| Author | Message | ||
     Slaughter |
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/ 2008/042308ae_f117tribute.html | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I guess that leaves the B-2 and the F-22, although the latter isn't designed nor equipped, at this time, for ground attack missions. The article mentions the F-35 which I read today might be scrapped altogether. | ||
| Slaughter |
There are constant (justifiable) arguments about ending one or the other of the new fighters. I can see both sides of the argument and won't get caught up in it on a public forum. F117 was a highly successful program. It was a really great show here 2 days ago. The whole facility emptied out to watch the take-off and fly-overs. | ||
| Prof_stack |
The F117 was observed by many to be a UFO in early tests, what with that unusual shape. So I'm wondering when the USAF is going to unveil the latest wunderluft "plane", perhaps one of those triangle crafts that many have reported seeing. Any reliable intel you guys can talk about here? | ||
| Spdkls |
I guess that leaves the B-2 and the F-22, although the latter isn't designed nor equipped, at this time, for ground attack missions. uh, yeah it is. JDAMS, all day! | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The F117 is better suited for ground attack missions then the F22 in categories including, range, bomb payload, munition types, service ceiling and even stealth. Speed would go to the F22. I guess that is why there was talk of a FB22 or a strike version like the F15-E. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Aurora? I bet the original author of this post knows a thing or two  | ||
| Djkaplan |
I read the Aurora was decomissioned years ago. I don't think anything but an artists rendering of that craft was ever released for the general public during it's entire program. | ||
| Prof_stack |
I wonder if the F117 got mothballed is because modern detection systems can now allow it to be detected more easily. The F117 that went down in Kosovo might have greatly helped Russia in their stealth research. Any "official" reasons? | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
http://www.military-heat.com/43/russian-plasma-ste alth-fighters/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Aurora never happened. The guys that speculate & dig into "black" operations, saw that Million$ went to Lockheed, that were not in the public budget. The Air Force had retired the Blackbird, partly because the Navy & CIA "used" most of the take, and partly because it ate a big hole in the budget, "better" spent on training & O-clubs. ( the fact that the Blackbird needed it's oil heated to the temp. of molten lead before adding it to & starting the engines made it unusable as a fighter, and Congress passed on a Bomber version decades ago. ) Obviously, something "had" to replace the Blackbird. ( something still does ) In fact the missing millions$ went to the Navy's Sea Shadow program, building a stealth ship, and testing it using the Glomar Explorer ( extra points for it's moment of secret fame ) to the point of actually penetrating a U.S. Carrier group during night operations. The F117 was a pain for maint. crews, due to the fragile nature of it's skin & the need for puttying up the joints when panels were removed & replaced. ( like the ones over the oil fill cap ) Bad news, I know of no replacement. ( does not mean that the Skunk Works isn't building one ) The UAV program, with remote controlled planes, is not a suitable replacement for all manned craft yet, in part because of Soviet supplied jamming systems, ( what good is a weapon that can't work when you lose the sat phone connection? ) and in large part due to inter-service rivalry. The Air Force, in a tradition going back to it's separation from the Army, owns the concept of "bomber". Army planes may shoot rockets or bullets out the front or sides, but are not allowed to drop things. ( the Navy, being the Senior Service, drops, tosses, or paints Marine Green anything it want's to...... Although they did have to call their superior nuclear Bomber from the 1950's a "mine layer", to keep the A.F. Generals from having fits in front of Congress. ) So.... Army controlled UAV's are not allowed to be armed. Air Force UAV's aren't either, ( pilots have a union thing going here ) so the CIA is the only group with hellfire equipped UAV's......and theirs don't exist......( wink, nod ) Reminds me of the coolest toy from Area 51. Constellation cammo. L.e.d.'s on the bottom of the craft "move" backwards as fast as the plane goes forwards, so that there is no blanking out of the stars as it flies by. Neat! If I was in charge, I'd order night capable A10's, give the Marines the job of close air support, and buy Israeli plasma based anti RPG equipment for tanks & APC's. | ||
| Darthane |
It was, and is, a truly remarkable aircraft amidst a sea of others from the Skunk Works - and its place in history is both assured and earned. | ||
| Reepicheep |
How would constellation cammo work if your enemy is not all standing in the same place? Same problem with that english tank demo and the background projector. If you were in the right place, it looked *really* cool though... | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Aesquire, that's some funny s*** you wrote there. I guess you've been opening up the DOD's mail, since you seem to know more about what's going on in black ops than anyone else on the planet. | ||
| Aesquire |
Lifetime subscription to Airpower & Wings. ( their lifetime, not mine, the mag is gone now ) Throw in Aviation Week & Space technology... ( "sometimes informally called Aviation Leak and Space Mythology in defense circles" per Wikipedia ) and it's all more or less open source. When a friend of mine returned from surface warship training, I asked him about the Soviet Titanium Submarine. He freaked when I told him I had pictures of the continuous extrusion castings used as ribs.... He figured it was still secret.. AW&ST had better resolution pics than he'd seen in school. Famously, AW&ST has multiple subscriptions at the Soviet Embassy, NYC, and are supposedly sent home by diplo-courier weekly. Bummer that Aurora wasn't real. The Constellation cammo is used at moderate altitudes, and since it does not try to paint a realistic picture, but takes advantage of twinkle to prevent a black spot, or obviously moving blackout of the stars, just has to be on the bottom. Next gen LCD skins in the works to project a picture of the background on an object do have to be aimed at the observer. I think. | ||
| Aesquire |
I could be wrong on parts of the Air Force attitude's on unmanned weapons platforms. It's only natural to protect your turf, and having a pilot in the plane really improves the judgment factor & reduces Blue on Blue fire. It's also a little scary to imagine remorseless killing machines flying around looking for something to destroy. After all, if the CIA was using an old National Geographic map to pick bomb points ( and bombs the Chinese Embassy in error...LOL ) mistakes happen, and it's nice not to burn down a school when you wanted to remove an anti aircraft nest. On the other hand, it's nice not to lose pilots to bad weather, mountains, or hostile fire. |
