B-52, F-117 added to the chopping block

[Simpleboy]

The F-117A sucks, why it has a "F" designation?

We had a program which featured the F117 on a while ago, they spoke to the chief designer, pilots etc so Ill try answer them.

The F-117 isnt all that much larger than a fighter Some WWII fighters havea larger wingspan. The design used a diamond shape for its rader evasiveness. The shape gave it very good maneuverability, so to reduce pilot training fighter pilots would fly the aircraft opposed to bomber pilots. As it handeled rather similarly.

"No self respecting fighter pilot is going to fly an airplane with a B designation like a bomber, So of course it was called an F."

[dneedham]

The F-117 is labeled as a fighter because the program leader (Kelly Johnson?) knew that no respectable fighter pilot would give up their F-15 or F-16 to fly a BOMBER, so it was labeled as such.

I dont see the need is new super weapons, even stealthier aircraft, etc, when the only wars we are fighting now are 3rd world countries, where most aircraft shot down are either friendly fire (ala a half dozen Tornados during OIF) or very lucky RPG shots by insurgents on the ground...

B-52, its time is waning, as we are fighting urban landscapes now, where carpet bombing is frowned upon by most Western nations.

U-2, yeah, its been replaced by cheaper, safer UAVs.

F-117, still too soon. The F-22 will be a good stablemate for the Nighthawk, but I still think we have a need for a dedicated stealth bomber that can pinpoint a target, and be a lot more maneuverable and faster than the B-2 Spirit.

That is my take on this whole debacle.

EDIT:

Haha, sorry, Simpleboy, I didnt read your post. We mustve seen the same History Channel program on it
________
R. BRYAN

[Crunk415balla]

It seems a little early to get rid of the F-117 if you ask me...

[Irfan]

I take it from that you work for the USAF?

So you also know exactly how the F-117 compares against other planes, I'm impressed. And obviously, going only Mach 1 means it is terribly slow.

Yeah, all those Serbian and Iraqi fighters sure had powerful radars, wow. Not to mention the whole stealth thing must be totally useless, too.

Yeah, I believe the lack of self-defence is the exact reason why the US has so heavily relied on the F-117s.

I only heard of a F-117 shot down, didn't know that a whole herd was shot down, wow, thanks for the news.

Opps wrong spelling... The thing that i was trying to say that "Have you know that a F-117A shot down over Serbia"

[RobinB]

Why would the yanks need U2's when they have Darkstar's ? Why have B-52's to deliver ordinance when smart-bombs are being developed with longer range and better accuracy, thus eliminating the need to "carpet bomb". Why would you need stealth to deliver ordinance when a "smart-bomb" can do the job remotely ? I think "remote delivery systems" will take over from the likes of U2, B52 and F117's - manned aircraft will be used for defensive purposes wher unmanned will be used for offensive tasks - my opinion, for what it's worth......

[seahawk]

B-52 are no longer limited to dumb bombs. They have the ability to use LGBs and JDAMs. Now 16 LGBs and 27 JDAMs in the internal bay is quite a lot of firepower. A lfight of 3 B-52 could take out 120 targets in one go. That is enough for one armored division. Or probably all targets in a whole district of a third world country.

[uy707]

The B1 may be also intricate to maintain because of
- the swept-wings over a wide surface
- the hydrolics, hinges and parts driving the swept-wings
Alain