Scrapping the F-117

[Jimbib]

Carnage of a wobbly goblin.

 

Clicky

[kesegy]

that is just depressing.

[Icarus999]

that is just depressing.

 

It's more than depressing .... its just wrong. Those aircraft should be fitted with new avionics, structually reinforced and retained in service. With the cost of new aircraft to replace the F-15

F-16 the idea of scrapping the F-117 does not make sense to me. The stealthy F-117 would make one hell of a "Killer" as part of a wild weasel team, much better than an F-16; why not utilize what we have rather than send it to the scrapyard.

[+Fubar512]

The '117 is limited to whatever fits inside of, and whatever can be deployed from, its internal weapons bay. It was a purpose-built aircraft, which historically has not been the key to longevity.

[Stick]

That was the first sim I ever played-F117 by EA. I loved that pane.Hated the F-22 as a kid

Edited September 20, 2008 by Stick

[+DWCAce]

Having seen pics and videos of F-14's being SARDIP'd, I can't say that this is any better. :(

[MAKO69]

Its an old bird that had a very limited payload, it was 1st gen stealth technology, composits all that other happy new tech stuff from the'60s and '70s . Its time to move on. Yes its sad but before it was made public they were flying it for 10+ years that makes them pushing 30 years old. Thats a lot of time on those birds. Salute to the old dogs. They will not be forgoten tip your beer or drink of choice. All great warriors and their steeds must step aside for the younger Gen.

[Caesar]

Yeah, it blows, but what I've come to understand is that once an airframe is retired it has about 1 of 4 options:

 

1.) Get scrapped

2.) Go to a museum

3.) Become a drone

4.) Sit in the desert and wait to be scrapped, go to a museum, or become a drone

 

War reserve aside, that's pretty much what's happening.

[eraser_tr]

War reserve would probably be a good choice at this point in history. Or even selling them to an ally, RAF Nighthawk B.1? Israel would be out because the tech might get to china and we don't want stealths coming at us yet (sorry!)

 

Almost as depressing as seeing the tomcat chopped up. Bizarre too since the stealth is ahead of anything any other country can build.

[Jimbib]

It's a bit surprising that they're tearing them up this easily, I thought previously that a big issue had been made about the materials in the paint they are covered in. I had heard they were just going to be stored in the hangars at Tonopah with their wings taken off.

[Caesar]

I'm willing to bet they're not going into war reserve simply because of the tecnology they were built with. Figure, we've been scrapping F-14's because we're afraid Iran will get their hands on spare parts from them, we sure as heck don't want to risk the spread of stealth technology.

[+Gocad]

JimmyBib, I think you missed a sentence in that article:

After the cleverly designed low-observable leading edge features and radar absorbent materials were carefully removed, the scrapping process became brutally simple.

 

There is no real use left for the F-117 now that the Raptor is in service, not to mention that the F-117 is basically late 70s/early 80s technology.

[Silverbolt]

it remember me some cat.....

[MAKO69]

I'll take 1 for my front yard just give me a week for the concrete to cure were she'll rest.

[+SkippyBing]

Bizarre too since the stealth is ahead of anything any other country can build.

 

I doubt it, both MBB and BAe Systems have produced stealth design studies, the only thing stopping them entering production being a lack of orders. The technology used in the F-117 is actually based on a decades old mathematics paper by a Soviet academic and is to some extent used in a lot of the latest generation of naval vessels, think La Fayette and Daring class.

It may just be that the airframes are at the end of their fatigue lives in which case there's not a lot of point keeping them around.

[+column5]

The Air Force still wants to increase the F-22 order, and getting these aircraft out of the way "creates" the need for a stealthy tactical strike aircraft in the inventory.

[Weasel Keeper]

The F(?)-117 was very expensive to maintain, a lot due to the outer absorbant material that had to be scraped off to remove panels for internal maintenance. If any of the material had come loose after a flight or had to be removed to depanel, a new coating had to be applied and allowed sufficient time to cure. Lots of money and downtime. The F-117 was pretty much a "stealth" F-15 on the inside. It had F-15 landing gear, hydraulic and pneudraulic systems, and almost the same cockpit. 25-30 years ago it was a great platform, but with the stealthy B-2, F-22, and the F-35 when it goes into production, the F-117 is just old and tired.

[+JediMaster]

I thought it was actually based more on the F/A-18 (which entered service just as the 117 was being designed)...cockpit, engines, and other stuff. F-15 gear, though.

[Guest 531_Ghost]

The F/A 18 had/has the F404-GE-400 the F117 has the F5D2 (dry F404) It also has a couple items I can't discuss but back in the day, early-mid 80s and remembering what I learned about Bernoulli's principle, at that time I was left scratchin' my head.

[+JediMaster]

Well, the 117 was designed "stealth first, fly later" so that doesn't surprise me.

[Icarus999]

The F(?)-117 was very expensive to maintain, a lot due to the outer absorbant material that had to be scraped off to remove panels for internal maintenance. If any of the material had come loose after a flight or had to be removed to depanel, a new coating had to be applied and allowed sufficient time to cure. Lots of money and downtime. The F-117 was pretty much a "stealth" F-15 on the inside. It had F-15 landing gear, hydraulic and pneudraulic systems, and almost the same cockpit. 25-30 years ago it was a great platform, but with the stealthy B-2, F-22, and the F-35 when it goes into production, the F-117 is just old and tired.

 

Those are some good points weasel keeper. The reason I would like to see the aircraft retained in is the fact that all of the next generation of stealty fighters are so utterly cost prohibitive

that I forsee a much smaller fleet of combat aircraft . Think of the cost of loosing an F-22 or an F-35 compared to say losing an F-16 or an F-117 that was paid in full 2 decades ago. For certain

missions it is a good idea to retain older but still very capable aircraft.

[+Gocad]

The problem with "cost prohibitive" here is that you cannot only look at the aircraft's initial price (which is sometimes hard to determine anyway), but you would have also to include the maintenance costs, which are often a major factor in the decision to retire older aircraft.