F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
is not about completely the speed, at higer levels, your minimal speed is increased, and the performance of the planes is not so fixed as most fans thinks,a plane can have a good performance in a low level, put another performance if you compare with other planes in other heights, alot depends in aerodynamics and engine performance optimal enviorements


[edit on 7-12-2005 by grunt2]




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Here is an another plane going down .


M6D

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Iksander, i feel you are slightly dodging the point here, it seems that your kinda skirting the point that it was the AWACS that should of registered the mig as a bandit, if you figure this in, it really like other members have said, just shows teh mig got the kill through blind luck, this itself says NOTHING about the MIG, hell, a spitfire could get a kill on an F-18 in the right cercumstances :p



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
“ksander, i feel you are slightly dodging the point here, it seems that your kinda skirting the point that it was the AWACS that should of registered the mig as a bandit, if you figure this in, it really like other members have said, just shows teh mig got the kill through blind luck, this itself says NOTHING about the MIG, hell, a spitfire could get a kill on an F-18 in the right circumstances”


I’m at a loss here.

What difference does it make if AWACS failed to warn the Hornet, or if the pilot failed to take evasive action?

Even If Foxbat engaged the Hornet which was then forced into crashing while performing evasive maneuver, that’s luck, yet it would still be officially counted as a kill, because it resulted from engagement. When a pilot (sniper, gunner, etc) tracks a target, successfully engages and destroys it, it’s combat resulting in victory, plain and simple. If

There are “overwhelming odds” factors.

In this situation the odds were against the MiG, yet it scored a kill. When our forces kept bringing down Iraqi MiG-29’s, they were also solid combat victories, with the overwhelming odds being on our side.

When enemy achieves a victory against overwhelming odds, it is our DUTY to examine every aspect of how it happened, and FIX it. Making up excuses and blaming it on “circumstances” or “dumb luck” etc is simply negligence and denial, and that costs lives.

Really, with all do respect, I’m done with this “luck” nonsense.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
When enemy achieves a victory against overwhelming odds, it is our DUTY to examine every aspect of how it happened, and FIX it. Making up excuses and blaming it on “circumstances” or “dumb luck” etc is simply negligence and denial, and that costs lives.

Finally something we can agree on....



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Really? I thought it was impossible for any plane with an American pilot in it to be defeated by anything?


IT IS, DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!


That F-18 pilot just wanted to see how his plane would handle a missle if he were to ever to loan it to another nations pilot!


M6D

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
luck and coicidence are not
'nonsense' as you put it, these incidences are down to incompetance on the part of so and so and so and so, nothing to do with the TECHNOLOGY itself, you seem to be trying to say that a MIG can kill a hornet, and yes you are correct, however, the context you first used it as seemed to be to backup a point that a MIG has the capability to do so out of its technology, which is clearly incorrect, as it was incompetance or blind luck as some would prefer to call it on the part of a certain AWACS controller that got the aircraft shotdown, and now considering the fact this forum is on the technology itself of the aircraft, and an AWACS controller is human......

i find enough is said :p



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
ABT forum can get exhausting. I feel forced to repeat the same things over, and over again.

intelgurl, thank you, all I can say, yet considering the post by M6D it seems to have no impact what so ever.

Can everybody see ALL the posts at the same time?

Because it gets quite only when I’m forced to single out a particular misconception and take it apart. Can we all play along?



M6D, NO! -> “'nonsense' as you put it, these incidences are down to incompetance on the part of so and so and so and so, nothing to do with the TECHNOLOGY itself, you seem to be trying to say that a MIG can kill a hornet”

As CLEARLY stated in EVERY publication on MiG-25; “The MiG-25 high altitude, high speed interceptor was initially developed to counter the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie bomber under development in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s”, and NOT agile fighters. Are you with me?

The fact is that MiG-25 weapons platform, which was designed to track a large, high speed target in conditions of heavy ECM and other interference, proved to be capable of successfully engaging a small agile target with modern ECM and other countermeasures. What the targeting system lacked in accuracy, was compensated by the sheer size of the warhead, which again was initially designed to counter a large, supersonic target.

The very fact that MiG should NOT have been allowed to get anywhere close to the Hornet, is a secondary factor of OUR failure in the environment of complete superiority, both in assets and resources.

“however, the context you first used it as seemed to be to backup a point that a MIG has the capability to do so out of its technology, which is clearly incorrect, as it was incompetance or blind luck”

Have you ever fired a gun? I don’t know about you, but with me, when I aim, squeeze the trigger and consistently put them where it counts, it’s not luck, its practice.

When the radar locates and tracks the target, calculates a firing solution and allows deployment of the weapon, when the IR sensor of the weapon successfully guides the missile close enough to the target for the proximity fuse to detonate the warhead, the blast of which forces the target to go down, it’s NOT LUCK, it’s SUCSESS of TECHNOLOGY which in this case was designed to engage a completely different type of target.

