Story behind F-117 shoot down

Discussion in 'Military History' started by jakojako777, Dec 3, 2009.

  1. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    Yes, great achievement concerning that it
    was old SAM ((SA-3) entered in service1961)
    and old radar that they had used for taking down F-117A
    Officers name is Colonel Dani Zoltan.

    You know his son?!? WOW! :)
    I don't know how you managed to do that !?
    It is probably be cause you live somewhere in Europe I imagine......

    Yeah, funny thing is that Americans can't swallow that even today.
    You can't imagine to which extent of excuses or explanations they would go just to minimize achievement !
    You can read them on youtube and they go from "pure luck" to "they were informed about exact hour and bomb bay was opened " etc.....
    Pathetic...
    I hate when people can't take blow but only want to be superior all the time...

    There was over 1000 NATO planes bombing from very high altitude be cause they were affraid of practically non existing air defenses!
    That is why they have killed only civilians during those bombings and they have destroyed not so much equipment.
    But they have left us 10 tons of depleted uranium on the ground todey
    Be cause they have used it against our tanks so people get cancer and leukemia just like in Iraq these days.....
     
  2.  
  3. AJSINGH

    AJSINGH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    hyderabad
    it is long story how i know Colonel Dani Zoltan son anyways the point was yankee stealth plane vulnerable to old soviet sam system partly the same reason why russians dont believe in stealth however they do now .after you people shoot down F-117 ,USAF retired those aircrft from active service and when i asked to one of the USAF pilot in aero india 2007 airshow ,he said that F-117 was old and have did not have much payload capacity .yankee also supported our enemy country with weapons ( pakistan ) so yeh i also do not like yankees their forgein policy is very shaky ( at one point they willl show support and the next momnet they are comming to attack you with weapons or international sanction ) even in iraq war 2 ,if iraq air defence system was working at 50% effeciency yankee would not have dared to fly any of their combat aircraft ,they would use expensive B-2 bombers ( fly from america all the way to iraq )
     
  4. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40


    Yeah, thanks AJSINGH on all your comments and explanations.:goodstuff:
    I'm not military guy so I always like to learn something.
    I just hope that India will be careful not to spoil cooperation with Russia on account with this Yanke DOUBLE flirting
    with China in G2 (Pakis also money) and India just to
    "contain" development of both future super powers ..
    Countries that will make competition to USA so they try to turn them against each other!
    I hope that India is wiser than that to play some Yankee short term interests.
    Lately even their closest allays Israel can't really trust them in everything they do let alone others !

    Perhaps it's better if we cut short this exchnge not to upset mode with our off topic stuff....:sporty55:

    Take care my friend and all the best to great country India !:thank_you2:
     
  5. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    You need to stop believing in this tall tale. Numbers do not lie but people do. NATO flew about 21,000 sorties over Yugoslavia, about 5,000 of those were Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) which would place the fighters at low altitude and within range of ground missiles. That is the goal of SEAD, to place themselves in danger. So if these old Soviet systems were supposedly so effective against the F-117, they should be ten times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts, especially when they are within SAM range. But only one F-117 and one F-16 was downed. Repeat -- Numbers do not lie but people do. So what does the numbers tell you? That somebody is lying.

    Further, the US flew B-2s from continental US (CONUS) to Yugoslavia and back without a loss. So if these old Soviet systems were supposedly so effective against the F-117, they should be ten times more effective against the larger B-2, correct? So why not even one B-2 was lost? Numbers do not lie but people do. So if no B-2 was lost, who is lying here?

    B-2 Spirit
    Six B-2s repeated flew over these old Soviet SAM systems that are supposedly so deadly to 'stealth' and not one B-2 lost. And how does someone knowing Dani's son make this tall tale any more credible? It does not.

    Please exercise some critical thinking.
     
    ace009 likes this.
  6. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) which would place the fighters at low altitude and within range of ground missiles


    If I understood correctly, you claim yourself that big majority of flights (16 000 !) was not performed within the reach of air defenses except those 5000 which had objective to eliminated them
    So what is the point to talk about B-2's if they were flying far above the reach of those Yugoslav air defenses ?!! They prove what exactly?!!
    Air defenses could not reach them any way!

    The SA-3 GOA medium altitude surface-to-air missile system

    So these words have no sense whatsoever !


