digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at edition.cnn.com

Air Force F-117 stealth fighters making their final flights

edition.cnn.com — The radar-dodging F-117s will be put in mothballs next month in Nevada

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • habu, on 03/12/2008, -1/+93It is amazing that the time has come to retire this airplane. It still seems so new and high tech.
    • piper999, on 03/12/2008, -0/+36I'm shocked to discover they've been flying for 27 years. Unbelievable. I thought they only came into service in the 1990's.
      • serif69, on 03/12/2008, -1/+33That's because it only came into declassified service in the 1990's.
        • Dustmuffins, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Before that they were fueling UFO stories.
      • oxdeltaxo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16Yup they only wanted you to think those were ufos in area 51, this is actually what they tested there.
      • Smwbigboss, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16According to Wikipedia:

        "The Lockheed F-117A Night Hawk is a stealth ground attack aircraft operated solely by the United States Air Force. The F-117's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved Initial Operational Capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A came out of secrecy and was revealed to the world in November 1988.[2] And D3MONG0D IS A ***** [citation needed]"
        • prophetpimp, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1"D3MONG0D IS A *****"
          Emmmm What?
      • unreg, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3F19 was probably the most enjoyable combat flight sim I ever played. I remember spending hours after work skim at tree top level into East Germany, avoiding Mainstays and taking out those targets.

      • Tenoq, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Only 27 years? That's brand-new in Australia. We're still flying F-111s from the 1960s. Sure they've had upgrades, but they're an ancient jet by any standard. :p
    • elint6, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2It's been replaced by the B-2B.
      • MoralThreat, on 03/12/2008, -3/+10How can an attack (don't let the F fool you) aircraft be replaced by a bomber? If anything it's going to be replaced by the F-22 and F-35.
        • xaxxon, on 03/12/2008, -5/+4It's not being replaced by the F-22 either. The F-22 is air-to-air. If it has ground capabilities, they were an afterthought (tough to get funding for a pure air superiority fighter these days). The F-35 JSF will replace the stealth strike capabilities of the F-111 (thought it's more intedded to replace the F-16. The low-performance stealth attack craft doesn't really have a place anymore now that we can make high performance aircraft that are still stealth.
        • RyomaNagare, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12I actually know this one, they explained it in the history channel,
          basically when this plane came to be, they wanted the best pilots. But no top-gun would dare to pilot a B labeled plane so they changed it to F-117, the plane was still a bomber.
          It couldn't be a good fighter or interceptor, it controls like a brick on the air.
        • unreg, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9The Stealth Fighter was nothing more than a very small bomber. We can haggle back and forth as to the distinction between Attack and Bomber, but the reality is the F117 just flew in, dropped something and flew back.

          The F-22 is essentially an Air Superiority fighter but will also have ground attack capabilities. And it does have some stealth characteristics. It's intended to replace the F-15. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter designed to replace the F-16.
          • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I have no doubt that the F-22 could have quite effective and desirable capabilities as a bomber. But no sane military organization is going to send a 138 million dollar aircraft in to deliver a bomb and get shot down by a flak gun, when they can send a 61 million plane to do pretty much the same job.

            And the F-22 is a "fully" stealth aircraft. That's what gives it its ridiculous tactical advantage.
        • elint6, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3@MoralThreat: Like other posts have said, the F-117 was the exception that it was labeled F despite having no (or minimal) air-to-air combat capabilities. The design of the aircraft itself lends poorly to sharp aerial maneuvers.
          • prophetpimp, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2But it still kicks ass in Ace combat in Air to Air.
      • xenuxenuts, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2more likely by unmanned aircraft.
  • a6n28f, on 03/12/2008, -1/+28Development started about 35 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk

    One can only dream about what's being developed now.
    • mawh, on 03/12/2008, -6/+4Perhaps the F-118?
      • BattleScars, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5The F22 Raptor fills the 'stealth' role quite well for now. The radar absorbent material used is so good that it just looks like a normal jet (not weird and triangular) but is still virtually invisible to the enemy. Sorry to dash your hopes but I don't think we'll see a F118 for quite some time.
    • GhostFreeman, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10The Aurora? More UAVs?
    • louiebaur, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1Ever heard of the F-35? Supposed to be like the F-22 that's replacing the F-117 but more advanced.
      • elint6, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3It's not more advanced. It's smaller so the Navy can use it, has V/STOL capablities so the Marines can use it, and the Air Force run-of-the-mill version will replace the F-16 fleet.
        • xaxxon, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Only one model is VSTOL. That version has severe limitations, so only the marine corp will take delivery on it.
          • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Its not that limited. The real problem is in order to give it its VTOL features, its a HIDEOUSLY expensive fighter/bomber craft, compared to its VSTOL cousins. Numbers deliver force, and it doesn't help you to have freakishly capable warplanes, if you can only afford to keep 10 of them flying.
        • blup3ace, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3you must have it confused with VTOL.
          VSTOL is vertical and SHORT take off and landings (term doesn't show it, but it means it's STOL only but can land vertically.), while VTOL can completely do vertical.
          all f-35's are VSTOL, while one model is VTOL, the one you're referring to.
        • stupidStan, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1No, not all versions are VSTOL, the Airforce version (and the navy I think - not sure, I was Air Force) has no center thruster, therefore can not land vertically.
      • Dustmuffins, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2The f-22 is replacing the F-15, not the f-117.
        • Dustmuffins, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1That's right, bury me smartypants: In 1981 the United States Air Force (USAF) developed a requirement for a new air superiority fighter, the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), to replace the capability of the F-15 Eagle

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F22
      • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2The F-35 is not really "more" advanced than the F-22. It was meant to be the economical "Toyota Corolla" warplane, compared to the Luxury "Lexus" F-22.

        Both airplanes are stealthy, the F-22 has slightly better combat performance, but what separate the the F-22 from the F-35 is that the F-22 can "cruise" at supersonic speeds. The F-22 is meant to be the premiere air-superiority interceptor, while the F-35 does multipurpose fighter/bomber roles.
    • gtluke, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4nothing, carter put an end to our fun military projects.
    • glasnostic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIiWRLlN75U&feature ...
    • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3The F-35 is not more advanced than the F-22...but it is more advanced and far more stealthy than the F-117. The F-35 is the eventual replacement of the F-16 and F/A-18 as well as the Harrier jumpjet. I'm an engineer working on the engine of the F-35.
      • Ellipsys, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2So is it equally as advanced as the F-22, or less so, but more adaptable/cheaper?
        • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Less stealthy than the F-22, but still stealthy. Cheaper, more affordable, far more adaptable than the F-22. It also has short-take off vertical landing capabilities. The F-22's main advantages are its stealthiness, greater power (2x engines), and maneuverability due to thrust vectoring.
          • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I thought the F-22 had a better combat radar & tactical systems than an F-35 as well.
    • Smwbigboss, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Veritechs, obviously.
  • CYcolone, on 03/12/2008, -1/+34It's amazing how such a remarkable aircraft, an icon of the USAF as I grew up, is now considered obsolete.
    • Kronos6948, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Yet, the USAF's icon when I was growing up is still in service...the F-15 Eagle.
    • zeebo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8The only plane that has really survived the test of time in the air force without much talk of a replacement is the B-52.
      • MrZop, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1But C'mon, They Made Love Shack!
      • stupidStan, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4A-10s! Those things were supposed to be retired multiple times... they are just too useful!
        • prophetpimp, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2No one has to ballz to retire something as badass as the A-10. Those things literally make a whole army ***** their pants.
        • TaylorSmythe, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Those were my favorite planes when I grew up! Kid facts about the A-10 Warthog:
          Has a gun the size of a Volkswagen Beetle.
          Shoots bullets the size of Coke Bottles.
          When shot by the A-10's massive gun, tanks were known to bounce off the ground.
          The A-10 shared engines with airliners!
          • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Oh come on, you forget the fun part of the A-10. Only warplane who's cockpit is enclosed in a titanium tub. It basically lets the A-10 fly in, get shot up by all sorts of ground projectiles, and fly away with only cosmetic scratches.
        • MacParrot, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I've always loved the bad-ass ugly A-10 Warthog.
  • sockpuppets, on 03/12/2008, -28/+17Thanks for the bombs.

    -The World
    • designerutah, on 03/12/2008, -5/+19You're welcome. And keep in mind, we weren't here. You never saw us. You can't prove we did it.

      "Stealth bombers means total denyability, and that means never having to say you're sorry."


      In case you missed it, I'm adding the sarcasm tag here.
    • Picaroon, on 03/12/2008, -14/+8I feel so bad for the Iraqis and the Serbs that we bombed with these planes. They were such nice people.
    • SysstemLord, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Good! Maybe now for a change you try to create something that doesn't destroy things
  • Linkin4, on 03/12/2008, -6/+11Good for the service men and women, this thing was notoriously hard to fly without computer assistance.
    • vegetables, on 03/12/2008, -4/+2I bet. Look at those crazy angles!
    • oxdeltaxo, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Most modern aircraft have computer assisted stabilization nowadays, it reduces turbulence.
    • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7Most ultra-maneuverable aircraft today (Su-47, Typhoon) are actually designed to be aerodynamically unstable, and would in fact fall out of the sky if the systems were to fail. Luckily these systems are multi-redudant. This however, wasn't designed to be maneuverable, but the facets made it a less than stellar aerodynamic design.
    • kjd84, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Impossible to fly without being assisted by a computer actually!
    • freedomkeeper, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0No modern jet is flown without computer assistance.
  • greenlight2001, on 03/12/2008, -1/+15I remember seeing this thing for the very first time in person at a small airshow (mid 90's). They had the thing surrounded by 2 dozen armed soldiers. Hard to believe the thing is nearly older than me.
  • RogaDanar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Were these ever in air to air combat? I've always been confused on why they didn't name it the B-117 since all it ever seem to do was drop payload (like the B-2)...where as the F-22 Raptor can take on any modern aircraft.
    • DewCrew88, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7on the military channel a few nights ago they spoke about how this was the only bomber in the USAF inventory to be designated with an F and not partake in air-air combat, dont know why they didnt elaborate.
      • kretik, on 03/12/2008, -1/+13Because they sold it to the congressional oversight committee as a fighter when in reality it was always planned to be a subsonic bomber.
      • BabyWookie, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Probably to confuse the KGB.
      • InferiorWang, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5It was to attract pilots. It sounds cooler to be a fighter pilot.
    • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Many sources say because the elite pilots required to man this aircraft were not easily attracked to a B or A series craft. Also, if you notice, it is the only remaining fighter of the "century series" aircraft of the 70's.
    • BabyWookie, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4They never carried any AA weapons.
    • ihatepaulspam, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1One of them was shot down by Serbian AA fire in 1999 during the Yugoslavian war. The Serbians' radar was also able to locate the "stealth" jets, albeit in brief intermittent bursts.
      There are hundreds of websites about this and it was very heavily reported at the time. Here is one:
      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm
      • warriorscot, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3UK radar systems picked them up right off the bat, they are invisible to radar but the shape means that they cause a big air disturbance which is visible to radar systems designed to detect it.
      • allan17, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1The Serbs shot at many jets in that war, and got lucky with one F-117.
    • stupidStan, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1That is correct, the F-117 does not carry an yair-to-air weaponry whatsoever. I believe it is because many countries will not allow us to land 'bombers' within there borders, so we made this a 'fighter' so it would not violate the agreement.
  • DewCrew88, on 03/12/2008, -3/+13Good night sweet prince. 1981-2008

    Pretty hard to believe that something so advanced became outdated so quickly. Truly a pioneer aircraft and an icon to be remembered for decades.
  • edgeofreason, on 03/12/2008, -1/+19Stunning aircraft, it's a shame they're mothballing such an impressive feat of engineering.
    • warp25, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9You could say the same for the retired F-14 as well
      • Ellipsys, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4And the old SR-71. As far as I know, there's still no spyplane that can duplicate its capabilities.
        • xaxxon, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Nope. Not as far as you know.
        • iFrikkenR, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2but there's no need either now thanks to satellites
          • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2There was ALWAYS a need for reconnaissance aircraft. Satellites can't image effectively through thick cloud cover, and only geosynchronous satellites are available to observe a specific ground target (in its visual area) at all times.

