F-16.net

Elite 3K Joined: May 11, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Good question. All we know for now is that they'll be stored at a secure section of Tonopah.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

Good question. All we know for now is that they'll be stored at a secure section of Tonopah.

I'm pretty sure they're going to AMARC, I want to say I've seen literature recently that there is already space set aside for them there - and that there are actually already a few planes that arrived earlier this year.

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 15, 2004 Posts: 74 Status: Offline

All,

The official line that has been published is that they are being stored at Tonopah and not AMARC.

Regards

Mark

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

Found the old thread about F-117 retirement and storage:

First six F-117s sent to Tonopah "Boneyard"

And from that thread:

Meathook wrote:

Just to add more to MabJab23's story line, more of the same information

Air Force Times wrote:

Once-secret F-117s retiring
03/14/2007

A fighter once so secret that the Air Force kept the jets hidden from sight is now flying off to the boneyard — albeit a high-security boneyard.

On Monday, six stealth F-117 Nighthawks left Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., for storage at the Tonopah Test Range, north of Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Once the jets arrive at Tonopah, the wings will be removed and the jets stored in their original hangars.

Most retired Air Force planes go to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center near Tucson, Ariz. But with some aspects of the F-117 still classified, a more secure retirement home was chosen.

By the end of the decade, all 55 of the F-117s will be retired, replaced at Holloman by the F-22A Raptor.

Before the flight, Brig. Gen. David Goldfein, commander of Holloman’s 49th Fighter Wing, commented about significance F-117.

“The Nighthawk story is truly one of vision, guts, passion, heroism, defiance and incredible risk taking,” he said. “A story both uniquely American and, I believe, uniquely Air Force.”

The first F-117 was delivered to the Air Force in 1982 and the last plane arrived in 1990.

In combat, the jets were chosen for first strikes in Operations Desert Storm, Allied Force and Iraqi Freedom.

The Nighthawks were originally based at Tonopah, an airfield that has been home to many secret Air Force programs such as an aggressor squadron that flew Soviet fighters. The jets moved to Holloman in 1992.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1088 Status: Offline

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

More of a medium bomber along the lines of a subsonic B-58, Blinder, or Badger. Certainly not in the category of a B-52, B-1, B-2, or even a Backfire.

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

dwightlooi wrote:

In the ground attack role, the F-22 currently lacks some features that limits its effectiveness -- no IRST, no laser ranger/targeter, no synthethic aperture ground attack mode for the APG-77, no integrated night vision, etc.

IRST...not needed for its ground attack role
Laser stuff...not needed for its ground attack role
Ground attack mode for RADAR...Classified
Night vision...been flying with it for a long time now in the Raptor

CAS and the missions the Raptor and Nighthawk were designed for are WAY different and to even bring the CAS argument into the fray is unfair.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

I know the Curtis LeMay fans are pulling for the B-1R. I'll be happy seeing my country build any of these three... FB-22 and YF-23(B?)

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

checksixx wrote:

IRST...not needed for its ground attack role
Laser stuff...not needed for its ground attack role
Ground attack mode for RADAR...Classified
Night vision...been flying with it for a long time now in the Raptor

CAS and the missions the Raptor and Nighthawk were designed for are WAY different and to even bring the CAS argument into the fray is unfair.

IRST - not absolutely necessary, but it helps a lot
Laser - yes if you want better than GPS accuracy or moving target accuracy.
Ground attack mode - SAR not currently incorporated but on the way.
Night vision - traditional googles such as those on F-15/16/18, not HMD based and drawing from aircraft sensors

Super Hornet used GPS guided bombs on a moving target by using the radar to track the target and a datalink to update the position of said target to the bomb as it fell.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

fox100 wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

In the ground attack role, the F-22 currently lacks some features that limits its effectiveness -- no IRST, no laser ranger/targeter, no synthethic aperture ground attack mode for the APG-77, no integrated night vision, etc.

With you it always cannot be done. Will not a sniper pod (or another) fit within the confines of any of the F-22's 3 weapons bays? Presto, precision strike airplane with capabilities far and away beyond the chunky butt F-35.
Put a pod in one of the aim-9 bays, and you still have room to fill up the central bay to brim with all kinds of nasty little things for precision all weather day/night strike roles.

Quit making easy things so hard.

So the F-22 doesn't have "built in" IRST and focal planes and CCD's and "lasers"... you got 2 bays on the sides that when emptied of the missiles have all kinds of room, for lasers, and irst, and anything else you can put in there.

