F-117 to be retired this year

[Darkwing]

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088771

Doesn't seem like they have been around long enough to retire them.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Darkwing wrote:
> http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088771
>
> Doesn't seem like they have been around long enough to retire them.
>
>

According to the article 27 years and I'd bet they main reason is they
probably need to be re-skinned in order to maintain their stealth. And
that would probably cost more now than building them did when they were
new.

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088771
>
> Doesn't seem like they have been around long enough to retire them.

20+ years of service for the first iteration of such a breakthrough
technology is a pretty good run IMO. Make no mistake--the F-117 is a success
story given the amount of untold $trillions spent on technologies that never
made it to a deployable stage.

I think we'll see even shorter lifespans for some of our newer weapons
systems as advancements in research gets steeper and steeper.

Marco

[Tina]

I wonder if the thought is the F117's mission can be done with
pilotless drones now? Why risk a pilot if he or she can be replaced
with GPS and an IC chip?

I'm ignorant of such things, maybe someone with more information can
tell us what 117 mission could not have been accomplished by a
remotely controlled stealthy drone.



On Mar 10, 10:12*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088771
>
> Doesn't seem like they have been around long enough to retire them.

[John T]

"Tina" > wrote in message

> I wonder if the thought is the F117's mission can be done with
> pilotless drones now? Why risk a pilot if he or she can be replaced
> with GPS and an IC chip?

We're close to being there. Boeing and others are working on combat UAVs,
but the technology is still very much in the R&D phase. Meanwhile, the -117
is beng replaced by the F-22 Raptor which by all the accounts I've read, is
quite a bit more capable than the -117.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

John T wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
>> I wonder if the thought is the F117's mission can be done with
>> pilotless drones now? Why risk a pilot if he or she can be replaced
>> with GPS and an IC chip?
>
> We're close to being there. Boeing and others are working on combat UAVs,
> but the technology is still very much in the R&D phase. Meanwhile, the -117
> is beng replaced by the F-22 Raptor which by all the accounts I've read, is
> quite a bit more capable than the -117.
>

The big draw back is the F-117 should have been called the A-117 as it
really isn't a fighter. It has no ability to defend itself except to
hide which it does very well. Remember it is a night only weapon which
does limit it's usefulness somewhat.

The USAF needs the cash to buy F22s. That thing is almost as stealthy as
the F117 and has shown the ability to beat F15s in 2 on 8 before the 8
F15s have even know the 2 F22s are there. And it will carry bombs.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, John T > posted:
>
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>
>>> I wonder if the thought is the F117's mission can be done with
>>> pilotless drones now? Why risk a pilot if he or she can be replaced
>>> with GPS and an IC chip?
>> We're close to being there. Boeing and others are working on combat
>> UAVs, but the technology is still very much in the R&D phase.
>> Meanwhile, the -117 is beng replaced by the F-22 Raptor which by all
>> the accounts I've read, is quite a bit more capable than the -117.
>>
> Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?
>
> Neil
>
>
>

Sure the F22 can do what the F117 can do and defend itself. The only
exception is the ability of the 117 to carry a 2K pound bomb.

F22 Load

Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing
root, 480 rounds
Air to air loadout:
6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
Air to ground loadout:
2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs


F117 Load

2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two weapons)
equipped to carry:
Bombs:
BLU-109 hardened penetrator
GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
JDAM INS/GPS guided munition

[Darkwing]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>> Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?
>>>
>>
>> Sure the F22 can do what the F117 can do and defend itself. The only
>> exception is the ability of the 117 to carry a 2K pound bomb.
>>
>> F22 Load
>>
>> Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing
>> root, 480 rounds
>> Air to air loadout:
>> 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
>> Air to ground loadout:
>> 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
>> 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
>> 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
>> 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
>>
>>
>> F117 Load
>>
>> 2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two
>> weapons) equipped to carry:
>> Bombs:
>> BLU-109 hardened penetrator
>> GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>> GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>> GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
>> JDAM INS/GPS guided munition
>>
> This doesn't look all that similar to me. The F-117 seems to be a stealth
> strike configuration, while the F-22 is also suited to be an air-to-air
> fighter, more like a stealthy replacement for the F-16. What am I
> overlooking?
>
> Best,
>
> Neil
>
>
>

Hopefully it is a good replacement for the F-15 because they seem to be
having a lot of airframe issues!