            The reason the SR-71 was killed:

            1) HIDEOUSLY expensive. HIDEOUSLY expensive. And that's with only 3 working airplanes.
            2) The cold war is over. The only country with a CHANCE of shooting down on of those planes were the Russians.
            3) TR-1 (The updated U-2s) can pretty much do the same job, is about as invulnerable, and MUCH cheaper than the SR-71s.
            4) Lets face it, the US has a working AURORA program.
      • 11b1p, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2sadly because remote sensing has become cheaper. SR-71 just looks like it would be the ultimate ride.
    • stupidStan, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1yeah, its a shame that we aren't paying taxes to keep an obsolete plane in use...
  • Shiftgood, on 03/12/2008, -9/+2uhm dont those still have amazing success rates? whats.. whats next? anyone know?
    lol oh right... stealth.... not supposed to.
    • elint6, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1The B-2B is already in commission and declassified.
      • Shiftgood, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1Theyre gonna use B2s on all of the of the 117 sorties now? do we just not need bombers anymore?
    • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread299174/p ...

      The Sr-72 project is rumored to have been going on for the past 3-5 years at Lockheed's Skunk Works. Albeit this is more of a reconnaissance aircraft than the precision bomber the F-117 was.
      • branjb, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Because yes, a site called above top secret is so credible.
  • teamparadox, on 03/12/2008, -5/+53"The Air Force decided to accelerate the retirement of the F-117s to free up money to modernize the rest of the fleet. The F-117 is being replaced by the F-22 Raptor, which also has stealth technology." -FTA

    they are so full of *****. we all know damn well there is an advanced stealth jet that we have no idea exists. worst thing is we wont get a chance to see it for at least 10 years if not more, which is pretty much the same way things happened with the F-117.
    • DennisPease, on 03/13/2008, -6/+1The military only reports things when they need to or when some scumbags like the NY Times reports secrets that should remain secret.
      • Dantetheinferno, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1...

        Very few, if any thing, should be kept secret when it comes to the government.
    • warriorscot, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Why would they bother, they have nobody to fight with it, the F22 is very stealthy more than an F117 has bigger payload and better speed and maneuvrability why would you keep a bomber that was more limited, slower and expensive compared to that. And the only countries fielding a fighter that can go toe to toe with it are allies using the Eurofighter Typhoon(less stealthy more bang). Maybe they do have something else in the works they usually do but the money probably is going to F22 its what I would do in the position makes perfect sense, the secret projects are funded by other means this is a little obvious for secret work.
    • HomerS1, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Don't let anyone fool you, the main reason for retirement is simple economics. The F117's missions can be accomplished via cheaper means (drones). With no risk to expensively to train pilots. The F22 was effectively DOA from a critical need to fulfill a mission standpoint.
      Boeing was bummed out when they lost the F22 contract to Lockheed, but they have since made far more making drones for the USAF than they would have making F22s.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10Man I've always loved the F-117, just an awesome-looking plane! Looking at it, it's still quite shocking the thing can actually fly. This plane and the F-22 are definitely my favorite jets, although I'm also partial to the A-10 :)

    The F-117 was a major asset in the first Gulf War and protected many lives, it will be missed.
    • CrankyHippo, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1i have to go with the F-16 and the MIG-21. I remember playing good ole Chuck Yeagers flight sim back in the day and the MIG was just a lot of fun
    • foundingbrother, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5I'm right there with you on the A-10.
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9The A-10 scares the ***** out of me.
      • warriorscot, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2And anyone on the ground, enemies and allies alike, although its not the plane but the nuts flying it that people are afraid of.
  • CrankyHippo, on 03/12/2008, -1/+24So can i have one now?
  • bxblox, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Goodtimes
  • JoshuaLowe, on 03/12/2008, -1/+42How do you know it's their final flight if they're stealth? They could be right behind you as you type th.. oh *****
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Actually its not 100% stealth from what I understand. It still has a larger rader cross section than even the B-2. Which is kinda odd, since the size much smaller.
  • Bomster, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13That is one seriously mean looking jet.
  • mykalimba, on 03/12/2008, -9/+9"The Air Force decided to accelerate the retirement of the F-117s to free up money to modernize the rest of the fleet."

