They were using mostly long range acquisition radars for getting info from the sky; they had only few of those (mixed Russian and American hardware), based in separate unit for aerial reconnaissance. Those (stationary) radars were on the move too.

And every SAM battery had it’s short range acquisition radar, in case of that SA3 battery it was modified P-18 radar.

USAF was cautious, most of the time planes were flying higher then SAM range, with hundreds of different planes in quite small territory 200×400 miles or something. And bunch of F’s patrols organized in circles flying over neighboring countries.

obligatory: Isn’t it obvious that if an aircraft don’t take a route near a SAM-site then the SAM-site can’t shoot ?
Why even mention it ?

Agree.

Stealth tech is there to protect you when you are in range of enemy, when you’re out of range, you do not really need stealth.

And stealth works. In case of F117 shutdown, central aerial recon unit with long range radars had other planes but not F117 on their radar screen. SA3 battery had it on it’s VHF P18 screen and it was clear target.

To shoot it down, they needed kind of art, and perfectly trained crew of many man, to push hundreds just the right buttons if few seconds, knowing that every second online spells death for them.
It’s an old analog Russian system, with almost WW2 tech, nothing is automated. I’ve found this pic on this forum, SA3 command post serbians had:

Example of SA3 upgraded command post:

It’s a skill, not a luck.

And strategically they had very limited military resources (number of rockets, radars, systems), being cut of form rest of the world and surrounded with NATO allies. So strategy was to guard resources for incoming ground invasion, when USAF had to fly lower.

So, stealth is not untouchable, and it’s much better to combine it with agile plane, to have more options when detected. That’s why F117 platform is out of the service. Making room for better planes like F22 and …

Hm, very interesting, and facto-graphic discussion.

I’ve wrote a small news report on this event and SAM system, and got in the issue of it.
Let me not waste db resources, I’ll make it short, F117 was no lucky shot. It could not been tracked with IR sensors-there were no, or cams-day only. Also route issue is no excuse, combined with fact of night missions, 4th day of attack, Serbia’s dimensions and S-125 SA-3 SAM positioning. Tracked with old P18 VHF acquisition radar with modified wave lenght characteristic, taken by SNR 125 low blow attack radar. Whole process lasted ~18 seconds, 20s online activity was limit for SAM site. When detected F117 was logical target for this kind of SAM (becouse bad evasive specs.). F117 could be distinguished from other planes on radar screen by it’s weak signature and speed spec.
Number of HARM’s vs number of SAMs fired and hit, also gives interesting perspective.

If you are interested all the data and facts are available online, when you filter nonsenses and use common sense, and involved systems technical data.
There’s even pilots interview, he was visually aware of rockets…

As I recollect reading mission reports from operation allied force, Serbian J22s were the only Serbian airplanes successfully conducting their missions during NATO sky domination. J22s had not been detected and engaged by NATO fighter jets, which iis possible only if they were flying extremly low. As I recollect ground attack mission were conducted during the night, so it would imply that J22 has night mission capability.

How many dedicated ground attack jets Serbia has operational at this moment ?

@Hawk
About air Greece’s air policing, no I do not have to do research, logic of that kind decisions are rational, not stupid, and if you can not see possible motives behind it, it’s not worth it. I would not continue on that topic, as you find it emotional, I find it not relevant. Hope you can find your justice on next elections.

@Hawk ace

I think that relations between Mao Zedong’s China and communist Albania are irrelevant from our current point in time.

Why bother paying to set up an air force and its infrastructure when you can have stupid Greeks and Italians policing you airspace for free?

There’s no such thing as free lunch.
And most definitely, there’s no such thing as free airspace policing. Quite opposite, that service is very expensive one. I didn’t understand why did you address Greeks and Italians as stupid ?

SAAB has 4 (3 of them NATO members,Russian jets operators) Balkan states as potential buyers (correct me if I’m wrong). And SAAB is most agile and aggressive seller, that’s my impression.
Non-NATO member have disadvantage buying NATO (top) equipment, I would say especially in case of Serbia, where NATO forces govern part of it’s territory.

