51 F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Jets Remain In Inventory, Only One Destroyed In Last Two Years
Other urls found in this thread:
aopa.org
defense-aerospace.com
globalsecurity.org
youtube.com
dote.osd.mil
documentcloud.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Only one flew.
it's a piece of shit.
also, a moment of silence for all those men who died from all kinds of cancers due to various toxic chemicals that this piece of shit uses for its RAM skin.
>it's a piece of shit.
I mean, it was more of a proof of concept aircraft than anything.
Stealth airframes are too cool to retire.
That's good because it has better stealth than F-35 and may be called on to do the jobs it can't handle.
I thought RCS went F22
You'd think skunk works aircraft engineers would have enough brains to put on safety gear.
The F-35 is the stealthiest.
>117
No way, nice digits
F
They use them as adversaries in mock-battles to train pilots against potential enemy stealth craft
Cool story, lockmart bot.
>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
aopa.org
>The F-35s cross section is much smaller than the F-22s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
defense-aerospace.com
KYS faggot
You think engineers are the ones that do the labor? kek
Fun fact : most of the internal components of the F-117, except the FLIR/DLIR turrets, are off the shelf and coming from airplanes that are still flying today, which is probably why the plane is still flying.
have food
Lel I know that pilot well in the first photo. Mr. Al Whitley
How comes we never witness such a professional relation from the su57 flying vatniggers?
Russia is a banana republic obsessed with its own image and that of its leader. For example, they took this obsession of public stunts from the Soviets. When any politician does anything, meaning his job, they need to make a whole spectacle about it. If some mayor decides to build a new bus stop where it's needed, there'll be a huge event where he expects to be praised for it, and will probably pretend to wrestle a bus or whatever.
When Putin went to see his new Su-57, they obviously had to escort his aircraft, then he asked the pilots if they were paid enough, claimed the Su-57 is the best aircraft in the world and so on. It wasn't even in early production at that point so the pilots tried to subtly tone his words down a bit.
Also whenever there's something decent coming out we only see the filtered event through shitty propaganda media as opposed to what actually happened.
This is probably the most likely reason. Same reason USAF only retired its final F4 a few years ago.
This trolling doesn't even make sense, LM made both aircraft.
One thing that keeps getting claimed on Jow Forums is that the F-35 is highly stealthy head-on, but the F-22 is better from other aspects. Though as usual with Jow Forums there isn't a credible source for that.
>Monkey bag with bones between the steering wheel and the ejection seat having any clue about the radiophysics and specific stealth characteristics in general
>Some private French blog as a source on anything
Choke on shit, lockmart bot.
>pilots specifically chosen for PR events totally wouldn't be briefed on the information they can or should share
>no source at all to prove me wrong
KYS
I haven't seen any source for this one either. There might be some truth to it but I'd be careful not to take it at face value. It seems a bit weird too, and suspiciously comparable to the YF-22 vs YF-23 claims.
There's a lot to consider honestly. It's pretty safe to assume the RAM, both coating and structural, is more advanced on the F-35, but I wouldn't be surprised if the F-22 is more optimized in airborne/fire control frequencies, and the F-35 in early warning frequencies.
Most performance numbers regarding a lot of military tech has to be taken with a grain of salt. Stealth characteristics is subject to a shit load of speculation.
The other interesting fun fact is they're out there still rolling in the middle east fairly recently and its not the USAF that's running them.
There's one (1) unconfirmed report by a Dutch newspaper on that.
There have been advances on shaping too. The F-35 has a lot of curves while the F-22 shaping is much more simple. Generally the curves indicate lower RCS at a bit higher frequencies.
But yeah, it would seem logical to optimize the F-35 for broad spectrum and the F-22 for typical aircraft AESA frequencies. The F-35 might still just be better at those too.
Too bad we'll probably never know.
F35 is 0.005
F117 is 0.003
F22 is 0.0001
B2 is 0.0001
globalsecurity.org
Thats from the front, and F35 is a lot more optimized from the front. The rear not much attention is paid to and it has a similar sig to Advanced Super Hornet which even though it has 2 circle exhausts is still better than the F35s huge one.
>"The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117."
Your own source contradicts itself
>This trolling doesn't even make sense, LM made both aircraft.
For the last time we arent trolling or russian for pointing out the F35 is an overpriced shitpile. Because it is.
You just get all your info from video games, youtube and forums instead of congressional, watchdog and pentagon reports. I have yet to see a rebuttal to the 300 errors found in the aircrafts design in that pentagon paper.
How is it weird for circular exhausts to be worse than flat ones in RCS?
Stealth is about more than just Xband cross section, which is whqt we were discussing. F35 put a lot of effort into being stealthy in other bands, especially J band and other SPAAG targeting radars.
Its just more visible in X-band and infrared.
Have less food.
t. too much food
But in what band were those RCS measured ?
