All F-117 Stealth Fighters to be retired in 2008

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: JRich
I'll be bummed when they retire the F-15s :(
Then I will have to retire also from a :brokenheart:

U going to request that the mods change your name to RaptorKeeper or LightningKeeper?

Nope - no name change.

The Raptor can not fly stable if there is a glitch in the flight computer.
The Lightning does not exist in a useful form - I may be completely old and grey by the come it enters service.

It was my plane, I flew with it and enhanced it's lethal capabilites. I will not turn my back on it.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: soydios
shame, the old classics are being retired...
I miss the F-14 already

then you're going to miss their replacements (F18 super hornets) in a short while.

f35c (joint strike fighter carrier version) will replace them in 2012.


Originally posted by: JRich
I'll be bummed when they retire the F-15s :(

The Eagles (F15C/D) are being replaced with F22 raptors.

THe Strike Eagles (F15E) will stay in service till at least 2025, since there is nothing on the drawing board to replace it's role. (Much like Nasa's space shuttles :( )

:shocked: Those airframes will be some fifty years old by then!
E model frames will not be, just the C/D models.

However, sending the C/D back to the depot for refurb will extend their lifetime for the Reserve's requirements.

Stronger roots, upgraded engines and electronics will provide the ability to act as a CAP when needed, with no concerns

 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
I still don't believe that they retired the SR-71 due to fuel costs. I mean, of course a plane whose engines take up most of the craft's volume is going to use a lot of fuel. Those things went faster than a bullet - just imagine them given weapons. Actually nevermind, they might have outrun their payload and gotten hit by it. :D

But let's think about something: The F-117 and SR-71 were designed 30 years ago. Makes you wonder what they're designing right now, considering how stealth technology is still super-classified.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: Fritzo
The thing is, it's not really even a fighter- it's a light bomber. WIth it's poor payload, other more advanced planes can do a better job. It's hard to believe the design of that plane is 30 years old! :Q
So what will be replacing it? Does the F-22 come in a light bomber configuration?
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: JRich
I'll be bummed when they retire the F-15s :(
Then I will have to retire also from a :brokenheart:

U going to request that the mods change your name to RaptorKeeper or LightningKeeper?

EagleWeeper.
:brokenheart:
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: soydios
shame, the old classics are being retired...
I miss the F-14 already

then you're going to miss their replacements (F18 hornets) in a short while.

f35c (joint strike fighter carrier version) will replace them in 2012.

They say all this and that and what not, but I seriously doubt all hornets will be replaced--there are the Super Hornets, and those are a total revamp of the F-18A/C models. Keep in mind, the F-35 is a light fighter and a heavy attacker--in other words, Some F-18C squadrons will have to be kept in, because the F-35 by itself as it is will be unable to hold the gun.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Fritzo
The thing is, it's not really even a fighter- it's a light bomber. WIth it's poor payload, other more advanced planes can do a better job. It's hard to believe the design of that plane is 30 years old! :Q
So what will be replacing it? Does the F-22 come in a light bomber configuration?

Most modern day "fighter" jets come in with pylons on the wings, or in the case of the Raptor (and possibly Lightening) a bomb bay (meant to preserve the stealth signature). These pylons (or bomb bays) enable pilots to mount on cluster bombs, sidewinders, sparrows, gun pods (although now adays, the gun mounted in the nose or side of the aircraft is enough).
 

ed21x

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2001
5,412
8
81
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Fritzo
The thing is, it's not really even a fighter- it's a light bomber. WIth it's poor payload, other more advanced planes can do a better job. It's hard to believe the design of that plane is 30 years old! :Q
So what will be replacing it? Does the F-22 come in a light bomber configuration?

Most modern day "fighter" jets come in with pylons on the wings, or in the case of the Raptor (and possibly Lightening) a bomb bay (meant to preserve the stealth signature). These pylons (or bomb bays) enable pilots to mount on cluster bombs, sidewinders, sparrows, gun pods (although now adays, the gun mounted in the nose or side of the aircraft is enough).

The f-35 CTOL should have the capabilities to replace the f-15E. The future air force is going to be extremely lean, with the EA-6 being replaced by the F-18G, A-10 by the F-35 VSTOL, and F-18E/F by the F-35 STOL. Standardization of platforms will really cut down on maintenance costs, etc. Also, all new Naval platforms are focusing on automation, with new ships requiring less than half the manpower of their present-day counterparts for the same effectiveness.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
won't that mean that the F-117 only had a life span of around 18 years? That's pretty damn short & a lousy return on investment :(

edit: NM I didn't know that it was operational in 1983. How did they keep it a secret until 1988?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Originally posted by: preslove
won't that mean that the F-117 only had a life span of around 18 years? That's pretty damn short & a lousy return on investment :(

edit: NM I didn't know that it was operational in 1983. How did they keep it a secret until 1988?

Easy. TS/SCI on the pilots and ground crew, kept at a remote base and only flown at night, planes shipped in C-17s instead of flying from factory to dest. facility.

