NATO aircraft losses in Yugoslavia - Update
Venik
April 9, 2000
Venik's Aviation Page
www.aeronautics.ru
http://way.to/venik
[This is a text version of the article. Full version with HTML links and
photos is available online. Please visit www.aeronautics.ru or
http://way.to/venik]
According to a March 25, 2000, article published by the ITAR-TASS news
agency, Russian GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) sources report that
during the Operation "Allied Force" NATO's air forces sustained losses
considerably higher than is officially acknowledged by NATO command.
According to GRU information, NATO lost three F-117A stealth bombers, and at
least 40 other combat planes, and over 1000 cruise missiles.
So far NATO officials acknowledged losing three combat planes (the USAF
F-117A on March 27, the USMC AV-8B Harrier on May 1, and the F-16CG-40-CF on
May 2), two attack helicopters (AH-64 Apache on April 26 and another Apache
on May 5), between 30 and 32 unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, including at
least 16 American, 7 German, and 5 French UAVs. Interestingly enough NATO
acknowledged all of the UAV losses mentioned by Yugoslav military
officials - 30 - and, perhaps, even more.
Official NATO reports and statements made by various NATO officials indicate
that about 10 NATO planes made emergency landings. Two F-117As sustained
extensive damage (the F-117A 86-0837 was damaged on April 21 during landing;
and another F-117A lost a part of its tail section due to a nearby SA-3 SAM
explosion). An RAF C-130K Hercules transport plane crashed on June 11 in
Albania. The aircraft was delivering a British SAS unit that was trying to
beat Russian paratroopers to the Slatina base. The US Army OH-58 combat
reconnaissance helicopter crashed on May 26 in Bosnia.
According to the information from unofficial Yugoslav military sources,
NATO's final assessment of its aircraft losses during the operation "Allied
Force" indicates that some 61 aircraft have been destroyed, 53 aircraft
were damaged beyond repair or it is not cost-effective to repair them, 57
aircraft have sustained repairable combat damage. A total of 171 NATO
aircraft were hit by Yugoslav defenses during the war.
According to Yugoslav army officials, NATO lost 61 planes, 7 helicopters, 30
UAVs, and 238 cruise missiles. These numbers include only those NATO
aircraft that crashed inside Yugoslavia. Distribution of aircraft kills
among various units and branches of the Yugoslav Armed Forces is as follows:
3rd Army: 34 planes, 5 helicopters, 25 UAVs and 52 cruise missiles
(according to an official statement by General Nebojsa Pavkovic, commander
of the 3rd Army, on June 12, 1999); Navy: 3 planes, 3 UAVs and over 5 cruise
missiles (from an official statement by the FRY Navy Commander, Milan Zec,
June 10, 1999); 2nd Army: 24 planes, 2 helicopters, 2 UAVs (reported by
Major General Spasoje Smiljanic in his interview to Politika newspaper at
the end of April), 30 cruise missiles; 1st Army: 6 planes, 129 cruise
missiles (reported by General Ninoslav Krstic in his interview for the
"Vojska" magazine on May 24, 1999.) If you add up these numbers, provided by
various Yugoslav military officials, you will see that the number of planes
reported to have been shot down is 67 and not 61 as the official report by
Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanic states. And here's why:
On June 17, 1999, Gen. Spasoje Smiljanic, then commander of Yugoslav Air
Force and Air Defense (RV i PVO), announced that "the Yugoslav Air Force and
Air Defence units have downed 36 airplanes, 42 cruise missiles, nine UAVs
and two helicopters." It is important to keep in mind, however, that RV i
PVO air defense units do not include low-level army air defenses or naval
air defenses, such as man-portable SAMs and some AAAs. The total number
planes shot down by RV i PVO and by various air defense units outside of RV
i PVO command comes to 61 planes, 7 helicopters, 30 UAVs and 238 cruise
missiles according to Gen. Ojdanic. However, these figures only include
those NATO aircraft that crashed inside Yugoslavia. In some of the earlier r
eports mentioned above Yugoslav military commanders included NATO aircraft
that crashed outside Yugoslavia.
Several new pieces of destroyed NATO hardware were added to the Yugoslav
Aeronautical Museum's exhibit on March 24 to commemorate one year since the
beginning of NATO's aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Currently the museum's exhibit includes over 1500 fragments of NATO's
military hardware. The museum's curator, Cedomir Janjic, announced that more
destroyed NATO weapons will be soon added to the collection in a new wing of
the museum dedicated to the war with NATO.
In an interview to the Associated Press Yugoslavia's Minister for Science
and Development, Cedomir Mirkovic, said "It is truly amazing how many
aircraft and drones were downed with the relatively modest and primitive
equipment..." Mirkovic refutes Western claims that Yugoslav air defense
downed only two planes. "We shall prove we have more," he said, without
elaborating.
In February British press was discussing sharp shortage of operational
aircraft experienced by the Royal Air Force. The news first appeared in the
January 23, 2000, Hundreds of Crippled Jets put RAF in Crisis article from
The Observer, by Antony Barnet. In particular, the article, based on the
Observer's own investigation, outlines the following problems with the RAF:
"Two out of three of the UK's 186 fleet of Tornado bombers are grounded;
Fewer than 40 per cent of other frontline aircraft, such as Harriers and
Jaguars, are ready to fly at short notice;
The Ministry of Defence has spent almost ?1 billion developing a
laser-guided bombing system that does not work properly;
There is shortage of nearly 20 per cent of junior officer fast jet pilots
and the RAF is having a severe problem in retaining trained pilots;"
Two out of three British Tornadoes that are grounded comes to a rather
substantial number: 124 Tornado strike aircraft are not operational. The
crisis begun developing following the Operation "Desert Storm" in Iraq, but
it really took off since the Operation "Allied Force" against Yugoslavia. As
far as I know only four NATO Tornado aircraft were shot down during the
conflict based on media reports. Two Luftwaffe strike aircraft were shot
down on March 26-27. The other two Tornadoes were shot down on April 15 and
May 26. It was not reported whether these aircraft were German or British.
The fact is that most of RAF's strike aircraft are out of order for a
variety of reasons. I do not have enough information to draw any definitive
conclusions. However, I know enough to say that 124 strategically -
important strike aircraft are not grounded for no reason. NATO sustained
significant losses. An even greater number of aircraft were damaged not only
by ground fire but also by the intensity of operations and skipping on the
required maintenance hours. After talking to several USAF aircraft
mechanics, who participated in the "Allied Force", I can conclude that NATO
aircraft were pushed to the limit and way beyond it. This is especially true
for the USAF aircraft. One USAF aircraft mechanic who served at Aviano told
me: "Two weeks - three weeks tops - and the "Allied Force" would have been
over 'cause NATO would have ran out of working planes."
In the February 13 article in The Observer, based on first-hand information
posted by RAF pilots and technicians at an Internet discussion group and
entitled Pilots Vent Fury at RAF on Web, Antony Barnet writes: "Pilots
currently serving in the Gulf, and others recently back from Kosovo, are so
angry about defective equipment and low morale they are flooding the secret
site with complaints aimed at senior officers." The "secret" site is the
PPRuNe message board for military pilots. I've spent several days at that
site fishing for information until that Sherlock from The Observer scared
everyone away with his article.
From what was written by RAF pilots, it can be readily seen that there is a
great deal of concern about technical capabilities of aircraft and even
about their basic safety compromised by the lack of proper technical service
and spare parts. An RAF Captain wrote: "The number of sorties lost due to
unserviceability is way too high. I now find that I have to accept faults to
get the job done that a few years ago I would not have done ... Although I
have a few worries about the structural strength of the airframe I am
convinced that we are going to have a major problem due to some esoteric
fault... We struggle to get spares, some parts have to be manufactured over
and over. We use the cheapest contractor we can find..."
And, in place of a conclusion, a brief review of the latest developments
around Kosovo. Following some harsh criticism directed by the U.S. military
against France regarding its role in the Operation "Allied Force" and in
response to the accusations by certain US government officials that French
peacekeepers in Kosovo are not doing their job, France released classified
information regarding civilian casualties in Kosovo since the NATO-led UN
force assumed responsibility for the province following the war with
Yugoslavia. Available statistics clearly illustrated that the French sector
of Kosovo has a better safety record than the sector supervised by the
Americans.
However, information revealed by France also showed that civilian casualties
in Kosovo are much higher than they were when Kosovo was under Yugoslav
control. In essence, the number of violent deaths in the province is higher
and continues to grow under NATO's "humanitarian intervention" that it was
during the "ethnic cleansing." The report released by France clearly
illustrates that the number of violent crimes in Kosovo is rapidly growing.
This revelation was the first step in a series of events that led to recent
statements by various UN and NATO officials confirming that the KFOR has
effectively lost control over the situation in Kosovo. NATO field commanders
acknowledged that their troops are not capable of dealing with the growing
crime wave in the province. The UN formally announced that the situation in
Kosovo worsened since NATO troops assumed control of the province. The US
approached Russian government with an offer to widen the authority of the
Contact Group.
Russia's response was not very optimistic to say the least. Russian law
enforcement officials announced that Russian policemen will not be deployed
in Kosovo because of appalling lack of cooperation on NATO's side.
Furthermore, top Russian military commanders announced that Russia may pull
out of the KFOR altogether. On the other hand, commander of Russian Airborne
Assault Forces (VDV) Gen. G. Shpak announced about plans to convert the
Slatina base of the Yugoslav Air Force near Pristina, which currently serves
as the main base for Russian KFOR paratroopers, into a large Russian
military base with a capability to barrack up to 15000 Russian troops.
There are reports that Russians are already doing some large-scale
construction work at Slatina. Russian Su-27 and Su-30 fighter aircraft have
been sighted at several Yugoslav Air Force bases (Batajnica, Ponikve). There
is a lot of unofficial information regarding deliveries of Russian SAM
systems to Yugoslavia. High-level meetings are underway between Yugoslav and
Russian governments regarding Yugoslavia's plans to join the Russia-Belarus
union. The Russian military is extremely interested in establishing its
presence in Kosovo and in the rest of Serbia on a greater scale. A logical
first step would be a joint defense agreement between Russia and Yugoslavia.
Such an agreement will include Belarus and, possibly, other CIS members. In
an interview to the "Voice of Russia" radio station, Gen. Ivashov said that
Russia is considering a military intervention in Kosovo and may offer
support to the Yugoslav Army on the ground.
Many question Yugoslavia's ability to purchase large quantities of hi-tech
weapons from Russia. Yugoslavia's economy is not in great shape, but Russia
owes FRY a hefty sum, which Russians would be only too glad to offset by
supplying Serbia weapons. Russia is also seeking more influence in Europe
now that the Chechen conflict is no longer a major military commitment.
Russian generals and the military-industrial complex look to expand internal
arms market as well as arms exports. Yugoslavia always has an option to
lease or even borrow weapons from Russia. And the latter, with its
recently-downsized army, has plenty of decent-quality weapons to spare,
including SAMs and aircraft. SAMs and planes are not underwear: you don't
need to own 'em to use 'em. This may not be the latest equipment but it
works and there's a lot of it.
According to an ITAR-TASS review of the article published by the Foreign
Military Review magazine of the Russian Defense Ministry, Yugoslav aviation
prevented the use of American AH-64 Apache attack helicopters during the
Kosovo conflict. The "NATO Losses in the War with Yugoslavia" article, the
Foreign Military Review writes: "... the biggest sensation was the number of
troops lost by NATO. Not just NATO pilots were killed in Yugoslavia, but
also search-and-rescue troops that were tasked with locating downed pilots.
Yugoslav air defenses have shot down no less than five NATO helicopters,
which resulted in deaths of about 100 troops of the Alliance."
According to the Foreign Military Review, the reason why Pentagon did not
use Apaches in Kosovo "...had nothing to do with technical problems with the
helicopters or insufficient training of their flight crews, as was often
stated by NATO officials. The only reason was the April 26 attack carried
out by Yugoslav "Galeb" fighters against "Rinas" airport located near
Albania's capital of Tirana, where the Apaches were based. That day two
groups of these light helicopters were destroyed and over 10 helicopters
were damaged."
A similar operation was carried out by Yugoslav AF on April 18 against the
airport in Tuzla, Bosnia, used as an emergency landing site for NATO
aircraft. As the result of this attack some fifteen NATO aircraft have been
destroyed on the ground. The Foreign Military Review writes: "Despite the
fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren't the only
aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft
were five German "Tornadoes," several British "Harriers'" two French
"Mirages," Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost a
B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A "Spirit" was shot down."
* * *
Venik
March 28, 2000
April 9, 2000
Venik's Aviation Page
www.aeronautics.ru
http://way.to/venik
[This is a text version of the article. Full version with HTML links and
photos is available online. Please visit www.aeronautics.ru or
http://way.to/venik]
Truthseeker
Venik <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> NATO aircraft losses in Yugoslavia - Update
and don't forget that Yugoslavia also captured the martians that were
piloting these phantom planes. They are still in prison in Belgrade...let
them go!
John H. Schneider II
>
> NATO aircraft losses in Yugoslavia - Update
>
> April 9, 2000
> Venik's Aviation Page
> www.aeronautics.ru
> http://way.to/venik
>
--most of this I'm snipping for brevity and because there's only one
part that needs to be responded to in order to show how unreliable the
rest of it is--
> A similar operation was carried out by Yugoslav AF on April 18 against the
> airport in Tuzla, Bosnia, used as an emergency landing site for NATO
> aircraft. As the result of this attack some fifteen NATO aircraft have been
> destroyed on the ground. The Foreign Military Review writes: "Despite the
> fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren't the only
> aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft
> were five German "Tornadoes," several British "Harriers'" two French
> "Mirages," Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost a
> B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A "Spirit" was shot down."
There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
John II
Venik
> There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
>world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
>world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
>
Some iron logic here. Go rub your two IQ points together, see if you can
start a fire.
Venik
Mike McCormick
Russian losses in Chechnya so you can see how we feel when we read you
nonsense:
RUSSIANS LOSE 45 PLANES PER MINUTE
(AP) - GROZNY, CHECHNYA
While the Russians still deny it, western analysts confirm that Russia has
been losing aircraft at a rate of about 45 a minute. There have been many
reports that the Chechen have a developed a method by with which they bring
down the planes with a well-timed mix of sticks and stones. At this rate,
the Russians will have run out of all military aircraft by the time this
article goes to print.
However, no wreckage has been photographed, as the ground in the Caucasus
has a tendency to swallow all aircraft wreckage whole. American geologist
Joe Smith explained, saying, "The thing about the ground in Chechnya is . .
. that it, um, tends to swallow airplanes when the crash, leaving no sign
whatsoever."
Western miliray analysts cited another benefit of the losses. It is thought
that with aircraft falling out of the sky at such a rate, about 35,000
Russian troops will be killed per minute. The bodies, unfortunately,
succumb to the same "earth-swallowing" phenomenon of the region.
johno
>Venik wrote:
Hey! Look what the cat drug in! Mr. Zero Credibility is back to enlighten us
with tales from his numerous drug trips. I'm sure we can hardly wait.
John O'Farrell
John H. Schneider II
Just the facts from me, which is more than I can say for you.
John II
Truthseeker
Predrag <predr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9J4.179250$Hq3.4...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> John H. Schneider II <JH...@IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
> news:38F51F...@IX.Netcom.Com...
> > Venik wrote:
> Don't try logic in this NG with us Serbs. Logic has never worked at any
time
> during our history, why would it work now? I just don't understand how
after
> so many years of lies in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Yu countries most have still
not
> learnned.
>
I second that view..they simply don't respond to logic. One would think that
with an entire museum devoted to NATO equipment captured in the war (some
plane parts and cluster bombs), some of the more intelligent Serbs would
wonder why some of these 60 something planes don't show up there. Nope....I
figure that the smarter ones already emigrated.
Gordon
hostilities ceased and still not a single family member of a shot down aircrew
has gone public wondering where Johnny went. Or Fritz, or Pierre, or Antonio.
The piles of wreckage that would have been created by over forty combat
aircraft of all sizes would be a veritable mountian of debris, yet still the
only proof you can provide is limited to words without substance.
1) give us the names of >one< missing/dead/shot down NATO aviator, SAR helo
crewman, SPECWAR soldier, etc, etc. that make up the 100+ casualties that you
claim. Just >one< would raise your credibility level above Quisling.
2) Explain why no one in Albania has provided any sort of substantiating
information concerning the "mystery C-130 crash" within their borders.
3) Explain why Russia claims ~40 manned aircraft shot down, and Serbia claims
~60. At a bare minimum, one of the two governments is seriously wrong, or
lying. You pick. And once it has been established that one is wrong/lying,
then we can address the credibility of the remaining claim. Either way, at
least one of the estimates is flawed, right? RIGHT?
4) "a total of 171 NATO aircraft were hit by Yugoslavian defenses during the
war." Please account for this number. How many of each type were hit? Where
were these aircraft struck? Provide dates, units, etc. Otherwise, include the
caveat, "Of course, there is no direct evidence that these 'events' ever
occured."
5) Your 'explanation' of why even the official claims of Yugoslavia don't add
up misses the obvious point - they just don't add up. 61 is not 67. So if
they overclaim by a little, why are we to believe they dont overclaim by a lot?
Show us 61 crash sites, or 67 crash sites. Or admit its just their claims.
6) "Several new pieces of destroyed NATO hardware were added to the...
exhibit..", no doubt they are displayed alongside Eni's U-2. Any photos of
this new hardware..? If someone gave me a year to fabricate evidence of NATO
losses, I would head out to a DRMO and buy a pile of old USAF spare parts, melt
it with a blow torch, shot it with an AKM, and bingo... Evidence. Granted,
unless it contains a data plate from a USAF combat aircraft, the Serbs will
never be able to back up their claim that they indeed brought down X number of
NATO aircraft. When Taiwanese U-2s were blasted to bits by PRC SAMs, the
Chinese spent a very long time gathering all the bits and re-building the U-2s
into fully recognizable aircraft, serial numbers and all. When the Serbs do
that 61 (or 67) times, we'll begin to believe their baseless claims.
"We shall prove we have more", without elaborating' -- translation: its only
been a year guys, give us a break!
>One USAF aircraft mechanic who served at Aviano told
>me: "Two weeks - three weeks tops - and the "Allied Force" would have been
>over 'cause NATO would have ran out of working planes."
Venik, give me a reason why I should consider this statement valid? If (for
the sake of taking the role of fool's advocate here) the Serbs DID manage to
wing 171 aircraft, downing 61-67 airframes over an extended period of time, why
would the remaining 1,000+ aircraft suddenly cease working in the next two to
three weeks? Logic rips a nasty hole in the comments to ascribe to this
unknown mechanic.
In short, you talk a lot but dont back up what you say with proof. How very
Mladenesque of you.
Gordon
>> There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
>>world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
>>world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
>>
>
>Some iron logic here. Go rub your two IQ points together, see if you can
>start a fire.
>
>Venik
Venik, his point is that as a strategic asset, all B-2As have to regularly be
accounted for. They were all built on the same production line and all of the
airframes built are still exactly where they are supposed to be, either at Test
sites, depots, or operational units. No room for guessing with the B-2, so the
Serbian claim is moot. Do the Russians claim that we are overreporting
operational B-2s? No. Hence, both you and the Serbs are wrong. Or do you
believe that the same Russian military that says we lost 40 aircraft is in some
way assisting the alleged coverup of our loss of a B-2?
Jaywant Malik
Here's what www.aviation.ru has to say about the MiG-29:
http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/Fulcrum_Falcon.html
MiG-29s have seen limited combat on at least four occasions:
(1) Syrian Air Force MiG-29s were the first to see combat, against the
F-15s and F-16s of the Israelis during 1990-91 in a number of small air
battles over the Golan region and/or southwestern Lebanon. Rumor has it
(unconfirmed) that at least one MiG-29 was shot down, probably by an F-15C.
(2) Iraqi Air Force MiG-29s were, of course, involved in Operation Desert
Storm, when 5 of their number were shot down in aerial combat during the
first 3 days of the war. A sixth crashed itself during an air-to-air
engage- ment against an F-15E strike package (in the process, managing to
shoot down its own wingman, a MiG-23 "Flogger," and the only confirmed
"kill" by a MiG-29 to date. At least five or six others were destroyed on
the ground, and four flew to Iran (including one MiG-29UB "Fulcrum-B."
(3) Yugoslavian Air Force MiG-29s saw combat as ground-support fighters
during the early stages of the war in Croatia and Bosnia. At least one was
shot down by ground fire, and the others have all gone to seed in Serbia.
None were involved in air-to-air engagements.
(4) A dozen ex-Moldovan MiG-29s were sold to secessionist rebels in
southern Yemen in 1994, and piloted by Moldovan mercenary pilots. One of
these was shot down on a ground support mission, and six others were
destroyed on the ground when government forces recaptured the Southern
capital of Aden. The remaining five are now in storage, and will probably
be re-sold.
