Sweetie says the serrated edge of the downed plane seen clearly against the flames is characteristic of Stealth manufacture.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 27, 1999

Answers

News reports now saying it IS a Stealth. Whether it was mechanical failure or not, it's a great propaganda point for Milosevitch.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 27, 1999.

Pictures and story at www.cnn.com <:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 27, 1999.

THe JACkASSeS In US MEdiA SAy f-117 STEalTH FIghTER-BOmbeR!!!!! NOT B- 2 STeaLTh BOmbER!!!!!! IDioT JAckASS cLinTonboY BONeRHEad!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 27, 1999.

Sorry, forgot the air war changed today from high-altitude smart bombs and Cruise or Tomahawks, etc., to low-level attacks, so it's a fighter, not a bomber. Pentagon has just confirmed it's an F-117. But what the hell were we doing allowing a $2 billion machine and multi-million dollar pilot to fly a highly-dangerous low-altitude mission???

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 27, 1999.

Serbs claim NATO plane shot down over Yugoslavia
March 27, 1999
Web posted at: 7:00 p.m. EST (0000 GMT)

NATO warplane shot down, Yugoslavia says

Yugoslav authorities claimed they downed a NATO warplane Saturday, as NATO unleashed a fourth day of airstrikes on Yugoslavia.

Serbian television Sunday showed video of what it said was a F-117 Stealth fighter bomber that had been shot down by Yugoslav forces. ...

http:// cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/27/nato.strike.03/

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 27, 1999.

I also spotted that jagged wingtip right off the bat. I was thinking the B-2 was the one with the sawtooth edges though, could be wrong. Here's something else to think about, The Russians have finished testing their new Steal FIGHTER, which is supersonic and invisible to radar. A few of these loitering over Yugoslavia at high altitude would be hell for our Stealths and B-2s, and sheer murder on the F-15- 16. Our AWACS wouldn't even know they were there.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 27, 1999.

OLdsGIt!!!!! F Of tHE 117 Is nOt tHE 2 biLLioN DOllar aIRPLaNE!!!!! IT Is oF THE muLtI-MULti-miLLioNS ONLy, IS IT NoT?????? YeS!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 27, 1999.

ALsO FOR INforMATIoNAl pURpoSES, ThE B-2 ALsO WaS SEnT OVeR KOSovO FOR thE miSSiONS OF BOMbiNG alSo!!!!!! MAnY HiGh muCKetY MUcKS WeRE NErVoUS HigHLy WhiLE tHE BiLLioN DOLLar baBy wAS "oVEr thERe"!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 27, 1999.

It is a F-117. Compare the serial number shown on tv with the actual production serial numbers here...

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/toppan/f117.html

100% confirmed... pilot ejected... they are searching for him now.

Belgrade also claims to have downed two F-4's and are in posession of German Pilot. Not confirmed. No TV footage to certify claims. Who is other pilot..? Can't be U.S. F 4's decomissioned two years ago for american military.

As of 19:02 CST

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), March 27, 1999.

I think a few F-4 phantoms are still in use by the USAF as wild weasels.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 27, 1999.

Here's the link, up on MSNBC Breaking News, with a twisted-metal-on-fire picture and a story:

U.S. plane downed in Yugoslavia

Sad day in many ways. War is not worth anything. Why can't man learn? ??????????

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 27, 1999.

Greetings, Old Git:

The .mil and .gov will spin whatever generates desired obfuscation. Independent cybernauts on the Internet will post the facts.

These stupid bombing campaigns will cause negative feedback upon the US and Great Britain and other NATO allies who are standing firm in their commitments. And events shall become more gruesome.

Are we witnessing the dissolution of NATO according to the agenda of those promulgating the New World Order?

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), March 27, 1999.

"Here's something else to think about, The Russians have finished testing their new Steal FIGHTER, which is supersonic and invisible to radar. "

Not good if true. The Russians reportedly perform stealth by producing "plasma" energy surrounding plane. This allows essentially any plane to be "cloaked", unlike the US approach which requires horrible comprimises to the airframe. Thus Russian stealth planes would be fast and manuverable, unlike the US planes.

If true.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), March 27, 1999.

The B-2 does have the serrated edge..I saw one today at a air show, and it looked d*** scary. Btw, nothing is invisible to radar, and if they have shotdown one of our F-117's or (God forbid) one of our B- 2's, that wreckage will be available to the HIGHEST bidder for a technology sweep. Clinton just opened America's fly.

young prodigy

-- young prodigy (eheh?@canada.com), March 27, 1999.

NBC has just reported that the pilot of the downed Stealth has been found alive tonight.

-- Some (goodnews@least.com), March 27, 1999.

DOeS DIeTER BELievE That "shOT DOwN" May be untrUe?????? MaybE juST PLaiN Old faILURe?????? oR Is iT PLanE Old faILUre??????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 27, 1999.

CBS Special Report, David Martin, just reported that it has been a dramatic few hours, the plane went down, they don't know why yet, and the pilot was just recovered and is in the hands of friendly forces -- they were doing a search and rescue to get him before the Serbs did and they suceeded. Just on a few seconds at 7:45/p Pacific time. Hope it's true!

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 27, 1999.

According to a special report just given by the Pentagon, the pilot has been rescued, but they don't know his condition. Everyone is safe. The plane's cost is $45 million.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), March 27, 1999.

Dioeter, you're right, I don't know where I got that $2 billion from. I guess any amount of money over a couple of thousand is incomprehensible to me. Sweetie says the bomber costs about half a billion and the fighter around $40-50, give or take a few million. Y'all must have heard that the pilot was extracted safely and nobody is saying why the plane went down. Thanks God there's no bloodied pilot being humiliated through the streets of Belgraaade right now. (No matter what you think about this action, you HAVE to agree with that statement.) One of the talking heads says they'll probably go in and blow up the remains. Oh please oh please oh please. Unless somebody wants to give the plans to China. . .

Dammit, I'm off topic and have been for the last several posts.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 27, 1999.

This wouldn't be the first time Clinton opened his, I mean our "fly". This guy is more dangerous than anyone ever imagined.

What happened to go old wars like Granada?

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), March 27, 1999.

It was definitely an F-117 stealth fighter. It appears to be tail number 82-806, with unit marking "HO" for Holloman AFB, NM. Now that the pilot has been rescued, the question of whether it was shot down or went down due to on-board problems will have a good chance of being answered.

Personnally I lean towards a malfunction, the plane was in too much of one piece to have come down violently like a shootdown. Either way the Russians have something to haul home in those planes they're talking of sending loads of aid to the Serbs in.

As far as the Serbs claiming to have downed an F-4. It would have to be German (F-4F, RF-4E), Greek (F-4E) or Turkish (F-4E). These are the only NATO users of the Phantom. If the Serbs have a German crewmember, I'd lean towards a RF-4E being the victim. But I haven't heard of any German aircraft being involved in this exercise. The last USAF F-4, an Idaho ANG F-4G went to the boneyard in 1995.

WW, who wishes the USAF was still flying F-4s. 'Cause maybe he could still be flying Phantoms and enjoying life instead of working for a living.

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 27, 1999.

I'm probably going to put my foot in my mouth here but wasn't Granada sort of like the first of the *new* "wars"?

No warning, no news reporters, no/little right/reason/benefit on US part?

That *is* a question. I'm sorry to say, the stated reasons are vague now but I do remember there were many American's in Granada that didn't understand why it was done. Also that there was no advance word of it being done and that was said to be purposeful to avoid the accompanying news people and coverage of the invasion.

Please refresh me.

Me.

-- Floyd Baker (fbaker@wzrd.com), March 28, 1999.

If I remember correctly one Stealth cost about the same price to put every US citizen in a formal school for 2 years and not have to pay a dime. What's wrong with this picture?

-- Duane (Duane24062@aol.com), March 28, 1999.

