I would think that the mission and TACAIR planners would already have factored that in.
Decapitation and dislocation is a systems event - not a platform event. As such, factors such as signature declaration due to refueling become less of an issue.
Russian Engineers Admit Using F-117 Wreckage for Tests
- Thread starter kinggodzilla87
- Start date
Decapitation and dislocation is a systems event - not a platform event. As such, factors such as signature declaration due to refueling become less of an issue.
I'm sorry I didn't express myself more clearly. I was being serious and by "Pros" I tried to call for the professionals. There are two reasons I can think of why it wasn't destroyed: 1. it was considered to be so obsolete it wasn't worth it 2. there already were too many civlians around and they wouldn't risk such an amount of civilian casulties
I think you are correct on both accounts.
- we already "know" that the F-117 was tagged for retirement
- we already "know" that the F-22 has superior sig management technology to F-117. The F-22 is already a mainstream unit, and has superiority across other areas whilst maintaining superior sig management. Retiring the F-117 became less of an issue as it became a logistic impediment - and a redundant capability.
Last edited:
No problem at all, I just wasn't sure!
I understand the F-117 is "outdated technology" (by our standards) and had/has a "replacement" that is far superior in every way. I just think, if it is at all possible, it's always better to put any old documents that could be the least bit sensitive, through a shredder before letting it "out of your hands." In other words, if we were going to retire the F-117 from the USAF but were looking to sell it as is, on the open market, that's one thing. To my knowledge, the F-117s aren't going to be auctioned off, probably for a reason. I just wouldn't want, "our garbage to become another man's treasure."
I'm not sure how far away from any other air support the F-117 was shot down, but I'm guessing an F-15 (or whatever) could have beat the media to the crash site. If an F-22 went down in the middle of a "foreign area" (Black Hawk Down Style) and local civillians gathered around, I'd put my money on the civillians not factoring high in an AF Generals decision making.
JMHO
Every major sensitive aviation asset in USAF history has also walked hand in hand with specialist recovery teams. post cold war they were merged into the rest of SOC, but they still exist.
If the aircraft was deemed sensitive, those snatch and recovery teams would have kicked into play. (the same recovery team structure also existed for the M1 Abrams in GW1)
Yes, in 90x it become possible to build LO aircraft without MAJOR sacrifice in capabilites and HUGE cost increase. What's why USSR (and Europa) started to develop it. But most peoples i know agree what B-2 and F-117 was failure from military and economical POV. They added nothing significant to USAF capabilities as basicaly they still was need an excort against enemy fighters, was too few in numbers, and didn't had guaranteed stealth against metric-wave radars or FLIR/LLIR. They use was limited to night time only - and we all know what night time operations are much less effective than DT. It is very, very hard to imagine any mission where F-117 and B-2 will have deciding role without exposing itself to enemy fighters.
B2's were designed from the outset to strike unescorted - there was no fighter in the USAF inventory that was even remotely able to run escort in deep strike.
F-117's were designed to maximise signature and environment - they were used in daylight raids during GW1 as well as night strike.
finally why discuss escorts when decapitation is a systems response - in any airforce.
"Designed" isn't equivalent to "can be used". B-2 may well be designed to fly without escort - but it would be suicidal. Even in WW2 without nightvision devices and shitty ground radars it was possible to shot down bombers at night. In 80x, with FLIR/LLIR/IRST, and much better metric radars, sending lone B-2 was suicidal.
As for 117... ya, they was used. But 1st we can debate what Iraq AD wasnt up to the task anyway, and second - main argument - what B-1 or F-15E would do just as well if not better in these cirumstances and for much less cost.
IMO, USA greatly underestimated the speed of radars development in 70x and 80x, and also underestimated soviet capability to widely field IRST devices. USA also definitly misjudged cost to develop and operate stealth aircrafts, which resulted in they huge price and low numbers
Last edited:
Got some what? And trashed what?
Can you imagine a bunch of Chinese scientists getting a bunch of pieces of the F-117, examining it, and then throwing it in the trash bin because, "it wasnt as advanced as they expected"?
And can you imagine some guy named tphuang, whos so deep in the chinese technical loop, having seen the "trashing" and then posting about it on the internet?Boy you just gotta love this Internet.
What did they get? and what was questionable?
I know that the Russians captured a sabre intact during the Korean war, and developed a better gun sight than what they had as a result. Im only guessing that they will "improve" the steath knowledge that they already have with the wreckage of the F117.There is no arguement that the US is decades ahead of the rest of the world in stealth tech,and even though the Russians will benefit from this info,its really 20 years behind current tech.
Im sure that the US would prefer that the incedent didnt happen,but can live with the fact that it did.
Im sure that the US would prefer that the incedent didnt happen,but can live with the fact that it did.
what empirical evidence is there that the B2 cannot be used in todays threat matrix? hardly the czechs as they're the only ones in central europe with a parameter detection capability - the russians and the chinese don't.
again, how so? you are so simplifying the issue of systems response it borders on being disingenuous. strike platforms don't operate in isolation. decapitation and dislocation is a systems event - not a platform event.
IRST doesn't have the range or discretion to be able to threaten a B2 or F117 inside of their strike range
we can debate as much as we like, it was the most intensely air defended air space in the world at that time as they were going to go to war - their force structure showed competency way above what was initially expected. the problem was that they were tactical amateurs. in real terms, Iraq and Iran had more recent combat experience than the russians (eg).
note the opening stages of the air campaign if you need an object lesson in systems prosecution. (vis a vis other air assets)
oh please, IRST has so many limitations its not funny, and it has some substantial limitations. without enabling technology it actually becomes a broadcaster.
cost is irrelevant if you deem the capability worth the effort. and for the US, against the initial threat, they were more than willing to spend the money. If the soviets had understood the algorithms and their potential, they would have done the same thing.
A side question. I remember an article about the last time the US bombed tripoli, sometime during the reagan administration. Part of that article stated that the operation used about 50 planes; wild weasels, escorts, tankers, of which only 4 or 8 were actually bombers. There was a suggestion that even if stealth technology was expensive, there was some saving involved since it wouldn't take 50 planes to bomb a palace.
Would you say this is accurate?
I'd say its accurate because it hilights that a decapitation and dislocation action is a systems event.
air strike tactics have changed and evolved dramatically since the Tripoli event - and that action included participation from USN as well as USAF.
the final discretionary delivery may result in less platforms throwing the spear - but the systems support still has to be in play if you want to maximise success.
there is some worthwhile reading in the book "Bandits over Bagdhad". Its a book about the F-117 written by pilots and people involved in developing the capability - it adds some pertinent detail as to how succesful and sensitive the stealth management systems were on those planes - which were fundamentally a hybrid of the F-16 for the majority of its major parts.
As to the Chinese embassy being bombed my sources are completely different. A cruise missile launched from an American Submarine was supposed to hit a Yugoslav Mig 29 that was ready for take off at an Airbase, but instead overshot the target and slammed into the Chinese Embassy further inland causing a bit of embarrassment from what i understand.
I don't know what you are trying to say here.Got some what? And trashed what?
Can you imagine a bunch of Chinese scientists getting a bunch of pieces of the F-117, examining it, and then throwing it in the trash bin because, "it wasnt as advanced as they expected"?
Boy you just gotta love this Internet.
What did they get? and what was questionable?
My point is that it shouldn't be a surprise these countries are looking for these materials to see how well their technology compare to them.
Evidence? Can B-2 be shot down by ANY fighter? YES, it can with ease. CAN B-2 be detected by EW long-wave radars? YES, it can. CAN B-2 be detected by forward observer? YES, it can. What other proof you need? Only 30 years ago, in the time of Vietnam war, most pilots used cannons and IR missiles. Let me tell you, bombers didnt had many chances wthout fighters escort back then.
What responce? What decapitation? That MAY work against 3d world country - but surery not against 1st world country what expect attack from USA. Again, B-2/F-117 are too few in numbers, and are quite reliable detected by EW radars.
This is, well, chest beating propaganda. Iraq AD most dence? Most defended? Most capable? Without even long-range SAM's? With 20-years old mid-range SAM's? Without EW radars? If F-117 / B-2 was so great and Iraqi defence so capable - why other types of aircrafts had such low loss rate? And let me point it - non-stealth aircrafts also flew deep in Iraq territory on regular basis. The answer is simply - Iraq AD was almost non-existant by that time due to sanctions, inherit weakness and quick degrading by killing few keypoints of Iraq AD network. Killing, mostly, with non-stealth means.
It is capable enouth to detect aircraft 10 km away. That is more than enouth if you are guided by CGI. It may be even enouth if you simply patrol the skyes - after all, F-117 is BOMBER, and NOT cruise missiles carrier. IT will need to be literally on top of its target.
The capability was not worth the effort.
ESCPECEALLY against initial threat F-117/B-2 was useless. I mean, B-2 without A-bomb WAS completely useless against SU. WITH A-bomb it is just a huugely overpriced alternative to Pershing-2 and Trident, what also need 10 hours to get to target. And dont tell me about stealth - a lone B-2 flying other SU territory would cause much greater alarm and leave much more time for decision than lone ballistic missile.
W
of course you're right - lets mention Matthius Rus in the same sentence. You can have the most feared GBAD in the world, but its pretty damn useless if your people are incompetent.
Any asset can be shot down. But as of today, what systems does Russia have that is good as Vera, Nostradamus, JORN?
and forward observors? you have forward observors at the B2's ingress height?
LOL. don't be infantile. I'm talking about a tactical planning event, if you don't understand that deep strike is part of a systems decapitation and dislocation event - then you're letting your own national pride get in the way of acknowledging how all deep strike missions are preceded. The russians are no different to the americans - or the israelis etc...
and the network was killed by systems processes - what bit don't you understand?
ah yes, B1's and B2's have both succesfully launched deep strike weapons at 80kms, but IRST will pick the weapons up at 10km and be able to react against the aircraft as well as kill the payload. - good luck to that one.
what initial threat? educate me and tell me where F117's didn't fulfill their mission planning objectives?
and for goodnes sake, the first strike option belongs to weapons systems that are only 6-15 minutes away from launch to impact. NOT 10 hours at all. bombers are not first strike weapons.
If you have ballistic weapons that take 10 hrs to get to target, then you're fueling them up with parafin wax and icing sugar.
You must remember the times - just after a big mess with Korea airliner, in times of rose West painting within SU elite. Rust was detected and tracked all the way to Moskow - but no general had enouth balls to order shot down obviosly small civilian plane.
The issue is that russian field and area commanders all over that ingress path were fired, dismissed and demoted.
before you continue to take my comments as a slight on all things russian, my point is that you can have the best systems on the planet, but human error rules the day.
the argument that bombers will be picked up inbound or outbound after strike is a specious argument as it ignores the fact that a strike against a competent power (like the soviet union and/or russia) would not involve bombers as the primary strike weapon.
bombers were designed (esp the B2) to deal with fluid targetting data that the tier 1 strike elements may have mised - and for the USAF, once failsafe was passed, everyone was prepared for losses.
arguing therefore that crews would be killed, etc is an academic point because the bombers are not the coup de main - they never were (and the russians had the same philosophy except their focus was not intercontinental wrt fixed wing strike)