Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-117 Stealth Fighter Headed For The Boneyard  
User currently offlineN5176Y From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 16635 times:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../Feb-16-Thu-2006/news/5907352.html  Sad

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16621 times:

More evidence of belt tightening. F-22, F-35, UAV's are the new tip of the spear.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineWarthogLover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16607 times:

Just because it's going to the boneyard doesn't mean it's going to be scrapped. They'll probably keep it in Level 2 (Is that the right one?) storage.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16606 times:

Guys....relax a little here. They are pushing the planned retirement date of this 30 year old (yeah, some are less than that, I would place the average age of the airplanes at around 23 years) airplane up by 3 years so they can put a few more F-22s out.

It's a worthwhile trade, if you consider the fact that the F-117 was due for retirement in 2011 anyway.

[Edited 2006-02-17 06:22:14]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16575 times:

And it's not like the whole fleet will be just left to sit in the Boneyard. At least Write Patterson AFB and The Smithsonian will each get one, and likely Nellis, Tonapa , and Edwards AFB. But that still leaves over 40.


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16488 times:

Pretty poorly written article IMHO...

"The aircraft was made with off-the-shelf parts: the landing gear from an F-15, the engines are from F-18s, and the controls F-16 and on and on. Some of those parts might not even be manufactured now because some of those aircraft have been retired from the fleet," Fuller said.

Riiiiiight.

Watch the AF regret this decision next time we need a surgical strike done overnight. They regretted moving some of those B-1's to AMARC, I think this is a similar mistake.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16437 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5):
Pretty poorly written article IMHO...

"The aircraft was made with off-the-shelf parts: the landing gear from an F-15, the engines are from F-18s, and the controls F-16 and on and on. Some of those parts might not even be manufactured now because some of those aircraft have been retired from the fleet," Fuller said.

Riiiiiight.

Howso? Thats all correct:

Quote:

Some of the components modified for the F-117 include its quadruple- redundant flight-control system (based on the one in the General Dynamics F-16) and cockpit environmental control system (a portion of the ECS in a Lockheed C-130). The F-117's two General Electric F404-GE-FID2 engines are nonafterburning derivatives of the powerplant in the Navy's McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 fighter/attack aircraft.

From Airforce Association Magazine.


How many of those parts are produced today verses newer versions for newer models of the above aircraft? The F-117 is being retired for the same reasons the Concorde was - low numbers make spare parts manufacturing uneconomical.

Since the F-22 can carry out the same roll, the F-117 is hardly needed anymore.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16412 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
Howso? Thats all correct:

Some, but the way they were making it sound was that a huge majority of the aircraft were already retired- not true. There's only a handful of Hornets in storage, a number of F-15's and F-16's, but not near what's in the current inventory. I don't doubt that the parts shortage is there though, parts in general are hard to come by sometimes.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16306 times:

Some of those aircraft ARE no longer in production.

..."The engines of the F-18..."
F/A-18C/D production ended in 1999.
C/D engines: F404-GE-402
E/F engines: F414-GE-400

I would also expect substantial changes in the ECS for the C-130J.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16254 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
Since the F-22 can carry out the same roll, the F-117 is hardly needed anymore.

The problem is that there isn't anywhere near a 1-to-1 replacement. Latest numbers are that for about every 12 to 13 F-117s retired, the USAF will order ONE more F-22.

Now, looking at it the other way around, you're planning a series strike missions... would you rather have 12 F-117s or 1 F-22?


User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 16126 times:

Quote:
Watch the AF regret this decision next time we need a surgical strike done overnight.

I wouldn't count on them regreting their decision in the future. Moving the retirement date of the F-117 up was part of the QDR. Also in the QDR are recommendations for improved global strike capabilities. Those will include using ICBMs with conventional warheads and SLBMs with conventional warheads. It also moved up the IOC of a new long range bomber to 2018 IIRC. These three systems, along with improvement in UAVs is meant to compenstate for the loss of the F-117s. Is it a perfect solution? Maybe, time will tell. But I wouldn't count on the retirement mattering much if the USAF and USn actually are able to convert those missiles to conventional strike.

Another consideration will be Congress. It will probably be very difficult to convince Congress to retire these birds early. Look for them to be retired over a long time period...5-10 years or more. DoD recomendations are one thing...Congressional action is something else

my 2 cents

IADBGO


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 16064 times:

I suspect there is a replacement in the wings. The F-111 was retired with no real replacement. A medium range, medium weight (and medium cost) bomber would be a good fit in today's service. There has been evidence of an effort to develope just such a place based on the YF-23. The ability to deliver a medium sized load of precision munitions is something the airforce doesn't have with the exception of the F-15E, which isn't very stealthy.

http://members.cox.net/joerg2/FB-23.jpg

Respectfully,

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 16046 times:

Quote:
I suspect there is a replacement in the wings. The F-111 was retired with no real replacement.

