the ability to fight when seen before you plan to be.

In the following thread i responded to many unfounded accusations leveled at the Mig-25 and while you might not like it you will certainly be better informed for it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar

[edit on 14-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

But the Blackbird were still vulnerable to interception by either the Mig-25 or Sa-5 which is why deep overflights of the USSR did not take place after the first one went down in flames.


Come Again? No Blackbirds where lost due to enemy fire according to my knowledge


I really, REALLY doubt that but even if so i don't see how that makes it 'better' considering the massive price tag.


yes that doesn't effect price in a large way but it does effect the number of sorties that can be flowen which is huge when you have less planes in numbers. Mind you Russias planes aren't that bad to maintain I've heard... but I have heard otherwise soo not sure there.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Come Again? No Blackbirds where lost due to enemy fire according to my knowledge


Shades of Gary powers! When i earlier today briefly looked at the operational history of the Sr-71 the glaring absence of a shoot down should have set off alarm bells.
If i make these types of simpleton mistakes again be sure to grill me properly!


yes that doesn't effect price in a large way but it does effect the number of sorties that can be flowen which is huge when you have less planes in numbers.


I am just not sure how this plane is going to be easier to maintain or or matter manage higher sortie rates but they better as the JSF disaster will soon start escalating...


Mind you Russias planes aren't that bad to maintain I've heard... but I have heard otherwise soo not sure there.


They are on the whole far easier to maintain on their various foward bases but as far as my reading goes engine lives and the likes are shorter and when they mean overhaul they mean back to the factory and rebuilding to great degree. Since they apparently did not expect weaponry to last many hundreds or thousands of hours in a nuclear war environment this is quite logical and 'rebuilding' at factories does allow for extensive modifications and deep upgrades that results in more effective and less maintenance intensive systems that will put less strain on ground crews.

I may be useful to understand that most US B-52 bombers have been 'rebuilt' several times and that they are in fact quite 'new' for half a century old planes.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It would have been difficult for a Mig-25 to ever get in firing position against an SR-71, and actually it would have taken several of them coming in from differect directions and doing swarming it, with zero timing error for the Mig-25s.

One Mig-25 would never stand a chance unless the blackbird crew fell asleep



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
It would have been difficult for a Mig-25 to ever get in firing position against an SR-71,


There is no doubt about that but i am assuming that the US reluctance, they never tried as far as i know, to do deep penetration recon flights over USSR shows that they may have believed that the margin was not small enough for comfort...


and actually it would have taken several of them coming in from differect directions and doing swarming it, with zero timing error for the Mig-25s.


Well the USSR built 1500 so several they could probably spare... Why presume the 'zero timing' as if that is something that could be proved? If the Israeli's could intercept a Mig-25 with a F-15 i am not sure what prevents a Mig-25 from getting close enough to make the blackbird dodge missiles; certainly not something the SR-71 was capable of doing at mach 3.2.


One Mig-25 would never stand a chance unless the blackbird crew fell asleep


I want to respect your opinion but your not making it easy....

Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
...they never tried as far as i know, to do deep penetration recon flights over USSR...


Probably has more to do with the integrated SAM umbrella of the USSR which had proven itself. No doubt fighter intercepts might have gotten some briefing time but the largest threats were SAM's.


Originally posted by StellarX
I want to respect your opinion but your not making it easy....


Well let me try... According to Viktor Belenko (I'm sure you've heard of him)...


Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.

Link


I believe there was a US test to try and intercept the SR-71 with the F-15. As long as the SR-71 flew in a straight course and the F-15 was in a good position (i.e. not in a tail chase and not several thousands of feet under). However if the Blackbird started changing course and climbing (wile accelerating) the F-15/missile combo neither had the kinematics or the ability to re-calculate and re-target. Mind you this test was done some time ago with the avionics and weapon systems of the time. That should also be kept in mind when considering Belenko's statements from the 1970's.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


As I say, I don't know how they were lost, if in fact 2 were lost. It may have been a midair. But there was definately 1 lost.


I would believe a mid air for the flying was truely crazy then. We were all flying with no NVGs, no lights, and no TCAS it was scary having planes seperated by 1000 feet stacked up from about 5000 to 30000 feet.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I believe there was a US test to try and intercept the SR-71 with the F-15. As long as the SR-71 flew in a straight course and the F-15 was in a good position (i.e. not in a tail chase and not several thousands of feet under). However if the Blackbird started changing course and climbing (wile accelerating) the F-15/missile combo neither had the kinematics or the ability to re-calculate and re-target. Mind you this test was done some time ago with the avionics and weapon systems of the time. That should also be kept in mind when considering Belenko's statements from the 1970's.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by WestPoint23]


An air to air missile goes what Mach 7? There was a stripped down F-15 that was designed to shoot down ballistic nukes that went much faster than a SR-71, and the Mig-25 has more powerful engines than the F-15.
Also, an SR-71 cannot turn very well (takes like 3 states) for it does not have ailerons. The actual wings twist to give it some for it had they would burn up. That said, if a fighter could launch a head of it and shoot up it would have a chance to fire a mach 7 missile. It is correct that the missile would get one chance, but then an SR-71 would not be hard to hit if you had the trajectory on it.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
An air to air missile goes what Mach 7?

