Nato Aircraft losses in Kosovo

[Apollo 0]

I need some infor for a debate on an other message board.

For one i need the count of plane's lost by NATO in the Kosovo war.I ask this here because i know denoir for one has ppretty good info on this but i didn't found his profile to PM him ,neither am i sure that he still posts here a lot.Possibly others here have heard the total count from him before or know a resource where i can find it.

As to the spicific discussion ,is about possible air losses the USA could have if they would hold air superiority and bombing runs over Chinese mainland (say launched from Taiwan and korea) due to chinese ground based AA capabilety's.

Basicly i got some American's who claim that the USA could easily take such city's as Beiing or Shangai in a limited campaign targetting the Chinese centers of commerce because their superiority in the air.I wanted to argue for one that ,due to a probably high amount of ground based AA present in china ,that the USA would incur serious losses with that.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Denoir's profile is here. I know, because the rabid European Union lover can always be found in the European Politics Thread. Bah. He argues well for a misguided enterprise .

As to your argument, I'm sure this thread will provoke some healthy debate on the issue. Stick around!

[LoTekK 0]

Also, google managed to pull up some articles.

http://www.google.com/search?....e=utf-8

This was the third hit:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/natolosses-review01.htm

[Radnik 18]

... i don`t think there`s exact

number to be count eighter by

NATO nor Serbia,

both sides will claim in their

favour so ...

anyway ... here`s interesting pages

with info about downed aircraft, helos, misilles ...

link 1

link 2

p.s. with all respect, denoir can`t give u

the answer as well

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I remember asking on this board a few years back, IIRC the number was something between 15 and 35, but don't remember specifics

[echo1 0]

All I know is that they lost an F-117/A, theyre not sure whether it was a good shot by a AA Gun, or whether a SAM managed to get a lock. Im sure the Americans werent pleased at all at one of their stealth planes being shot out of the sky.

[EiZei 0]

All I know is that they lost an F-117/A, theyre not sure whether it was a good shot by a AA Gun, or whether a SAM managed to get a lock. Im sure the Americans werent pleased at all at one of their stealth planes being shot out of the sky.

It was some lucky older russian radar-guided AA-missile that downed that F-117, SA-3 maybe?

Hitting those things with missiles is damn hard, I do not think I need to mention how hard it would be to do with some 50-year-old cold war relic spouting 23mm shells..

[Radnik 18]

It was some lucky older russian radar-guided AA-missile that downed that F-117, SA-3 maybe?

Hitting those things with missiles is damn hard, I do not think I need to mention how hard it would be to do with some 50-year-old cold war relic spouting 23mm shells..

... i just know that one PRAGA 2x30mm

was 70m from my house ...

and that they randomly change bullet colors,

every fifth as soldier told me ... in pause we

talk ... but within every maneuver they moved 100m in radius,

we used to call those `popcorns` cose they realy

sounded like that,

mostly they fired onto missiles ... damn if i had camera

also few times power plant (far but i can see it) was hit

with strange missiles cose there were no explosion but

it was very colorfull, mostly blue and green, and power was

off, so half of Belgrade was in dark ... i read somewhere

and heard those was called `graphite missiles`

i never saw any heavier AA guns though.

[hellfish6 7]

I've only officially heard one F-16 and one F-117 were shot down, but rumors of maybe 20-30 more aircraft lost are pretty popular.

[ran 0]

It was some lucky older russian radar-guided AA-missile that downed that F-117, SA-3 maybe?

Hitting those things with missiles is damn hard, I do not think I need to mention how hard it would be to do with some 50-year-old cold war relic spouting 23mm shells..

... i just know that one PRAGA 2x30mm

was 70m from my house ...

and that they randomly change bullet colors,

every fifth as soldier told me ... in pause we

talk ... but within every maneuver they moved 100m in radius,

we used to call those `popcorns` cose they realy

sounded like that,

mostly they fired onto missiles ... damn if i had camera

also few times power plant (far but i can see it) was hit

with strange missiles cose there were no explosion but

it was very colorfull, mostly blue and green, and power was

off, so half of Belgrade was in dark ... i read somewhere

and heard those was called `graphite missiles`

i never saw any heavier AA guns though.

The lights you saw were most certainly the result of those graphite bombs and the electrical arks caused by the use of such devices.

They create what some acquaintances and I used to call "Hugenormous motherf*cking short circuits from hell".

The devices used in 1999 were mostly american small submunitions codenamed BLU-114 which spread several thin graphite coated metallic cables. The concentration of such conducting wires makes for an unavoidable short circuit when landing on electric installations such as aerial high voltage cables and transformers (is it the right word in english ?).

They can be dispensed by quite a few different types of submunition containers.

These things are the "less than lethal" stuff of the airforces as they leave the core infrastructures intact and pose less danger for the surrounding populations.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

It was some lucky older russian radar-guided AA-missile that downed that F-117, SA-3 maybe?

It was a Polish Modified SA6 Battery in conjunction with the STRAIGHT FLUSH Firecontrol radar and LONGTRACK Search Radar.

[denoir 0]

I need some infor for a debate on an other message board.

For one i need the count of plane's lost by NATO in the Kosovo war.I ask this here because i know denoir for one has ppretty good info on this but i didn't found his profile to PM him ,neither am i sure that he still posts here a lot.Possibly others here have heard the total count from him before or know a resource where i can find it.

Well, I'm still around, if only to see harvey realize that federation is the only way to go

Regarding Kosovo, it's not a very simple question to answer. I'm assuming that you are referring to Operation Allied Force.

Well, first of all, NATO lied during the campaign - they only admitted to have lost aircraft when the Yugoslavs showed the wreckage on TV and it was clearly recognizable as a NATO plane. Second, the Yugoslavs lied during the campaign - they claimed fairly absurd numbers of shot down planes. Later KFOR tried to establish the military cost of the war on both sides, but was basically stonewalled, at least from the Americans and the Serbs. The official US numbers during the campaign were IIRC at five fixed wing aircraft, three helicopters and two dozen of UAVs. The British lost one or two aircraft as did the Dutch.

KFOR estimated about 20-25 fixed wing aircraft total and around 5-10 helicopters. These figures were fairly uncertain and they were based on evidence gathered on the ground (i.e remains of wrecks) and on recorded SAR missions.

The interesting thing though about the air campaign is not really the NATO losses, which were by any count minimal. It's the actual military effect they had, which was also minimal. Out of around 1,500 armored vehicles 12 were destroyed. Out of 300+ aircraft 50 were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. Basically the military part was not working at all. It was first when they failed with high-altitude bombings of military targets (phase one) and failed with low-altitude bombings of military targets (phase two) that they made an impact with phase three - the strategic bombing of civilian infrastructure. Power plants, water plants, communications, industry, TV-stations etc

So the naive ideal of just bombing enemy forces failed badly and they resorted to what can only be characterized as terror-bombing. The point was to make life as miserable for the population that Milosevic would have no choice but to stop. It worked, sort of. Milosevic finished his ethnic cleansing and then agreed to a cease fire.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

denoir, do you believe that this failure in achieving any military success was down to technological restrictions, vague/unclear orders, bad piloting, or clever concealment by the Serbs, or just a general failure in everything from politics, to technology, to soldiering?

[Apollo 0]

Thx Denoir ,this will be usefull.As to federation ,it's the only way ,surely Harvey has to come round someday.

As to the original topic that was being discussed that lead me to ask this info ,it was about this article:

"China will best US in war." - Tokyo Governor:

Quote[/b] ]East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

Chinese troops lined up for a review by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao on Nov. 20 in Beijing (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.

"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.

As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.

On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.

During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections.

"I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.

Probably a political motivated speech ,otherwise said somebody wants japan to have more millitary probably.Asside for that it leads to an interresting discussion ,that is where exactly lies the limits for the USA in a conventional war with China.Some like me argue the USA might be able to have naval superiority up to some point (for ex around Taiwan) but wouldn't be able to effectivly invade the mainland ,atleast not by naval landing.Others argue that they would be able to do that given a limited campaign ,for ex. only taking Shangai and other important coastal city's ,something i doubt to.

Parts of my argument were purely logistical ,i argued that the USA wouldn't be able to land enough men to effectivly capture territory on the mainland ,they would be way outnumbered ,while many American's argue that Air power alone would be able to reverse those odds.

