F-117 Nighthawk

[dreamer]

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...

[Webmaster]

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. 

[dreamer]

Thank you. That explains a lot, also do you know if the F-117 participated in the United States' bombing of Iraq.

[Goose]

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.

[Webmaster]

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... 

[dreamer]

glad to see what I thought was a stupid question started a debate.

[Webmaster]

got me thinking, lots of years have passed since I looked for it, maybe an official explanation is already available to the public

[dreamer]

where would you go to look?

[Raptor]

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...

[Top_Gun]

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.

[Valiant1]

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?

[Gripen]

Sorry if this is a stupid question...

there are no such things as stupid questions...just stupid answers:>