Iran tests passive radar in combat drills

[Arian]

NATO/US flew about 38,000 sorties over Yugoslavia, including 30 B-2 sorties from Continental US over to Yugoslavia and return without landing, and yet only one F-16 and one F-117 were lost. If whatever Dani did worked so well...

And just because NATO/US flew about 38,000 sorties that makes it a tale? All I'm wondering is on what basis you call it a tale, the number of US/NATO sorties is irrelevant for that purpose I think.

 

[gambit]

And just because NATO/US flew about 38,000 sorties that makes it a tale?

Exercise a little bit of critical thinking, will ya...!!! The figures I cited are not 'state secrets' but are public knowledge. Two kills out of 38,000 is not an air defense combat records to boast about, especially when the majority of them were 'non-stealth' aircrafts. If whatever Dani did that supposedly worked for 'stealth' aircrafts it should have been 100 times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts, no? So why besides the F-117 the other loss was an F-16?

All I'm wondering is on what basis you call it a tale, the number of US/NATO sorties is irrelevant for that purpose I think.

Probably because I understand basic radar principles better than you do?

 

[longbrained]

NATO/US flew about 38,000 sorties over Yugoslavia, including 30 B-2 sorties from Continental US over to Yugoslavia and return without landing, and yet only one F-16 and one F-117 were lost. If whatever Dani did worked so well...

Well Mr Zoltan Dani was also a single person who was incharge of a single anti aircraft battery and he did well. No other officer in Serbian air defense was as ingenious as him and that is why all other batteries of Serbian air defense failed and were destroyed. If some one like Mr Zoltan Dani was incharge of the whole Serbian air defense and had better equipment not just SA-3 and SA-2 then NATO would not have even dared to go in.

In any case it was not the NATO that won the war. It was the people of Serbia that brought down the government because they were fed up with aerial bombardment. If people had not risen up no amount of sorties would have made the day. Pretty much like Libya today. Gaddafi had no air defense and under aerial bombing a face book and twitter revolution supported by an armed insurgency was operationalized.

Your arrogance is really astounding. You want to promote yourself as if US or NATO are unbeatable but there is no such thing at all. The only edge NATO or US HAD was their edge in technology which is getting narrower day by day as more nations around the world from China to Iran are embracing science and technology and defeating you at your own game. It is not 18th century that you had gatling gun and the natives had only swords. Now every body is making gatling guns. You make a mistake and you lose what your fascist grand daddies have left for you after stealing from the natives. Do not forget neither China or Iran have forgotten what you have done to them. And you and your ilk are sinking fast. An aging population with its dwindling youth population increasing being more interested in decadent life style than science. Such a society is in decline already.

And yeah, we have only NATO's word to believe that they had flown 38,000 sorties there. I would say they are lying. Propaganda is the standard tool of NATO and western military strategy. May be they were some 380 but 38,000 is outright lie. Nobody can prove it. And we do not believe NATO press hand outs at all specially if they are of military nature.

 

[gambit]

Well Mr Zoltan Dani was also a single person who was incharge of a single anti aircraft battery and he did well. No other officer in Serbian air defense was as ingenious as him and that is why all other batteries of Serbian air defense failed and were destroyed. If some one like Mr Zoltan Dani was incharge of the whole Serbian air defense and had better equipment not just SA-3 and SA-2 then NATO would not have even dared to go in.

That is odd. No communications were possible to other batteries?

In any case it was not the NATO that won the war. It was the people of Serbia that brought down the government because they were fed up with aerial bombardment. If people had not risen up no amount of sorties would have made the day. Pretty much like Libya today. Gaddafi had no air defense and under aerial bombing a face book and twitter revolution supported by an armed insurgency was operationalized.

This is about air defense.

Your arrogance is really astounding. You want to promote yourself as if US or NATO are unbeatable but there is no such thing at all. The only edge NATO or US HAD was their edge in technology which is getting narrower day by day as more nations around the world from China to Iran are embracing science and technology and defeating you at your own game. It is not 18th century that you had gatling gun and the natives had only swords. Now every body is making gatling guns. You make a mistake and you lose what your fascist grand daddies have left for you after stealing from the natives. Do not forget neither China or Iran have forgotten what you have done to them. And you and your ilk are sinking fast. An aging population with its dwindling youth population increasing being more interested in decadent life style than science. Such a society is in decline already.