To paraphrase Perot, whom I supported;

If you give your wife one million dollars and tell her to go shopping, spending a thousand dollars a day, you won't see her again for nearly three years.

If you give her 45 million (the value of a stealth?), and tell her to spend a thousand dollars a day, you won't see her again for over 120 years.

Me

-- Floyd Baker (fbaker@wzrd.com), March 28, 1999.

Sweetie was in "the Big One" (Grenada), and I remember it fairly well. But don't take my word for it--there's a summary from New York Times reports--not exactly a hotbed of right-wing politics (edited for brevity):

http://www.umi.com/hp/Support/K12/GreatEvents/Grenada.html

U.S. Invasion of Grenada 1983

. . .The United States' invasion of Grenada is an example of a seemingly straightforward military operation that had deeper political consequences.

The trouble began on October 13, 1983, when the Grenadian Army, under the direction of the former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule of the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere. Although Coard and Bishop were both Marxists and sympathetic to Eastern bloc nations and Cuba, Coard was known to be more of a hard-line Marxist than Bishop. . . .

The Reagan administration saw the coup in Grenada as a threat to U. S. security in the Caribbean. The Cubans and the Soviet Union had already established a strong presence on the island under Bishop. Bishop had also allowed Cuban workers to begin constructing a large new airport on the island. Bishop viewed the airport as necessary to encourage tourism. The Administration feared that Coard would use it quite differently: to land Soviet and Cuban planes carrying military cargo.

The Administration cited the current state of martial law in Grenada (anyone out on the streets was to be shot) and possible danger to [700] American students on the island as its reason to send some 1,900 Marines to the island. Before dawn on October 25, those Marines, other U.S. troops, and a small force provided by other Caribbean nations invaded the island. President Reagan told reporters that the Organization of East Caribbean States had asked the United States to invade Grenada and restore peace and security in the area. . . .

. . . Despite lack of support for the invasion abroad, a majority of the American public supported it enthusiastically, perhaps primarily because it had been an easy victory. Only a week had passed between the invasion and U.S. troops securing the island.

This easy victory, however, had a political component, both at home and abroad.

. . . If Grenada "made up" for Beirut [where the marine barracks were blown up with great loss of life], the connection between the two incidents also served another purpose at home: it underscored the need in the American public's mind for an increased American military presence around the world. . . .

END OF CUT, PASTE, EDIT

I urge you to go to the site because there's a lot more interesting background to the Grenada incident.

There was some warning about the invasion. It's not easy to cover up when a somewhat large aircraft carrier like the Independence turns and takes a right at New York instead of going to the Med as advertised. I'm looking at a newspaper clipping, which I think came from the Abilene, TX, newspaper. US troops landed on the island on October 25, 1983, and the article is dated the 22nd: "2,000 marines head for Grenada island." The article says the marines were aboard the Guam which had left NC earlier that week. The Guam, also originally headed to the Med, was diverted when Grenada's prime minister and cabinet were executed in a military coup.

I do remember that the press, many of whom had hired charter boats from nearby islands and were buzzing around getting in the way of operations, weren't allowed on the island until it was secured, and they kicked up an enormous fuss about it. There were reporters aboard the various vessels who were allowed to broadcast in limited fashion until the situation was secure.

If you enter "Grenada AND invasion" into a good search engine, you'll come up with a few thousand hits and find sites with widely differing versions of the affair.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 28, 1999.

<>

In response to Duane: absolutely nothing. I think we should have more B-2's, which cost 2.1 Billion. The problem is how they are used..our military ops are a joke. Who are these "strategists", who havent seen one second of real combat?

Young Prodigy

-- Young Prodigy (eheh?@canada.com), March 28, 1999.

Dieter, My admiration for you grows daily. Although this thread has nothing to do with Y2K, you were first with the facts and your opinions were dead center. You really blew over the heads of most of the (other?) Clinton haters. You may be the most well-rounded news-head on this board. Thanks again.

-- Uhm... (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), March 28, 1999.