Though it's probably not a very smart idea to continue such a discussion in a thread with this title.Feel free anyone though to continue or make a new thread.

Quote[/b] ]denoir, do you believe that this failure in achieving any military success was down to technological restrictions, vague/unclear orders, bad piloting, or clever concealment by the Serbs, or just a general failure in everything from politics, to technology, to soldiering?

This would be interresting to know to.

In addition ,does anyone has a view of the intelligence gathering capabilety's of China? Would they be able to work comparably somewhat effeciant like the USA with means like sattelite's and Awac plane's to distribute targets?

[denoir 0]

denoir, do you believe that this failure in achieving any military success was down to technological restrictions, vague/unclear orders, bad piloting, or clever concealment by the Serbs, or just a general failure in everything from politics, to technology, to soldiering?

Technological restrictions, low risk taking and naive assumptions about the enemy.

To clarify, at 10,000 feet, you don't see all that much and while the technology for high-altitude precision bombing exists, ultimately you need the right coordinates to bomb something. This failed. The low level attacks failed because the lack of technology to differentiate between a column of mechanized infantry and a column of refugees on tractors. In the end, as there were more of the latter, they tended to be bombed.

Second, the US action before Kosovo was Somalia, which as you might remember did not end very well. So there was no desire for any risk-taking - and they were completely unwilling to use ground forces.

The third part is rather astonishing - the naive assumptions that NATO seemed to have when they started the campaigns. Of course the Serbs knew that military bases and air fields would be bombed first, so they were emptied long before. And of course they realized as well that without air superiority, which they could not achieve, their tanks would be sitting ducks. So well ahead they moved them to safe, covered locations and put a few hundred mock-ups around Kosovo (basically a wooden frame with a heat generator inside that gives an IR signature similar to a tank). You don't need tanks to force away civilians. So they did it with light mechanized infantry, something that is very mobile and you can't hit from a high altitude or easily spot with a satellite.

And more over what they should have realized was that Milosevic was just buying time. He never had any ambition of a real defence - there was no chance in hell as Yugoslavia was militarily more or less completely tapped out after 8 years of war. Most of the military hardware had been moved off to Bosnia a long time ago. So all he was aiming for is to buy some time to complete his Kosovo operation, and with that he succeeded.

So in phase one NATO bombed empty air bases and tank mock-ups. In phase two they were strafing refugees. It was first when they went after the civilian infrastructure that it made any difference for the Serbs, and by that time Milosevic had already completed what he set out to do.

I do admire the humanitarian cause of the operation, but the results were terrible. More Albanians were killed by NATO than by the Serbs, and a lot of innocent Serbian civilians died. And in the end it bought Milosevic a few more months in power as the war united the nation and they rallied around him.

Ultimately of course he failed, and under KFOR supervision many Albanians have returned - but it was unfortunately a needlessly bloody way to get there. That's my view of it anyway.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Answering your question, Apollo (and for the benefit of you poor illiterate Europeans, my name is Harley ), I have to say I know not the specifics of the Chinese Satellite and AWACS capability. However, I'd assume that since they aren't stupid, they would have drawn quite a few good surveillance tips from the American Aries II surveillance plane they detained back in 2001. Any good technology which they could study there they will have done.

As to strategy, it depends on how such a war would start.

The main local foreign policy goal China has is to reabsorb Taiwan into the fold. Japan it doesn't and won't regard as a serious threat for a long time to come. America would not be so foolish as to start a war out of thin air. Therefore let's suggest that the invasion of Taiwan would be the major flashpoint for an ultimate China-U.S.A. conflict.

The Chinese invade Taiwan. The Chinese would overrun the island before significant help could arrive other than maybe Japanese troops and U.S. forces from Japan and S. Korea.

Taiwan would thus be written off -that, I believe, is a certainty. Of course the Taiwanese and any allies who took part would fight like hell, but I'm pretty sure that a concerted Chinese effort - total control of the Straits of Taiwan, air superiority, huge landings by air and sea - would knock Taiwan out in a matter of days. A U.S. and an Allied response, that is definately open to conjecture.

I'll do some checking on information before I continue - I may be wrong with my portent, but I think that it's broadly accurate...

