There was a report at scientific conference held by Russian MoD and Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences recently, that went to the internet.
I tried to post it here, but Russian fonts do not display correctly. I currently trying to find a link.

In short, according to it, Pantsyr has serious problems with engaging targets with course parameters more than 2-3 km, advertized range of 20 km is overly optimistic and can only be achieved against non-maneuvering targets, there are problems with the missile fuze, problems with engaging targets in rainy and foggy conditions due to use of millimeter-wave radar, the wheeled vehicle cannot be transported by aircraft and railroad due to its excessive height without disassembly, and so on. Rumors about problems with Pantsyr have long circulated on Russian military forums, this report was a clear confirmation.

EDIT: There is a link: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html A first part of report is in above post, the rest is in post from user off_topic_off dated by 2012-04-07.

beautifull PDF ...ThnQ mr.hpasp

Honestly, I dobn't think there was an "over-confidence" in Stealth technology within the USAF. There is an extract from book Dark Eagles by Curtis Peebles, about first strike on Baghdad by F-117 in 1991:

"As the F-117 pilots turned for home, their mood was somber. They knew
they had won a victory, but they were sure the cost had been high. Captain
Rob Donaldson said later, "I came out of there on that first night and went
'Whew .. . I survived that one!' But on the way back, I really thought that
we had lost some guys due to the heavy volume of bullets and missiles that
were thrown up in the air."

At Tonopah East (how the King Khalid AB was named), the ground crews awaited the planes' return. The first
wave landed at night, while the second and third came back after sunrise.
One by one, the returning planes were counted.
Every one returned."

Maybe after that war there was some over-confidence, but I believe that belonged more to the political circles, rather than military professionals.

ha ha ha ha... guys I'm dying of laughter

looock at this site ! http://www.f-117a.com

one guys please tell to web sites admin :(col.dani shot down this aircraft like a dirty dog)

woooo look at this site... is very complete and no shame about shot down f-117 !!!

No need for insulting turns of phrase - Col Dani shot down the F117A (Vega 31 tail number 806) like a professional combat operative performing his mission according to his training. The pilot of the downed aircraft, and all those responsible for his recovery were also professional.


There is a page including loss reports for all operational and testing losses, including Vega 31. This is (understandably) partisan, only 'honoring' the USAAF personnel, and not including a mention of operational conditions or 'enemy' professionalism and capability, nor any indication that NATO/US intel failed to correctly identify enemy capabilities and intentions, or to assess the friendly effectiveness.

Hpasp, it looks like you're not the only Hungarian who is delighted by old Soviet machinery. There is another guy, who is making a high-end MiG-21bis model for DCS combat simulator! http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=87621 I wonder if you're know him

Thank you

They dismantled the Iraqi IADS. They suppressed the Serb IADS. Those were IADS, though their quality may have been poor.
I agree, these were all old and export versions of SAMs. But also keep in mind that F-16's recently purchased by UAE (Or was it Saudi?) were equipped with a pod capable of jamming the S-300... or some version of the S-300 at any rate.

And if you are referring to me calling them speed-bumps, please note that I added other qualifiers for this as well. I am not claiming that you can just ignore SAMs, and, in the case of S-300 being shipped to Iran, that would of course easily deprive Israel and the US of a straight-line attack (and a straight line is badly needed. You don't have the fuel for anything else), and it also makes ambush my S-300 easy. That's why. (By comparison, their indigenous, more short-ranged HAWK, the Tor, etc, can probably be negated by attacking the mission target with stand-off weapons).

No. Neither Iraq nor Serbia had an IADS by modern definition of this word - an automated system, that would receive data from all radars in the theatre, process it and distribute target designations to SAMs, allowing them to operate far, far more efficiently, somewhat similar to the AWACS/Link 16 combo that USAF has, only for ground SAMs. Regarding the ability to jam the S-300 - we won't be able to find out, since Russia agreed not to sell them to Iran, and other countries that possess them are not in position of being attacked by U. S. or Israel, fortunately. And, by the way, are you sure that those jamming pods shipped to UAE can REALLY do that? Render these systems useless? Or they only capable to slightly degrade their capabilities? If you're played SAM Simulator that is being discussed here, you would discover that even those antiquated year-1957 Dvinas in Vietnam cannot be jammed "completely" - jamming might only complicate their operation, especially against certain types of targets, but will never render them inoperable. Cheers.