Russian aircraft buzz USS Kitty Hawk

[Officer of Engineers]

I actually don't understand what is the point of flying over Carrier? Intelligence? Satellites can make great picture and give all neccessary details of the deck life..... I pretty sure Russian satellites do film US Carriers.

Bragging rights.

[Garry]

Youa re forgetting Scott O'Grady.
BTW STealty does not equate = invisible. It only means detection will be so late as to prevent effective counter measures. In both GWI and Yugosolavia the enemy routinly did track the Nighthawk, usually too late.

Yes. It is far from invisible.

I don't understand something...... what does it means too late to prevent effective counter measures for a subsonic bomber which is equipped only with passive radar? ..... detected at 30 km distance by S-125 it is within engagement zone for few minutues. Can it fight back? Probably..... but cost of S-125 is much lower.... you can buy few tens S-125 for one F-117.

The S-125 has range of around 30km..... Yugoslavians simply did not have any longer range system. Same as Iraqis. But this system was VERY VERY OLD and inefficient. Look there were more than hundred attacks attempts from S-125 against NATO NON STEALTHY aircraft and none of them except for that poor F-117 had any problems. Iraqis did hit few aircraft with S-125..... but only in first days.

[Garry]

Bragging rights.

OK. I see. The pilot played dangerous game with no realy purpose to achieve....

So he just tried to take risk of testing of CBG defence capabilities and their reaction on such behaviour......

[Officer of Engineers]

Garry,

Have you ever met fighter pilots? Do you know the size of their egos? Besides, it ain't wartime and it's international airspace and the aircraft displayed no hostile intent (ie, no weapons lock). Flying low ain't illegal.

[BenRoethig]

Listen..... when you say that it was shot down because it went same way few nights IT MEANS IT WAS DETECTED GOING THIS WAY FEW NIGHTS.

Secondly. Are you going to follow Mr Bluesman who is hard believer in SHOOTING F-117 IN THE NIGHT WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE? He actually never explained how it was possible..... if it is then WHY THE HELL TO BE STEALTHY IF YOU CAN BE DETECTED BY RADAR AND THEN SHOT DOWN WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE?

So despite all the funds sunk into its development real effectiveness of F-117 against highly dense SAM defence areas is highly doubtful..... Look NONE OF F-16 used in Yugoslavia were shot down though they had a lot of sorties...... are they really stealthy?

It happens when you're instructed to fly the exact same flight plan everynight.

[Garry]

It happens when you're instructed to fly the exact same flight plan everynight.

what is the merit of your stealthiness if enemy detects you and knows where and when you are flying at maximum the range it has (30km for S-125)? Why to sink billions? F-117 was supposed to do missions against Soviet Union..... I doubt it was good for that challenge.

[sparten]

Yes thats true Garry, but some perspective. It was only one step up from a prototype. So in that sence very good.

[HistoricalDavid]

what is the merit of your stealthiness if enemy detects you and knows where and when you are flying at maximum the range it has (30km for S-125)? Why to sink billions? F-117 was supposed to do missions against Soviet Union..... I doubt it was good for that challenge.

To the United States, 'billions' is peanuts. 'Tens of billions' and it might be a concern.

Seriously, how does ONE failure out of thousands of sorties into enemy territory make the whole project worthless?

And was the F-117 supposed to do missions into the Soviet Union? I didn't know it had that range, and I thought that was the role of the B-2. Guess I was wrong?

Listen..... when you say that it was shot down because it went same way few nights IT MEANS IT WAS DETECTED GOING THIS WAY FEW NIGHTS.

[/b]

Detected? Ignoring the possbility of other sources of intelligence, it still means that the F-117 can successfully penetrate radar-protected territory to take targets out. Frankly a lucky shot doesn't make the whole thing kaput.

Secondly. Are you going to follow Mr Bluesman who is hard believer in SHOOTING F-117 IN THE NIGHT WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE? He actually never explained how it was possible..... if it is then WHY THE HELL TO BE STEALTHY IF YOU CAN BE DETECTED BY RADAR AND THEN SHOT DOWN WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE?

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I believe people like Bluesman, highsea and jgetti are...

So despite all the funds sunk into its development real effectiveness of F-117 against highly dense SAM defence areas is highly doubtful.....

Iraq was 'quite' well defended in 1991, with one of the largest armies in the world and one of the densest SAM systems, yet did that stop the F-117s sauntering in? Nope.

The F-117 has proven itself in combat, albeit with ONE loss. What that tells us is that it is fallible... which sensible people knew already, by definition, for any machine built by man is fallible.

Look NONE OF F-16 used in Yugoslavia were shot down though they had a lot of sorties......

Scott O'Grady? The poor bastard nearly froze, if I remember correctly?

Were they used in the sorts of missions the F-117 was used in?

are they really stealthy?

And ONE F-117 being shot down out of thousands of sorties does not necessarily invalidate the whole aircraft's stealth! You really do pounce on one engagement?

In contrast, it's easy to hear the Russians or Russian-lovers on this board praise equipment that has at best a mediocre record - the MiG-15 or -21 - or at worst an abysmal record - the MiG-29.

[Bill]

GARRY: "what is the merit of your stealthiness if enemy detects you and knows where and when you are flying at maximum the range it has (30km for S-125)? Why to sink billions? F-117 was supposed to do missions against Soviet Union..... I doubt it was good for that challenge."

In over 10,000 combat sorties exactly 1 f-117 has ever even been hit, and you are going to talk trash?

Wow....

The F-117 is a very difficult aircraft to detect on radar, and yes gizmo, optical tracking works at night.(or do you really think we cant use TOW missiles at night?)

[Francois]

In contrast, it's easy to hear the Russians or Russian-lovers on this board praise equipment that has at best a mediocre record - the MiG-15 or -21 - or at worst an abysmal record - the MiG-29.

yes, the so wonderful russian platforms.
Just remembering that not that long ago, the US Congres allowed to pay $25m for the housing of the russian sailors.
That makes such a good reputation.

[canoe]

yes, the so wonderful russian platforms.
Just remembering that not that long ago, the US Congres allowed to pay $25m for the housing of the russian sailors.
That makes such a good reputation.

The problem with the Russian military completely stems from two things.

1. A lack of funds of military R&D, and the military in general.
2. The military has no clear concept of what it should be restructuring to do.

The Russian government is for the most part realistic about the realities and threats of the world currently. The Russian military definately is not, the Russian military upper ranks still have alot of people who of the old school thinking that NATO was their primary threat and enemy and thats who they should be configured, trained and equipped to fight against.

The realities of the world are that former warsaw pack countries have moved on and NATO is of no threat to them at all anymore. The Russian military should be restructuring to deal with the current issues that face them today. That means losing alot of their bigger naval ships and focusing on smaller more advanced and cost effective ships. They also need to reduce the size of their army and switch it to a better equipped all volenteer force. The Russian airforce for the most part is fine but they may want to consider retiring alot of their older aircraft in order to reallocate funding to upgrade current ones and purchase new ones.

[Francois]

but they may want to consider retiring alot of their older aircraft in order to reallocate funding to upgrade current ones and purchase new ones.

I suggest they throw all away and buy western...
They will have everything to gain (reliaibility, maintenance, and so on...).

[canoe]

I suggest they throw all away and buy western...
They will have everything to gain (reliaibility, maintenance, and so on...).

Russia buying U.S aircraft is about as likely as the U.S Airforce buying Russian aircraft. It will never happen.

[Bill]

The US has a ton of old Russian planes. I presume we paid SOMEBODY for them. ;)

[Dreadnought]

Yeah a yard sale lmao We needed something to shoot at for training.