Hmmm.. Let's see,
the AIM-120 ASRAAM goes Mach 3.5,
the AIM-7 Sparrow goes around Mach 4,
the AIM-9 goes around Mach 3.5
the Russian R-73 (AA-11 Archer) & R-74 goes around Mach 2.5.
the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) goes a little over Mach 4
the Russian R-37 (AA-13 Arrow) reportedly can hit Mach 6 but it is still under development,
the French MICA RF & MICA IR both get up to around Mach 4,
the German IRIS-T does about Mach 3,
the Chinese PL-12 & SD-10 can hit Mach 4,
and on it goes...
No Mach 7 missiles there.



There was a stripped down F-15 that was designed to shoot down ballistic nukes that went much faster than a SR-71, and the Mig-25 has more powerful engines than the F-15.

Are you referring to the F-15 Streak Eagle? That was used as a platform for ASAT tests but AFAIK not ABM tests. Also the Streak Eagle was not as fast as the SR-71 but it did set some altitude records.

I could be wrong though, Got any links to back up the claim on the F-15's speed?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Probably has more to do with the integrated SAM umbrella of the USSR which had proven itself. No doubt fighter intercepts might have gotten some briefing time but the largest threats were SAM's.


Well i don't remember them ever sending Sr-71's close to Sa-5's and i think i know why.
Your right obviously....


Well let me try... According to Viktor Belenko (I'm sure you've heard of him)...


Sadly i have...


Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it.


Radars rarely mind looking 'up' so the height advantage was certainly not what prevented the intercept and as for the speed the Mig-25 can go to mach 2.8 at which point one of the better Russian pilots may still , on a good day, have kept control of the engines thus enabling the intercept of Sr-71. The thing i have not managed to verify is if the Mig-25 can launch it's missiles at mach 2.5-2.8 but since it was designed to intercept mach 3+ class aircraft i would be surprised to find that it could not. As far as my sources indicates Belenko could not have managed this defection without help from much higher up and i have a hard time believing that he brought the west much other than disinformation.


The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.

Link


If the Russians were willing to expend a Mig-25 or two, not a given but the engines would have been destroyed, for every Sr-71 there would soon have been non left and it's well understood that the Mig-25 could briefly reach mach 3.2 ;if that was sufficient to get it within 5-10 km's of the tail of the Sr-71 that would probably have been good enough to get that 70 kg warhead too close for comfort.


I believe there was a US test to try and intercept the SR-71 with the F-15. As long as the SR-71 flew in a straight course and the F-15 was in a good position (i.e. not in a tail chase and not several thousands of feet under). However if the Blackbird started changing course and climbing (wile accelerating) the F-15/missile combo neither had the kinematics or the ability to re-calculate and re-target.


With a two missile load the Mig-25 could also reach nearly 80 000 feet and the two minutes it could stay there might very well have been enough. As for the stripped eagles i doubt it carried any weapons but i am not one to disregard that great mission planning can result in very surprising outcomes.



Mind you this test was done some time ago with the avionics and weapon systems of the time. That should also be kept in mind when considering Belenko's statements from the 1970's.


Quite true and in my knowledge Belenko were almost always referring to 'safe' margins' and minimum capabilities when he was not outright lying. It may be interesting to note that the last admitted air to air causality the USAF suffered were against the supposed inferior non-fighter MiG-25...

Stellar

[edit on 16-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
As far as my sources indicates Belenko could not have managed this defection without help from much higher up and i have a hard time believing that he brought the west much other than disinformation.


Your prerogative, in any case the US independently tested and verified the capabilities of the Mig-25 it had in possession. Some of the information listed on the source I posted came from these trials. Still, suffice it to say that the SR-71 Blackbird managed to avoid being shot down by a fighter interceptor. Whether this was a result of great mission planning or of it's performance capabilities (or maybe both) is open to debate.


Originally posted by StellarX
It may be interesting to note that the last admitted air to air causality the USAF suffered were against the supposed inferior non-fighter MiG-25...


It may also be interesting to note that one of the last recorded air to air "kills" for the USAF occurred against a Mig-25 by a supposedly inferior platform...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Your prerogative, in any case the US independently tested and verified the capabilities of the Mig-25 it had in possession.


As far as my information goes it was never flown.


Some of the information listed on the source I posted came from these trials.


Sure some does but just how much can bear learnt about the capabilities of a plane that were not even flown at the time?


Still, suffice it to say that the SR-71 Blackbird managed to avoid being shot down by a fighter interceptor. Whether this was a result of great mission planning or of it's performance capabilities (or maybe both) is open to debate.


Well according to the 'official' record the F-15 have managed the same feat.



It may also be interesting to note that one of the last recorded air to air "kills" for the USAF occurred against a Mig-25 by a supposedly inferior platform...


True but maybe a bit of context might indicate what might have happened had the USAF had to contend with a thousand of these planes in the 1980's?


US military officials initially claimed that no American aircraft was lost in air-to-air combat during the war. However, later investigations indicated that a US Navy F/A-18 piloted by LCDR Speicher was shot down by an air-to-air missile on the first night of the war.[3] The kill was reportedly made with a R-40DT missile fired from a MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF.[4]

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight USAF F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission.[5] This may have led to the later loss of an F-15 to surface-to-air missiles, due to the lack of electronic jamming.

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, though none could reach them.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...


Given the desperate circumstances these Mig-25's were operating under i think it's fair to say that they would not have been nearly as useless , as some have suggested, when operating over friendly skies and in support of thousands of other aircraft.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Simply making an observation:

"In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight USAF F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission.[5] This may have led to the later loss of an F-15 to surface-to-air missiles, due to the lack of electronic jamming."

Anyone else see what is wrong with this?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join