    So if these old Soviet systems were supposedly so effective against the F-117, they should be ten times more effective against the larger B-2,

    Apart from facts that 1000 plains were engaged flying constantly over Yugoslavia and small Yugoslav air defenses were fighting for their own survival more than threatening anybody!
    They would have to relocate all the time and not being able to have their (old) radars turned ON most of the time
    (not to be discovered and locked with missiles )
    They would turn them on very short periods of time - on and off.......



    Numbers do not lie but people do


    Well "numbers" come from the "people" so again not much sense in that argument either...
    Even when one is expert on subject (I'm not BTW) it is good to use argument to make sense!

    I wish you nice day!
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  7. AJSINGH

    AJSINGH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    hyderabad
    So you want me to tell you how Serian Coponel shot down F-117 and others did not? okay ,well as you know i knw that Colonel Son ,so he told me that his father had studied the attack patterns of USAF bombers and that air assult was carefully ambushed attack, it was the genius of that serb colonel and the working of sam system .and why were not more USAF fighters shot down because serbian air defence was not well coordinated and they had very few sam system and nearly non exsistent air force . like in Iraq

    and suppersion of enemy air defence works in this way
    1-cruise missile are launched at known sam sites
    2-high level bombers are then deployed to take out any left sam site ,those bombers like B-2 and others fly way above the range of sam
    3-if any sam site is left then low level bombing attacks takes place

    after all i dont balme you for not recognzing the ability of that colonel because of US propaganda and you also happen to be US citizen
    do not talk about B-2 ,it is the ebst stealth aircraft till date but at what cost , USAF itself knows that
     
  8. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    It is irrelevant if the Serb coordinated their air defense or not, Dani lives to this day, that mean IF what he claimed was true, he should have shot down more than just one F-117. He should have been able to shoot other types as well. He is a 'genius', remember?

    No...You do not know the entire SEAD program. SAM launchers are often mobile. Still...If what Dani did to his Soviet junk actually worked as claimed, then it would have been communicated to other battery commanders and more NATO aircrafts should have been shot down.

    Numbers do not lie but people do. Look at the numbers.
     
  9. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    Because IF what Dani did with the F-117 was true as claimed, he would have also claimed he tracked the B-2 sorties and have the data to prove it. Radar signals are not limited by altitude but by their transmit energy.

    Good...Then it is even more evident that what Dani did was pure luck, not from any technical wizardry.

    The F-117 pilot, Dale Zelko, recalled he had to dodge at least two missiles before the shrapnels from the third severely damaged his aircraft. Zoltan Dani declined to reveal how many missiles he launched. Why? Because Dani got lucky. His tactic is called 'spray and pray'.
     
  10. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    The F-117 and the B-2 are generational.

    The F-117 was designed when engineers were still proficient with an archeological device called a 'slide ruler' and only project leads have something amazing called 'personal computers'.

    The F-117 exploit the deflection behavior of a radar signal upon impacting planar surface.

    The B-2 exploit the 'creeping wave' behavior...

    Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So even if the B-2 may be electronically larger than the F-117, which it is not, its curvatures would imply a false location anyway. Same for the F-22 and F-35.
     
  11. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40


    Because IF what Dani did with the F-117 was true as claimed, he would have also claimed he tracked the B-2 sorties and have the data to prove it. Radar signals are not limited by altitude but by their transmit energy.


    Is this joke??!

    Why you talk about radar?!??

    The missiles were MEDIUM range and B-2 were simply flying
    far above missiles range !!

    I have said that already but you don't simply read my words!

    What is the point to talk if you ignore my words?

    One doesn't have to be expert to see through your empty failed arguments !

    So your argument fails again and you are simply twisting truth

    Perhaps it is good for your patriotism but that simply doesn't do you honor as "expert" !

    Listen let us stick with USA NONSENSE version that you also try to impose

    (without single proof) I really don't feel running in the circles!

    Let us say that Yugoslav colonel was "pure lucky" with his "Soviet junk" to take F-117A "invisible"(ha,ha,ha!:sarcastic:) plane!

    It is obvious that you are ready to twist even known fact to suite your (ultra)

    patriotic theories. I really had more than enough conversation with

    Americans on this subject and you are the same like others -

    completely irrational on this subject...

