F-117 to be let go from high level storage

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 20:55

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:DAve deptula made the point that we should pick Th3 mission, then design the airplane fit to sized for that task. So instead of "we need a FIGHTER to do blank" it's "we néed a BLANK to do air to air" maybe the the world's best fighter is the size of a B-1?

I used to joke about an upgrade to the B-52 to give it a boom (since it has so much fuel), turn one of the bomb bays into a cargo bay, give it 360 AESA radar coverage, AAM capability, etc etc etc until it became the Fighter Utility Cargo (K)tanker Bomber Electronic Attack Reconnaissance Strike(Sub?) - 52 Gigafortress.



Whatever you say, Dale Brown :roll: :wink:
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4105
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 21:30

southernphantom wrote:Whatever you say, Dale Brown :roll: :wink:

I laughed when someone told me about his story with the, what was it? EB-52 Megafortress?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

hoghandler

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 21:40
  • Location: florida

Unread post23 Jul 2016, 00:15

From what i have read. The f-117 was tested with aim-9's but only in ground tests. It was to see if it could fire the missle as a means of self defense. I have only one source stating this so im not sure if it is true or not. Would have been neat to the missle fired though.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post23 Jul 2016, 00:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
southernphantom wrote:Whatever you say, Dale Brown :roll: :wink:

I laughed when someone told me about his story with the, what was it? EB-52 Megafortress?


Yep, the EB-52 Megafortress.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5834
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Jul 2016, 02:07

southernphantom wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
southernphantom wrote:Whatever you say, Dale Brown :roll: :wink:

I laughed when someone told me about his story with the, what was it? EB-52 Megafortress?


Yep, the EB-52 Megafortress.


Old geogen would have told you how plausible all that would have been, and magically cheaper too.
Choose Crews
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post25 Jul 2016, 17:14

XanderCrews wrote:They have NEVER been that set in stone. B-47 to B-52, to B-1?


Well...that actually makes sense. They didn't just skip from 47 to 52.

Martin B-48 2 XB-48 built. First flown in 1947. Cancelled when it lost to Boeing B-47.
Image

Northrop B-49. 3 YB-49 built (converted from prop-powered XB-36s) First flown in 1947. Cancelled due to suitability of B-52.
Image

Boeing B-50. 370 built in several models. Also first flown in 1947. B-29 with new engines. Served for 20 years, mostly as KB-50 tanker. Replaced as a bomber by B-52, tanker by KC-97. The C-97 itself was developed from the B-50 and had a civilian version, the Boeing Model 337 Stratocruiser.
Image

Martin B-51. 2 XB-51 Built. First flown in 1949. Lost to English Electric B-57, which ended up being built domestically by Martin.
Image

The old numbering sequence goes all the way up to 71 (XB-70 Valkyrie was the last official B-bomber, but the SR-71 Blackbird was conceived as a recon/strike platform and was numbered after the bombers before they dropped the strike requirement altogether). It wouldn't surprise me if they skipped one here or there, but that happens in any numbering scheme when you have multiple projects running simultaneously. Then in 1962 they unified all of the services aircraft numbering schemes. Since the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) project was the first post-1962 design, it received the B-1 designation when it reached the prototype stage.

They've never skipped 20 numbers for no reason (other than marketing). They did skip F-19 for marketing reasons (Northrop thought that F-20 made their aircraft seem a generation ahead of the teen series). They also skipped F-13 (which became the F-14) because...well...unlucky #13. Not sure if you want call that marketing or not. But recently they've started to abandon the system altogether.

Nice site that lists ALL the missing designations: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... g-mds.html

But honestly, this isn't new, nor is it just a USAF, or even an aircraft problem. The Navy has been doing it with their ships. Seawolf SSN got the nonsensical SSN-21 to 23 hull numbers, while the follow-on Virginas continued on the normal SSN-7xx numbers from the Los Angeles Class. The Zumwalt DDG was numbered after the old DD series of destroyers (though they too were originally going to be numbered DDG-21 onwards).
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5189
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Jul 2016, 17:41

It jumped back to B-1 when they reset the system back in the 60's.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 432
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post06 Aug 2018, 20:20

Adversarial training, testing, combat operations, foreign sales???????????

https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/06/l ... -days-ago/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZBfOmZACNM
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Aug 2018, 05:31

zero-one wrote:It always puzzles me on why the armed services seem to be so laxed in naming aircraft.

"F" was supposed to be for fighters but you got F-117s and F-105s that are primarily strike aircraft
there should be an "S" prefix for them. But I guess the "A" Prefix would suffice since thats what they use for the A-6, A-7, F/A-18 which were the Navy's primary strike platforms. If thats the case, shouldn't the F-16 and F-15E be designated with an "F/A" prefix? also since they are primarily used for Strike missions more than Fighter missions perhaps it should be "A/F" It could also apply for the F-35 who's primary purpose is Strike. Also Shouldn't the F-22 be the F-21 since I don't think there was ever an F-21. the F-35 should of been the F-24 or F/A-24.


I think this is one area where the Russians have really got it right with the use of the manufacturer as the prefix, then a designation number. i.e. Keep-it-simple-stupid. So in the case of a 3-alpha prefix, like MiG35, you'd get the LMS-35 where the 'S' equals "Skunk".

But to be fully consistent as an agreed international nomenclature standard, the Su35 then becomes the "SuK35", which provides extra scope for a more easily recognisable and descriptive type-designation.

As for using using a '35', instead of say '28', as a transparent marketing ploy, the use of the 'SuK35' prefix actually addesses that via restoring some much needed 'truth-in-advertising' to the whole type designation schamozzle.

Two birds ... one stone.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3113
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 Aug 2018, 17:47

element1loop wrote:
zero-one wrote:It always puzzles me on why the armed services seem to be so laxed in naming aircraft.

"F" was supposed to be for fighters but you got F-117s and F-105s that are primarily strike aircraft
there should be an "S" prefix for them. But I guess the "A" Prefix would suffice since thats what they use for the A-6, A-7, F/A-18 which were the Navy's primary strike platforms. If thats the case, shouldn't the F-16 and F-15E be designated with an "F/A" prefix? also since they are primarily used for Strike missions more than Fighter missions perhaps it should be "A/F" It could also apply for the F-35 who's primary purpose is Strike. Also Shouldn't the F-22 be the F-21 since I don't think there was ever an F-21. the F-35 should of been the F-24 or F/A-24.


I think this is one area where the Russians have really got it right with the use of the manufacturer as the prefix, then a designation number. i.e. Keep-it-simple-stupid. So in the case of a 3-alpha prefix, like MiG35, you'd get the LMS-35 where the 'S' equals "Skunk".

But to be fully consistent as an agreed international nomenclature standard, the Su35 then becomes the "SuK35", which provides extra scope for a more easily recognisable and descriptive type-designation.

As for using using a '35', instead of say '28', as a transparent marketing ploy, the use of the 'SuK35' prefix actually addesses that via restoring some much needed 'truth-in-advertising' to the whole type designation schamozzle.

Two birds ... one stone.


??????

I really wish I got high before reading this...
Offline
User avatar

dragracingmaniac

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2005, 11:21

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 01:42

zero-one wrote:It always puzzles me on why the armed services seem to be so laxed in naming aircraft.

...Also Shouldn't the F-22 be the F-21 since I don't think there was ever an F-21....
O well I guess the DOD has more things to worry about than simple naming conventions.


Actually there was an F-21. It was flown by the U.S. Navy as an aggressor aircraft. The Israelis called it the Kfir. :)
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 02:03

And I'm pretty sure there were century fighters that numbered over 111 and under 117, only they weren't built in the U.S.A.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3113
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Aug 2018, 16:07

madrat wrote:And I'm pretty sure there were century fighters that numbered over 111 and under 117, only they weren't built in the U.S.A.


What are you hinting at here please?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3113
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Aug 2018, 16:49

Ah, I see. Thank you.

I guess we can add the SU-27 and Mig-29 to that list as well! I'm sure western intelligence is working overtime on the SU-35. That'd sure be a feather in our caps. I'm curious though... is anyone aware the Russians have been able to procure American jets? I always assumed an F-14 found its way to Russia, but I've never seen anything concrete on that.

I once heard they built replica's of the F-15, 16 etc or at least as close as they could get. That one though, I find a lot more difficult to swallow..
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post09 Aug 2018, 18:36

mixelflick wrote:Ah, I see. Thank you.

I guess we can add the SU-27 and Mig-29 to that list as well! I'm sure western intelligence is working overtime on the SU-35. That'd sure be a feather in our caps. I'm curious though... is anyone aware the Russians have been able to procure American jets? I always assumed an F-14 found its way to Russia, but I've never seen anything concrete on that.

I once heard they built replica's of the F-15, 16 etc or at least as close as they could get. That one though, I find a lot more difficult to swallow..


F-5s from Vietnam were flown and evaluated by Soviets in the Union.

Venezuela has some vanilla F-16s, so they were probably checked out by Russian "cultural attache", at the least.

Iranian F-14s (and all other gear, obviously). Not sure they were ever in Soviet hands before '91, and afterwards there was little purpose to examine them in any depth.

Saudi F-15 defected and landed and Sudan, but AFAIK the plane was bought back almost immediately, so definitely no Belenko's Foxbat treatment.

Not admitted officially, but it's a common understanding that Serbs let the Russians check out F-117 debris.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests