Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Success Rate of SAMs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Garry
    Well it sounds quite high for Stingers... this hit rate could be true only for the first 10 MONTH of Stinger use. After than HUNDREDS of stingers yeilded in few aircraft shot down.

    Somebody added Afghanistan Air Force to a large number of aircraft shot down. But this is really funny! The AAF never exceeded 50 aircraft of which 36 were helicopters.... the problem - too few Afghan pilots :) So I can not understand where these inflated figures come from! I guess this comes from Afghanistan mojahedeen.... but mojahedeens NEVER reported anything close to reality. Look at what AQ reports on USA losses in Iraq.... and then tell if these reports can be taken for consideration?

    The Russian statistics states that total number of helicopters and aircraft lost in Afghanistan was around 350 units of which 333 were helicopters. Of these more than 50% were NOT SHOT down but crashed at non-combat reasons - at mountain landing... engine malfuntion, collisions, lack of fuel, etc. The remaining half was lost due to combat reasons of which MACHINE GUNS were the MAIN reason for 2/3rds of COMBAT losses - leaving around 50 success to Stingers. I don't know how the author of the book could count 269 hits.... and so few firings!!! Indeed around 1200 Stingers were delivered and less than 60 were bought back by CIA and US Army, where are the remaining SAMs?

    There is a more reliable data from Pakistani army which reported firing 28 stingers and report NO HITS...... against Soviet Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters.

    At Kargill Pakistani army scored two aircraft and one Mi-17 helicopter of Inian Air Force. However number of missiles fired is not reported.

    The pilot who flew in Afghanistan on Mi-24 told that during certain missions few Stingers were launched against his helicopter but failed even before he shot his flares.... his view was that MOST of Stingers were NON OPERATIONAL before launch due to bad storage. Other officers from their regiment had experienced stinger missiles exploding right after launch. He served from 1987 and his regiment lost few helicopters TO HIGH CALIBRE MACHINE GUNS being ambushed at landing.......

    Thanks for the info

    Comment


    • #32
      Hmmm above 15Km yeah but what if the enemy also has a SA-10 what you going to do then. Also SAM's arnt exactly useless if you have the SAM that is right for a job then you got a good SAM also the Serbian SA-3 that was upgraded a year before with local rescources that was from 250th Rocekete bragade located in belgrade managed too pick up a American F-117A stealth aircraft.

      Comment


      • #33
        One also has to take into account the experience/training of the men operating the SAM site. The inexperience of operators could be the cause of many SAM misses.
        "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Serbianpsyco
          Hmmm above 15Km yeah but what if the enemy also has a SA-10 what you going to do then. Also SAM's arnt exactly useless if you have the SAM that is right for a job then you got a good SAM also the Serbian SA-3 that was upgraded a year before with local rescources that was from 250th Rocekete bragade located in belgrade managed too pick up a American F-117A stealth aircraft.
          Yet at the same time they failed MISERABLY to down any more than a small handful of unstealthy planes.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Serbianpsyco
            Hmmm above 15Km yeah but what if the enemy also has a SA-10 what you going to do then. Also SAM's arnt exactly useless if you have the SAM that is right for a job then you got a good SAM also the Serbian SA-3 that was upgraded a year before with local rescources that was from 250th Rocekete bragade located in belgrade managed too pick up a American F-117A stealth aircraft.
            1.) An F117 flew the same flight path a few times in a row.(predictable positions)
            2.) Tracked by Long waves (inaccurate for targeting but great for surveillance)
            3.) Too much flight path info brodcasted in the media and spies spying on F117's
            4.) Sharp turns increase the F117 RCS by a factor of 100. Which most likely happened considering the air traffic conditions among with many others conditions.
            5.) They only brung down 1 ever think of why only 1 jackass.
            6.) the F117 is OLD stealth tech (should not be confused with obsolete)
            7.) Possibility of leaving weapons bay open too long.
            8.) You can predict the F117's position very well with the reasons stated above. Then use LOAL techniques with your missiles. Most sams have electro optical/TV light homing when they get close to their target in the terminal phase of their flight.

            Im not scared of the SA-10. I can get a few stealth planes (X45 SEAD UCAV) and JSF with anti armor JSOWS and take them out. Also don't forget the latest HARM missile.You also don't seem to take in to account jamming capabilities like the EA 18G or EB 52.How much of a jackass can you be. You're such a sorry piece of ****.
            Last edited by Shadowsided; 16 May 06,, 23:07.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by urmomma158
              1.) An F117 flew the same flight path a few times in a row.(predictable positions)
              2.) Tracked by Long waves (inaccurate for targeting but great for surveillance)
              3.) Too much flight path info brodcasted in the media and spies spying on F117's
              4.) Sharp turns increase the F117 RCS by a factor of 100. Which most likely happened considering the air traffic conditions among with many others conditions.
              5.) They only brung down 1 ever think of why only 1 jackass.
              6.) the F117 is OLD stealth tech (should not be confused with obsolete)
              7.) Possibility of leaving weapons bay open too long.
              8.) You can predict the F117's position very well with the reasons stated above. Then use LOAL techniques with your missiles. Most sams have electro optical/TV light homing when they get close to their target in the terminal phase of their flight.

              Im not scared of the SA-10. I can get a few stealth planes (X45 SEAD UCAV) and JSF with anti armor JSOWS and take them out. Also don't forget the latest HARM missile.You also don't seem to take in to account jamming capabilities like the EA 18G or EB 52.How much of a jackass can you be. You're such a sorry piece of ****.

              I think you need to take it easy on the smack talk there chief.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by urmomma158
                1.) An F117 flew the same flight path a few times in a row.(predictable positions)
                2.) Tracked by Long waves (inaccurate for targeting but great for surveillance)
                3.) Too much flight path info brodcasted in the media and spies spying on F117's
                4.) Sharp turns increase the F117 RCS by a factor of 100. Which most likely happened considering the air traffic conditions among with many others conditions.
                5.) They only brung down 1 ever think of why only 1 jackass.
                6.) the F117 is OLD stealth tech (should not be confused with obsolete)
                7.) Possibility of leaving weapons bay open too long.
                8.) You can predict the F117's position very well with the reasons stated above. Then use LOAL techniques with your missiles. Most sams have electro optical/TV light homing when they get close to their target in the terminal phase of their flight.

                Im not scared of the SA-10. I can get a few stealth planes (X45 SEAD UCAV) and JSF with anti armor JSOWS and take them out. Also don't forget the latest HARM missile.You also don't seem to take in to account jamming capabilities like the EA 18G or EB 52.How much of a jackass can you be. You're such a sorry piece of ****.
                At least we shot down something wernt not like IRAQ plus you just won a air war never came down on the ground. Plus IRAQ has the money to upgrade anything they wont we didnt have oil and gas we had only 1billion dollar defence budget that 100million dollars was spent on upgrades we also had an UN embargo then so we coulnt buy the best upgrades from russia plus those missles we also fired had damaged some planes not shot them down but 1 A-10 was damaged and never flew again also a F-117. Plus to you old technolgy thats now not when that was happening and what a F-16A is old tecnolgy and you going proboly say NO and F-117A is not as old as F-16A. Plus whats your probloem swearing at me and i didnt say anything rude to you i dont go up to you and say hi wereing white robes.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                  I think you need to take it easy on the smack talk there chief.
                  I second that, please keep it civil. We're all adults here, I think.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper
                    Yet at the same time they failed MISERABLY to down any more than a small handful of unstealthy planes.
                    According to NATO press service they launched more than 100 SAM missiles... against those non-stealthy aircraft.... with no any damage to NATO aircraft. On the opposite few SAM radars were destroyed.

                    it is quite obvious.... no SAM was younger than 1970.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by canoe
                      I second that, please keep it civil. We're all adults here, I think.
                      Only just in my case, I think there are a few 16 or so year olds here as well.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Garry
                        According to NATO press service they launched more than 100 SAM missiles... against those non-stealthy aircraft.... with no any damage to NATO aircraft. On the opposite few SAM radars were destroyed.

                        it is quite obvious.... no SAM was younger than 1970.

                        I thought it'd been established that the Serbian Military was trying to play it safe by hiding all their gear and letting NATO blow up dummy tanks and the like, so they'd still have a maneuver capability if NATO invaded Kosovo (not that those tanks would have stood a chance in hell against mechanized formations from America and Germany).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hey Spoonman that picture you got is so freaky when you look at it. I see your from melbourne im from perth do you have any air RAF airbases in melbourne that have f-18 Hornets beacuse i live about 20km away from RAF pearcy air base that has f-18hornets and ive been there too look at the aircraft beacuse my mums freind her son works there his a pilot he flys the f-18 hornet.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Serbia would still have a good chance it doesnt metter how much technogly you have in those tanks it matters if your smart and what tactics you use. Plus you forgot about soliders and in Serbia its compulsry service and they call any men from 17-49 years old to fight and thats 2.5million. Plus you could have around 4 RPG missiles firing at you in the same time.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                              I thought it'd been established that the Serbian Military was trying to play it safe by hiding all their gear and letting NATO blow up dummy tanks and the like, so they'd still have a maneuver capability if NATO invaded Kosovo (not that those tanks would have stood a chance in hell against mechanized formations from America and Germany).
                              Hei Spoonman! I guess they were hiding but tried to shoot down something.... just could not do much. No surprise their equipement was too old..... and too short range.

                              I googled and found some links where they talk about 700 missiles fired, though the source is not reliable (page 8 in the table)
                              http://www.house.gov/pitts/initiativ...001-CRS-EW.pdf

                              Duration of Conflict (Days)--------78
                              NATO Aircraft ------------------------900
                              Sorties Flown----------------------- 38,000
                              SAMs fired at NATO Aircraft ------700
                              NATO Aircraft Shot Down ---------2
                              what was that second NATO aircraft which was downed? Which country?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                                I thought it'd been established that the Serbian Military was trying to play it safe by hiding all their gear and letting NATO blow up dummy tanks and the like, so they'd still have a maneuver capability if NATO invaded Kosovo...
                                Correct.
                                Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                                ...(not that those tanks would have stood a chance in hell against mechanized formations from America and Germany).
                                Stood a chance in hell is a bit excessive. Not that I'm claiming that we would win, but it would have been far from bloodless. We had a good tank school, a lot of experience from previous wars and we were highly motivated - we were fighting for our country.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X