On other side logical answer would be MiG-29 family, but MiG-35 is technically non existing airplane.

Which makes discussion interesting in hypotetical realm.
Solution of pussle will depend on future of it’s politics (relations with NATO) and economy in conjuction with Russian and Chinese forign politics.

@Sign
If Sweden was one to make decision, they would certainly sell Jas-39, but they are not calling the shots. Well when you read the facts, democratic pro western government, future EU member, part of numerous NATO programs, Tiger meet this year, Serbia at least on paper validates as buyer of western equipment. I follow news from international military exercises and shows, I don’t remember seeing RuAF in Serbia of RuAF collaborating with Serbian AF, on contrary different NATO AirForces including USAF made friendly visits to Serbia’s ABs. But politics of that region and US politics goes much deeper…

Not really. After the collapse of SU France had really one very capable aircraft, but that was not Rafale, that was Mirage 2000 and its offspring, Mirage 2000-5/9. The problem was it did not secure enough customers so it had minimal chances for development, so its production was shut down as early as 2003. Sadly for the M2K, it was, just like Rafale, too expensive in comparison to its equivalents, such as MiG-29 and F-16.

Until then, Rafale was not seriously offered in international markets, because it was not ready (main reason it lost early contests).

Well, I was writing about NA as a project and an airframe in development, like Rafale was in that time. Thus very important for future of both airspace industries, and relevant for today’s story and market. NA cannot be made in Serbia, it’s been 25 years from start of that project their engineers and technicians are not working for military or they are retired or dead. And NATO had very successful reorientation programs for high tech weapons engineers in eastern Europe after their economies and companies fell to pieces, insuring they will not work for third parties.

Nevertheless Mirage 2000 is sadly very good example of inherent problems of France military airspace program. It’s no doubt machine with supreme characteristic, but it’s sales failed to cache it’s practical value. I will not go into this issue making thread in thread, I’ll just say, very bad business model, slow adaptability, non competitive price.

Military airplane in class of Gripen but cheaper, supported by France as co-seller and Franch technology, sold by Yugoslavia as neutral country (insuring some hostile markets) probably would have been very good seller.

On this topic, my opinion is, they wont buy non of these planes in next ~7-10 years unless someone give them planes for free. But that will not happen.
Russia certainly will not give them discount (obvious from recent Mig 29b “upgrade” business), and if USA didn’t give cheap F-16s to their NATO members on Balkans, why would they give them to Serbia ?

Khm, I don’t know the positioning of Russian air bases, but even if that’s correct, of absolutely incorrect, you are missing some important points.

That’s peaceful arrangement of armed power. In case of war, there is war time arrangement of all army resources. Air troupes are known by ability to change location. Use alternative runways, or improvised runways.

In peace,the worst thing that can happen to that area (mostly uninhabited) is aerial espionage, but only in case you turn off all radars and SAMs, but again why use planes, when you have satellites. Then again why would you espionage the bears and rain-dears.

Conflict simulations.
If you wish to attack Russia by land troops, surely there are better places on Earth for deployment.
Russian air force is there to fight with threats of smaller intensity, massive aggression attack on Russia could be deployed only by few countries, in that case nuclear weapons are cards of the game. And that’s end.

Every smart aggressor knows, especially US, that powerful opponent is best to be defeated from inside and with no guns.

Quite frankly the Bulgarians aren’t even a quarter generation off of communism so I wouldn’t put too many super toys in their hands, regardless of price.

Hahaha.
I must say, maybe this is not the best place, nor this quote is the reason, but I thought that this discussion group is much more serious.
I have found this board by some of it’s members quoted on very respected aviation website.
But here I’ve found that respected and educated speakers are in minority and the loudest members are competing in childish disciplines “who’s got bigger”, and “who was the first”. Lack of moderation I guess.
Pity though.