Russian Air Force vs. US Airforce

Originally posted by StellarX
Agreed but how decisive is the advantage when they bombed ( proving they can get bombs on at least something) so many decoy targets?

The advantage was very decisive, we just managed to misuse it by employing self serving "safe" tactics we reduced the effectiveness of our attacks considerably. I'll elaborate on this point further down...

Originally posted by StellarX
Well when you control large sections of the world's primary media outlets the lies are obviously going to sound more logical than whatever those who disagree says.

Lies according got whom? The Serbs? Do they also not have a vested interest in lies... Burden of proof is always upon those making the allegations, and speculation and in some cases outright propaganda is hardly evidence nor can it be considered proof. Logistical and technical errors in a large and complex agency such as the DoD are inevitable and infamous (trillions), especially during a large deployment and mobilization of forces. I regard it more as proof of our inability to keep track and manage our inventory correctly rather than proof of our ability to mastermind a cover-up of this magnitude for so long. I must admit that sometimes people do give the US more creditably than is due. Personally I think that practically speaking it just would not be possible.

Originally posted by StellarX
The USAF were a far more capable force back in 1991 ( before the 'post' cold war mismanagement set in ) and to suggest that they could lose on 5 planes nearly ten years later with a fraction of the DEAD/SEAD equipment of 1991 is not in my opinion defensible.

How was the USAF "far more capable"? Size and a sheer numbers of conventional (see parity) aircraft in combination with conventional munitions and weapons only goes so far. The USAF was better equipped during the end of the 20th century and therefore more capable. You are purposely overlooking and not factoring in the vast amount of variables and conditions unique to both conflicts. Such as but not limited to:

Scale of conflict, training and tactics of the OPFOR, weapons used, friendly tactics, terrain etc...

However I will say that the major factor for the difference in casualties between the two conflicts is the fact that we decided to fight with a mentality of 'safe and ineffective' in 99. While the Serbs decided to fight with a mentality of 'mobility, preservation and contempt of engagement'. They would not allow us to fight them head on and we were unwilling to put ourselves in a position to engage them regardless.

Choosing to remain safe at FL25 and using GPS bombs to attack everything in the open that was stationary and that resembled a target with no FAC and close support systems will inevitably not yield spectacular results. Especially when the enemy is continuously moving in dense terrain and under concealment while using highly effective unconventional counter measures. Furthermore, when the enemy is not willing to turn on their radars for an extended period of time to shoot at you it's kind of hard to destroy them when you don't yet have an effective HARM that can deal with radars going off line.

The Serbs never risked their SAM systems more than they had too, they only used them when they were confident of surviving. They simply wanted to clear the lower altitude of threats, not go all out and try to deny the USAF freedom of travel. The USAF on the other hand was not too keen to risk it all by operation in dangerous circumstances where they could really hurt the Serbs. As long as we could maintain the image of being effective we would not risk more than we had to and we were content with seceding the lower altitude to the Serbs. We accepted lobbying bombs from a safe altitude at questionable targets because the outside world did too. To sum it up, both sides played it safe and only fought on their terms, as such both sides came out relatively intact and with little casualties and or losses.

For the US I blame the leadership, to the highest level, starting with the POTUS and down to theater commanders. They cannot understand a simple theme that we have both cited here on ATS numerous times. Don't bother entering into a conflict unless you are fully committed to winning by any means necessary!

Originally posted by StellarX
Well they say they do but is it not clear that they could not even handle 1960/70 era air defenses by any other means than general avoidance? Why not engage and destroy such defenses if your so good at it?

Same could be said for the Serbs, they could not handle US aircraft other than by general avoidance. Anyway as I pointed out above it's not that we could not handle them, it's that we choose not to fully try.

Originally posted by StellarX
Why claim hundreds of destroy enemy weapons systems when you did not manage to destroy even a fraction of that? Who is fooling who here?