    I will leave to other people to judge for themselves if it was possible to take

    down F-117A only with "pure luck" ......

    ------------------------------------------------
    My question ;

    "Does that mean that B-2 are 10 TIMES more "visible" than F-117 in your opinion?"

    was to underline your exaggeration i.e.( claim that would be"10 times" EASIER to

    take down B2 with old SAM if really F-117 was taken down with anything but

    "pure luck" ) !

    Well I really don't see point in any discussion, you don't answer my comments

    and you twist my words and simple common sense :stinker:

    I find your words so much twisted that this looks more

    like personal shooting duel than discussion....

    ---------------------------------------------------------


    Perhaps it is better that you PM Vladimir or some other Russian expert here to explain them how one can take down with "Soviet junk missiles" yours so"invisible" planes beyond visual range?! Huh?!
    I just can't see "pure luck" as only possible option...and they can return your argument with some TRUE "numbers" not American "numbers" that defend
    American "truth":stinker:
    I had enough of this conversation really......

    And for your "people lie" (people who lie of course are Serbs)
    and "numbers don't lie (numbers that tell "truth" are coming from USA of course!)
    how deep taught coming right out of you Mr expert:stinker:

    Lets just hope that those Jihad maniacs Taliban will get "lucky"with plenty of targets coming to Afghanistan now. I'm always happy to see you people flying back home on your backs in nice coffins. I have even bought popcorn, chips and I wait for the news to watch your heroes that were not "lucky" get out of plains with salute of Gard of honor:twizt:

    ............................................
     
  12. venom

    venom DFI Technocrat

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    8

    Do u Know wat was the BIGGEST advantage of the takedown......?

    Ans-The Wreckage was sent to RUSSIA ......Tat says it all
     
  13. AJSINGH

    AJSINGH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    hyderabad
    dont you get it , not well coordinated air defence system,that serb colonel was the one who knew how to coordinate attack ,tell me how one person can mange whole serb defence system

    That soviet sam system lacked data link to other sam sites hence no effective communication , sam systems are mobile aggred that is why high level bombers are used after cruise missile
     
  14. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Jako, have you seen WW2 war movies where you see a bunch of planes flying and they suddenly come under a LOT of anti aircraft fire. It is just what Dani did. This time he did it with missiles. The F-117 pilot had to dodge a lot of missiles and was ultimately hit by one of them. It is not like just one missile was fired at the F-117. This did not mean the Soviet system was better, it just meant the Spray and Pray tactic worked.

    Where the US failed wasn't in the technology aspect, it was more due to apathy. The US failed to protect the airbase perimeter, meaning the patrols were not able to stop Serbian informers telling Dani and other Serbian commanders when planes took off or landed. It is the same reason why the US was bogged down in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan. Only Two words come to mind, Guerrilla Warfare. The Indian Army has been training US Special forces in Jungle warfare, Mountain warfare and Guerrilla tactics in Mizoram(a state in India) over the last 4-5 years for this reason alone. It is just the simple things that can help win a war.
     
  15. AJSINGH

    AJSINGH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    hyderabad
    not true , F-117 was not shot down because it came in heavy anti aircraft fire ,it was the combination of man moment machine , man being that colonle who carefully ambushed the F-117 , machine being the soviet sam system and moment being the F-117 being shot down ,you cannot spray the sky with missile maybe with machine guns ( but in machine gun case ,F-117 was beyond the reach of bullets ) and i have seen the remains of F-117 in belgrade museam ,the curator there told me that ,it was the direct missile hit on F-117 ,and on youtube there is the video inw hich there are cockpit voice recording of pilot in F-117 , listen to that ,you may know something more
     
  16. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    [mod]All posts related to F-117 shoot down by Russian SAM moved here from PAK-FA/FGFA thread. Continue the discussion here and leave PAK-FA thread for its discussion alone.

    Thanks
    [/mod]
     
  17. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    What it says is that you do not know what you are talking about and can only put on airs. In order to show you why you and the rest of the gang is wrong, there must be some education on basic radar behavior. So here goes...

    [​IMG]

    In the image above, if an EM wave, or signal, or pulse, whatever you want to call it, impact a PLANAR surface that is directly facing the radar, the echo will be strongest.

    However, if the surface is angled slightly, no matter how much, then the echo will deflect away from source direction.

    [​IMG]

    So in theory, if the surface is not directly facing the radar and is also perfectly smooth, then the radar will not detect that surface.

    [​IMG]

    What is illustrated above is called a 'target corner reflector' where two surfaces or two edges meet and form a 90 deg corner. This is not good if the goal is to reduce radar cross section (RCS). Corner reflectors exists all over an aircraft such as where the external stores pylon is connected to the underside of the wings.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The above examples are how a 'non-stealth' aircraft create a corner reflector with its own flight control surfaces. Look at the B-1's head-on view. Not just the flight control surfaces but see how its engine intake construction create corner reflectors with the body?

    Deluxe Echomaster Radar Reflector from DAVIS INSTRUMENTS
    As we can see, corner reflectors are good for coastal marine safety reasons. But notice the figures...A target corner reflector with only 12 inches in diameter become 13 square yards on the radar scope...!!! So imagine how large an aircraft can be when its flight control surfaces just happened to create such a device. Also note the freq as the X-band, or centimetric, is also used by military radars. Missile seekers are also X-band.

    Small boats WANTED to be detected, else they get run over by larger vessels. Any vessel, waterborne or airborne, that WANTED to be seen is called a 'cooperative' target. But hostile aircrafts do not want to be detected, so any vessel, waterborne or airborne, that do NOT wanted to be detected is called a 'non-cooperative' target. Electronic countermeasure (ECM) pod or flying at very low altitude to electronically hide in ground clutter make an aircraft a non-cooperative target.

    [​IMG]

    No surface is perfectly smooth. Microscopic irregularities create visible and non-visible corner reflectors. Some of the echo will reflect back to transmitter direction, some will reflect away. But ultimately, with these microscopic and large surface area corner reflectors, they are how radars detect aircrafts.

    So we have the SR-71, F-18, F-117, F-15 Silent Eagle, F-22 and F-35 with their angled vertical stabs.

    The SR-71, for example...

    [​IMG]

    If we look at the two vertical stabs alone and their relationships to the fuselage, we can see that the outer corner reflectors are greater than 90 deg and the inner corner reflectors are less than 90 deg, turning any reflections away from the source direction.

    [​IMG]

    For the F-22, it is the reverse. The outer corner reflectors are less than 90 deg and the inner reflectors are greater than 90. Their effects are the same for both planforms.

    The greatest echo power will be when the radar is either directly from the top or bottom view of the aircraft and this situation is an extremely rare occurrence as aircrafts usually move.

    Petr Ufimtsev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Note the highlighted. Ufimtsev did not create 'stealth', rather he created the equations that predict the behavior of a signal. If you can predict the behavior of something, you can create the necessary conditions that will affect the behavior or even produce the behavior that you want. Lockheed and even the Nazis knew about these behaviors but none managed to come up with the math to PREDICT how an EM pulse would behave. There were no aerodynamics advantages to the angled vertical stabs on the SR-71. Lockheed just knew they had to do something about them being corner reflectors. But once Lockheed got a hold of Ufimtsev's equations, they created the F-117 with its many angled facets.

    But just because the undersides of the B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 are visibly flat, it is deceiving because of other behaviors of an EM wave on a surface...

    [​IMG]

    With 'tapered conductivity', instead of one large echo, we create several smaller ones, hopefully some of them will get lost into the clutter region, reducing the total echo amount that leave the aircraft. We do not really care how many radars are out there looking. We just want to minimize that total echo power. So to create a non-cooperative target through body shaping, or planforming, we have angled facets and surfaces and finally tapered conductivity for where we cannot create facets. The earliest result of 'stealth' aircraft is the F-117.

    So do you really believe that the Russians and the Chinese can do anything with that F-117 wreckage? Do you really believe that they can just slap together some facets and produce an actual flying F-117 equivalent with the same low RCS? If they could, why have they not? It would a technical coup for them as they could boast that not only can their radars detect, track and target US 'stealth' aircrafts but also they could recreate our junks at their leisure. Countries would be waving wads of cash and bonds to buy their weapons. NATO members would question US technological lead.

    An aircraft is a complex body. It is not uniform. Do not mistake symmetry for uniformity. Your face is (hopefully) symmetrical but it is not uniform. On each side of your face, there is only one eye, one ear and half of mouth and nose. Nowhere else do these items appear.

