Sweden says it built a Russian fighter jet killer — and stealth is totally irrelevant

[maximuswarrior]

The Swedes are losing their mind on a daily basis. Ever since losing the Indian tender the Swedes have been making one ludicrous claim after another.

 

[randomradio]

If what the Serb did worked so good, then why only one F-117 was shot down?

IIRC, an F-16 was also shot down. Which means the Serbian air defence was largely obsolete and the F-16 and F-117 incidents were one-off and in specific conditions which couldn't be replicated everywhere else. Serbian defences were also short ranged systems, so all one had to do was stay out of range until they could be destroyed.

Considering these factors, the shooting down of the F-117 can be significant.

Same with the Israeli F-16 that was shot down by an obsolete S-200 battery in Syria. The F-16 crew had become complacent and did not perform evasive manoeuvres or deploy countermeasures. Naturally, it's difficult to repeat something again and again when the SAM is wholly dependent on the enemy screwing up.

Even during Kargil War in 1999, the Pakistanis could only shoot down 1 Mi-17 and 1 Mig-21 a month after the war started, and the defences of both aircraft were overwhelmed by missiles, not to mention both aircraft had deliberately placed themselves in harm's way due to their specific situations. The Pakistanis couldn't repeat the same over the next two months. 25% of the IAF was mobilised and only 2 aircraft were shot down in 6500 sorties.

So you have to consider the circumstances around why and how the F-117 was shot down rather than just say, "Then why only one F-117 was shot down?" Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for a more sophisticated adversary to repeat this again and again.

 

[Pyara9]

IIRC, an F-16 was also shot down. Which means the Serbian air defence was largely obsolete and the F-16 and F-117 incidents were one-off and in specific conditions which couldn't be replicated everywhere else. Serbian defences were also short ranged systems, so all one had to do was stay out of range until they could be destroyed.

Considering these factors, the shooting down of the F-117 can be significant.

Same with the Israeli F-16 that was shot down by an obsolete S-200 battery in Syria. The F-16 crew had become complacent and did not perform evasive manoeuvres or deploy countermeasures. Naturally, it's difficult to repeat something again and again when the SAM is wholly dependent on the enemy screwing up.

Even during Kargil War in 1999, the Pakistanis could only shoot down 1 Mi-17 and 1 Mig-21 a month after the war started, and the defences of both aircraft were overwhelmed by missiles, not to mention both aircraft had deliberately placed themselves in harm's way due to their specific situations. The Pakistanis couldn't repeat the same over the next two months. 25% of the IAF was mobilised and only 2 aircraft were shot down in 6500 sorties.

So you have to consider the circumstances around why and how the F-117 was shot down rather than just say, "Then why only one F-117 was shot down?" Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for a more sophisticated adversary to repeat this again and again.

Are you high? We only shot down 2 planes because they crossed the border line, rest didn't. It has nothing to do with capabilities.

 

[MastanKhan]

Your remarks sound more like that of a high school kid, than someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Then again, not much is expected of those brainwashed by fantastic stories of a utopian world which does not exist.

F-117 Knighthawk was america's first generation Stealth Aircraft, being far superior to the F-16s. The fact that F-117s were a DARPA project, makes it the most advance operational aircraft in U.S inventory during the 1980s & 1990s. It remained classified, top secret until GW1. If F-16 were more advance, then it would've lead the charge from the front in bombing missions in a SAM rich environment. It was F-117s and not the F-16s, used in the opening days of Gulf War 1.

Learn to think before you talk, it's a sign of intelligence. I'm sure you know what that is, right?

Hi,

Use some common sense kid---if you have any---. You are addressing a 'professional' and telling him what the F117 is and what it is not---.

IIRC, an F-16 was also shot down. Which means the Serbian air defence was largely obsolete and the F-16 and F-117 incidents were one-off and in specific conditions which couldn't be replicated everywhere else. Serbian defences were also short ranged systems, so all one had to do was stay out of range until they could be destroyed.