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John T > posted:

> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
>> I wonder if the thought is the F117's mission can be done with
>> pilotless drones now? Why risk a pilot if he or she can be replaced
>> with GPS and an IC chip?
>
> We're close to being there. Boeing and others are working on combat
> UAVs, but the technology is still very much in the R&D phase.
> Meanwhile, the -117 is beng replaced by the F-22 Raptor which by all
> the accounts I've read, is quite a bit more capable than the -117.
>
Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?
>>>
>> Sure the F22 can do what the F117 can do and defend itself. The only
>> exception is the ability of the 117 to carry a 2K pound bomb.
>>
>> F22 Load
>>
>> Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing
>> root, 480 rounds
>> Air to air loadout:
>> 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
>> Air to ground loadout:
>> 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
>> 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
>> 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
>> 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
>>
>>
>> F117 Load
>>
>> 2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two
>> weapons) equipped to carry:
>> Bombs:
>> BLU-109 hardened penetrator
>> GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>> GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>> GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
>> JDAM INS/GPS guided munition
>>
> This doesn't look all that similar to me. The F-117 seems to be a stealth
> strike configuration, while the F-22 is also suited to be an air-to-air
> fighter, more like a stealthy replacement for the F-16. What am I
> overlooking?
>
> Best,
>
> Neil
>

As I mentioned the F22 is lacking the ability to drop the 2K pound bombs
that the F117 can but it can drop all of these (plus probably some
stuff that is classified) and in some of the cases it can do it at
speeds above Mach 1. But over all it has the same number of hard points
as the F117.

2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>> Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?
>>
>
> Sure the F22 can do what the F117 can do and defend itself. The only
> exception is the ability of the 117 to carry a 2K pound bomb.
>
> F22 Load
>
> Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing
> root, 480 rounds
> Air to air loadout:
> 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
> Air to ground loadout:
> 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
> 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
> 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
> 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
>
>
> F117 Load
>
> 2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two
> weapons) equipped to carry:
> Bombs:
> BLU-109 hardened penetrator
> GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
> GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
> GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
> JDAM INS/GPS guided munition
>
This doesn't look all that similar to me. The F-117 seems to be a stealth
strike configuration, while the F-22 is also suited to be an air-to-air
fighter, more like a stealthy replacement for the F-16. What am I
overlooking?

Best,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder > posted:
>>
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Are the missions of the F-117 and F-22 all that similar?
>>>>
>>> Sure the F22 can do what the F117 can do and defend itself. The only
>>> exception is the ability of the 117 to carry a 2K pound bomb.
>>>
>>> F22 Load
>>>
>>> Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing
>>> root, 480 rounds
>>> Air to air loadout:
>>> 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
>>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
>>> Air to ground loadout:
>>> 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
>>> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
>>> 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
>>> 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
>>> 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
>>>
>>>
>>> F117 Load
>>>
>>> 2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two
>>> weapons) equipped to carry:
>>> Bombs:
>>> BLU-109 hardened penetrator
>>> GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>>> GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
>>> GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
>>> JDAM INS/GPS guided munition
>>>
>> This doesn't look all that similar to me. The F-117 seems to be a
>> stealth strike configuration, while the F-22 is also suited to be an
>> air-to-air fighter, more like a stealthy replacement for the F-16.
>> What am I overlooking?
>>
>
> As I mentioned the F22 is lacking the ability to drop the 2K pound
> bombs that the F117 can but it can drop all of these (plus probably
> some stuff that is classified) and in some of the cases it can do it
> at speeds above Mach 1. But over all it has the same number of hard
> points as the F117.
>
I had asked about whether the missions were similar. The F-22 appears to
be a replacement for the F-15/16 in that regard, and in that it is a >
Mach 1, all-weather, day/night aircraft, it doesn't look like an F-117
replacement to me at all. I suspect that the F-117's mission was made
obsolete by a combination of other technologies.