Iraq took delivery of its first 18 "Fulcrums" in 1987, the year before the
Iran-Iraq War ended, so it's possible that some Iraqi MiG-29s saw limited
ser- vice in the war, but given the time necessary to train pilots and
ground crew, and make new aircraft operational, it's likely that the war
ended before the MiGs saw any serious fighting. Also, by that time, the
Iranian Air Force was almost non-operational due to a lack of spares and a
conservative use doctrine, and so air-to-air engagements were fleeting and
usually not decisive.
MiG-29s may also have seen limited combat in the Chechnya operation last
year in Russia, although it seems that Su-27s and MiG-31s were used in the
CAP role, while Su-24s and Su-25s were the main ground attack machines. If
any "Fulcrums" saw combat, their numbers were extremely small.
There are NO confirmed or unconfirmed reports of any MiG-29 kills in any
theater of conflict, while at least 6 have been shot down by other
fighters.*
This has been changed since the moment of this posting. Cuban MiG-29 scored
agaist Cessna flown by Brothers to Rescue.
Predrag
John H. Schneider II <JH...@IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:38F51F...@IX.Netcom.Com...
> Venik wrote:
> >
> > >world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
> > >world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
> > >
> >
> > Some iron logic here. Go rub your two IQ points together, see if you can
> > start a fire.
> >
> > Venik
>
>
>
> John II
L'acrobat
"Venik" <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> April 9, 2000
> Venik's Aviation Page
> www.aeronautics.ru
> http://way.to/venik
>
> [This is a text version of the article. Full version with HTML links and
> photos is available online. Please visit www.aeronautics.ru or
> http://way.to/venik]
PICTURES...
MegaShaft 4000
Don't you think that someone in the US would have noticed by now?
"Venik" <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Darrell A. Larose
> NO B-2's were shot down.
>
> Don't you think that someone in the US would have noticed by now?
>
own grey countries where you believe what the GRU tells you....
People here can actually watch the a/c come home...
Drewe Manton
eh? NO?!?!? You can't mean that. . . surely not a year after the event and
you still have lots of words and no proof? Hmm. . guessed as much.
Still. . thanks for showing up, gives me a chance to add you to the
killfile. . TTFN
Venik <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Venik
>Venik, his point is that as a strategic asset, all B-2As have to regularly
be
>accounted for. They were all built on the same production line and all of
the
>airframes built are still exactly where they are supposed to be, either at
Test
>sites, depots, or operational units.
In other words you don't know where they are but you know where they should
be. So do I. Thanks for your help. Yes it is a strategic asset. It is also a
$2-billion plane. All the more reasons to conceal its loss.
No room for guessing with the B-2, so the
>Serbian claim is moot. Do the Russians claim that we are overreporting
>operational B-2s? No. Hence, both you and the Serbs are wrong. Or do you
>believe that the same Russian military that says we lost 40 aircraft is in
some
>way assisting the alleged coverup of our loss of a B-2?
Ah, but you didn't get to the bottom of the article. Russian military says
that the US lost a B-2.
Venik
Venik
>NO B-2's were shot down.
>
>Don't you think that someone in the US would have noticed by now?
>
Of course. I noticed.
Venik
Venik
>Hey Venik, I thought I'd post this excerpt from an article concerning
>nonsense:
>
So you admit that your resilience to truth is caused by your not feeling too
well? That's a start. Unfortunately I can't help you here I am not a doctor.
At least all of my references are actual news articles.
Venik
Mike McCormick
I am not feeling well because of your propensity towards insanity. I don't
think that you believe what you are writing. If you do, you are lost. The
USA is a land whose media bashes it every chance it has. Scandals are jumped
on by reporters . . . . and your claiming the USA covered up some missing
planes, and dead servicemen. Do you think, for one moment, that the
Government could contact family members regarding 40 or so servicmen, who
know their loved ones are involved with Kosovo, and say they died in an
accident, or were going on a very long vacation, and not have people put it
together. I have, for the sake of variety, not even mentioned the fact that
there is NO WRECKAGE! I read the explanation on your webpage that the reason
for this may be that the planes were shot down over 15,000 feet and by the
time they had reached the ground they had disintigrated . . . . c'mon! Out
of the ~60 or so kills you claim, not one of them was partially damaged and
fell to the earth? They all blew up in mid-air? Logic! Please, give me some
logic.
You are a joke. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a joke. Your claims
are a joke.
Listen to me, I'm humming the "Star Spangled Banner" and jumping up and down
on the FRY and Russian flags!
: - Ş
Keith Willshaw
Where from the National Enquirer or The Fortean Times perhaps
Its simple Venik
No Wreckage , No missing Aircrew therefore no losses
Deal with it
Keith
Ulf C
questions with short answers, and chose to ignore questions and statements
from e.g. Gordon (posted ~3hours before you response to MS4000).
Now, why is that? Does he have a point?
Isn't there a rule somewhere about not feeding the trolls?
--
Ulf C
--Dulf at Yahoo dot Com
L'acrobat
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
> Mike McCormick wrote in message ...
> >Hey Venik, I thought I'd post this excerpt from an article concerning
> >Russian losses in Chechnya so you can see how we feel when we read you
> >nonsense:
> >
>
> So you admit that your resilience to truth is caused by your not feeling
too
> well? That's a start. Unfortunately I can't help you here I am not a
doctor.
> At least all of my references are actual news articles.
>
> Venik
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
> MegaShaft 4000 wrote in message ...
> >
> >Don't you think that someone in the US would have noticed by now?
> >
>
>
> Venik
PICTURES...
Jörg Bihlmayr
Venik schrieb:
> Mike McCormick wrote in message ...
> >Hey Venik, I thought I'd post this excerpt from an article concerning
> >Russian losses in Chechnya so you can see how we feel when we read you
> >nonsense:
> >
>
> So you admit that your resilience to truth is caused by your not feeling too
> well? That's a start. Unfortunately I can't help you here I am not a doctor.
> At least all of my references are actual news articles.
Of whom? BTW: Please tell me all the a/c (typs, units, usage) the Germans should
have lost (according to you or your articles) with their numbers (Tailnumbers
and/or production numbers). And I will try to find out and to tell you were ist
is at the moment..
Jörg
>
>
> Venik
Jussi Saari
>
> Just about the only thing funnier than Russian propaganda is the truth.
>
> Here's what www.aviation.ru has to say about the MiG-29:
> http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/Fulcrum_Falcon.html
> There are NO confirmed or unconfirmed reports of any MiG-29
> kills in any theater of conflict, while at least 6 have been
> shot down by other fighters.*
The MiG-29s in Yemen shot down numerous F-5Es and Su-22s (see
www.webruler.com/aircombat/ for details), one MiG-29 shot down an
Afghani rebel Su-22 attacking Kabul (WAPJ, early 90's), and two MiG-29s
are said to have shot down a pair of F-14s at the end of the first Gulf
War. IIRC the total kills/a2a-losses is around 10-10 for MiG-29s at the
moment, give or take a few.
Jussi
TJ
> Gordon wrote in message <20000412210654...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
> Ah, but you didn't get to the bottom of the article. Russian military says
> that the US lost a B-2.
>
> Venik
>
>
Who, exactly, is speaking for the Russian military in regards to these
claims? Do you honestly think that there is a START verification list in
Moscow with a red-line through a specific B-2A serial number? Why is there
only two wrecks of NATO manned aircraft in the Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum?
I've lost count of the number of references of "no combat casualties" made
by NATO officials, serving officers, politicians etc, and not one grieving
family has come forth and challenged it with "What about my son/daughter?"
The claims, and your belief in them, are proof for me that you live in a
fantasy land of your own making. Just like the reports and claims of downed
manned NATO aircraft I too have became a product of your very vivid
imagination. Venik wrote:
http://members.xoom.com/082499/aviation/rafd/radiodatabase.htm
' This particular fake (Cajun Fear MAYDAY) was produced by a person known as
"TJ1324" (AKA "Fairford Janitor"), who is regularly posting to the
rec.aviation.military newsgroup. This gentleman is a public relations
officer at RAF Fairford (which I suppose explains his obvious excess of free
time and 24-7 online presence) and in this instance his attempts to
discredit anti-NATO claims were not just innocent fun but his job. Well, he
fooled me, but then, he is a professional. I hope he is getting paid well.'
It still makes me roar with laughter. So much so that I'm thinking of
getting a copy of the page framed for my office wall!
Keep 'em comin' Venik, old son, keep 'em comin'! :oD
TJ.
PS. Can you explain what an F-117A, serial 86-0837, on test and evaluation
duties based in the US has to do with losses over the FRY?
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>John H. Schneider II wrote in message <38F50A...@IX.Netcom.Com>...
>
>> There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
>>world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
>>world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
>>
>
>Some iron logic here. Go rub your two IQ points together, see if you can
>start a fire.
>
>Venik
>
And I'd thought you'd got hit by a car or maybe died sticking a fork
into a toaster. At least he's got TWO IQ points to rub together, how
do you manage with just one?
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>Gordon wrote in message <20000412210654...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>
>>Venik, his point is that as a strategic asset, all B-2As have to regularly
>be
>>accounted for. They were all built on the same production line and all of
>the
>>airframes built are still exactly where they are supposed to be, either at
>Test
>>sites, depots, or operational units.
>
>In other words you don't know where they are but you know where they should
>be. So do I. Thanks for your help. Yes it is a strategic asset. It is also a
>$2-billion plane. All the more reasons to conceal its loss.
>
>No room for guessing with the B-2, so the
>>Serbian claim is moot. Do the Russians claim that we are overreporting
>>operational B-2s? No. Hence, both you and the Serbs are wrong. Or do you
>>believe that the same Russian military that says we lost 40 aircraft is in
>some
>>way assisting the alleged coverup of our loss of a B-2?
>
>Ah, but you didn't get to the bottom of the article. Russian military says
>that the US lost a B-2.
>
>Venik
>
How about giving us a RATIONAL explanation as to why Serbia or the
Russians or whoever didn't parade the pieces for the world to see?
(This ought to be good.)
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>Mike McCormick wrote in message ...
>>Hey Venik, I thought I'd post this excerpt from an article concerning
>>Russian losses in Chechnya so you can see how we feel when we read you
>>nonsense:
>>
>
>So you admit that your resilience to truth is caused by your not feeling too
>well? That's a start. Unfortunately I can't help you here I am not a doctor.
>At least all of my references are actual news articles.
>
>Venik
>
Wow such wit. You're probably upset that you didn't come up with the
ground swollowing phenomenon to explain your rediculous claims.
Darrell A. Larose
>>
>>Don't you think that someone in the US would have noticed by now?
>>
>
>
> Venik
>
Mike McCormick
Mike McCormick
the first Gulf
> War. IIRC the total kills/a2a-losses is around 10-10 for MiG-29s at the
> moment, give or take a few.
That's misleading. They shot down Iranian F-14A's at the end of the
"Iran-Iraq War"
Keith Willshaw
Cosmo <iv...@pcpress.co.yu> wrote in message
news:8d4nv5$mhl$1...@neptun.beotel.net...
> > There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
> > world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
> > world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
>
> being hit and one Tornado being hit over my head. A-10 and F-16 crashed
> somewhere around Batajnica airfield (I live some 4-5 kilometers away from
> Batajnica and every day and night we watched fireworks over our head).
A-10
> and F-16 were hit in daylight over our heads, F-16 was flying towards
> Batajnica Airfield, it was shot and crashed with turbine surge sounds and
> large amount of smoke left of Batajnica in corn fields (that is NOT the
F-16
> crash wich NATO confirmed
Fine take some pictures of the wreckage and post them
If you dont we'll know you are lying
Keith
BUFDRVR
>somewhere around Batajnica airfield
You do realize how absurd your claim is right ? An A-10 over Belgrade ? You may
be an air traffic controller but you nothing about military aviation.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Venik
<8d3qgo$n1m$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>Where from the National Enquirer or The Fortean Times perhaps
>
>Its simple Venik
>
Not quite that simple. All of the news articles on my site come from
respected news agencies. ITAR-TASS is one of the oldest and largest news
agencies around. XINHUA and Tanyug are referenced daily by such agencies as
AP, Reuters, etc. without any problems. I don't see why this shouldn't be
good enough for you.
>No Wreckage , No missing Aircrew therefore no losses
>
>Deal with it
>
That's what people said after the Korean war. Now they are old and look
stupid. And still try to deal with it.
Venik
Venik
>
>"Iran-Iraq War"
>
I don't see what's so misleading about it. Those weren't Russian AF MiG,
were they ? :-)
Venik
Venik
>
>Who, exactly, is speaking for the Russian military in regards to these
>claims?
The Foreign Military Review is the official Russian Defense Ministry
publication. I am sure you can find out who is writing it. Afterall you are
the spy, not me. :-)
Why is there
>only two wrecks of NATO manned aircraft in the Yugoslav Aeronautical
Museum?
>I've lost count of the number of references of "no combat casualties" made
>by NATO officials, serving officers, politicians etc, and not one grieving
>family has come forth and challenged it with
No family came forth that you know of.
>
>TJ.
>PS. Can you explain what an F-117A, serial 86-0837, on test and evaluation
>duties based in the US has to do with losses over the FRY?
>
April 21 An F-117A 86-0837/'OT' (construction number A.4062) of the USAF
422nd TES "suffered extensive damage in an unspecified landing accident,
details unconfirmed, but reported as a Class A accident." (source: Air
Forces Monthly, August 1999, p. 74) Class A accident normally means that the
plane was totaled or came very near.
Direct your questions to Air Forces Monthly.
Venik
Venik
>Fine take some pictures of the wreckage and post them
>
>If you dont we'll know you are lying
>
>Keith
I am sure that if photos were available, you would find some other excuse.
BTW, why should he post photos and not you? Prove that NATO didn't lose a
100 aircraft. Post a photo with all 21 B-2s on it. Afterall, your "official"
word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.
Venik
MegaShaft 4000
from saying that the picture was taken before the conflict?
"Venik" <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d4t7r$6oe$5...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Gordon
>I don't know nothing<
Stop right there. We believe you.
> about B-2A, but I saw one A-10 being hit, one F-16
>being hit and one Tornado being hit over my head. A-10 and F-16 crashed
>somewhere around Batajnica airfield (I live some 4-5 kilometers away from
>Batajnica and every day and night we watched fireworks over our head). A-10
>and F-16 were hit in daylight over our heads, F-16 was flying towards
>Batajnica Airfield, it was shot and crashed with turbine surge sounds and
>large amount of smoke left of Batajnica in corn fields (that is NOT the F-16
>crash wich NATO confirmed). A-10 crashed near Jakovo SAM base. Aicraft was
>engaged with AAA fire, it was without right engine and engine mounting, and
>with detoriated left wing. Because of loss of thrust (I am an Air Traffic
>Controler and I can recognize sounds and airplane movements at low
>altitudes) and loss of aerodynamics aicraft entered in a steep dive and
>crashed. Tornado was hit by AAA unit of my friend (he was commander),<
Oh, good! Then he would be in a position to provide evidence of his victory.
Please ask him to post a copy of his confirmed victory report somewhere on the
net so we can see the details of his success. I am sure that since the A-10
and F-16 crashed so close to his unit, undoubtably he was able to take photos
of his kill, something that would be perfectly natural under such circumstances
(people in similar situations have been doing the same thing since WW1). Hurry
- go ask him; we can't wait to see his supporting documentation!
> near
>Batajnica, we never saw that aircraft crashed, he contiuned towards Novi Sad
>with black smoke and strange turbine sounds.
Hmmm. Well, then, I guess we just have to blindly accept your claim without
question.
BUFDRVR
>100 aircraft. Post a photo with all 21 B-2s on it.
You're an idiot. Want a picture of all 96 B-52H's in it ? How about all 300+
A-10's ? How about all 2,000 + F-16's ? Impossible and you know it. It won't be
till early 2002 before all B-2A's are Block 30 moded and even then they all
won't be at Whiteman at the same time. Between phase and depots cycles there
will always be a B-2A away from Whiteman. You are pathetic I can't believe
you've decided to return here, your only saving grace is that Mladen/Eni have
out done you in the stupidity department.
BUFDRVR
>>by NATO officials, serving officers, politicians etc, and not one grieving
>>family has come forth and challenged it with
>
>No family came forth that you know of.
Oh brother...you are a sap. You don't think that the New York Times would love
to print the story of an Air Force spouse whose husband never returned from
Allied Force ? Get a grip will you, or better yet go back where you've been
hiding for the last 6-8 months.
>>PS. Can you explain what an F-117A, serial 86-0837, on test and evaluation
>>duties based in the US has to do with losses over the FRY?
>>
>
>April 21 An F-117A 86-0837/'OT' (construction number A.4062) of the USAF
>422nd TES "suffered extensive damage in an unspecified landing accident,
>details unconfirmed, but reported as a Class A accident." (source: Air
>Forces Monthly, August 1999, p. 74) Class A accident normally means that the
>plane was totaled or came very near.
>
>Direct your questions to Air Forces Monthly.
>
So the Serbs were responsible for downing an F-117 over the CONUS ? Pretty
amazing weapon....
Gordon
>>I've lost count of the number of references of "no combat casualties" made
>>by NATO officials, serving officers, politicians etc, and not one grieving
>>family has come forth and challenged it with
>
>No family came forth that you know of.
Ok, thats valid. So enlighten us - what family do *you* know of that has come
forth..?
>>PS. Can you explain what an F-117A, serial 86-0837, on test and evaluation
>>duties based in the US has to do with losses over the FRY?
>>
>
>April 21 An F-117A 86-0837/'OT' (construction number A.4062) of the USAF
>422nd TES "suffered extensive damage in an unspecified landing accident,
>details unconfirmed, but reported as a Class A accident." (source: Air
>Forces Monthly, August 1999, p. 74) Class A accident normally means that the
>plane was totaled or came very near.
>
>Direct your questions to Air Forces Monthly.
Venik, AFM has established a very poor record of checking its sources (remember
Mladen's foray into the world of plagerism and global lying?). I'm not
suggesting they are wrong in this respect, but if you think they should be
believed, then why not BELIEVE THEM? They reported a landing accident,
unrelated to any claims of an F-117A being 'shot down' over FRY.
Gordon
>I am sure that if photos were available, you would find some other excuse.<
Try us. Give us some prove that can be verified -- recently, I asked about a
'ramjet powered P-51' and in general, people felt I was giving erroneous
information. I then had the photograph posted to the binaries newsgroup and,
what a surprise, then people believed me. Try it sometime. Now would be good
:)
>BTW, why should he post photos and not you?<
Because, Venik, you are the one perpetuating false claims, and we are merely
asking for poof. If I said "A B-29 landed on the moon", folks would say
(rightly), "PROVE IT". Only an idiot would then say, "Prove to me that I am
wrong", because I would have been the one making a claim without merit. How
can we prove you are wrong? Quite simply by asking you to provide evidence,
which you steadfastly insist exists, without offering it. It is not up to us
to provide proof that NATO didnt lose all those aircraft - its not a
requirement; none of us made any claims. What has occured is that FRY, some
Russian sources, plus you and a couple of discredited friends (Mliar and U-2Eni
for example) have come forward with claims that a multitude of NATO aircraft
were destroyed, while only providing direct verifiable evidence of the aircraft
that NATO already agrees were shot down. The burden of proof is on your
shoulders.
>Prove that NATO didn't lose a
>100 aircraft. Post a photo with all 21 B-2s on it. Afterall, your "official"
>word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.<
..the same military that insisted for years that it was invited into Afganistan
and was winning the war there.. Considering it was their SAMs and AAA that was
failing to defend FRY assets, its not as if they had a conflict of interest
there! Why don't these same Russian sources provide proof of the shootdowns..?
Mike McCormick
No, this was a lame post on my part. What I meant was, nobody calls the Gulf
War (Dstorm) the second Gulf war . . . and I've usually hear the Iran/Irag
conflict referred to as, well, the Iran-Iraq war. I was just clearing things
up . . . but seeing as just about everybody on this group knows enough to
figure that out . . . well, it was early in the morning, gimme a break.
Mike
PS - You're still an ass, Venik.
Blair Sheridan
blathered:
>Keith Willshaw wrote in message
><8d4qqa$5d5$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>
>>Fine take some pictures of the wreckage and post them
>>
>>If you dont we'll know you are lying
>>
>>Keith
>
>I am sure that if photos were available, you would find some other excuse.
>BTW, why should he post photos and not you? Prove that NATO didn't lose a
>100 aircraft. Post a photo with all 21 B-2s on it. Afterall, your "official"
>word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.
>
>Venik
>
Apart from the fact that you're trying to get him to prove that
something DIDN'T happen, what about the problem that the B-2s may have
never all been at the same base? If that were so, your challenge
would be rather difficult to answer.
Besides, since the photos are not available, it is you that seems to
be finding "another excuse."
-----------------------------------------
"...and lo, did the anvil drop upon Tom Goodman's head and yea verily was he made a cretin. Thenceforth, ascribeth he to me a love for the Chinese Communists, which I have not, as though the Nazis' 'Gott mit uns' were not enough. Oy vey."
