Is this true?

[mysterious]

Woah! I just read somewhere that the Serbs (in 1999) shot down a USAF F-117 NightHawk with the Russian S-300 SAM in Yugoslav; how true is that? Gary, any comments or how about enlightening me with this story in detail? :smokingc:

 

[tatra]

It is only partially true: Serbs did shoot down an F-117 but not with S-300

In the opening phase of Allied Force, aimed primarily at Yugoslavia's integrated air defense system, NATO air forces conducted more than 400 sorties. During the first two night attacks, allied troops in the air and at sea struck 90 targets throughout Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. F-117 Nighthawks from the 8th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base NM participated in air strikes against targets in the Balkans during NATO operations. One F-117 fighter was lost over Yugoslavia on 27 March 1999. A US search and rescue team picked up the pilot several hours after the F-117 went down outside Belgrade.

Images and video here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm

A secret Air Force inquiry believes a combination of tactics, quick learning and luck came together in one brilliant moment. Serbian spotters in Serbia, and perhaps in Bosnia and along the Montenegrin coast, may have patched together enough quick glimpses of the warplane from scattered radars to track the elusive aircraft, however briefly, to fire an SA-3 missile from a battery near Belgrade.

Details hgere: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html

 

[gf0012-aust]

There was also an issue of poor planning. Apparently the pilot had flown the exact same route 3 nights in a row. Another wild card is that some in the UN have said that some French Intel officers sympathetic to the serbs leaked flight details (after the 3 nights running episode)

The fact that they guessed that the pilot would take the same route meant that they were all set up for a box kill.

Stealth doesn't mean invisible - in this case a few factors made it decidedly "visible"

 

[|||]

i read another version that the f-117 was shot down by a mig-29 that happened to be nearby:?

 

[P.A.F]

thats funny man : . such a high tech jet getting shot down by a missile.

 

[gf0012-aust]

thats funny man : . such a high tech jet getting shot down by a missile.

For goodness sake, read why it occurred. Due to a number of factors it was compromised - it wasn't a failing on the technology at all - it was if anything operational negligence on the part of the pilot for becoming complacent on planning his route.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i read another version that the f-117 was shot down by a mig-29 that happened to be nearby:?

In a word - bollocks. The USAF had complete air dominance - ever since they had dropped some Serbian AF Migs from the sky the SAF had failed to challenge and were unable to challenge any NATO plane.

F117's don't go in cold, there is an AWACs as part of the assist package - any plane in region would have been picked up by not only the attending AWACs but also NATO's AWACs out of Belgium.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

The reason it got shot down, like GF mentioned, was the pilot flown the same route 3 times, also EA-6 support was not in place to support the F-117 at the time. Several Serb radars on the ground picked up faint signals and fired four SA-3 missiles instead of one many people believed.

 

[|||]

oh well i guess you are right gf. anyway it was damn unlucky for that pilot. btw whats the range of the awacs radar?

 

[gf0012-aust]

oh well i guess you are right gf. anyway it was damn unlucky for that pilot. btw whats the range of the awacs radar?

The unclassified range of an E3 is circa 450km. The classified range is obviously different.

 

[yasin_khan]

gf0012
Is it possible to destroy F-117 form any missile? i think it is stealth. :eek

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012
Is it possible to destroy F-117 form any missile? i think it is stealth. :eek

Of course, the issue is identifying the plane with enough targetting info to get the shot off.

In the case of one event in Serbia, a "Stinkbug" was sitting between a pair of F-15's, the Serbs did not even see the 3rd plane sitting there - and the F-15's were not "covering it".

Any plane can be shot down, thats why the plane should only be used in favourable circumstances, under approp planning and with relevant support. Stealth does not mean invisible or invincible.

 

[mysterious]

All this discussion seems to have given me my answer. Thnx fellaz, again notably, Gary. :smokingc:

 

[corsair7772]

This is a pretty hopeful sign for the PAF if you take all this in a wider context. I mean if the IAF gets the F-22 or Su-37 by 2010 wed still be able to take it down, one way or the other.

 

[VICTORA1]

Guys,
There are a couple of things missing here---there were people sitting outside the base, keeping record of all the planes that were flying in and out of there and sending the info over to the serbs. Second thing the terrain was totally different than that of Iraq, flat plains and desert, no camoflague, nowhere to hide comapre that to green lush hillsides to hide AA batteries and mountains. F117 a subsonic plane and no offensive weaponery---don't have no fangs. So there is no comparison between in shooting down an F22 or SU30 to this plane.

Wars are not won by shooting down one or two top notch enemy aircraft---where the enemy can replace them in twice the numbers at its discretion where they want them and how they want them and when they want them.

There is no hopeful sign for the PAF in that context neither the wider part of it nor at the slimest of the margins.

 

[corsair7772]

ur rite on that one. i withdraw my case.

 

[Deltared075]

This is a pretty hopeful sign for the PAF if you take all this in a wider context. I mean if the IAF gets the F-22 or Su-37 by 2010 wed still be able to take it down, one way or the other.

The Indian maybe can get the Su-37, but the F-22 will be imposible, i also doubt that Japan and Israel can get the F-22.

 

[tatra]

i read another version that the f-117 was shot down by a mig-29 that happened to be nearby:?

In a word - bollocks. The USAF had complete air dominance - ever since they had dropped some Serbian AF Migs from the sky the SAF had failed to challenge and were unable to challenge any NATO plane.

You mean NATO, not USAF. A Serbian MiG was downed by an F16 belonging to the Royal Dutch Air Force, supported by a NATO owned, crewed and operated AWACS.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i read another version that the f-117 was shot down by a mig-29 that happened to be nearby:?

In a word - bollocks. The USAF had complete air dominance - ever since they had dropped some Serbian AF Migs from the sky the SAF had failed to challenge and were unable to challenge any NATO plane.

You mean NATO, not USAF. A Serbian MiG was downed by an F16 belonging to the Royal Dutch Air Force, supported by a NATO owned, crewed and operated AWACS.

Tatra, another incident of authoring laziness on my part. I generalised on USAF as they had the dominant footprint. AFAIK The NATO AWACs is "owned" bt NATO, but critical workstation points are still USAF manned.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i read another version that the f-117 was shot down by a mig-29 that happened to be nearby:?

The F-117 may be invisible....................but if its spotted by rival jets................then its a sitting duck.It is not great in dogfights............infact i doubt if it can do any DOGFIGHTS.And a missile is all it takes to get it out of the sky. :smokingc:

A few things you appear to have missed:

1) It's not meant to be invisible - that is not what stealth is.
2) It's not designed for dogfighting - it's a stealth strike platform
3) Fail to use it for it's tasking - and it will get compromised.

therefore, assuming that you understand what the F-117 is designed for - why make blindingly obvious comments?? - whats your point??