Best,

Neil

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
>The big draw back is the F-117 should have been called the A-117 as it
>really isn't a fighter. It has no ability to defend itself except to
>hide which it does very well. Remember it is a night only weapon which
>does limit it's usefulness somewhat.
>

I always wondered what the AF was thinking when they came up with the F-117
designation. There's absolutely nothing "fighter" about it. Even older
attack jets like the A-7 had some ability to engage other aircraft.

Years ago at Holloman I asked an F-117 pilot about the fighter designation.
His reply was that he didn't know either. He said, "Everyone knows that this
thing couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag".

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

[John T]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:80f848127db8c@uwe
>
> I always wondered what the AF was thinking when they came up with
> the F-117 designation.

"Misdirection" is the best explanation I've heard from back in its "black"
days.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et
>
> I had asked about whether the missions were similar. The F-22 appears
> to be a replacement for the F-15/16 in that regard, and in that it is
> a > Mach 1, all-weather, day/night aircraft, it doesn't look like an
> F-117 replacement to me at all. I suspect that the F-117's mission
> was made obsolete by a combination of other technologies.

You are correct in that the -22 was designed as a 21st century air
superiority aircraft to replace the -15. However, given its superior stealth
(at least that's what I've heard), far faster speed and ability to carry
significant air-to-ground ordnance, it can replace most of the mission of
the -117 and the -15E Strike Eagle in one airframe.

While I agree the -22 is not the bomber the -117 is, I think it's still an
adequate replacement.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Dave S]

Neil Gould wrote:

> I had asked about whether the missions were similar. The F-22 appears to
> be a replacement for the F-15/16 in that regard, and in that it is a >
> Mach 1, all-weather, day/night aircraft, it doesn't look like an F-117
> replacement to me at all. I suspect that the F-117's mission was made
> obsolete by a combination of other technologies.
>
> Best,
>
> Neil
>
>

F117 is an air to ground machine, and first generation stealth
the F22 is both air to air and air to ground.

The F15 was both air to air and later generations had an air to ground
role. F16 was a cheaper lighter multirole machine.

The 117 used laser guided munitions primarily (which require a laser
designator to illuminate the target).

The F22 uses primarily GPS guided munitions (JDAM) for its big bang, AND
can defend itself - has a gun AND sidewinders AND AMRAAM's.

The F22 replaces the F117 and THEN some. And for the price each one
costs, they darn well better.

[Dave S]

John T wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
> news:80f848127db8c@uwe
>> I always wondered what the AF was thinking when they came up with
>> the F-117 designation.
>
> "Misdirection" is the best explanation I've heard from back in its "black"
> days.
>

They wanted **** hot fighter pilots to fly it, and the powers that be
felt that no self respecting ****-hot fighter jockey would want to fly a
bomber.

At least thats the allegation I heard on the internet.. so it MUST be true..

[Ross]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>
>>The big draw back is the F-117 should have been called the A-117 as it
>>really isn't a fighter. It has no ability to defend itself except to
>>hide which it does very well. Remember it is a night only weapon which
>>does limit it's usefulness somewhat.
>>
>
>
> I always wondered what the AF was thinking when they came up with the F-117
> designation. There's absolutely nothing "fighter" about it. Even older
> attack jets like the A-7 had some ability to engage other aircraft.
>
> Years ago at Holloman I asked an F-117 pilot about the fighter designation.
> His reply was that he didn't know either. He said, "Everyone knows that this
> thing couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag".
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

Actually, the F-117 can carry two 2K warheads. And, with the LGB
weapons, it was deadly. This may not be fighter, but at the time with
the stealth technology and being able to fly at night to attack targets,
it was unstoppable. Just remember the first Gulf War in 1990.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI