Interesting… Col. Zoltan Dani might have an interesting perspective to share.
1 Like
Thank you for this. I actually especially liked that he retired to run a family bakery.
1 Like
Here is the story behind the S-125 shootdown of an F-117 by the Serbs in March 1999, as posted by U.S. Air Force engineer on Quora, “How did the Serbs manage to shoot down the F-117A if it was a stealth aircraft?”.
Through a combination of Complacency, Strategy and Luck.
First the Complacency. This was on the part of the US Air Force, and joint allied forces. The routes used by the F-117s during the shoot down had been flown previously multiple times. This contrary to the F-117 operations in the 91 war where they flew into Baghdad, never repeating the same inbound track consecutively.
Now let’s discuss the Strategy.
For these ambushes they employed two radar systems. First the P-18 “Spoon Rest D” early warning radar. This radar is a Soviet Union radar system that operates in the VHF frequency. Typical it can detect a fighter aircraft out to 200 nautical miles. The Serbs discovered that by setting it to its absolute lowest frequency, and thus largest wavelength, they could detect the F-117As. However, at these settings the radar can not provide very good information on the F-117s, and the ‘early warning’ radar could only detect them within 15 miles. This is a very poor detection range indeed, however if you just so happen to know the route your enemy is flying, it is enough to let you know when they are getting within range of your other systems.
With the P-18 indicating the F-117s were in the area, they would time for a possible intercept and when they believed the F-117s were close enough, activate the SNR-125 radar trained in the direction of the incoming F-117s. They limited the amount of time they kept the SNR-125s active due to the risk of being detected by the EW aircraft and then hit with Anti-Radar missiles. On both previous attempts the SNR-125 was unable to detect or track the F-117s. This brings us to the last bit.
Luck.
On the day of the shoot down, as has been mentioned, the Serbs got intelligence that the F-117s would be flying a strike mission without the support of the Prowlers. Being well drilled in setting up these ambushes, they positioned their S-125 missile system into position on the F-117s suspected approach.
The P-18 radar detected the F-117As when they were about 15 miles out. They Serbs activated their SNR-125 radar and detected…… nothing. Looks like they were going to miss out again.
Except for the fact that they knew no Prowlers were in the air. That being the case, they decided to try again. They activated their SNR-125 radars another time.
Meanwhile, aboard Vega-31 the Air Force pilot was preparing to drop his ordnance. His weapon bay doors opened, exposing his very radar reflective bomb bay interior.
The SNR-125 radar detected the F-117A five miles distant. We should point out that this strike mission had 3 F-117s in it, and they only were able to target one of them. This reinforces the fact that they were ONLY able to do so because at that time Vega-31s weapons bays were open.
The Serbs fired at least 2 missiles at Vega-31. The F-117A had no indication it was being painted by a targeting radar, but the pilot did visually acquire two missiles that were launched against him. The first missile flew right by the aircraft, passing it overhead. A close miss. The missiles passing buffeted the stealth fighter but it did not detonate, its proximity trigger likely not detecting the F-117 to initiate detonation. The second missile that approached also failed to hit the F-117 but it DID detonate in close proximity.
The F-117 took blast and fragment damage. Flight control was lost, and the pilot was forced to eject.
Read the whole thing, if you can get through the poor copy editing.
5 Likes
5 Likes
Foreshadowing (?):
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/russias-most-powerful-warship-in-the-black-sea-is-operating-in-a-pattern/
2 Likes
The Fog of War gets thicker! The text talks about the Moskva capsizing in rough seas, while the photo of the “hit” shows relatively calm seas. It is also interesting that there happened to be a drone in the right position to take the photo at the right instant. We have to remember that only a few weeks ago the Ukrainian side was caught using images from a video game to claim that this showed Russian aircraft being shot down.
If there was an explosion in the gun turret, that would hardly be unprecedented. Back in 1989, the USS Iowa suffered just such an explosion in a gun turret – handling explosives is always a risky issue.
If the sinking of the Moskva was indeed due to a missile strike, one of the big questions is the extent of NATO involvement – such as possibly by providing targeting information. If so, there is a danger that this incident could lead to a major escalation of the war. We in the West don’t get much information about the Russian side. According to this Russian-speaking blogger, Putin is getting severe criticism within Russia for being too cautious and trying too hard to avoid civilian casualties. Let’s hope the loss of the Moskva does not give the hard-liners the opportunity to widen the conflict.
6 Likes
?Where exactly would he widen the conflict TO. He’s already in Ukraine - he can only contemplate going into Poland or Hungary - neither of which is a good choice for him. What HE needs to do is figure out how to extract himself while being able to declare victory.
US pilots over North Vietnam got very frustrated at seeing Soviet ships unloading the Ground-to-Air missiles that would be used against them – but being forbidden by LBJ from bombing them on the docks. We should not assume that Russia will be as polite.
Since the US and NATO are rapidly making themselves functional belligerents in an undeclared war against Russia, it would hardly be surprising if Russia decided to sink ships, shot down planes, and bomb rail shipments carrying weapons to the Ukrainian rulers before they reached the Ukraine. “Our Guys” are playing a very dangerous game – promoting conflict instead of trying to broker a settlement before things get out of control.
5 Likes
Iowa’s 16-inch guns used separate bags of propellant. Big fire and explosion hazard:
Russian AK-130 uses integral cartridges. We can see the cases being ejected:
5 Likes
Yes, that is true, but we didn’t want to get into a war with China or Russia. But we did bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail, with no real repercussions. ?Who’s Putin going to bomb without repercussions. ?Are you seriously suggesting Putin is so crazed as to risk a war with NATO. I realize some of his decisions appear to be outside of our “rational” framework. But still…
?Wasn’t that to taylor the load to the distance needed. You loaded a different number of bags depending on the shot. Sort of like pulling increments on a mortar round.
1 Like
It looks as if NATO is so crazed as to risk a war with Russia.
And of course any war that US/NATO successfully initiates with Russia will inevitably go nuclear. That is why it is so dumb for US/NATO to be seeking to expand the conflict in the Ukraine instead of doing the normal thing of trying to broker an end to the fighting.
My guess remains that “Our Leaders” know they have painted themselves into a disastrous economic corner – no way to repair the damage done by offshoring productive industry, running up unrepayable debts, making commitments on Social Security that can never be honored, destroying the educational system, undermining the currency, wasting our limited resources on dead-end follies like windmills.
They have no easy way out. From the perspective of Our Betters, a global thermonuclear war now looks like the least unacceptable alternative. Apres nous, le deluge … as they might say.
4 Likes
Is it time to remind them of this view, from “Commander Zeep’s Paranoid Theories” in Smurfs in Hell #4?
Who is more likely to stop the government from pushing the button—nonviolent protestors crying around the peace tree, or nasty individuals saying, “Go ahead and push the f****** button. We’re heavily armed, well prepared, and ready to hunt your ass down after the fallout settles?”
Personal liability for “leaders” of illegitimate regimes is an excellent replacement for sovereign immunity, and should apply for “public health” disasters as well as starting murderous wars.
6 Likes
Let’s take this apart. NATO is willing to go to war with Russia. This ought to scare the beJesus out of Putin. An economy smaller than Texas is willing to go to war with NATO. This now includes fellow Slavs like Poland and Slovaks and the Majars (Hungary). It’s now been 50 days and the Ukrainians still are fighting - and winning if in no other measure than that Russia has not won. And they would be subjected not only in continuing the fight in Ukraine but also the other Slavic nations, none of which have fond memories of USSR occupation. And this doesn’t even count the rest of NATO.
So Russia, according to you, will go nuclear. ?How many do you think will actually fire. Remember, Russia is suppose to have a peer military to us. ?Does it look like they even come close. Bet at least 50% of what they fire malfunctions - possibly even killing Russians. Remember, Russian military is run by a bunch of kleptocrats.
I agree with you that peace is the desirable result. But one doesn’t stop a bully by acquiescing to his demands. The Ukrainians have done a great job of defending their country. And I don’t believe a bit of the “news” that the Ukrainians are committing “genocide” by removing the Russian element from their eastern sections. They have every right to remove the rebellious elements in their country - just as WE have the right to round up all the illegals that have crashed our southern border and ship them back. ?Or don’t you accept even that.
1 Like
From your lips, Devereaux, to Biden*'s ears!
You are making the point that the “leaders” of countries do not always (or even often?) act in the best interests of their citizens.
Great! So how do we get from where we are to that desirable outcome of peace? It is not possible to make the case that what the US/NATO is doing now will lead to peace.
Remember that even the United Kingdom, which supposedly had the Empire on Which the Sun Never Set, lost about a quarter of its land area in the Twentieth Century. And the UK was a country when the Ukraine was a mere province of Lithuania. Borders in Europe have been in flux for forever.
When Ireland left the UK, the people of Ireland were divided by religion. The solution that brought a kind of peace was partition of the island. The people of the area we call the Ukraine are divided by something bigger than religion – language. And the Ukrainian-speaking nationalists are led by nasty people who have been persecuting the Russian-speaking minority for about a decade. Partition of the territory of the Ukraine looks like the practical solution to the violence – not like acquiescing to a bully.
And who is the bully in the case of the Ukraine? Is it the Ukrainian nationalists who murdered Russian-speaking Ukrainians and refused to implement the Minsk peace plan which would have kept the Russian-speakers as part of the Ukraine? Or is it the Russians who saw a Responsibility to Protect their fellow Russian-speakers in the Ukraine?
My personal view is that there are no “Good Guys” in the Ukrainian situation – not the Ukrainian kleptocrats, not the Russians, certainly not the US and its NATO hangers-on. I do not want to see my neighbors nuked over a dispute about which of those is the “Least Bad”.
5 Likes
One ought to go with personal choices. We are all guided by a sense of right and wrong.
Putin is a bully. ?How do you deal with bullies. You confront them. You make it clear as crystal that while you might not want a nuclear exchange, you are willing to have one. AND HE will end up on the wrong side of that. You make clear Ukraine is an independent state with the right to do things you might not like.
And let’s understand something. Putin with this war killed way more Ukrainians than they killed “Russin speakers” You don’t usually protest this much. Perhaps you enjoy taking “the other side”. But here there really are no GOOD guys - only less BAD guys The US and NATO may not have played totally faIrly, but Putin is hardly the guy to protest too much. Had we had a REAL press, perhaps the whole Russia hoax wouldn’t have happened AND none of this would have gone on either.
Not one single representative or official in our country was elected on the platform of Victory to Zelensky or Death to All of Us. Because that nuclear exchange would be a war like no other – a war in which every city and town would be on the front lines and each one of us would be on the receiving end of incoming fire.
Perhaps there is a majority of the population of the United States (and of Europe too, but that is their concern, not ours) which is willing to die unless Russia surrenders unconditionally – although I rather suspect there is not. At a minimum, the people of a nation should have the right to vote on that specific existential proposition – and not leave it to dubious characters in Washington DC to slide into that awful civilization-ending war through arrogance & stupidity.
Personally, I would vote that the Ukraine is not worth sacrificing the life of a single US serviceman, and is certainly not worth sacrificing the lives of the entire population of the United States. Others might vote differently.
6 Likes
I’m surprised at you, Gavin. You speak as if now confronting Put in over his nuclear threats is somehow a foregone conclusion. To listen to you if we confront Putin over his nuclear threats, he will launch.
Don’t know how old you are but I’m 75 - born in 1946. I have lived my whole life under nuclear threat. I have seen the Buff wing at Minot nuclear armed on the Ready pad, with the crews nearby ready to launch. My tanker unit in Milwaukee stood one tanker in similar readiness 24/7 to support Buffs in an attack. I have listened to MAD doctrine which now is poo-poo’d but seemed to keep people from going nuclear all this time.
This is NOT about Ukraine. I DO believe Ukraine ought to have the right to decide what IT wants and not be invaded by their neighbor. I also believe, as you do, that risking American lives in the fight there is not appropriate - we have no national interest. BUT supplying Ukrainians with weaponry is reasonable. After all, both Russia AND China supplied North Vietnam with not only weapons but “advisors” (I know - my platoon killed a Chinese advisor up near Mutter’s Ridge by the DMZ). But I do believe we should not stand for being threatened by nukes - by anyone. Recollect Trump chided the NorKo’s over just this. Everyone on the Left got their panties all atwist that Trump wasw starting a nuke war, just as you cry out. But no war ensued. Indeed, Trump was the first president that I recollect didn’t start of continue a war (he was getting us out of Afghanistan - but without the debacle).
The problem, of course, is that we have a bunch of feckless know-nothings in DC, else this either wouldn’t have happened or would be over. No such luck.
3 Likes
On that, Devereaux, we are in full & hearty agreement!
3 Likes