# F-117 retirement: mistake or correct decision?



## gjs238 (Jul 8, 2010)

Can the F-22 really replace the F-117? Was it really designed to?
Is using the B-2 as a replacement really appropriate? (Sort of like replacing the F-111 with the B-52.)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 8, 2010)

The F-22 was not designed to replace the F-117. The F-117, despite the "F" designation was never a fighter. It was a strike attack aircraft. It didn't carry air-to-air missiles or guns and was subsonic. Realistically, it was an aircraft with a specialized mission, to get in undetected, strike, and get out. It did it well, but that is about all that airplane would do. 

The F-22 was designed to be an air superiority fighter with all the latest technology.

I don't know where you are going with the B-2. The B-52 did not replace the F-111. More like the B-1 replaced the F-111, but only sort of.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2010)

It was 1970's technology that became "dated".


----------



## evangilder (Jul 8, 2010)

Yep, and the advent of the F-22 and F-35 led to the 117's demise. Why have a stealth ground attack airplane that can do nothing else when you can have newer aircraft with stealth technology that can perform multiple roles, including a stealthy strike aircraft.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 9, 2010)

Undecided - No Vote. 

As far as componant servicing procurement costs, the old Nighthawk is so cheap and sustainable now; certain F16, F5, F18 C130 (+ F15?) componants sub-systems were/are used in the Nighthawk because of cheaper developement costs and it is/was easier to hide from 'extremist budgeteers' 'congressional comitees'. 

Although its stealth rcs capability is like an osprey to a apartment buildings B52, newer rads systems software, ground based multi inter-linked (hard networked) radars with advanced computer tech software make it more visible.
And also it has probably reached its structural and weapon hardware upgrade/developement limit.

Borrowed software system wise, it can still use some of the the latest developed componants systems from its contributing a/c (see my 1st serntence), where as the uber expensivelimited production/development project that isrealistically the F22 still has development growth potential in hardware, software, sytems and structure areas.

The real worth of the F22 and the even more problematic cheaper white elephant JSF (F-35 series, although the CTOL 'A'(?) version will end up the longest life version IMHO) are as industrytech/mech/etc R&D test/training/teaching subjects for the real 5th generation aircraft that might be operational around 2030+.

The 117 could still be usefull in some situations, certain to cover the capability gaps between current a/c, the training of Raptors development of Lightnings Too (punn intended)

But this is all my opinion based upon my flawed knowledge.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2010)

It seems the US has a history of retiring useful systems before they are fully replaced, creating capability gaps, for political economic reasons.
With the F-111, F-117 and A-6 now retired, what has truly replaced them? What capability gaps have been created?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 9, 2010)

The F-117 hasn't been completely replaced, however, missile technology and systems in the F-16 and F-15 Strike Eagle can get in to drop their ordinance also, just not with Stealth.

The F-111 and A-6 were cold war weapons, designed for a much different enemy than we have today. We have multiple aircraft that can be used in an attack role without having to continue support for aging equipment. You need to compare the cost of the new systems versus maintenance and upgrade costs of older systems, including potential major overhauls for airframes and structural components that wear out.

The F-117 was a neat airplane that did a very specific mission, and did it pretty well. But is the cost of maintaining a single mission aircraft worth sacrificing funds for other aircraft that can perform multiple missions?


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2010)

I remember similar reasoning for retiring the A-10.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 9, 2010)

The A-10s not retired. It's being upgraded to the C model.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2010)

The F-117 is being replaced by the F-35. it was 1st or even 1.5 generation stealth technology that worked well and served its purpose. Operating the aircraft was expensive and those dollars could be used for other programs like the F-22 and F-35 production and engineering sustainment. The B-2 was designed for an entirely different mission.

The USAF has and will sell its soul to ensure the successful deployment of the F-22 and F-35. Mistakes were made on both programs but in the end I firmly believe they will be successful and will form the backbone of the USAF fighter/ strike contingency.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2010)

So in the meantime...what?


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 9, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I remember similar reasoning for retiring the A-10


You have 
some funny ideas of what's replacing what and what's retiring
The A-10 is not retired, won't be for a while, certainly not while Afghanistan is on-going.

Only my opinion, but I see the A-10 being the next B-52 in terms of operational longevity.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Since there are new platforms coming online or all ready online that can do the F-117's job as good, if not better, and also perform other duties, than yes. Retiring the F-117 is the right choice. Agree on the Warthog Colin! One of my favorite active planes!!!Mean and Green!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 9, 2010)

I don't think it was a mistake. Firstly 'stealth' is not the be all and end all, it can only be a part of the overall package. While the F-117 was the only option for stealth, it had a role. As it no longer is, then it doesn't, as in all other respects its performance and capability (in airframe terms) is mediocre at best. 

There is nothing the F-117 could do that the F-22 cannot do, faster and with a greater range and payload to boot, or that the F-35, 'Phantom Ray' etc will not do in the near future.

gjs 238, so in the meantime, if a LO platform is required for a sensitive mission the F-22 is already in service, in greater numbers than the F-117 ever was, of which only 59 were ever made.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2010)

I never said the A-10 was retired.
I was referring to the pressures the aircraft has faced over the years for cancellation and retirement.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2010)

Hmmmm...
Lockheed Martin FB-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Hmmmm...
> Lockheed Martin FB-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just a study - I doubt it goes anywhere


----------



## evangilder (Jul 9, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Hmmmm...
> Lockheed Martin FB-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You should read the whole article. The last sentence says it all:



> However, the FB-22 in its planned form appears to have been canceled with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and subsequent developments, in lieu of a long range bomber with much greater range.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2010)

I did read the whole article and found it interesting, so posted it.


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2010)

Just a thought but what would be the reaction to selling the F117 to Japan. The aircraft may not be up to facing 1st rate defences anymore and its technology may be onsidered old by todays standards, but N Korea is Japans biggest threat and I am confident that the F117 is more than capable of dealing with N Koreas defences.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 10, 2010)

As I recall the F-117 was offered to the UK, with several RAF pilots having flown it operationally, but was declined due to its highly specialised role, and very labour intensive maintenance regime, requiring more than its fair share of our national defence budget, at the expense of other, more useful programmes. Is the Japanese defence budget bigger than the UK's, or would their post war constitution allow them to operate a purely offensive aircraft?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2010)

Glider said:


> Just a thought but what would be the reaction to selling the F117 to Japan. .



Why would Japan want 30 year old technology?


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2010)

Its technology, plus an aircraft they don't have that can penetrate N Koreas air defences and hit any ground target (including nuclear sites) they want.
With the potential dangers in the region its a card that I would like in my back pocket. Sure they would prefer an F22 but the US are not going to sell them one so go with something that will do the job you want without the risk of losing the most up to date technology.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 12, 2010)

There was some delay between fielding the F-117 and public disclosure.
Any speculation on a possible F-117 replacement we may be unaware of?
Perhaps the F-22 provides a good cover story/diversion?


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 12, 2010)

Good hypthosis GJS238, mmmm.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2010)

I bet the F117 replacement is sitting in a hanger in Groom Lake.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> I bet the F117 replacement is sitting in a hanger in Groom Lake.


I doubt it unless there is just one prototype being tested, but even then there would be a trail somewhere that a secretive aircraft program is being undertaken. When the -117 was being built there were hundreds of people entering buildings 309 and 310 at Lockheed's old B-6 facility in Burbank. Most if not all of the people who worked there were pretty tight lipped although the local community knew 'something' was going on there. C-5s landing in Burbank at dusk, large convoys of trucks departing the facility at all hours, there was enough evidence to show something was going on. In today's world you have folks in the media picking up on the "signs" of a large secretive aircraft production program as during the F-117A days.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I doubt it unless there is just one prototype being tested, but even then there would be a trail somewhere that a secretive aircraft program is being undertaken. When the -117 was being built there were hundreds of people entering buildings 309 and 310 at Lockheed's old B-6 facility in Burbank. Most if not all of the people who worked there were pretty tight lipped although the local community knew 'something' was going on there. C-5s landing in Burbank at dusk, large convoys of trucks departing the facility at all hours, there was enough evidence to show something was going on. In today's world you have no one in the media picking up on the "signs" of a large secretive aircraft production program as during the F-117A days.



