Iran's SAM Coverage

[PeeD]

@gambit

A failed army yes but do you really believe he was just lucky to be the only SAM commander to have shoot down all three confirmed cases? Would be a huge coincidence don't you think so? All the ordinary static sites the Serbs had were impotent, but that single SAM did everything, survived unscratched and it is some kind of coincidence?

Impossible. He was just a smart, professional guy and did what the mobile SAM concept, dictates: never stay to long at one place. NATO was lucky that he was the only smart one.

Still, it remains open how much his operations degraded the full capacity of the NATO forces.

 

[AmirPatriot]

That again ?

NATO flew over 30,000 sorties and we lost only two aircrafts. That is not an air defense combat record to boast about at the bar. The only saving grace is that he got lucky with on F-117, otherwise, he is just another failed commander of a failed army.

While I do agree that such a low loss/sortie ratio makes it a failed army, I wouldn't go so far to call Danis a "failed commander" who "got lucky". He used deception, concealment and mobility to destroy aircraft highly advanced aircraft, with far more advanced technology than his SAMs. Exploiting your enemy's mistakes does not make you "lucky", it makes you smart.

 

[PeeD]

Right and imagine with what: a 1950's tech SA-3! This is the real astonishing feat.

 

[VEVAK]

About the mobile sites, there are a few "garrisons" here and there of mobile systems like the Kub (SA-6), notably in Tehran. I would expect, in the event of a conflict, that these vehicles would be driven out of their garrisons to dispersed, probably random locations, and would prepare for firing.

As for the AAA, I think SOC mentioned that he intentionally left those out since they weren't "strategic" systems which he was focusing on.



I had a quick look near Konarak airport and only saw an empty Hawk site.

In may of these sites the SAM are inside bunkers and I never said they were placed at the Airport!
Also, how did you take a look at Konarak Airport?

 

[AmirPatriot]

In may of these sites the SAM are inside bunkers

S-200 sites are never inside bunkers, believe me. I've looked at all 7 sites that SOC identified in 2009 and all of them are on launch rails in the open. The missiles are so huge you can see them easily.

Also, how did you take a look at Konarak Airport?

Google Maps.

 

[VEVAK]

S-200 sites are never inside bunkers, believe me. I've looked at all 7 sites that SOC identified in 2009 and all of them are on launch rails in the open. The missiles are so huge you can see them easily.

View attachment 415726

Google Maps.

Most of those are old well known sites installed with Russian Assistance installed when Iran's Air Force & Air Defense were one!
And by bunkered I mean protected inside buildings or bunkers like this:

But by the most part most Iranian SAM are inside bunkers & not out in the open especially the HAWK Missiles

And I just checked Google images of Chabahar area are from 2 years ago! Plus the sites aren't at the Airport anyways!

 

[AmirPatriot]

Most of those are old well known sites installed with Russian Assistance installed when Iran's Air Force & Air Defense were one!
And by bunkered I mean protected inside buildings or bunkers like this:

Come on, that's not a bunker... you can see the windows in the top right. Its a normal building they're keeping the missile in for the TV show.

ut by the most part most Iranian SAM are inside bunkers & not out in the open especially the HAWK Missiles

I've identified 16 active Hawk sites (in 2010 there were much more active ones) and many more inactive ones. They are all without exception out in the open.

I've seen on google earth though that some SA-6 (Kub) and SA-15 (Tor) sites are next to openings that lead underground. However there is no provision for firing while inside a bunker. You can very clearly see pads out in the open for the vehicles to sit while missiles are being launched, many times with vehicles actually on the pads. The bunkers are likely for storage of additional TEL/TELARs, safe retreat when a TEL/TELAR's missile load is exhausted and possibly even re-arming of the vehicles with more missiles.

 

[Blue In Green]

Come on, that's not a bunker... you can see the windows in the top right. Its a normal building they're keeping the missile in for the TV show.



I've identified 16 active Hawk sites (in 2010 there were much more active ones) and many more inactive ones. They are all without exception out in the open.

I've seen on google earth though that some SA-6 (Kub) and SA-15 (Tor) sites are next to openings that lead underground. However there is no provision for firing while inside a bunker. You can very clearly see pads out in the open for the vehicles to sit while missiles are being launched, many times with vehicles actually on the pads. The bunkers are likely for storage of additional TEL/TELARs, safe retreat when a TEL/TELAR's missile load is exhausted and possibly even re-arming of the vehicles with more missiles.

