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)."
Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
You always knew when they were going to launch one because they would start sending out tankers (3 to 4) a good hour or so before they launched the Blackbird.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've got one of these beautiful planes at the Udvar-Hazy flight center [si.edu], near Dulles airport (Outside Washington, DC).
It's worth a trip well-out-of-your-way to see the thing - you can get right up close to it, and it is astonishingly attractive; moreso for being so secret and rare.
There's a whole bunch more good stuff at Udvar-Hazy - a great aviation museum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a B-2 parked out front that you can walk under. That's quite a sight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That looks like the end of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also (Score:3, Funny)
This also happens to be Enterprise's current perch. I had no idea she was there the first time I went. So I'm walking along and turn a corner, and HOLY SHIT SPACE SHUTTLE@!>!@$!#E#KRK
It was kind of a surreal experience.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
More curious to me was the fact that the one we refueled had two LOX tanks, contrary to the manual's statement of only one. It had the normal one under the cockpit, and a second one in the airframe between the wings/engines. I surmise the second was a propulsion system oxidizer. The JP-7 fuel being a kerosene, the combination with LOX would have given it the propulsion profile of rocket motors being used from 1945 on. As a constantly afterburning ramjet at speed, the engines could have easily been adapted to do this.
And frankly I don't recall the one we loaded as having leaked, from hoses-on to taxi-out.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
Its reported speed of Mach 3.2 was based on an average speed over a course; that wasn't necessarily the top. A Major Brian Shul reports having sustained Mach 3.5 at 80k ft. And an ex-USAF security police enlisted reports having guarded on in Thailand, and the pilot wore astronaut's wings (USAF astronaut standard is 50 miles, or 264k ft.). The former wouldn't require the mod I described, but the latter would have. The pressure suit used would have allowed flight to this altitude. In fact it does and then some -- it is the suit worn during ascent of the Space Shuttle.
I spoke with a colleague at another SAC base, and he "wouldn't deny" having seen one or more with this mod, but wouldn't say more.
The Blackbird had no effective stealth capability, so if one were still flying it'd be easily seen on today's modern radar and IR devices. Space program/satellite fans would have reported seeing something fitting the profile. Although I can only surmise what the second LOX tank was for, I have no doubt that if I saw it again, and the second fill port weren't removed, I could ID it.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Funny)
"One day, high above Arizona, we were monitoring the radio traffic of all the mortal airplanes below us. First, a Cessna pilot asked the air traffic controllers to check his ground speed. 'Ninety knots,' ATC replied. A twin Bonanza soon made the same request. 'One-twenty on the ground,' was the reply. To our surprise, a navy F-18 came over the radio with a ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit, but he wanted to let all the bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed was. 'Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground,' ATC responded.
The situation was too ripe. I heard the click of Walter's mike button in the rear seat. In his most innocent voice, Walter startled the controller by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet, clearly above controlled airspace. In a cool, professional voice, the controller replied, 'Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the ground.' We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast."
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Informative)
As always, it's the air/fuel mixture that's the important part. This does not hold for gasoline, which gives off vapors quite nicely, thank you.
SR71 took JP7 (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. Depending upon the grade, it's its own distillate from the stack.
There's different grades of jet fuel. For the SR71, it was a very special blend, closer to diesel then kerosine, but still designed to be liquid in both far colder and far hotter temperatures.
The match trick works fine with it, for example.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!!!.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_thermal_protection_system [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Friction"
-->
"In physics, ram pressure is a pressure exerted on a body which is moving through a fluid medium. It causes a strong drag force to be exerted on the body."
-->
"n fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called resistance) is the force that resists the movement of a solid object through a fluid (a liquid or gas). Drag is made up of friction forces"
So it looks to me to be friction, just the creation of a pressure buffer taking the direction friction.
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Informative)
The total temperature is given by the compressible isentropic flow behaviour:
Tt/Tamb = 1+ (k-1)/k*M^2, where
Tt is the total temperature in K or Rankine,
Tamb is the ambient temperature in same units above,
k is the heat coefficient ratio, for the air is 1.4 and
M is the mach number.
Thus, for a 3.5 Mach number, the maximum for SR-71, the total temperature is:
Tt = Tamb*(1+0.29*3.5^2)=Tamb*4.5,
and for a Tamb of -50 degrees celsius (-58 deg Fahrenheit), becomes,
Tt = 223*4.5=1003K = 730 deg C = 1346 deg F
At that speed, the ambient is sooooo hot! even when the atmosferic temperature may be soo freezing!!!!.
