F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter Retires

Partners:

• Vets for Victory
• Military Appreciation Day
• Army Paratrooper
• Patriot Guard Riders

 

[KogyBear]

Only fighter the Air Force ever had that couldn't fight...  Should been a B-117...

You would have a hard time convicing me that the F-111 was anything other than a bomber, although some inventive soul did design and build an M-61 pack that fit into one-half of the bomb bay.

Then there was the F-99, which could only fly and blow itself up...

Also, the F-105 was a better bomber than a fighter, as well, but I suppose it could fight in a pinch.  They did manage to kill 31 MiGs...

and let's not forget that the pheonix missile was at one time paired to the f-111 for fleet defense

The F-111B was a naval aircraft, first, not an Air Force aircraft, and, second, other than the shape of the skin aft of the front windscreen shared little in common with the F-111A, despite Mr McNamara's wishes.  Why?  The first F-111B was 23,000 pounds overweight and by the time they made the seventh and last one, it still needed to lose 9000 pounds, even after the Weight Improvement Program and the follow-on Super Weight Improvement Program.  (Besides, only one F-111B was ever capable of firing the AIM-54A.)

As an aside, the F-111B was nearly the only naval fighter that would not have been able to operate off carriers, they were too long, and the JBDs could not be raised when they were on the cat.

As to the gun on the land based F-111s, the F-111C and FB-111A were never fitted with the proper wiring for the gun, and even the A, E, D and F versions had the gun pack withdrawn from service in 1980.  No other air-to-air weaponry was fitted to the F-111s

Even so, a completely unarmed EF-111A managed to destroy an enemy aircraft while both were in flight.  So, apparently, not having air-to-air weaponry fitted does not restrict and aircraft from fighting.

[LTGunner]

Colonels pilot Nighthawks into the sunset



Staff report
Posted : Wednesday Apr 23, 2008 11:05:19 EDT
   
Four colonels with ties to the F-117A Nighthawk piloted the final four operational jets out of Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., at a retirement ceremony Monday for the world’s original stealth fighter.

The jets’ departure was the final event of a three-day ceremony dubbed “Sunset Stealth.” In attendance were many of the former pilots with the once-mysterious 4450th Tactical Group, which operated the jet when its existence was classified through much of the 1980s, and the 49th Fighter Wing, which claimed the jets in the early 1990s.

William Perry, a former Secretary of Defense who pushed the Pentagon to develop the Nighthawk and other cutting-edge weapons during the Cold War, also spoke at the ceremony.

Col. Jack “Ripper” Forsythe, the 49th Fighter Wing Operations Group commander, flew a Nighthawk emblazoned with an American flag pattern on its belly. Lt. Col. Todd “Meat” Flesch, Lt. Col. Ken “Tot” Tatum and Lt. Col. Mark “Drink” Drinkard flew the other three Nighthawks.

They stopped briefly at the jet’s birthing grounds, the defense firm Lockheed Martin’s experimental “Skunk Works” facility in Palmdale, Calif., and then to the final resting place, the heavily guarded Tonopah Test Range in Nevada’s desert. Air Force Times

Check out our interactive tribute to the F-117A

[Purplesuiter]

Hell, we ought to silently drag them out of mothballs and sell them to the Isrealis.

Knowing them, they will tweek em so they work better and if they're smart they would convert several into STEALTH TANKERS to perform inflight refueling.  That would allow them to bomb Iran without being seen on radar and get back with no one being the wiser.

The IAF could tank their stealth tankers from their KC-135s, then the stealth tankers could buddy feed the strike birds during ingress and egress.

[DefiantSix]

Except for one thing purple...

Those birds aren't stealthy at all when their payload bay is open, nor are they stealthy if they have **** hanging off the wings. (Knowing these limitations, I can't imagine that the geniuses at Lockheed's Skunk Works would have permitted any such allowance for wing payload into the design in the first place.)

Take away the stealthiness, and the F-117 is just as vulnerable to AAA and Air-to-Air Intercept as any other bird.  More so because it can't defend itself.

[Deckie]

You know it's funny how the F-111 was said to be over weight, but then came along the F-14 which the two aircraft are similiar in weight. In real world the US Navy never intended to purchase the F-111 and had it sites set on the future, the F-14. It's almost like saying you cannot land a C-130 on a carrier deck because of the aircrafts weight, that was proven wrong!

Regards

[KogyBear]

You know it's funny how the F-111 was said to be over weight, but then came along the F-14 which the two aircraft are similiar in weight. In real world the US Navy never intended to purchase the F-111 and had it sites set on the future, the F-14. It's almost like saying you cannot land a C-130 on a carrier deck because of the aircrafts weight, that was proven wrong!

Yes, over a year late, but...

No, you are wrong, the F-14A and the later D are much lighter.

When the last F-111B was made it had an empty weight of 46,100 lbs, a gross weight of 79,000 lbs, and a maximum take-off weight of 88,000 lbs, and the target was to lose 9000 lbs off the operational, or gross, weight.

The F-14A entered production with a empty weight of 40,000 lbs, a gross weight of 59,714 lbs and a max T.O of 72,900 lbs.  the F-14 was 19,286 lbs lighter (just over 9.5 tons).

The maximum allowable weight was governed, not by what the deck can handle, but what the catapults can handle.  The F-111B required a launch wind-over-the-deck speed of over 30 knots, meaning the carrier could not launch on a calm day (zero wind).  Similarly, the higher landing speed of the F-111B required a wind-over-the-deck speed in excess of 30 knots, so recovery cannot be accomplished on a calm day.

Also, the distance from the catapult launch bar to the tail was much shorter allowing the jet-blast-deflector (JBD) to be raised, allowing aircraft to stage behind the catapult, something that was not possible with the F-111B, without rebuilding the ship.

The C-130 has a stall speed low enough to land on a carrier with a relative speed of 75 to 90 knots (100 to 120 knots minus 30 knots wind-over-the-deck), this is low enough to not require the arresting gear.  For launch, the c-130 did not use the catapult, but did require a good bit of the available deck length.