Because to the politicians calling the shots appearance is far more important than reality, but they're certainly not fooling us.

Originally posted by StellarX
I have looked at the real world results and all i see is even backwards third world nations that must be battered for decades before invasion and occupation becomes possible.

Stellar you and I both know we could have done that to Iraq in 91 if we had chosen to. Besides, have you forgotten Afghanistan and Chechnya? Anyway, I prefer we not get into that...

Originally posted by StellarX
And your entitled to that opinion even if i think recent history have given us plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Recent history has not been conclusive with regards to this subject, too many variables to consider even thought we both seem to have made our mind up.


As a side note I'd also like to point out that the effectiveness of strategic/tactical bombing alone as a means of winning a war and or destroying the enemy has long been called into question throughout military history. From WWII onwards I can only think of one case where bombing alone (without troop support) has been effective, Japan during WWII. That's due to the fact that all other bombing campaigns have been artificially limited. In that one successful case we had a leadership that understood the above quoted principal, they were not afraid to conduct unrestricted air operations regardless of the risk to the enemy and to ourselves. Even in 91 the air campaign left the Iraqi military largely intact, only when combined with an overwhelming ground campaign did Saddam's military break. The war over Serbia in 1999 should serve as one more example of why political bombing alone cannot win a war.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

If one wants to look at it logically, everything the Serbians claimed they shot down was shown by them on TV. Had a B-2 been shot down, that would have simply been the icing on the cake.

Your population is being bombed and no matter how defiant, I am sure you still would want to look for a victory against your enemy to help boost morale. Hence, why footage of an F-117 and F-16 as well as several UAV's were shown.

Now, supposed you shot down the Queen of them all.... a B-2 Spirit! It would have been broadcast on TV like Elvis just arrived aboard the Titanic at Ellis Island.

Simply put: It did not happen.

Is the B-2 infallible? Of course not. Under the right circumstances it, like ANYTHING flying today, can be shot down. However, no B-2's have been shot down. The absence of proof speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're really starting to reach here. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that the USAF is going to have two B-2s with IDENTICAL tail numbers in inventory?

Read what I said about how the USAF numbers their planes. I realize it's a very difficult concept to understand. I'll go very very slowly this time.

If the FULL tail number is 880329, then the number you will see ON THE NOSE GEAR DOOR is 80329. Tail numbers show the aircraft number, and the year it was made. The number on the plane is 5 digits, the full tail number is 6. The ONLY difference is that they drop 1 digit from the year. 80329 IS 880329. You will NEVER see two planes with tail numbers that are identical in the US military inventory. 880329 and 80329 would NEVER happen, because THEY'RE THE SAME PLANE. Fighters and some bombers use a slightly different system, where they show the full year as the first two digits, and the next three are the serial number. However, on the B-2 nose gear door, it's the last digit of the year, followed by serial number.

Here, let me make this really easy for you. This page lists EVERY serial number of USAF planes built from 1941. Please go through it and find the B-2s, and find the other B-2 that has 80329 as the tail number.

Here are several examples of tail numbers.

Full tail number 63-8041:



Full tail number 87-0028:




Full tail number 73-1667:



Notice a recurring theme here? On the SIDE of the B-2 they put the year and serial number. On the nose gear, they put the standard tail number, where they drop a digit from the year, and put the serial number.

Full tail number 90-0041:



Spirit of Arizona, from the side, where you can see the tail number 82-1067:



Same bomber from the front, notice they drop the 8, and just have 21067:





[edit on 6/18/2007 by Zaphod58]

The picture of the Spirit Of Missouri B-2 is a "Close up, one, one that does'nt prove it was after 1999, so for all we know it is a "pre 1999" Picture, so you still haven't proven, it's the same plane, that went to Kosavo.

So you're telling me that the picture of it at the 2005 ceremony on the first webpage I linked to doesn't prove a damn thing huh? Ok, you just keep living in that world of yours and believe all that propaganda.