I was under the impression Iran's air space was indeed quite tight but after this I feel differently.

 

[VEVAK]

Come on, that's not a bunker... you can see the windows in the top right. Its a normal building they're keeping the missile in for the TV show.



I've identified 16 active Hawk sites (in 2010 there were much more active ones) and many more inactive ones. They are all without exception out in the open.

I've seen on google earth though that some SA-6 (Kub) and SA-15 (Tor) sites are next to openings that lead underground. However there is no provision for firing while inside a bunker. You can very clearly see pads out in the open for the vehicles to sit while missiles are being launched, many times with vehicles actually on the pads. The bunkers are likely for storage of additional TEL/TELARs, safe retreat when a TEL/TELAR's missile load is exhausted and possibly even re-arming of the vehicles with more missiles.

Believe what you want to believe! Of course Iran has a few SAM systems on guard especially in the south just so they can lock-on Aircrafts just to show that they can but the "vast majority" of Iranian SAM missiles and their TEL launchers are inside bunkers and are either well hidden & or well protected!

Just listen to what he say's at the beginning! If your enemy knows exactly where all your SAM are located then they can easily take them out or fly around them with little effort that's just a fact!
And if your SAM missiles are left unprotected your making their ability to take them out easier because they can do so with either smaller payloads or with far less expensive weapons!

Now knowing that and constantly being threatened by the U.S. do you think they'll just sit around and do nothing about it?

Especially today, if you were to leave your S-200 & HAWK missiles out in the open a small size UAV something smaller than the scan eagle can carry enough explosive to easily take out & disable an unprotected SAM missile like the HAWK or S-200's

You think Iran's Air Defense Force doesn't make a threat assessment about what types of weapons they would be facing & work towards protecting themselves to counter those threats?
It would be absurd to think that they don't especially in a country that's investing so much in developing their own Air Defense systems

So what you see on a still image on Google Earth is far from the realities on the ground!

I was under the impression Iran's air space was indeed quite tight but after this I feel differently.

Let me make you feel better!

This is a list of Air Defense weapons & equipment produce by Iran! They have invested in every layer of Air Defense Systems and radars!



Air defense weapons

• Qaem - anti-helicopter, lightweight, laser-guided missile[100][101]
• Raad - anti-helicopter system.
• Misagh-1 - copy of Chinese QW-1 Vanguard with upgrades[108]
• Misagh-2 - copy of Chinese QW-2 Vanguard[108]
• Misagh-3 - shoulder-fired missile[109]
• 23mm Anti-Aircraft Gun - Iranian version of ZU-23 which comes in one or two barrel configurations[110]
• Samavat 35mm Anti-Aircraft Guns - Copy of Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon skyguard[111]
• Sa'ir 100mm Anti-Aircraft Guns - Upgraded automatic version of KS-19 100m gun, it can detect and intercept targets automatically through radar or optical systems at low and medium altitude[112]
• Shahab Thaqeb (شهاب ثاقب) - copy of the Chinese HQ-7 (FM-80)
• SM-1 copy of RIM-66 Standard.
• Sayyad-1 / Sayyad-1A - upgraded copy of Chinese HQ-2,[113] Sayyad-1A has IR tracking.
• Sayyad-2 (Hunter II). Upgraded version of the Sayyad-1 system with higher precision, range and defensive power. It is equipped with a 200-kilogram warhead and has a speed of 1,200 meters per second. The Sayyad-1 missile defense system is composed of two-stage missiles that can target all kinds of aircraft, including bombers, at medium and high altitudes.[114]
• Fajr-8 - upgrade of S-200[115]
• Fajr-27 - advanced sea rapid fire cannon[116][117]
• Fath (victory) - the 40-millimeter naval cannon's range is 12 km and shoots 300 projectiles per minute.[118][119]
• Mersad - Iran's first advanced air defense system based on the US MIM-23 Hawk. It is capable of hitting modern aircraft flying at low and medium altitudes. The Mersad system is equipped with sophisticated radar signal processing technology, an advanced launcher, and electronic equipment for guidance and target acquisition. Mersad uses domestically manufactured Shahin missiles.[120]
• Mesbah 1 air defense system - can target and destroy fighters, helicopters, cruise missiles and other objects flying at low altitude. Mesbah 1 is equipped with a three-dimensional interception radar and an optical guidance system. Mesbah 1 can fire four thousand rounds per minute.[121][122]
• Mehrab (altar) - surface-to-air medium-range smart missile. The Mehrab missile is equipped with anti-radar and anti-jamming systems, and if the enemy tries to jam the guidance system of the missile, it immediately identifies the source of the interference and changes its course toward the source and destroys the jammer.[123]
• Raad - Air defence system with range of 50 kilometers and engagement altitude of 25 to 27 kilometers[124]
• Bavar-373 (under development). Iran's corrected version of Russia's S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which uses two or three types of missiles to confront aerial targets in different layers.[125]
• Ya Zahra - Low-altitude mobile air defense system.[126]
• Soheil - Quadruped- MANPADS missile launcher, which can detect and intercept aerial targets.[127][128]
• Herz-9 - Passive low-altitude mobile air defense system with operating range of 10 km and operating altitude of 5 km.[129][130][131]
• Talaash- A mid-range, high-altitude missile mobile air defense missile system which uses an upgraded copy of SM-1 (RIM-66) missile called Sayyad-2, in November 2013 Iran launched the production line of Sayyad-2 missile.(The whole system is still under development)[132][133][134]
• Asefeh - Asefeh is three-barrelled 23 mm Gatling gun that is reportedly capable of firing up to 900 rounds a minute, it is currently under development by IRGC ground force and will be used as a close in weapon system to defend against cruise missiles.[135]
• 3rd Khordad - missile system with a range of 75 kilometers and an altitude of 30 kilometers[136][83]
• Tabas - missile system with a range of 60 kilometers and an altitude of 30 kilometers

