Author Topic: Air Force to retire U-2's, F-117's, and part of B-52 fleet (Read 762 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:06:58 PM »

I think theres been a few holes found in the F-117 technology such that the effective "stealthiness" is only marginally better than the F-22.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:23:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hoarach

Now the b52, how can they get rid of that thing. There wont be a plane like it to replace the amount of ordance it can unleash it an area. Only thing they possibly can be thinking of is saving gas.

(2,000 lbs. maximum payload capacity difference between B-2 and B-52)

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:24:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort

(2,000 lbs. maximum payload capacity difference between B-2 and B-52)

Now compare the cost of each aircraft.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:25:41 PM »

Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.

g00b · « **Reply #19 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:34:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.

Because ugly aircraft suck?

Vulcan · « **Reply #20 on:** January 12, 2006, 06:44:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.

They switched from Mac's to PC's and with the boost in processing power got better definition on the reflection prediction algorithms?

Cobra412 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 12, 2006, 07:17:01 PM »

I'm wondering now what the heck they are gonna toss me on if the U-2 and many F-15s are being retired. I know that the F-15s won't completely go bye bye but with the loss of the U-2 and alot of F-15s will cause our manning to be cut.

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** January 12, 2006, 08:06:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
The A10 is also 1970's technology...

You realize that the F-117 is 1970s technology, right? It was developed throughout the 70s, and the production began in 1978.

Chairboy · « **Reply #23 on:** January 12, 2006, 08:14:08 PM »

...oh, and the B-2 is curvy because available processing power increased by an order of magnitude between the original Have Blue program and the B-2 program.

Funny trivia, the technique used to calculate radar cross-sections and design stealth aircraft was developed by a soviet mathematician. He published in a science journal, and a US scientist realized what the implications while the soviet government didn't. Hi-lar-i-ous.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 12, 2006, 09:39:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
I think theres been a few holes found in the F-117 technology such that the effective "stealthiness" is only marginally better than the F-22.

It's the other way around, F-22 has better RCS than F-117.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2006, 09:56:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hoarach
The 117 is utterly a POS. Its not able to carry out ordance that the f22 will be able to and it has no gun for defense.

Now the b52, how can they get rid of that thing. There wont be a plane like it to replace the amount of ordance it can unleash it an area. Only thing they possibly can be thinking of is saving gas.

Read the article they are not getting rid of the 52. In fact the 52 is going through its MID-LIFE upgrade. As in, it will be around for another 50 years or so. They are cutting the fleet in half. The article says the USAF wants to get rid of some "tired iron" wich it is, Old, and warn out.

When an aircraft reaches a point were they are spending X amount of mait. hours per flying hours for the air frame type it becomes ineffecient to fly and the money can be spent better elsewhere.

The 117 is dated and perhaps surpassed greatly by the FA-22. This also makes sense as they are not getting rid of the 117 fleet merly cutting it down. This also helps the remaining fleet by adding numerous spare parts to the supply system.

There's only so much money to go around and congress sets our manning levels. The USAF HAS to cut people due to overmanning. It's a must and a fact of life. This helps solve that problem a little.

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2006, 10:08:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Read the article they are not getting rid of the 52. In fact the 52 is going through its MID-LIFE upgrade. As in, it will be around for another 50 years or so.

Yep. The B-52 will be over 100 years old before it's retired. Amazing.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2006, 10:09:13 PM »

They should sell some of those 117s to Israel.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2006, 10:10:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
They should sell some of those 117s to Israel.

Interesting thought to say the least but you never know, we may be selling TS hardware to a country that may not allways be "friendly" towards us.

Chairboy · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2006, 10:22:57 PM »

Israel has nuclear weapons and I bet they can deliver them wherever they need without slow, old & busted "Stealth" planes. Because all their enemies live next door, I think they can go supersonic, right on the deck, all the way to the delivery lob.