And flat exhaust are about reducing IR signature more than anything.
It goes on to explain it and how B2 has multiple reported sizes. Without the active radar cancellation it probably IS similar to F35 with all its cancellation on, but B2 is very stealthy when its ready.
>Calling people LM shills for making a comparative statement between two LM planes
>When called out on this goes straight for "what about the six bazillion dollars?"
NowThisIsSpreyPosting.jpg
Source says
> From the front, the F/A-22's signature is -40dBm2 (the size of a marble) while the F-35's is -30 dBm2 (the size of a golf ball). The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engineers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust.
The larger B2 signature ia just a claim based on claims of B2 sigs. We are all just speculating but it doesnt make very much sense for B2 to have been less stealthy than a F35.
>sprayposting
>not claiming im russian, chinese, trolling or shilling
its evolving!
Sprey understood nothing about stealth, but he understood plenty in terms of aerodynamics. And he was right to point out the aerodynamics of F35 are shit.
>And he was right to point out the aerodynamics of F35 are shit
Well he was wrong. According to the pilots who've flown the thing, it's somewhere between the F-16 and F-18 in terms of maneuverability. I.e completely fine.
>the aerodynamics of F35 are shit
Depends on what you want to do with the type.
If you want to use the F-35 like a Vietnam-era fighter, then yes, it's shit.
People have done computer simulations, assuming both aircraft skins are metal with not RAM, the F117 is stealthier.
Where F35 gains an edge is composites, better RAM and active radar cancellation.... which imo really isnt important because F117 can apply those techniques as well.
Sure, the B2 is an older generation of stealth technology (and is a lot bigger), but it is a tailless flying wing with recessed engine exhausts. Remember that the B2 is intended to cruise on subsonic strategic bombing raids deep into hostile airspace, whereas the F-35 is a stand-off weapon lobbing main-line multirole jet. It would be reasonable to assume that the F-35 has somewhat inferior all-aspect stealth because it has a different mission set where the design compromises for all aspect stealth don't make sense.
Is that why it got outflown in a dogfight by F16 wearing two 500 gal fuel tanks?
F35 is also sunsonic bombing, unless someone figures out how to stop the paint from flaking off at mach.
>People have done computer simulations
source
>assuming both aircraft skins are metal with not RAM
yikes. also, RAM isn't just in the skin
>the F117 is stealthier
how. even back in the day of the SR-71 the engineers knew curved surfaces were better at deflecting radar waves. the reason the F-117 is faceted is because it was limited by computin power of the era
It has no internal gun and has the maneuverability of A4 so its going to feel right at home in vietnam.
This never happened. It wasn't a "dogfight", it was a test with a G-limited F-35.
That was an early and incomplete report by one test pilot, after one test flight, and the F-35 had a restricted FCS.
The paint flaking issue only happens at top speed, not at cruise speed. High speed dashes are never planned in a mission, and happen only in emergencies.
> source
If thread is still here Ill post it when Im off work.
>SR71
Has the signature of Iowa. We didnt know how to do proper stealth based on umitsevs math until computers became good enough to do the design, SR71 had a stealth consideration during design which is not the same as saying its a stealth aircraft, its just why it has a RCS of the battleship and not the state.
The F16 was also g limited, look at the g tolerance for 500gal fuel tanks. It had a lower g limit than F16 and still beat it. And the flaking absorbent material mames it a subsonic aircraft until that design flaw is fixed, but dont hold your breath they have to fix almost 300 other basic design flaws before they tackle that...
>muh 300 errors
I'm sure you're the only one to ever open a DOT&E report while everyone here gets their information from Buzzfeed. In reality I guarantee that you're just repeating what you read from sources that pointed to those reports.
The problem with the "300 errors" or whatever number morons are throwing around is that it shows a complete and utter lack of any understanding of aircraft (or even general) development. It's the epitome of comparing something to the imaginary version of what it should be. It's the equivalent of morons claiming the F-35 is shit because it can take damage from bird strikes.
Problems exist on all aircraft. They're there on every single aircraft in existence today. Most of them aren't worth repairing, others have an impact but haven't been addressed yet because their priority wasn't the highest. Some are just too expensive to fix. There's no such thing as a perfect system and if you do an FMEA of anything you'll end up with a list of problems because that's the whole point of it. Your car has inherent issues, your computer, your phone and so on.
>and still beat it
It wasn't a "dogfight" and there was nothing to beat, you fucking retard.
PDF was posted, read it, it is unheard of for an aircraft in service to have so many design errors. It wouldnt even be a different block to fix them, it would be a different VARIANT.
Sorry, meant to say 'outperformed in a nonrandom and aggressive manner proving superior air handling' instead of 'beaten' but made the mistake of thinking you iron manned instead of strawmanned opponent arguments.
Are you all reading it is that why no one is responding?
>unheard of
>in early production
I'm not saying the SR-71 is stealthier, I'm saying that even in the 60's people knew curved surfaces were better.
The F-16 had 370gal fuel tanks, not 500, and was only limited to 7g unril they were empty.
Also, in that same report :
>"Loads remained below
limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe"
And the flaking happens a TOP SPEED.
The aircraft can fly supersonic without problem.
t. Thomas wictor
(I doubt you're wrong though)
Yeah but this time stealth+ modern computers for the avionics on the missiles are good enough to actually make WVR a meme as predicted
>pilots specifically chosen for PR events
>telling anything but standard PR bullshit
Why are americans so naive?
>A random french blog is a source
It's not. Deal with it.
It has slightly better rcs from like the front only, and the F117 payload is extremely marginal. In any heavy use area, you'd want the 35 because even just internally it carries way more. The F-117 is just a very niche use item, hence the pursuit of stealth multiroles etc to take on missions outside the F117s limited use, and its eventual semi retirement.
Even if its not, it has by far the superior sensor suite and datalink, which is horribly underrated now. In a decade it'll be as important as any stealth or payload feature.
Allegedly the f117s are still flying in limited numbers, presumably to represent OPFOR stealth craft and radar detection testing
>it is unheard of for an aircraft in service to have so many design errors
lmao what?
Take a look at the early models of pretty much every major fighter the US has procured over the years.
He's a Boeing shill, there are no facts that can dissuade him
seethe
>Boeing shills
>Lockmart shills
fuck this gay ass earth, MD should have been the one to survive.
>MD should have been the one to survive
>McDonald
>Not Grumman
I did love McD's A-12 concept, though. Would've been a lot cooler than buying more F-18s.
Grumman did survive though, they made a better company. MD on the other hand had most of its workers laid off, projects scrapped. and just because one died doesnt mean the other should have too. MD's JSF was way cooler than what either Boeing or LM put out.
Tell him we say "hi."
Could you imagine the monumental vatnik ass hurt if it turned out that there were actually F-117s operating above Syria and neither Russian nor Syrian radar picked them up even one time? It would only subside once the
>China numba wan
crowd comes in and starts shitposting that their advance radar that no one knows about could detect a mole on the pilots ass from fucking Beijing. Then the only reason it would stop would be because everyone would start shitting on the Chicom poster.
they did fly over sandyland a while ago iirc, but no one really said anything about it being detected or not. no one really knew why it was even there.
It was never confirmed beyond a single source as far as I know.
see
There's some speculation that losing one wouldn't compromise more modern technology, so they used them for riskier strikes. I just read an article that makes the case for the Predator-C/Avenger carrying them out instead, though, and that seems a lot more believable.
fair enough. still an interesting thought though.
>There's some speculation that losing one wouldn't compromise more modern technology
Especially considering how that technology is already compromised.
Exactly. I still think the Predator-C explanation is a lot more believable, though. It's likely similar to the RQ-170 in the sense that it doesn't have anything bleeding edge in it, and it has the added bonus of not carrying a pilot.
It is interesting, and I'd be really happy if it turned out to be true, but I don't see what they could strike in Syria that's so deep or protected they couldn't do it with a cruise missile.
My best guess, assuming it's true, would be probing the air defenses network without the Russians getting their hands on F-22/35 RCS data if they failed.
>probing the air defenses network
That's an interesting thought. Definitely feasible.
it could have just been doing testbed stuff in an actual combat zone, but that would still be funny.
I just re-read the article, they claimed one of four F-117s had to divert to another airfield, and were allegedly using SDBs, which would mean going through the entire process of weapon integration.
That whole story came from a swampnigger blog, with no actual evidence to back it up. Don't believe everything you read
>spends time educating Europeans about their homeland on Jow Forums
LMAO so true.
>t. too much food
the problem is not that mutts have too much food (they don't) but the food they get is so bad and void of any nutrients that they get fat even from not eating that much.
that's what happens when only food you can afford is heavily-processed garbage that shouldn't even be called food.
Does america have any super sekrit sarin payloads for its missile warheads / bombs?
>this level of cope
if you want, i can donate some money to your country if youre this poor.
maybe listed under 'fire retardent'?
no, instead they have VX gas
Not that I know of. But we do have the AGM-114 Nothing Personel mod.
same difference. nerve gas is nerve gas. does it come with poly acid to melt through NBC suits?
okay
ohhh cool. nerve gas mounted on predator drones is the shit.
how about dirty bombs?
we should do something useful with all that medical and nuclear waste.
recycling and all that.
i mean, they havent actually done that but im sure it wouldnt be hard.
they did use to put VX gas in artillery shells WW1 style tho
Ha! Now nobody can live in Palestien! GTFO arab buttholes!
You realize I'm joking right?
i do, but the USAF is not far off from that since theyre a bunch of fucking nerds.
After turning our nuclear weapon on New Jersey it has since become 23% more habitable than it was before..