Radar systems[edit]
Matla-ul-fajr radar system

• BSR-1 - VHF radar.
• Matla-ul-fajr I/II radar system[60][61]
• Kashef 1&2 radars[62]
• Alvand radar[63]
• Asr radar - Asr radar is described by Iranian officials as a S band naval three-dimensional phased array radar with a range of 200 km and capable of simultaneously identifying and intercepting 100 targets at water level or above, this radar will be installed on Jamaran frigates.[64][65][66]
• Alim radar system[65][67]
• RASIT ground-surveillance radar - Iran captured a number of Iraqi radars during the 1980-1988 war, and now manufactures a reverse-engineered version carried aboard a truck[68]
• Thamen - radar system[69]
• Electro-optical/radar system[70]
• E-warfare systems[71][72]
• Sepehr - OTH radar with a range of 3,000 kilometers in radius[73][74][75]
• Najm-802 - Phased array radar system[75][76][77]
• Ghadir - The Ghadir radar system which covers areas (maximum) 1,100 km in distance and 300 km in altitude has been designed and built to identify aerial targets, radar-evading aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles as well as low-altitude satellites.[78][79][80]
• Arash - long-range radar, entered service in December 2013.[77][81]
• Ghamar (3D radar) is an Iranian native production in electronic warfare.[82]
• Qadir - three dimensional radar system that can detect and track aerial threats up to a range of 1,100 kilometers[83]
• Fat’h 14 (Conquer 14) - with a range of 600 kilometers and can detect small airborne targets at a high altitude[84]
• Me’raj 4 - ground-based long-range 3D surveillance radar system[84]
• Nazir - long-range radar system with the capability of detecting radar-evading targets[85]
• Bina[85]
• Kavosh - based on MPQ-50[61]
• Hadi[61] - based on MPQ-46
• Hafez - 3D phased array radar[61]
• Melli - with a range of 450 km[61]
• Jooya[61]
• Alvand[61]
• Tareq[61]
• Basir-110[61]
• GSR-110[61]
• Ofogh[61]
• 10th Shahrivar[61]
• Arash I/II[61]
• Mesbah[61]
• Shahab[61]
• Elm ol-Hoda[61]
• Bashir[61]
• Fath-2[61]

 

[gambit]

While I do agree that such a low loss/sortie ratio makes it a failed army, I wouldn't go so far to call Danis a "failed commander" who "got lucky". He used deception, concealment and mobility to destroy aircraft highly advanced aircraft, with far more advanced technology than his SAMs. Exploiting your enemy's mistakes does not make you "lucky", it makes you smart.

He was smart and lucky.

But here is the real deal...

There is the science and there is the tactic.