    So, they're taking something that works perfectly fine and "retiring" it for the sake of getting more $$$ to build new stuff? Seems suspect to me, but it is the U.S. government we're talking about...
    • CrimsonBlur, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11Well that includes upgrading and retrofitting existing planes with newer equipment. While the F-117 works fine, it really should just be retired. The maintenance costs for that plane are just not worth it, we have the F-35 and F-22 now which are both stealth planes and are much faster. It makes much more sense to use the money saved to buy more F-35's than it does to keep the F-117 in the air.
    • wilf_brim, on 03/12/2008, -7/+2No, I think you are right on. Don't know why you were being dugg down. They are still a very capable aircraft, and you could risk them in situations where you wouldn't want to risk a B2 (cost ~1.5 billion each). They are just trying to get money to buy the F-22, an aircraft we probably don't need, and certainly can't afford to buy in anything like the numbers we would need to replace the F-15.
  • mark076h, on 03/12/2008, -2/+21The F-117 stealth fighter is not just an icon of the USAF it is an icon of American engineering, ingenuity and military might.
    • warriorscot, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Maybe to peope that don't know much, but it was a bit of a laughing stock as the better radar arrays picked it up easily even when it was new, the aircraft was invisible but the air distrubance was very clear and easily tracked. It worked against older soviet equipment but agianst the new stuff it was useless fortunately it never went up against anyone with a decent up to date air defence system.
  • fr0ng, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4I wonder why they're obsolete already..
    • Warptaco, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Serbs shot one down and sent pieces of it to Russia for closer examination.
    • zeebo, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3They only had an advantage against enemies with radar (our current crop of enemies don't even bother), on top of that they only really worked well against enemies who relied on old russian radar systems, finally when we aknowledged that we had them and used them and people started to get an idea of their capabilities they lost their biggest advantages. Once people started figuring out how to shoot them down, they were really useless.
    • allan17, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3F-22 & F-35 will be able to do it's job, as well as many other jobs. F-35's are more multirole, therefore saving more money.
    • freedomkeeper, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0They were more or less an experiment into what the real world advantages of stealth would be, and how well it worked. With the B-2 in service, and the new fighters coming into service soon, it's time is over. Simple as that.
  • FarSide792, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10When does the eBay auction go up? April 23rd?
  • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12So, can these be defeated by triangulating cell phone tower interference just like the stealth bombers ?

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/e20010 ...

    Stealth vs. Nokia: - Nokia Wins!
    • 11b1p, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7cruise missile > celltowers
      • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6Or cheaper alternative..Jam the cell phone frequencies in the target area.
        • 11b1p, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1but that requires a non stealth plane in the area
        • allan17, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2@11b1p
          No, F-22 can jam and it's stealth.
  • downlowfunk, on 03/12/2008, -13/+5Those are crap. Not Safe, irregular design garbage. A waste of my grandparents and parents tax money.
  • mrdoogee, on 03/12/2008, -0/+27Bawwwwwww!
    First the Tomcat and now the F-117? Everything that was cool in aviation in my childhood is getting scrapped.

    Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.
    • RacerX10, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I feel ya man, this is hurting me @ 40 yrs old too :(
  • warp25, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6They also retired the F-14's not too long ago too! What's next on the axing block? The F-15's??
    • SarcasticPirate, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8Yes, actually. The F-22 was designed to be the next gen. air-superiority fighter which is the F-15's primary role, as well as be difficult to detect by enemy radar, acting as a replacement for the F-117. The F-16 and F-18 will be in trouble once the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) goes into service.
      • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Not really. From the USAF's point of view, they're already dead. They're trying to retire the F-16s as quickly as possible to create a "fighter/bomber" shortage, justifying the "need" for the F-35.

        But from an operational point of view, the F-16 is still an awesome fighter. It just can't do the stealth attack roles; who cares? And they are cheap (F-16 = $14 million) compared the F-35 ($45 million). I don't understand why the F-16 isn't more popular in asia or south america (unless the Soviets have "just as capable" combat craft for cheaper).
    • warriorscot, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah those things are old, anything modern like the F22 or Eurofighter can almost single handedly take on whole squadrons of them before they would know what hit them. I think I read about a Eurofighter trial that took out 6 F15s in a row may have been a different opponent aicraft but im pretty sure it was F15s.
    • allan17, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1F-15E's will be sticking around. The rest are history soon. I'll be sad to see them go.
  • Picaroon, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3The AF sure does go through its expensive jets quickly. Meanwhile, the Navy still uses P-3 Orions from the 60s...
    • zeebo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Utility planes and bombers have a lot longer life cycle. After all, we're still using planes from the 50s.
  • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5They are being kept flight-ready should we need to commission them again for service. Many are being re-painted the standard slate gray to take part in day-time attacks. They still have a remarkable success rate.
  • burstaneurysm, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Such a bad ass plane. First the A-10, now this. It's a shame to see it go.
    http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/0703 ...
    • Codename46, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4WTF they're not retiring the A-10...

      sauce?
      • xaxxon, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3They actually did.. then brought them back.
    • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1People don't seem to understand. A-10 is the premiere ground support warplane. Its insulting that they talk about the F-35 replacing the A-10 role. It can't possibly loiter around the battlefield like the A-10, or survive the kind of damage an A-10 can sustain.

      The F117 is an obsolete aircraft. The F-22 kicks its ass, the F-35 will kick its ass. Even in the stealth role. They shouldn't even bother mothballing it.
  • chrisaug18, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8Those must be some pretty big mothballs?
  • diablozx9, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4LOL,,,, doesn't the US air force still use B-52's ???
    Those things are WAY older.
    • TechMike, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0B52 spent a lot of time on stand-by alert, so most don't really have much flight time on the airframe until recently. And it's a lot sturdier (without too much advanced electronics), that fighters.
  • INDOAZZ, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4Just like the SR-71. A great plane destine to be retired early. I am sure it will show up at air shows, from time to time.
  • dalesmatrix, on 03/12/2008, -8/+3hmm imagine if all those resources were turned to creating a renewable power source...probably wouldn't need the planes to bomb oil rich countries then.
    • Niallgriff, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1it was designed during the Cold War, not for Iraq...
  • jsffive, on 03/12/2008, -8/+3The F-14 Tomcat has been in service for over forty years, and the F-117 is going into mothballs BEFORE it?

    Wonderful aircraft. I especially like it's "disposable lighter" feature.

    Hey Pentagon, how about you design an aircraft that lasts for awhile?
    • brettg102, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4The F-14 has been retired for a while now. What makes you think we still use it?
    • JAKN, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6F-14 is done... how did you miss the dozens of digg stories about it's retirement, not to mention the several comments above yours?
  • RajAtWork, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4>> Seven of the planes have crashed, one in Serbia in 1999.

    I am pretty sure that one was shut down by Serbs. I remember them on TV with signs "Sorry, we did not know it was stealth".
  • cheese06, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Skunkworks is working on the SR-91, the Aurora aircraft, still highly classified and not publicly acknowledged by the USAF.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28aircraft%29
    • e2superman, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Not to burst your bubble but the only thing like the aurora right now is a $700million program called Hyper Sonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) by Darpa. Disclosed publically. Quite aggressive in fact.

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/hcv.ht ...

      Aurora is just an old wifes tale of a long past and forgetten black program that was mothballed.
    • Paramour, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Insider info. We cancelled the Aurora program. Too expensive.
  • Henwood, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2What stealth fighters? Those are stealth bombers.
    • ThreeDee912, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The F-117 was actually classified as a fighter,although it was a attacker/bomber.

      B-2 Bomber
      F-16 Fighter
      A-10 Attacker
      etc.

      Still not sure the reasoning for classifying a bomber as a fighter, though.
  • Virgule, on 03/12/2008, -6/+5Good riddance.
  • canopi, on 03/12/2008, -1/+0Awsome craft... but if they are just going to leave them in some hangar collecting dust, can I borrow one?
  • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2they're probably getting rid of it is because it wasn't really a fighter. The F-22 being a true multi-role aircraft. Fighter/Bomber + the ability to creep up on your enemy without being noticed...priceless.
  • inferno10, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Obsolete already? Looks like the USAF is taking a move out of Apple's playbook.
    j/k
  • fuckingusername, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Cool I need to spend more of my tax paying money anyhow
  • czeman, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Can I have one?
  • joshpar, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4what a great strategy. Tell the world your stealth fighter is being 'retired'... mwah ha ha...
  • troycott, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Sweet! Now Canada can buy them!
  • CarbonAndroid, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1A waste of money. The developers need another secret contract.
  • Cheesehead9805, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1i saw one do a fly over at a baseball game. it was sweet!!
  • LastDitchHero, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1They need the money to build all the F-302s aboard the Daedalus
  • lokee73, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The thing I don't think most people realize is how quiet they really are. I was sitting up on a radar shelter doing maintenance when two flew overhead. I could see the pilots faces they were so low. I swear they weren't any louder than a lawnmower.

    My only regret is that I didn't see them soon enough to get down and check the size of their scope signature.
    • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I find lawnmowers disturbingly loud.

      On the other hand, when I was a kid, I was in the Sunken Meadow State Park at night, where Grumman used to occasionally fly their F-14's for testing. I lucked out, and had a pair fly overhead. Weird experience, because they flew freakishly low (100 ftas?), at a slow speed, and they were QUIET. Much more quiet than a lawnmower (perhaps there are electric ones that are more quiet). They kind of "snuck" up behind me.

      Now that I think of it, they probably were experimental models, because they moved so relatively slow at such a low altitude.
    • TechMike, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0I saw the 117 at an airshow. It did a low-altitude pass just above the runway (not quite touch and go). We were at the edge of the flightline and maintained a normal-voice conversation until it accelerated to gain altitude again. Even then, it was softer than the F22 at it's quietest.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1 First flight 1981, first combat mission 1989 (yeah right), shown to the public 1988. I bet the Raptor is already out of date by a decade.
    • TechMike, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1First fligtht 1981 means it's 1970s technology engines, fuel efficiency is probably killing the logistics tail.
      Also, 20+ year old computers. What kind of computers were YOU (or your dad) using in 1978?
  • Thex1138, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Boeing should have won the contract, not Lockheed.
    The VTOL airframe Boeing developed is much more advanced than a bloody rotating afterburner..
    • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Its not about having bleeding edge technology.

      Its meeting mission requirements like weight, range, reliability, and cost per plane.
    • nartvq, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1More advanced doesn't necessarily equate to better. During testing, Lockheed was able to provide an aircraft with a single configuration for both STOVL and supersonic flight. While Boeing had to remove parts from the plane to demonstrate STOVL. Maybe if they had more time, they could have refined the X-32, but it's a competitive world. They gambled with a new idea, built the plane around it the best they could and lost fair and square to a company that made a different bet.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-35
  • xxb10h4z4i2dxx, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I knew an AF Sgt who guarded a F-117A when it was still in the black world. He told me that there are still things he couldn't talk about.
    • vwgtiturbo, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0He told you that just to sound cool. Is he a 'one upper'? Give me a break... The guy worked Security Forces, which means he scored LOW on the AFSVAB, and the REAL stealth jobs wouldn't take him.
      • Paramour, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily. I'm not a SF but there are also things I can not talk about.

        Just because SF job score is low, doesn't mean that person is any less valuable to the USAF.
        And just to burst your bubble, SF also have "stealth" sub job and elite units.
        A widely known one is the SF Phoenix Ravens. Look it up.
        And no I'm not SF, I'm actually Comms.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.