It ' s good to see this sub still like this after such a long time too . It ' s goodness continues being . Woot woot . <| sep |> Is it not a win win then if both parties benefit ? <| sep |> There are multiple issues with those examples . The Cessna was so small and slow that advanced Russian fighters may have had difficulty engaging it . This was covered a few days in rWarCollege where you also posted this . To quote uAcritas Rust was tracked all the way by PVO lost found a couple of times , but order to shoot down never came from above although being asked several times . Best opportunity was above Baltic intercepting jet won ' t even need to shoot , just pass close enough to send Cessna down . Low quality source for this part of the comment , included merely for flavorPlease don ' t do this . Enough modern myths pervade public perception of security that I do not think we need to contribute any more , especially here . They are hard enough to squash as it is . The methodology of this wargame was extremely flawed , it ' s only included to help get the point across . Again , if shaky evidence is needed to make a point , it calls into question the original premise . Through American poor planning , Serbian onthefly engineering and an enormous amount of luck , a SA 3 S 125 shot down an F 117 in 1999 . No engineering was done . First , the F 117 story is untrue . The Serbs claimed they made simple modifications to their old Soviet radars , allowing them to easily spot the F 117 s . But Zoltn Dani , the Serbian commander who shot down the F 117 in Kosovo , later admitted on national TV that he never modified the radars , merely used the lowest frequency setting . He explained that he fabricated his story for propaganda . Others alleged he did it to take credit for shooting down the F 117 . It ' s not accurate to frame this incident as low tech vs . high tech . The low tech besting high tech narrative is driven enough as it is elsewhere . Asymmetric warfare is already covered quite a bit here .