F-117: 2 Year Life Expectancy

[JimNtexas]

Just for record, I think the F-117 was a terrific program. This airplane addresses a real military requirement. It was run in (by military standards) a very efficient and economical way.

The only problem with the F-117 isn't with the airplane at all, it is with General Officers who got their technical data on it from the Public Affairs Officer ("It's invisible and needs no support of any kind!") rather than RF engineers ("Its low observable by many radars.").

 

[DaveGriffin]

Double digit SAMs aren't mobile.

Magnum:

The Russian TOR-M1, sold to Iran, is a SA-15 mounted on a tracked vehicle and can shoot on the run. Do you consider that mobile?

 

[stonewall]

Magnum:

The Russian TOR-M1, sold to Iran, is a SA-15 mounted on a tracked vehicle and can shoot on the run. Do you consider that mobile?

Sure. When we talk about "double digit SAMS" these days, we're referring to the SA-10/12/20 type stuff. If that's not what we were talking about earlier, then I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Merlin'05]

I know people will make fun of me for not actually doing anything, thus I should be stupid and not know anything, but...

The SDB uses a much more destructive compound (I don't remember what it's called), than the old Mk 80 series. Combined with the new compound and its greater accuracy, it has the same capability of an Mk 83. You add a few more DMPIs to a target and you can kill large structures pretty well. Its just like nuclear weapons, 10 100 kiloton warheads spread out around a city are significantly more effective than one megaton bomb placed in the center of the city.

In other uses why the heck would you need a 1,000# bomb or a 2,000# bomb or even a 500# bomb to take out a vehicle if something much smaller will do just as well?

Furthermore, it has greater hard target penetration capability than the Mk 80 series. Not as good at the BLU-109, -110, and -111, but still very good.

Additionally, with the strap on glide wings, each SDB has the capability of flying 60 nm when released from the Raptor's cruise speed of Mach 1.5-1.8 and 40,000 to 50,000 ft. Other aircraft will not give the SDB that kind of range, but they can give it a good stand-off range for specific types of targets. That type of stand-off comes in important when you are trying to take out those SA-10s and -20s.

They are also looking at including a datalink and the JDAM kits (to include the SDB), which will update the GPS coordinates during flight to allow accurate attack of moving ground targets and switching of targets in the air.

Of course the SDB won't take over every role. It has its place, just like the Maverick, HARM, SFW, GBU-28, other LGBs, and ballutes have theirs.



When the -117 leaves, you loose the capability to drop 2,000# LGBs. There will be situations where that capability is needed.

When the Raptor takes over, you have the capability to fly in much more dangerous airspace, have a self defense capability against air and ground threats, have significantly greater speed (allowing it to take out the targets faster than the -117, great for time sensitive targets), and perhaps the most important of all--the ability to fly missions 24 hours a day. The downside is you are stuck with using GBU-31s or SDBs. In most cases, those will probably work out pretty well. In some others, not. Overall, the Air Force is gaining a significant combat capability with the Raptor--something the JSF can't come close to touching in regard to internal payload, speed, maneuverability, and all aspect stealth. But saying the AF should ditch the Raptor for the JSF, or the JSF for the Raptor is just as ignorant as saying we should ONLY use F-15s OR F-16s.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Sure. When we talk about "double digit SAMS" these days, we're referring to the SA-10/12/20 type stuff. If that's not what we were talking about earlier, then I apologize for the confusion.

The SA 10/12 can both be deployed on a mobile launcher. Not sure about the SA-20.

 

[paid4training]

I know people will make fun of me for not actually doing anything, thus I should be stupid and not know anything, but...

The SDB uses a much more destructive compound (I don't remember what it's called), than the old Mk 80 series. Combined with the new compound and its greater accuracy, it has the same capability of an Mk 83. You add a few more DMPIs to a target and you can kill large structures pretty well. Its just like nuclear weapons, 10 100 kiloton warheads spread out around a city are significantly more effective than one megaton bomb placed in the center of the city.

In other uses why the heck would you need a 1,000# bomb or a 2,000# bomb or even a 500# bomb to take out a vehicle if something much smaller will do just as well?

Furthermore, it has greater hard target penetration capability than the Mk 80 series. Not as good at the BLU-109, -110, and -111, but still very good.