But no, the F-22 should never be used as CAS with 183 airframes...... Now then, if you want to dart inside Iran, lay down some iron on some nuke sites, and get out faster than anything else can... Then you go with the F-22.

Oh, it can be done. It is just that the F-22 is not currently outfitted with these things and at this point there is no plans for it to. So you are missing a number of things which the F-117 had and even legacies like the F-15E has.

Trust me, if they have outfitted some pop-out targeting pods within the F-22, you'd never know about. If A-10 pilots in GW1 figured how to use their munitions as a poor mans IR... Then believe me, the F-22 is capable of more than the mass populace will ever know of.

But also in this age of GPS guided munitions and radar mapping (I'm sure the 22 has it even if its not made public), the types of high value assets that the 22 would go after are most likely non-moving fixed targets.

Now then if you want to be dumb (not you personally) and use the 22 to go after tanks and troop carriers and those things with folding fin rockets and mavericks, then you get what you deserve.

Beijing Is Developing Anti-Stealth Abilities
BY WENDELL MINNICK, TAIPEI

China is developing new radar and other sophisticated systems to find and target U.S. radar-evading stealth aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning, F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit.
China watchers in Asia and the United States have seen an increase in China’s anti-stealth research and development, and procurement and manufacturing of passive, bistatic high frequency and long-range radars.
China’s efforts to defeat U.S. stealth technology also include espionage. From 2002 through 2005, China received sensitive data on the B-2 from Noshir Gowadia, a former Northrop Grumman engineer who helped design its exhaust cloaking system, according to FBI officials. The information likely helped China more easily detect not just the B-2, but the B-1, F-15 and air-launched cruise missiles as well.
A former U.S. defense attaché who was assigned to Beijing said China’s anti-stealth programs may seriously threaten U.S. stealth aircraft.
“I think it’s real and well within China’s reach. It’s been investing in research and development on counterstealth technologies for a decade or more,” he said.
Michael Pillsbury, a Washington-based China military specialist, said, “China has a long record of open-source advocacy writings about both the critical importance of counterstealth for China and debates about the best mix of alternative approaches China needs to develop counterstealth.”
Pillsbury said off-the-shelf technology could help in the near term. But perhaps more effective, he said, is Chinese authors’ suggestion that high-powered computers be used to gather up the extremely weak signals bounced off stealth aircraft by FM radio and TV stations.
“This system would not need new transmitters, as it could rely on the national network in this frequency range,” Pillsbury said.
Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China has been focused on meter-wave, passive over-the-horizon radar and infrared counters to U.S. stealth technologies. These include the acquisition of four Kolchuga passive sensor systems from Ukraine.
“At the 2001 Moscow Airshow, a Russian radar engineer responsible for upgrading old meter-wave radar with advanced computer tech complained bitterly to me that China had stolen their technology via his Balkan customer,” Fisher said. “An upgraded Russian meter-wave radar is suspected of having played a major role in the Serbian shoot-down of the F-117 stealth fighter [over Kosovo in 19990. I suspect the Yagi-antenna meter-wave radar ... benefited from this ‘research.’”
He said China began marketing a Kolchuga derivative at the 2005 IDEX International Defence Exhibition in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.
“The radar is a three-receiver, triangulating passive detection system that officials claimed had a 300- to 400-kilometer range, vice the 600-kilometer range of Kolchuga. Like Kolchuga, it is meant to be integrated with other sensor data to produce a better air defense picture,” he said.
The former U.S. military attaché said stealth only makes detection harder, not impossible.
“There’s nothing magical about picking up ‘stealth’ aircraft,” he said. “For active radar technology, it’s a matter of being able to pick up low radar cross-section [RCS] targets at long ranges. Need lots of power, a fairly low frequency [ultra high frequency], and large arrays or power aperture.”
The former attaché pointed to China’s interest in passive radar systems. China ordered six VERA-E systems in 2004 from the Czech Republic for $55 million, but the U.S. government successfully blocked the sale. However, the attaché said that VERA components and technical specifications were transferred to Beijing.
At the China International Electronic Exhibition in Beijing in 2006, the Institute of China Electronic Technology Corp. revealed its YLC-20 two-station passive surveillance radar, believed to be a copy of the VERA-E.
“China’s been doing a lot of work in the area of active radars operating above the HF portion of the frequency spectrum,” said the former attaché. “The other key issue to ensuring early detection of low RCS aircraft is having the radar be elevated so it can overcome line-of-sight limitations. This is where aerostats, or tethered balloons with a radar, come in.” •
E-mail: wminnick@defensenews.com.

