S-300 vs F-117A

[Vekkinho]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure if this is the right place for a discussion like this but here I go!

 

As you can see from the subject I placed one S-300 site (excellent) and I had single F-117A (excellent) approaching, tasked with a pinpoint strike on a nearby factory. Russian A-50 AWACS (excellent) and flight of Su-30 (excellent) flying CAP were unaware of F-117A but S-300 launched single 5V55R missile that made a kill.

 

This is very strange because F-117A was cca 40km (25nm) away from S-300 site. It's RCS should be very small (if any) at this distance.

 

US pilot tried to evade incoming missile with flying a notch and a hard dive to 50m MSL but didn't use any chaff and was shot down w/o ejecting. See the pic below.

 

Any ideas of why is this happening?! I thought that F-117 is quite invincible and the only one ever shot down was by accident (shot in the dark) or by SAM commander's experience and IQ. Of course, I talk about Allied Force Operation that happened back in '99 over the skies of former Yugoslavia.

 

I recently read an interview with the Yugoslav SAM site commander that shot F-117, he's retired now but in that interview he said that the "way to do it" is quite simple and after few thoughts he came up with an idea that proved succesful.

 

I don't know much about F-117A but lack of chaff/flare dispensers and ECM jamming (like featured in LO) seems quite odd. I manage to recieve Nighthawk's RCS inside 5-6 km while flying in MiG-29 and signal isn't scrambled. However signal isn't strong enough to achieve a lock. So in terms of LO F-117A seems like a sitting duck when it's facing S-300. I never managed to get F-117A fly over it's target area if it's defended by various SAM and AAA weapons. It seems too easy to shoot it down.

 

Any thoughts?!

 

 

Cheers all!

[Breakshot]

Well, thats S-300 for ya. Those things can nail anything!

[Black_Hawk]

I'd say that it doesn't have chaff/flares because it is never meant to get into contact with AA defenses (yea, I know, a guy shot it down...) and it doesn't need a jammer because it would only give away the location of the a/c.

Think of the B-2, do you think it has a jammer/defensive stores? It doesn't.

 

The airspace in which it gets deployed will be clear of AA threats.

[EricJ]

The F-117A was never designed to have chaff/flare dispensers, mainly rely on IR and radar suppression. So basically the thought was it didn't need it in the first place. I could be wrong as I too never have been near a -117A, but seems logical from the smoothness of it's exterior.

 

As for the Yugoslavia shootdown, it was theorized that it was a combination of an SA-3 and the TAMARA radar, which was designed with anti-stealth properties, since a normal radar disgregards non-radar returns, while TAMARA turns those non-returns into a radar contact. I believe it was the Czech Republic made that, and for them to join NATO, they had to not sell them on the open market. More than likely Russia got a hold of one, or however many by whatever means. Supposedly the S-300s marketing adverts is that it can shoot down cruise missiles, so maybe it's skeptical given real world knowledge (or lack of), but that's probably why they can splash F-117s in LOMAC.

 

And the only way to get the S-300 is to fly below 25m and get within it's 1.5km minimum range ;), or fly real high and dive on top of it.

[GGTharos]

I'd say that it doesn't have chaff/flares because it is never meant to get into contact with AA defenses (yea, I know, a guy shot it down...) and it doesn't need a jammer because it would only give away the location of the a/c.

Think of the B-2, do you think it has a jammer/defensive stores? It doesn't.

 

The airspace in which it gets deployed will be clear of AA threats.

 

Wrong, those aircraft -do- have defensive measures. Stealth is layer #1 in defense, but in penetration missions, you're bound to overfly or dowright attack heavily defended targets.

[GGTharos]

25nm is not entirely unreasonable for detection (might be unreasonable to track it) of an F-117 by a system as powerful as the S300 - however it should have lost it when it dove below the radar horizon.

[Black_Hawk]

Ok, I expressed myself wrong. What I meant was that it doesn't have -regular- countermeasures and that the logistic behind the mission planning is to avoid any direct contact with threats that -could- harm the a/c...

[Vekkinho]

it was theorized that it was a combination of an SA-3 and the TAMARA radar

 

Well it's a good, sweet theory but it's just a propaganda rap. Real factor that downed this Nighthawk was human factor.

 

One obvious mistake that US pilot made was weapons bay testing. Each and every F-117A has to perform check of those parts if pilot intends to launch GBU's. This guy did it too late and over SAM controlled airspace.

 

With open bay, plane's RCS is increased and radar returns are present. Pilot should have tested bays while over Adriatic, not over semi-active SAM site...Serbs had visual on that plane and their radio amateurs informed all nearby SAM and AAA sites of it's presence and aproximate heading. Radars and SAM sites weren't active all the time, Serbs used to turn them on only in occasions such as that (when they had visual on AC) and Radar image was frozen, plane's vector was determined shortly. SAM commander ordered a launch of 2 missiles (he didn't say what type of SAM he was operating) and proximity heads made damage to F-117A that crashed few moments later. There was no direct hit.

 

Entire SAM site was relocated as soon as this happened, commander was afraid of retaliating SEAD strike.

 

The other thing that might "add" to Nighthawk's RCS was high humidity in the air that night that made a plane radar-visible.

 

But let's get back to LO, ED seem heavy biased towards S-300 with those capabilities!!!

[Vekkinho]

Ok, I expressed myself wrong. What I meant was that it doesn't have -regular- countermeasures and that the logistic behind the mission planning is to avoid any direct contact with threats that -could- harm the a/c...

 

Quite contrary. F-117A is a "hot zone" penetrator designed to engage strategic sites (bunkers, factories, ammo dumps) with a pin-point accuracy, using GBUs. You can't expect those targets to remain undefended.

 

It's main advantage is to stay "cloaked" throughout it's flight. Remember, it has engine nozzles facing upwards, away from IR sensors and airframe that's dispersing radar rays. It's quite strange to leave it Chaff/Flare unequipped!

 

On the other hand, B-2 "Spirits" are Strategic Bombers that don't go deep and low inside hostile airspace. B-2 launch their weapons far away from threats and are escorted by many ECM Growlers, Prowlers and similar planes. In entire matrix of radar blips and blops of those ECM escort planes you can hide entire Zeppelin!

[D-Scythe]

Ok, I expressed myself wrong. What I meant was that it doesn't have -regular- countermeasures and that the logistic behind the mission planning is to avoid any direct contact with threats that -could- harm the a/c...

 

What's the difference between "regular" counter-measures and "irregular" counter-measures?

 

There is no reason for stealth aircraft not to be equipped with chaffs, flares and ECM. They don't give away *anything* unless they're deployed, so they're *not* deployed until the aircraft is detected.

 

Once the enemy knows you're there, the pilot can go wild with his defensive toys.

[Ardillita]

I don´t know if anybody saw it, but there is a discovery channel presentation where you can perfectly see a f117 realeasing flares

[EricJ]

lol apparently I havent :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

It is to be logically assumed that the F-117A carries an ECM system, but there is not really any confirmation or denial of that, AFAIK. Chaff and flares, OTOH, I'm not sure that it carries them. Yes they are only highly visible when deployed, but the dispensers require holes in the exterior of the aircraft. These holes increase RCS significantly. They might be carried in the weapons bay, but I'm pretty sure they're not on the exterior of the airframe.

 

About the flares that were seen on the Discovery channel...what color were they? If they were green, those weren't flares. ;)

[GGTharos]

Aaaaa ... what?

 

The B-2 is built to penetrate Soviet airspace and nuke things. It goes places where stand-off jammer aircraft don't have the fuel to go ... and yes it has 'regular' countermeasures.

 

The only 'irregular' counter-measures on stealth aircraft is their stealth.

 

Also the B-2 drops gravity bombs, so what kinda stand off stuff are you talking about?

 

Quite contrary. F-117A is a "hot zone" penetrator designed to engage strategic sites (bunkers, factories, ammo dumps) with a pin-point accuracy, using GBUs. You can't expect those targets to remain undefended.

 

It's main advantage is to stay "cloaked" throughout it's flight. Remember, it has engine nozzles facing upwards, away from IR sensors and airframe that's dispersing radar rays. It's quite strange to leave it Chaff/Flare unequipped!

 

On the other hand, B-2 "Spirits" are Strategic Bombers that don't go deep and low inside hostile airspace. B-2 launch their weapons far away from threats and are escorted by many ECM Growlers, Prowlers and similar planes. In entire matrix of radar blips and blops of those ECM escort planes you can hide entire Zeppelin!

[GGTharos]

Not sure where you got this idea, but account from military personnel indicate that the problem was not the pilot - the problem was the constantly flown route which may or may not have been leaked - the SAM commander brought in a relative long-wavelength radar, confirmed the F-117's presence in the vicinity and completed his attack with either ballistic or EOS supplemented SACLOS fire.

 

There's no 'theory' there. ;)

 

The cycle time of the bomb bay is very short - so short that even if you were to detect the aircraft, you'd lose it on the next sweep and you might reject it as a spurious contact which does happen.

 

The SAM used, incidentally, was an SA-3.

 

And where do you get this interesting humidity thingamabop? ;) Humidity also impairs radar as well (only a little, but it does)

 

Well it's a good, sweet theory but it's just a propaganda rap. Real factor that downed this Nighthawk was human factor.

 

One obvious mistake that US pilot made was weapons bay testing. Each and every F-117A has to perform check of those parts if pilot intends to launch GBU's. This guy did it too late and over SAM controlled airspace.

 

With open bay, plane's RCS is increased and radar returns are present. Pilot should have tested bays while over Adriatic, not over semi-active SAM site...Serbs had visual on that plane and their radio amateurs informed all nearby SAM and AAA sites of it's presence and aproximate heading. Radars and SAM sites weren't active all the time, Serbs used to turn them on only in occasions such as that (when they had visual on AC) and Radar image was frozen, plane's vector was determined shortly. SAM commander ordered a launch of 2 missiles (he didn't say what type of SAM he was operating) and proximity heads made damage to F-117A that crashed few moments later. There was no direct hit.

 

Entire SAM site was relocated as soon as this happened, commander was afraid of retaliating SEAD strike.

 

The other thing that might "add" to Nighthawk's RCS was high humidity in the air that night that made a plane radar-visible.

 

But let's get back to LO, ED seem heavy biased towards S-300 with those capabilities!!!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup, humidity degrades radar performance. :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

Its important to notice while any low observable aircraft are extremely hard to pick up by anything, its also true that it will still do its best to avoid flying too close to a dish. If its powerfull enough it can burn right through the graphite skin and get its internal metal framework reflected back. That and wrong tactics can leand even the F-117 into the wolfs mouth. I dont know the figures but they should be quite low for such a burn through, flying high could solve it, as well as flying between radar sources, never directly over one.

[Vekkinho]

Not sure where you got this idea

Well, there's a part of the interview with SAM commander Zoltan Dani here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

 

and I saw entire interview (cca 45 min) with him on one of Serbian TV channels where he said that US warplanes flew constant route day after day (isn't that a pilot's mistake) and on the fourth day of Operation Allied Force he moved his entire SAM battery to ideal firing position.

 

It would be like me telling the same joke every morning...someone would surely shut me up soon!

 

Of course, he didn't mention anything on TAMARA (it might be classified to talk about it) but he said that he ordered launch of two modernized missiles that use electomagnetic pulses. He also said that from the first day they had Nighthawks radar visible throughout entire radar range but they didn't dare to engage because lock wasn't constant and solution for missile was poor. With NATO SEAD packages flying around, shots like that aren't advisable for your own sake. Nighthawks constantly crossed their detection areas and on that night they moved their battery right under previousely determined ingress route. He also said that none of the missiles made a direct hit but they used proximity fusing, and a nearby explosion made a plane uncontrolable.

