American stealth attack aircraft F-117A: withdrawn from service, but remains in service

Created in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft was retired in 2008 when the last aircraft of the type still in service with the Air Force were transferred to the Tonopah Proving Ground (also called "The Site"). 52").

However, the F-117A continues to be used by the Pentagon as training machines (acting as an “aggressor”), flying laboratories for testing new technologies, and sometimes they are seen in combat zones, for example, in the Middle East.

The US Air Force intends to keep them in service as long as possible

- says the Opex360 edition.

As indicated, in 2023 a tender was announced for the maintenance of the F-117A until 2034. Its results remained unknown, but recently Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, announced in the US Parliament that work on integrating the KC-46A tanker with Nighthawk should be completed by the end of March. Thus, the US Air Force intends to use the F-117A for a long time.

The existence of the F-117A Nighthawk, developed by Lockheed Martin, became known to the general public in 1988, five years after its adoption. A total of 64 aircraft were produced. One example was shot down by Yugoslav air defenses in 1999 during the NATO intervention in that country.

Comments

[Serhio250381]

More than 6,5 billion dollars to nowhere. Cutting the dough the American way

[Aken]

What, only 6.5 billion? Just 15 minutes of printing press operation. But hundreds of thousands of recipients of this money lived a good life.

[Serhio250381]

Yeah, absolutely everything. Firstly, only poorly educated people think about 15 minutes of barre (admins, this is not a curse or a label). And secondly, which hundreds of thousands lived well? There are at most ten people who drank this loot

[Aken]

As for poorly educated people, let’s leave it to your lack of education.
I can only say one thing about the ten who lived well. You don't understand how the economy works at all. Your concepts are at the level of the first industrial structure. And the planet moves to the sixth.
You just don't understand what's going on around you. Therefore, your simple-minded post only amused me.
This is precisely why the Outskirts Selyukov idea is a dead-end branch of civilization. 500 years as a dead end. Deal with it.

[Serhio250381]

The main thing is that you understand economics and know how the world economy works. You are a great economist. "15 work of the machine" - ))))) I'll have to come to terms with this)))

[Aken]

Yes, I understand economics.
Great, not great, but I know the basic concepts.
Do you know that economics has three gradations:
- For clerks
- For small owners
- For large owners.
Moreover, the last stage is not taught at universities.

[Serhio250381]

How can I know such things? Best wishes

[Aken]

Yes that's right. This is not your level. Best wishes.

[svp67]

Quite a strange decision. The "Lame Dwarf" is as difficult as an aircraft to control; not every pilot will be able to fly it and is inferior in its characteristics to aircraft of a later release.

[Enceladus]

So the controls there are all mastered (this is not a mat, but from the word ACS - automated control systems). In fact, the pilot there is like in EVE Online - passive control. Like he said I want to fly there and he flies there.

[VPK-65]

Quote from Enceladus

So the controls there are all mastered (this is not a mat, but from the word ACS - automated control systems).

However, if you slightly “cut” it with the jet of your engine, then it simply falls into a flat tailspin from which even the automated control system is not capable of getting it out
Second: the Americans “harnessed the horse before the cart” with this F-117 - they simply switched to more accurate centimeter and millimeter range radars, and therefore decided that it was invisible
They did not expect that we are so “not advanced” in this regard and still have meter range radars in service, such as the P-18, which simply do not know about its invisibility
Because of these notorious invisible radars, we did not abandon the meter range radars, but on the contrary began to produce new modifications of the “Sky” family.

[Enceladus]

Well, I don’t argue, that too. But the accuracy is still lacking, yes, we will see it, but we will not be able to direct the anti-missile missile... just in that direction. And there they will fall like bones. The fact is that 117 was actually hit at point-blank range, knowing that it would fly over... and so - it was no longer defeated.

Quote: VPK-65

"harnessed the horse before the cart"

Probably the cart before the horse It cannot be operated manually...at all. Essentially, the pilot there is a decision control center and ballast.

[VPK-65]

Quote from Enceladus

But the accuracy is still lacking, yes, we will see it, but we will not be able to direct the anti-missile missile... just in that direction.

Of course, meter range radars are not suitable as SNR (Missile Guidance Stations). And this is one of the reasons why air defense should not have them (the deployment/collapse time will not suit them either). But for the Air Force they have always been and will be “the very thing.” The accuracy that the P-18 gives (a couple of degrees in azimuth and a couple of kilometers in distance) is enough for any aircraft to launch an air-to-air missile behind the eyes and ears because it has its own locator. Even with the ancient SU-17, which had a locator of only 15 km and its viewing angle was very narrow, this was quite enough.
But I don’t see any point in installing the same Nebo-SV radars for air defense people; it’s easier to arrange the slightest interaction between military branches - give them the frequency at which the operator broadcasts coordinates and that’s enough for them. Why the hell do they know when the target is 240 km away from them and they can shoot it down 40 km away? only to know that she is going to them to get ready and nothing more...

[Sarboz]

Quote from Enceladus

And there they will fall like bones. The fact is that 117 was actually hit at point-blank range, knowing that it would fly by... and so - it was no longer defeated.

In fact, on April 30, the Serbs managed to track down another F-117 and even hit it with a missile from the S-125, but the damaged stealth managed to return to base. This proves that Serbian air defense forces have developed a working technique for detecting and defeating this type of aircraft.

[Junior Private]

They created an entire industry with the moronic idea of ​​stealth.

[Aken]

And a lot of people made money from it.
The main thing is that it did not cost the United States anything. Planet Earth paid for everything.

[Viktor Sergeev]

An aircraft that is the most difficult target for air defense, if it carries PRLL, then it is a super machine, capable of approaching almost any radar unnoticed. Yes. It flies a little better than a basin, but it flies and corresponds to its tasks 100 percent.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

and corresponds to its tasks 100 percent.

The F-117A is classified as a fighter (F- in the designation of the aircraft), but what kind of fighter is it if its aerodynamics are like an iron? No speed, no maneuverability. It was used as a bomber, and then mainly at night.
And where is it

corresponds to its tasks 100%

?

[dauria]

However, F-117 stealth bombers flew 1300 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm without losing a single aircraft. Iraq was protected by 3 SAMs organized into 700 batteries, as well as 105 anti-aircraft guns supported by hundreds of early warning, search and detection radars.

They dropped bombs on Baghdad - and only then were they “discovered”.

[Revolver]

Quote: Bad_gr

The F-117A is classified as a fighter (F- in the designation of the aircraft), but what kind of fighter is it if its aerodynamics are like an iron? No speed, no maneuverability. It was used as a bomber, and then mainly at night.

At that time, it was politically unrealistic to extract money from Congress for a bomber or attack aircraft. That's why they called it a fighter. Technically it can carry a pair of Sidewinders, and it's the right size. Although in fact he is a bomber.

[Msi]

One example was shot down by Yugoslav air defense in 1999 during the NATO intervention in that country

With the help of S - 125... (main version of the event). Let them continue to exploit...

[Enceladus]

Yes, of course, it’s not particularly about the S-125. Firstly, the working frequencies were known to 125 amers for a long time, and secondly (and the main reason) is that they relaxed and flew along the same route for several days. And then it’s a matter of technology.

[Arisaka]

What a familiar scenario. Reminds me of something.

[SEVERIN]

I think that the fate of the F-117F also awaits the super scarecrow F-35, since its performance characteristics cannot be called the pinnacle of perfection, and its cost is simply off the charts.

[Asad]

Can you be more specific? 82 million dollars, what is off the charts in this figure?

[ARIONkrsk]

Quote: ASAD

Can you be more specific? 82 million dollars, what is off the charts in this figure?

Price compared to competitors.

[Asad]

And with what competitors? Europeans are more expensive, but I don’t know the prices for ours, and we don’t have one engine.

[SEVERIN]

Asad
0
Today, 16: 31
New
Can you be more specific? 82 million dollars, what is off the charts in this figure?

- Is 82 million dollars a lot or a little? - and in a more familiar calculation - is 3 nuts a heap? - and the thing is that the model of this pepelats koi varies in price, so the question is - is 82 million bucks not enough? - or is it just candy wrappers for you?

[solar]

It is not enough. Even 4th generation European fighters, such as Rafale or Eurofighter, are much more expensive.

[SEVERIN]

Rafael and the Eurofighter may cost more, but the F-35 is declared as a fighter without even being supersonic, perhaps they will tell me that a modern fighter does not need this, to which I will answer - what if our eagles still impose the F-35 on this close combat, what will he do? - in addition to its lack of supersonic power, it also does not have the maneuverability that is inherent in our dryers and flashes. It turns out that the F-35 is junk. And by the way, how much do our dryers and migs cost in terms of dollars?