At the leading edge of the SR-71 wings and the fuselage nose, you reach such temperature without any kind of viscous effects; just because you stagnate the flow isentropically there: you are more right than wrong at the end
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that I always thought amazing at the time I worked with them was that the avionics seemed so outdated in an age where most older airframes where being fitted with glass. Lot's of round gages and such.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuel leaking SR-71's (Score:5, Informative)
We've seen that if you have three feds in a conspiracy, one will blab to the Washington Post, so... name your source.
. . .
I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.
The center tank on TWA Flight 800 was almost empty, overheated and full of fumes, and likely a spark from a poorly wired fuel sensor detonated it.
Oh, if you were kidding, it wasn't funny, emoticon or no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It works like this for the airline industry, or it did until 9-11 changed the paradigm: .
If terrorism => mechanical failure
If mechanical failure => pilot error. .
Spoken by someone who's never read an NTSB report.
... My aunt had a friend who...
The plural of anecdote is not data.
.
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 explan
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Triethyl borane.
rj
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I still want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I still want to know... (Score:4, Informative)
First, fighters generally attract the better pilots than bombers, and since the F117 was a first strike or tactical strike craft, good pilots were of utmost importance...
Second, naming it as a fighter helped with the secrecy surrounding its true capabilities and use, especially in Cold War times...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, the best thing about Jetfighter II was mid 90's game physics. I fondly recall the time I landed a YF-23 on a carrier with a three-point landing due to intentional stalling at 10 feet off the deck. Low and slow, vector thrust upwa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they called it that to make adversaries confused about the aircraft's capabilities.
proving once again that spell check isn't fool proof.
Re: (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?
Risks and rewards. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see that as particularly ironic. Just another example of the way things tend to get inverted when dealing with the use or threat of force - the "economy of negative value".
To deter or defeat aggressors - whether schoolyard bullies, criminals, or political aggressors - you need to be willing to RISK lives. But the goal is to attain some purpose, not
USAF Deception (Score:5, Interesting)
The F- designation was actually deliberate. The USAF didn't want enemies to know that this was a bomber, not a fighter, so they named it differently.
Re:USAF Deception (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to that, a fighter might be designated F8U-3 -- that breaks down to Fighter, Design 8 from Vought (Vought's code was U), 3rd revision. Under the new designation system, that'd be the Vought F-8C Crusader. If it was the first design of a particular type from a company, it'd lack the middle number, e.g. the Douglas AD-2 Skyraider, which was later known as the A-1B Skyraider.
Re:I still want to know... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I still want to know... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't worry about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Pimp my corporate priviledges. (Score:4, Funny)
3 words: Stealth jet limo.
The next person to make fun of Scientology gets a surprise visit from Travolta and his payload.
Microprose (Score:4, Interesting)
It was quite an interesting change, whereas in most other combat flight simulators like Falcon 3.0 and F15 Strike Eagle I would be actively seeking a fight with any enemy on my radar and pumping them full of sidewinders or 20MM, in F117A the mission is to avoid the enemy patrols and ground radars
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, I found this weird bug that if I had my pitch at just the right degree and was flying at the max ceiling. I could fly across the entire mediteranean on zero fuel. Of course, this meant only one chance to land the sucker...
But on more than one occasion I took out my target, was low on fuel...jetted up to 50,000ft and pointed my noise in just
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.
Re:What are they working on now? (Score:4, Interesting)
The SR-71 is one of my all time favorite planes. One has to remember it was built with 1960's tech, as such digital computers and camera's weren't available yet.
Re:What are they working on now? (Score:5, Interesting)
The F-22 is the real "stealth fighter". The F-117A was the stealth attack craft/tactical bomber.
Fighters usually aren't all that super secret. But reconnaissance, and strategic assault vehicles. Now those are secret.
The F-117A's mission is likely to be super-seded by unmanned stealth drones.
The SR-71 was retired a while back. The F-117A was NOT a replacement for the SR-71. Rather, both operated concurrently for some time.
The mostly likely replacement for the Blackbird is the Aurora project. Sometimes caught by seismologists and observers. Rumored to use a a pulsating scramjet and being the mach 5-8 range.
Then there is the B2 (flying wing) bomber and the B1-B The B1-B being famous for numerous crashes. Though very few in later years. What was the change? The government had been only doing 85% of the maintenance recommended for the bombers by it's manufacturers. They began doing the full maintenance recommended maintenance, fluid changes, etc. Things ceased failing...go figure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Travelling through Madrid airport in the summer of 2003 there was a series of display cases with every Lockhead Martin aircraft every made. Gorgeous little wooden carvings. When I saw this beauty [flickr.com] I nearly dropped from shock. Then I walked backwards on the travelator to snap the pic - hence the horrible blur. There is also a c [flickr.com]
Re:What are they working on now? (Score:5, Informative)
Say hello to the Tu-160 [wikipedia.org]. And, yes, it look an awful lot like the B-1.
Also note that the B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach 1.25 at altitude. The rapid advances in air-to-air missiles in the 1960s and 1970s changed USAF planing for bomber missions. Instead of flying high and fast (which just makes you a perfect target for SAMs unless you're an SR-71) the idea is fast and low, which is why the B-1s mission profile was changed to flying very fast at very low altitudes. Of course now the thing usually just hangs out on station waiting to be told where to drop its bombs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Prince John: Wow! How's it work?
Sheriff of Rottingham: It's rather simple. You get one of these heavy boulders, put it here where I'm sitting, and then pull on that lever.
Prince John: Like this?
[John pulls the lever and flings Mervin into the air]
Sheriff of Rottingham: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGG
Re:What are they working on now? (Score:4, Funny)
'Fighter?' (Score:2)
Re:'Fighter?' (Score:5, Informative)
More information on the role of the F-117 can be found at Frontline [pbs.org], AirToAirCombat.com [airtoaircombat.com], FAS [fas.org] as well as other sources on the intertubes. Last link has pictures of the aircraft as well as pictures and a non-Flash video of the aftermath of the only F-117 to ever be shot down. In this case, over Serbia.
Deprecated Warfighting (Score:4, Interesting)
Two bombs, no Air-to-Air capability other than playing "How not to be seen." really well, and subsonic speeds just seemed to make the F-117 come across as oddball in my eyes. Either the F-22 has better stealth than we realize, or there's something newer, more stealthier and more secretive coming around.
Re: (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.
B-52 reverse-Stealth System (Score:4, Interesting)
A similar idea had been proposed for the B-52's a few years ago. Since you can't really make such a craft stealth, how do you keep them viable.
Well B-52s are mainly used in one of two capacities. Single bomber support role, carpet bombing (albeit with more intelligent bombs these days) in prep for a land transaction. Or the more purposeful original intention of a strategic bomber. In which case a whole flight of bombers would be sent out to level much foe.
But with radar and missiles, how can such aircraft get to their targets.
I used to work on a 90ft schooner (sailboat for the landlubbers). Anyways, we had a radar reflector that would make us show up much larger on radar.
The idea was to go the opposite route. Instead of stealth, have all the B-52's light up those radars as bright as they can. So instead of seeing the large B-52 on the radar you'd see something akin to the size of the ships in Independence Day. Huge giant radar blob. In fact dozens of giant radar blobs.
So yes, you'd know something was coming. The radar makes that clear. But trying to pin point it's exact position and mobilize fighters becomes more challenging because well, it's showing up in almost a mile of air space or more. I don't think the Air Force ever went thru with the expense. But one never knows...it might have been done and listed as $200 toilet seats.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the radar signature of the F-22 compare to the F-117.
Another big issue, might have been China's development of tying the RADAR units together and analyzing the data so that they could track the F-117A. Defeating it's stealth capabilities.
Such a blow pretty much made the craft useless strategically and only of good in small tactical situations against poorly equipped foes.
Stealthiness comparison: F-117 vs. F-22 (Score:3, Informative)
How does the radar signature of the F-22 compare to the F-117.
Very favorably [centennialofflight.gov], from what I've seen....
"Aircraft designers generally describe an airplane's radar cross section in terms of "decibel square meters," or dBsm. This is an analogy that compares the plane's radar reflectivity to the radar reflectivity of an aluminum sphere of a certain size. The B-2 reportedly has a radar signature of an aluminum marble. The F-22 Raptor interceptor is roughly the same, and the F-117 is only slightly less stealthy. The newer Joint Strike Fighter has the signature of an alumi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:5, Interesting)
The size was another compromise (smaller = easier to hide), and the engines didn't have afterburners to minimise the IR signature, which meant no supersonic flight. Radar technology wasn't advanced enough to build a low-observable (or Low Probability of Intercept, LPI) air search radar, and a 1970's radar would compromise the aircraft's stealthiness even when turned off.
Oddball maybe, but the F-117 was the best possible design with 1970s technology. To get it to work at all, everything else had to be sacrificed for the one mission that couldn't be done by any other platform: surprise attacks.
