MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: dreamer on August 11, 2005, 06:40:53 PM
-
I thought the F-117 was a bomber so why would it have the F classification instead of the B classification?
Sorry if this is a stupid question...
-
There is much speculation. There are some websites on the internet that go deep into it. If I remember correctly one theory is that they wanted to keep its role secret. Of course the enemy would be more worried about undetectable bombers than fighters. Also the 117 number is out of normal designation. The 110th series was used primarily to designate Soviet types which the US were testing a lot at the time. So to keep attention away from its real role, the F-117 designation was used. There was a lot of rumours about a F-19 stealth fighter, so maybe more would have leaked out if they used that obvious designation. Another argument for the F, which makes more sense probably, is that it was indeed originally conceived as a fighter. It was wired to carry Sidewinder missiles in its bay. Like the F-111 it ended up as a bomber.
You might find more after some extensive google searches. ;)
-
Thank you. That explains a lot, also do you know if the F-117 participated in the United States' bombing of Iraq.
-
The aircraft carries the F designation also for morale reasons, most of the pilots were taken from the fighter community so the aircraft was designated F-117. The aircraft participated in the 1991 Gulf War and more than likely was a participant in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
-
I am sure that's one of the theories, but I think the MiG/Secret is a better explanation. According to my knowledge, most pilots came from F-111 squadrons, also still fighter squadrons but you can hardly call them 'fighter community'. The A-10 squadrons are fighter squadrons, so A-? would be a better designation then... ::)
-
glad to see what I thought was a stupid question started a debate.
-
got me thinking, lots of years have passed since I looked for it, maybe an official explanation is already available to the public :-X
-
where would you go to look?
-
It's designated 'F' because it HANDLES like a fighter. It does crazy things you'd never see a B-1, B-2 or even Russian bombers, for that matter... Although i'm in agreeement with the aforesaid. I think the pushing factors were the 'sidewinder' and handling one...
-
Here's some "speculation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk
The "F-" designation for this aircraft has not been officially explained; however, it seemed to use the pre-1962 USAF fighter sequence like the F-111. Other modern aircraft also have old pre-1962 numbers (such as the B-52, C-130, and a number of lesser known aircraft), but the F-117 seems to be the only later aircraft not to use the unified sequence that began in 1962. Most modern U.S. military aircraft use post-1962 designations which follow (somewhat) predictable pattern whereby "F-" was usually an air-to-air fighter, "B-" was usually a bomber, and "A-" was usually a ground-attack aircraft. Examples of the foregoing include the F-15 Eagle, the B-2 Spirit, and the A-6 Intruder. Still, since the Stealth Fighter is actually primarily a ground-attack plane, the fact that it retains an "F-" designation is one of the reasons there are several other theories. The USAF has always been more proud of its fighters than its ground-attack aircraft, which are sometimes denigrated as "mud movers."[5] Officials may have felt that they could more easily generate political and military support for the radical new aircraft if it were called a "fighter" rather than a bomber or attack plane. Or, the "F-" designation may have been part of the attempt to keep the Nighthawk secret (the program was classified until the late 1980s). This misdirection could have also served to keep the Nighthawk from violating treaties or angering other countries. During development the term 'LT', for Logistics Trainer, was often used. The Lockheed U-2, for example, should have had "R" for reconnissance instead of a "U" for utility, but, was purposely given the wrong letter to cover its true mission.
Also, a recent televised documentary quoted a senior member of the F-117A development team as saying that the top-notch fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an F- plane, as opposed to a B- or A- aircraft.
-
All of what you're all saying are true...I think for an aircraft to be designated a bomber would also require size and a much greater payload. Raptor probably explained it best - it handles like a fighter and if given more powerful engines, could probalby evade enemy aircraft, but then again, would take away from its stealth capability.
Look at the F-15E Strike Eagle - it is a fighter and ground attack, so why not designate it F/A-15E - I would think obviously for simpicity's sake. But it performs the same role as an F/A-18 Hornet, although I would think a lot better.
The Air Force is also looking to retire the F-117 early, mostly to receive more funding for the F-22 and F-35. I think they should keep it in service because it can still evade radar, but with the technology they have now compared to 20 years ago, I think the Air Force can re-equip the F-117 with more powerful engines capable of supercruise. It doesn't necessarily have to go Mach 2, although that would be an added benefit, but as long as it can achieve Mach 1.6 in supercruise, it should be sufficient to evade enemy aircraft. What the heck, why not add an internal cannon for self defense?
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question...
there are no such things as stupid questions...just stupid answers:>
-
there are no such things as stupid questions...just stupid answers:>
True.
-
The Air Force is also looking to retire the F-117 early, mostly to receive more funding for the F-22 and F-35. I think they should keep it in service because it can still evade radar, but with the technology they have now compared to 20 years ago, I think the Air Force can re-equip the F-117 with more powerful engines capable of supercruise. It doesn't necessarily have to go Mach 2, although that would be an added benefit, but as long as it can achieve Mach 1.6 in supercruise, it should be sufficient to evade enemy aircraft. What the heck, why not add an internal cannon for self defense?
I am not sure that would be possible due to aerodynamics of the airframe. Also to fit those with different engine will probably take a high investment, and then you still have only two bombs. Internal cannon, will need to make space for it, without having an impact on its radar signature. All F-117 differ a bit from one another, I think phasing them out is better than upgrading them. Especially with the F-35 coming up. Until then, they'll be able to deliver JDAMs. For once, I agree with the decisions made here, although retirement might come to soon, which leaves a gap. I guess the JSF is creating a gap everywhere. (PS: Australia is going to lease 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets as a stop-gap, allowing the service to retire its F-111s)
-
I think we should wait until the F-35 comes out and then retire the F-117.
2 bombs just isnt enough.
I'm not a fan of the F-117 though....
-
Here's something
The F-117 is so efficient that it flew only 2% of the combat sorties logged over the gulf war and yet acheived some 40% of the total damage done.
-
oh wow 40%
what had the other 60?
-
The big guys, like Mr. B-1B lancer and Mr. B-52H, and not forgetting Dear old Mrs. AH-64D Apache Longbow. And Miss A-10 TBolt II. And Dr. F-111...and everyone else.
-
I was being sarcastic..
-
You're right Webmaster, it was just a thought. Though I still believe the F-117 can still perform mission under the cover of night. Radar still can't pick up its signature, which says something about its 20-year-old technology.
I agree with Cobra to just wait for the arrival of the JSF before retiring the F-117. If it's true what you're saying about Australia acquiring F-18F Super Hornets before the arrival of the JSF, it better be a worthwhile wait for all these countries buying it.
The F-35 has a LOT to prove when it arrives.
-
Yeah I agree.
-
Australia is getting new Hornets.. and the F-111 and Hornets are being grounded when we get the F-35s.. though there are rumours the F-111's will be grounded from the end of this year >:(
-
So is there an official date when the F-35 is coming out this year?
-
No, its scheduled introduction into service is 2011
-
That's a long time for the '18s and '111s to become absolute obsoletes, Grip... Don't complain.
-
What about the F-22?
-
F-22 is in service already. they have a squadron or something at Langley AFB
-
Really? has it flown any real combat sorties yet?
-
No, at this point, I don't think the USAF is risking losing one of their $120 million superplane to a SAM. If they're ever gonna use the F-22, it'll be a conflict with Korea or Iran ( to take out Iranian F-14s).
-
Pfft, the Iranian F-14s would take themselves out on take off
-
Probably ::)
But I thought the Iranians didnt have their F-14s working ???
-
Oh, come on. The F-22 is invulnerable to Radar-guided, and it should be able to outmaneuver most others too, apart from that.
-
Yeah I agree...its still got to prove itself but I think it will do extraordinary.
-
That was really funny, Gripen, and you're probably right. I don't think Raptors would have any problem taking out those Iranian Tomcats.
-
:S what was funny?
-
Pfft, the Iranian F-14s would take themselves out on take off
Hang on there. If a Sopwith Camel can take off, i think those jusk yard things should work too...
-
the camel was the shiz.. dont knock it
-
:D :D :D :D
-
Ok- If a Fairey could take off, so could those pieces of junk.
-
omg the fairey.. wait.. was that the bi-plane in WW2?
-
Yeah. The Fairey was outdated by 1939 but it crippled the Bismarck :o :o
-
Ok- If a Fairey could take off, so could those pieces of junk.
The Fairey was a mean SOB.. dont knock it either
-
>:( I dislike the Fairey, actually. Ok. If Mr. Liebeck can stand up, so can the Iranian F-14s. They're way better.
-
bite me skank..
-
Roger that. *MUNCH*
And i am not a skunk. Change the "U" to an "A"
-
haha u guys r so wird (in a good way) ;D ;D ;D
-
haha u guys r so wird (in a good way) ;D ;D ;D
hell yea but i still think that ur more than them
-
Hm. I wonder if this topic would have remained stale if i hadn't brought it back up.
haha u guys r so wird (in a good way) ;D ;D ;D
Touche.
-
I know im weird :)
-
We know you are :D
I just had to say that. It was the perfect time ;D
-
it was indeed
-
Take a bow, guys. Now back-to-topic.
Grip, you mentioned something about not trusting stealth equip. Seriously, do you still hold that view?
-
Yup.. stealth is not worth the money..
-
Seriously, man. You've got a problem. Assume 100 B-52s were all shot down. That's more expensive than a B-2 sneaking in and out un-noticed.
-
yea.. and one B2 shot down is woth a hundred B-52's..
-
Exactly. Why waste the lives?
-
id rather send in 100 B-52 to completely destroy a country or whatever, rather then 1 B2 over 100 nights..
-
Spoilt brat.
-
i cant help it, being an only child n all :)