Great work, Mike. Once the Aeronautical Museum in Belgrade eventually finishes with its renovations I hope to make a pilgrimage to see the remnants of that downed F-117.
Even in 2025, I reckon that America’s “stealth” aircraft like the B-2 and F-35 are by far the marquee assets in the crown of imperial soft power projection-even eclipsing their mighty aircraft carriers-and thus the proven loss of even one of these near-mystical wunderwaffens would be utterly catastrophic to their ability to intimidate rival powers.
The necessary corollary of this is that American military would do literally anything to preserve this mystique, and thus would be extremely hesitant to put them in even the slightest risk (such as the recent “B-2 strike” in Iran).
The day America’s power to project military strength dies isn’t the first supercarrier smacked by an Iranian BM, but when an F-35 meets a PL-15 for the whole world to see on PressTV or Global Times.
Thank you, Mike. I have read that in full, and with focus and interest. The circumstantial evidence for the missile hit(s) on a B-2 over Serbia, and its crashing in a Croation forest 60 something miles away is pretty strong. A cover-up would be assumed. I think its enough to look at the shoot-down stories, right?
The intrigue of the cheerleaders in the plane and the videos of the crash are interesting, though.
The second plane had a different look to my eye as it went down the runway, moving differently, like the mass and suspension might be different. I'll look again...
Yes, I watched it several times in full screen. Simply put, the first plane looks like it is heavier in the way it moves on the ground, and at lift-off. It is hard to be sure, because we see the initial start from taxi speed and the heavy bounce characteristics in the first plane, and the whole, long build up of speed, during which the visible bouncing resonances mostly cease.
Still, the second plane, even though it has way too much angle of attack as it lifts off, just looks lighter on liftoff, and looks like it recovers some ground-effect lift, but then yaws to the left and hits a wing. It looks like it recovered from the grossly excessive angle of attack (what pilot would attempt that sharp of an ascent angle on a huge bomber?), floated on the ground effect with some stability, then dropped that left wing to finish the job.
If you throw enough money at it you can get anything to fly - at least once. Getting it to land safely is another thing. Given you have an aerodynamic shape to begin with, installing timed out engines, minimal fuel load (no reserve required lol), fly by wire setup (no crew) and stripped of all unnecessary parts that add to the MGTOW the Guam scenario is easily within the realm of possibility
Lying in politics and in the military, there are so many domains where lying has become the golden rule, for more than a quarter a century psychiatrists still believe s dysfunctional mind is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain and that bio pharmaceuticals can fix this problem, or that the impact of 2 planes are the direct cause of the collapse of the twin (triple) towers, or that Sadam had an arsenal of neuro gases and Iran disposes since 25 years over a nuclear missile.
In 2008., I got ADSL and decided to check out Google Earth, more specifically Spacva Forest. It looked very dense and very green, apart from small irregular-triangle-shaped discoloration I was surprised to see.
From amateur's point of view, I would expect to see something resembling short runway in the forest after a plane crash. On the other hand, 100-400-year-old densely packed oak trees could be rather solid obstacle, even for such well-built airframe....
"Crew. Is anybody from the pool of airmen flying B2 missing, perishing in an accident in the same time frame?"
If the crew ejected, they may have survived—or perished. In such cases, what often follows is a long, ambiguous aftermath. It's not uncommon for individuals involved in sensitive operations to later die under mysterious or unrelated circumstances: a fatal car crash, a heart attack, a fall from a cliff, or drowning in a lake. There are many possible outcomes. One can look at similar patterns, such as with high-ranking officers reportedly involved in Ukraine, who later died under unclear circumstances far from the conflict zone. These cases raise questions and suggest that what’s visible publicly may only be part of a much more complex story.
"Witnesses on the ground. Any stories, legends, testimonies..."
Wrote about that in the book.
"Serbian secret services assessment"
There was reportedly an audio recording of the intercepted communication between the aircrews, but after the war, it "disappeared." The Serbian secret service is no longer what it once was; its capabilities and integrity have noticeably declined.
"knowing your work I am almost certain that you have already explored these lines of investigation but decided not to discuss it in public."
Sometimes, it's better not to poke the bear. A bit of scratching is fine, even pulling a hair now and then, but outright poking crosses the line. Unless the situation changes significantly..
The possible loss of a B-2 to AA missiles during the dismemberment of Yugoslavia was raised in comments on another of your Substack posts recently- Was that the impetus for this post? If so, quick research work!
This isn’t something developed quickly; I’ve been collecting information for years. What’s presented here is just the tip of the iceberg, tailored for the general public.
