Warbird Information Exchange

Pictures Emerge Of Covered F-117 Being Transported On A Trailer In Southern Nevada

The photos come as another sign that the F-117 program is finally winding down once and for all.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16092/pictures-emerge-of-covered-f-117-being-transported-on-a-trailer-in-southern-nevada

One of these will surely wind up in the Smithsonian, but whether that would be one of the early or late retirees is the question.

Kevin

_________________
Kevin McCartney

I'm sorry to see this. I can't remember if it was here or another forum, but I always get a kick out of seeing a new video on YouTube of an F-117 being taken up to blow away the cobwebs. What a cool job that would be!

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

If the F-117 is done

There must be some bad ass stuff thats been out there for many years that the public knows nothing about

Hmmmmmm

F-22 and F-35...

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

Isn't it a slow plane? Funny how the old stuff is still state of the art, like the B1.

Wikipedia says 617mph is both the max and cruise speed, so I'm afraid my attempt to answer the "isn't it a slow plane?" question isn't helpful!

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

No it was not very fast, but it really did not matter. It did not need to be fast as a low observable aircraft flying almost exclusively at night. It surely got the job done in some very contested airspace. The shoot down over Yugoslavia was in large part to poor tactics by the USAF (overflying the same routes, and flying over the target numerous times- a real no no).

The B-2 is not very fast either. And the B-1B is quite a bit slower than the originally designed B-1 when the decision was made to focus on low level penetration, and reduced radar cross section. While increased speed had been the focus for many bomber and attack programs of the 1950's and 1960's (such as the F-105, Vigilante, B-70 and B-58 programs), low level and reduced radar cross section become more important and we got programs such as the B-1B, B-2, F-117, A-12 (cancelled), F-35 and a few black programs. None are especially fast, but all are quite capable. Rumors and desire for a hypersonic bomber still persist.

The F-117 seems to have been a well executed program.

"Rumors and desire for a hypersonic bomber still persist"

Stick a few P&W F-119's on a B-1, done..

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

I was never a fan of the F-117.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

For me the F-117 was a ground breaking plane in it's reliance on stealth and it's successful use of that attribute in the Gulf.
The pioneer role it played in introducing stealth technology resulted in it being slow, cumbersome and weird looking and this added to its uniqueness, as did the secrecy and mystery that surrounded it in the early days.
Whether you believe that stealth is the future or a dead end, the F-117 was significant.

_________________
Chris Mellor

I think the B1 is the best looking of all, maybe they could change up the tail a bit and give it a power boost, still faster than all the other bombers.
IMO F117 and the bomber huge $ waste.

And don't forget the computer stabilized (artificial stability) flight control system.

Hmm, in my opinion "effective" is much more important than being pretty or fast. The F-117, B-2 (and A-10 and A-6) are classic examples of being neither especially fast or pretty, but they sure got the got job done- often going "downtown" or in higher threat environments where other aircraft would have been shot out the sky. A bigger "waste" would be sending crews into higher threat areas without the best equipment. Yes they are costly, but less costly than having useless aircraft, or crews sent to the slaughter. Of course when you are in a permissive environment you can use much cheaper aircraft- but we cant assume we will always be in a permissive war.

The F-117?! I think those pilots that went into downtown Baghdad on the first night of ODS would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Every target hit, no loses and they never saw them coming in what was the most highly defended target area since Hanoi. What would've been the outcome if they used Strike Eagles or F-111s?

The B-2? Let's face it. If push comes to shove and a bunker buster or low level yield nuke needs to be dropped on North Korea or Iran, it will be done by the B-2.

If there was a waste it is the B-1. It was canceled. The only reason Reagan revived it was to spend the Soviets into oblivion in the 1980's. The money should have been put toward more B-2's.