Why isn't the F-117 a B-117?
- Thread starter notfred
- Start date
Because it has a payload equal to that of most multi-role fighters and not any sort of true bomber.
Fas.org
4,000 lb payload?
As compared with a B1B, for example: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm
Fas.org
4,000 lb payload?
As compared with a B1B, for example: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm
Because while it's use primary to drop bombs, it can use sidewinder missiles for air to air operations.
How is it going to lock on? The Swinder has to actually "SEE" the target. The F-177A has an internal bombbay so that would be impossible.
I think it is to small to be considered a bomber, I THINK a bomber has to have at least a crew of two. Not sure though
Roles of attack planes: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/attack.htm
Roles of fighters: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/fighter.htm
fyi
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,874
- 2,036
- 126
I asked my dad that when I was a child, and he said that it was because the US had signed an agreement with someone (probably the USSR) and we were only allowed to have a certain number of bomber designations.
I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible.
I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible.
Sidewinders are not an air-superiority weapon. They haev a range of effectively 12 miles. Fighters use AMRAAMs now for air superiority.
Right, but if you can fly a F117 close enough to an AWACS, shoot it down with a sidewinder, the plane becomes an air-superiroity weapon.
My bet is when they were designing the plane, in order to throw people off, they label it as a fighter instead of a bomber, and perhaps later in development, figure they might as well as let it shoot a missile or two.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
AEW planes are pretty common. Few countries, most of them in NATO, have the likes of a real AWACs mission-capable plane.
The F-22 uses an ejection system to launch its missiles. The trouble is that you would need some form of post-ejection command guidance to use such a system in a turning battle; it worked fine with air-intercept category missiles because the target was in a straight line from the nose of the aircraft and not turning. Several interceptor designs over the years have used an ejectable missile system, but the F-22 will be the first American fighter design to do so. The F-117 normally has a (BRU-55 derived?) rack system that is void of impulse cartridges; the shock on the plane's plastic body from forcibly throwing bombs would not be good for its longevity. I'd imagine that whatever AIM-9 system it carried it would need to lower the missile rail out of the plane before launch. Wasn't the AIM-9/F-117 missile theory out of a Tom Clancy book?
People are correct that the F-117A should have been listed in the ATTACK WARPLANE category. It made more sense to list it as an A-117 than a F-117. It kept its designation from the black budget program that has a history of mislabelling its products in order to throw curious chums off its trail. The F-117A was originally thought by the public to be the F-19, and theorized to be an air-superiority plane. Now it begs the question, what were the missing Century+Ten fighter programs?
The F-22 uses an ejection system to launch its missiles. The trouble is that you would need some form of post-ejection command guidance to use such a system in a turning battle; it worked fine with air-intercept category missiles because the target was in a straight line from the nose of the aircraft and not turning. Several interceptor designs over the years have used an ejectable missile system, but the F-22 will be the first American fighter design to do so. The F-117 normally has a (BRU-55 derived?) rack system that is void of impulse cartridges; the shock on the plane's plastic body from forcibly throwing bombs would not be good for its longevity. I'd imagine that whatever AIM-9 system it carried it would need to lower the missile rail out of the plane before launch. Wasn't the AIM-9/F-117 missile theory out of a Tom Clancy book?
People are correct that the F-117A should have been listed in the ATTACK WARPLANE category. It made more sense to list it as an A-117 than a F-117. It kept its designation from the black budget program that has a history of mislabelling its products in order to throw curious chums off its trail. The F-117A was originally thought by the public to be the F-19, and theorized to be an air-superiority plane. Now it begs the question, what were the missing Century+Ten fighter programs?
I've heard this from an F-117 crew member. The plane was originally developed as a fighter but the treaty we have with the other world power back then puts limits on how many fighters and bombers each side can have. So, while the airplane was still being designed, the role changed.
The F-117 is a tactical aircraft and not a strategic (think B-52 or B-2) aircraft. Tactical aircraft carry the fighter designation in the USAF. The F-105 Thud is a classic example of it. It was rather large to be a fighter and even had a RIO that helped guide the aircraft to the proper IP and AP. The F-117's only armament is the 2 2000# laser guided bomb.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter