Civil_Genius Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 The first six F117A Nighthawks are prepared for their final flight before taking off to Tonopah Test Range, Nev., March 12. The aircraft are being retired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Was that not March 12th this year, as in this has already happened? If it's next year why would it take so long to prepare this flight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 The first six F117A Nighthawks are prepared for their final flight before taking off to Tonopah Test Range, Nev., March 12. The aircraft are being retired About time, the F-117 was an intersting AC but just to limited the F-22 and F-35 will do more and a UAC will be a more cost effect way to drop a pair of bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7rooper Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I wonder why is the F-17 to be retired? Didn't it perform outstanding in Desert Storm? Or is it just that the B-2's are cheaper now? My rig specs: Intel Core i7 4770 @3.4Ghz // Corsair 16GB DDR3 // MoBo Asus Z87K // HDD 1TB 7200RPM // eVGA Nvidia GTX 760GT 2GB DDR5 // LG 3D 47" 1920x1080 // Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS // Saitek Combat Pro Pedals // Thrustmaster MFD Cougar pack // PS3 Eye + FTNOIR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p_o_d_2_2 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Its being retired because the F-22 can now do its job better and faster. I doubt that the B-2 will ever be cheaper than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7rooper Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Gee, The F-22 of course... B2 is and will 4ever be a failure. My rig specs: Intel Core i7 4770 @3.4Ghz // Corsair 16GB DDR3 // MoBo Asus Z87K // HDD 1TB 7200RPM // eVGA Nvidia GTX 760GT 2GB DDR5 // LG 3D 47" 1920x1080 // Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS // Saitek Combat Pro Pedals // Thrustmaster MFD Cougar pack // PS3 Eye + FTNOIR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 No, the B-2 will instead be a bomber that fortunatly was never used for what it was realy designed for. Thank god. :) [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 With the GPS guided bombs it can now be extremely successful in conventional attacks. The problem before used to be that you could only guide one bomb at a time, so even with a B-2, attacking an airfield, the best thing you might do was to carpet bomb. So you'd need several B-2's to seriously trash the airfield. Now? You send 2, and you double up on the targets ... it's like TWS for bombers almost. The B-2 is no failure. Understand that the B-2 was built to /nuke/ things. You can call it a failure all you want, but would you have really liked to see its success confirmed? I wouldn't. I'm with Pilotasso. As for cost? Sending one B-2, or two, is better than sending a flight of 8 SEAD aircraft + 8 Strikers, + 8Fightersweep, plus at least a section of EW support aircraft, and a couple tankers. The B-2's come out FAR cheaper and do the same if not more damage. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 As for cost? Sending one B-2, or two, is better than sending a flight of 8 SEAD aircraft + 8 Strikers, + 8Fightersweep, plus at least a section of EW support aircraft, and a couple tankers. The B-2's come out FAR cheaper and do the same if not more damage. I do believe none of those SEAD, striker or fighter sweep aircraft contain a nice desk to spread you're flight papers out across, room to stretch your legs on that long flight, maybe even go for a jog (if you're a contortionist) and I think the B2 even has a toilet (Maybe that was another plane) Doesn't sound like it's a failure to me. I remember sitting in a harrier at an airshow and complaining to my dad the seat was too itchy, the pilot scowled and said 'well least you don't have to put up with that, that cramped, stuffy cockpit is my office!' :D By the way, why would you use a B2 for the nuclear role? It's slow compared to an ICBM, I doubt it has the range of one and the warhead would be smaller. Even a submarine positioned near by would have a quicker response? Or would the B2 be used in a planned attack where time is not such an issue? Surely it's cheaper to build low RCS ICBMs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7rooper Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 same as F-117 did and even cheaper. If the F-117 are to be dismissed so be it but they will with the honor of having had their fire baptism. My rig specs: Intel Core i7 4770 @3.4Ghz // Corsair 16GB DDR3 // MoBo Asus Z87K // HDD 1TB 7200RPM // eVGA Nvidia GTX 760GT 2GB DDR5 // LG 3D 47" 1920x1080 // Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS // Saitek Combat Pro Pedals // Thrustmaster MFD Cougar pack // PS3 Eye + FTNOIR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anselm80 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Avionics for B2 is a beast to conquer. That and the usual 40+ hour sorties. Fighter pilots have to go through 2 extra years of training to get into a B2, according to Modern Marvels by History Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Sorry 7rooper, you're wrong. A single F-117 won't do anywhere near the damage a B-2 will, and sending enough of them to do just that - you may as well send a B-2. Not to mention the range advantage of the B2. EscCtrl, The B-2 is a *recallable* nuclear-capable asset. You can't recall ICBMs. In addition, it is better suited to striking mobile targets than an ICBM - not necessarily traditionally mobile missile units, but consider a 'mobile' ie. personnel relocating - command post. You can re-target based on intel. In addition the stealth bomber can (and probably was meant to) hopefully hit enemy silos before it is detected, thus providing a huge pre-emptive strike advantage. F-117's don't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing such things. (And yes, you need a nuke to take out those silos) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Sorry 7rooper, you're wrong. A single F-117 won't do anywhere near the damage a B-2 will, and sending enough of them to do just that - you may as well send a B-2. Not to mention the range advantage of the B2. EscCtrl, The B-2 is a *recallable* nuclear-capable asset. You can't recall ICBMs. In addition, it is better suited to striking mobile targets than an ICBM - not necessarily traditionally mobile missile units, but consider a 'mobile' ie. personnel relocating - command post. You can re-target based on intel. In addition the stealth bomber can (and probably was meant to) hopefully hit enemy silos before it is detected, thus providing a huge pre-emptive strike advantage. F-117's don't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing such things. (And yes, you need a nuke to take out those silos) Is that because the current inventory of ICBMs has not been updated since the coldwar or simply because the vessel on which the warhead is delivered (i.e. by aircraft) would have those advantages regardless? Can the Nighthawk carry GBU-28s, the bunkerbusters and if so would that be insufficient to render a silo ineffective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 my question about the B-2 is why do they always seem to fly them on 40 hour + missions? I could understand dispatching a flight to the theater then landing come what close unles they are such a beast for maitanince that only Whitman can handle them, in that case it would make more since to rely on the B-1B, fighters and UAVs to deliver JDAMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 my question about the B-2 is why do they always seem to fly them on 40 hour + missions? I could understand dispatching a flight to the theater then landing come what close unles they are such a beast for maitanince that only Whitman can handle them, in that case it would make more since to rely on the B-1B, fighters and UAVs to deliver JDAMs. Possibly maintenance, and of course to prevent any security breach whatsoever. These things carry SIOP documents onboard probably. Not something you want to 'lose'. In any case, there's no other aircraft that can do what the B-2 can do: Slip behind defenses undetected and single-handedly, and precicely pummel or nuke a target, then slip right back out. UAV's can't do it, B-1's can't do it, F-22's can't do it, and neither can F-117's. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Is that because the current inventory of ICBMs has not been updated since the coldwar or simply because the vessel on which the warhead is delivered (i.e. by aircraft) would have those advantages regardless? The latter I'd say. Once you fuel and launch ICBMs the other guy sees the launches via satelite and does the same (he has just enough time). A B-2? Nuclear mushroom. WTF happened? Can the Nighthawk carry GBU-28s, the bunkerbusters and if so would that be insufficient to render a silo ineffective? They're more than likely ineffective. There's a reason why nuked grew and grew and grew to bust up silos. Once accuracy went up, yield went down. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Dont forget about loiter time and range, where the B-2 can stay up for a day with a single refuel, where you have to refuel an F-117 multiple times just to shack 2 targets at the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 my question about the B-2 is why do they always seem to fly them on 40 hour + missions? I could understand dispatching a flight to the theater then landing come what close unles they are such a beast for maitanince that only Whitman can handle them, in that case it would make more since to rely on the B-1B, fighters and UAVs to deliver JDAMs. Because they can? The latter I'd say. Once you fuel and launch ICBMs the other guy sees the launches via satelite and does the same (he has just enough time). A B-2? Nuclear mushroom. WTF happened? They're more than likely ineffective. There's a reason why nuked grew and grew and grew to bust up silos. Once accuracy went up, yield went down. Surely you could program a satellite to locate and pin-point the contrail and shape of a B-2 as it travels over oceans? you mention ICBMs can be spotted by satellite, I assume it's in this way. Unless there is some unlucky sod who has to watch hours of silo footage. I thought yield went down as most of the power is lost through the spherical shape of the blast. It would be far more efficient to have several bombs of the same power than one. The tsar bomb (50MT one) sent most of it's power off to space it was so big. It's difficult to focus a sphere onto a more or less flat plane. There's a web link about this and I'll search my old computer soon for it if you would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Surely you could program a satellite to locate and pin-point the contrail and shape of a B-2 as it travels over oceans? you mention ICBMs can be spotted by satellite, I assume it's in this way. Unless there is some unlucky sod who has to watch hours of silo footage. B2s fly higher than the level where condensation occurs. That big wing area gives it an incredible amount of lift and isnt exactly meant to fly low in the weeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Groove Posted May 15, 2007 ED Team Share Posted May 15, 2007 EscCtrl, nobody is watching the silos. This are IR recon satelites which would spot the fire started by a launch of a SS-20 for example. The Tsar bomb was for pure "i have the bigger bomb than you" competition. They wanted to go for the 100 MT but were afraid :D Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Ah fair enough - glad somebody at the department of defence for your sake was thinking more than I was :P All Nukes suffer the same consequences of energy dissipation among the z-axis though. The Tsar bomb was a nice example that over exaggerated the idea I wanted to get across :P By the way here is the website I mentioned concerning multiple warhead detonation (scroll down awhile) http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html if anyone's interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Surely you could program a satellite to locate and pin-point the contrail and shape of a B-2 as it travels over oceans? you mention ICBMs can be spotted by satellite, I assume it's in this way. Unless there is some unlucky sod who has to watch hours of silo footage. Absolutely not. The reason why you can watch enemy missile silos and tell they're launching is because there's unmisteakable IR signatures - very powerful ones. The B-2 doesn't let you do that, nor is tracking aircraft contrails a viable option in anything but a clear day - and even then, you might get a flurry that looks like a contrail, or there might be no contrails from B-2's whatsoever, or they can follow civvie routes until it's too late ... I thought yield went down as most of the power is lost through the spherical shape of the blast. It would be far more efficient to have several bombs of the same power than one. The tsar bomb (50MT one) sent most of it's power off to space it was so big. It's difficult to focus a sphere onto a more or less flat plane. There's a web link about this and I'll search my old computer soon for it if you would like. Yes, most of the bomb blast is wasted. The whole idea is that you want to destroy a silo. The farther the warhead lands, the more powerful it needs to be to exert the necessary overpressure on the silo to destroy it. Conversely, the more accurate the bomb is, the closer is can land and exert the same overpressure while utilizing a smaller yield. And this means you have more material for more bombs, too. This shouldn't be new to you, it's actually almost directly comparable to WWII carpet bombing of german factories vs. dropping a couple LGB's on your target today :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Absolutely not. The reason why you can watch enemy missile silos and tell they're launching is because there's unmisteakable IR signatures - very powerful ones. The B-2 doesn't let you do that, nor is tracking aircraft contrails a viable option in anything but a clear day - and even then, you might get a flurry that looks like a contrail, or there might be no contrails from B-2's whatsoever, or they can follow civvie routes until it's too late ... Yes, most of the bomb blast is wasted. The whole idea is that you want to destroy a silo. The farther the warhead lands, the more powerful it needs to be to exert the necessary overpressure on the silo to destroy it. Conversely, the more accurate the bomb is, the closer is can land and exert the same overpressure while utilizing a smaller yield. And this means you have more material for more bombs, too. This shouldn't be new to you, it's actually almost directly comparable to WWII carpet bombing of german factories vs. dropping a couple LGB's on your target today :) True but carpet-bombings provoked shear terror because of their randomness which was a useful advantage. Unless you're a dictator in a bunker I doubt many civilians would be scared - after all in war you want to scare the population to start a revolt to attack the government with it's own people. After writing that I realised that same trade-off is true with nuclear arms too (though to the average person all nukes are probably the same - a nightmare) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Yeah, I was about to say ... you're not afraid of nukes? Hehe. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscCtrl Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Yeah, I was about to say ... you're not afraid of nukes? Hehe. Would we really have time to be afraid, If a nuclear war broke out how long would it last? Never really considered the time span of it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts