Boeing unveils the "stealthy" F-15 Silent Eagle

[nscode]

Hajduk with the upmost respect that F-117 kill was a VERY lucky shot, the odds on that happening a second time must be huge

 

...

 

They got "lucky" for a second time when another F-117 was damaged, just a few days after the first one.

[GGTharos]

It wasn't luck in either case; but the second incident seems to be something no one talks about which sucks - the details would be interesting.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

Some American sources acknowledge that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, and although returned to base, it supposedly never flew again.[40][41]

 

[40] Riccioni, Colonel Everest E. "Description of our Failing Defence Acquisition System", Project on government oversight, 8 March 2005.

[41] Nixon, Mark. "Gallant Knights, MiG-29 in Action during Allied Force." AirForces Monthly magazine, January 2002.

[GGTharos]

I don't have AFM, nor does the other link work - again, there's no details, so I'm not sure what you posted that for :P

 

No one said it didn't happen.

[Namenlos Ein]

No one said it happened. Just rumors, like I read in Russian about SR-71 damaged with SAMs during Vietnam War.

[GGTharos]

Heh, there was a rumor that a B-2 was shot down, too.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk with the upmost respect ...

I sincerely appreciate that. I see this forum as a place where we exchange opinions. Yeah sometime, discussion gets little out oh hand .... But the point is, I am not trying to tell who is right or who is wrong. Facts speak for themselves.

 

... that F-117 kill was a VERY lucky shot, the odds on that happening a second time must be huge,

As you see in the post above, it did happen more then once.

 

.... that SAM was very fortunate to have gone active when the F-117 was out of its VLO parameters.

Well, I would say that the F-117's were very fortunate that the SAM's could not be used much. F-117's had very little or no threat from SAM's and absolute zero threat from the air. So, under such circumstances, how can one conclude that stealth actually worked? BTW, UK canceled F-117 purchase after all this had happened. It could be just a coincidence ...

[GGTharos]

Yes, it is a coincidence. It coincided with the F-35 project.

 

Further ...

 

Well, I would say that the F-117's were very fortunate that the SAM's could not be used much. F-117's had very little or no threat from SAM's and absolute zero threat from the air. So, under such circumstances, how can one conclude that stealth actually worked? BTW, UK canceled F-117 purchase after all this had happened. It could be just a coincidence ...

 

If that is the case, then how can you actually conclude, from one shoot down, and one rumored hit (which we don't even know if it was from AAA, SHORAD, or a bigger SAM) that stealth doesn't work?

Isn't that like concluding that you should stop walking because you might trip on the sidewalk and break a leg?

[Groove]

GG, Stealth dont work because out of x-sorties of stealth planes one was shot down!

 

Dude, it's soo easy! Don't fight it, admit it! :D

 

That's something like: Out of x civilian flights a year, some crash, that's why flying don't work too!

Edited March 22, 2009 by Groove

[Vault]

The SA-3 has a WEZ of 35KM, the SA-3's low blow search and control radar can track targets up to 40KM giving the SA-3 a maximum 6 minute detection window against the F-117 at cruise speed, the F-117 was hit at 12KM, pretty damn impressive or pretty damn lucky for a SAM battery that spent most of the time mobile with radars off. I'll go with lucky.

 

The B-2 was rumour and nothing else. The F-117 that was "apparently" hit landed at an Italian AB and there was even a rumour of a third F-117 hit by AAA.

[GGTharos]

They weren't lucky. They knew exactly where to look for the F-117 due to leaks and unchanging flight plans. At 8nm, just about anything you ping with a radar will come back with a response. ;)

[Vault]

They weren't lucky. They knew exactly where to look for the F-117 due to leaks and unchanging flight plans. At 8nm, just about anything you ping with a radar will come back with a response. ;)

 

You're talking about the dodgy French officer and the 4 day unchanged flight plans? Yes there a factor but how do you explain the 6 minute window? They could never calculate the time of travel to within 16KM or a maximum of 6 minutes.

[hitman]

GG, Stealth dont work because out of x-sorties of stealth planes one was shot down!

 

Dude, it's soo easy! Don't fight it, admit it! :D

 

That's something like: Out of x civilian flights a year, some crash, that's why flying don't work too!

So you saying that these airliners were shot down?:huh: Its rhetorical, I know.

 

My 2c, if stealth didnt work, then how many F-117s would have been shot down in the first gulf war? Most of this "we shot down your stealth aircraft" is just bragging right BS. Id like to see it happen again.

Edited March 22, 2009 by hitman

[CE_Mikemonster]

EDIT: PS i'm saying these statements in 'marks' so we can debate that (seems to be your original point), rather than get into a bizarre journey through time and space as the debate continues along a million different subjects with no conclusion at all in the end.

 

Well I did say this to get some semblance of a straightforward discussion where I could actually learn something, but obviously the priority here for everyone is not to prove any original argument (using statistics or proven sources), but simply to bring up 1,000,000 different examples of varying credibility to support/disclaim a transient, unrelated point.

 

Hajduk I respect your knowledge, and apparently you want to prove stealth is not effective, but stick to a point and prove it, then move on. In this topic that means argue against the need of stealth on the F-15 'Silent Eagle.' If the F-117 is to be mentioned, it must be in relation to the topic.

If Tharos or anyone says something interesting but not directly related (such as a 100+/1 kill ratio), simply open up a new thread about it and we'll all discuss it there.

 

 

I hope i'm not the only one that just wants a straightforward thread.

This one is ducking and weaving and nobody's going to stick with a subject for more than two posts!

Edited March 22, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster
missed a full stop =)

[EtherealN]

Another note on effective altitude for bomb deployment would of course be how overcast the sky is and at which altitude, unless the target is hot and they're looking in infrared. So to add a further question to my previous post - how susceptible are those designators to interference from clouds?

 

The one reference I managed to find on bomb deployment altitudes was in what appeared to be declassified sections of a manual for the plane that stated "no lower than 2500 AGL".

[Groove]

Some more on-topic:

 

 

[Pilotasso]

1) F-117 stealth was designed in late 70's.

2) it worked well as a strike vanguard in the gulf war against the best hardware the russians could sell.

3)Who made the Youguslav SAM operators shut down and turn on in intervals were the good old and trusty F-16CJ's with HARM's and not F-117's with laser guided bombs.

4) F-117's were retired.

5) they were filmed departing their bases in italy and their route was calculated.

6) You will now see a new generation of stealth panes flyingh higher and faster with better standoff wapons and no compromise in aerodynamics or perfomance with faceted fuselages.

7) F-15's and F-16's have fought in numerial disavantage besides Youguslavia turkey shoot.

80-0 kill ratio in lebanon 1982 rings a bell anyone?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Pilotasso

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

3)Who made the Youguslav SAM operators shut down and turn on in intervals were the good old and trusty F-16CJ's with HARM's and not F-117's with laser guided bombs.

He, he, he ... What are you trying to say here?

[Vault]

Be sure that every time they (any plane, not just F-117s) were droping something, we could hear them. It's not like thunder you hear on air shows or takeoffs. More like a distant, constant roumbling sound. Except one time when some F-16s did get a little lower and you could hear that familiar screach. And AAA guys were sure to use that throwing everything in everything they had (the little three barel - frrrrrrr, the Praga 30mils - t t t t t t t t t t t, the huge Bofors 40s - pf pf pf) . That was the first and last time someone flew that low. Only

Also, some people were even able to identify a MiGs just by sound (hows that for IFF :D).

Silent, supprise attacs came only by cruise (and other) missiles.

 

First of all I'd like to apologise to Evil Bivol for derailing his thread.

 

NScode if you could hear the attacking aircraft why wasn't more NATO aircraft shot down? I would of thought low flying audible aircraft would of been a turkey shoot for the Serbian SAM's.

 

Try 8000.

 

GGTharos do you have a link for that information because I can't find squat. I'd like to get hold of that info. The reason why I thought that the F-117 was flying at approx 15000 - 25000 was because the pilot who was shot down in the F-117 said he thought that his ejection seat was in mode 3, mode 3 AFAIK is used when the F-117 is travelling at high altitude.

 

Another note on effective altitude for bomb deployment would of course be how overcast the sky is and at which altitude, unless the target is hot and they're looking in infrared. So to add a further question to my previous post - how susceptible are those designators to interference from clouds?

 

Good question the pilot also said he spotted the first SA-3 come out of the cloud base. The pilot had completed an attack on a surface target using a LGB just moments before he was shot down which would indicate the pilot attacked the target from above the cloudbase.

[hitman]

He, he, he ... What are you trying to say here?

Hes saying your SAM operators arent as feared as you make them out to be, hows that bite you?

[EtherealN]

Vault, while that does serve to indicate something about clouds, from my recollection of that radio clip it was not clear how much clouds there were. Technically even an 8/8 overcast would still permit delivery with a targeting designator that is very sensitive to clouds since even the 8/8 definition allows for gaps in the horizontal. (Small note: I believe the proper english terminology is different to 8/8 there, but I can't for my life recall what it was. >.< )

 

Doubt anyone would send out such a strike package during 8/8 conditions, though. :P But in a 4/8 or something like that it would definitely be feasible to count on a clear line of sight and you can still have SAMs shooting out of the clouds.

 

Gods I'd love a reference on which designators that plane used and see if it can be found on any other aircraft or pod and infer it's performance from that.

 

If nothing else, it would be neat to know for mission design. :P

[LaRata]

1) F-117 stealth was designed in late 70's.

2) it worked well as a strike vanguard in the gulf war against the best hardware the russians could sell.

3)Who made the Youguslav SAM operators shut down and turn on in intervals were the good old and trusty F-16CJ's with HARM's and not F-117's with laser guided bombs.

4) F-117's were retired.

5) they were filmed departing their bases in italy and their route was calculated.

6) You will now see a new generation of stealth panes flyingh higher and faster with better standoff wapons and no compromise in aerodynamics or perfomance with faceted fuselages.

7) F-15's and F-16's have fought in numerial disavantage besides Youguslavia turkey shoot.

80-0 kill ratio in lebanon 1982 rings a bell anyone?

 

_In 1991 Gulf War, Russia did not sell its best Weapons to Iraq. SA-2, (1950), SA-3 (1950) and SA-6 (1967) are old system at this time. Some like the SA-2 are Classified obsolete by the US Air Force manuals at this Air War... :)

 

_Other 2 x F-117 was Hit by SAM`s in the Campaign.

 

_" 5) they were filmed departing their bases in italy and their route was calculated. " This was more than NATO propaganda at this time ... :)

[Groove]

This discussion will continue ON-TOPIC from now on.

 

Thanks ;)

[nscode]

Can you please split the general aircraft hearability (:D ) to a seperate topic

[Groove]

Can you please split the general aircraft hearability (:D ) to a seperate topic

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39710