The design work can be done by people who dont even need to be at the factory. And component construction can be done by various small shops scattered around the country. Just a select bunch need to go build it at a hanger. Not efficient, but still doable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The design work can be done by people who dont even need to be at the factory. And component construction can be done by various small shops scattered around the country. Just a select bunch need to go build it at a hanger. Not efficient, but still doable.



That was done with Have Blue - 2 prototypes, it worked out fine. You could do that with a WW2 aircraft but not a sophisticated jet. Any large scale production will be easily revealed, especially if you are building 5 or more aircraft. You just don't go and "build it at a hanger," especially if the program requires DoD manufacturing systems to follow scheduling, cost and progress, and I haven't even gotten into assembling the aircraft with required production tooling, shops for special controlled processes and finding a production flight line to to test flights that the public doesn't already know about. I saw the -117 line and would guess that at any given time there were several hundred people working there at any given time when the program was at its peak.

Sorry Sys - to put another F-117A type aircraft into production and build it in substantial numbers, it will be easily discovered, especially in today's defense world where there isn't any Cold War military production or large contracts being let.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2010)

Where there's a will, there's a way. And DARPA can be quite clever when it needs to. Especially when all they intend to do is build a few prototypes before deciding to put it into production.

I've always suspected that some of the cost over runs on programs that are public, are actually going into special accounts that fund the secret stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Where there's a will, there's a way. And DARPA can be quite clever when it needs to. Especially when all they intend to do is build a few prototypes before deciding to put it into production.


As stated, they were to a point for the 117 and the few pre stealth bomber/ fighter aircraft but DARPA cannot and I will repeat cannot hide a large production aircraft program. They can keep it under wraps to a point but someone will know something is going on and you cannot explain away hundreds of people (who you cannot separate into small shops) being employed at a specified location as well as raw material purchases, fictitious companies ordering special actuators and avionics, and even some of the composite materials - when all this stuff is being purchased it leaves a trail and "super secret" programs is something made for Hollywood, there is ALWAYS some money or people trail left behind. Even when the white 737s were flying up to the ranch every week, local folks in Vegas knew something was going on. 




syscom3 said:


> I've always suspected that some of the cost over runs on programs that are public, are actually going into special accounts that fund the secret stuff.


 In the 1950s and 60s possibly, but now you have "fixed priced contracts" where you cannot have cost over runs and on larger programs DoD funding is monitored by members of congress. If a cost over run is incurred because or an unforeseen technical or logistic problem, the contractor has to plead their case and beg for forgiveness in bucks and blood.

But now there has been some instances when a program all ready received funding and then was cancelled and the money allocated for that program just seem to vanish. I believe that the initial F-117A funding came from the B-1A. 

Again, one and two prototypes - no problem hiding. Start building 5 or more and you're establishing a "money, logistic and people trail." A program any larger like the F-117A you'll have to explain a huge trail supported by several thousand people who you can't hide. This is the same reason why some of the 9-11 and chemtrail conspiracy theories are blown apart.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 13, 2010)

And DARPA kink of all black. Please.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> And DARPA kink of all black. Please.



Yep! Sometimes too much credit is given based on what the imagination can ponder!


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

I thought the F-22 was supposed to be the next generation air superiority fighter (?)
Not a pound for ground, is that what they say?
But then ground attack came later for political economic reasons.

Regardless, can one machine excel at all those different tasks?
Air superiority, ground attack, interdiction, strike, etc, etc, etc.
Has the F-22 solved the one-plane-for-all-tasks dilemma?

I also thought one of the reasons for choosing the YF-22 was because of its thrust vectoring and air superiority performance.
Perhaps the more stealthy but less maneuverable YF-23 would have made a better ground pounder?

