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?
F-117 retirement: mistake or correct decision?
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Why would Japan want 30 year old technology?
Glider
Captain
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #24
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
Good hypthosis GJS238, mmmm.....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I bet the F117 replacement is sitting in a hanger in Groom Lake.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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
Glock Perfection
And DARPA kink of all black. Please.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep! Sometimes too much credit is given based on what the imagination can ponder!
- Thread starter
- #34
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.
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #37
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.)
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.)
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Last edited:
Messy1
Master Sergeant
The F-18 and F-15 are still superior to 90% of the worlds aircraft, maybe even 95%. They are no slouches.
- Thread starter
- #40
