johnrey 0 Posted September 23, 2008 The thing about the F-117 is that F-22s are a lot more stealthier than the F-117. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) The thing about the F-117 is that F-22s are a lot more stealthier than the F-117. I would hope so however do you have any reliable evidence to back that up? - because I dont think the true F-22 RCS is likely to be published. Also does this refer only to the frontal / head on aspect RCS? Should also say welcome to CombatAce also johnrey - hope you find all you need for your flight simming desires. Edited September 23, 2008 by MigBuster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) I would hope so they are next gen stealth. You can use parts of the F-117 landing gear for the f-15, theres a use. Edited September 23, 2008 by MAKO69 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted September 23, 2008 The F-22 can fly faster, further, carry more weapons and fuel, and most importantly it can fly harder. The F-117 was not made to be flown as hard and as long as its pilots flew it. Furthermore it could only carry two weapons. Now do not get me wrong it had a great combat record and could drop a PGM down an air vent, and was great for aerial "sniping". But due to its limited numbers, lack of speed and maneuverability (due to airframe) the F-22 and F-35 are logical replacements. If only there is a way the DOD could get money for more... Btw, Migbuster is right, no one (outside those who are supposed to know) will never know the RCS of stealth aircraft and its true capabilities, or the true cabapiliites of most modern non-stealth U.S. military airframes for that matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted September 23, 2008 its quite true, on target one could say, that the F-117 capabilities do not approach that of the F-22 or F-35. The F-35 does not compare favorably to the F-22 either for that matter. The F-35 is the "low end" of the High-low mix concept that enables us to actually field a reasonable force level. The key question from a force level planning aspect is just how many stealth strike platforms are available at any given time over the FYDP? The F-35 is barely past view-graph engineering and a long, long way from operational deployment. The F-22 fleet, having been gutted by gutless and short-sighted politicians, will never reach the force levels needed to be able to provide the strike platforms needed for years to come yet, if ever. So on a spreadsheet with the years down the right side and varying numbers of F-117's, F-22's, F-35's and B-2's in the columns to the right - how many targets can be covered by stealth strike platforms over the FYDP? (by the way, there's a "gotcha" in that question - lets see who catches it!) That is the operational justification for keeping or not keeping the F-117 in operation over the FYDP and in which years it should be phased out. My two cents (a day's pay after taxes and inflation) is that we are retiring the F-117 just a tad too early. But that's just one man's opinion and that one hasn't counted for much over the years wrt to force planning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+drdoyo 2 Posted September 23, 2008 So on a spreadsheet with the years down the right side and varying numbers of F-117's, F-22's, F-35's and B-2's in the columns to the right - how many targets can be covered by stealth strike platforms over the FYDP? (by the way, there's a "gotcha" in that question - lets see who catches it!) That is the operational justification for keeping or not keeping the F-117 in operation over the FYDP and in which years it should be phased out. My two cents (a day's pay after taxes and inflation) is that we are retiring the F-117 just a tad too early. But that's just one man's opinion and that one hasn't counted for much over the years wrt to force planning. If I'm reading FYDP correctly, I'd have 2 questions. How many aren't going to be down for regular moderate to heavy maintenance cycles (deployable) at any time throughout the FY, and where would you deploy them to relatively safely operate (they are a HAV IIRC) and still have the range to reach their targets and return. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted September 23, 2008 If I'm reading FYDP correctly, I'd have 2 questions. How many aren't going to be down for regular moderate to heavy maintenance cycles (deployable) at any time throughout the FY, and where would you deploy them to relatively safely operate (they are a HAV IIRC) and still have the range to reach their targets and return. sorry FYDP = Future Years Defense Plan. "and where would you deploy them to relatively safely operate (they are a HAV IIRC) and still have the range to reach their targets and return." with enough tankers they can be anywhere! oh yea - tanker contracts........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