These are all just questions, not meant to challenge what anyone has posted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I thought the F-22 was supposed to be the next generation air superiority fighter (?)
> Not a pound for ground, is that what they say?
> But then ground attack came later for political economic reasons.
> 
> ...



The F-22 was never intended for a ground or strike role but can probably do the task well. IMO you'll find the F-35 will meet all the above and its air-to-air capability will be better than expected. The F-35 was better engineered than the F-22 but right now the logistic base is what is killing the aircraft and putting it behind schedule. In an effort to sell the F-35, LM and the US Government allowed too many foreign suppliers to participate hoping that "the pie" can be evenly shared. That is the main problem with the F-35 at this time.

As far as the YF-23 - again never intended as a ground attack aircraft. It did offer some advantages over the YF-22 but in the end did not convince the USAF that it was the best all round aircraft not only in terms of performance but value, longevity, logistical support and maintenance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2010)

Speaking of the F-22, I saw one followed by two F-15s take off out of Elmendorf up here in Anchorage yesterday. Unfortunately could not get my camera read in time though.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

So if I understand correctly...
F-111 has been retired
F-117 has been retired
Naval A-6 can't be borrowed because that's been retired
F-35 will be replacement

While we wait for the F-35, existing assests will need to be used as a stopgap (F-22, F-15E, B1B, B2, etc.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> So if I understand correctly...
> F-111 has been retired
> F-117 has been retired
> Naval A-6 can't be borrowed because that's been retired
> ...


Right now the F-15E and Super Hornet are filling the role of a precision strike/ attack aircraft just fine. F-22, B1B and B-2 are not even in the equasion.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 13, 2010)

The F-18 and F-15 are still superior to 90% of the worlds aircraft, maybe even 95%. They are no slouches.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

I imagine that F-15E and Super Hornet and taking the bulk of the load.
But that when "stealth" is a must, then "stealthy" assests are being or will be used.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I imagine that F-15E and Super Hornet and taking the bulk of the load.
> But that when "stealth" is a must, then "stealthy" assests are being or will be used.


And right now there aren't too many real would threats that would require a strike aircraft to evade advanced radar systems. Also keep in mind that aircraft like the F-15E and Superhornet will have the assistance of ECM aircraft that can blind an enemy's radar. When aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 become fully operational, that will just assure "an ace in the hole" until technology catches up to those aircraft.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but historically many threats, or lack of threats, have been miscalculated, with only hindsight being 20/20.
It seems there is a degree of increased risk with the current capability gap.
Whether that risk is acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong is certainly debatable and I hope the right judgment calls have been made.
Regardless, there seems to be a degree of increased risk.

I suppose one can mitigate this increased risk, the retirement of a hammer, by using a sledgehammer until the new hammer is available.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 13, 2010)

Don't forget UCAV's such as the Lockheed Polecat or, more likely, the Boeing Phantom Ray can perform the F-117's mission too. The former had been in use for some time before it was revealed, the second is, as yet, a demonstrator in the same mould as the BAE Taranis but, I'll' wager, further developed thanks to X plane experience. The F-117, by today's perspective, is a big and expensive way to do not-very-much.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

Yes, those are some of the "stealthy assests" I had in mind earlier.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but historically many threats, or lack of threats, have been miscalculated, with only hindsight being 20/20.
> It seems there is a degree of increased risk with the current capability gap.
> Whether that risk is acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong is certainly debatable and I hope the right judgment calls have been made.
> Regardless, there seems to be a degree of increased risk.


Perhaps - but right now I don't see a real risk by the USAF by not having a stealth strike fighter available. Keep in mind as well that if a risk were to emerge in the near future, the entire F-35 program can be easily accelerated, but at a cost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Don't forget UCAV's such as the Lockheed Polecat or, more likely, the Boeing Phantom Ray can perform the F-117's mission too. The former had been in use for some time before it was revealed, the second is, as yet, a demonstrator in the same mould as the BAE Taranis but, I'll' wager, further developed thanks to X plane experience. The F-117, by today's perspective, is a big and expensive way to do not-very-much.



Right now these aircraft are perfect for addressing current threats.


----------