    [​IMG]

    The above is how an aircraft, a complex body, create radar scattering, or reflection, points and how that complex body is electronically seen BEFORE those scattering points are calculated and PERCEIVED to be a valid target.

    The most important item about radar detection is that it is a statistical process. The fancy word is STOCHASTICAL. It mean those scattering, or reflection, points MUST appear consistently over time and that they MUST be in a cluster. An 'ambiguous' target is where the radar computer receive less than statistically optimal scattering points and warns the operator of that uncertainty. At this time, it will be up to the human operator to determine if it is worthwhile to pursue this ghost or to ignore it. A low amount of scattering points equals to a high degree of uncertainty. The goal of 'stealth' is to create that high level of uncertainty and maintain it for the enemy for as long as possible. We have never claimed 'stealth' to be 'invisible' to radar. By the time-distance combination that the 'stealth' aircraft is close enough for those scattering points to be strong enough for the radar to declare a target exist, it would have been weapons release for the 'stealth' aircraft, in other words, it would have released its bombs or missiles and is on its exit.

    Because an aircraft, 'stealth' or not, is a complex body, its RCS value will also be non-uniform. That is why the head-on perspective has the lowest RCS value compared to other views of that same aircraft. This applies to the giant C-5 or B-52 as well. Their head-on views will be smaller than their sides or top or bottom views. So in order to verify if the actual full scale body matches the calculations, there must be full body measurements at all angles, or views.

    Edwards Air Force Base - Media Search

    The Benefield RF Anechoic Facility is the largest chamber in the world, capable of measuring even the C-5 and the B-52 from all angles. BMW sent their cars to US for RF measurements. We can test ECM capability, from a full pod to a small antenna as installed on the aircraft.

    So just because the Russians and the Chinese may have scraps of the unlucky F-117, that does not mean they can create their own versions of the aircraft. Testing facility like Benefield do not come cheap, in money and human intellect. Even if the Russians can recreate something similar to the F-117, without full scale RF anechoic measurements, what they create would at best be doubtful, if not outright as non-stealthy as regular aircrafts.

    The F-117 and its primary method of RCS reduction, angled faceting, is out of date. The current generation exploit the 'creeping wave' behavior and I have referenced that in other responses. The 'creeping wave' behavior is how the B-2, F-22 and F-35 have more curves than angled facets and uses far less radar absorber (RAM) than the F-117.

    What I presented here, limited by the forum's software to only 10 images, is only the surface of 'stealth' and only on the body shaping, or planforming, of the idea, not yet RAM, passive or active. I have not even touch on LPI AESA radar mode, an important component of the current generation of US 'stealth' aircrafts. AESA radars are being installed on older US aircrafts.

    You are treading into a territory that clearly you know nothing about other than to spout one-liners to give an air of sophistication.
     
  18. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    Sorry I thaught that MOD have had deleted comments I didn't realize it became thread and specially not mine !


    " LOT of anti aircraft fire"


    I hate this subject but I'll answer it all the same !
    I just can't understand how can old SAM missiles be fired so intensely like he had 100 of them!?!
    I never heard that anybody did that with missiles !
    I'll quote AJSINGH's words "you cannot spray the sky with missiles"
    True I'm civilian and not military expert but still I can't see how can it be otherwise?!!

    It is not machine gun to spray sky beyond visual range and get lucky!
    Endless space of SKY and TIME factors offer infinite IMPROBABILITY components to make it even 1 in billion chance possibility !

    They did NOT see or hear plane so HOW could they hit it by chance??!
    Sorry, it just does NOT make sense to me at all !
     
  19. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
  20. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
  21. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    I always find strange that USA are so embarrassed that their "invisible" plane was taken down by old SAM (from 1961) that they always come up with the stories to undermine that success.

    But USA are NOT embarrassed at all to attack small country like Serbia with 1000 planes (from 30 countries)!

    Or to occupy Afghanistan with today 50 countries !
    If they are such "Super" Power why don't they do it alone?

    It is like when one brings 15 friends to beat up little kid !
    And than they even have trouble to succeed !
    Where is all that courage and dignity gone from "Super Power"?
     

Share This Page