Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-117, Why Wasn't It Called B-117?  
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7769 times:

This might seem like a really stupid question, but if the F-117 stealth jet was technically a light bomber why was it given a fighter designation. It should have logically been called the B-117 like its stealth cousin the B-2. ??? Anybody know why that happend ???


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7754 times:

Well first of all, it wasn't a bomber, it was a ground-attack airplane. Ground attack airplanes among other things are of a tactical nature, where as bombers are strategic.

Additionally the fighter designation was used deliberately to mislead our enemies into thinking it was a fighter development not a ground attack airplane.


Blackbird


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7751 times:

I believe the "B" designation is reserved for heavy strategic bombers, IE the B-52, B-1, and B-2.

User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7712 times:

I was told by my professor (and I've heard it from other sources) that the F-designation was used to attract the best pilots in the AF who were needed because of the flight characteristics (or lack of them). The best pilots will however not settle for a A-117/B-117 since it gives them little bragging rights among their pilot buddies.

Maybe just a urban legend. I'm as curious as the OP about the 'F'.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7700 times:

'F-117' was to throw any spys off of the trail of this program. The higher 'F-11X' numbers were being used as designations for foreign aircraft that the USAF was evaluating. So if 'F-117' slipped up in a document somewhere, it would be lumped in with the other evaluation aircraft.

Technically it is not a fighter, but I am sure there was an aspect of bluff with the Fighter designation. The Soviets were scared of the F-117, and the idea that it was a fighter too probably made it more intimidating.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7492 times:

TGIF,

Are all fighter pilots better in skill than all bomber pilots though?


Blackbird


User currently offlineDODCFR From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7490 times:

Ever hear of the F-11?

User currently offlineDODCFR From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7490 times:

Sorry, that's F-111

User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

According to one of the chief designers, from a program on the Military Channel, the Air Force wanted fighter pilots to fly the F-117. If it was a FB-117 they would not attract the fighter jocks. Same reason it was painted Black, so he said.

Jmo



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7347 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 5):
Are all fighter pilots better in skill than all bomber pilots though?

That I'm not so sure of. But as Jmo said, it's perhaps easier to attract many pilots if they know they'll be flying a 'fighter'. With a large group to select from, it's probably easier to find the person best suited for the task.

I'm in now way saying one type of pilot is better than the other. This was just the reason I was given by my professor.


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2349 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7339 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 5):
Are all fighter pilots better in skill than all bomber pilots though?

To hear most fighter pilots tell it, yes.  Wink



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7306 times:

Moose135,

Quote:
To hear most fighter pilots tell it, yes.  Wink

Yeah, well they're going to say they're the best. What I want to know is -- are they *actually* better in skill than all bomber pilots...


Blackbird


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7304 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 11):
What I want to know is -- are they *actually* better in skill than all bomber pilots...

How long is a piece of string? It is a very subjective question and there is no empirical evidence to suggest any group is "better" than another.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

Then how do they decide (in the old days at least) who ended up in TAC, SAC, ADC, and AMC (Now they have different command set-ups which I forgot, I know there's ACC, AMC... but I don't know if there's anything else)?


Blackbird


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7258 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
Then how do they decide (in the old days at least) who ended up in TAC, SAC, ADC, and AMC (Now they have different command set-ups which I forgot, I know there's ACC, AMC... but I don't know if there's anything else)?

When I went through UPT, everyone in the class was ranked by using academic and flying scores. The highest person was number one and the lowest person was at the end of the list. On assignment night, the top guy got his choice and as the list got smaller and smaller the choices dwindled. Finally, the last guy got the one remaining aircraft.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7247 times:

PhilSquares,

So the first guy got his pick, then the second guy got his pick based on what was left, and so on?

I would assume nobody on the top would have ever picked ADC, SAC, MAC, over TAC (the olde commands), huh?


Blackbird


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7243 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 15):
I would assume nobody on the top would have ever picked ADC, SAC, MAC, over TAC (the olde commands), huh?

In my block of assignments we had 2 F-4, 1 T-33, 3 T-38, 2 T-37, 5 C-141, 5 C-130, 5 KC-135 and 2 B-52. The F4 slots went to the first 2 guys, the 141 and went next, then the T-33. IIRC, the 135s went at the end. Everyone has their reasons for picking their aircraft, but the system seemed to work then. Not quite sure how it's done now.


User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7186 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
When I went through UPT, everyone in the class was ranked by using academic and flying scores. The highest person was number one and the lowest person was at the end of the list. On assignment night, the top guy got his choice and as the list got smaller and smaller the choices dwindled. Finally, the last guy got the one remaining aircraft.

I'm sure you'll be indifferent to know that i still works that way  Smile At least it did 4 years ago when I was stationed at a UPT base.


User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 329 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7181 times:

I found a F117 parked at Holloman AFB:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=s...978&spn=0.004845,0.005397&t=h&z=18



Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2349 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7161 times:



Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 17):
I'm sure you'll be indifferent to know that i still works that way. At least it did 4 years ago when I was stationed at a UPT base.

Really? Because I went through UPT in 1984, about 7 years after PhilSquares, and the process was different then what he described, although I flew with guys who went through that sort of selection system.

About half way through T-38 phase, we were rated as "Fighter/Attack/Recon" (FAR) qualified or "Tanker/Transport/Bomber" (TTB) qualified. You submitted a "dream sheet" listing your choices of aircraft, in order, along with broad geographic preferences - there were about 30 spots on the form, and you had to fill them all in. Actually, you filled in the "dream sheet' before you found out if you were FAR/TTB. The personnel types at HQAF went through the list of assignments and matched up people based on available aircraft, class rank, FAR/TTB rating, and other factors.

What usually happened was the top 2 or 3 in the class got their choice of assignment, then the next bunch were siphoned off to be FAIPs (First Assignment Instructor Pilot) back at your base, then from there it was mix and match to get people assigned. Although I had a number of fighters up top on my sheet, I was TTB, and got my first choice in that group, the KC-135. Other than stating our preferences on the "dream sheet" we didn't have much say in our assignment. And you are wondering, if you were FAR qual, but requested a heavy, you usually received it - unless they FAIPed you, as was the case with my first T-38 IP.

For the final portion of UPT, the FAR guys got more formation rides, the TTB did more instrument work, but that was about the only difference. These days, from what I understand, they make a similar type of rating determination after the T-6 phase, and the fighter types (actually I think that includes bombers now also) go on to the T-38, while the heavy guys fly the T-1 Jayhawk.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineStudedave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7152 times:



Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 18):
I found a F117 parked at Holloman AFB:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=s...&z=18

Digg all the F-4s on the other side of the base!!! Look to the North East...



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7045 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 19):

From my conversations with the pilots it was my understanding after the T37's each class was ranked on their performance up to that point. The top of the class got his choice, and it went down from there. The guys that got cargo/tankers went to the BE40's and the fighters/bombers went T38. Perhaps, though, it's just as you described the top few get their choice and rest of the details are more complicated.


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

The nice thing about going to UNT or UPT from a Guard unit is you know what you are going to get. The downside for pilots is if you don't get FAR'ed, then you have to find another unit. When I was in UNT, it bummed out my active duty classmates to hear that I could finish last in the class and still get an F-4 while they were destined to ride in the belly of the Buff.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-117, Why Wasn't It Called B-117?
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...
Flight Time To ISS - Why Does It Take So Long? posted Sat Mar 8 2008 03:16:45 by Flexo
RAH-66 Commanche-Why Can't It Replace The Apache? posted Sun May 13 2007 05:12:53 by AirRyan
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Blackburn Buccaneer: Why Was It So Popular. posted Fri Jun 10 2005 20:08:35 by DIJKKIJK
ES-3A Shadow - Why Was It Retired? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:35:34 by Ghostbase
Why F-117? posted Sun Aug 19 2001 20:53:03 by Fireblade
Coolest Paint Job Ever On A F-117 posted Mon Apr 21 2008 23:09:35 by HaveBlue
F-117 Stealth Fighter Is Being Retired! posted Tue Mar 11 2008 17:10:51 by GulfstreamGuy
F-117 Put On Display posted Tue Mar 4 2008 17:56:14 by 474218
F-117 Retirement Debate posted Sun Jan 20 2008 19:30:00 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format