F-117 Stealth Fighter/Bomber going into mothballs

[Johnny Rico]

Johnny, it was Panama, with limited results, if I remember correctly.

This aircraft is so labor and maintainance intensive, it wouldn't be worth keeping a couple flying for any reason. It is a better museum piece.

Here is an excellent article on the life and and retirement of the F117 from the Smithsonian's Air & Space Magazine a few months ago.

Yeah, it's funny after reading that article how the old Microprose F-117 Stealth Fighter simulator game from the early '90s after the Gulf War really did showcase the fighter's weaknesses, especially this part:

For all the hype, the aircraft was far from invisible. The RCS figures remain classified, but the airplane was more visible to radar from the sides than head-on. Planning the missions was difficult—because the jet could be seen by radar, the track had to be carefully adjusted to minimize the craft’s exposure.

I remember that in the game, that you had to fly perpindicular to the radar circumferences in order to minimize your radar signature.

It really was a bitch to actually be stealthy. So I guess it's really no wonder why they're retiring this plane.

 

[Stag]

It's funny I remember when stealth was first actually leaked by Jimmy Carter's Def. Secretary Brown in a speech where he talked about planes the gov't was building or had the technology to build that would be invisible. I think it was the first and only time in the 70s that I actually listened to a what a politician said.

Then remember in the mid 80s there were all these hypothetical designs for the stealth plane that were put into production by model makers. I remember walking down the model aisle in the toy store and seeing a few cool designs.

 

[Marc]

If the F-117s are going into mothballs now, is there in indication of a similar for the B2s? Or does the fact there's no (well that's leaked to the public anyway details of a successor mean they'll be around for a little while yet?

Also did any futher details (such as cause) for the B2 crash in Guam a few weeks back come out?

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I remember that in the game, that you had to fly perpindicular to the radar circumferences in order to minimize your radar signature.

It really was a bitch to actually be stealthy. So I guess it's really no wonder why they're retiring this plane.

Hmmm, all the flight sims I tried in the 90s blissfully ignored the stealth capabilities of the F-22 and just had it as a nice fast plane

 

[rType]

The RCS figures remain classified, but the airplane was more visible to radar from the sides than head-on.

Of course this is true for most aircraft.

I was reading about the Boeing B-1R proposal earlier today which involves refitting the B-1 with F119 engines as used on the F-22, thus increasing its maximum speed to Mach 2.0+, amidst various other upgrades including provisions for air-to-air engagment. The first thought that sprung to mind was "fanwank".

 

[Garrovick]

The RCS figures remain classified, but the airplane was more visible to radar from the sides than head-on.

Of course this is true for most aircraft.

I was reading about the Boeing B-1R proposal earlier today which involves refitting the B-1 with F119 engines as used on the F-22, thus increasing its maximum speed to Mach 2.0+, amidst various other upgrades including provisions for air-to-air engagment. The first thought that sprung to mind was "fanwank".

One engine for two types aircraft would be a good logistics move.

When the Air Force first put Aim-9s on an A-10, it shot down two F-15s in it's very first flight in a war game using the missiles. The shocked and surprised F-15 guys had to come up with a major re-do of their tactical profile for that week.

Seems like good ideas to me at a time went the DOD wants to reduce it's inventory to create a smaller and more potent military force.

 

[Marc]

The RCS figures remain classified, but the airplane was more visible to radar from the sides than head-on.

Of course this is true for most aircraft.

I was reading about the Boeing B-1R proposal earlier today which involves refitting the B-1 with F119 engines as used on the F-22, thus increasing its maximum speed to Mach 2.0+, amidst various other upgrades including provisions for air-to-air engagment. The first thought that sprung to mind was "fanwank".

One engine for two types aircraft would be a good logistics move.

The B-1R is mentioned on the B-1's Wiki page - but while it gives improved performance it would see a reduction in range.

Given the aircraft is intended as a long range strategic bomber would this be a worthy trade off?

 

[USS KG5]

Of course this is true for most aircraft.

I was reading about the Boeing B-1R proposal earlier today which involves refitting the B-1 with F119 engines as used on the F-22, thus increasing its maximum speed to Mach 2.0+, amidst various other upgrades including provisions for air-to-air engagment. The first thought that sprung to mind was "fanwank".

One engine for two types aircraft would be a good logistics move.

The B-1R is mentioned on the B-1's Wiki page - but while it gives improved performance it would see a reduction in range.

Given the aircraft is intended as a long range strategic bomber would this be a worthy trade off?

Well why would they do it anyhow? The US is highly unlikely to go to war with an enemy capable of intercepting its heavy bombers after defeating their escorts - I bluddy hope not anyway lol!

They only send in the heavies when the air defenses are well and truly suppressed so I suspect this is more of a "we could but we won't" move...

 

[Garrovick]

Of course this is true for most aircraft.

I was reading about the Boeing B-1R proposal earlier today which involves refitting the B-1 with F119 engines as used on the F-22, thus increasing its maximum speed to Mach 2.0+, amidst various other upgrades including provisions for air-to-air engagment. The first thought that sprung to mind was "fanwank".

One engine for two types aircraft would be a good logistics move.

The B-1R is mentioned on the B-1's Wiki page - but while it gives improved performance it would see a reduction in range.

Given the aircraft is intended as a long range strategic bomber would this be a worthy trade off?

