PDA

View Full Version : Retirement of the F-117

scaeagles
03-11-2008, 07:27 AM
I'm a bit of an aviation buff (though certainly no expert), and I found this to be quite interesting. Knowing that planes are not retired without something to take their place, I am certain the air force must have something well tested now that is taking it's place, which I figure means it's probably soon to be made known to the public.

Of course, I could be wrong. When the SR-71 was retired however many years ago that was, I figured the same thing, but then we never found out what it was that replaced it. A few SR-71s were returned to service for a short period of time, meaning that perhaps what they had to replace it didn't turn out so well. As many people assumed at the time, I figured it was the Aurora project, but I've haven't seem one yet and rumor has it that the aurora project was a failure.
blueerica
03-11-2008, 07:37 AM
I will try to find out.
blueerica
03-11-2008, 07:42 AM
OK, I will still wait for the 'word' from my man on the inside - but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk) suggests that the F-22 and the F-35 will be the eventual replacements.

The F-117 wasn't based out here, but it would be nice to get one for the Hill AFB museum, as I don't recall one being there the last time I went.
Moonliner
03-11-2008, 07:47 AM
It's no real secret. It's the FA-22 Raptor.

It'd make mincemeat out of an F-117.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rapjr/FA-22_Raptor.jpg


Aurora a failure? Heh, that's just what they want you to think.
scaeagles
03-11-2008, 07:53 AM
The f-22 isn't in full production yet, is it? It's still being tested? The F-22 was my first thought, of course, but I figured there was something they must be currently using that we don't know about.
Moonliner
03-11-2008, 08:02 AM
As of Feb '08 there was a total of 122 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor)Raptors built.
scaeagles
03-11-2008, 08:06 AM
Well....good thing i put in the OP I wasn't an expert.:blush:
BarTopDancer
03-11-2008, 08:33 AM
WANT!





http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rapjr/FA-22_Raptor.jpg
Moonliner
03-11-2008, 08:49 AM
WANT!

Nah, not for me. They get terrible gas mileage and parking is a bitch. Of course on the other hand no dingle-cheese in an Escalade or Hummer is going to cut you off...
Kevy Baby
03-11-2008, 09:03 AM
The problem with the Raptor is that it is so freakin' expensive ($100 million+ per bird depending on how you call out the $). The Air Force is in dire need a more economical close-air ground support unit without all of the fancy bells and whistles.

Don't get me wrong: the Raptor is a phenomenal plane.

Nah, not for me. They get terrible gas mileage and parking is a bitch. Of course on the other hand no dingle-cheese in an Escalade or Hummer is going to cut you off...And just TRY to get comprehensive insurance on with a reasonable deductible!
Ghoulish Delight
03-11-2008, 09:11 AM
Don't forget the F-35 Joint strike fighter, which should be more like $60mil.

But even at $100mil+, at least it's not the B-2, which is in the $1 billion range.
Alex
03-11-2008, 09:21 AM
And that's incremental cost. Since they're not building nearly as many B-2s as originally expected the unit cost will end up being something like $2.5 billion/plane.

And Secretary of Defense Gates has called for the ending production of the F-22 after next year's order. The AF is insisting it needs twice as many planes as that would result in them having. So that's a battle that'll be fought by whatever congresscritters are employed by the factories that make the planes.
Kevy Baby
03-11-2008, 09:26 AM
Don't forget the F-35 Joint strike fighter, which should be more like $60mil.

But even at $100mil+, at least it's not the B-2, which is in the $1 billion range.The B-2 ended up being so expensive because the program was cut off at the knees with the end of the Cold War. The plan was for a couple hundred, which would have spread the development costs out more and brought the cost per plane down significantly.

I think the next large area of production development is/should be in the area of unmanned drones.
Ghoulish Delight
03-11-2008, 09:29 AM
The B-2 ended up being so expensive because the program was cut off at the knees with the end of the Cold War. And considering that they've only been used in combat 3 times, probably a smart decision.

I seem to recall hearing at one point that the AirForce said that they didn't need any more than the 18 or so that they had, but that pressure to keep the manufacturing jobs lead to building that last couple that were slated. Don't know how true that story was.

Meanwhile, I just learned that a B-2 crashed last month taking off from Guam. First one lost.
Alex
03-11-2008, 09:35 AM
Wouldn't surprise me since Congress keeps building ships that the Navy doesn't particularly want.
blueerica
03-11-2008, 09:54 AM
Seriously, you guys should book a stay at Chez Blueerica for a Thursday. On Thursdays, the AFB typically gets dignitaries, and people looking to buy our jets, and we're all treated to (what I refer to as) "Crazy Fly Day." It's good fun.
Kevy Baby
03-11-2008, 02:28 PM
Seriously, you guys should book a stay at Chez Blueerica for a Thursday. On Thursdays, the AFB typically gets dignitaries, and people looking to buy our jets, and we're all treated to (what I refer to as) "Crazy Fly Day." It's good fun.Now: a reason to visit (because seeing you wasn't reason enough).
CoasterMatt
03-11-2008, 06:46 PM
How far are you from Logan, blueerica?

I need to ride Sonic Boom again.
blueerica
03-12-2008, 07:49 AM
Actually, not too far from Logan, though I haven't been there. Sonic Boom? Logan? Huh? I must look this stuff up. We like to go to Lagoon, which is a bit south of us, I think in Farmington or some-such-town.

I talked with J last night, and from what he knows it's going to be the F-22 and the F-35 for sure - but lawd only knows what they're developing to replace those.
CoasterMatt
03-12-2008, 08:02 PM
Lagoon kicks ass, too - I need to go there to ride Wicked.

Sonic Boom is a 300 ft tower ride from madman Stan Checketts, and is one of the attractions at his own tiny park at S&S Power. It's kind of like being dropped in one of those bank deposit tubes.
blueerica
03-13-2008, 07:51 AM
We will have to check this out very soon. Thanks for the heads up. We pretty much haven't gone north of our own town; west, east, south, sure... but north, never.

Looks like it's about 55 minutes north according to the maps, which means it'll take about 35 to 40 to get there...
Kevy Baby
03-13-2008, 11:45 AM
Looks like it's about 55 minutes north according to the maps, which means it'll take about 35 to 40 to get there...One of the benefits to leaving LA. Here, a claimed 55 minutes would probably be a two-hour commute.
BarTopDancer
03-13-2008, 11:48 AM
One of the benefits to leaving LA. Here, a claimed 55 minutes would probably be a two-hour commute.

Reminds me of the classic SoCal distance conversation:

Non-SoCal person: How far is it from point B to point C?
SoCal person: Between 20 minutes and an hour, depending on traffic.
Non-SoCal person: No, I mean how many miles is it?
SoCal person: No idea. Distance is measured in time.