Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • uy707
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • seahawk
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobinB
    replied
    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......

    Leave a comment:


  • Irfan
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL767-400ER
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Crunk415balla
    replied
    It seems a little early to get rid of the F-117 if you ask me...

    Leave a comment:


  • dneedham
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Simpleboy
    replied
    Originally posted by fjki98
    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.
    Originally posted by Alan Brown
    "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."

    Leave a comment:


  • seahawk
    replied
    Hm, replacing the F-117 makes sense. TheF-22A is said to have a comparable low RCS and with the SDB it is also able to carry a meaningfull payload even better then the 2 bombs a F-117 can carry. In addition the F-22 is faster and is clearly able to dfend itself against enemy fighters.
    On the other hand the US still has not many Stealth assets and the F-117 are still not that old.

    Replacing the U-2 with an UAV. Yes, the U-2 canīt overfly any meaningfull air defensese any more and just loitering behind the FOB is something an UAV can do better. Especially as the U-2 is practically a UAV, when it comes to data processing.

    Replacing the BUFF. No way, you need a wing of F-22 to carry the same bombload as a B-52 flight. In a low to medium threat enviroment there is nothing for BAI like a B-52 flight. Especially as some B-52 are being converted to EB-52 standard, giving them a niche stand-off jamming capability as well.
    The B1 costs as much to maintain, has a even worse service ability rate, has still some bugs and carries less payload over less range. If a bomber is to go, then it is the B1.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL767-400ER
    replied
    Originally posted by fjki98
    The F-117A sucks, why it has a "F" designation?
    I take it from that you work for the USAF?
    Originally posted by fjki98
    It is NOT a fighter it is a ground atack aircraft. It's slow not as menuvereble as other fighters (even some ground atack aircraft handles like a fighter).
    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.
    Originally posted by fjki98
    Easy targets for fighter jets with a powerfull radar.
    Yeah, all those Serbian and Iraqi fighters sure had powerful radars, wow. Not to mention the whole stealth thing must be totally useless, too.
    Originally posted by fjki98
    Poor self-defence. Even the A-7 has AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defence.
    Yeah, I believe the lack of self-defence is the exact reason why the US has so heavily relied on the F-117s.
    Originally posted by fjki98
    Herd of the F-117A shot down over Serbia?
    I only heard of a F-117 shot down, didn't know that a whole herd was shot down, wow, thanks for the news.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irfan
    replied
    The F-117A sucks, why it has a "F" designation? It is NOT a fighter it is a ground atack aircraft. It's slow not as menuvereble as other fighters (even some ground atack aircraft handles like a fighter). Easy targets for fighter jets with a powerfull radar. Poor self-defence. Even the A-7 has AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defence. Herd of the F-117A shot down over Serbia? They use old long-waveline radars. And the one that is damaged but managed to land?

    Leave a comment:


  • uy707
    replied
    On the other hand with proper maintenance and regular updates, they can be kept in air for very long, since they fly much less than an airliner. Recently I read a 46 year old Mirage III still in use at Cazeaux AFB until retirement days ago just boasts 1,800 hours or so in the clock ...
    As for the B1B superceeding Buff, I rather figure the Lancer to be kept on line alongside as she has been still looking taking over since the first ...... blueprints.
    Alain

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL767-400ER
    replied
    Originally posted by YYZPICS
    The B52 has done an awsome job in its role, but i guess everything will have to come to an end.
    To true, especially at an average age of 44 years.
    Originally posted by YYZPICS
    So time for the lancer to take number 1 spot.
    About time, considering that many of the B1Bs are already 20+ years old as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • YYZPICS
    replied
    Originally posted by uy707
    ^The B52s which were axed in the 90's are early A to F(I guess) models, which would have cost probably too much to be retrofitted and set to G & H standards. Recently NASA took up a H to replace an early D or E.
    Alain
    The B52 has done an awsome job in its role, but i guess everything will have to come to an end. The B1B can carry a bigger payload and is alot faster then the BUFF. So time for the lancer to take number 1 spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • uy707
    replied
    ^The B52s which were axed in the 90's are early A to F(I guess) models, which would have cost probably too much to be retrofitted and set to G & H standards. Recently NASA took up a H to replace an early D or E.
    Alain

    Leave a comment:


  • Star Alliance
    replied
    Originally posted by uy707
    F.117
    For : nothing
    Against : Everything
    Verdict : It's ugly, it's slow, it can be detected and when so, it can be downed. Should be the first to go to allow some time in pondering to how to find a new job for the Buffs and U2s.
    Alain
    I don't think the USAF and US Government take looks into consideration . But all the ugliness in the F-117 is for a reason.
    On another note, the breakup of B-52's isn't any new thing. I remember seeing a mid 90's cover story in Air+Space about the destruction of the BUFFs.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X