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:4, Informative)
Both. The F-22 is the first true stealth fighter, the B-2 is the first true stealth bomber. The F-117 was really a stealth hack. That said, given the long developement times on aircraft, there is always something newer in the works. Also, fighters (among other things) are made to be upgradeable over their lifespan. There have been 3 different generations of the F-18 for the military alone and the older ones are usually upgraded along the way instead of being replaced. That is in addition to 'minor' upgrades such as electronics. If you want to know what is cuttin edge today, you need a high level security clearance and to be in the need to know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The F-22 might not have better stealth than we realize, but it is pretty clear that it is a whole new class of aircraft(beating expert F-15 pilots 3 to 1 is no joke) and i
Re:Deprecated Warfighting (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Imperial assloads (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, though, that's a fairly nice analysis.
Re:Imperial assloads (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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 fut
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have those already, they're called cruise missiles. They don't help much when the enemy is dropping bombs on your from their own planes. Problem with drones is that they'll likely be chewed to pieces by the enemy fighter planes.
And that's fine. The air superiority role is being filled by the F-22 and I don't really see that role falling to drones at any point, with the exception of the distant future. Meat in the seat can still make decisions that autonomous aircraft can't, and have a level of adaptation that remote aircraft don't have yet.
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 loit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are forgetting that fighter/attack aircraft lifecycles are much shorter than airlift/tanker lifecycles. There isn't a technology "race" with airlifters and tankers, or heavy strategic bombers like the B-52. Fighter/attack systems are obsoleted much more quickly.
Another factor in retiring the
Meanwhile... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A good plane (Score:5, Interesting)
We developed this plane in secret, with borrowed theories from the russians. The plane itself came out of a corporate Manhattan project, built by a combination of old salts who could wave their hands and make grumpy generalizations about engine configuration that hours of calculations would bear out and younger engineers employing technology that wasn't readily available outside the united states.
It was kept secret until we felt the need to unveil it as the epitome of american superiority in Panama and the gulf war. We spent a decade lauding the precision strike capability, ignoring reports that smart bombs were only so smart. Only in the past 5 years have we grudgingly come to accept that there were limitations to the strategy of aerial bombardment, limitations that hampered our ability to fight and killed civilians on the ground. But that doesn't make this plane or its pilots evil or murderous. We just became caught up in the technology, the gritty night vision cameras resulting in static filled screens where buildings used to be.
In a lot of ways, that is similar to our love affair with this plane. Ugly, but elegant. Unflyable without computer aided control but possessing strangely beautiful lines. Born of american ingenuity and sullied by hubris. It is a wonderful aircraft, and a great story. Thanks to the men (and women) who built it and flew it throughout the years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To be honest, they're not all that big either.... apart from those 3 points, the GGP is spot on ;).
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.
Ben Rich's Book Highly Recommended (Score:5, Informative)
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.
F-22 Not a skunk works project (Score:3, Informative)
The F-22 is impressive to see (Score:5, Interesting)
"replace" is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
F-22s are much more expensive than F-15s. In theory, they are able to provide more kills-per-sortie than the F-15, so we would need fewer of them. The problem with that is that, despite supersonic cruise, there is only so much airspace that an F-22 can control, so, if the missions are geographically dispersed, a larger number of F-15s can provide more coverage.
There is no longer an opposing air force in Iraq, and the Iranians were stupid enough to buy planes from us, so they don't really have one, either. Other than the US, there is almost no long-range bomber capability, so the only remaining function for the F-22 is as an escort for B-2s on first-strike missions into nations with active fighter forces, such as Russia, China, and Western Europe (if they don't stop picking on Microsoft).
No... (Score:3, Interesting)
> replaced by the F-22 Raptor
No it's not. The F-22 is an air-superiority fighter that is replacing the F-15 in that role. The F-117 is being replaced by nothing.
This retirement leaves the USAF with no dedicated long-range tactical interdictors at all. While this gives them an excuse to fly the otherwise ridiculously overpriced B-1 and B-2 on these missions, it also means that in a hot-war they have a very real capability shortfall past the range of the F-16 or F-35.
Maury
I loved that plane,.. thanks to Microprose.. (Score:3, Interesting)
(Admitedly they change the name / details somewhat) but god damn that was a brilliant simulation for the C64, really great gameplay - well thought out levels and sadly it even taught me some geography (I still know where those SAMS are located in the Libyan campaigns)
Re: F-117A Stealth Fighter Retired (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, Microsoft seem to get a lot of press even though they murder application and OS design and implementation all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)