Considering these factors, the shooting down of the F-117 can be significant.

Same with the Israeli F-16 that was shot down by an obsolete S-200 battery in Syria. The F-16 crew had become complacent and did not perform evasive manoeuvres or deploy countermeasures. Naturally, it's difficult to repeat something again and again when the SAM is wholly dependent on the enemy screwing up.

Even during Kargil War in 1999, the Pakistanis could only shoot down 1 Mi-17 and 1 Mig-21 a month after the war started, and the defences of both aircraft were overwhelmed by missiles, not to mention both aircraft had deliberately placed themselves in harm's way due to their specific situations. The Pakistanis couldn't repeat the same over the next two months. 25% of the IAF was mobilised and only 2 aircraft were shot down in 6500 sorties.

So you have to consider the circumstances around why and how the F-117 was shot down rather than just say, "Then why only one F-117 was shot down?" Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for a more sophisticated adversary to repeat this again and again.

Hi,

In Kargil scenario---only shoulder launched SA missiles were used---. No surface batteries were involved---. Otherwise the results would be totally different---.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The F-117 was not the 'most advance' aircraft of that time. My F-16 was more advanced in every way other than low radar observability.

The claim that the F-117 was the 'most advance' did not came from US but from sensationalist media seeking to exaggerate the impact of what the Serb did. If what the Serb did worked so good, then why only one F-117 was shot down?


You have no point.

That serb incident may have been a fluke
Otherwise tgey should have shot down every other NATO plane
Stealth or non stealth

 

[MastanKhan]

 

[Irfan Baloch]

It seems that the "West" has a fatal flaw in their supposed technological edge. Claims to stealth have been so high, the Zionist-America bet the ranch on it. Then a small nation (Serbia) manage to shoot down not just any American air force aircraft, the F-117 Knighthawk, their most advance aircraft in the 1990s, was shot down with old tech radar, Serbian enginuity and Cold War Era Surface-to-Air Missile. The same attitude was exhibited with claims of ABM Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile). Where the Zionist-Americans double-down on their shield with deployments in Japan, Romania, Poland, Alaska, Hawaii. In response, the Russian Federation developed super weapons designed to outmatch, out-class and out-smart the Zionist-American ABM System. If anyone remembers the Cold War, this was the case in every decade, between the Soviets, Zionist-America, Britain and France. Each trying to out do the other. Yet technologically they were out matched by one and the same by another.

The point I am trying to make is that the problem isn't technology, rather those nations who use "threat" as a means to justify their need for weapons. This diseased mentality stems at the ones whose ambitions have always been conquest and domination. This is inherent in colonial powers of the 17th-18th centuries. Such mentality seems to not have dissipated at all, rather evolved and refined it's "modus operandi" to broadly carry on with the same objectives. Hence it's only probable destination is global conflict and that is all which can be accredited to the Western Civilization which has been responsible for the first two World Wars. And if history is in any way teaching us anything, it shows the origin point is Europe and it's consequential british colonial off-spring, namely america, canada, australia, new zealand.



Swedes think they're the only ones who have brains, that their strategy is somehow more tactically sound. They probably have short term memory loss, because the americans have already embarked upon upgrading their F-15s to have AESA radars. Their tactical planning is suppose to employ AESA F-15s to overwhelm the adversary aircraft, conducting electronic warfare with the F-15s, while the F-22s lead the assault. The only purpose the Gripen-Es, is that of being small component of NATO, that engages the Russians. Therefore it's capabilities are to be considered as "addtional" rather than exclusive.

Any country hoping to make Gripen-E the backbone of its air force would find it largely lacking against an air force which has AEWs, EWAs, AESA fighters and heavy duty, long range BVR missiles.

One thing is for certain though, Swedes are afflicted with similar "Superiority Complex" as their american, british, dutch and french cousins.

It is fine that you engage in a debate
But what is not fine is to use unnecessary slang when other participants have differing opinion
Mind you, some posters here are military veterans, professionals with years of experience and wealth of knowledge
Read their posts again and think why they say what they say
You might learn something
Like i do

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

they can only jam a jet if they are able to detect it but sweden gripen lack capability to detect stealth fighter jets

Stealth Aircraft does not have a Klingon cloaking device.
They have a lower radar cross section, and are also detectable when they are close enough.

Traditional radars filter away small targets so they can concentrate on a few targets.
Gripen does not filter away small targets and uses massively parallel digital signal processing to track 10s of thousands of radar echoes, and reject echoes based on behaviour.
The MS20 release for Gripen C increased detection range by 150% compared to the previous version. Gripen is definitely better than most in detecting stealth aircrafts.

Sweden is quite unique in flying airborne radars using the GaN technology.

Sweden realizes electronic warfare is superior to stealth. Any SAM can destroy a stealth fighter at very long range. Stealth is good for defensive purposes on own turf. Strike capabilities is lacking.

What Sweden failed to mention is the Russian have all electronic warfare the Swedes have and then some more.

You do not know what kind of Electronic Warfare Sweden has...
I doubt You know what kind of Electronic Warfare Russia has either.

 

[Arsalan 345]

electronic warfare capability of russia is a constant headache for united states.they believe that russia has made some very sophisticated systems.it's good for saab to use ew systems but russian jets are fearsome.they don't care who is the enemy.they will use everything from air to surface missiles to ew systems.they have the best pilots.i am a fan of sergey bogdan.look how he performed this acrobatic maneuver.sweden should not consider russia as it's enemy.both countries can improve relations.saab using ew is a good start.

 

[nahtanbob]

Sweden realizes electronic warfare is superior to stealth. Any SAM can destroy a stealth fighter at very long range. Stealth is good for defensive purposes on own turf. Strike capabilities is lacking.

What Sweden failed to mention is the Russian have all electronic warfare the Swedes have and then some more.

Sweden has better access to semiconductor technology than Russia

 

[CriticalThought]

To the people trivializing Sweden's EW capability, remember that Pakistan is flying Erieye systems from Sweden. Now they better know what they are doing and have a black belt, or we are flying junk.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

China should build AI UAVs that can't be 'jammed', has its own independent GPS. Program the device and let it go.

Jam-proof direction has already been achieved by the US.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-04/replacement-gps-fits-penny

 

[CriticalThought]

Jam-proof direction has already been achieved by the US.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-04/replacement-gps-fits-penny

You wouldn't call it 'jam proof' for long distances.

It is meant to kick into gear when GPS is temporarily down or unavailable--it is not designed to replace GPS. So don't expect it to condescendingly recite driving directions to you any time soon.

 

[Yaseen1]

Stealth Aircraft does not have a Klingon cloaking device.
They have a lower radar cross section, and are also detectable when they are close enough.

Traditional radars filter away small targets so they can concentrate on a few targets.
Gripen does not filter away small targets and uses massively parallel digital signal processing to track 10s of thousands of radar echoes, and reject echoes based on behaviour.
The MS20 release for Gripen C increased detection range by 150% compared to the previous version. Gripen is definitely better than most in detecting stealth aircrafts.

Sweden is quite unique in flying airborne radars using the GaN technology.



You do not know what kind of Electronic Warfare Sweden has...
I doubt You know what kind of Electronic Warfare Russia has either.

Sweden cannot dare to down russia jet.Russia single satan 2 icbm can convert sweden to dust

 

[randomradio]

Are you high? We only shot down 2 planes because they crossed the border line, rest didn't. It has nothing to do with capabilities.

Neither aircraft crossed the LoC.

Hi,

In Kargil scenario---only shoulder launched SA missiles were used---. No surface batteries were involved---. Otherwise the results would be totally different---.

The SAMs used were more advanced than what you had on the ground at the time. And the high altitude made it even more effective since the targets could not fly as well as if they were closer to the ground.

Let's not forget how well the same Stingers were used to great effect in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.