edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Glonass lol. I did not even think to use the official name.
Royal Navy an USMC F35B on combat missions.
- Thread starter Tikka
- Start date
- Status
I get that part of it was the lack of EW.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
EW=Electronic Warfare?
Actually, NATO was very effective. But so were Serbians escaping it. I think in total 700 HARM's were fired besides other measures. A lot of batteries were destroyed, especially SA6 KUB.
But, this particular battery of SA3 NEVA was good. They also shoot down F16 that was piloted by David Goldfein, previous USAF chief of staff. They always radiated minimally and relied on other information.
Yeah. I think by that time the EF-111 has been retired and USAF personnel were integrated into US Navy and USMC EA-6 squadrons.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Various other air forces were providing EW, Tornadoes etc. F16 weasels were also used.
Still, it is tricky to avoid losses with that air defense. While UN arms, economic etc. embargoes took toll on their capabilities, as well as nepotism created by nature of the regime, it was 9 years since collapse of Yugoslavia, so a lot of know-how was still present. That is why there were a lot of limitations, altitude limitations, or which airplanes are allowed in which parts of Serbia.
I was thinking of the lack of Prowlers cited for that specific mission where the F-117 was hit.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Not sure about that. But, they always had picture what flies out of Aviano etc. Also, air space where F117 and B2 covered was predictable. I will try to find something factual. There is a lot of garbage out there about this.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APJ-Lambeth-Mirror.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html
These are a good start
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html
These are a good start
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
There are good sources here. But, was thinking more from Serbian side about their tactics.
I have read this before you posted. Politically OAF achieved its goal, but operation itself had mixed results.
Yes, it was meant for Tikka really. I have seen an interview with the commander of the AA unit that shot down the F117A a few years ago. He's a baker now
I'd expect any nation with its own nav satellites to be able to deliver a weapon accurately using it.
On the f35 vs A-10 for close air support - sure an F35 using a guided projectile can bust a tank or vehicle just as well as a 30MM round but at what price?
Is it worth 50K plus the cost of f35 flight hours (per strike) to take out 4 guys in an armored truck with a heavy machine gun when you can do the job with a single burst from an A10?
The new small diameter bomb is really something else although Im not sure the F35 can "officially" deliver it yet.
It’s still about $10,000 for a single second of 30mm cannon fire. That’s on top of missing.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
They actually did not use Glonass guided bombs. They used Glonass to deliver unguided bombs.
Is it worth using F35 to get few guys in a pickup trucks? I do not think so, but apparently, a lot of people think it is. Time will tell.
Can you elucidate just a bit on using glonass to deliver unguided bombs? I think I know what you are saying.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
I did not venture into tactics how they are doing it. The effectiveness was much higher than expected. It was big deal as it gave insight into improvements the Russian military is doing (compared to 2008 issues they had in Georgia). I was looking at it from the policy side so that is how I know about this. I bet there are some sources out there that talk about specifics.
eh 10K now? - even so sure.
3K rounds a minute is expensive on a per second basis... so on a hit that 10K delivers 50 munitions any one of which is either a kill or disable. Our boys a pretty damm good shots but sure they'll miss.
1 second can deliver a real wallop to a line of targets on a road heading out of town disabling many, not to mention loiter around for a while doing it over and over.
There is a reaosn mini guns are actually legal- millionaires dont rob banks.
I was there, flying over Bosnia, in the summer of 1995.
Because I was there, I’m reticent to comment too much, not knowing what remains classified.…
However, I was not a fan of the JFACC plan for airspace in that campaign. It used a series of defined waypoints to get traffic in and out of the combat airspace. Those waypoints were static. The same from day to day. I later sat next to the JFACC himself when he was senior mentor in an Air Command and Control senior officer class I was attending.
My opinion: that using the same waypoints over and over allowed the adversary to better position air defense assets and to predict the transit times from bases like Aviano, simplifying their targeting (remember Scott O’Grady?) was not popular with the retired general…
Because I was there, I’m reticent to comment too much, not knowing what remains classified.…
However, I was not a fan of the JFACC plan for airspace in that campaign. It used a series of defined waypoints to get traffic in and out of the combat airspace. Those waypoints were static. The same from day to day. I later sat next to the JFACC himself when he was senior mentor in an Air Command and Control senior officer class I was attending.
My opinion: that using the same waypoints over and over allowed the adversary to better position air defense assets and to predict the transit times from bases like Aviano, simplifying their targeting (remember Scott O’Grady?) was not popular with the retired general…
There were some crappy aspects of being on that end of the stick, perhaps.
But it was also the pointy end of the diplomatic spear, and I wouldn’t change a thing about my life or career choices.
Im astounded to hear we implemented a "same bat time, same bat channel" approach.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
