F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
I'm more than convinced that the U.S. would TOTAL loss and air war against Russia, now China I think U.S. could win that.


Umm... being the aggressor in a war that takes place half way around the globe is a lot harder than just defending your country from invasion. No one can attack and successfully invade the CONUS.




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
How did you figure that, judging by the Korean War, and by how U.S. has always lied about Russian MiG-29 weakness, I'm more than convinced that the U.S. would TOTAL loss and air war against Russia, now China I think U.S. could win that.


That does not seem enough reason to believe that the USAF will in fact 'lose' such a war but i suppose you have your mind set on that now.



BTW after reading what Stellar posted even the direct U.S. Military sources, and you still say things like U.S. will win, this clearly PROOVES Americans can not analyse that they've been lid to,


He said that the USAF were superior to the Russian air force and if those two air forces were somehow 'moved' with basic support infrastructure to 'have it out' he might very well be right... I am not sure what would happen and i don't really know how i would 'prove' otherwise given what i know. As to your claims about what Americans believe they are not different from the vast majority of the worlds population who fall for as many lies. Americans diligently pay their taxes and i can see how they as a society can not comprehend how so much money can be thrown away thus leaving them as ever more vulnerable to their enemies.


BTW did you U2U Stella with the direct source that proves 95 F-22's have been built


Yes he did and while i can not vouch for the veracity i have absolutely no reason to doubt that his original claim and the source are true. I don't argue with people or 'facts' because i want to but because i disagree with and have seen information that i believe invalidates their claims.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you don't mind Stellar I'd like to take longer to respond to some of Riccioni's allegations against the F-22.


I never get to all the post's i want to address so take whatever time you require and make it accurate.


Yet it will result in a better ability to conduct missions much more effectively and in a dominant matter


Neither the B-1,B-2, F-117, did and i find it interesting that the mission requirements are being reduced to make the plane seem more efficient that what it is supposed to replace. It's just not accurate to state that such reduced numbers of planes could possible make up for the sortie ratio of far larger numbers of more efficient planes and the contractors and so called 'specialist' should stop trying to sell us these ideas if they wish to retain some credibility. .


Both are needed, which is why there are programs underway to address both situations.


Who are they supposed to fight when the USSR now supposedly only operates two dozen, or less, nuclear submarines when these LA boats were supposedly so far superior? Neither of these programs are required to fight the alleged 'axis of evil' or 'terrorism' in general and one can only wonder why they attempt to sell the sea wolf by claiming that it can land special forces troops on beaches from submerged positions offshore. If these machines are allegedly not required to fight the third world, even if that does not always turn out to be case, who are they intended to be used against?


Did I just not say that we need more F-22's? Still, having a few Raptor's and a large force of other systems is sufficient for most likely combat scenarios. It's not like the Russians or Chinese can win an air war against us either.


Well i believe you indicated that the 170 that will be bought will somehow be sufficient but you say that a large force of other planes will be required when it's not all that clear where this force will come from! I hope the JSF program turns out better but i have my doubts and fears concerning the misapplication and theft of that programs funds.




A total of 131 Raptors are currently on contract, and 101 Raptors have completed final assembly at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga. Deliveries to the Air Force total 95 F-22s so far. Raptors are delivered at a rate of approximately one every six weeks.


(For some reason I had difficulty posting the link, I have U2U'd it to you, feel free to post it.)


I got the link and it turns out the USAF may after all get the 170 F-22's they were finally reduced into accepting.



I'm told there will be a bit of fan fare when the 100th F-22 is officially delivered to the US Air Force later this year.


I don't doubt they will use every and all opportunities to spend taxpayer funds on pointless celebrations. That being said 100 aircraft may be some achievement when looking at where the program started ( 700-800) and where programs such as the F-117 ended up ( less than 60) and how many millions can a party cost any ways.



That may not be such a bad thing. It's not like the enemy felt the need to directly take us up on our design capabilities anyway.


Not sure what your trying to say here.



Come one now, lets not be facetious, moot point, but still...


Well it's a untested system if a not a untested concept but since i believe the concept were proved as good as useless decades ago the F-22 will have to stand on it's great but in no way entirely superior flight characteristics.


We seem to be (and have been) doing just fine at that even without any Raptor's or Lightning's.


Sure but should the USAF's effectiveness really be measures against the armed forces of third world nations? Do we not have plenty of examples of the USAF being put into situations were it managed to fail despite it's overwhelming 'superiority'?


Care to enlighten me about the Flanker? As for the Mig-31, being designed for pure speed is not a problem, look at the Blackbird, it did the same, only earlier.


The blackbird could not carry any weapons at all while the Mig-31 and Mig-25 can carry multiple long range missiles at mach 2.8 while pulling G's that would have ripped the Blackbird apart.


What the F-22 does on the other hand is much more revolutionary.


I have looked but i could not find anything that seems nearly revolutionary enough to result in such a massively costly plane.


Actually from what I heard it was more like ten Sherman's, still when you're outnumbered 1,000 to 50,000 it's bit different than say 100 to 500, no? Give me a Tiger and those odds any day over a Sherman.


To give you some idea of the cost a Tiger took 300 000 man hours to produce, consuming the weekly wages of 30 000 Germans in it's construction, resulting in it costing similar German resource investment as a US B-29 or navy destroyer; they were good but the cost really were extraordinary. The problem with smaller numbers is that you simply can not be everywhere at once and Sherman's were perfectly good at punishing German infantry for the absence of armored fire support four Stugs ( which could have been constructed for similar resources as single Tiger tank) could have delivered over a wider frontage. The F-22 is in my opinion a 'mistake' and i believe the USAF, and American people, would have been better served by cheaper systems that can absorb the attrition that ever more widely deployed modern air defense and DEW's will start meting out in the very near future.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Oh come on Stellar you can do better than that! You know it's THREE the Serbians claimed to shoot down. They even said one was shot down by a MiG-29, along with one "confirmed" and one probable B-2. They even claimed several B-52s.

As for the B-2 there is more than enough evidence to show that the aircraft claimed to be shot down is still flying to this day.

As for the F-117s, there was the one that was shot down, the one most commonly shown as written off due to battle damage was a landing accident nowhere even close to the combat theater, and a third that they showed pictures of was a MiG-29. However, no matter how many the total is for damaged, it's still an outstanding record for a combat platform. The aircraft has flown thousands of combat missions over the years, in many theaters, and only one has been shot down. No matter how you slice it, that's a pretty good record for any aircraft. Oh but wait, I forgot. Those were only third world countries, and the Russians and Chinese would swat them like flies.


As for it being retired, it's being retired because it's one the most maintenance intensive of all the aircraft, and the faceted shape has become obsolete. The newer technologies are more effective, and easier to maintain than the F-117 fleet is. They've already had to replace the RAM coating on the entire fleet at least once, possibly twice, after coming up with new ways to apply it that made it stealthier.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh come on Stellar you can do better than that! You know it's THREE the Serbians claimed to shoot down.


I care only so much about what they 'claimed' , especially since so few choose to believe anything but western propaganda, and try to focus on what is admitted on the NATO side. We know two were lost and that's good enough for me.


They even said one was shot down by a MiG-29, along with one "confirmed" and one probable B-2. They even claimed several B-52s.


Please provide me with a link where the Serbian government in facts claims this.


As for the B-2 there is more than enough evidence to show that the aircraft claimed to be shot down is still flying to this day.


I have seen what you sometimes consider 'enough evidence' so i'll leave it at that and disagree when i feel i can prove otherwise.


As for the F-117s, there was the one that was shot down, the one most commonly shown as written off due to battle damage was a landing accident nowhere even close to the combat theater, and a third that they showed pictures of was a MiG-29.


The second sustained enough battle damage to result in a bad landing that apparently damaged the plane beyond repair.


This event, which occurred during the Kosovo conflict on 27 March, was a major blow to the US Air Force. The aircraft was special: an F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber that should have been all but invisible to the Serbian air defences. And this certainly wasn't a fluke—a few nights later, Serb missiles damaged a second F-117.

There were several simple reasons for the loss. For example, the Serbians plugged powerful computers into their air defence system to help generate rough route tracks from the faint, whispery radar returns of the American stealth aircraft. And the missiles they fired were optically sighted and automatically detonated to avoid giving off radio signals that would reveal their positions to the bomber.

But the real clincher was the mistakes made by US planners. Night after night, their stealth planes used the same route home. Worse still, NATO mistakenly left three early warning radars intact. With these systems still active, the Serbian defences were able to plot the flights of the stealth aircraft for three nights before they finally shot an F-117 out of the sky.

www.newscientist.com...



However, no matter how many the total is for damaged, it's still an outstanding record for a combat platform.


And the USAF were so impressed that they are now retiring the entire force... The fact is that with the same support F-15's or Tornado aircraft may have been just as efficient even if a few more airframes were lost in the process.


The aircraft has flown thousands of combat missions over the years, in many theaters, and only one has been shot down.


So it's strange then that the USAF lost more F-117's in Kosovo than any other plane type? Does this fact expose your lie about the effectiveness of the F-117's or does it simply expose the reality that the USAF probably lost dozens of planes over Serbia and Kosovo?


No matter how you slice it, that's a pretty good record for any aircraft.


Sure it is but is it efficient and can you really win a war at the type of sortie rates the F-117's can manage? Do you think the USSR were afraid of the 10-15 F-117's the USAF could probably get in the air on any given day?


Oh but wait, I forgot. Those were only third world countries, and the Russians and Chinese would swat them like flies.


It's not that easy and obviously you do not counter these aircraft without substantial investments, especially for third world countries, in your armed forces. What i am mainly suggesting is that the USAF are no better off with the addition of these so called 'stealthy' aircraft and that they would have been able to win any of the wars they so far fought with no greater expenditure of men and material. Anyone who wishes to win a war without losing a few dozen pilots are fighting the war for all the wrong reasons anyways.


As for it being retired, it's being retired because it's one the most maintenance intensive of all the aircraft, and the faceted shape has become obsolete.


It was obsolete before it ever took to the skies and it's introduction added nothing to the US capacity to project power.


The newer technologies are more effective, and easier to maintain than the F-117 fleet is. They've already had to replace the RAM coating on the entire fleet at least once, possibly twice, after coming up with new ways to apply it that made it stealthier.


So while your saving the aircrew you are poisoning the as highly trained crews that must service it? Explain why this bomber still needs the same old ECM/ECCM and support aircraft the other does and why it costs so much war while not being able to do any more damage?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Just about any Serb propaganda page I have read claims that there was an F-117 shot down by a MiG-29. It's really easy to find that one.

Enough evidence for me that the "shot down" B-2 includes SEEING the aircraft with my own eyes. I have no intention of trying to prove anymore that it's still out there, because anyone who thinks it WAS shot down won't believe anyone that says different.

So now we're poisoning the ground crews by using stealth? Ok, sure. Normal handling of RAM coating is NOT dangerous. In fact the coating used on the F-117 was composed of normal products put together in a new way.

I'd answer the rest, but it ain't worth it, and I'm leaving today anyway, and probably won't read anything said after this for at least another month. So have a nice day, and I'm so glad you are here to show us the error of our ways, and where all our mistakes are.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58





As for the F-117s, there was the one that was shot down, the one most commonly shown as written off due to battle damage was a landing accident nowhere even close to the combat theater, and a third that they showed pictures of was a MiG-29. However, no matter how many the total is for damaged, it's still an outstanding record for a combat platform. The aircraft has flown thousands of combat missions over the years, in many theaters, and only one has been shot down.


Zaphod you are quoting Pentagon propanganda. There may have been at least 7 F-117A's. Lost. There was at least one lost in Panama, possibly 2 (the recovery team was down there for 3 weeks), 2 in Yugoslavia and 3 in noncombat related accidents. I am not counting the one that you correctly identified as a Mig-29.

The combat record of the F-117A is no better or no worse than any other fighter/bomber.


Just remember with any 'all purpose no purpose this is the real deal unsurpassed ultimate techonology fighter or bomber', "Tech turns on itself, low beating high".



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Zaphod you are quoting Pentagon propanganda. There may have been at least 7 F-117A's.Lost. There was at least one lost in Panama, possibly 2 (the recovery team was down there for 3 weeks),


PANAMA? They had enough space to put them on and people to man them? I didn't know Panama actually HAD air defenses.
Any chance i am going to draw some source links out of you?