I went to an air show were they had an F-117 on display and they would not even let the public touch it. Its almost as if they did'nt want us to find out its made out of plywood... Oh My GOD!!! o-O

Erm, yeah. They don't let you touch it because skin oil affects the RAM that's applied to it. That and they don't want people to scratch the RAM because once it's scratched they have to reapply it, and that's a royal pain.

More nails in the coffin for this ridiculous claim.

* 13th Bomb Squadron

Activated as the 325th Bomb Squadron on January 6, 1998, the squadron was re-designated the 13th BS by Air Combat Command on September 23, 2005. The 13th BS ("Grim Reapers") had previously been a squadron of the 7th Operations Group, flying B-1B Lancers.

en.wikipedia.org...

So that shows us that the 13th Bomb Squadron "Grim Reapers" didn't fly the B-2 until 2005. Which means that any picture of a B-2 with the squadron insignia of a Grim Reaper on it is 2005 or later.

13th Bomb Squadron "Grim Reapers" insignia:



Spirit of Missouri:

Originally posted by Zaphod58
More nails in the coffin for this ridiculous claim.

* 13th Bomb Squadron

Activated as the 325th Bomb Squadron on January 6, 1998, the squadron was re-designated the 13th BS by Air Combat Command on September 23, 2005. The 13th BS ("Grim Reapers") had previously been a squadron of the 7th Operations Group, flying B-1B Lancers.

en.wikipedia.org...

So that shows us that the 13th Bomb Squadron "Grim Reapers" didn't fly the B-2 until 2005. Which means that any picture of a B-2 with the squadron insignia of a Grim Reaper on it is 2005 or later.

13th Bomb Squadron "Grim Reapers" insignia:



Spirit of Missouri:

Can I ask you a question, without you getting offended, ARE YOU ON DRUGS????????? NON NON NON of those links shows "Sprit Of Missiouri" 880329 the last link shows a B-2 that says "Spirit Of Missiouri" but it
1. Doesn't show the serial number AND it doesn't show that that picture was taken after the 1999 Kosavo bombing

For example when I link to Wikipedia, it has a picture of a B-2 flying over Missouri, and when you link to that pic, it shows a different serial number.
Plus when Russian post a "Wikopedia" link that shows Russian supiriority you say, Wikipedia can be taken seriously, well the same think here, that Wikipedia source can be edited by some Russian basher, so your gonna have to find a more reliable source showing that B-2 880329 is still around

First of all, explain to me how it can POSSIBLY have a squadron insignia on it that DIDN'T FLY THE B-2 until 2005 if it was taken BEFORE 1999.

Secondly, what does a B-2 flying over Missouri have to do with the plane named Spirit of Missouri? They're BASED in Missouri, so I should HOPE that you have seen pictures of them flying over Missouri.

And I only picked Wiki because it was the first source that showed them as having gone to the B-2 with that squadron in 2005.

But I can see that you're never going to believe ANYTHING that shows the plane is still flying, so I'll let you go back to your little world of propaganda, and keep believing that a B-2 was shot down.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
First of all, explain to me how it can POSSIBLY have a squadron insignia on it that DIDN'T FLY THE B-2 until 2005 if it was taken BEFORE 1999.

Secondly, what does a B-2 flying over Missouri have to do with the plane named Spirit of Missouri? They're BASED in Missouri, so I should HOPE that you have seen pictures of them flying over Missouri.

And I only picked Wiki because it was the first source that showed them as having gone to the B-2 with that squadron in 2005.

But I can see that you're never going to believe ANYTHING that shows the plane is still flying, so I'll let you go back to your little world of propaganda, and keep believing that a B-2 was shot down.

This is what I'm saying,
1. Show me a non-wikipedia site, that shows a post 1999 picture of a B-2 THAT shows the Tail insignia that clearly shows "880329"

here's one



note the date of the pic

WOW! A STEALTH PLANE SHOT DOWN!? WOW! HOW AMAZING!



For the last freaken time. STEALTH DOES NOT MEAN INVISIBLE. Use F-18's on F-117 missions and look at how many of those get shot down. Stealth is not perfect. Does not make the aeroplane invisible. But is sure as hell is better than non-stealth!

YASKY, the issue is not how easy it is to hide war casualties, the issue is whether a B-2 were shot down in Serbia. So far you have only stated that it is easy to hide war casualties, which, for you, must of MAGICALLY means that a B-2 had been shot down by the Serbs in 1999.

If you're going to argue against what EVERYONE in the world beleives the norm, including experts such as Zaph, you will need the slightest shred of evidence, other than; "it is easy to hide war casualties" or "There are no pictures of it since 1999". Hm?

Mark my words.

The.
Burden.
Of.
Proof.
Is.
On.
YOU.

Originally posted by YASKY
This is what I'm saying,
1. Show me a non-wikipedia site, that shows a post 1999 picture of a B-2 THAT shows the Tail insignia that clearly shows "880329"

You didn't even bother to look at ANY of the webpages I put up with the pictures did you. THE ONLY THING THAT CAME FROM WIKI WAS THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SQUADRON DATE. I have proven that it has been seen since 1999, but you refuse to accept that. I have shown a picture of the plane taken by the USAF from Iraqi Freedom that clearly shows 80239 being parked, and I have shown a picture of the aircraft that couldn't have been taken prior to 2005. As has been said, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it was shot down, and not magically hidden somehow. At this point I'm convinced that you're just a troll who deliberately refuses to comprehend anything.

hey Zaph, love the pics and info as always!!! I dont need to go anywhere else for Aircraft info

I would give you a WATS for putting up with hassle so I clicked the star thingy instead lol

[edit on 19-6-2007 by Kurokage]

Originally posted by toreishi
here's one



note the date of the pic

I think you people need help NOW, yes read the date, it says MAY 1994

tHE PHOTO WAS TAKEN IN 1994, AND ADDED TO THAT SITE IN 2002

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At this point I'm convinced that you're just a troll who deliberately refuses to comprehend anything.

Yay... we have a winner... I'd quit trying to PROVE anything to him, but on the other hand, its pretty entertaining of all the PROOF you're providing that is quite clear to comprehend and he still doesn't get it..

Originally posted by YASKY
tHE PHOTO WAS TAKEN IN 1994, AND ADDED TO THAT SITE IN 2002

so? where in my post did i state that it wasn't? i merely said read the date, it was up to the viewers/readers to construe what they want from the information i provided which was an image of a B-2A Spirit Bomber. and if you can't process information thats arranged in a simple manner as that; c'mon! who do you think would take you seriously in here?

EDIT***

ok i admit that i might have erred in posting an image which failed to contribute anything significant to the discussion. if so, i hope everyone will accept my humble apologies.

now, can we at least please just get on with the topic? which is namely a comparison between the Russian AF and the US AF?



[edit on 19-6-2007 by toreishi]

I agree that NOT having picture(s) of certain planes does not necessarily mean that one was shot down.
I don't think we can crucify Zph58 or anybody else because they can't produce these pictures.
Can it be shot down? Well we can argue about that too.

But I think its fair to say that we should stop this photo witch hunt.
If we were all generals of our respective countries or heads of intelligence services in our countries AND we still couldnt give proof of the a/c then it would count for something.

C'mon we don't have access to such resources and we cannot provide such updated photo intel of our country's mil assets.It would be unpatriotic to say the least and even border on unintentional intel leakage.

So there..No more questions on latest B-2 photos

If the plane was shot down, then the Russians will have it.
Even if it is not, the Russians will have a good idea of how it works.

Now this may not mean that they have an operational counter to it, but there is no way that the Russians(or any other self-respecting country with the intel resources) would be totally in the dark about the B-2, F-117,
F-22, F-35 etc..