In order for a tactic to be successful, it MUST be repeatable or reproducible. If the tactic was reproducible only by Dani, what good is it for the army or the entire war, for that matter ?

The science of 'stealth' is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It was reproducible before Yugoslavia. The tactics that accompanied it, and there were many of them, were also reproducible. Not by one man but by many.

The F-117 continued to fly missions after that single loss. Now, you can criticize US that we employed more SEAD and made the F-117s flew higher. But then that criticism missed the point about science and tactics.

I will simplify as much as possible without revealing anything 'secret'...

If your radar made out two targets, a SEAD fighter and a 'stealth' bomber, with the 'stealth' bomber as the weaker radar return, if you have to focus your attention on the SEAD fighter, because he is hunting you, you just lost the battle. Since the 'stealth' bomber is the weaker radar return of 1, your radar will require more time to acquire as much radar returns ( 1+++++ ) as possible to create a tracking solution. But precisely because you were distracted by the SEAD fighter, that momentary loss of focus is all the 'stealth' bomber need to get pass you. So instead of 1+++++ you got 1++ . Your radar sees it, but could not provide a tracking solution.

Zoltan Dani got lucky. He had to fire multiple missiles. According to the F-117 pilot Dale Zelko, he had to dodge at least two missiles. That meant Dani employed the classic 'spray and pray' tactic. Whatever 'magic' Dani did to his radar, it was not reproduced by other air defense commanders. Whether he could get the info to them or not, or that he did but the procedures were too complex, is for another debate.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Article/284637/one-of-a-kind-squadron-trains-airmen-from-ground-up/

The 507th is pretty much the best, if not the only, kind of training squadron in the world. The 507th provides both science and tactics of air defense so that our airmen can create their own countermeasures against what the 507th can bring. The squadron often go on the road, providing custom training programs. They can bring their entire complement of genuine Soviet/Russian air defense radars or just one unit, depending on the host's requirement.

I have friends at Nellis who works closely with the 507th. I will not say what the squadron have in terms of hardware, but I can say this: They can replicate what Iran has in terms of freqs employs and better air defense tactics than Iran can create.

 

[Muhammed45]

Me : SA-3 detected and shot down F-117 with a simple 3D radar.
American : Oh no! no one can detect our 5th gen fighters
So how did that 50's radar detect F-117?
American : Ahhhmmmm Because it opened it's stealth weapons bay!
Well, how can a fighter fight in the battle?
@gambit
Your countryman failed to respond to this and continue this conversation. How would you finish it as an AmeriDumb?

 

[Muhammed45]

@raptor22

@AmirPatriot
I know you had a different goal of this thread but i thought this can help as an indicator of Iranian radars' overall coverage.
Kasta 2E radar:
Made in Russia. Special at detecting stealth birds :
150Km range with 6 Km altitude coverage for stealth aircratfs and 14 Km altitude for non-5th gen fighters

Nebo radar:
Made in Russia. AESA, 350 Km range and 100 Km altitude coverage. Specialized for stealth birds and electronic warfare :

Matl'a ul Fajr 1
400 Km range and 20 Km altitude coverage.
Made in Iran

Matl'a ul Fajr 2 :
Made in Iran, 480 Km range.

Kashef-1
Made in Iran, 150 Km range. similar range to Kasta but works in different band. Can detect 100 targets
Kashef-2
with 200 Km range. Can detect 1000 targets!!!

National radar
Made in Iran, 450 Km range.

Alim radar
Made in Iran 300 Km range. Specialized for detecting cruise missiles

Passive radar
Imported from Ukraine. Range up to 800 KM, specialized in detecting stealth aircrafts

Ultra-Horizon Cosmic radar
Made in Iran, 4000 km Range

Ghadir radar
Made in Iran, 1100 Km range and 300 Km altitude coverage :

 

[PeeD]

@gambit

I don't underestimate American SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Its just you that called it an art.

So I bought up the example of Danis site which survived the war unharmed. With something, a export version, 50s tech SA-3. Your performance was not sufficient against it in 1999, so how do you want to handle systems which are literally magnitudes more capable such as the 3rd Khordad?
The calculation is wrong.
Danis site was the only site that tried to emulate performances of state of the art Russian systems, which Dani knew about. He was smart enough to bring his totally outdated low performance system closer to what e.g BUK is capable of. Yes he was the only Serb SAM commander who did such things and that's why he is the commander of the only Serb SAM site who shot down all American aircraft that where shot down in the conflict (und surviving doing this unscratched).