Still, an impressive set of circumstantial evidence. Can the inferred crash site be freely accessed today? Any trees which might have been there at the time and still be on site would likely show physical evidence of the event. And if the site was scoured clean of debris, there was probably a trail cut into the site, plus some minor ground work for personnel support infrastructure (latrines & etc.).
If an enormous aircraft with a tiny radar return were significantly damaged, its radar return might plausibly become larger after being hit? Was there evidence of this in the accounts of the air defense crew?
In air defense operations, there is a standard procedure followed after missile launch and confirmed target impact: the radar crew is ordered to "take the high down" and then "equivalent." The first command shuts off the high voltage, while the second encapsulates the residual electromagnetic energy within the system. This does not mean the radar is fully powered down; rather, it ceases to radiate energy into space and transitions to a standby mode, with emissions contained internally. This process slightly increases the system's internal temperature but keeps it ready for rapid reactivation with the next command to "raise the voltage."
The rationale is straightforward: enemy SEAD assets may detect radar emissions and retaliate with anti-radiation missiles. By minimizing the radar’s electromagnetic signature—particularly after firing—the system reduces the risk of detection and destruction.
Metric-wave radars, operating at lower frequencies and using wider beams, are largely resistant to ARMs. However, they lack the precision required for fire control. Despite this limitation, they remain effective for monitoring aircraft movement and altitude changes. Notably, a sudden loss of radar contact with a low-flying aircraft may indicate that the target has been hit and subsequently crashed.
Great work, Mike. Once the Aeronautical Museum in Belgrade eventually finishes with its renovations I hope to make a pilgrimage to see the remnants of that downed F-117.
Thank you
Even in 2025, I reckon that America’s “stealth” aircraft like the B-2 and F-35 are by far the marquee assets in the crown of imperial soft power projection-even eclipsing their mighty aircraft carriers-and thus the proven loss of even one of these near-mystical wunderwaffens would be utterly catastrophic to their ability to intimidate rival powers.
The necessary corollary of this is that American military would do literally anything to preserve this mystique, and thus would be extremely hesitant to put them in even the slightest risk (such as the recent “B-2 strike” in Iran).
The day America’s power to project military strength dies isn’t the first supercarrier smacked by an Iranian BM, but when an F-35 meets a PL-15 for the whole world to see on PressTV or Global Times.
David vs Goliath! Long live Serbia!
Thank you, Mike. I have read that in full, and with focus and interest. The circumstantial evidence for the missile hit(s) on a B-2 over Serbia, and its crashing in a Croation forest 60 something miles away is pretty strong. A cover-up would be assumed. I think its enough to look at the shoot-down stories, right?
The intrigue of the cheerleaders in the plane and the videos of the crash are interesting, though.
The second plane had a different look to my eye as it went down the runway, moving differently, like the mass and suspension might be different. I'll look again...
Yes, I watched it several times in full screen. Simply put, the first plane looks like it is heavier in the way it moves on the ground, and at lift-off. It is hard to be sure, because we see the initial start from taxi speed and the heavy bounce characteristics in the first plane, and the whole, long build up of speed, during which the visible bouncing resonances mostly cease.
Still, the second plane, even though it has way too much angle of attack as it lifts off, just looks lighter on liftoff, and looks like it recovers some ground-effect lift, but then yaws to the left and hits a wing. It looks like it recovered from the grossly excessive angle of attack (what pilot would attempt that sharp of an ascent angle on a huge bomber?), floated on the ground effect with some stability, then dropped that left wing to finish the job.
Thank you
If you throw enough money at it you can get anything to fly - at least once. Getting it to land safely is another thing. Given you have an aerodynamic shape to begin with, installing timed out engines, minimal fuel load (no reserve required lol), fly by wire setup (no crew) and stripped of all unnecessary parts that add to the MGTOW the Guam scenario is easily within the realm of possibility
Fascinating article, Mike. Thanks for this!
Thank you
Lying in politics and in the military, there are so many domains where lying has become the golden rule, for more than a quarter a century psychiatrists still believe s dysfunctional mind is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain and that bio pharmaceuticals can fix this problem, or that the impact of 2 planes are the direct cause of the collapse of the twin (triple) towers, or that Sadam had an arsenal of neuro gases and Iran disposes since 25 years over a nuclear missile.
In 2008., I got ADSL and decided to check out Google Earth, more specifically Spacva Forest. It looked very dense and very green, apart from small irregular-triangle-shaped discoloration I was surprised to see.
From amateur's point of view, I would expect to see something resembling short runway in the forest after a plane crash. On the other hand, 100-400-year-old densely packed oak trees could be rather solid obstacle, even for such well-built airframe....
@misha
"apart from small irregular-triangle-shaped discoloration I was surprised to see."
----------
Something like this?
45.057040,18.842332
@misha
"From amateur's point of view, I would expect to see something resembling short runway in the forest after a plane crash."
----------
If it is coming in at a steep enough angle (diving/falling nearly vertically) all you get is a plane sized hole in the forest.
Wonderful sleuthing for when lies are told anything is possible.
The truth is far more clever for its the unknown that none can program
Thanks for your great work Mike!
We've shared the link on our daily report.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
Wauuu! Impresive work. Very good reading. Bravo Mike!
Thank you
Thank you
Excellent work, Mike.
Several lines of circumstantial evidence could be explored further.
Crew. Is anybody from the pool of airmen flying B2 missing, perishing in an accident in the same time frame?
Witnesses on the ground. Any stories, legends, testimonies...
Serbian secret services assessment.
But these type of information goes into the fog of war, deception, lying category, still would be interesting to hear.
NB., knowing your work I am almost certain that you have already explored these lines of investigation but decided not to discuss it in public.
And I agree. The level of the text is so professional that you could debate with someone who actually knows firsthand what happened. Excellent.
Thank you.
Some comments:
"Crew. Is anybody from the pool of airmen flying B2 missing, perishing in an accident in the same time frame?"
If the crew ejected, they may have survived—or perished. In such cases, what often follows is a long, ambiguous aftermath. It's not uncommon for individuals involved in sensitive operations to later die under mysterious or unrelated circumstances: a fatal car crash, a heart attack, a fall from a cliff, or drowning in a lake. There are many possible outcomes. One can look at similar patterns, such as with high-ranking officers reportedly involved in Ukraine, who later died under unclear circumstances far from the conflict zone. These cases raise questions and suggest that what’s visible publicly may only be part of a much more complex story.
"Witnesses on the ground. Any stories, legends, testimonies..."
Wrote about that in the book.
"Serbian secret services assessment"
There was reportedly an audio recording of the intercepted communication between the aircrews, but after the war, it "disappeared." The Serbian secret service is no longer what it once was; its capabilities and integrity have noticeably declined.
"knowing your work I am almost certain that you have already explored these lines of investigation but decided not to discuss it in public."
Sometimes, it's better not to poke the bear. A bit of scratching is fine, even pulling a hair now and then, but outright poking crosses the line. Unless the situation changes significantly..
The possible loss of a B-2 to AA missiles during the dismemberment of Yugoslavia was raised in comments on another of your Substack posts recently- Was that the impetus for this post? If so, quick research work!
This isn’t something developed quickly; I’ve been collecting information for years. What’s presented here is just the tip of the iceberg, tailored for the general public.
Still, an impressive set of circumstantial evidence. Can the inferred crash site be freely accessed today? Any trees which might have been there at the time and still be on site would likely show physical evidence of the event. And if the site was scoured clean of debris, there was probably a trail cut into the site, plus some minor ground work for personnel support infrastructure (latrines & etc.).
Excellent and very interesting read! Thank you! Any theories on the fate of the crew, if indeed the crash occurred?
Many thanks for all that work!
Thank you
Fascinating history!
If an enormous aircraft with a tiny radar return were significantly damaged, its radar return might plausibly become larger after being hit? Was there evidence of this in the accounts of the air defense crew?
In air defense operations, there is a standard procedure followed after missile launch and confirmed target impact: the radar crew is ordered to "take the high down" and then "equivalent." The first command shuts off the high voltage, while the second encapsulates the residual electromagnetic energy within the system. This does not mean the radar is fully powered down; rather, it ceases to radiate energy into space and transitions to a standby mode, with emissions contained internally. This process slightly increases the system's internal temperature but keeps it ready for rapid reactivation with the next command to "raise the voltage."
The rationale is straightforward: enemy SEAD assets may detect radar emissions and retaliate with anti-radiation missiles. By minimizing the radar’s electromagnetic signature—particularly after firing—the system reduces the risk of detection and destruction.
Metric-wave radars, operating at lower frequencies and using wider beams, are largely resistant to ARMs. However, they lack the precision required for fire control. Despite this limitation, they remain effective for monitoring aircraft movement and altitude changes. Notably, a sudden loss of radar contact with a low-flying aircraft may indicate that the target has been hit and subsequently crashed.
If the Zionists actually use the B2 over Iran (for real, not a Trumpian fairytale) we will all find out the truth.