Jussi Saari
>
> >and two MiG-29s are said to have shot down a pair of F-14s at the end of
> the first Gulf
> > War. IIRC the total kills/a2a-losses is around 10-10 for MiG-29s at the
> > moment, give or take a few.
>
> "Iran-Iraq War"
Which was called the Gulf War until the second one came, and I will
resist the attempts to rename the first one until the end of times. :-)
Ross Montante
>word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.
>
>Venik
I am going to be at Whiteman AFB for a few weeks this summer. Want me
to ask them to line all the B-2s up so I can take a picture? Geez.
Even if I could get that picture I know what would happen. In fact, I
can use your own words to describe what would happen:
>I am sure that if photos were available, you would find some other excuse.
Ross
Abramovic
Jaywant Malik <jma...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:01bfa4ea$c54e2a80$bdb7b3c7@newmicronpc...
> Just about the only thing funnier than Russian propaganda is the truth.
>
> Here's what www.aviation.ru has to say about the MiG-29:
> http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/Fulcrum_Falcon.html
> (3) Yugoslavian Air Force MiG-29s saw combat as ground-support fighters
> during the early stages of the war in Croatia and Bosnia. At least one was
> shot down by ground fire, and the others have all gone to seed in Serbia.
> None were involved in air-to-air engagements.
One Mig-29 was shot down by Croatian AAD near the town of Djakovo in eastern
Slavonia. Unconfirmed reports of others exist, but as there are no pictures,
and no tail numbers. I'd discard those as misinformation.
regards,
Tvrtko
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message
Instead you look Young and Stupid
Now when will you post REAL EVIDENCE , you know
photographs , tail numbers , names of aircrew , stuff like that
Not that I'm holding my breath :)
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message
>
> >Fine take some pictures of the wreckage and post them
> >
> >If you dont we'll know you are lying
> >
> >Keith
>
"official"
> word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.
>
> Venik
>
Here's a clue - you make a claim and its up to YOU
to prove it
Hey prove me wrong find the photo's - as if
Keith
NE1outheir
>Date: 4/13/00 12:32 PM Eastern
>I am sure that if photos were available, you would find some other excuse.
>BTW, why should he post photos and not you? Prove that NATO didn't lose a
>100 aircraft.
You are asking us to prove a non-verifiable, plus you are also the one doing
asserting it is tradition that the one that makes the claims provides the
evidence, and there has been plenty of counter evidence against that claim such
as reports by arms control agencies saying that the United States is not
missing any bombers, CNE treaties doing the counts etc. Provide verifiable
evidence and people will be more than willing to listen, but until then, shut
up.
Matt
Mat Weaver
The grounded British jets are grounded not beacuse of war damage but just
because of bad management!!
The American's, they probably shot most of their own plans down!!
2nd Gulf War - who caused the highest number of British casulties in one
incident? United States!! - with allies like that who needs enemies.
Nick
especially enjoyed this schneider the second dude reply. He showed you,
didn't he? What a cretin...
As for the violence in Kosovo, I would like to comment that American
geniuses, when working out future plans for Kosovo (months before the
hostilities and Ramboullet) invisioned the province following Chechnya (?!)
as a model, as was reported by the NYTimes. Well, why are they acting so
surprised and saddened now that everything is developing according to plan I
do not understand.
Venik <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> NATO aircraft losses in Yugoslavia - Update
>
> April 9, 2000
> Venik's Aviation Page
> www.aeronautics.ru
> http://way.to/venik
>
> [This is a text version of the article. Full version with HTML links and
> photos is available online. Please visit www.aeronautics.ru or
> http://way.to/venik]
>
> According to a March 25, 2000, article published by the ITAR-TASS news
> agency, Russian GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) sources report that
> during the Operation "Allied Force" NATO's air forces sustained losses
> considerably higher than is officially acknowledged by NATO command.
> According to GRU information, NATO lost three F-117A stealth bombers, and
at
> least 40 other combat planes, and over 1000 cruise missiles.
>
> So far NATO officials acknowledged losing three combat planes (the USAF
> F-117A on March 27, the USMC AV-8B Harrier on May 1, and the F-16CG-40-CF
on
> May 2), two attack helicopters (AH-64 Apache on April 26 and another
Apache
> on May 5), between 30 and 32 unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, including
at
> least 16 American, 7 German, and 5 French UAVs. Interestingly enough NATO
> acknowledged all of the UAV losses mentioned by Yugoslav military
> officials - 30 - and, perhaps, even more.
>
> Official NATO reports and statements made by various NATO officials
indicate
> that about 10 NATO planes made emergency landings. Two F-117As sustained
> extensive damage (the F-117A 86-0837 was damaged on April 21 during
landing;
> and another F-117A lost a part of its tail section due to a nearby SA-3
SAM
> explosion). An RAF C-130K Hercules transport plane crashed on June 11 in
> Albania. The aircraft was delivering a British SAS unit that was trying to
> beat Russian paratroopers to the Slatina base. The US Army OH-58 combat
> reconnaissance helicopter crashed on May 26 in Bosnia.
>
> According to the information from unofficial Yugoslav military sources,
> NATO's final assessment of its aircraft losses during the operation
"Allied
> Force" indicates that some 61 aircraft have been destroyed, 53 aircraft
> were damaged beyond repair or it is not cost-effective to repair them, 57
> aircraft have sustained repairable combat damage. A total of 171 NATO
> aircraft were hit by Yugoslav defenses during the war.
>
> According to Yugoslav army officials, NATO lost 61 planes, 7 helicopters,
30
> UAVs, and 238 cruise missiles. These numbers include only those NATO
> aircraft that crashed inside Yugoslavia. Distribution of aircraft kills
> among various units and branches of the Yugoslav Armed Forces is as
follows:
> 3rd Army: 34 planes, 5 helicopters, 25 UAVs and 52 cruise missiles
> (according to an official statement by General Nebojsa Pavkovic, commander
> of the 3rd Army, on June 12, 1999); Navy: 3 planes, 3 UAVs and over 5
cruise
> missiles (from an official statement by the FRY Navy Commander, Milan Zec,
> June 10, 1999); 2nd Army: 24 planes, 2 helicopters, 2 UAVs (reported by
> Major General Spasoje Smiljanic in his interview to Politika newspaper at
> the end of April), 30 cruise missiles; 1st Army: 6 planes, 129 cruise
> missiles (reported by General Ninoslav Krstic in his interview for the
> "Vojska" magazine on May 24, 1999.) If you add up these numbers, provided
by
> various Yugoslav military officials, you will see that the number of
planes
> reported to have been shot down is 67 and not 61 as the official report by
> Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanic states. And here's why:
>
> On June 17, 1999, Gen. Spasoje Smiljanic, then commander of Yugoslav Air
> Force and Air Defense (RV i PVO), announced that "the Yugoslav Air Force
and
> Air Defence units have downed 36 airplanes, 42 cruise missiles, nine UAVs
> and two helicopters." It is important to keep in mind, however, that RV i
> PVO air defense units do not include low-level army air defenses or naval
> air defenses, such as man-portable SAMs and some AAAs. The total number
> planes shot down by RV i PVO and by various air defense units outside of
RV
> i PVO command comes to 61 planes, 7 helicopters, 30 UAVs and 238 cruise
> missiles according to Gen. Ojdanic. However, these figures only include
> those NATO aircraft that crashed inside Yugoslavia. In some of the earlier
r
> eports mentioned above Yugoslav military commanders included NATO aircraft
> that crashed outside Yugoslavia.
>
> Several new pieces of destroyed NATO hardware were added to the Yugoslav
> Aeronautical Museum's exhibit on March 24 to commemorate one year since
the
> beginning of NATO's aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
> Currently the museum's exhibit includes over 1500 fragments of NATO's
> military hardware. The museum's curator, Cedomir Janjic, announced that
more
> destroyed NATO weapons will be soon added to the collection in a new wing
of
> the museum dedicated to the war with NATO.
>
> In an interview to the Associated Press Yugoslavia's Minister for Science
> and Development, Cedomir Mirkovic, said "It is truly amazing how many
> aircraft and drones were downed with the relatively modest and primitive
> equipment..." Mirkovic refutes Western claims that Yugoslav air defense
> downed only two planes. "We shall prove we have more," he said, without
> elaborating.
>
> In February British press was discussing sharp shortage of operational
> aircraft experienced by the Royal Air Force. The news first appeared in
the
> January 23, 2000, Hundreds of Crippled Jets put RAF in Crisis article from
> The Observer, by Antony Barnet. In particular, the article, based on the
> Observer's own investigation, outlines the following problems with the
RAF:
>
> "Two out of three of the UK's 186 fleet of Tornado bombers are grounded;
>
> Fewer than 40 per cent of other frontline aircraft, such as Harriers and
> Jaguars, are ready to fly at short notice;
>
> The Ministry of Defence has spent almost ?1 billion developing a
> laser-guided bombing system that does not work properly;
>
> There is shortage of nearly 20 per cent of junior officer fast jet pilots
> and the RAF is having a severe problem in retaining trained pilots;"
>
> Two out of three British Tornadoes that are grounded comes to a rather
> substantial number: 124 Tornado strike aircraft are not operational. The
> crisis begun developing following the Operation "Desert Storm" in Iraq,
but
> it really took off since the Operation "Allied Force" against Yugoslavia.
As
> far as I know only four NATO Tornado aircraft were shot down during the
> conflict based on media reports. Two Luftwaffe strike aircraft were shot
> down on March 26-27. The other two Tornadoes were shot down on April 15
and
> May 26. It was not reported whether these aircraft were German or British.
>
> The fact is that most of RAF's strike aircraft are out of order for a
> variety of reasons. I do not have enough information to draw any
definitive
> conclusions. However, I know enough to say that 124 strategically -
> important strike aircraft are not grounded for no reason. NATO sustained
> significant losses. An even greater number of aircraft were damaged not
only
> by ground fire but also by the intensity of operations and skipping on the
> required maintenance hours. After talking to several USAF aircraft
> mechanics, who participated in the "Allied Force", I can conclude that
NATO
> aircraft were pushed to the limit and way beyond it. This is especially
true
> for the USAF aircraft. One USAF aircraft mechanic who served at Aviano
told
> me: "Two weeks - three weeks tops - and the "Allied Force" would have been
> over 'cause NATO would have ran out of working planes."
>
> In the February 13 article in The Observer, based on first-hand
information
> posted by RAF pilots and technicians at an Internet discussion group and
> entitled Pilots Vent Fury at RAF on Web, Antony Barnet writes: "Pilots
> currently serving in the Gulf, and others recently back from Kosovo, are
so
> angry about defective equipment and low morale they are flooding the
secret
> site with complaints aimed at senior officers." The "secret" site is the
> PPRuNe message board for military pilots. I've spent several days at that
> site fishing for information until that Sherlock from The Observer scared
> everyone away with his article.
>
> From what was written by RAF pilots, it can be readily seen that there is
a
> great deal of concern about technical capabilities of aircraft and even
> about their basic safety compromised by the lack of proper technical
service
> and spare parts. An RAF Captain wrote: "The number of sorties lost due to
> unserviceability is way too high. I now find that I have to accept faults
to
> get the job done that a few years ago I would not have done ... Although I
> have a few worries about the structural strength of the airframe I am
> convinced that we are going to have a major problem due to some esoteric
> fault... We struggle to get spares, some parts have to be manufactured
over
> and over. We use the cheapest contractor we can find..."
>
> And, in place of a conclusion, a brief review of the latest developments
> around Kosovo. Following some harsh criticism directed by the U.S.
military
> against France regarding its role in the Operation "Allied Force" and in
> response to the accusations by certain US government officials that French
> peacekeepers in Kosovo are not doing their job, France released classified
> information regarding civilian casualties in Kosovo since the NATO-led UN
> force assumed responsibility for the province following the war with
> Yugoslavia. Available statistics clearly illustrated that the French
sector
> of Kosovo has a better safety record than the sector supervised by the
> Americans.
>
> However, information revealed by France also showed that civilian
casualties
> in Kosovo are much higher than they were when Kosovo was under Yugoslav
> control. In essence, the number of violent deaths in the province is
higher
> and continues to grow under NATO's "humanitarian intervention" that it was
> during the "ethnic cleansing." The report released by France clearly
> illustrates that the number of violent crimes in Kosovo is rapidly
growing.
> This revelation was the first step in a series of events that led to
recent
> statements by various UN and NATO officials confirming that the KFOR has
> effectively lost control over the situation in Kosovo. NATO field
commanders
> acknowledged that their troops are not capable of dealing with the growing
> crime wave in the province. The UN formally announced that the situation
in
> Kosovo worsened since NATO troops assumed control of the province. The US
> approached Russian government with an offer to widen the authority of the
> Contact Group.
>
> Russia's response was not very optimistic to say the least. Russian law
> enforcement officials announced that Russian policemen will not be
deployed
> in Kosovo because of appalling lack of cooperation on NATO's side.
> Furthermore, top Russian military commanders announced that Russia may
pull
> out of the KFOR altogether. On the other hand, commander of Russian
Airborne
> Assault Forces (VDV) Gen. G. Shpak announced about plans to convert the
> Slatina base of the Yugoslav Air Force near Pristina, which currently
serves
> as the main base for Russian KFOR paratroopers, into a large Russian
> military base with a capability to barrack up to 15000 Russian troops.
>
> There are reports that Russians are already doing some large-scale
> construction work at Slatina. Russian Su-27 and Su-30 fighter aircraft
have
> been sighted at several Yugoslav Air Force bases (Batajnica, Ponikve).
There
> is a lot of unofficial information regarding deliveries of Russian SAM
> systems to Yugoslavia. High-level meetings are underway between Yugoslav
and
> Russian governments regarding Yugoslavia's plans to join the
Russia-Belarus
> union. The Russian military is extremely interested in establishing its
> presence in Kosovo and in the rest of Serbia on a greater scale. A logical
> first step would be a joint defense agreement between Russia and
Yugoslavia.
> Such an agreement will include Belarus and, possibly, other CIS members.
In
> an interview to the "Voice of Russia" radio station, Gen. Ivashov said
that
> Russia is considering a military intervention in Kosovo and may offer
> support to the Yugoslav Army on the ground.
>
> Many question Yugoslavia's ability to purchase large quantities of hi-tech
> weapons from Russia. Yugoslavia's economy is not in great shape, but
Russia
> owes FRY a hefty sum, which Russians would be only too glad to offset by
> supplying Serbia weapons. Russia is also seeking more influence in Europe
> now that the Chechen conflict is no longer a major military commitment.
> Russian generals and the military-industrial complex look to expand
internal
> arms market as well as arms exports. Yugoslavia always has an option to
> lease or even borrow weapons from Russia. And the latter, with its
> recently-downsized army, has plenty of decent-quality weapons to spare,
> including SAMs and aircraft. SAMs and planes are not underwear: you don't
> need to own 'em to use 'em. This may not be the latest equipment but it
> works and there's a lot of it.
>
> According to an ITAR-TASS review of the article published by the Foreign
> Military Review magazine of the Russian Defense Ministry, Yugoslav
aviation
> prevented the use of American AH-64 Apache attack helicopters during the
> Kosovo conflict. The "NATO Losses in the War with Yugoslavia" article, the
> Foreign Military Review writes: "... the biggest sensation was the number
of
> troops lost by NATO. Not just NATO pilots were killed in Yugoslavia, but
> also search-and-rescue troops that were tasked with locating downed
pilots.
> Yugoslav air defenses have shot down no less than five NATO helicopters,
> which resulted in deaths of about 100 troops of the Alliance."
>
> According to the Foreign Military Review, the reason why Pentagon did not
> use Apaches in Kosovo "...had nothing to do with technical problems with
the
> helicopters or insufficient training of their flight crews, as was often
> stated by NATO officials. The only reason was the April 26 attack carried
> out by Yugoslav "Galeb" fighters against "Rinas" airport located near
> Albania's capital of Tirana, where the Apaches were based. That day two
> groups of these light helicopters were destroyed and over 10 helicopters
> were damaged."
>
> A similar operation was carried out by Yugoslav AF on April 18 against the
> airport in Tuzla, Bosnia, used as an emergency landing site for NATO
> aircraft. As the result of this attack some fifteen NATO aircraft have
been
> destroyed on the ground. The Foreign Military Review writes: "Despite the
> fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren't the
only
> aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft
> were five German "Tornadoes," several British "Harriers'" two French
> "Mirages," Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost
a
> B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A "Spirit" was shot down."
>
> * * *
>
> Venik
> March 28, 2000
> April 9, 2000
> Venik's Aviation Page
> www.aeronautics.ru
> http://way.to/venik
>
> [This is a text version of the article. Full version with HTML links and
> photos is available online. Please visit www.aeronautics.ru or
> http://way.to/venik]
>
>
>
>
>
>
Venik
>Oh brother...you are a sap. You don't think that the New York Times would
love
>to print the story of an Air Force spouse whose husband never returned from
>Allied Force ?
Do you work for New York Times? Do you even read it? What they would love to
print is something they can substantiate with hard evidence (or something
close). If your family member was shot down over Yugoslavia and you were
told that it was a "landing accident". What evidence can you possibly have
to dispute this? BTW, you are a pilot, you accidents happen. Do you suppose
there were serious accidents during the "Allied Force"? Have you heard of
any? Do you remember those two US servicemen who were killed in a "car
accident" outside Aviano?
Venik
Venik
>You're an idiot. Want a picture of all 96 B-52H's in it ? How about all
300+
>A-10's ? How about all 2,000 + F-16's ? Impossible and you know it.
Don't act stupid. I don't want your B-52s, I want to see all 21 B-2s. Or
some other proof that there is still 21 of them. You don't have such a proof
and you know it. As a good American boy you just believe your government.
It's really your personal problem, not mine.
Venik
Venik
>Because, Venik, you are the one perpetuating false claims, and we are
merely
>asking for poof. If I said "A B-29 landed on the moon",
That sounds like you. Next time you come up with a similar argument, eat a
roll of toilet paper.
Venik
Venik
>>
>Apart from the fact that you're trying to get him to prove that
>something DIDN'T happen, what about the problem that the B-2s may have
>never all been at the same base? If that were so, your challenge
>would be rather difficult to answer.
But this is not so. All B-2s are at the same base. Only the US can afford
these hangar queens and only at one base. His position is that no B-2s were
shot down. My position is that one was shot down. He has Pentagon's word and
I have Russian Defense Ministry's word. I don't see why I am any more
obligated to provide evidence.
Venik
Venik
>
>I am going to be at Whiteman AFB for a few weeks this summer. Want me
>to ask them to line all the B-2s up so I can take a picture?
That would be too much trouble. Just get me a shot of the Spirit of Missouri
with forward landing gear cover visible. Put like a fresh newspaper next to
it :-) That woudn't change my mind completely, but it would prompt me to
start checking my sources again.
Venik
Venik
>
>Here's a clue - you make a claim and its up to YOU
>to prove it
>
>Hey prove me wrong find the photo's - as if
>
I don;t care about proving you wrong. It is you who seems to be eager to
prove me wrong. So you get photos.
Venik
Darrell A. Larose
to cross that red line on the ramp!
Venik
>
>PICTURES...
>
Australians are weird people. I've noticed that a long time ago. At least I
thought their language consisted of more than one word.
Venik
Venik
>>
>Why don't you go to Whiteman AFB and see for yourself. BTW, it's ok
>to cross that red line on the ramp!
>
Is it OK to climb over the barbwire fence and snoop inside B-2 hangars? :-)
Venik
Venik
>YOU FORGOT ONE AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND TWO NAVY DESTROYERS WHO WERE ALSO
>SHOT DOWN OVER SERBIA WITH A LOSS OF TEN THOUSAND LIVES! ARE YOU HAPPY
>NOW?
>
Loss of American lives does not make me happy. I don't understand how you
can make this kind of jokes.
Venik
jackryan
with your own eyes at the same time, you'd just say that more than 21 were
built. If you have no confidence in the Pentagon's/NATO's admitted losses, why
do you believe that there are only 21 B-2's in the fleet? On what evidence do
you base your belief that there are 21 and not 75 or 132? Did you sit on Sierra
Highway and watch each takeoff and landing? If a B-2 was shot down, where did
it crash? That would be quite a prize to display. It's also very clever of you
to try to get Ross to get a picture of the Spirit of Missouri's nose gear door
when you know it's in a museum somewhere. I suppose any nation capable of
hiding it's losses isn't also capable of rotating tail numbers to fool the
public. You are not obligated to provide evidence. This isn't a trial. Why
don't you just provide it out of the goodness of your heart.
Regards,
JR
Mike McCormick
military version of Fox Mulder. If I might ask, I am curious, so far I've
heard that you're a grad student in NJ. You wouldn't be at Rutgers, would
you?
Ferdinand Talan
> time
> > during our history, why would it work now? I just don't understand how
> after
> > so many years of lies in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Yu countries most have still
> not
> > learnned.
Serbian Logic would be that Serbs are entitled to their Serbian Kingdom
of Greater Serbia which would have claimed territories in Vojvodina,
Kosova, Krajina and also Kitchener, ON Canada because there is a
sizeable Serbian community there. Also between the areas of 15 and 16
mile roads in Sterling Heights, MI USA because 10 of them live on that
area.
Ferdinand Talan
an unofficial statement without much credibility. It sounds kind of
like the man mentality like my dick is bigger than your dick so I am
more man. It could also be taken as an inferiority complex by the
Yugoslav Military. According to Slobo Yugoslavia did not lose the war
or suffer any losses. Everything is back to normal now.
Cosmo
> world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
> world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
I don't know nothing about B-2A, but I saw one A-10 being hit, one F-16
being hit and one Tornado being hit over my head. A-10 and F-16 crashed
somewhere around Batajnica airfield (I live some 4-5 kilometers away from
Batajnica and every day and night we watched fireworks over our head). A-10
and F-16 were hit in daylight over our heads, F-16 was flying towards
Batajnica Airfield, it was shot and crashed with turbine surge sounds and
large amount of smoke left of Batajnica in corn fields (that is NOT the F-16
crash wich NATO confirmed). A-10 crashed near Jakovo SAM base. Aicraft was
engaged with AAA fire, it was without right engine and engine mounting, and
with detoriated left wing. Because of loss of thrust (I am an Air Traffic
Controler and I can recognize sounds and airplane movements at low
altitudes) and loss of aerodynamics aicraft entered in a steep dive and
crashed. Tornado was hit by AAA unit of my friend (he was commander), near
Batajnica, we never saw that aircraft crashed, he contiuned towards Novi Sad
with black smoke and strange turbine sounds.
L'acrobat
PICTURES....
L'acrobat
"Cosmo" <iv...@pcpress.co.yu> wrote in message
news:8d4nv5$mhl$1...@neptun.beotel.net...
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message
>
> >Fine take some pictures of the wreckage and post them
> >
> >If you dont we'll know you are lying
> >
> >Keith
>
> BTW, why should he post photos and not you? Prove that NATO didn't lose a
"official"
> word is no more reliable than that of the Russian military.
>
> Venik
>
>
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
> Blair Sheridan wrote in message ...
> >>
> >Apart from the fact that you're trying to get him to prove that
> >something DIDN'T happen, what about the problem that the B-2s may have
> >never all been at the same base? If that were so, your challenge
> >would be rather difficult to answer.
>
> But this is not so. All B-2s are at the same base. Only the US can afford
> these hangar queens and only at one base. His position is that no B-2s
were
> shot down. My position is that one was shot down. He has Pentagon's word
and
> I have Russian Defense Ministry's word. I don't see why I am any more
> obligated to provide evidence.
>
> Venik
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message
>
> >Where from the National Enquirer or The Fortean Times perhaps
> >
> >Its simple Venik
> >
>
> Not quite that simple. All of the news articles on my site come from
> respected news agencies. ITAR-TASS is one of the oldest and largest news
> agencies around. XINHUA and Tanyug are referenced daily by such agencies
as
> AP, Reuters, etc. without any problems. I don't see why this shouldn't be
> good enough for you.
>
> >No Wreckage , No missing Aircrew therefore no losses
> >
> >Deal with it
> >
>
> That's what people said after the Korean war. Now they are old and look
> stupid. And still try to deal with it.
>
>
>
PICTURES...
L'acrobat
"Mat Weaver" <m.j.w...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:9OrJ4.2406$re5.91833@news1-hme0...
Whilst bitching about friendly fire incidents it is worth asking the
question - if the CAS was held back (not used on the front line) how high
would the Brit casualties have been?
I suspect much higher.
Amigocabal
SHOT DOWN OVER SERBIA WITH A LOSS OF TEN THOUSAND LIVES! ARE YOU HAPPY
NOW?
In article <8d2uro$o2l$3...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> According to the information from unofficial Yugoslav military
sources,
--
Chechnia belongs to Chechens, Kosova belongs to Kosovars!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amigocabal
"Venik" <ven...@altavista.net> wrote:
> BUFDRVR wrote in message
<20000413132554...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
> >Oh brother...you are a sap. You don't think that the New York Times
would
> love
> >to print the story of an Air Force spouse whose husband never
returned from
> >Allied Force ?
>
> Do you work for New York Times? Do you even read it? What they would
love to
> print is something they can substantiate with hard evidence (or
something
> close). If your family member was shot down over Yugoslavia and you
were
> told that it was a "landing accident". What evidence can you possibly
have
> to dispute this? BTW, you are a pilot, you accidents happen. Do you
suppose
> there were serious accidents during the "Allied Force"? Have you heard
of
> any? Do you remember those two US servicemen who were killed in a "car
> accident" outside Aviano?
>
> Venik
>
SECURITY AREA NO. 73 IN MOHAVE DESERT? NOBODY HEARD ABOUT IT EXCEPT
BEST FRIEND OF MARKO MILOSEVIC WHO HAPPENED TO BE JOGGING IN THE MOHAVE
AT THAT EXACT TIME!
Jaywant Malik
Cosmo <iv...@pcpress.co.yu> wrote in article
<8d4nv5$mhl$1...@neptun.beotel.net>...
> > There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers shot down anywhere in the
> > world. There have been ZERO B-2A "Spirit" bombers lost anywhere in the
> > world for any reason. ALL B-2A "Spirit" bombers are fully operational.
A downed B-2 would be one helluva story. It's odd how Tanjug and Yugoslav
TV published dozens (if not hundreds) of pictures of the downed F-117 but
none (and I mean none) of this B-2.
> I don't know nothing about B-2A, but I saw one A-10 being hit, one F-16
> being hit and one Tornado being hit over my head. A-10 and F-16 crashed
> somewhere around Batajnica airfield (I live some 4-5 kilometers away from
> Batajnica and every day and night we watched fireworks over our head).
Again, why aren't there any pictures of this A-10? It was obviously flying
fairly low if you could tell it was an A-10, so the wreckage would be
easily obtained. Oddly, Tanjug, which took every opportunity to display
downed NATO craft in their full glory, never bothered to publish a single
decent this A-10 of yours. In fact, all they could scrape together was a
picture of something they claimed was an A-10 engine. Yep, the same
Yugoslav press that has a flair for the dramatic decided to snap photos of
only the A-10's engine? Not the nose cannon? Not the fuselage?
ITAR-TASS didn't bother with photos either...
Anyway, President Clinton said in the State of the Union address that
"there was not a single American combat casulty in Kosovo." If Clinton's
statement turned out to be a lie, it would make a great story. There's
plenty of incentive for journalists to pursue this story. It would be on
the front page. And Republicans would be eager to use this story to
discredit Clinton.
[commence flame]
Anyway, you sound pretty dumb. If an A-10 is flying over your house in a
combat situation, would you stand outside and watch it?
[end flame]
MSU94
>some other proof that there is still 21 of them. You don't have such a proof
>and you know it. A
It is not up to us to prove you wrong..It is up to you to prove your own
assertions
Gordon
>>Because, Venik, you are the one perpetuating false claims, and we are
>merely
>>asking for poof. If I said "A B-29 landed on the moon",
>
>That sounds like you. Next time you come up with a similar argument, eat a
>roll of toilet paper.
>
>Venik
translation: "Quit asking me for proof because I obviously can't provide it."
Smooth, Venik
Gordon
>Is it OK to climb over the barbwire fence and snoop inside B-2 hangars? :-)
>
>Venik
you have my permission!
Don Parks
THE SAME PROPAGANDA!????! Everytime I take a break from this newsgroup and come
back I just hear the same old shit and nothing of any real substance.
Lets get this straight: Only one plane went down and that is the F-117 and that
was due to mechanical failure! I posted this once a while back. That old machine
was built back in the 80's anyway and probably just needed some oil'in up!
DAP
USA
padob...@my-deja.com
Don Parks <DAP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JESUS H. CHRIST SERBS, HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP BLABBERING ON
AND ON WITH
> THE SAME PROPAGANDA!????! Everytime I take a break from this newsgroup
and come
> back I just hear the same old shit and nothing of any real substance.
> Lets get this straight: Only one plane went down and that is the F-117
and that
> was due to mechanical failure! I posted this once a while back. That
old machine
> was built back in the 80's anyway and probably just needed some oil'in
up!
Right. Mechanical failure due to contact with hostile SAM. And you've
neglected to mention the F-16 and the Harrier NATO also admit losing
over Yugoslavia...
BUFDRVR
>told that it was a "landing accident". What evidence can you possibly have
>to dispute this?
Only the rest of his squadron ! Venick what you propose is not only ridiculous,
its impossible. If someone in my unit was shot down and his family not
informed, unless the USAF could show me why his family should not immediately
be informed (National Security issues or safety of others flyers) *I* and
everyone else in my squadron would inform his family. If they convinced me to
be quiet during the conflict there's nothing they could say to keep me quiet
after ! Particularly if there was a chance he was a POW. No, what you propose
is a conspiracy of tens of thousands of people, its ridiculous.
>Do you remember those two US servicemen who were killed in a "car
>accident" outside Aviano?
If they were not killed in a car accident, but shot down in Allied Force at
least a thousand people would have known about it and done the right thing by
making that truth known.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
BUFDRVR
>some other proof that there is still 21 of them.
The Russian government has that proof you fool. There was a large START
inspection only a few months ago. If there was a B-2A missing the ITAR-TASS
would have reported it with the serial number and date "destroyed". This would
have made it back to the states and every news program in the US would be
reporting it. Instead we have hazy Russian news stories about vague US losses
during Allied Force.
>As a good American boy you just believe your government.
>It's really your personal problem, not mine.
No you clueless zealot, I know at least a dozen B-2A pilots of which at least
10 flew during Allied Force. I know for a fact no B-2A's were lost.
BUFDRVR
>these hangar queens and only at one base.
This proves how clueless you really are. All 21 B-2A's have never been, and
probably will never be all at Whiteman at once. They'll be at Palmdale,
Whiteman and Tinker throughout there life span.
>He has Pentagon's word and
>I have Russian Defense Ministry's word.
Could you tell us where this Russian Defense Ministry word is located because
they should be able to provide a tail number and date "destroyed" as required
by the START Treaty ?
BUFDRVR
>Venik
Unfortunately Venik, that's the biggest bull shit line you've typed since you
came back.
BUFDRVR
>neglected to mention the F-16 and the Harrier NATO also admit losing
>over Yugoslavia...
F-16CG yes, AV-8B Harrier, over Yugoslavia, No.
Stephen McCullough
>Do you remember those two US servicemen who were killed in a "car
>accident" outside Aviano?
Gee, i was taught that car accidents are one of the primary causes of death for
healthy males 18-40. Now Venik says Americans in uniform can't die in traffic
accidents but have to be killed in a coverup. Perhaps he has undertaken a
moratality study on American servicemen. Is that what your wasting your time in
grad school for?
Stephen McCullough
"In politics there is no honor."
Benjamin Disraeli
Gordon
> *I* and
>everyone else in my squadron would inform his family. If they convinced me to
>be quiet during the conflict there's nothing they could say to keep me quiet
>after ! Particularly if there was a chance he was a POW. No, what you propose
>is a conspiracy of tens of thousands of people, its ridiculous.<
Completely agreed. The old saw, slightly adapted, certainly fits -- "three
people can keep a secret, as long as none of them are in the US military"! A
loss of a squadronmate is traumatic under any circumstances and the bond made
between families is so strong that I say with 100% certainty that the truth
would be told to those families and within hours, some distraught wife would be
on ABC, pleading with the audience to know why her Johnny had to die for the
Kosovars. Venik doesn't grasp how completely unbelievable such a mass
conspiracy would be for the simple reason he has no experience with dealing
with rank and file US military people. If even ONE of the people in the
squadron that lost an aircraft were to get out of the service, the conspiracy
would fall apart. The wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, aunts, uncles, sons,
daughters, barbers, and everyone else would have to be in on the coverup, or
the first time Airman Dunsel gets drunk and pops off about what happened when
he was at Aviano, the "truth" would come out. That hasn't happened, and its
been a year. Apply Occam's Razor.
>
>>Do you remember those two US servicemen who were killed in a "car
>>accident" outside Aviano?
>
Venik
>Only the rest of his squadron ! Venick what you propose is not only
ridiculous,
>its impossible. If someone in my unit was shot down and his family not
>informed, unless the USAF could show me why his family should not
immediately
>be informed (National Security issues or safety of others flyers) *I* and
>everyone else in my squadron would inform his family.
During the Allied Force a number of NATO aircraft suffered technical
problems either because of mechanical malfunctions or ground fire. Many of
these aircraft were diverted to emergency airfields in various countries
neighboring Yugoslavia: Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, etc.
Imagine a hypothetical situation: a flight of A-10s takes-off from your base
in Italy. During the mission one of the aircraft damaged and lands in
Macedonia. The pilot is critically wounded and sent to a local hospital
where a team of NATO doctors work. The aircraft is totaled and never returns
back to service. The pilot eventually recovers. His family and colleagues in
Italy are told what happened.
Now imagine this: the aircraft shot down, pilot rescued. Families and
colleagues are told that the aircraft was damaged, landed in Macedonia,
pilot's in the hospital. No questions. Pilot is ordered to keep his mouth
shut. He's obligated to do so. His relatives are satisfied with the
military's explanation.
And another scenario: an aircraft is shot down, pilot killed. The family and
colleagues are informed that the aircraft was damaged and crash-landed in
Macedonia. Pilot was killed during the crash. Again, no questions. If
somebody doubts the official theory - who cares? What evidence does the
family have to dispute the military's version of the story? They can go to
New York Times, sure. There is no story: plane crashed on landing and pilot
was killed. Happens all the time.
Such scenarios were possible in the USSR during the Afghan conflict and they
are possible in the US. Press makes no difference. As long as the pictures
(that some people on this NG so desperately desire) are kept in a folder
marked "Top Secret" there is no story. The best a journalist can come up
with would be no better than what you see on my site.
Venik
Venik
>Could you tell us where this Russian Defense Ministry word is located
because
>they should be able to provide a tail number and date "destroyed" as
required
>by the START Treaty ?
>
The START treaty requires nothing of the sort. Inspections made by both
sides are confidential in nature unless there are some considerable
violations. A loss of B-2 is not a violation of the START treaty. Neither
side is required to provide you with dates or serial numbers. Would a date
and serial number make a difference for you? Here it is: May 20, 1999, AV-8
88-0329. The date was confirmed by the Russian Defense Ministry's official
publication: Foreign Military Review.
Venik
Venik
If a B-2 was shot down, where did
>it crash? That would be quite a prize to display.
This is very primitive thinking. According to Jane's and Stratfor, Russia
and Ukraine provided Yugoslavia with modern SAM and upgrades in violation of
the UN weapons embargo. NATO knows about but nobody wants to make fuss about
it 'cause it will change nothing and only worsen relations even further
between East and West. Russians and Serbs keep the evidence of NATO losses
to themselves and the West doesn't raise the issue of how these losses were
inflicted. I mutually-acceptable arrangement. And Russia continues to send
new weapons to Yugoslavia. Bill is happy, Milosevic is happy. And you are
talking about a "quite a prize to display." This is international politics
not your local grocery store.
Venik
Venik
<3zwJ4.8488$nb2.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>Gee, I wonder if Venik thinks OJ is innocent too? You're like a russian
>military version of Fox Mulder. If I might ask, I am curious, so far I've
>heard that you're a grad student in NJ. You wouldn't be at Rutgers, would
>you?
>
That's beneath me. I would rather go to the University of Acapulco. At
least I would get a nice tan along with my diploma.
Venik
Gordon
>If a B-2 was shot down, where did
>>it crash? That would be quite a prize to display.
>
>This is very primitive thinking. According to Jane's and Stratfor, Russia
>and Ukraine provided Yugoslavia with modern SAM and upgrades in violation of
>the UN weapons embargo. NATO knows about but nobody wants to make fuss about
>it 'cause it will change nothing and only worsen relations even further
>between East and West. Russians and Serbs keep the evidence of NATO losses
>to themselves and the West doesn't raise the issue of how these losses were
>inflicted.<
Says only you. First, you say that Russia agrees with Serb claims (although
their numbers in no way agree), then you say they are keeping evidence of their
successes a secret. Riiiiiight. Do you have any idea how stupid your "line of
reasoning" sounds?
> I mutually-acceptable arrangement. And Russia continues to send
>new weapons to Yugoslavia. Bill is happy, Milosevic is happy. And you are
>talking about a "quite a prize to display." This is international politics
>not your local grocery store.
Yeah, right. Like the way they didn't display their 117 victim. Consistancy,
chum. Buy some.
>
>Venik
>
>
Gordon
>and serial number make a difference for you? Here it is: May 20, 1999, AV-8
>88-0329. The date was confirmed by the Russian Defense Ministry's official
>publication: Foreign Military Review.
Venik, the subject is a B-2 you claimed was shot down, not a Harrier. If you
think the entire world is participating in a coverup of NATO losses, why don't
Serb nationalists flock to your cause? You remind me of the guy that stands on
a corner near the park, shouting at passersby that God speaks to him through
his AM radio. No matter how many people walk away from him shaking their
heads, he still has that gleam in his eye because he "knows" he is right and
everyone else is wrong. You need some new batteries in that radio, buddy.
Gordon
>Imagine a hypothetical situation:
Imagine taking your medication ON TIME.
> a flight of A-10s takes-off from your base
>in Italy. During the mission one of the aircraft damaged and lands in
>Macedonia. The pilot is critically wounded and sent to a local hospital
>where a team of NATO doctors work.<
Imagine an entire AWACs squadron, numberous support aircraft and ground station
crews, various wing weinies, etc., all joining in the hospital staff in
completely going along with such a coverup. Ok. I tried to imagine it. But
since I know how US military people talk among themselves, I KNOW how that
situation would play out. On CNN, about 2 hours after the pilot was admitted
to the hospital.
> The aircraft is totaled and never returns
>back to service. The pilot eventually recovers. His family and colleagues in
>Italy are told what happened.
Blah blah blah. Imagine Serbia becomes the next world power. Imagine anything
your heart desires.
>Now imagine this: the aircraft shot down, pilot rescued. Families and
>colleagues are told that the aircraft was damaged, landed in Macedonia,
>pilot's in the hospital. No questions.<
Oh, now the CSAR teams and everyone involved in getting them onscene have
joined the coverup/blackout. Riiiiiight.
> Pilot is ordered to keep his mouth
>shut. He's obligated to do so. His relatives are satisfied with the
>military's explanation.
>And another scenario: an aircraft is shot down, pilot killed. The family and
>colleagues are informed that the aircraft was damaged and crash-landed in
>Macedonia. Pilot was killed during the crash. Again, no questions.<
Boy, when you pick a "purely hypothetical", you go all out, don't you? Except,
their would be thousands of questions, and hundreds of people that would have
first-hand knowledge of this "event".
> If
>somebody doubts the official theory - who cares? What evidence does the
>family have to dispute the military's version of the story? They can go to
>New York Times, sure.<
But, amazingly, none have. However, in the past, when families didn't agree
with the military's media output, they were on the first plane to New York to
start joining the talk show circuit to tell their side of the story. (Iowa
Turret Explosion ring any bells..?) That isn't a one-time glitch in the US
military's iron-grasp on servicemembers and their families dealings with the
open media; its just a perfect example of how civilians respond when they think
the military is talking BS. (And rightly so) But in this case, A YEAR AFTER
THE WAR, not a single person has come forward to say, "That guy (or girl) Venik
speaketh the truth.. We DID lose X number of NATO aircraft.."
> There is no story: plane crashed on landing and pilot
>was killed. Happens all the time.
Yes it does. And everyone in the squadron, and all of their wives, children,
and ex girlfriends would know all of the details. Moot point. Yes, accidents
happen. Like the Apache fiasco. Still wouldn't add up to 40/61/67 combat
aircraft. Dream on
>Such scenarios were possible in the USSR during the Afghan conflict and they
>are possible in the US. Press makes no difference.<
Bullshit.
> As long as the pictures
>(that some people on this NG so desperately desire) are kept in a folder
>marked "Top Secret" there is no story. The best a journalist can come up
>with would be no better than what you see on my site.
Which would make him a damn poor excuse for a journalist.
Stephen McCullough
>
>And another scenario: an aircraft is shot down, pilot killed. The family and
>colleagues are informed that the aircraft was damaged and crash-landed in
>Macedonia. Pilot was killed during the crash. Again, no questions. If
>somebody doubts the official theory - who cares? What evidence does the
>family have to dispute the military's version of the story? They can go to
>New York Times, sure. There is no story: plane crashed on landing and pilot
>was killed. Happens all the time.
Its sad that some minds can't shake the rust of communism off. Someone in the
US military dies, the first thing the press does is goes to the press. Look at
the recent MV-22 crash. In USA TODAY on Thursday, there was quotes from several
of the dead's relatives. I suggest you aquaint yourself with the Bill Of Rights
and meaning of a free press.