 

As of B-2s, they were used as well but none of them flew over Balkans, especially below Angels 15. They used to launch cruise missiles over Italy and Hungary and would turn away afterwards. I know it was built for penetrating Russia's northern borders but did it ever happen?!!

 

P.S.

Pilotasso I just saw your reply (it wasn't there when I started writing this one) but like you said flying low led to those circumstances. Isn't that a human factor again?!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, there's a part of the interview with SAM commander Zoltan Dani here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

 

and I saw entire interview (cca 45 min) with him on one of Serbian TV channels where he said that US warplanes flew constant route day after day (isn't that a pilot's mistake) and on the fourth day of Operation Allied Force he moved his entire SAM battery to ideal firing position.

 

It would be like me telling the same joke every morning...someone would surely shut me up soon!

 

Of course, he didn't mention anything on TAMARA (it might be classified to talk about it) but he said that he ordered launch of two modernized missiles that use electomagnetic pulses. He also said that from the first day they had Nighthawks radar visible throughout entire radar range but they didn't dare to engage because lock wasn't constant and solution for missile was poor. With NATO SEAD packages flying around, shots like that aren't advisable for your own sake. Nighthawks constantly crossed their detection areas and on that night they moved their battery right under previousely determined ingress route. He also said that none of the missiles made a direct hit but they used proximity fusing, and a nearby explosion made a plane uncontrolable.

 

As of B-2s, they were used as well but none of them flew over Balkans, especially below Angels 15. They used to launch cruise missiles over Italy and Hungary and would turn away afterwards. I know it was built for penetrating Russia's northern borders but did it ever happen?!!

 

P.S.

Pilotasso I just saw your reply (it wasn't there when I started writing this one) but like you said flying low led to those circumstances. Isn't that a human factor again?!

 

In that type of conflict, no, flying the same route day after day was not a pilot's mistake. He had no choice but to fly the routes given to him by NATO commanders. As Mr. Dani said toward the end of that article, NATO acted like amateurs in that conflict...there were too many people involved that didn't have the first clue about LO technology or how to use it properly. BTW...it wasn't an electromagnetic pulse he mentioned (which is something usually only associated with a HUGE transmitter or the airburst of a nuclear device ;) ), he said "electromagnetic waves", which is pretty vague, since it could mean anything from radar down to the light entering their Mk 1 eyeballs from optical sensors at the SAM site. :)

[GGTharos]

(isn't that a pilot's mistake)

 

Planner's mistake, stemming from political issues. Once the two F-117's were hit, USAF said 'screw this', told NATO they're gonna change the routes and not tell them what they're doing and that's that.

From there on, the only evidence of F-117's flying was the destruction they caused.

 

It would be like me telling the same joke every morning...someone would surely shut me up soon!

 

Precicely!

 

 

Of course, he didn't mention anything on TAMARA (it might be classified to talk about it)

 

TAMARA is irrelevant here. He used the NEVA radar.

 

but he said that he ordered launch of two modernized missiles that use electomagnetic pulses.

 

Nope, what was -really- saying is that he had made some modifications tot he radio fuzes. He basically said nothing about nothing in this part sadly - you can discard it entirely because it isn't very meaningful (not enough info about anything)

 

He also said that from the first day they had Nighthawks radar visible throughout entire radar range but they didn't dare to engage because lock wasn't constant and solution for missile was poor.

 

I'll call bull on the first statement - but I don't doubt they saw or even tracked an F-117 here and there for a short time, esp. with the same routes being flown again and again. The last statement is exactly what stealth is all about. It works likes this:

 

1. ha! Can't see me (or I show up for a sec and you think I'm a spurious contact)

2. ha! You see me, but you can't guide your weapons to me.

 

Remember, stealth does defeat DETECTION alone. Even IF detection occurs, it can defeat tracking, and it can defeat the missile seeker. People don't realize that stealth is really -not- hyped. It really messes up the 'front line' of defenses.