Let me try this. There is an F-15 modification designed specifically to deliver an anti-satellite missile. If out of dyer need that F-15 had to deliver its weapon on a SU-33 which is on an anti-ship run, and has done so successfully, it would immediately be considered as display of flexible weapon design and adaptive professionalism of the pilot.

The multi-functionality capabilities of Russian weapon platforms are simply unsurpassed. The Zvezda Kh-31 for example, which we have purchased for reverse engineering, is an ATS ATA multi-purpose weapon. Both active and passive configuration allow for unprecedented deployment flexibility. A single SU-33 is capable of launching an attack on ships active defenses, attack the ship itself, and simultaneously attack any present AWACS in the radius of 200km with the same weapon type all while in fire-and-forget mode. An additional SU-33 might be carrying a single ASM-MMS (Kh-4) which unfortunately is fully capable of sinking an aircraft carrier.

I certainly hope this is clear enough, because I got nothing else.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Interesting clip of B2 footage. Cannot find anything else on the web to say if this vid is actually legitimate. Well, you'll see what I mean.

youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by h1ghstrung
Interesting clip of B2 footage. Cannot find anything else on the web to say if this vid is actually legitimate. Well, you'll see what I mean.

youtube.com...


I really hope you are being sarcastic with the questions regarding that films legitimacy....



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by h1ghstrung
Interesting clip of B2 footage. Cannot find anything else on the web to say if this vid is actually legitimate. Well, you'll see what I mean.

youtube.com...


That is a obvious FAKE! No offense, but I'm suprised that you feel the need to ask that question. Air Force records will show that NO B-2's have Ever been lost!

Tim



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
but that video shows a b2 - being shot down righ over the british parliment! so it must be real!



or not



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I collected these pictures of what appears to be a crashed F-117A. Also this newspaper has a picture of what appears to be an F-117A but does not seem to be the one in the other pictures. The newspaper does not have a date, volume or number. If this was disinfo was the picture faked also? I heard that there were at least 2 F-117A's shot down at the same time but I have never been able to confirm it.










posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I cannot read the article but does it specifically say that the picture shows an F-117? Does it give details? The presence of what appears to be a "western" NATO soldier at the crash sites makes me think that picture shows something else.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by h1ghstrung
Cannot find anything else on the web to say if this vid is actually legitimate.

Air Force records will show that NO B-2's have Ever been lost!




Yeah, better check Air Force records to confirm that as a fake.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
I cannot read the article but does it specifically say that the picture shows an F-117?


Underneath the picture, you can just about make it out:



[edit on 20/6/07 by Implosion]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by WestPoint23




I cannot read the article but does it specifically say that the picture shows an F-117? Does it give details? The presence of what appears to be a "western" NATO soldier at the crash sites makes me think that picture shows something else.



The second line after the byline says F-117. It looks pretty clear to me. I will enlarge it if you like.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Im inclined to think that that photo is stock photo from one of the F-117s many crashes - that would certainly explain why theres what looks to be a US soldier standing there.

The newspaper would have scrambled to show some visual aid with the story.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by RichardPrice



Im inclined to think that that photo is stock photo from one of the F-117s many crashes - that would certainly explain why theres what looks to be a US soldier standing there. The newspaper would have scrambled to show some visual aid with the story.



Hmmmmmmm. Well it certainly isn't the Bakersfield crash, or Parks crash or the Panama crash and it certainly isn't any of the gear up accidents at Tonopah or Alamagordo and it does look to be the same type of terain which is not Nevada. And when you say 'stock photo of the F-117's many crashes' how many 'stock' photos do you know of that have been published in AW&ST? The reason I ask is I wondered what access a foreign newspaper would have to 'stock' F-117A crash photos? Thanks for the post.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I cannot read the article but does it specifically say that the picture shows an F-117? Does it give details? The presence of what appears to be a "western" NATO soldier at the crash sites makes me think that picture shows something else.


Even if it didn't say F-117, that's definitely an F-117. Nothing else has that shape to the tail or nose section.


That's 82806. That's the bird that was shot down by the Serbians.


One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani (an ethnic Hungarian, Serbian), equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile. According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Serb air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths.

rides.webshots.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58



That's 82806. That's the bird that was shot down by the Serbians.


Of course, that is 806 in the photos. But that is not 806 in the newspaper picture. 806 is upside down. The F-117A in the newspaper picture is right side up and in a different location. 806 is in a barren field. The other F-117a is on a grassy field and there is what appears to be a treeline nearby. In the 806 photo the airplane is upside down. In the newspaper photo the wreckage is right side up, note the section aft of the cockpit upright.



I remember the day it happened. The mother of one of F-117 personnel got a call and she said "I hear you lost one", and he answers "We lost 2".





top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join