How to take down an F-117(strategypage.com)
strategypage.com
How to take down an F-117
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx
97 comments
"Old Soviet radars operate on longer wavelengths and interestingly enough are sometimes more effective at detecting stealth aircraft."
The fuselage of the F-117 is covered with a top-secret radiation-absorbing paint. This paint is designed to operate over a certain range of frequencies, i.e., it's supposed to provide impedance matching over a certain frequency band (a bit like a thin-film in optics). Hence, if the enemy uses radars operating at frequencies for which the F-117 is not stealth, then there's a big problem. Using an old German radar from WW2 the F-117's radar signature is as big as the one of a non-stealth aircraft like the F/A-18.
BTW, Zoltan (who is a Serb of Hungarian ethnicity, as the name suggests) is now a baker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani
The fuselage of the F-117 is covered with a top-secret radiation-absorbing paint. This paint is designed to operate over a certain range of frequencies, i.e., it's supposed to provide impedance matching over a certain frequency band (a bit like a thin-film in optics). Hence, if the enemy uses radars operating at frequencies for which the F-117 is not stealth, then there's a big problem. Using an old German radar from WW2 the F-117's radar signature is as big as the one of a non-stealth aircraft like the F/A-18.
BTW, Zoltan (who is a Serb of Hungarian ethnicity, as the name suggests) is now a baker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x...
"Dani said that his unit has had annual reunions on every March 27 since 1999 when a cake in the shape of the F-117 is served."
Nice!
"Dani said that his unit has had annual reunions on every March 27 since 1999 when a cake in the shape of the F-117 is served."
Nice!
"The Americans entered the war a bit overconfident. They thought they could crush us without real resistance. At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes. "I personally listened to their pilots' conversations, learning about their routes and bombing plans," Dani said.
So, the world's best Air Force goes to war and does not use encrypted communications? This is mind-boggling. To make matters worse, the NATO planes tended to follow the same routes every night. They were begging to be shot down.
Last but not least, never underestimate the ferocity and tenacity of the Serbs. The Ottomans and the Nazis sure learned their lesson.
So, the world's best Air Force goes to war and does not use encrypted communications? This is mind-boggling. To make matters worse, the NATO planes tended to follow the same routes every night. They were begging to be shot down.
Last but not least, never underestimate the ferocity and tenacity of the Serbs. The Ottomans and the Nazis sure learned their lesson.
I very strongly suspect that these were not American planes at all, but rather those of certain other NATO countries. Indeed, Zoltan, as quoted, seems to continually conflate the terms "NATO" and "American".
There was a lot of grumbling among the USAF back then about certain countries not encrypting their communications. Greece was one of these, although I don't think they participated in the war (they were big fans of Milosevic and welcomed him and his wife with huge gatherings at the Thessaloniki airport). Since Zoltan was not a native speaker of English, I doubt he could distinguish the accents of pilots from differnet countries, particularly as educated people in many NATO countries speak excellent English.
What sticks out in my mind most is how happy Zoltan and his buddies are to celebrate defending the mass murders and rapes of Milosevic's Serbian Socialist Party. And with a cake in the shape of a plane.
I wonder what flavor of frosting they use.
There was a lot of grumbling among the USAF back then about certain countries not encrypting their communications. Greece was one of these, although I don't think they participated in the war (they were big fans of Milosevic and welcomed him and his wife with huge gatherings at the Thessaloniki airport). Since Zoltan was not a native speaker of English, I doubt he could distinguish the accents of pilots from differnet countries, particularly as educated people in many NATO countries speak excellent English.
What sticks out in my mind most is how happy Zoltan and his buddies are to celebrate defending the mass murders and rapes of Milosevic's Serbian Socialist Party. And with a cake in the shape of a plane.
I wonder what flavor of frosting they use.
Really, if I shot down a world-feared plane with a 40 year old equipment, I would be celebrating as well. Don't see any connection to the political regime there. As TriinT said - I don't think anyone else actually had a F117 to bring to the fight.
Also, stories about Milosevic's regime are wildly over-shot by the western propaganda.
Greetings from Serbia
Also, stories about Milosevic's regime are wildly over-shot by the western propaganda.
Greetings from Serbia
> Also, stories about Milosevic's regime are wildly over-shot by the western propaganda.
I am American and I did a bit of research on the war with Serbia and have to say that you are correct. We have been fed some very good propaganda.
The most interesting point was how CIA was arming Albanians and encouraging them to provoke the Serbs. Also most Americans are un-ware (again very good propanda efforts were made), that Serbian atrocities started after the bombings. Those attrocities are still atrocities and are in no way justified, but their portail in the Western media is terribly skewed.
It was very interesting to find out that at the same time as we were supposed to "prevent atrocities" in Serbia we dramatically increased Turkey's arms shiptment quota so they can bomb Kurdish villages. It was a quid-pro-quo kind of deal. Turkey said if you "bomb and use our airspace, then we want to bomb too." And bomb they did, big time. About 3000 Kurdish villages were destroyed.
I am American and I did a bit of research on the war with Serbia and have to say that you are correct. We have been fed some very good propaganda.
The most interesting point was how CIA was arming Albanians and encouraging them to provoke the Serbs. Also most Americans are un-ware (again very good propanda efforts were made), that Serbian atrocities started after the bombings. Those attrocities are still atrocities and are in no way justified, but their portail in the Western media is terribly skewed.
It was very interesting to find out that at the same time as we were supposed to "prevent atrocities" in Serbia we dramatically increased Turkey's arms shiptment quota so they can bomb Kurdish villages. It was a quid-pro-quo kind of deal. Turkey said if you "bomb and use our airspace, then we want to bomb too." And bomb they did, big time. About 3000 Kurdish villages were destroyed.
As an Albanian, I take offense at what you are saying. Serbian regime has always been represessive and very similiar to the Apartheid, where 10-15% of the population (Serbians), rule with the iron fist over the majority.
If you were albanian, you couldn't go to school were you could learn your own language, you couldn't get a job a state industry (except for crappy jobs), you couldn't go to college/university where you can study in your own language. You even needed a visa to get out of Kosova!
BTW, Albanians there have been trying to secede peacefully since 1990, where they formed their own goverment. They had their own parallel structures, schools, etc. Slovenia split, got attacked, then Croatia split and endedup with war, then we all now of the Bosnian massacres.
It seem in all these, the common denominator is Serbia, and Slobodan, using vapid nationalism for his own purposes.
Kosova was going to end up just like Bosnia, where over 200k people were massacred if the west didn't intervene. he was doing the exact same tactics that he did during the previous war.
BTW, the Albanians in Kosova got armed after 1997, when there were trouble in Albania, and all the army depot got emptied, and you could find a Ak-47 for less than $100.
There were no american weapons in the region.
If you were albanian, you couldn't go to school were you could learn your own language, you couldn't get a job a state industry (except for crappy jobs), you couldn't go to college/university where you can study in your own language. You even needed a visa to get out of Kosova!
BTW, Albanians there have been trying to secede peacefully since 1990, where they formed their own goverment. They had their own parallel structures, schools, etc. Slovenia split, got attacked, then Croatia split and endedup with war, then we all now of the Bosnian massacres.
It seem in all these, the common denominator is Serbia, and Slobodan, using vapid nationalism for his own purposes.
Kosova was going to end up just like Bosnia, where over 200k people were massacred if the west didn't intervene. he was doing the exact same tactics that he did during the previous war.
BTW, the Albanians in Kosova got armed after 1997, when there were trouble in Albania, and all the army depot got emptied, and you could find a Ak-47 for less than $100.
There were no american weapons in the region.
> As an Albanian, I take offense at what you are saying. Serbian regime has always been represessive and very similiar to the Apartheid, where 10-15% of the population (Serbians), rule with the iron fist over the majority.
I agree with that. I never said that Serbians didn't commit attrocities. What I a blaming here is the Western propaganda machine (well ok, not Western, mostly NATO i.e. American) for lying.
Would you deny the facts that Serbian paramilitary forces intensified their attacks greatly after the bombing started?
I am not saying there we no masacres before, it is just that US knew it would get worse afterwards, they knew international observers would withdraw, but they decided to bomb anyway. Then they lied through their teeth when they used the victims of the retaliatory attacks of the Serbs to justify the bombings.
Yes, it was Serbian army who killed, but US (a suposedly rational country) knew that Slobodan would react in that way, and they didn't give a fuck. So it wasn't about humanitarian help, it was about saber rattling and not letting NATO get embarrassed in the middle of Europe.
It was not too long after USSR fell, European Union was gainging strength and US and NATO had to show the world who is boss. Yes, as a result they helped Albanians, and it is hard to play the "what if" game and guess what happened if they never went it. But they definetly didn't go in because they love Albanians or they cannot tollerate attrocities in the world. Look at Turkey and Indonesia -- both US clients that committed attrocities and nobody in US is bothered by it.
I agree with that. I never said that Serbians didn't commit attrocities. What I a blaming here is the Western propaganda machine (well ok, not Western, mostly NATO i.e. American) for lying.
Would you deny the facts that Serbian paramilitary forces intensified their attacks greatly after the bombing started?
I am not saying there we no masacres before, it is just that US knew it would get worse afterwards, they knew international observers would withdraw, but they decided to bomb anyway. Then they lied through their teeth when they used the victims of the retaliatory attacks of the Serbs to justify the bombings.
Yes, it was Serbian army who killed, but US (a suposedly rational country) knew that Slobodan would react in that way, and they didn't give a fuck. So it wasn't about humanitarian help, it was about saber rattling and not letting NATO get embarrassed in the middle of Europe.
It was not too long after USSR fell, European Union was gainging strength and US and NATO had to show the world who is boss. Yes, as a result they helped Albanians, and it is hard to play the "what if" game and guess what happened if they never went it. But they definetly didn't go in because they love Albanians or they cannot tollerate attrocities in the world. Look at Turkey and Indonesia -- both US clients that committed attrocities and nobody in US is bothered by it.
The Turkish bombing of Kurdish targets at the same time is more of a complicate issue than you think, spanning 3 countries (Turkey, Iraq, Iran) with all of the regimes and local Kurds playing each other's strengths and weaknesses off against each other. I'm not saying what the Turks (or any other nation involved) did was right or wrong, just thought I'd add some context so people know that it wasn't just a straight Turks vs. Kurds (as a single unified entity) issue.
You are right, it is never as black-and-white as we'd like to think.
But innocent civilians being killed are innocent civilians being killed. It doesn't matter who's killing or what color their skin or what religion they are. There are terrible killing and attrocities still going on in the world.
We should do something about it if we can. But if we don't or we can't. We shouldn't lie about it, and pretend we do while we have completely different motives for our foreign war "adventures"
I wouldn't mind if the government actually told everyone what its real motives are. Perhaps there will be less support for war, or perhaps there won't. At least we won't be lied to.
But innocent civilians being killed are innocent civilians being killed. It doesn't matter who's killing or what color their skin or what religion they are. There are terrible killing and attrocities still going on in the world.
We should do something about it if we can. But if we don't or we can't. We shouldn't lie about it, and pretend we do while we have completely different motives for our foreign war "adventures"
I wouldn't mind if the government actually told everyone what its real motives are. Perhaps there will be less support for war, or perhaps there won't. At least we won't be lied to.
It's also true that the whole story still isn't over (10 years after the official end of conflicts), but I doubt that American public hears about it anymore. It's not prime-time material anymore.
Still, nice to hear that someone is interested in more then flashy headlines.
In light of my comment bellow, I will not pursue the subject further, HN is not the place for it.
Still, nice to hear that someone is interested in more then flashy headlines.
In light of my comment bellow, I will not pursue the subject further, HN is not the place for it.
Also most Americans are un-ware (again very good propanda efforts were made), that Serbian atrocities started after the bombings.
I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement. But if you would like to convince me otherwise, please show me some sources.
I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement. But if you would like to convince me otherwise, please show me some sources.
Try this book:
Intelligence and the War in Bosnia: 1992-1995 (Perspectives on Intelligence History) by Cees Wiebes.
Then: Kosovo and the Metaphor War by Roland Paris (Political Science Quarterly, Volume 117, Number 3, Fall 2002) is a good analysis of how metaphors of previous wars and events were used to promote the war.
For 10x infation of number of deaths by NATO propaganda machine in preparing for war try: Kosovo: Orders of Magnitude by Adam Jones (IDEA Journal, Volume 5, Number 1, July 2000).
On the media portrail and lack of journalistic impartiality try: Ruigrok, Nel., Schoenbach, Klaus., Scholten, Otto. and De Ridder, J.. "Covering the Bosnian War: ‘Journalism of Attachment’ in Dutch Newspapers" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany, Jun 16, 2006 (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p92731_index.html)
Also note that there was a humanitarian catastrophy and there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings and there were on both sides and have been going on for centuries. But after March 24, 1999 the Serbian attrocities intensified terribly.
You can listen to press reports around the time. For example Clinton says on March 24, 1999 that the reason for the war is "to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo." However intelligence reports warned him that bombing will actually intensify the attacks and that is exactly what happened. The large number of victim from these retaliatory attacks were then used as the reasons for the bombing.
> I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement.
Well, do you have any sources? Please show that the number of claimed dead and missing Albanians (around 100,000) by NATO media monkeys was true as that was used to justify the war.
Please show evidence that US had purely humanitarian objectives, and reasons for US not getting involved in much larger humanitarian crises in Africa, South America, Asia (especially Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia). Some of then occuring simoultaneusly with the Kosovo war (hint: try Indonesia, it's a easy one).
Then: Kosovo and the Metaphor War by Roland Paris (Political Science Quarterly, Volume 117, Number 3, Fall 2002) is a good analysis of how metaphors of previous wars and events were used to promote the war.
For 10x infation of number of deaths by NATO propaganda machine in preparing for war try: Kosovo: Orders of Magnitude by Adam Jones (IDEA Journal, Volume 5, Number 1, July 2000).
On the media portrail and lack of journalistic impartiality try: Ruigrok, Nel., Schoenbach, Klaus., Scholten, Otto. and De Ridder, J.. "Covering the Bosnian War: ‘Journalism of Attachment’ in Dutch Newspapers" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany, Jun 16, 2006 (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p92731_index.html)
Also note that there was a humanitarian catastrophy and there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings and there were on both sides and have been going on for centuries. But after March 24, 1999 the Serbian attrocities intensified terribly.
You can listen to press reports around the time. For example Clinton says on March 24, 1999 that the reason for the war is "to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo." However intelligence reports warned him that bombing will actually intensify the attacks and that is exactly what happened. The large number of victim from these retaliatory attacks were then used as the reasons for the bombing.
> I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement.
Well, do you have any sources? Please show that the number of claimed dead and missing Albanians (around 100,000) by NATO media monkeys was true as that was used to justify the war.
Please show evidence that US had purely humanitarian objectives, and reasons for US not getting involved in much larger humanitarian crises in Africa, South America, Asia (especially Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia). Some of then occuring simoultaneusly with the Kosovo war (hint: try Indonesia, it's a easy one).
What about Bosnia beforehand?
Thanks for the links. I think your statement
there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings
gets to the point of why I was skeptical about your earlier post. It would be incredible to say that United States bombing started Serbian-inflicted atrocities, when Serb atrocities were plainly occurring before there was any aerial bombing anywhere in the Balkans. I do not claim that the United States policy under the Clinton administration was ideal (or even beneficial to the United States) but I do claim that massacres were already occurring before there was any United States intervention.
Thanks for the links. I think your statement
there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings
gets to the point of why I was skeptical about your earlier post. It would be incredible to say that United States bombing started Serbian-inflicted atrocities, when Serb atrocities were plainly occurring before there was any aerial bombing anywhere in the Balkans. I do not claim that the United States policy under the Clinton administration was ideal (or even beneficial to the United States) but I do claim that massacres were already occurring before there was any United States intervention.
You need to do some more research, I am Turkish i have Kurdish friends i do not think less of them they do not think less of me. If i come over to United States try to take over Texas kill innocent civilians then you guys kill me and my friends. is this atrocity or self defense?
There is no Turk vs Kurd fight going on its just an up moron brain washing people and turning them in to each other.
Get your facts right.
There is no Turk vs Kurd fight going on its just an up moron brain washing people and turning them in to each other.
Get your facts right.
So I am guessing the European Court of Human Rights condemning Turkey for human rights violations against civilians from 1984-1999 is just bogus? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkey#European...)
Alright, "my facts" are that European Court has consitently condemned Turkey for human right violations agains Kurds. "Your facts" are that you claim to have Kurdish friends. I think, I'll stick to "my facts" for now...
Alright, "my facts" are that European Court has consitently condemned Turkey for human right violations agains Kurds. "Your facts" are that you claim to have Kurdish friends. I think, I'll stick to "my facts" for now...
i would love to discuss this further, but HN is not the place to do it, if you are intrested my email is [email protected]
> What sticks out in my mind most is how happy Zoltan and his buddies are to celebrate defending the mass murders and rapes of Milosevic's Serbian Socialist Party. And with a cake in the shape of a plane.
Zoltan did not commit any war crimes or ordered to do so. By that twisted logic, were Vietnam war USAF pilots in a pub after successful sortie celebrating My Lai massacre?
Zoltan did not commit any war crimes or ordered to do so. By that twisted logic, were Vietnam war USAF pilots in a pub after successful sortie celebrating My Lai massacre?
What about Luftwaffe pilots celebrating when they shot down a B-17? Not committing war crimes themselves, but protecting a criminal regime.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
replace treason with "war crimes" and it would be as valid.
What constitutes "war crimes" is defined, in practice, by the winners of the war. I wonder if you notice that the winning side in a war never commits "war crimes" and if they do are never punished severely. If the Nazis had won, Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be the "war criminals" (please note the quotes). Stalin is not a "war criminal" in spite of being responsible for the deaths of more people than the Nazis ever killed.
The British were the first to use concentration camps to imprison the Boer women and children where they died like flies. How many British commanders w were prosecuted and punished, do you think?
Even when Americans lose wars, they are never prosecuted for war crimes. This is because American loss of a war does not (yet) involve the enemy invading the United States mainland and conducting prosecutions there.
Btw how many American soldiers were shot for My Lai?
From Wikipedia
My Lai "was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.
Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated."
Certainly sounds like a "war crime" to me.
"After a four-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning."
"Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction."
So much for "war crimes" and "criminal regimes". Many non Americans believe the Bush/Cheney administration was a criminal regime waging unjustified "aggressive wars of conquest" (one of the main charges against the Japanese after world war 2, btw) Does that make them criminals?
Many Afghans believe that Predator drone attacks that kill civilians are "war crimes". Does that make the American army "criminal"?
Imo not really. "International Law" is much flimsier than the term would have us believe. Without a commonly understood idea of what a "crime" is, it is hard to have a law relating to that crime.
Are you claiming Americans never commit war crimes? Or that they are punished severely when they do? How is an American soldier fighting for his country in Iraq during Gulf War 2 any less "supporting a criminal regime" than this Serb commander downing planes that bomb his country?
Please note that I am not saying only Americans are war criminals or that the Nazis were not.
All sides in a war conduct "war crimes" (as seen by the victims). Who wins and what form the victory takes decides who is a "war criminal" (in terms of getting punished) and who is not.
replace treason with "war crimes" and it would be as valid.
What constitutes "war crimes" is defined, in practice, by the winners of the war. I wonder if you notice that the winning side in a war never commits "war crimes" and if they do are never punished severely. If the Nazis had won, Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be the "war criminals" (please note the quotes). Stalin is not a "war criminal" in spite of being responsible for the deaths of more people than the Nazis ever killed.
The British were the first to use concentration camps to imprison the Boer women and children where they died like flies. How many British commanders w were prosecuted and punished, do you think?
Even when Americans lose wars, they are never prosecuted for war crimes. This is because American loss of a war does not (yet) involve the enemy invading the United States mainland and conducting prosecutions there.
Btw how many American soldiers were shot for My Lai?
From Wikipedia
My Lai "was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.
Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated."
Certainly sounds like a "war crime" to me.
"After a four-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning."
"Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction."
So much for "war crimes" and "criminal regimes". Many non Americans believe the Bush/Cheney administration was a criminal regime waging unjustified "aggressive wars of conquest" (one of the main charges against the Japanese after world war 2, btw) Does that make them criminals?
Many Afghans believe that Predator drone attacks that kill civilians are "war crimes". Does that make the American army "criminal"?
Imo not really. "International Law" is much flimsier than the term would have us believe. Without a commonly understood idea of what a "crime" is, it is hard to have a law relating to that crime.
Are you claiming Americans never commit war crimes? Or that they are punished severely when they do? How is an American soldier fighting for his country in Iraq during Gulf War 2 any less "supporting a criminal regime" than this Serb commander downing planes that bomb his country?
Please note that I am not saying only Americans are war criminals or that the Nazis were not.
All sides in a war conduct "war crimes" (as seen by the victims). Who wins and what form the victory takes decides who is a "war criminal" (in terms of getting punished) and who is not.
Excellent comment. This should be linked to every time we talk about the righteousness of this or that country.
The tribunals may have inconsistent moral standards, but I do not.
There's a distinction between a criminal regime and instances of war crimes committed by a country's army. When a country's leaders organize the deliberate and purposeful extermination or forcible relocation of an ethnic population, that's a type of criminal regime. (There are other types, of course.) I would apply this standard to Andrew Jackson, Hitler, and Milosevic, and to the American, German, and Yugoslav governments under them. So while the Luftwaffe and flak gunners didn't kill any Jews themselves, they protected an illegitimate regime. Same for Zoltan, same for the US troops deployed outside the removal operation (for instance, the troops sent to menace the South during the nullification crisis).
When individual units or troops commit war crimes without the authorization of superiors, that's a separate issue. I would have rather seen Calley and his troops face trial in an international court, but there wasn't one then. There is one now, but the US is not yet party to it. I wish it were.
I think there may be evidence that the Bush administration was a criminal regime. I would not have fought for Bush.
I still don't know how to judge Zoltan, though. I'd say the same for a soldier in Iraq or a Luftwaffe pilot. I can appreciate his achievements, but I still raise questions about the morality of them.
There's a distinction between a criminal regime and instances of war crimes committed by a country's army. When a country's leaders organize the deliberate and purposeful extermination or forcible relocation of an ethnic population, that's a type of criminal regime. (There are other types, of course.) I would apply this standard to Andrew Jackson, Hitler, and Milosevic, and to the American, German, and Yugoslav governments under them. So while the Luftwaffe and flak gunners didn't kill any Jews themselves, they protected an illegitimate regime. Same for Zoltan, same for the US troops deployed outside the removal operation (for instance, the troops sent to menace the South during the nullification crisis).
When individual units or troops commit war crimes without the authorization of superiors, that's a separate issue. I would have rather seen Calley and his troops face trial in an international court, but there wasn't one then. There is one now, but the US is not yet party to it. I wish it were.
I think there may be evidence that the Bush administration was a criminal regime. I would not have fought for Bush.
I still don't know how to judge Zoltan, though. I'd say the same for a soldier in Iraq or a Luftwaffe pilot. I can appreciate his achievements, but I still raise questions about the morality of them.
Zoltan was operating in central Serbia (not even in its southern part Kosovo).
NATO bombers (USA bombers in this instance, really) were attacking Serbia, and Zoltan was a soldier operating in his own country, defending it against enemy aggression. How can you raise morality questions against that?
And as I already said, the truth about Kosovo is far from what your media told you. Kosovo is now brought down to two functions only:
1. American army base (Bondsteel) 2. Haven for drug lords, and traffickers of people and weapons. Now they've got their own state in the heart of Europe, thanks to USA lobbying practice which is where all of it originated from.
NATO bombers (USA bombers in this instance, really) were attacking Serbia, and Zoltan was a soldier operating in his own country, defending it against enemy aggression. How can you raise morality questions against that?
And as I already said, the truth about Kosovo is far from what your media told you. Kosovo is now brought down to two functions only:
1. American army base (Bondsteel) 2. Haven for drug lords, and traffickers of people and weapons. Now they've got their own state in the heart of Europe, thanks to USA lobbying practice which is where all of it originated from.
During and after the bombing of Serbia, there was a lot of publicity in certain conservative newspapers in America (particularly the Washington Times) about how the mass graves and such had turned out to be a myth, and about Serbia's historical reasons for wanting to hold sovereignty over Kosovo. The main rationale for this coverage was probably that it was a Democratic war, so a Republican newspaper had to oppose. Still, it exposed a lot of good points that weren't widely publicized elsewhere. (There were also the following arguments: that it's not the job of the US to protect Kosovo anyway, that Clinton was trying to distract people from his own problems, and that Clinton was doing a very bad job of prosecuting the war even if it were justified.)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Serbia was in the right or in the wrong in Kosovo. It's just a bullshit argument to pretend Zoltan was doing something entirely separate from supporting the continued Serbian domination of Kosovo and its people. Either Serbia was in the right (in which case Zoltan would have been perfectly justified no matter what) or Serbia was in the wrong (in which case--since the bombing was an attempt to pressure Serbia to leave Kosovo--protecting Kosovo from bombing turned out to be indirectly supporting the domination of Kosovo.)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Serbia was in the right or in the wrong in Kosovo. It's just a bullshit argument to pretend Zoltan was doing something entirely separate from supporting the continued Serbian domination of Kosovo and its people. Either Serbia was in the right (in which case Zoltan would have been perfectly justified no matter what) or Serbia was in the wrong (in which case--since the bombing was an attempt to pressure Serbia to leave Kosovo--protecting Kosovo from bombing turned out to be indirectly supporting the domination of Kosovo.)
[deleted]
Well, we had the Nuernberg trial which at the time pretty much defined what constitutes a war crime. According to it Waffen SS and its members were found war criminals, but Luftwaffe and Wermacht is not. Shall I remind that USSR, who probably had the least reasons to like German armed forces was a juror as well?
You see, this is a thing about definitions. If you stretch them too hard they lose their meaning and you can't usably distinguish the concepts they denote. If you call every opposing soldier a war criminal, then it does only service actual war criminals.
You see, this is a thing about definitions. If you stretch them too hard they lose their meaning and you can't usably distinguish the concepts they denote. If you call every opposing soldier a war criminal, then it does only service actual war criminals.
Although the article doesn't give any information about Zoltan's ideology, I imagine him as a black hat hacker type, motivated more by the sheer challenge of it than anything else.
Considering how little his actions mattered in the overall outcome, I can't help but think that he and his team simply relished the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to match their wits against the world's most advanced air force.
Considering how little his actions mattered in the overall outcome, I can't help but think that he and his team simply relished the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to match their wits against the world's most advanced air force.
> What sticks out in my mind most is how happy Zoltan and his buddies are to celebrate defending the mass murders and rapes of Milosevic's Serbian Socialist Party. And with a cake in the shape of a plane.
Just like von Braun was "happy" to bomb London with his rockets and killing many more concentration camp workers who were building his rockets. Somehow, Americans didn't mind making him their space age hero.
Not to even mentions Japanese "scientists" that were directly involved in horrendous bio-"experiments" on Chinese, but were never brought to trial, and instead went to become heads of big pharma companies in Japan. So if we want to talk about some kind of guilt-by-association, we should first examine our own track record.
Just like von Braun was "happy" to bomb London with his rockets and killing many more concentration camp workers who were building his rockets. Somehow, Americans didn't mind making him their space age hero.
Not to even mentions Japanese "scientists" that were directly involved in horrendous bio-"experiments" on Chinese, but were never brought to trial, and instead went to become heads of big pharma companies in Japan. So if we want to talk about some kind of guilt-by-association, we should first examine our own track record.
Your analysis makes a lot of sense. But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft?
I am not taking sides here, but do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. Given the atrocities committed by the Serbs, the aggression initiated by NATO may or may not have been justified. I will abstain from moral issues here.
Last but not least: do note that Zoltan is of Hungarian (not Serbian) ethnicity, and Hungarians are not Slavs. I doubt he was ideologically aligned with Milosevic.
I am not taking sides here, but do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. Given the atrocities committed by the Serbs, the aggression initiated by NATO may or may not have been justified. I will abstain from moral issues here.
Last but not least: do note that Zoltan is of Hungarian (not Serbian) ethnicity, and Hungarians are not Slavs. I doubt he was ideologically aligned with Milosevic.
But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft?
Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Cont...
...do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians.
US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter.
He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression.
I really don't know what to say to that. If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"
Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Cont...
...do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians.
US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter.
He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression.
I really don't know what to say to that. If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"
" If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?""
Your analogy is confusing. The Serbs didn't break into American homes and rape/kill anyone. So how exactly was the US "fighting back"?
From the Serbian viewpoint, the USA could be seen as the party "breaking in" and killing civilians from the air (sure "collateral damage", but when it is your family beneath the rubble, I am sure it is a fine distinction) and the Serbs as the ones "fighting back".
" he was working overtime to support human slaughter."
A lot of non Americans believe this is precisely what US soldiers did (Vietnam) and do (Iraq / Afghanistan). I am not taking positions on who is "right", but this is why politics should be avoided on HN if possible - arguments on politics and religion can circle endlessly with no useful conclusion.
Your analogy is confusing. The Serbs didn't break into American homes and rape/kill anyone. So how exactly was the US "fighting back"?
From the Serbian viewpoint, the USA could be seen as the party "breaking in" and killing civilians from the air (sure "collateral damage", but when it is your family beneath the rubble, I am sure it is a fine distinction) and the Serbs as the ones "fighting back".
" he was working overtime to support human slaughter."
A lot of non Americans believe this is precisely what US soldiers did (Vietnam) and do (Iraq / Afghanistan). I am not taking positions on who is "right", but this is why politics should be avoided on HN if possible - arguments on politics and religion can circle endlessly with no useful conclusion.
US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter
Seriously? You've basically vilified every soldier that has ever served in the history of any army ever.
Seriously? You've basically vilified every soldier that has ever served in the history of any army ever.
According to that link you posted, there are two meanings to AWACS, one to indicate the general principle and one to indicate the Boeing/Westinghouse system which is exclusively deployed by America and Japan.
I doubt that it was a Japanese plane in use there (though theoretically it could be).
The F117 is exclusively operated by the US air force.
I doubt that it was a Japanese plane in use there (though theoretically it could be).
The F117 is exclusively operated by the US air force.
NATO operates AWACS as Joint participants. It's the exact same aircraft.
The UK also operates the exact same aircraft.
Flown by pilots other than Americans ? Under anything other than American chain of command ?
Yes. France and Saudi too. Wikipedia is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry
Interesting, I never knew that. The Geilenkirchen airforce base is about 3 Km from my house, I can see the AWACS planes take off with some regularity, all of them have American markings.
Anthropomorphism of regions, nationalities of states in a conflict is a very very bad way to look at things clearly. Thee is not always a clear line between all these groups. Not everyone in these groups thought the same, not everyone in these groups had the same information or perception.
It may be simple, its often used for political or manipulation purposes because it is emotionally charged but it is never an accurate way to assess the situation. And it annoys me very much.
It may be simple, its often used for political or manipulation purposes because it is emotionally charged but it is never an accurate way to assess the situation. And it annoys me very much.
Following that line of thought, any grad student whose research is funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) is working overtime to support human slaughter, too.
Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it?
Do you want me to go search how many Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. military personnel who were merely following "lawful orders"? What is a "lawful order to kill"? One that is according to the ROE?
Justified or not, NATO's attack was an act of aggression, by definition of aggression. No need to play semantics here. Go tell the civilians in Novi Sad (which is ethnically Hungarian) that destroying their city was justified because of what ethnical Serbs were doing in Kosovo. Go read a bit about the rich and convoluted history of the Balkans, because your black & white view of the world is a bit fuzzy.
Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it?
Do you want me to go search how many Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. military personnel who were merely following "lawful orders"? What is a "lawful order to kill"? One that is according to the ROE?
Justified or not, NATO's attack was an act of aggression, by definition of aggression. No need to play semantics here. Go tell the civilians in Novi Sad (which is ethnically Hungarian) that destroying their city was justified because of what ethnical Serbs were doing in Kosovo. Go read a bit about the rich and convoluted history of the Balkans, because your black & white view of the world is a bit fuzzy.
> Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it?
Sadly, that describes the NATO position very well. There are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims." Victims of our allies are "unworthy": if Isreal, Turkey, or some banana owned by the CIA is killing, then we never hear about it who died, we don't know their names, we don't see interviews on CNN with grieving relatives. If it is our enemies' killing anyone, then the victims become automatically "martirs" and we hear their personal stories, we know their names and watch the grieving families on TV.
> No need to play semantics here.
Propaganda is all about redefinition of words and skewing of semantics. Clinton administration did a remarcable job with propagnda during the war in Bosnia.
All the little pseudo-intellectual lapdogs at the time were writing in their little foreign policy journals how we entered into a new era, where US is a beacon of freedom and hope, and from now on we'll only have wars with pure humanitarian reasons.
Sadly, that describes the NATO position very well. There are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims." Victims of our allies are "unworthy": if Isreal, Turkey, or some banana owned by the CIA is killing, then we never hear about it who died, we don't know their names, we don't see interviews on CNN with grieving relatives. If it is our enemies' killing anyone, then the victims become automatically "martirs" and we hear their personal stories, we know their names and watch the grieving families on TV.
> No need to play semantics here.
Propaganda is all about redefinition of words and skewing of semantics. Clinton administration did a remarcable job with propagnda during the war in Bosnia.
All the little pseudo-intellectual lapdogs at the time were writing in their little foreign policy journals how we entered into a new era, where US is a beacon of freedom and hope, and from now on we'll only have wars with pure humanitarian reasons.
Complacency is often the downfall of large organizations. And it's complacency at high levels; Joe Pilot probably knew all about crypto, varying his routes, etc, but Jane General wouldn't sign off on the budget. That scenario will be familiar to anyone who's worked for a big company.
As an ex RAAF radar engineer, I'd say you're around about 180 degrees out of phase. There is always money available for security measures such as crypto etc - it's installed in all US aircraft(and indeed in nearly all of their allies' aircraft), and if it wasn't being used, it would be because people couldn't get their act together to keep keys synchronised and other bothersome administrative details. It would indicate a lack of discipline, particularly in the 'middle-management' level (around about Colonel level), not a lack of money.
That said, I'm personally dubious about this story being true - it reads more like a Serbian trying to explain how clever he was against the dumb Americans, even though his country got its butt kicked. Certainly for the AWACS guys, comms security is their bread-and-butter, so I'd be really surprised to learn that they stuffed it up so badly...
That said, I'm personally dubious about this story being true - it reads more like a Serbian trying to explain how clever he was against the dumb Americans, even though his country got its butt kicked. Certainly for the AWACS guys, comms security is their bread-and-butter, so I'd be really surprised to learn that they stuffed it up so badly...
> That said, I'm personally dubious about this story being true - it reads more like a Serbian trying to explain how clever he was against the dumb Americans, even though his country got its butt kicked.
He never puts it that bluntly. And well, admit that he has something to brag about. As an ex RAAF radar engineer I'm sure you realize that scoring F-117 with ancient S-125 is no trivial feat.
As to his country getting its ass kicked, well. Really, what other outcome was there ever possible, victorious Serbian banner over Washington?
He never puts it that bluntly. And well, admit that he has something to brag about. As an ex RAAF radar engineer I'm sure you realize that scoring F-117 with ancient S-125 is no trivial feat.
As to his country getting its ass kicked, well. Really, what other outcome was there ever possible, victorious Serbian banner over Washington?
Well quite. The full might of NATO against an impoverished ex-Communist state approximately the size of Maine armed only with obsolete cast-offs. Well done America, you sure "kicked butt" there.
Now imagine what might have happened if the USAF had actually had tried to go up against fully equipped Red Army air defences. So much for Stealth.
Now imagine what might have happened if the USAF had actually had tried to go up against fully equipped Red Army air defences. So much for Stealth.
There is always money available for security measures such as crypto etc
But that simply isn't true. Why're British forces stuck with the outdated Clansman system? Your GSM mobile phone is more secure than the current-issue kit.
But that simply isn't true. Why're British forces stuck with the outdated Clansman system? Your GSM mobile phone is more secure than the current-issue kit.
We've been trying to build a better radio system (JTRS) for over a decade. It's over budget, behind schedule, scaled back, and still not ready. At the current rate, the radios are going to cost over $30,000/each.
I blame the Object Management Group (the good people who brought you CORBA) for being given too much influence in designing the architecture ;-) Although, I guess I can't complain too much since I am defense contractor (I'm hoping to build them a fancy compiler with some neat AI/heuristic static analysis goodness baked right in :-D).
I blame the Object Management Group (the good people who brought you CORBA) for being given too much influence in designing the architecture ;-) Although, I guess I can't complain too much since I am defense contractor (I'm hoping to build them a fancy compiler with some neat AI/heuristic static analysis goodness baked right in :-D).
Last but not least, never underestimate the ferocity and tenacity of the Serbs. The Ottomans and the Nazis sure learned their lesson.
So did the Bosnians, Croats, Kosovars, and Macedonians.
So did the Bosnians, Croats, Kosovars, and Macedonians.
Macedonians have never been at war with Serbia. We have traditionally been allies, mostly because we share the same orthodox religion. I will assume you have limited knowledge of what really happened in Balkans in the end of 20th century, so I can only recommend reading some independent sources.
I also recommend actually being in a war and then reading about it in the media. You would be surprised how biased CNN, Fox and BBC were during the NATO campaign in Kosovo (well, maybe not so much surprised by CNN and Fox). I personally was greatly disappointed by the BBC - I viewed them as one of the rare media telling mostly truth, but it turned out the BBC way of supporting official British politics was turning the blind eye to all bad things that were being done by Muslims in Kosovo.
And also, in near future you will get to see what kind of regime NATO was defending in Kosovo.
As far as F-117 is concerned, funny thing is how in Serbia we were watching Discovery channel's praising "documentaries" about that aircraft, telling (years after 1999) how it has never been shot down by the enemy. Well go to Belgrade and you can see it displayed, you don't even need a visa for Serbia.
Western media is a great war machine, much greater than some "invisible aircraft". And you miked, are either a part of that machine, or a foolish follower of their praise.
I also recommend actually being in a war and then reading about it in the media. You would be surprised how biased CNN, Fox and BBC were during the NATO campaign in Kosovo (well, maybe not so much surprised by CNN and Fox). I personally was greatly disappointed by the BBC - I viewed them as one of the rare media telling mostly truth, but it turned out the BBC way of supporting official British politics was turning the blind eye to all bad things that were being done by Muslims in Kosovo.
And also, in near future you will get to see what kind of regime NATO was defending in Kosovo.
As far as F-117 is concerned, funny thing is how in Serbia we were watching Discovery channel's praising "documentaries" about that aircraft, telling (years after 1999) how it has never been shot down by the enemy. Well go to Belgrade and you can see it displayed, you don't even need a visa for Serbia.
Western media is a great war machine, much greater than some "invisible aircraft". And you miked, are either a part of that machine, or a foolish follower of their praise.
And also, in near future you will get to see what kind of regime NATO was defending in Kosovo.
Why wait for the future... six months ago there was an affair regarding BND (German CIA) and Kosovo and this is what the German daily newspaper "Die Welt" writes about it. BTW, "Die Welt" is probably the most conservative newspaper in Germany and its reporting is actually quite pro-Kosovo-oriented. The subtitle "An act of revenge?" is most interesting for this discussion:
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2806537/German-spy-af...
Why wait for the future... six months ago there was an affair regarding BND (German CIA) and Kosovo and this is what the German daily newspaper "Die Welt" writes about it. BTW, "Die Welt" is probably the most conservative newspaper in Germany and its reporting is actually quite pro-Kosovo-oriented. The subtitle "An act of revenge?" is most interesting for this discussion:
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2806537/German-spy-af...
This discussion is getting way off the subject of HN. If there is any moderation, it would be nice to see it happen.
Moderation was nowhere in sight when Ted Kennedy's death was discussed ad nauseam here. If local (== US) politics didn't draw moderation I doubt international politics (war is an extension of politics?) will.
I completely agree with you btw. The rights and wrongs of any war (vs any technical hacks etc) are way off HN's focus. The suggested policy is apparently to flag any offending comments and keep quiet about it. How effective that policy is debatable.
I completely agree with you btw. The rights and wrongs of any war (vs any technical hacks etc) are way off HN's focus. The suggested policy is apparently to flag any offending comments and keep quiet about it. How effective that policy is debatable.
Gee. Who would have ever suspected this kind of thread of drawing people off into a pointless debate...
You are ignorant. Go read about the Balkans, and come back when you are less ignorant. I used to be ignorant too, and cheered when NATO bombed Belgrade. One day I visited the Balkans and what the people there told me, made me change my mind completely.
I am for life and for human rights. I am not against the Serbs. I am against the Serbs who committed atrocities. Moreover, not all Serbs are the same. The ethnical salad bowl in the Balkans is mind-boggling. Superficial analyses are plain stupid in this case.
I am for life and for human rights. I am not against the Serbs. I am against the Serbs who committed atrocities. Moreover, not all Serbs are the same. The ethnical salad bowl in the Balkans is mind-boggling. Superficial analyses are plain stupid in this case.
Then you should realize that Serbia was massacred by the Ottomans and they ruled over Serbia for ~450 years... I don't get your point of them learning their lesson?
"world's best Air Force" When measured by equipment?
Oh, I'd say when measured by capacity. I had the opportuniy several times to watch them in action - their toys are impressive - here are a couple of examples:
1) US F-16s up against Australian F-18s. In principle it should be a relatively level battle, but there's an important difference between the two aircraft - the F-16s are carrying AMRAAMs, whilst the Aussies had AIM9 Sidewinders. The AMRAAMS had standoff range - the F-16s could literally fire, and then turn tail and run, without ever entering the Australian missile range. The only successful way to engage them was to take them in a pincer movement, but that meant splitting your forces, they'd just turn and engage one group, which was now at half strength, and overwhelm with firepower...
2) Again, Oz vs US, the Aussies defending a site from attack. The radar was tracking the US aircraft coming in until they were about 200km away, at which point instead of just one flight of aircraft on the radar screen, we suddenly had three flights, each one performing seperate manoeuvres. They weren't just jamming the signal, they were generating alternative signals in real time, and basically feeding our antenna a pack of lies. We had to call in support from our over the horizon radar, just to figure out which was the real attack group... Of course, by the time that was done, they were already inside the defensive perimeter, so it was game over...
The point to all of this being that when the USAF is on the ball, it is an unstoppable machine. From ECM, to stealth to missile tech, to surveillance, they are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world. Their aircraft can act pretty much with impunity wherever they want in the world, whenever they want. Their only error is thinking that Air Supremecy automatically translates to political victory on the ground...
1) US F-16s up against Australian F-18s. In principle it should be a relatively level battle, but there's an important difference between the two aircraft - the F-16s are carrying AMRAAMs, whilst the Aussies had AIM9 Sidewinders. The AMRAAMS had standoff range - the F-16s could literally fire, and then turn tail and run, without ever entering the Australian missile range. The only successful way to engage them was to take them in a pincer movement, but that meant splitting your forces, they'd just turn and engage one group, which was now at half strength, and overwhelm with firepower...
2) Again, Oz vs US, the Aussies defending a site from attack. The radar was tracking the US aircraft coming in until they were about 200km away, at which point instead of just one flight of aircraft on the radar screen, we suddenly had three flights, each one performing seperate manoeuvres. They weren't just jamming the signal, they were generating alternative signals in real time, and basically feeding our antenna a pack of lies. We had to call in support from our over the horizon radar, just to figure out which was the real attack group... Of course, by the time that was done, they were already inside the defensive perimeter, so it was game over...
The point to all of this being that when the USAF is on the ball, it is an unstoppable machine. From ECM, to stealth to missile tech, to surveillance, they are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world. Their aircraft can act pretty much with impunity wherever they want in the world, whenever they want. Their only error is thinking that Air Supremecy automatically translates to political victory on the ground...
You guys (Aussies) don't use the Sparrow (instead of the AMRAAM)? Canadian CF-18's used them before they got the upgrade.
Huh, the Sidewinder is a short range IR missile? The Australian air force doesn't use long range radar missiles?
Ugh. I'm not sure that I'm allowed to discuss effective engagement ranges and such - it's classified information. Suffice it to say that the Australian AIM9 was modified to work a bit better than the standard AIM9 when in an enhanced environment (access to other radar system information in the local area etc). They weren't particularly short-range missiles, but the F-16s had stand-off range on them. I'm assuming that is why they chose AMRAAM as their armament for that encounter, because I know they use AIM9s elsewhere on their F16s...
Anyway, this story is about 12 years out of date now :-/ But I'm sure the technological gap between the US and the rest of the world still exists - it was after all Rummy's hobby horse.
Anyway, this story is about 12 years out of date now :-/ But I'm sure the technological gap between the US and the rest of the world still exists - it was after all Rummy's hobby horse.
Thats OK, the general theme of the Australian military is to be about 12 years out of date from the USA versions.
You guys get the cool new toys and we get the hand-me-downs, seems to be how it works :-)
You guys get the cool new toys and we get the hand-me-downs, seems to be how it works :-)
When measured by equipment, training, budget,... and arrogance.
Interesting article about how a few talented individuals on a shoestring budget can take on established, well-funded competitors.
Definitely.
It's quite similar to what John Boyd and his acolytes have talked about regarding military strategy for years. I recommend "Certain to Win" by Chet Richards for a digestible summary.
It's quite similar to what John Boyd and his acolytes have talked about regarding military strategy for years. I recommend "Certain to Win" by Chet Richards for a digestible summary.
Is it? It's very difficult to tell given the paucity of details. The 'well-funded, established competitor' was, for instance, able to extract the pilot within 8 hours. Beside the larger point that it was able to achieve its military and political objectives.
A guy with 200 soldiers and a few $20K missiles brought down $60M worth of US equipment. In the big picture it had no effect, but most people enjoy the underdog story.
this is what the remainder looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-117_canopy.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-117_canopy.jpg
Cool article. I've also read that they used parts from ordinary household microwaves to create fake targets for the US anti-radiation missiles.
Something that's sorely lacking from the article is any information on US long-term strategy. Did the US air force use the full range of jamming and deception technology at their disposl, or were they content to lose a few planes to keep their true capabilities secret?
Something that's sorely lacking from the article is any information on US long-term strategy. Did the US air force use the full range of jamming and deception technology at their disposl, or were they content to lose a few planes to keep their true capabilities secret?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_losses, the wreckage is now on display at the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade.
I had heard the F-117 bomb bay doors failed to close, causing the stealth to be lost. That wasn't mentioned here though.
Here's Lt. Col. Dale Zelko (the pilot of the F-117 that was shot down) telling what happened on the night of March 27th, 1999. It includes actual recordings of radio conversations (turn up the volume):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmqLyn4Q15U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmqLyn4Q15U
I've read in the past that he didn't actually hit the F-117. That unit has no radar warning for incoming missile. The pilot saw one coming in, giving him only a few seconds to react, and he ejected. The missile would not have hit the plane.
That's not quite what the pilot says. This is from an interview -
Lt. Col. Dale Zelko - The first missile went right over the top of me. So close, actually, that I was surprised it didn’t proximity fuse on me. I could feel the shock wave of it buffeting the aircraft. As soon as it went over I quickly re-acquired the second missile visually and when I did, I thought: “It’s goin’ to run right into me.” And it sure felt like it did.
RFA - So it was a direct hit?
Lt. Col. Dale Zelko - It may have proximity fused, I don’t know absolutely. In theory, if it didn’t have a warhead in it, if it was just a harpoon or a tree trunk, would it have gone through my aircraft? I don't know for certain. But if you look at the photos of the wreckage my entire left wing is missing. [...] The impact was extremely violent and slammed the aircraft into a left roll, negative g tuck. I estimate seven, if not more negative Gs which is enormous.
Lt. Col. Dale Zelko - The first missile went right over the top of me. So close, actually, that I was surprised it didn’t proximity fuse on me. I could feel the shock wave of it buffeting the aircraft. As soon as it went over I quickly re-acquired the second missile visually and when I did, I thought: “It’s goin’ to run right into me.” And it sure felt like it did.
RFA - So it was a direct hit?
Lt. Col. Dale Zelko - It may have proximity fused, I don’t know absolutely. In theory, if it didn’t have a warhead in it, if it was just a harpoon or a tree trunk, would it have gone through my aircraft? I don't know for certain. But if you look at the photos of the wreckage my entire left wing is missing. [...] The impact was extremely violent and slammed the aircraft into a left roll, negative g tuck. I estimate seven, if not more negative Gs which is enormous.
I guess the pilot of the aircraft probably has better information than whoever wrote whatever I read on the net somewhere years ago.
I would argue that the point you make is irrelevant. Col. Zoltan did enough to both prevent the aircraft form flying its mission and score a big -1 on the depth chart for the US.
Double win.
Double win.
I don't know about the USAF, but that particular combat tactic gets you a royal ass-chewing in Wing Commander.
That's a lot of work to shoot down one or two planes. Was he a good military leader? If you lose the battle but don't lose a single man then one might question your willingness to engage the enemy, a necessary unpleasantry of war.
His men undoubtedly most appreciated him because he kept them out of combat and alive.
And was the plane detected/shot down because of the defenders' skills or were there plane malfunctions, etc.?
His men undoubtedly most appreciated him because he kept them out of combat and alive.
And was the plane detected/shot down because of the defenders' skills or were there plane malfunctions, etc.?
This article provides no information about shooting stealth aircraft out of the sky with surplus Soviet weapons.
I claim false advertising and would like my 30 seconds back.
I claim false advertising and would like my 30 seconds back.
Just get your hands on one of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-7
1. Turn on 2. Point 3. Shoot 4. Run away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-7
1. Turn on 2. Point 3. Shoot 4. Run away.
On a related note, I have a special place in my heart for this beast:
http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1084742
http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1084742
Yuck. Really, you like that thing?
IMO, if you're going Soviet heritage, it begins and ends al-Fresco. :-)
IMO, if you're going Soviet heritage, it begins and ends al-Fresco. :-)
Yes, I really like that thing. Performance at cruise on the Туманскиы Р35-500 is 40.21 kN, which puts it at just about Mach speeds. For $45k.
That. That is entertainment.
That. That is entertainment.
$89K is just the acquisition cost. Try getting a part for it.
You'd be better of with the Albatross, even if it is slower. :)
I share your appreciation of speed though.
You'd be better of with the Albatross, even if it is slower. :)
I share your appreciation of speed though.
That particular listing is $45k in this month's Controller. The nearest Микоян parts are sold out of a location in Prescott, AZ. There's a type club in Reno for L-29/L-39s, and it's possible to get parts through a chain there, but MiGs were mass-produced for third world tinpot dictatorship acquisition, with a ready supply of back-compatible parts. There's a reason it was/is the most popular fighter in the world, and that reason is a lot like why Honda is a popular bike.
Either way, it's academic, mainly because you're not getting a jet trainer, I only want to get rated for one and neither of us can afford the fuel besides.
Either way, it's academic, mainly because you're not getting a jet trainer, I only want to get rated for one and neither of us can afford the fuel besides.
Somebody has done their homework! ;-)
But yes you're correct... this fantasy is reserved for post acquisition day.
But yes you're correct... this fantasy is reserved for post acquisition day.
That thing may be ugly but it shot down countless American F-4 Phantoms over the skies of North Vietnam. Do not underestimate Soviet tech.
True, but the only thing I was evaluating was what it looked like.
Once you're in the cockpit, all it matters is the performance. I would rather fly a MIG-21 than an F-4. But, of course, if I had enough money I would prefer to fly a SU-27 or an F-16, so that I could have the performance and the looks ;-)
I still can't believe the US and NATO have bombarded Serbia which is a country in the heart of Europe. This just shows that any country can be attacked.
Btw. the reasons for invading Serbia back then have been debunked as propaganda later on in the same way the Iraq war excuses have been debunked. There were no Serbian concentration camps etc.
Btw. the reasons for invading Serbia back then have been debunked as propaganda later on in the same way the Iraq war excuses have been debunked. There were no Serbian concentration camps etc.
Youre statements are propaganda (if any). I'm a citizen of one of countries of former republic of Yugoslavia. I know people from all involved countries. I've been to most of these countries and I know what are the facts of Serb agenda and what were the results.
They were no more victims than Germans in WW2.
Edit: About half of referenced article is truth and makes sense.
However article is taken out of context of 90' on balkans. IMHO NATO intervention had a lot to do with feeling of guilt of NATO members for allowing the Bosnia debacle. Most westerners don't understand that Kosovo is Serbian hallow ground and that they would exterminate Albanians without thinking twice (once they were already on rampage). Short term this was probably the only solution. Long term there will be more bloodbath in Kosovo.
They were no more victims than Germans in WW2.
Edit: About half of referenced article is truth and makes sense.
However article is taken out of context of 90' on balkans. IMHO NATO intervention had a lot to do with feeling of guilt of NATO members for allowing the Bosnia debacle. Most westerners don't understand that Kosovo is Serbian hallow ground and that they would exterminate Albanians without thinking twice (once they were already on rampage). Short term this was probably the only solution. Long term there will be more bloodbath in Kosovo.
References?
The stated purpose of FPIF's work is the maxim that "U.S. security and world stability are best advanced through a commitment to peace, justice and environmental protection as well as economic, political, and social rights"
By flagging it?
He plastered the F-117 interface with so many ads and links to unrelated stories that it became so painful to navigate, read, and comprehend that the pilots sent the plane downward.
That is very impressive.
If he only had serious computing power, enough cell phone towers, and plenty of fiber-optic cable, he could have triangulated the position of steal bombers from the interference patterns.
Also, old Soviet radars operate on longer wavelengths and interestingly enough are sometimes more effective at detecting stealth aircraft.