So Dani could only dream about something like a BUK-M2 or Iranian 3rd Khordad, but his very limited emulation of such capability was sufficient for the 1999 vintage NATO force.
Now it's up to you to imagine whether US capabilities have catch up sufficiently to call their capability an art.

Just for the records:

- Danis export standard monkey SA-3 vs. national full standard 3rd Khordad

- 1950s (export degraded) state of the art vs. 1990s/2000s (full standard) state of the art in the 3rd Khordad.

- Fully compromised system with actual hardware at hand vs. something completly unknown (with unknown frequencies, ECCM etc.)

- Originally static system upgraded to limited mobility vs. full shoot and scoot >5 minute mobile 3rd Khordad

- System with single primitive guidance vs. system with 3 different independent targeting techniques.

Danis tactics were never employed by the other order obeying Serb SAM commanders. His performance and tactics were not reproduced by them, but his performance on the F-117 were reproduced on a F-16 and a Predator. Now the Iranian 3rd Khordad is such a different beast, that the job is much easier, no need to reach Danis performance for much higher effective performance (due to system performance).

If you are a professional you know that there is not spray and pray with SAMs. SAMs are much cheaper than aircraft and designed to be shot in numbers at them where necessary. Spray and pray means Dani had no location of the F-117 maybe just a very coarse one and just shooting his SA-3 up in the air and hoping something happens. Reality is that his very low performance system would have needed a certain amount of shots to achieve the necessary PK. SAMs cost a friction of a aircraft and are not designed for a 1:1 ratio.

In total, if one looks at the parameters I listed, it remains very doubtful whether Americans could have improved their 1999 performance to now be "art" like effective against such completely other kind of beasts.

The Serbs in 1999 faced a enemy that was numerically and force wise massively superior, lets call it completely "unfair". So please forgive Dani for not shooting down more than 3 NATO aircraft and his site not surviving without less scratchs.
Just 10-20 Danis (and still completely outnumbered) could have looked like that operation very different. Hence I can assure you that a serious enemy like Iran would let US SEAD art, look like anything other than an art.

 

[Hack-Hook]

He was smart and lucky.

But here is the real deal...

There is the science and there is the tactic.

In order for a tactic to be successful, it MUST be repeatable or reproducible. If the tactic was reproducible only by Dani, what good is it for the army or the entire war, for that matter ?

The science of 'stealth' is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It was reproducible before Yugoslavia. The tactics that accompanied it, and there were many of them, were also reproducible. Not by one man but by many.

The F-117 continued to fly missions after that single loss. Now, you can criticize US that we employed more SEAD and made the F-117s flew higher. But then that criticism missed the point about science and tactics.

I will simplify as much as possible without revealing anything 'secret'...

If your radar made out two targets, a SEAD fighter and a 'stealth' bomber, with the 'stealth' bomber as the weaker radar return, if you have to focus your attention on the SEAD fighter, because he is hunting you, you just lost the battle. Since the 'stealth' bomber is the weaker radar return of 1, your radar will require more time to acquire as much radar returns ( 1+++++ ) as possible to create a tracking solution. But precisely because you were distracted by the SEAD fighter, that momentary loss of focus is all the 'stealth' bomber need to get pass you. So instead of 1+++++ you got 1++ . Your radar sees it, but could not provide a tracking solution.

Zoltan Dani got lucky. He had to fire multiple missiles. According to the F-117 pilot Dale Zelko, he had to dodge at least two missiles. That meant Dani employed the classic 'spray and pray' tactic. Whatever 'magic' Dani did to his radar, it was not reproduced by other air defense commanders. Whether he could get the info to them or not, or that he did but the procedures were too complex, is for another debate.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Article/284637/one-of-a-kind-squadron-trains-airmen-from-ground-up/

The 507th is pretty much the best, if not the only, kind of training squadron in the world. The 507th provides both science and tactics of air defense so that our airmen can create their own countermeasures against what the 507th can bring. The squadron often go on the road, providing custom training programs. They can bring their entire complement of genuine Soviet/Russian air defense radars or just one unit, depending on the host's requirement.

I have friends at Nellis who works closely with the 507th. I will not say what the squadron have in terms of hardware, but I can say this: They can replicate what Iran has in terms of freqs employs and better air defense tactics than Iran can create.