Where are they based and whre are they going.

They can fly from the U.S. to Iraq and back. Then there is inflight refuleing also.

I don't see an issue, I'm sure the Air Force did some investigation..

 

[rType]

They only send in the heavies when the air defenses are well and truly suppressed so I suspect this is more of a "we could but we won't" move...

That's how they do it now because they have the luxury to do so. There would've been no need for the B-1 or the B-2 if this was actually their intended role in a major conflict.

Recall that the B-1 program (AMSA?) originally envisioned a Mach 2 speed capability for the aircraft under the same "high and fast" philosophy that gave us the A-12/SR-71 and XB-70 Valkyrie programs and was thrown out admist rapidly growing Soviet SAM capabilities by the time Reagan restarted the program. They can contemplate re-engining the B-1 for Mach 2+ because (most of) the rest of the aircraft is already up to the task per the original design requirements.

 

[USS KG5]

That's how they do it now because they have the luxury to do so. There would've been no need for the B-1 or the B-2 if this was actually their intended role in a major conflict.

Well you can make some pretty damning comments about whether the USAF needs anything like its current capability in the current climate - but we are talking about an upgrade for current circumstances. God forbid the USA was involved in another Cold War situation.

...was thrown out admist rapidly growing Soviet SAM capabilities by the time Reagan restarted the program. They can contemplate re-engining the B-1 for Mach 2+ because (most of) the rest of the aircraft is already up to the task per the original design requirements.

The question still becomes why - unless air defenses are effectively suppressed the bombers would be slaughtered either at Mach 1 or Mach 2 in a conflict with any reasonably well equipped nation.

Any air campaign against Iran for example would require a truly massive air defense suppression campaign first.

 

[Timo]

The question still becomes why - unless air defenses are effectively suppressed the bombers would be slaughtered either at Mach 1 or Mach 2 in a conflict with any reasonably well equipped nation.

But once the defenses are silenced, we are back to the pre-sixties situation where high speed, high altitude bombers were originally believed to be useful.

Yet high speed would not be a penetration aid for today's USAF. It would be a deployment aid, shortening the reaction time which is crucial against such elusive targets as enemy leadership meetings or weapons shipments. The older targets that had the decency to stay put, such as factories and railroads, are of decreasing importance today. And the ability to operate shorter-ranged rapid reaction units from forward bases is decreasing, too, both due to enemy mobility and the difficulty of establishing bases in those regions that are of strategic importance today (sources of oil and natural gas, mainly).

A silver bullet force of two dozen bombers idled somewhere in Montana, and a couple of thousand drones waiting for rapid delivery in standard shipping containers, would indeed be appealing in today's threat environment... Once it was thought that VTOL would be needed for getting rid of airfield dependency. Today it could be done by getting rid of the aircraft that use those airfields!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS KG5]

But once the defenses are silenced, we are back to the pre-sixties situation where high speed, high altitude bombers were originally believed to be useful.

Precisely why the B-52 continues as a valuable part of the USAF inventory.

Yet high speed would not be a penetration aid for today's USAF. It would be a deployment aid, shortening the reaction time which is crucial against such elusive targets as enemy leadership meetings or weapons shipments.

I doubt that in this case it would be helpful, a B1 with a Mach 2 dash would burn its fuel very quickly, would these new engines do much for its efficient cruise speed?

A silver bullet force of two dozen bombers idled somewhere in Montana, and a couple of thousand drones waiting for rapid delivery in standard shipping containers, would indeed be appealing in today's threat environment... Once it was thought that VTOL would be needed for getting rid of airfield dependency. Today it could be done by getting rid of the aircraft that use those airfields!

Timo Saloniemi

I have a feeling that drones capable of accurate pinpoint strikes against evil arab bastard of the week are going to be the in thing for the USAF, and the rest of its expensive arsenal will be a sideshow by comparison...

 

[Omnius]

You'll never see a Nighthawk on the airshow circuit. The Air Force don't showcase has-been planes, and in this case they won't sell them to private interests. In this case, you'll see a few more 117s at museums as nonflight exhibits, and that's about it. The prototypes already exist as such.

Mark

Back in 1993 I recall seeing a F-117 Nighthawk flyby on a Royal Netherlands Airforce airshow at Volkel AB. It was just a quick pass, and the commentator told people to get their camera's ready because it wouldn't be coming around for another pass.

Mark <--- Why isn't there a decent 1:72 diecast Raptor, dammit!

Give it time, I'm sure either Witty Wings, Franklin Mint or some other manufacturer will make one. Currently there are very little liveries for this aircraft. Making it not worthwhile yet.
I'm quite sure Corgi will make one of the F-35. They've so far made almost every british plane into die-cast, so this would be no exception.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

<Picard> Not good enough, dammit - NOT GOOD ENOUGH! </Picard>

I'm sure we'll get one eventually, and of the '35 - Gaincorp had one, and FM was supposed to have one in 1:48 last year, but I coulnd't get either. In any case, neither were wheels-up capable.

And I also saw a 117 on the ground at a Canadian air show in Alberta... Complete with fences, armed guards, and "no pictures!" signs. What I mean though is that now that it's retired, we won't see one anywhere like that anymore. Only on a pike at certain museums and USAF bases. And one in pieces at a museum in Europe.

Mark