 

With NATO SEAD packages flying around, shots like that aren't advisable for your own sake. Nighthawks constantly crossed their detection areas and on that night they moved their battery right under previousely determined ingress route. He also said that none of the missiles made a direct hit but they used proximity fusing, and a nearby explosion made a plane uncontrolable.

 

Correct. The SA-3 is not particularely accurate, but the warhead is huge. They may have not even used prox-fusing but command detonation.

They basically used their missiles like flak.

 

As of B-2s, they were used as well but none of them flew over Balkans, especially below Angels 15. They used to launch cruise missiles over Italy and Hungary and would turn away afterwards. I know it was built for penetrating Russia's northern borders but did it ever happen?!!

 

No, it never happened, but that's not what they were built for. I don'tr eally think any B2's were used at all in the conflict we're talking about, but I'm not sure. Lastly, B2's do -not- carry cruise missiles, ONLY gravity bombs plus now the new JSOWs/JDAMs which do give them some stand-off capability. B-52's are the only US bombers that carry cruise missiles.

 

P.S.

Pilotasso I just saw your reply (it wasn't there when I started writing this one) but like you said flying low led to those circumstances. Isn't that a human factor again?!

 

 

Nope, it's a mission factor. Lower altitude flight = lessened detection. There's 'happy medium' that you have to satisfy, ie. flying as low as you can while staying out of small arms fire range, and high enough that even if you overfly someone with an Igla, by the time he figures out where you are, it's too late to shoot.

[Groove]

My 10000000 post about the glory yugoslavian shotdown of the evil f-117:

 

1st: A french officer (read yugo spy) told the russians / yugos WHERE they should look in the sky and WHEN.

 

2nd: yugos triangulated the positions of the F-117 using three radars positioned in the exact spot where the F-117 was coming

 

3rd: a yugoslavian fighter made visual contact after being directed to the postion

 

4th: dancing farmers on f-117 parts on CNN

[GGTharos]

My 10000000 post about the glory yugoslavian shotdown of the evil f-117:

 

1st: A french officer (read yugo spy) told the russians / yugos WHERE they should look in the sky and WHEN.

 

Someone sure did, that much we know.

 

2nd: yugos triangulated the positions of the F-117 using three radars positioned in the exact spot where the F-117 was coming

 

There was one radar, no triangulation necessary ;)

 

3rd: a yugoslavian fighter made visual contact after being directed to the postion

 

No it didn't. There were no enemy fighters in the area. That is a fabrication, end of story. The shot was made by a SAM.

 

4th: dancing farmers on f-117 parts on CNN

 

 

Yup :D

[suntrace1]

Yes, it's that simple to shot ''an invisible bomber'' down, all you need is a radar, time and coordinates to shoot at and the missile will do the rest. C'mon, do you really believe that fairytale? (rhetorical)

[GGTharos]

Whoever said they're invisible? You get it close enough and blast it with radar energy, you WILL get a return. Stealth reduces your signature, it does not eliminate it completely.

 

Radar detection is strictly a function of energy reflected by the target and its SNR. At some range the return overcomes the SNR and can be detected, and even tracked. Once you're tracked, you can be sure you'll be fired on.

 

Secondly, Russian SAMs have optical backups to their radar guidance, thus allowing you to attack enemy aircraft in heavy jamming environments which are preventing your radars from guiding the missiles or ... when the target is stealth. Just so long as it is close enough. 'Close enough' can easily be as far as 25-30km depending on the radar (closer for optical).

 

I suggest you review the radar equation for a very basic calculation of detection range.

[D-Scythe]

Lastly, B2's do -not- carry cruise missiles, ONLY gravity bombs plus now the new JSOWs/JDAMs which do give them some stand-off capability. B-52's are the only US bombers that carry cruise missiles.

 

One hundred and ten percent correct (JASSM excluded, but that's not even in service yet).