Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
again, what you think that werent planes in the iraq sky in that night???, man im in a useless discussion trying to explain you that air trafic control is much more harder than in the movies...lol





posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
double

[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I am well aware of how ATC works. I'm also aware that radar doesn't magically stop at the border, and if they were capable of detecting the 117s, they would have seen them on the other side of the border, and seen them cross the border. That would have made them obviously NOT Iraqi, at which point they would have shot at them.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
with the info of the border you cant do nothing, that is only speculation, when they get in your territorie the things become hot, there is mixed info, and always the info must be confirmed, that takes time, to the other phase, in which you wait the enemy planes get into the range of your fighters or missiles, in the moment when you detect a plane dont mean that you can already down it, some friendly civilian and military planes were downed by your desperation, and the resources to down any confirmed enemy dont appears magicaly in the area, one think is the movies world and other is the real world

again isnt that you get into the air space and all the people is launching sams


anyway i dont understan how i fall in such discussion, stealth works, but only in J-X band, below that is useless


[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Right you two... agree to disagree!



Anyway, simple question.

Aren't F-117 and B-2's accompanied by HARM carrying fighter/bombers whenever possible?



[edit on 6-12-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Aren't F-117 and B-2's accompanied by HARM carrying fighter/bombers whenever possible?



Depends on mission requirements.
In general, the answer would be 'no', kilcoo316.







seekerof



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
the missions usually dont have planes scouting the 117, but usually it have paralelle support operatives like tomahawks attacks and HARM bombing, but not together with the 117 missions

[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Grunt, you seem to have alot of confidence that stealth sucks, so heres my challenge to you, go build a stealth defeating radar system and shoot us down. I'll give you 100 years to develop one of your nifty, 5 dollar long wave radar systems that can detect your under 9Ghz band garbage. Better get in your garage right now and start tinkering.

Train



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
lol, i guess that most people here have missinterpreted the facts, stealth is a plus in the design, it works, but isnt an invisibility cloack, about the "try to build a radar", well, there are actually systems in service



The SA-3 is mostly obsolete now due to its short range and easily jammed radar but despite this (and in many senses, because of this) an SA-3 system managed to shoot down an F-117 Nighthawk "Stealth Fighter" on March 27 1999 during the Kosovo War (the only recorded downing of such an aircraft). It may have been due to the use of the old, low frequency radar which allowed this coup

--------

P-15 "Flat Face" or P-15M(2) "Squat Eye" 380 kW C-band target acquisition radar (also used by the SA-6 and SA-8, range 250km/155 miles)
"Low Blow" 250 kW I/D-band tracking, fire control and guidance radar (range 40km/25 miles)
PRV-11 "Side Net" E-band height finder (also used by SA-2, SA-4 and SA-5, range 28 km/17 miles, max height 32 km/105,000 ft)



www.answers.com...


M6D

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
It seems to me grunt is still up to his old tricks about using sources that can easily be dispproven togtether with backing up wild claims with nothing but more claims

I'd personnaly find his arguments a LOT more believeable if he could acutally prove his wild claims.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow

he even spell the base that the B-2s coming from wrong.


LOL! Correcting someone elses grammar with incorrect grammar, nice example.






posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I’m new to this forum, but I just caught an interesting bit in this post. BigTrain noted that you work in the industry and share valid info. Putting apart the usual misinformed rants by enthusiastic and at times overly patriotic crowd, I would appreciate your impute.

Back in the 90’s I spent some time at Boeing facilities in Seattle, during various stages of 777 systems testing (including the two-way digital data bus). I was there when the whole rig was being burned in with out grounding against FAA regulations because the programme was running behind schedule. I did see certain elements of B-2 manufacture process, and I loved the simulators btw, LCDs of such quality still did not hit the consumer market, and were talking about a decade with change


Speaking of S300 an up, I’m interested in your take on the Soviet “soft” warheads designed to defeat small fast targets, hardened munitions and composite material aircraft.

FA and thermobarics are out of the question do to engagement speeds and ineffectiveness against hardened munitions, so I’m guessing it is not just a chemical (possibly forced vortex) based detonation. What’s your take on this?


FA and thermobarics are out of the question do to engagement speeds and ineffectiveness against hardened munitions, so I’m guessing it is not just a chemical (possibly forced vortex) based detonation. What’s your take on this?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
It seems to me grunt is still up to his old tricks about using sources that can easily be dispproven togtether with backing up wild claims with nothing but more claims
I'd personnaly find his arguments a LOT more believeable if he could acutally prove his wild claims.


Train


wow, lol, im so evil!!???


come on be serious


[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
neither ram, neither geometrics works good below 9ghz, again that is basic physics, about the expansive propieties of the em wave and the material ticknesss for a better probability of absorbsion due the wave length, so isnt so easy


The basic physics you refer to must not take into account over a decade of development in chiral polymers and frequency selective surfacing. You can talk all about thickness, absorption and wavelengths, but chiral composites are not old school RAM.
A couple of good reads on the subject are:
"Radar Cross Section Reduction using Chiral Composites"; Jose, Varadan & Varadan
"Polymer Based Electromagnetic Wave Absorbers"; Tellakula, Penn State Univ.



Originally posted by grunt2


The SA-3 is mostly obsolete now due to its short range and easily jammed radar but despite this (and in many senses, because of this) an SA-3 system managed to shoot down an F-117 Nighthawk "Stealth Fighter" on March 27 1999 during the Kosovo War ....

P-15 "Flat Face" or P-15M(2) "Squat Eye" 380 kW C-band target acquisition radar (also used by the SA-6 and SA-8, range 250km/155 miles)
"Low Blow" 250 kW I/D-band tracking, fire control and guidance radar (range 40km/25 miles)
PRV-11 "Side Net" E-band height finder (also used by SA-2, SA-4 and SA-5, range 28 km/17 miles, max height 32 km/105,000 ft)


I am also fairly confident that the SA-3 system that brought down the F-117 was an S-125 with the P-18 radar, not the P-15. (not that it matters).



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
my lady,again all your fantastic polymers were designed to counter the high spectre of the radiofequency -high freqs are absorved more easely, thats the reason of the relative high output to reach more range at such freqs-, not the lower, thats good, there are many sotisficated radar systems in which are based very heavely in high freq EM wave -like the spy1-, specially very well suitable in the new PESA and AESA radars, but there are other systems -even modern- that use lower bands

again as i always had said, stealth tech i good, but not fantastic




[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Speaking of S300 an up, I’m interested in your take on the Soviet “soft” warheads designed to defeat small fast targets, hardened munitions and composite material aircraft.

FA and thermobarics are out of the question do to engagement speeds and ineffectiveness against hardened munitions, so I’m guessing it is not just a chemical (possibly forced vortex) based detonation. What’s your take on this?


FA and thermobarics are out of the question do to engagement speeds and ineffectiveness against hardened munitions, so I’m guessing it is not just a chemical (possibly forced vortex) based detonation. What’s your take on this?

My experience is related to ISR technologies. I really have nothing informative to share about warheads and their effectiveness.
Welcome to ATS and feel free to just jump in anytime!




[edit on 12-6-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
While it is true that lower frequency radar systems are physically better suited to detect LO targets, that does not mean that they can. The lower the frequency, the worse the range and bearing resolution. Also, the lower the frequency, the the greater the minimum detection altitude becomes. And, as always, stealth doesn't equate to invisibility, just reduced detection range.

Non-U.S. radars that claim to have an effective capability against LO air targets are making claims based upon assumptions. The simple fact is that non-U.S. radar systems do not have a representative target in which to test their CLO capability. You cannot defeat stealth if you do not have a true stealth target to validate your system's performance.

The DoD has the luxury of having multiple target sets in which to test their radar systems, both older stealth technologies and the "latest and greatest". The Red Team and the Blue Team work in concert. I mean, would you trust the safety claims of an auto manufacturer who never actually crash-tests any of their own cars?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
yes there are pros and contr in the low frequency as also the high freq

but isnt so true that lf reduce minimal heigh, actually lf have some adventages in low flying targets, that is the refractive propieties on the EM wave

yes they have lower resolution, but that is solved by better software -by interference energy momentum searching- or active homming (that use HF in missiles but in ranges in which cant be countered), but anyway its resolution enough for a operative defence

[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
intelgurl

As long as we are on the same page, considering the proposed shift from asymmetrical warfare toward horizontal integration, this will still be on the topic

Naturally the only positive prevention method is to prevent deployment, but our flawed nature (short sided policies) brought us to the brink time and time again.

Considering severe limitations of Space systems in collecting signal intelligence/imagery (L. Thompson), in case of deployment mm is still the only viable interception method. em has obvious theoretical limits, and ee is a whole other can of worms. If we go there we’ll have to deal with submass, dot mass, flux density, etc. and risk of imminent outside intervention.

Thus my interest in "soft" hypersonic warheads. After all the years of "retention”, remnants of shady ghosts like sunflake, widewater and longthrow (etc) unfortunately seem to be creeping back up. The UAV “environment prepping” is concerning to say the least.

As per Sun Tzu;
“Fighting one hundred battles and winning a hundred battles in not the best. The best of the best is to subdue the enemy’s army with out fighting against it.”

True, just depends on whom are we preparing to fight.



”Non-U.S. radars that claim to have an effective capability against LO air targets are making claims based upon assumptions. The simple fact is that non-U.S. radar systems do not have a representative target in which to test their CLO capability. You cannot defeat stealth if you do not have a true stealth target to validate your system's performance.”

Nonsense, all possible theoretical/practical limits/aspects have been calculated and tested long time ago. Application is the main factor.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
“yes they have lower resolution, but that is solved by better software -by interference energy momentum searching- or active homming (that use HF in missiles but in ranges in which cant be countered), but anyway its resolution enough for a operative defence”



I already said the same here before.

I’ll put in my one last say in this whole “stealth” debate.

Matter is always in motion and is subjected to aetheric and zpr interactions. Changes in orientation of mass or its velocity = dielectric flux, electromagnetic displacement etc.

These concepts are old news from late 19th century.

Dig in:

bourabai.narod.ru...

I hope from here people can put 2 and 2 together, starting from using low frequency EM wave as a carrier for example.

So unless it’s a “Bird of Prey”, it is tracked plain and simple, what to do about it and how, that’s the question. This whole “stealth” business was a forced half-step measure implemented to reduce the unquestionable effectiveness of Soviet equipment, and make a killing for the Defense industry.

MiG-25 btw, with its “old” 50s technologies, scored a low altitude kill on F-18 by a missile designed to track bombers, all while the Hornet was beaming, dumping chaff and jamming with modern ECM.






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join