http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:53:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-7 achilis Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:57:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-7 those f-16s which were supposed to give cover to that f-117 would hav been atleast 5000 feet above and behind the 117...not in a circular formation at the same altitude around it.....that is the usual way of givin air cover for any bomber....so i dont think the logic u posted is from a reliable source... those f-16s which were supposed to give cover to that f-117 would hav been atleast 5000 feet above and behind the 117…not in a circular formation at the same altitude around it…..that is the usual way of givin air cover for any bomber….so i dont think the logic u posted is from a reliable source…

]]> http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-6 Anonymous Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:58:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-6 No I can see the logic, the defenders are meant to concentrate on the obvious targets thus not realising there is a fifth invisible target in the middle.BR/BR/Not exactly great logic, but this is the American air force we are talking about. No I can see the logic, the defenders are meant to concentrate on the obvious targets thus not realising there is a fifth invisible target in the middle.BR/BR/Not exactly great logic, but this is the American air force we are talking about.

]]> http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-5 Anonymous Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:00:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-5 This can not be the case as this would almost certainly compromise its cover. They always flew alone. This can not be the case as this would almost certainly compromise its cover. They always flew alone.

]]> http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-4 Anonymous Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:22:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-4 This is not important, but for dots cannot form a circle. :) This is not important, but for dots cannot form a circle.

]]> http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-3 Larkins Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:00:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-3 @AnonymousBR/BR/Wow... Never heard that before. Thanks for bringing it up. @AnonymousBR/BR/Wow… Never heard that before. Thanks for bringing it up.

]]> http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-2 Anonymous Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:52:00 +0000 http://test.larkins.org/?p=3#comment-2 i heard a rumor in serbia that the f117A was easy to spot because it had an enterouge of visible aircraft around it. prob f16s. on the radar, u could imagine, seeing four dots in the shape of a circle. the soldier operating the battery was told to concentrate on the black space on the radar in the centre of the surrounding dots/aircraft. he was told to shoot at the black space when in range. next thing u know it an invisible f117A was destroyed. i heard a rumor in serbia that the f117A was easy to spot because it had an enterouge of visible aircraft around it. prob f16s. on the radar, u could imagine, seeing four dots in the shape of a circle. the soldier operating the battery was told to concentrate on the black space on the radar in the centre of the surrounding dots/aircraft. he was told to shoot at the black space when in range. next thing u know it an invisible f117A was destroyed.

]]>