F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

Is F-117 stealth technology considered to be obsolete by todays era of stealth technology? Is it true to say that f-117 stealth technology is obsolete? If so what part of the f-117 stealth package is truly obsolete?
The f-22 and f-117 both scatter radar. Both use RAM, how much different are the two aircrafts RAMs.

F-16.net Sponsor

Actually I think the F-117 has a radar cross section near what the Raptor has. Off the top of my head I remember reading that the F-117's were just getting old and obsolete in terms of payload i.e., they can only carry two bombs at a time, and maintainability; known issues with rain disrupting the stealth and having to apply RAM after each sortie. To be honest I think the aircraft is still very useful and it's stealth is still among the best in the world, the AF only started retiring them to free up money for other projects.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Tinito,

I think you nailed at least one reason the F-117 stealth is obsolete - maintainability. The Raptor doesn't need nearly the same amount of skin care as the Nighthawk.

Another reason the F-117 is considered obsolete is that we now have a supercruising, sensor fused, stealth jet capable of both air to air and air to ground. The F-117 is air to mud only and subsonic.

Enthusiast Joined: May 08, 2005 Posts: 69 Status: Offline

Ok, I understand that the F-117 has become too expensive and a bit old.
But how about the aged B-52 fleet?
Those things may still come in handy and there's nothing to replace them and apparently nobody is even thinking about replacing those flying giants, but it must be incredibly expensive to keep them operational.
So how do they justify that?

The RCS of '22 is like the one of a marbles. I don't think that night hawks are so stealth..
Again, many of the RCS reductions technics in '117 come from shape (the scattering of radar waves) since that was top secret until operation "just cause" in Panama (before where diffused only stretched picture of nighthawk), while the shape of both ATF where early public domain, so my guess is that Raptor don't rely only (or that much as 117 do) on physical design..

Master-of-Disaster wrote:

Ok, I understand that the F-117 has become too expensive and a bit old.
But how about the aged B-52 fleet?
Those things may still come in handy and there's nothing to replace them and apparently nobody is even thinking about replacing those flying giants, but it must be incredibly expensive to keep them operational.
So how do they justify that?

There is no, and probably will never be, any more money to develop a multiengine cold war era heavy bomber. It's probably cheaper to keep the BUFF fleet going rather than to build new ones or R&D a completely new airplane. Think on par with the A-10.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

swanee wrote:

There is no, and probably will never be, any more money to develop a multiengine cold war era heavy bomber. It's probably cheaper to keep the BUFF fleet going rather than to build new ones or R&D a completely new airplane. Think on par with the A-10.

The Air Force disagree's with you. ACC received funding for a new bomber early last year...Check

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Master-of-Disaster wrote:

Ok, I understand that the F-117 has become too expensive and a bit old.
But how about the aged B-52 fleet?
Those things may still come in handy and there's nothing to replace them and apparently nobody is even thinking about replacing those flying giants, but it must be incredibly expensive to keep them operational.
So how do they justify that?

Easy... of all 3 bombers, the B-52 has the best MC rates and less logistical footprint when you deploy it. Also with the weapons used today like JDAM, Paveway (some 52s have LITENING), CBU-105 etc... once large SAMs and air threats are down, they can plink from up on high and not even get touched by smaller SAMs/MANPADs/AAA/trashfire. Plus with us loosing more and more airfields overseas from which to base from, longer range platforms have more and more value.

And where the B-52 hopefully can support stealth platforms in the future... if SOJ for B-52 gets properly funded and fielded. Those pesky low band radars don't seem to care as much about stealth and need to be suppressed or killed. Cool

hmmmmmm.... I think the radar cross section of an F-117 is competitive with that of a Raptor. Unfortunately the downing of one in Serbia has placed this assumption in doubt, and the Air Force has reinforced this (because they want new jets like the F-22 and I can't blame them). I believe the downing was a one-off, because of operational mistakes (the planes were using the exact same routes in and out of Serbia). I agree with Master-of-Disaster, the F-117 is still a usefull plane, but when the AF had to choose between the F-117 and the F-22, it chose the Raptor - with good reason.

as to the B-52, it cost less to maintain and upgrade the ENTIRE BUFF fleet than buy a SINGLE new bomber.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

hmmmmmm.... I think the radar cross section of an F-117 is competitive with that of a Raptor. Unfortunately the downing of one in Serbia has placed this assumption in doubt, and the Air Force has reinforced this (because they want new jets like the F-22 and I can't blame them). I believe the downing was a one-off, because of operational mistakes (the planes were using the exact same routes in and out of Serbia). I agree with Master-of-Disaster, the F-117 is still a usefull plane, but when the AF had to choose between the F-117 and the F-22, it chose the Raptor - with good reason.

The Serbian incident proves nothing other than the fact that if you fly the same flight path day after day and bomb the same two targets in a row, it doesn't take much for the enemy to set up a radar between the two target locations, use a stop watch to time estimate roughly when you will be overhead and ambush you with by turning the radar on within a couple of kms with no prior warning.

Stealth doesn't make you undetectable. It makes the enemy's detection range much much shorter. If you can reduce the range of the SAM radar(s) from 150km to 20km the air defense network becomes completely ineffective. But it won't prevent you from getting killed if someone jumps you are a radar from 5km out.

Exactly. Any stealth plane still has to skirt the radar's reduced detection range - or else it won't be stealth anymore.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

The answer to the question posed is 'yes'. Actually completely different technology. Much less to maintain and easier to maintain.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

the f-22 is meant to replace the f-15c. why all of a sudden, AF decided to retire the nighthawk and transition the 8th and 9th FS to the raptor? they are transitioning to raptor aren't they?

checksixx wrote:

swanee wrote:

There is no, and probably will never be, any more money to develop a multiengine cold war era heavy bomber. It's probably cheaper to keep the BUFF fleet going rather than to build new ones or R&D a completely new airplane. Think on par with the A-10.

The Air Force disagree's with you. ACC received funding for a new bomber early last year...Check

Really? Damn. That surprises me. Thanks for the correction.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-117 stealth tech obsolete compared to F-22 stealth tech