Additionally, with the strap on glide wings, each SDB has the capability of flying 60 nm when released from the Raptor's cruise speed of Mach 1.5-1.8 and 40,000 to 50,000 ft. Other aircraft will not give the SDB that kind of range, but they can give it a good stand-off range for specific types of targets. That type of stand-off comes in important when you are trying to take out those SA-10s and -20s.

They are also looking at including a datalink and the JDAM kits (to include the SDB), which will update the GPS coordinates during flight to allow accurate attack of moving ground targets and switching of targets in the air.

Of course the SDB won't take over every role. It has its place, just like the Maverick, HARM, SFW, GBU-28, other LGBs, and ballutes have theirs.



When the -117 leaves, you loose the capability to drop 2,000# LGBs. There will be situations where that capability is needed.

When the Raptor takes over, you have the capability to fly in much more dangerous airspace, have a self defense capability against air and ground threats, have significantly greater speed (allowing it to take out the targets faster than the -117, great for time sensitive targets), and perhaps the most important of all--the ability to fly missions 24 hours a day. The downside is you are stuck with using GBU-31s or SDBs. In most cases, those will probably work out pretty well. In some others, not. Overall, the Air Force is gaining a significant combat capability with the Raptor--something the JSF can't come close to touching in regard to internal payload, speed, maneuverability, and all aspect stealth. But saying the AF should ditch the Raptor for the JSF, or the JSF for the Raptor is just as ignorant as saying we should ONLY use F-15s OR F-16s.

Blah blah blah....nothing is ever going to replace BOOTS ON THE GROUND, head in the helment or guts behind the flak vest.
War or "conflict" as the politican likes to call them, is a lot like football...
A good passing attack wins games but a great defense wins championships. Meaning airplanes will not go into the caves, foxholes and get the bastards out!!!! If it did we would have BL's head mounted in the Rose garden!!!!

 

[Merlin'05]

Blah blah blah....nothing is ever going to replace BOOTS ON THE GROUND, head in the helment or guts behind the flak vest.
War or "conflict" as the politican likes to call them, is a lot like football...
A good passing attack wins games but a great defense wins championships. Meaning airplanes will not go into the caves, foxholes and get the bastards out!!!! If it did we would have BL's head mounted in the Rose garden!!!!

Dude, when did I EVER say aircraft were going to replace people? Last I checked, this thread was never even about troops--meaning they have no bearing on the conversation.

 

[bssthound]

Orginally posted by paid4training
Blah blah blah....nothing is ever going to replace BOOTS ON THE GROUND,

That's not the point. Everyone agrees that we have to have boots on the ground. BUT . . . in order for the grunt to hold a piece of ground we have to own the sky above the ground. That is what is being discussed.

 

[AD SUPT Hopeful]

When the -117 leaves, you loose the capability to drop 2,000# LGBs. There will be situations where that capability is needed. [/quote]

Strike Eagles carry the 2,000lb LGBs.

 

[JimNtexas]

Don't forget that both John Wayne (In 'The Green Berets' ) and Tom Hanks ('In Saving Private Ryan') had boots on the ground, but in both cases their asses were saved by the Air Force at the end of the movie.

Of course no one here said anything negative about the ground forces, in fact, no one even mentioned them.

But since the subject has come up, has any money been spent on the USAF ground FAC forces since the mid-ninties?

One of the reasons for my viserial hatred of the F-22 and the B-2 was that my last assignment in the Air Force before I retired was as an Air Liason Officer at Fort Hood.

At that time the ONLY difference between the tools I had and the tools they had WWII were that I had a Humvee instead of a Jeep, and my radio was solid state instead of tubes. Other than that, I had no technology whatsoever that was not present in WWII. No lasers, no encoded communications, no data links to anywhere. Certainly no way to receive an ATO in the field other than by courier, and certainly no way to control CAS other than a grease pencil, a chart, and a nine-line card. GPS units were rumored to be on the way.

Not that was much CAS to control, what with the A-10s gone, and the active duty F-16s too good to be bothered with such a minor and disgusting mission.

Meanwhile they are buying gold plated lugnuts for the B-2 and and silver spoons for the F-22 squadron bar, just in case the F-22 (then almost ten years behind schedule) was ever delivered.

To this day it burns me to think of it.