[solar]

fy-35 is declared as a fighter without even being supersonic

Nonsense. F-35 is a supersonic fighter.

after all, they will force close combat on this F-35

Unrealistic. The full-range OLS system, coupled with a helmet-mounted target designation system, allows the F-35 to fight without the use of radar at medium distance without direct visual contact with the enemy.

[SEVERIN]

solar
0
Today, 13: 05

- the fy-35 may be a fighter, but its performance characteristics are significantly inferior to our dryers and flashes, and given that it is single-engine, it simply cannot surpass them. With our blows and whistles, he’s simply not a fighter!

[AC130 Gunship]

Affftor, before writing articles, at least learn a little about the materiel. The US Air Force has a strict naming system for aircraft types. It does not always work only on reconnaissance aircraft (i.e. there were 2-3 exceptions). For the rest, B is bomber, C is cargo, A is attack, F is fighter, T is trainer, and so on, down the list. The F117 has always been and remains a fighter and has never been an attack aircraft

[Serhio250381]

American Wiki: "The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a retired American single-seat, subsonic twin-engine stealth attack aircraft developed by Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works division and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). It was the first operational aircraft to be designed with stealth technology."
attack plane

[DenVB]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

The F117 has always been and remains a fighter and has never been an attack aircraft

The F-117 was never a fighter. It doesn't have radar. As far as is known, it cannot carry air-to-air missiles. Despite the letter F in the name, the F-117 is an "attack aircraft".

He was never a stormtrooper either. There are translation difficulties here. Our term "attack aircraft" is usually translated into English as "attack aircraft". But this does not mean that “attack aircraft” should necessarily be translated in the opposite direction as “attack aircraft”.

The F-117 was not intended to attack targets on the battlefield, where the main threats are MANPADS and MZA.

In this case, “attack aircraft” would be more appropriately translated as “attack aircraft.”

[dauria]

F - fighter

F-111 bomber of tactical (and even operational) depth. Certainly not a fighter.

[bk0010]

Quote: dauria

F-111 bomber of tactical (and even operational) depth. Certainly not a fighter

There were a bunch of options from fighter to strategist. Another thing is that most of them were hacked to death.

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: SEVERIN

I think that the fate of the F-117F also awaits the super scarecrow F-35, since its performance characteristics cannot be called the pinnacle of perfection, and its cost is simply off the charts.

Not really. It will most likely suffer the same fate as the F16. Thousands and thousands of cars produced. Due to its secrecy and novelty, the F117 was not delivered anywhere, and there weren’t many of them in the USA. The queue for the F35 is scheduled for years in advance; several NATO countries have ordered it. And given the version with UVP, the Navy is also buying it

[Enceladus]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

The queue for the F35 is scheduled for years in advance

Let's just say... this line is not buying them of its own free will. They are imposed voluntarily by force. Any member of Nat would prefer the F-15/16/18 - good workhorses, each for its own task, than this fish or fowl, which, like, can do everything, but in fact everything through a universal interface. Somehow the USA doesn’t really write off warthogs

[Asad]

And the Turks were very upset when the striped ones threw them from the F35.

[Ross xnumx]

There is something to think about...Why don't we see the future? Why do we always strive to catch up? In 1983, the Americans had stealth technology that we laughed at. In 1999, the C-125 was able to shoot down this invisible aircraft, thereby proving that there are no invisible aircraft.
The year 2024 has arrived, when the United States retires the F-117A, and Russia has not brought its first fifth-generation aircraft into serial production.
Personally, I am ashamed that people want to live and work in the world, but here we all share power, stage coups, drink and steal...
Is this the kind of country we built?

[Enceladus]

Quote: ROSS 42

In 1999, the S-125 was able to shoot down this invisible aircraft, thereby proving that there are no invisible aircraft

Yuri, I’ll correct you here after all. Do you remember this story well? I already wrote above. The frequencies of 125 were known and at some range he was a small target and 125 could not accompany and attack him. The problem is that this particular specimen flew along the same route for several days. We just adjusted the 125 to the right point and that’s it - almost point-blank. I don’t understand air defense systems, and I don’t know if the 125 specifically has the capability and a control channel... but there were reports somewhere that it was generally shot down while controlling it via a visual channel (but this is not certain).
And it doesn't happen. The amers have such a strategy, whether in aviation or in tanks, to sneak up at maximum distance and shoot into the bushes. Abrams - the same concept... all the armor in the forehead, a powerful gun and a more advanced fire control system - climbed out and fired from 5 km, also into the bushes. Our aviation and tank industry have been developing for decades according to a different concept - maneuverable close combat. Tanks have a low profile, they are really average in weight, high maneuverability, dynamic protection, etc., airplanes - everyone knows what crackers are doing in the sky.

