[admin]

F-117: A long, storied history that is about to end

by Staff Sgt. Matthew Bates
Air Force Print News

10/28/2006 - HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFPN) -- After 25 years of storied service, the F-117 Nighthawk, the Air Force's first stealth fighter, is about to retire. The technology that once made it a unique weapon system has now caught up to it and newer fighter aircraft are now joining the fleet. Still, the Nighthawk was the first of its kind, a fact anyone who has spent time around the aircraft is quick to point out.

Many of these people were gathered here Oct. 29 to commemorate 25 years of Nighthawk history at the Silver Stealth ceremony. Members of the F-117 community, past and present, were on hand to pay homage to the aircraft's illustrious history, a history that contains as many secrets as it does legends.

Since it was officially named a part of the Air Force in 1981, the Nighthawk began making an impression on military officials. Not just because it was "funny" looking, but because the aircraft brought many new capabilities to the battlefield.

The Nighthawk, after all, was the stuff of science fiction. It could fly across enemy skies and through the world's most advanced radar systems without being detected. This capability allowed the aircraft to perform reconnaissance missions and bomb critical targets, all without the enemy knowing who or what had hit them.

"This is a strategic weapon that really reshaped how the Air Force looked at strategic warfare," said Lt. Col. Chris Knehans, commander of the 7th Fighter Squadron here. "It doesn't matter what defenses you put up, how deep you try to hide or how much you surround yourself with collateral damage, this airplane will come and get you."

This fact has made the Nighthawk a vital part of the Air Force's various campaigns since the aircraft's introduction. It has seen service in Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia as part of such operations as Desert Storm, Allied Force, Just Cause and Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

For those who either fly or provide support to the Nighthawk, the aircraft has been a faithful one. Knowing it is now in its last days is bittersweet for many of them.

"From a pragmatic point of view, we all understand why it's leaving," Colonel Knehans said. "I mean it's a 30-year-old concept now. But when you look at its history, its design and its combat record ... yeah, the Air Force is going to lose basically a very unique weapon system."

For Master Sgt. Byron Osborn, who has worked on the F-117 for almost 19 years, the emotions are clearer.

"For old timers like me, it's a sad day," he said. "A lot of the younger guys like the new, flashier aircraft, but I'll stick with this old dog any day."

The Air Force is saying goodbye to the F-117, but not to the effect it has had on modern warfare. Its successor, the F-22 Raptor, will continue the fight the Nighthawk started, which, according to retired Gen. Lloyd "Fig" Newton, one of the first F-117 pilots, is a hard job to fill.

"Whenever its nation called, the F-117 answered, providing capabilities that had never been known before," he said. "If we needed the door kicked in, the stealth was the one to do it. Never before had such an aircraft existed."

Modern technology may have caught up with the F-117, and new aircraft may be set to take its place on the tarmac, but none will ever be able to replace it.

[djjeffhall]

I find it unusal that the airforce would retire this bird after such a relatively short life. the F-15, F-16 and F-18 (Not to mention the B-52, which seems be in a league of its own.) all have had much longer lifes, and are much older airframes.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

I find it unusal that the airforce would retire this bird after such a relatively short life. the F-15, F-16 and F-18 (Not to mention the B-52, which seems be in a league of its own.) all have had much longer lifes, and are much older airframes.

I suspect that it will eventually come out that this was a maintenance beast and as the loss in Yugoslavia illustrated, its stealthy attributes may not be up to desirable standards. With the B-2 certified in the conventional role, it may be too much effort/risk for too little payload.

Just a guess.

[slammin]

From what I was told, maintenance was a real headache on this airplane. The RAM material had to be removed and later reapplied everytime an access panel was removed.
Also, this is one of the few airplanes that the air force has a replacement for in terms of capability and numbers.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

I find it unusal that the airforce would retire this bird after such a relatively short life. the F-15, F-16 and F-18 (Not to mention the B-52, which seems be in a league of its own.) all have had much longer lifes, and are much older airframes.

Actually, if you look at history, what you should be asking is why we are keeping all these other planes so long, not why we are retiring the F-117 so soon.

That we as a nation are not willing to spend the required money to buy the Air Force (and Navy/Army/USMC) newer planes (not just fighters, but even more urgently, tankers, transports, helicopters, and bombers) is not a good portent for the future. And no, we don't have to take the money from the Army, Navy, and USMC to do it either. They need newer systems as well. Whatever we are getting is arriving in quantities so small that there is no way we can replace the older jets in time to avoid a drop in capability (yes, even if the new stuff is better than the old).

The F-117 has served for well over 20 years. That's shorter than the B-52, KC-135, C-130, and even the F-14/15/16/18 and A-10 (not by much so far, though. But these will be around for a while yet). But if you look at the many other types we have used in the past, 20 to 25 years is not bad at all. How long did we have F-105s? F-106s? A-6s? Even the ubiquitous F-4 (in active duty AF)? Not 30 years plus, that's for sure. Yet that is the accepted norm these days. We have lost our perspective on this. Americans hate to study history...

The F-117 retirement brings us back to how things should be. 30 years is a long time in terms of both technological evolution and airframe fatigue, and upgrading the avionics can't do anything for the wing structure. A short list of aircraft types falling apart at the present time (meaning requiring major structural work to keep flying): A-10, C-130E, EA-6B, KC-135, C-5, CH-46, CH-53, even some older F-16s. I'm sure I'm missing a few. And it's going to get worse, a lot worse... We are burning airframe life at 2 or 3 times normal rate during our current wartime operations.

FVD

[admin]

All things considered twenty-five years isn't that short of a service career. The Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet haven't served that much longer and they're all scheduled for replacement with the JSF and Raptor programs. You have to give the Eagle an exception due to it's extraordinary versatility and exemplary performance.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Actually, if you look at history, what you should be asking is why we are keeping all these other planes so long, not why we are retiring the F-117 so soon.

That we as a nation are not willing to spend the required money to buy the Air Force (and Navy/Army/USMC) newer planes (not just fighters, but even more urgently, tankers, transports, helicopters, and bombers) is not a good portent for the future. And no, we don't have to take the money from the Army, Navy, and USMC to do it either. They need newer systems as well. Whatever we are getting is arriving in quantities so small that there is no way we can replace the older jets in time to avoid a drop in capability (yes, even if the new stuff is better than the old).

The F-117 has served for well over 20 years. It's shorter than the B-52, KC-135, C-130, and even the F-14/15/16/18 and A-10 (not by much so far, though. But these will be around for a while yet). But if you look at the many other types we have used in the past, 20 to 25 years is not bad at all. How long did we have F-105s? F-106s? A-6s? Even the ubiquitous F-4 (in active duty AF)? Not 30 years plus, that's for sure. Yet that is the accepted norm these days. We have lost our perspective on this. Americans hate to study history...

The F-117 retirement brings us back to how things should be. 30 years is a long time in terms of both technological evolution and airframe fatigue, and upgrading the avionics can't do anything for the wing structure. A short list of aircraft types falling apart at the present time (meaning requiring major structural work to keep flying): A-10, C-130E, EA-6B, KC-135, C-5, CH-46, CH-53, even some older F-16s. I'm sure I'm missing a few. And it's going to get worse, a lot worse... We are burning airframe life at 2 or 3 times normal rate during our current wartime operations.

FVD

What's truly scary is the situation with helicopters. We are burning them up at a rate overseas that far exceedes our ability to produce or refurbish airframes. It's not so much the combat losses but the routine wear and tear caused by high tempo operations in the worst possible operating environments (sand, heat, high altitudes). At least there are fixed wing replacements on the horizon. There simply are no replacements for the AH-64, CH-47 and UH-60. These aircraft are programmed to be in service for at least 60 years (longer in the case of the 47s). Even the interim upgrades of existing designs, such as the ARH-70 or the Bell UH-1Y/AH-1Z are in deep trouble.

One problem is our dependence on technology for military superiority. It paid off in the Cold War, but the net effect is that we've boxed ourselves into relying on fairly small numbers of incredibly complex platforms. Talking in terms of adjusted dollars, you could buy 20-30 Vietnam-era UH-1H Hueys for the cost of one Blackhawk. Sure the Blackhawk is a more capable aircraft. If you start running out of them (and we are) is this a trade off that was worth it? The small procurement numbers mean that its virtually impossible to restart production once it has ended. That's the big question mark hanging over the C-17 at the moment.

Another problem is that the basic technology for combat aircraft has finally matured and innovations are occuring primarily in subsytems rather than the old development model of optimizing airframe and engine design. Systems integration is a real problem as numerous agencies, contractors and subcontractors get involved, which stretches out the procurement process. The longer it runs, the more vulnerable it becomes to the whims of Congress, the Administration and the Pentagon, which then make it run even longer (and probably cost more by the time it's over). These days the solution to bringing the cost down is to bring in more intra-service or international partners to increase orders and drop unit cost, but which adds further requirements, development time and will probably make it cost more in the long run.

If you really want to push the envelope, its really going to cost you in time and money. The Osprey still hasn't made it into combat after 25 years of development. The Air Force will probably get its JSF into service in the next decade, but watch how long it takes the Navy and Marines to get their versions into service - if at all (remember the F-111?).

It's a pretty safe bet that things will only get worse. Regardless of which party comes into power next, I think we can expect to see considerably more fiscal restraint on defense programs and a greater willingness to pull the plug if a program runs into trouble.

[djjeffhall]

FormerViperDriver,
Hey there.

I was hoping to get some feedback from you on this, thanks.

I guess I should have phrased my question slightly differently. I'm not really questioning the "lack" of longevtivity of the F-117, just the longevtivity in comparison to the other airframes we are currently using. Yes, 25 years and pretty damn old. However, as we both pointed out, the USAF has several ariframes that are much older. I was kind of under the impression that with the rising cost of airplanes and whatnot, we were EXPECTING them to last much longer. I would not have been surprised to hear we are beginning a program to stretch the airframe another 20 years instead of "hastening" its retirement.

Then again, I'm not a flyer so I really don't know anything except what the L.A. Times prints. (Which is pretty decent, by the way. Some real in depth coverage on airforce goings ons. At least there have been, who knows what will happen with the curent buy-out and regime change? No, I'm not looking to change the topic.)

[mustangdriver]

First flight of the stealth prototype was in 1978.

[skysurfer808]

When you look at the story of the F-117's retirement, and put it in context, the result isn't really surprising. The F-117 was designed to go after high value strategic targets in a "Silver Bullet" Strike. This was a mission previously handled by the F-111. However, total airframe production of the F-117 resulted in only a single combat unit being equipped with the type. When you look at total numbers compared to maintenance requirements, the 117 is a high cost platform. In a relatively permissive defense environment, ie Panama or Iraq after the initial strikes, the 117 was able to thrive. However, a 117 was shot down over Yugoslavia in 1999, and the type did have some structural problems (remember the one that fell apart over Virginia during that air show.) The maintenance difficulties mentioned above made it anything but a cost effective platform. Also, remember, neither the B-2 nor Raptor were operational during the 117's debut. A small production 2 Bomb airplane with so many maintenance difficulties isn't an ideal platform. The Air Force decided to retire the 117 in favor of the F-22's air to ground mission, not to mention the B-2. Though the B-2 isn't a high production airplane either, and has its own mantenance and operational issues, at least it can carry more bombs to its target.

The F-117 is a fine symbol of First Generation Stealth, and deserves it's place in history. But it is also a maintenance hog that can only carry 2 Smart Bombs, and it cannot stand on its own against an air to air threat. The F-22 and JSF will both be able to defend themselves against an air to air threat, which in the future the USA will be facing once again.

Skysurfer808