3 ms·

> Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an origi

by scurvy 7y ago

> Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an original "sorry we didnt know it was invisible" flyer. < Only a single F117 was shot down over Serbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...

DarkmSparks 7y ago
Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there. https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.
- blago 7y ago
  A propaganda poster knowingly conflating the words stealth and invisible, a distinction its intended audience wouldn't be able to make, to mock the enemy? I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia source.
  - DarkmSparks 7y ago
    And even that says: Some American sources state that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, allegedly on 30 April 1999;[61] the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.[62][63] Point is with AA missile is that getting them "on target" is almost as effective as a hit. target has to deploy its counter measures and return home, else next time they are destroyed.
    - blago 7y ago
      I was addressing the dubious choice of sources delivered with arrogance and condescension. Couldn't care less about how many airplanes did Serbia take down.
      - DarkmSparks 7y ago
        so you otherwise accept the Serbians/passive radar got the entire F117 fleet mothballed?
  - blago 7y ago
    I was addressing the dubious choice of sources delivered with arrogance and condescension. Couldn't care less about how many airplanes did Serbia take down.
- scurvy 7y ago
  Hit 2. Only 1 crashed. You wrote "lost". A plane that flies back to base isn't "lost." Also, the US didn't deny that they lost any for decades. I remember the news footage (in the US) of the night it was shot down. You have a peculiar axe to grind here. Are you trying to sell radar systems or something?

by scurvy 7y ago

DarkmSparks 7y ago

Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there. https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.

blago 7y ago
A propaganda poster knowingly conflating the words stealth and invisible, a distinction its intended audience wouldn't be able to make, to mock the enemy? I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia source.
- DarkmSparks 7y ago
  And even that says: Some American sources state that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, allegedly on 30 April 1999;[61] the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.[62][63] Point is with AA missile is that getting them "on target" is almost as effective as a hit. target has to deploy its counter measures and return home, else next time they are destroyed.
  - blago 7y ago
    I was addressing the dubious choice of sources delivered with arrogance and condescension. Couldn't care less about how many airplanes did Serbia take down.
    - DarkmSparks 7y ago
      so you otherwise accept the Serbians/passive radar got the entire F117 fleet mothballed?
- blago 7y ago
  I was addressing the dubious choice of sources delivered with arrogance and condescension. Couldn't care less about how many airplanes did Serbia take down.
scurvy 7y ago
Hit 2. Only 1 crashed. You wrote "lost". A plane that flies back to base isn't "lost." Also, the US didn't deny that they lost any for decades. I remember the news footage (in the US) of the night it was shot down. You have a peculiar axe to grind here. Are you trying to sell radar systems or something?