Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (44115)	9/15/2002 9:48:29 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yeah, we did lose an F117, but not to "Passive Radar". A couple of comments I pulled. >>>"If it would be possible to filter out the noise, then long-wave, low-frequency radars will be capable of detecting a variety of objects<<< >>>>retired USAF Gen. Richard Hawley, formerly the head of Air Combat Command at Langley AFB in Virginia, talked about the loss of the F-117A 82-0806 during the Kosovo conflict. Gen. Hawley said that prior to the aircraft's departure from Aviano there "was a better that 50 / 50 chance it would be shot down. Those are unacceptable odds." After retiring from the USAF on June 11, 1999, Hawley blamed US field commander and other military planners for not correctly understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft. Hawley said "They put the 117 into a situation it wasn't designed to handle, so we lost the airplane, and I attribute it as much to a breakdown in our mission planning as to anything else... It encountered defenses we knew it was not designed to handle and it didn't need to get put into that situation."<<<< So it could have got shot down for many reasons. Hawley's comments indicate that it could have been other than Radar. Interesting find, Pearly.