And the planes by themselves would be a lousy investment, if they didn't also help develop the stealth technologies and operating guidelines that we use on the B-2 and F-22.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,162
126
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I still don't believe that they retired the SR-71 due to fuel costs. I mean, of course a plane whose engines take up most of the craft's volume is going to use a lot of fuel. Those things went faster than a bullet - just imagine them given weapons. Actually nevermind, they might have outrun their payload and gotten hit by it. :D

But let's think about something: The F-117 and SR-71 were designed 30 years ago. Makes you wonder what they're designing right now, considering how stealth technology is still super-classified.

I beleive they did arm an SR-71 with nuclear missles and named it an A-12. Cruise missles were invented however so the prototypes were scrapped.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: JRich
I'll be bummed when they retire the F-15s :(
Then I will have to retire also from a :brokenheart:

U going to request that the mods change your name to RaptorKeeper or LightningKeeper?

Nope - no name change.

The Raptor can not fly stable if there is a glitch in the flight computer.
The Lightning does not exist in a useful form - I may be completely old and grey by the come it enters service.

It was my plane, I flew with it and enhanced it's lethal capabilites. I will not turn my back on it.

I will agree, the Eagle was named rightfully. We may have 'better' aircraft, but they don't always do what their pilots want.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I still don't believe that they retired the SR-71 due to fuel costs. I mean, of course a plane whose engines take up most of the craft's volume is going to use a lot of fuel. Those things went faster than a bullet - just imagine them given weapons. Actually nevermind, they might have outrun their payload and gotten hit by it. :D

But let's think about something: The F-117 and SR-71 were designed 30 years ago. Makes you wonder what they're designing right now, considering how stealth technology is still super-classified.

I beleive they did arm an SR-71 with nuclear missles and named it an A-12. Cruise missles were invented however so the prototypes were scrapped.

You've crossed several different planes into one, let me try to straighten you out a bit.

The A-12 was the CIA version of the Blackbird before the Air Force got it (or a version of) and named it SR-71. According to unconfirmed information, since both planes are still partially classified, the A-12 was a better spyplane since the camera could be tilted, but the SR-71 had a higher top speed.

There was a prototype interceptor version called YF-12, which would've carried the AIM-47 missile which is what the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was derrived from. Interesting factoid, the YF-12A prototype that set the absolute speed record in 1965 is stored with the trophy in the R&D hanger at the National Museum of the USAF at WPAFB, Dayton, OH.

The AIM-47 was originally intended to be a nuclear missile, but a conventional warhead was decided on. There was a plane that carried a nuclear air-to-air missile, the F-106 Delta Dart.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

The Raptor can not fly stable if there is a glitch in the flight computer.

I thought that was true of all modern fly by wire fighters.
 

ballmode

Lifer
Aug 17, 2005
10,246
2
0
Saddened, hope to see it in a museum.

I miss the F-14 already... that's two classics retired this year.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,859
6,024
146
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I still don't believe that they retired the SR-71 due to fuel costs. I mean, of course a plane whose engines take up most of the craft's volume is going to use a lot of fuel. Those things went faster than a bullet - just imagine them given weapons. Actually nevermind, they might have outrun their payload and gotten hit by it. :D

But let's think about something: The F-117 and SR-71 were designed 30 years ago. Makes you wonder what they're designing right now, considering how stealth technology is still super-classified.

The SR-71 was on the drawing boards more than 46 years ago.
The first prototype was delivered in 1964.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: ballmode
I miss the F-14 already... that's two classics retired this year.

F-14s retired in Sept 2006. That was the last squadron as well.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Fritzo
The thing is, it's not really even a fighter- it's a light bomber. WIth it's poor payload, other more advanced planes can do a better job. It's hard to believe the design of that plane is 30 years old! :Q
So what will be replacing it? Does the F-22 come in a light bomber configuration?

its proposed stretch version
http://air-attack.com/videos/26/FB-22-Fighter-Bomber.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...ems/aircraft/fb-22.htm
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Yossarian
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

The Raptor can not fly stable if there is a glitch in the flight computer.

I thought that was true of all modern fly by wire fighters.

fly by wire is not the same as computer assist.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
I heard these planes costs more than $2billion each for the USAF to buy.. making them actually worth more than gold by weight. WTF!

 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: brxndxn
I heard these planes costs more than $2billion each for the USAF to buy.. making them actually worth more than gold by weight. WTF!

you mean the B-2?
 

Minjin

Platinum Member
Jan 18, 2003
2,208
1
81
Is the F-22 a better stealth plane than the F-117? Or just a better all around fighter?
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: Minjin
Is the F-22 a better stealth plane than the F-117? Or just a better all around fighter?

Neither, the F-22 is a fighter, the F-117 is not a fighter at all. The F-22 has a small radar signature, because of the composites it is using and the general shape. That said, the F-22 has the capacity to be a bomber and a fighter.