F-117A Stealth Fighter Retired 476
zonker writes "Nearly 30 years ago Lockheed Martin's elite Skunk Works team developed what would become the F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter. A few of their earlier projects include the SR-71 Blackbird and U2 Dragon Lady spy planes. Today is the last for the Stealth Fighter, which is being replaced by the F-22 Raptor (another Skunk Works project)."
I still want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
What are they working on now? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was pretty young, but I don't remember there being nearly as much "public" information about the stealth fighter until it was used in action. It seems there is alot more details about the F-22 before it was in service. Is that because there is more communication with the taxpayers nowadays, or because they don't want you to ask whats in the left hand?
Re:What are they working on now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it makes you wonder just how many eyes the military really has up there now, if they were willing to mothball the SR-71 with no (public) clear successor.
Not that great (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it was revolutionary at the time it first came out, keeping this aircraft in the skies would be a disservice to the taxpaying public.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:2, Insightful)
B-2 is for stealth bombing and midnight strikes, F-22 is for air fighting, B-52 is used for heavy hitting when the radar is down or irrelevant. There's no niche for the F-117 any more.
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:5, Insightful)
True, the B-52 and C-130 are 1950's vintage *designs*, the actual airframes that are still in service are very late runs off the line. The current B-52's were built between 1960 and 1961, and the C-130's should all be post-1965 (or later). They also don't share any of the tactical missions that the F-117 performs. For example, the B-52 is a heavy bomber. It's going to drop a whole hell of a lot of metal on a target, or carry 1.5 imperial assloads of cruise missiles near a target, unload them, then head back home in time for "Lost". The C-130 has perfected the art of flying rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong.
Now, the F-117's job is to take the first steps towards making the C-130 or the B-52's job possible. Strike missions on heavily defended targets. Given the high tolerances the skin of the airframe must meet in order to stay stealthy, normal wear and tear on the airframe (say, a wing tip that is now an inch or two higher than before thanks to a high-G turn) could negate most of the aircraft's advantage. Comparing the F-117 to anything is is comparing oranges to briefcases.
The statement always comes up "what're they working on now? I bet they're using them thar captured UFO's and roswell alien stuff now!!!" Ummm, yeah, I doubt it. Instead of shrinking the airframe's radar signature in order to protect the pilot, they've just gone ahead and shrunk the airframe *and* the radar signature. Tomahawks, Predator drones, better satellites, and better communications between all three. That's what has retired the SR-71 and the F-117.
I think we're finally beginning to see the retirement of some of the meat in the seat for the really, really, really dangerous stuff. You can have a $120 million dollar fighter with $3-5 million dollars worth of pilot take out a target, or $3 million dollar drone hit the same target. Even the government can do that math.
Re:I still want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I still want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Continental Congress put together the country's very first army, they named it the "Second Army".
The military is about hurting people and breaking things until the other side knuckles under. As Patton pointed out this works better if few of your own guys die for their country while getting the other poor saps to die for their own. A good military operation grabs every opportunity to improve their odds, both of success and survival.
If calling a bomber a fighter both confuses the spys and gets the best pilots to enjoy flying its exceptionally high-value missions (with support and sensor technology limited to preserve stealth), why not do it?
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things, first the marginal cost of the F-22 originally was around $25 million. What's happened is that the Pentagon is buying about a sixth as many planes as were originally planned. Second, the drones will need effective control infrastructure and as of yet, there's no standardized control infrastructure. That's going to add considerable cost. Finally, need I add that the cost of the F-22 is known while the drone cost is hypothetical. Frankly, I think there'll be considerable room for drones in a future US army, but it's not that straightforward a financial tradeoff.
Farewell, Wobblin Goblin (Score:4, Insightful)
Today I'll think of the stories and jokes from old and retired Lockheed friends. I've already seen one today and you could see the pained look on his face as he fondly reminisced about his days working on the 117 program. Its a lovely day here in town, and I think at the end of the day I'll head to the local brewery and have a toast to the engineers who dared to dream up such a contraption, and to an aircraft that inspired many.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, at a very hot day *perhaps* you can do it because there is so much amount of gasoline evaporated that the fuel/oxygen ratio is bigger than the required for a combustion; but do not play ever with gasoline!!!.
The tech is just obsolete... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:3, Insightful)
If terrorism => mechanical failure
If mechanical failure => pilot error. .
I see no cited sources.
. . .
Can we move on to something more substantive, such as your evidence for the existence of Santa Claus?
The error made in the TWA 800 investigation was that the government assumed it was a missile strike, and made knee-jerk changes in airport security because of this assumption. When the evidence for a missile strike proved non-existent, they had to start from scratch. People jumped on the explanation, and then tried to turn it around on the government (The U. S. Navy shot it down!).
Remember Pierre Salinger?
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, drones may get knocked out by SAM's, enemy fighters, etc. That's the point. You're throwing up 5 million dollar drones that have roughly the same strike power as an F-117 with longer loiter times (which is turning out to be the real benefit. Having a drone that can hang around waiting for things to get interesting must be an immeasurable asset.) and lower radar cross sections. Or, you're putting up a 25 million dollar drone that can loiter for 24-36 hours instead of putting a shift of U-2's out in enemy territory.
Either way, when a drone gets shot down, at most you get some ribbing from the guys in the cube next to you who offer you another quarter so you can play again. No crisply folded flags, no footage on CNN 120 million dollar F-117 in a smoking heap on the group. No Francis Gary Powers being denounced in a show trial.
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"replace" is incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about airspace is mostly true, and part of why the Air Force is pushing hard for more money to buy additional F-22's (since they only about 1/3 as much as a 747 each). However, because of the advanced sensors and information integration of the F-22, and it's supercruise ability, it takes multiple F-15's to equal the coverage of a single F-22. By detecting an opponent earlier and getting into an intercept position more quickly, you cover more airspace with a single flight. By having a more capable fighter, you can spread the same number around to more locations, having say, a pair of F-22's providing the same combat capability as four or even eight F-15's, while at the same time covering a moderately larger airspace.
The F-22 is not intended to escort B-2's, except perhaps to perform precursor strikes on air defense systems. The B-2 would continue to operate on it's own. The F-22's primary mission would be to achieve air superiority by engaging fighter and air defense forces. Even small nations like Venezuala have reasonably competent aircraft (the crews are a separate question) like the MiG-29 and Su-35. The former is an air superiority fighter comparable to the F-18, and the latter is a ground attack fighter/bomber probably on par with the F-15E. In a conflict, the F-22's first job would be to eliminate those as a threat as quickly as possible (or more likely, make them decide not to fly them, as happened in Iraq in 2003 simply due to our AWACS + F-15's).
After establishing air superiority, the F-22 would provide combat air patrol and probably some air-to-ground, although most of that would be reserved for F-15E, F-18, and F-35 JSF.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately, even if you could get the death ray to work, it would be far less practical than the other solutions of the day (firing lit arrows at the ships). It's an interesting idea, and one that has promise at the small scale (testing on land with just a few mirrors to see if you can heat something up with concentrated sun beams), but on the large scale against a moving (hostile!) adversary you have almost no chance of success. Plus, the city was on the wrong coast anyway, so the whole idea was dead before it even started.
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides being stealthier, the F-22 carries a much bigger weapon load, has dramatically higher basic airframe performance, has a larger combat radius, can defend itself in an air-to-air battle, etc. etc. With the F-22 operational, there's just not much reason to keep the F-117 operating.
And why do we need the F22, again? (Score:2, Insightful)
It continues to amaze me how the military procurement machine goes on designing and buying immensely complex weapons that have no conceivable use and do not improve the security of this country (the U.S.A.) one whit...and nobody thinks this is strange. Sure, it's a helluva pretty plane...take up a collection and build your own if you like, but I'm so damn sick of my tax money going to these things.
We do not need an air superiority fighter/bomber/sigint/ewar platform like this. (Notice how it does everything...baaaad sign.) We do not have an enemy that makes its employment worthwhile, nor are we remotely likely to become involved in any war with a technologically sophisticated enemy for the simple reason that such an enemy will have nukes, and people with nukes do not fight other people with nukes.
What we really need to spend some money on is people: we need to attract and keep competent officers and soldiers in the Army (or the USMC, if you've given up on the Army), we need to pay these people what they're worth, give them decent benefits, and raise personnel standards throughout. That would take a lot less money than our current high-tech fixation, and would buy us a lot more security. But it's not about security, is it?