There is no replacement in the wings so to speak. There is one the new long range strike aircraft that will be coming online late next decade, but that is about it for now. USAF is going to get along just fine until then with its B-1s B-2s, B-52s and F-117s. As they transition the F-117s and B-52s out over the next decade the B-2s and B-1s will have to step in until the conventional missiles (ICBMs and SLBMs) and the new strike aircraft come on line. The requirements for the new long range strike aircraft have not even be finalized yet, so we won't be seeing a new aircraft anytime soon.

IADBGO


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15974 times:

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 4):
At least Write Patterson AFB and The Smithsonian will each get one, and likely Nellis, Tonapa , and Edwards AFB.

I don't know about the others but there is already one sitting in the AF museum at Wright Patterson.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15940 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 9):
The problem is that there isn't anywhere near a 1-to-1 replacement. Latest numbers are that for about every 12 to 13 F-117s retired, the USAF will order ONE more F-22.

Now, looking at it the other way around, you're planning a series strike missions... would you rather have 12 F-117s or 1 F-22?

This may be true, but the F-22 is being purchase in overall greater numbers than the F-117 ever was. You dont need to replace them 1:1 because theres already a greater purchasing run going on, so when the numbers come out, the F-22 to F-117 ratio will be more like 4:1 purchased.

So what would you rather have, 45 aircraft with a single role, or 200 aircraft that can also carry out that role and many others?

[Edited 2006-02-20 15:55:32]

User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15907 times:

The F-22 is not meant to be a direct replacement for the F-117. While the F-22 has become a multi-mission aircraft the USAF will not be using the F-22 exclusivly to replace the F-117. The F-117s role is being absorbed by other assets. B-1s, B-2s B-52s equiped with ALCMs and new conventional strike ICBMs and SLBMs.

IADBGO


User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15829 times:

Quoting IADBGO (Reply 10):
Those will include using ICBMs with conventional warheads and SLBMs with conventional warheads.

You will not see conventionally armed ICBMs or SLBMs. The reason being that any observed launch of one is automatically assumed to be nuclear and nobody is going to wait for the first impact before launching their own. strategic missiles will always be associated with WMD.


User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15788 times:

Quote:
You will not see conventionally armed ICBMs or SLBMs. The reason being that any observed launch of one is automatically assumed to be nuclear and nobody is going to wait for the first impact before launching their own. strategic missiles will always be associated with WMD.

Who is going to 'see' the launch? The only nation that has the capability to see a launch on radar is the Russians. The Chinese don't have the capability, a terrorist group doesn't have radar, Iran doesn't have the right type of radar....Russia is the only nation that can 'see' an ICBM/SLBM launch. When they do see a launch their radar tells them within a minute where it is going.

Is this a potential issue? Sure...is it an insurmountable one? Not at all.

IADBGO


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-117 Stealth Fighter Headed For The Boneyard
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Future Of The F-117 Stealth posted Tue Feb 5 2002 03:52:05 by Hamfist
Boeing Confirms Further Delays For The 737 AEW&C posted Fri May 25 2007 14:00:21 by WINGS
Last Roar For The RAF Jaguars posted Tue May 1 2007 20:22:11 by GDB
"new" C130 For The Belgium Airforce posted Tue Apr 10 2007 19:47:35 by HeliflyerPDC
New Support Helicopters For The RAF posted Sat Mar 31 2007 00:51:48 by GDB
New Aircraft For The Army Golden Knights? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 05:28:31 by Scottieprecord
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
How Much Did Mitsubishi Pay For The F-15 License? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 04:48:59 by Garnetpalmetto
Navy Stealth Fighter posted Thu Nov 30 2006 17:55:39 by EBJ1248650
Becoming A Pilot For The US Navy posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:16:30 by Turpentyine
F-117 Stealth Fighter Is Being Retired! posted Tue Mar 11 2008 17:10:51 by GulfstreamGuy
Stealth Corporate Jets For The Govt posted Sat Nov 3 2007 20:17:06 by DL767captain
Future Of The F-117 Stealth posted Tue Feb 5 2002 03:52:05 by Hamfist
More Grief For The F-35... posted Thu Sep 1 2011 05:01:23 by JoeCanuck
China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Leaked Footage posted Thu Jun 30 2011 13:14:08 by tripleboom
Any Replacements For The C-5 Galaxy On The Horizon posted Thu Apr 21 2011 20:52:23 by 444Pilot
Lockheed & Boeing Designs For The C-17 Contract? posted Sun Mar 27 2011 11:48:18 by 747400sp
Chinese Stealth Fighter Emerges... posted Mon Dec 27 2010 12:44:39 by alberchico
Wrist Watches For The US Air Force Pilots? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 21:37:02 by wardialer
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:56:14 by JoeCanuck

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format