Drivel.

And yeah, we have only NATO's word to believe that they had flown 38,000 sorties there. I would say they are lying. Propaganda is the standard tool of NATO and western military strategy. May be they were some 380 but 38,000 is outright lie. Nobody can prove it. And we do not believe NATO press hand outs at all specially if they are of military nature.

Then nobody can prove that what Dani did was any effective.

 

[RafaleTyphoon]

all the best to iran. i am seeing they are encouraging research and development. good positive steps

 

[Arian]

Exercise a little bit of critical thinking, will ya...!!! The figures I cited are not 'state secrets' but are public knowledge. Two kills out of 38,000 is not an air defense combat records to boast about, especially when the majority of them were 'non-stealth' aircrafts. If whatever Dani did that supposedly worked for 'stealth' aircrafts it should have been 100 times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts, no? So why besides the F-117 the other loss was an F-16?

still it's irrelevant. The question is very simple, on what basis do you call it a tale? Last time I checked, when you call something a tale it means you doubt if it's true or not. Do you confirm that he shut down an F-117? That was the main point.
We're not talking about the Radar Cross Section of F-117 in comparison to F-16 and other US air-crafts in the war, we're not even talking about the number of the US air crafts that were shut down. I think you totally missed the point. the point is that the guy has shut down an F-117 with SA-3. Do you acknowledge that or you want to call it a tale?

 

[Raftar]

no needs of AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM, STEALTH, RADAR etc... this is the era of HAARP

any way nice work KEEP IT UP

 

[Quasar]

Difficult to say really. Radar effectiveness does not depend only on the type of technology it uses, there are lots of other factors as well. For example the power of radar, the range, frequency, and even the computing power and software which interprets the radar signals to present it as digestible data for operators. There are simply too many factors to consider. It is perhaps better to compare two radar sets in a specific war situation than compare technologies. You see the Serbian air defense colonel Zoltan Dani had modified and used a very very old radar which actually used to break down often and had to be continuously repaired using very old technology to shoot down F-117 stealth fighter bomber. If he had used an off the market AESA radar he would never have been able to do that. So it depends on lots of things including the ingenuity of operators and officers. Even most modern radar in the hands of coward fools is useless. A modified half broken old radar in the hands of a few brave and smart men is actually lethal.

You can read about AESA here: Active Electronically Steered Arrays - A Maturing Technology

you little puppy you have no idea about what you talking about you moron!

 

[Birbal]

There is no such thing as a 'passive radar' system.

Ever heard of ESM? How about RWR? How about radio and television transmitters with a bistatic radar? And you claim to be an "expert" in air combat... Passive radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, I expect this is probably actually a mistranslation of Passive Electronically Scanning Array.

 

[Vassnti]

still it's irrelevant. :

Actually what is irrelevant is wether one was shot down or not, it still leaves 37,998 sucessfull missions thats enough to take out everything in Iran worth bombing, still laughing?

 

[Arian]

Actually what is irrelevant is wether one was shot down or not, it still leaves 37,998 sucessfull missions thats enough to take out everything in Iran worth bombing, still laughing?

what you said is irrelevant as well

 

[gambit]

still it's irrelevant. The question is very simple, on what basis do you call it a tale? Last time I checked, when you call something a tale it means you doubt if it's true or not. Do you confirm that he shut down an F-117? That was the main point.
We're not talking about the Radar Cross Section of F-117 in comparison to F-16 and other US air-crafts in the war, we're not even talking about the number of the US air crafts that were shut down. I think you totally missed the point. the point is that the guy has shut down an F-117 with SA-3. Do you acknowledge that or you want to call it a tale?

It is a 'tale' in the sense that Dani successfully detected, tracked, and finally targeted the F-117. No one in the radar community took what he said he did seriously. He got lucky, that was it.

 

[ViXuyen]

Exercise a little bit of critical thinking, will ya...!!! The figures I cited are not 'state secrets' but are public knowledge. Two kills out of 38,000 is not an air defense combat records to boast about, especially when the majority of them were 'non-stealth' aircrafts. If whatever Dani did that supposedly worked for 'stealth' aircrafts it should have been 100 times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts, no? So why besides the F-117 the other loss was an F-16?


Probably because I understand basic radar principles better than you do?

38,000 sorties is an irrelevant number (even if its true) because how many sorties were flown over areas that had missiles pointing at them? You can fly a billion sorties but none of those sorties is over an area with SAM or AAA then it does not prove your point. The fact that NATO/US refused to fly low was a testimony that they were afraid of getting hit instead of a billion of whatever excuses that they have come up with. Serbia shot down 2 (highly doubt that) but at the same time, their air defence network did not lose any battery either; that's a record to boast about despite of the fact that they did not even operate any S-300 at ALL.

Only a fool would reason that if an air defence fires 10 shots to bring down 1 single aircraft than it is a failure considering of the FACT that 10 missiles would at best 5% of the cost of an aircraft; that is one hell of a trade off that anyone would be willing to trade. Serbia traded their missiles for an F-117 (who knows how many more unreported damaged F-117) which is more than what they could bargain for; it's not like Serbia traded 1000 Mig29 for 1 F-117

 

[gambit]

38,000 sorties is an irrelevant number (even if its true) because how many sorties were flown over areas that had missiles pointing at them? You can fly a billion sorties but none of those sorties is over an area with SAM or AAA then it does not prove your point.

Now that is a stupid question. Unless part of a ruse, you do not attack any target of non-value. I can be deceived -- by the enemy -- into believing that an area is a target of value, but a deception is a separate issue and independent of my perception that an area is a target of value. What that mean is that we can assume that those sorties were flown over targets of value of different degrees and that they are defended by assorted means.

The fact that NATO/US refused to fly low was a testimony that they were afraid of getting hit instead of a billion of whatever excuses that they have come up with.

Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) sorties are not high altitude. Look up what they do.

Serbia shot down 2 (highly doubt that) but at the same time, their air defence network did not lose any battery either; that's a record to boast about despite of the fact that they did not even operate any S-300 at ALL.

How desperate are you to believe that? Even the Serbs admitted that many air defense stations, missiles or anti-aircraft guns, were lost. Looks like we can chalk up intellectual honesty is NOT a part of your makeup.

Only a fool would reason that if an air defence fires 10 shots to bring down 1 single aircraft than it is a failure considering of the FACT that 10 missiles would at best 5% of the cost of an aircraft; that is one hell of a trade off that anyone would be willing to trade. Serbia traded their missiles for an F-117 (who knows how many more unreported damaged F-117) which is more than what they could bargain for; it's not like Serbia traded 1000 Mig29 for 1 F-117

This is where your shortsightedness is evident. The cost of a war is not so mindlessly calculated. If that is true, then there would be no war at all because the defense is always financially less costly than the offense. But because the final goals of a war are usually considered to be much more of value than equipment and -- yes -- even men, those goals dictate that the offense expend much more resources to achieve them.

 

[ViXuyen]

38,000 sorties is a bogus number. No country has that many 38000 targets to be attacked, not even close; especially not for a small country like Serbia. You only need one sortie to flatten a bridge, a hospital, a communication centre, a road. At best Serbia has something like 20-30 targets to be bombed. What is that tell us about the rest of the sorties? The sorties in Serbia were about hunting SAM batteries, ground units like tanks for instance and we all know that the sorties resulted in little to no destruction of any Serbia SAM units or ground units; that's a total air campaign failure in the quest to cripple your enemy military assets when they shot down 2 of your expensive military hardwares.

If you want to quote Serbian sources about their losses in SAM or any other losses, you might as well quote and accept Serbian's truthfulness when they say that they shot down more than 2 aircrafts. Your intellectual dishonesty clearly shows here when you only pick and choose to quote the Serbian sources when it fits your agenda; make up your mind