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

Neno wrote:

Beijing Is Developing Anti-Stealth Abilities
BY WENDELL MINNICK, TAIPEI

None of the systems -- existing or proposed -- serves anything more than to offer tripwire warning of possible stealth incursion. The low frequencies used and non-direct reflection mode of operation means that these radars do not offer the track quality needed for the "C" (Control) portion of "AWAC" much less fire control. After they do detect a possible VLO contact, the only thing they can do is pass it on to AWACs, SAM radars and fighters, and have them check out a general area for possible stealth intruders. The problem is that when that happens, the AWACs, fighters and SAM radars still can't see it until they are well within the engagement range of the VLO intruder. This is not to mention that radar guided weapons still can't get a lock at more than a fraction of their normal seeker range. It means that even if you are warned, there is no way to precisely track or engage the target without being totally outclassed in the engagement.

Imagine this, you are told with good certainty that a pair of F-22s is in a 20x20km area at 30~60K feet moving at Mach 1.5~2.0. You have two 4th generation fighters on CAP which can reach the intruders and maybe a ferw more that can scramble and join the fight in 15 minutes. The local SAM can't see or track the targets. AWACs shows clear skies. How are you going to kill those F-22s. When you do send in the fighters chances are they F-22s willl simply shoot them out of the sky way before they get a radar contact much less a firing opportunity. The SAMs can't fire except perhaps blindly hoping that the missiles will get lucky and go active within 1~2km of the target and catch it in its much compromised seeker cone. The AWAC guys are sweating because the F-22s may decide to come over and shoot them down. Sure, a warning is better than no warning, but you are still pretty screwed.

On top of that, the large, frequently stationary, nature of these "anti-stealth" assets also means that they are the first things to go in a conflict. Pass the first day or two most would have been targeted and blown up.

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

This is China we're talking about. I seem to recall that Gen. MacArthur talking about carpet bombing China during the Korean War and China responding with something to the effect of "So what - we lose a few million."

I could see the Chinese detecting a possible VLO intruder and filling the sky with something like 100 cheap fighter jets. During daytime hours the interceptors would certainly take massive losses by the F-22s and F-35s (in stealth configuration), but as long as they can cause the intruders to expend all of thier A2A missiles, they might be able to get the force to bug out and go home without reaching the target as they'd eventually get within visual range.

I just hope for the Chinese pilots' sake that this never happens.

dwightlooi wrote:

None of the systems -- existing or proposed -- serves anything more than to offer tripwire warning of possible stealth incursion. The low frequencies used and non-direct reflection mode of operation means that these radars do not offer the track quality needed for the "C" (Control) portion of "AWAC" much less fire control. After they do detect a possible VLO contact, the only thing they can do is pass it on to AWACs, SAM radars and fighters, and have them check out a general area for possible stealth intruders. The problem is that when that happens, the AWACs, fighters and SAM radars still can't see it until they are well within the engagement range of the VLO intruder. This is not to mention that radar guided weapons still can't get a lock at more than a fraction of their normal seeker range. It means that even if you are warned, there is no way to precisely track or engage the target without being totally outclassed in the engagement.

Imagine this, you are told with good certainty that a pair of F-22s is in a 20x20km area at 30~60K feet moving at Mach 1.5~2.0. You have two 4th generation fighters on CAP which can reach the intruders and maybe a ferw more that can scramble and join the fight in 15 minutes. The local SAM can't see or track the targets. AWACs shows clear skies. How are you going to kill those F-22s. When you do send in the fighters chances are they F-22s willl simply shoot them out of the sky way before they get a radar contact much less a firing opportunity. The SAMs can't fire except perhaps blindly hoping that the missiles will get lucky and go active within 1~2km of the target and catch it in its much compromised seeker cone. The AWAC guys are sweating because the F-22s may decide to come over and shoot them down. Sure, a warning is better than no warning, but you are still pretty screwed.

On top of that, the large, frequently stationary, nature of these "anti-stealth" assets also means that they are the first things to go in a conflict. Pass the first day or two most would have been targeted and blown up.

This is the best post you ever made! Spot on!

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

Is everything a dime a dozen over in China or what?

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

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