gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Because unlike over Yugoslavia, the F-117 sorties were unpredictable.wow you say other people lack logic but ur post about the downing of the F117 is absolutely wrong (thats absolutely as in completely)
it is not a statistically inevitability, places like Baghdad has some of the most dense AA concentration in the world outside of Moscow but not a single f-117s were downed there, the point is the sky is huge if as you claim the f-117 is truly completely stealthed then there is almost no way to hit it, the AA guns would have to be firing 24/7(not possible) to "spray and pray" even then the chances are low.
For what I have written here about radar and how 'stealth' works, do you really believe that I have done NOT any 'damn research' on this fluke event?also do some damn research the downing of the F-117 in serbia is very well documented,
Yes...The Serbs had sympathizers in Europe who monitored NATO bases and telephoned in whenever aircrafts sortied out.the commander used scouts which saw the F-117s take off and we with his out dated sa-2 was able to down it because
1. he knew it was coming
Actions that does NOTHING to enhance his odds of success, only his odds of survival. And you call this 'critical thinking' about this subject?2. he moved often to prevent the enemy from getting his location and taking him out
3. he switch his radar on only when he he knew the enemy was coming thus lowering his chances of being detected and taken out prior to firing a shot
Do you even know what is a 'signature'? I doubt it. As far as radar is concerned, it is possible to have two separate RCS signals that are the same in intensity at the same distance but do have distinct 'signatures'. See if you can look up why.4. the F-117 was NOT complete stealth, the radar operator of the SA-2 learn to look for the minute signatures of the F-117 thus he was able to down one.
There is no such thing as 'complete stealth'. People like you who have never turned a wrench on a prop job, let alone a jet fighter, keeps throwing out these made up terms in pretense that you know what you are talking about. Those of us who have relevant experience can barely keep up debunking these misconceptions. The word 'stealth' is not appropriate and that is why I always put the word in quotes every time I feel I have to use it.
The F-117 pilot, Dale Zelko, recalled he had to evade at least two missiles and the evasive maneuvers put him within explosive range of a third or possibly a fourth missile. That mean he was not hit by a missile, only severely damaged by the shrapnels. The Serb missile battery commander, Zoltan Dani, declined to say how he 'modified' his radar to supposedly 'detect' the F-117. For those of us who have relevant experience in the subject, especially those like myself who have handled Soviet avionics, our opinions are that Dani got lucky, nothing more. If he cannot afford to transmit his search radar for longer than one-minute, he certainly cannot turn on his track radars and search radars do not have very good target resolutions no matter how much he tried to 'modify' his junk. He cannot defy the laws of physics.
So with a combination of warning of imminent attacks and NATO's restrictive flight rules, Dani's odds of success increases. Out of 21,000 sorties over Yugoslavia and out of that figure was 4500 low altitude low speed SEAD missions, only two aircrafts were shot down, an F-117 and an F-16. For those of us who took basic statistics course, that practically screamed 'Good Luck'. Critical thinking skills would compel one to ask that if whatever 'modifications' Dani did so he could 'track' an F-117 based upon its 'signature', and do note that I placed those words in quotes to indicate dubious contexts, did he disseminate those techniques to other missile battery commanders? If he did and if those 'modifications' were supposed to work, then why not more 'non-stealth' aircrafts like the F-16 or A-10 shot down? Also, there were about 60 B-2 sorties over Yugoslavia so if those 'modifications' supposed to work so well, foreknowledge of imminent attacks would be unnecessary and at least one B-2 should have been a victim of those 'modifications', so why not even one B-2 was shot down? The answer is simple in that no one, except The Almighty Himself, can replicate positive fortune. That is why only two aircrafts were shot down and Dani just happened to get lucky with an F-117 to enhance his stature among the gullibles, which in this age of the Internet, came out to be Legions of Gullibles.
See here...The USAF does not say our 'stealth' aircrafts are undetectable. Everything is detectable by radar. The issue is how far away and how long. You need to re-read everything I wrote about basic radar principles, admitedly not very much, on this forum.but i do agree there is no need to regret developing stealth tech, it significantly lowers chances of being detected but that does mean it is undetectable..... (the titanic was unsinkable and what happened there?)
I usually try to give supporting evidences and sources to my explanations on this quite technical matter. That indicate I give considerable thoughts about my replies.so next time think about ur own posts before calling other people out on lacking thinking skills
I can settle that question right now...That the S-300 can detect a US 'stealth' aircraft. Except that by the time the S-300 can detect the 'stealth' aircraft, it will be weapons release time for the pilot. Now all you have to do is bone up on how radars works, such as what freq bands are best for long distance search, the mechanics of Track-While-Scan and other modes, why is there always a lower value on the Track figure, or other issues that involve finding any target.uh huh yes.. its about the technology and that still hasn't been up against the s-300 when it has then we will all know whether or not what they say is true until then we can discuss all we want but whether a s-300 can or cannot detect stealth craft cannot be known for sure.
thats what i've been saying, the stealth planes are not invisible, i agree they are hard to detect,, but having a small chance of being detected means it can be detected so there's nothing to rule out that a s-300 cant detect a stealth aircraft(the russians never said how it is at that anyways). i am not claim anywhere it it definitely can im just saying as i did in the beginning that i would take both claims with a grain of salt until some thing more solid comes up