A question .
Does F-117 have any missile dodging capabilities ? I always thought that airplane was not that maneuverable .

 

[gambit]

@gambit

I don't underestimate American SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Its just you that called it an art.

Judging the contents of your post -- you have.

So I bought up the example of Danis site which survived the war unharmed.

So what ? There were plenty of things that survived the war.

With something, a export version, 50s tech SA-3. Your performance was not sufficient against it in 1999, so how do you want to handle systems which are literally magnitudes more capable such as the 3rd Khordad?

Am not going to tell you what I know, even if what I know is not up to date. But you missed the point about the science and the tactics.

The science provides the tools. The tactics are HOW you are going to use the tools according to situations, which are not always the same.

You took one negative instance out of 30,000 positive ones and made an incredible extrapolation that our systems and tactics were 'insufficient'.

The calculation is wrong.

Yes, your calculus is wrong.

Danis site was the only site that tried to emulate performances of state of the art Russian systems, which Dani knew about. He was smart enough to bring his totally outdated low performance system closer to what e.g BUK is capable of. Yes he was the only Serb SAM commander who did such things and that's why he is the commander of the only Serb SAM site who shot down all American aircraft that where shot down in the conflict (und surviving doing this unscratched).

Why did he not disseminate what he did to other sites ?

Danis tactics were never employed by the other order obeying Serb SAM commanders. His performance and tactics were not reproduced by them, but his performance on the F-117 were reproduced on a F-16 and a Predator.

Yes, out of 30,000 sorties. No matter how much you want to focus on these few, you cannot escape the statistics, which does not speak well for Dani.

If you are a professional you know that there is not spray and pray with SAMs. SAMs are much cheaper than aircraft and designed to be shot in numbers at them where necessary. Spray and pray means Dani had no location of the F-117 maybe just a very coarse one and just shooting his SA-3 up in the air and hoping something happens. Reality is that his very low performance system would have needed a certain amount of shots to achieve the necessary PK. SAMs cost a friction of a aircraft and are not designed for a 1:1 ratio.

You are wrong here.

The tactic of launching multiple SAMs against a single aircraft is as old as there is anti-aircraft methods. Back then it was a lot of bullets, today it is a lot of missiles. Maybe not as much as bullets, but no one is going to launch one missile per aircraft. So yes, it was 'spray and pray'. You may not like the derogatory tone, but it is the truth.

In total, if one looks at the parameters I listed, it remains very doubtful whether Americans could have improved their 1999 performance to now be "art" like effective against such completely other kind of beasts.

You have your faith. I have mine. Plus, we have the numbers to back it up: 30,000 sorties. This includes 60-something B-2 sorties that flew directly from the US.

If what Dani did was so effective, there would have been at least one B-2 shot down.

The Serbs in 1999 faced a enemy that was numerically and force wise massively superior, lets call it completely "unfair". So please forgive Dani for not shooting down more than 3 NATO aircraft and his site not surviving without less scratchs.

He survived the war unscathed ? Good for him. Too bad for his army. We did not deploy 30,000 sorties against him. We deployed 30,000 sorties against his army. Big difference. Praising Dani will not do Iran any good.

Just 10-20 Danis (and still completely outnumbered) could have looked like that operation very different. Hence I can assure you that a serious enemy like Iran would let US SEAD art, look like anything other than an art.

Fine, let us say we lose 100 aircrafts, from the F-22 to the Apaches. But Iran lose the war. How is that better ?

A question .
Does F-117 have any missile dodging capabilities ? I always thought that airplane was not that maneuverable .

That is one of the most misunderstood character about the F-117. The F-117 was not as maneuverable as the F-16, but it was more maneuverable than expected, after all, its flight controls system came from the F-16.

The fact that you guys focused on the F-117 is revealing of your limited view. That jet is retired, not because of the single loss in Yugoslavia, but because the F-22 was already in the runway readied to replace it. The F-22 and F-35 are much more capable platforms.

Me : SA-3 detected and shot down F-117 with a simple 3D radar.
American : Oh no! no one can detect our 5th gen fighters
So how did that 50's radar detect F-117?
American : Ahhhmmmm Because it opened it's stealth weapons bay!
Well, how can a fighter fight in the battle?
@gambit
Your countryman failed to respond to this and continue this conversation. How would you finish it as an AmeriDumb?

Let me know when you are ready to debate like an adult.