2 in Yugoslavia and 3 in noncombat related accidents. I am not counting the one that you correctly identified as a Mig-29.


My research so far have revealed than when it comes to 'non-combat' they may very well not be but it's not something i can prove beside saying that the USAF seems to lose a massively larger percentage of aircraft to such accidents than the third world nations they tend to fight.


The combat record of the F-117A is no better or no worse than any other fighter/bomber.


But considering the cost and reduced efficiency i would argue that it's in fact less effective in a strategic sense.


Just remember with any 'all purpose no purpose this is the real deal unsurpassed ultimate techonology fighter or bomber', "Tech turns on itself, low beating high".



Considering all the things you have claimed , and some might find this hilarious considering the stuff i have claimed as fact, i am not sure if your helping my 'case' or not but thanks for 'supporting' my point of view.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by StellarX




They had enough space to put them on and people to man them? I didn't know Panama actually HAD air defenses.
Any chance i am going to draw some source links out of you?


Before I respond the the 2nd and 3rd sentences could you please rephrase the first? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I hope you can appreciate a little left-brain humorous thinking here...


Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
Well, according to the man responsible for the downing, they used home-made technology to shoot it down, although I kind of doubt it


"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.


...perhaps the SAMs were tweaked not to aim for the radar-signature of the plane itself, but for the 2 guys in a sitting position at 40,000 feet??




posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by citizen smith



I hope you can appreciate a little left-brain humorous thinking here...

...perhaps the SAMs were tweaked not to aim for the radar-signature of the plane itself, but for the 2 guys in a sitting position at 40,000 feet??




Left brain humor gets a special welcome. What they did was called "Watching Front Site" technique. When the F-117A's were spotted (they used the same track many days in a row because the Pentagon planners actually believed the hype that it was 'invisible' and they didn't have a high enough clearance to know that it was not) they aimed just a little ahead of where the airplanes were tracking. It took or three volleys but they finally got the hang of it.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Barrage AAA does not focus on a plane but on an area, much like what was in World War II. There were many air planes shot down with it that didn’t use any radar, and the F-117 was a victim too. The neat thing is the F-117 is obsolete and they are going to be retired.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by StellarX
Before I respond the the 2nd and 3rd sentences could you please rephrase the first? Thanks.


Panama is a quite a 'small' country and knowing that i attempted a bit of humour by suggesting they might have lacked the space to arrange enough air defenses to bring down anything as 'invisible' as the F-117.

In response to your other statement we have it from Wesley Clarke and 'others' ( including the Serbian forces) that they could in fact track the planes on radar sufficient accurately to have enabled them to acquire the planes and then bring them down by either optically or radar guided missiles. The 'barrage' claim i find very hard to believe given the relatively small warheads ( 10 -20 meter 'lethal envelope; 12 if memory serves me) employed and the number of missiles that would have been required to saturate any volume of space.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

The blackbird could not carry any weapons at all while the Mig-31 and Mig-25 can carry multiple long range missiles at mach 2.8 while pulling G's that would have ripped the Blackbird apart.

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.

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

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

[edit on 13/8/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Zaphod you are quoting Pentagon propanganda. There may have been at least 7 F-117A's. Lost. There was at least one lost in Panama, possibly 2 (the recovery team was down there for 3 weeks), 2 in Yugoslavia and 3 in noncombat related accidents.


And I take it we are not going to get any credible sources for this sensational piece of information? Pardon me but your fantastic claims on this topic and others don't really mean much without evidence.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by WestPoint23




And I take it we are not going to get any credible sources for this sensational piece of information? Pardon me but your fantastic claims on this topic and others don't really mean much without evidence. WestPoint23]



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.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Another question that crossed my mind regarding the planes' detection was "Was there an established cell-phone network in the region?" as the plane may have been detected by 'Celldar' where the signals from a series of cell-phone masts are reflected by an object and plotted by recievers





source


ATS member StealthSpy also suggests this idea in their thread Stealth Detection Systems



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
If you don't think teenagers pay attention to what Dad does you are mistaken.


People involved with the squadron that would have the necessary clearance to know such classified information would never discuss it with their teenage daughters, a clear violation of OPSEC. These people are not rookies, the F-117 the program was "black" for many years due to the professionalism of all those involved with it. Now all of a sudden they are briefing their families (or civilians) at the dinner table about matter which they have no business knowing? I doubt it.


Originally posted by johnlear
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.


At least my sources are there for everyone to see and scrutinize, they are public and accountable, yours on the other hand are not, as such they cannot be verified or taken seriously


Originally posted by johnlear
...the Pentagon would never, under any circumstances admit that any F-117A's were lost on its very first international mission...


Perhaps because none were actually lost?

As for as the F-117 downed in Serbia maybe this will be relevant. A recent television program aired over here concerning the downing of one F-16 over Serbia territory, the one piloted by Capt. O'Grady. In the program several Serbian SAM commanders (who were active at the time) were interviewed, even the one that commanded the battery which downed the F-16 in question. According to them their batteries would be placed in areas which previous observation had told them were likely flight paths for NATO aircraft. These observations varied from radar coverage to visual. Anyway, when they were fairly certain NATO fighters were in the vicinity they would activate their radar for a few seconds, enough to get all the telemetry date they needed yet not enough time to expose their location (i.e. counter attack) or force the aircraft to significantly change course. When they calculated all of the data they would focus their radar on the specific area that the aircraft ought to be at and go active again. If there was a positive contact they would launch several missiles in very quick succession and shut down again. The missiles were left to guide themselves via on-board sensors and proximity fuses. Indeed on the night that the F-16 in question was shot down three missiles were fired at them (O'Grady and his wingman), two never acquired them and continued up toward the clouds and one struck O'Grady. It is important to note that this all happened very quickly, within a matter of seconds, there was really no time to react or deploy hard and or electronic ECM. As soon O'Grady's wingman (who returned to base unharmed) spotted one the missiles visually the other struck O'Grady's F-16 just a few moments afterwards.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by WestPoint23


People involved with the squadron that would have the necessary clearance to know such classified information would never discuss it with their teenage daughters, a clear violation of OPSEC. These people are not rookies, the F-117 the program was "black" for many years due to the professionalism of all those involved with it. Now all of a sudden they are briefing their families (or civilians) at the dinner table about matter which they have no business knowing? I doubt it.



I have alway had the greatest respect for you posts WestPoint23. Your contributions have been very valuable.

Your statement "Now all of a sudden they are briefing their families (or civilians) at the dinner table about matter which they have no business knowing? I doubt it." I find fatuous, disingenuous and uninformed.

Under no circumstances would the personnel of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing conduct themselves in the manner you have suggested. Indeed.

Transfer of informaton regarding the losses in Panama were infinitely more subtle and I don't really feel like passing on my secrets of how I acquire secret and classified information.

Again, your contributions have been invaluable on ATS and they are greatly appreciated. :



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Its nice to see you discusing the Panama situation in a manner that I can follow and understand John. As for Zaph spouting Pentagon propaganda if thats what we call it, I can say I would have made the same statement because its drilled into the head of even the most deserning aviation nut like Zaph. 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? or something. Can anyone provide some good links to some info on the actions of the 9th or 9th fighter squadron it would be appreciated.

Well I found a bit on global security and its a start.


The F-117A first saw action in December 1989 during Operation Just Cause in Panama. On 20 December 1989 pilots of the two F-117As flew to Rio Hato, Panama, to drop one 2,000-pound bomb each within 150 yards of the PDF’s 6th and 7th Rifle Company barracks to stun and confuse the occupants just before Rangers of Task Force RED parachuted into the area. Upon reaching the target area, the pilots encountered high winds coming from an unanticipated direction. The lead pilot swung to the left, and dropped his payload only sixty yards away from the barracks that was supposed to be the near target of the pilot in the second aircraft. Keying on the first pilot, the second pilot dropped his bomb further to the left, up to three hundred yards away from the target that had been originally assigned to the lead pilot. Despite the error, the bombs exploded precisely where aimed and momentarily stunned the PDF troops occupying the barracks.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]





top topics
 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join