Quote: ROSS 42

and Russia never brought its first fifth-generation aircraft to mass production

So, according to their herminology, he is not one. It has stealth elements, but this is not the main criterion. And we don’t develop them not because we don’t know how, but the concept is different
ZY - I didn’t put it

[Ross xnumx]

I agree about tanks.
And when it comes to air defense systems, I’m still a jackass. I picked up some tips from the Internet.
But he described the essence of the problem correctly.
True, Mikhail Evgrafovich did this before me.

[Enceladus]

Quote: ROSS 42

I agree about tanks.

So I think you can guess where this tactic came from. How many times have we not only drank blood from Stugas 3, tigers, panthers, etc. The most powerful guns and frontal armor, shooting from extreme distances, excellent optics. In fact, on the western front, the Amers did not have a tank that could withstand hits even from 2 km to the front. Yes, even the IS-2, after reworking the VLD, could hardly hold it (in fact, the IS-3 with its famous pike nose was invented in order to hold the aif). This 88mm bottle (18/36/37/41/43) is a work of art. You can kick with your feet, but that's how it is.

[Sarboz]

Quote from Enceladus

We just adjusted the 125 to the right point and that’s it - almost point-blank. I don’t understand air defense systems, and I don’t know if the 125 specifically has the capability and a control channel... but there were reports somewhere that it was generally shot down while controlling it via a visual channel (but this is not certain).

In fact, the daily F-117 sorties provided an opportunity for the Serbs to track down and find a way to see the "stealth" aircraft. The old long-wave radar P-18 "Terek" detected the trail of the F-117 at a distance of up to 20 km. By the way, a friend wrote about this above:

Quote: VPK-65

They did not expect that we are so “not advanced” in this regard and still have meter range radars in service, such as the P-18, which simply do not know about its invisibility

In addition, that day the Serbs were able to turn on the guidance radar of the S-125 complex itself just at the moment of dropping the bombs, when the open bomb bay violated the invisibility of the Nighthawk. Therefore, the guidance was not manual. It’s just that the Serbian calculation took a risk and used its fleeting chance 100 percent.

[VPK-65]

Quote: ROSS 42

Why don't we see the future? Why do we always strive to catch up?

In Russia, this has always been the case, the leadership’s lack of faith in its own people since the time of Peter the Great (Holland). Similarly, in the USSR, a lot of things were stupidly copied - for example, almost all the machines were clones of foreign ones because for some reason our designers didn’t trust them... and why? Well, this is upbringing from childhood - chase foreign jeans, sneakers, etc. everything that comes from overseas is good, but their own... children grow up, become rulers and... where do they get their trust? Today's youth, for example, only have the word “brands” in their language (and of course not ours). What will grow out of them? - lack of faith in your own designers.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: VPK-65

This has always been the case in Russia, the leadership’s lack of faith in its own people

Some of my questions are rhetorical.

Quote: ROSS 42

Why don't we see the future? Why do we always strive to catch up?

Either I know the answers, or I can guess.
But I like to read the conclusions and conclusions of others...

[VPK-65]

Quote: ROSS 42

But I like to read the conclusions and conclusions of others...

It was not me who made these conclusions; we need to dig deep here. Remember Lefty from the 19th century:

"Tell the Emperor that The British don't clean their guns with bricks“Let them not clean ours, otherwise, God forbid, it’s war, but they’re not fit to shoot,” Lefty said clearly, crossed himself and died.

Lefty knew that the Emperor would not pay attention to his opinion, but the “English” had a chance. But if the British had continued to purge, then he would have had no chance of convincing the Tsar at all (who would listen to their slaves, and this is abroad).

[solar]

The writer did not know much about cleaning guns, so he attributed to his hero a statement that did not correspond to reality. No one in Russia cleaned the bore with a brick, at most the barrel was outside

In Russia in the 19th century, gun channels were cleaned with melted lamb or beef lard, or, in their absence, with hot soapy water, a solution of ash from a fire, or, in extreme cases, with a rag moistened with saliva. Brick dust (or crushed porcelain powder) was used to clean the outer surfaces of barrels (mixed with oil), copper and brass parts of guns (with water or kvass).

[bk0010]

Quote: ROSS 42

There is something to think about...Why don't we see the future? Why do we always strive to catch up?

They saw the prospects: in the USSR they decided not to get involved with stealth because in our main theater of operations (Europe) the density of radar assets is such that there is no chance of remaining unnoticed (there is no way to lay out a flight path so that there is no radar on the side within detection distance).

[Viktor Sergeev]

Really the most invisible aircraft, but one problem is that it flies a little better than an iron and the load is negligible, but as a destroyer of air defense weapons it is superb.

[Sarboz]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

Really the most invisible aircraft, but one problem is that it flies a little better than an iron and the load is negligible, but as a destroyer of air defense weapons it is superb.

In Serbia, the air defense hid from the Nighthawks only when they were working in conjunction with the RER aircraft. And the F-117 was shot down on the very day when the reconnaissance aircraft remained at the base. Therefore, this super-air defense destroyer was only good against the poorly organized air defense of Iraq and Libya. Somehow they didn’t really get their vaunted HARMs into the old Soviet air defense systems of the Serbs. But they constantly fell into simulators of targeting radars taken from old MiG fighters, which Serbian air defense forces placed in dummies of their complexes.

[bone1]

Is this interesting to anyone other than the Americans?

[Nesvoy]

Quote: Serhio250381

More than 6,5 billion dollars to nowhere. Cutting the dough the American way

Yeah, passing off a self-destructed F-117 at an air show as a downed one...

[Nesvoy]

Quote from Enceladus

Well, I don’t argue, that too. But the accuracy is still lacking, yes, we will see it, but we will not be able to direct the anti-missile missile... just in that direction. And there they will fall like bones. The fact is that 117 was actually hit at point-blank range, knowing that it would fly over... and so - it was no longer defeated.

Quote: VPK-65

"harnessed the horse before the cart"

Probably the cart before the horse It cannot be operated manually...at all. Essentially, the pilot there is a decision control center and ballast.

And you probably haven’t heard about TOV (Television Optical Visor)? And the fact that before the war a couple of complexes underwent modernization and tested a thermal imager on the same TOV?

[Nesvoy]

Quote from Enceladus

Quote: ROSS 42

In 1999, the S-125 was able to shoot down this invisible aircraft, thereby proving that there are no invisible aircraft

Yuri, I’ll correct you here after all. Do you remember this story well? I already wrote above. The frequencies of 125 were known and at some range he was a small target and 125 could not accompany and attack him. The problem is that this particular specimen flew along the same route for several days. We just adjusted the 125 to the right point and that’s it - almost point-blank. I don’t understand air defense systems, and I don’t know if the 125 specifically has the capability and a control channel... but there were reports somewhere that it was generally shot down while controlling it via a visual channel (but this is not certain).
And it doesn't happen. The amers have such a strategy, whether in aviation or in tanks, to sneak up at maximum distance and shoot into the bushes. Abrams - the same concept... all the armor in the forehead, a powerful gun and a more advanced fire control system - climbed out and fired from 5 km, also into the bushes. Our aviation and tank industry have been developing for decades according to a different concept - maneuverable close combat. Tanks have a low profile, they are really average in weight, high maneuverability, dynamic protection, etc., airplanes - everyone knows what crackers are doing in the sky.

Quote: ROSS 42

and Russia never brought its first fifth-generation aircraft to mass production

So, according to their herminology, he is not one. It has stealth elements, but this is not the main criterion. And we don’t develop them not because we don’t know how, but the concept is different
ZY - I didn’t put it

This is what this TOV looks like on the radar, and in the second photo, next to the TOV there is a 9sh38 monitor through which visual guidance occurs.

[VladimirNET]

Quote: from the title of the article

American stealth attack aircraft F-117A:
withdrawn from service, but remains in service

Those times, I was hoping that they just threw them away, it’s a pity...

[mocnijogurt]

I watched with my eyes downing of f-117, during the night, some 50 km away. It happened on 27. March 1999, and bombing started 3 days earlier. So, no it was not an easy ambush...
We didn't know what type of plane was it, but it really was big explosion in the clouds, and huge fireball falling to the ground. We can only wonder what would happen if we had more modern AA systems, not just s-125. Sorry for english, it is 25 years since this happened, I use auto-translate on this site