[Apollo 0]

The Chinese invade Taiwan.  The Chinese would overrun the island before significant help could arrive other than maybe Japanese troops and U.S. forces from Japan and S. Korea.

Taiwan would thus be written off -that, I believe, is a certainty.  Of course the Taiwanese and any allies who took part would fight like hell, but I'm pretty sure that a concerted Chinese effort - total control of the Straits of Taiwan, air superiority, huge landings by air and sea - would knock Taiwan out in a matter of days.  A U.S. and an Allied response, that is definately open to conjecture.

I'll do some checking on information before I continue - I may be wrong with my portent, but I think that it's broadly accurate...

Sorry i misspelled youre name.

I argued so to ,but i think i argued to early and to uninformed like you on that matter.Atleast some people argue ,but i havn't seen sources that back up their claim ,that China would lack the capabilety's to transport a meaninfull amount of troops over that strait.I know it seems weird for such a country to only have a few obsolete transportation barks.

But we can argue on the China matter for ages.Whats more important is effectiveness of bombing runs and it's potential capabilety's to knock out vast amounts of ground forces.As for the Kosovo case ,it shows thus that in that circumstance it didn't much effect ,however it was also due to the fact i guess that groundforces wern't commited.If Ground forces would have been present the Serbs would have been forced to move out their material and it probably would have been a different matter.

Then again ,how much difference can air superiority make to odd's at the ground if sizeable forces are commited at each side.USA for ex. has about 7000 planes ,though granted a few thousand's are obsolete or of elder generation.Even Stealth's don't exactly come in big numbers.

Thus the larger the amount of ground forces ,the fewer inpact the aircraft can have ,if litteraly millions of troops are commited on the ground ,how much difference can this air arsenal make?

Another question i would ask ,how much of the effective of bombers is reduced if they have to fly a considerable distance to their target.In the kosovo war it was from a base in Italy ,not to far i guess but it might have had some inpact?

[harley 3 1185 0]

Hell, I'm not informed on the matter; I have a very rough working knowledge of various things which gets me by.

Air Power could be a factor, albeit indecisive in any campaign against China. Long range strikes could be operated from Guam and Diego Garcia. Air superiority could possibly be acheived by the Air Groups of around five U.S. Carrier Battle Groups, two Indian Carrier Battle Groups (second one planned for 2010s) and 2 Carrier Battle Groups from Britain and France apiece, and whatever could be provided by other nations.

This is what could happen in 10 years. If the Chinese went to war now (even more unlikely than my scenario) most of the response would fall on the U.S. and would clearly be inadequate, due to the U.S.'s massive committments outside the Western Pacific.

The distances involved would render a large part of the U.S. Air Force useless against the home-ground advantage of the Chinese Air Force. However, with enough allied warships off the coast of Taiwan, I believe temporary Air Superiority could be gained for an Amphibious and airborne landing.

The only people who could use Air Power decisively would be the Chinese; if they could overwhelm the Allies, then it would be they who would be assured of victory. The possibilities of the Allies doing the same are nowhere near as good.

I apologise for rambling on in a subject I'm obviously generalising about, but then again, it's a very hypothetical question with few set perameters. Can be very thought provoking though .

[Warden 0]

That Air Arsenal doesnt have to assault your front line trops it can attack supply lines/lines of communication, what use are your thousands/millions of troops if they have no ammo/food or medical supplies?

Air power as was shown throught WW2/korea/vietnam/GW1/2 is now a major Power in modern Warfare, yes it cannot take ground and hold it, but it can sure as hell stop you from taking and holing it.

The Usdoesnt need to have Ground troops nearby toassist, they have carrier task groups (from what ive heard aleays in the vicinity) nearby, Nippon aircraft can reach there (with Inflight refeuling) even Australian Airrcraft can too, china would never invad Taiwan unless it wa sure ther would be no comeback to it.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]

RockofSL

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 817

Joined: Oct. 2003 Posted: Nov. 26 2005,20:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (EiZei @ Nov. 26 2005,17:45)

It was some lucky older russian radar-guided AA-missile that downed that F-117, SA-3 maybe?

It was a Polish Modified SA6 Battery in conjunction with the STRAIGHT FLUSH Firecontrol radar and LONGTRACK Search Radar.

Nope, it was an SA-3

like this

http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sa319oo.jpg