Retiring F-117??

[SWAnnabee]

Meanwhile, Section 134 of the bill would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any F-117 stealth attack aircraft in 2006, although the service currently plans to retire 10 of them. The cost to keep them operating would total $70 million, congressional budget officials said.

"The F-117 remains the only stealthy tactical aircraft capable of delivering certain precision munitions currently in the inventory," the SASC said. "The committee believes it is premature to retire any F-117 aircraft at this time."


Can anyone answer for me why the USAF is retiring these. Aren't they relatively new?

 

[spanky2]

The F-117A production decision was made in 1978 with a contract awarded to Lockheed Advanced Development Projects, the "Skunk Works," in Burbank, Calif. The first flight over the Nevada test ranges was on June 18, 1981, only 31 months after the full-scale development decision.

Streamlined management by Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, combined breakthrough stealth technology with concurrent development and production to rapidly field the aircraft.

The first F-117A was delivered in 1982, and the last delivery was in the summer of 1990. Air Combat Command's only F-117A unit, the 4450th Tactical Group, (now the 49th Fighter Wing, Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.), achieved operational capability in October 1983.


To answer your question ...

 

[SWAnnabee]

Yes, but there are plenty of aircraft in the inventory that are older and still in service with no plans to retire. F/A-18 and F-16 still in production, EA-6B around for a while yet as examples.

Side note, I never understood why the "F" designation on the F-117.

 

[dtfl]

Perhaps someone in ACC can comment but a F117 LG guy once told me they actually fired a missile out of the aircraft during testing - and that is the reason for the bracket that drops down out of the bomb bays - I think the F is because old die hards didn't want a B...coulda been an FB - but that all stinks of SAC - in their minds.

 

[Slye]

I thought the 'F' designation came about because the B-2 was also in development at the time and they couldn't justify building two 'B' aircraft at the same time.

 

[Fromage]

Ah, yes, I hear that the U.S. military is going to order the Eurofighter to replace a lot of your aging designs. Very good!

The new Airbus tanker will be a good replacement for the KC-10 and KC-135 as well.

 

[AD SUPT Hopeful]

Ah, yes, I hear that the U.S. military is going to order the Eurofighter to replace a lot of your aging designs. Very good!

The new Airbus tanker will be a good replacement for the KC-10 and KC-135 as well.

That was dumb.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

Keep dreamin' frenchy... We'll stick with "American built" to ensure the rudders stay attached...

 

[Purpledog]

Although I know better since this is pure flaim, I can't resist.

Ah, yes, I hear that the U.S. military is going to order the Eurofighter to replace a lot of your aging designs. Very good!

I locked up a Eurotrash 2000 off the coast of Spain at 80 miles. Not to stealthy for a new fighter. That thing is an AMRAAM sponge if one ever existed. Please sell it to all our enemies!

 

[Draginass]

Ah, yes, I hear that the U.S. military is going to order the Eurofighter to replace a lot of your aging designs. Very good!

The new Airbus tanker will be a good replacement for the KC-10 and KC-135 as well.

1. The French and Germans are not reliable allies, and as such should not be relied on for support that cannot easily and quickly replaced. The French Ambassador proved that in spades when he lied straight-faced to Colin Powell before the UN vote on Iraq.

2. Boeing makes airplanes that will be great tanker aircraft, should a replacement be needed.

3. Eurofighter?? Not likely. American "aging" designs like the F-22 are fine as well. The US doesn't need to help pay for European jobs programs. Let the French and German taxpayers pay for it. Other front line fighters are fully capable of meeting today's and projected threats, at a lot less cost.