Why do Americans continue to take off the long-written-off F-117s


American F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters, decommissioned back in 2008, are still flying in Southern California. Experts at Military Watch discuss the reasons for the need to operate this type of aircraft.


It is believed that private contractors can fly on fighters, and they are used to test a number of military of technologies, especially to counter invisible fighters of a potential enemy. So, the F-117, seen in the air on May 19, worked together with at least one E-2 Hawkeye early warning radar. E-2 is designed to detect threats over long distances and provide situational awareness for the strike groups of the US Navy aircraft carrier. This suggests that F-117 was used to test the ability of E-2 to detect "invisibility".

The information obtained as a result of such tests will allow both improving the E-2 sensors for better detection of "invisibles" and will help the navy develop tactics for more effective counteraction to such aircraft in the future.

Among the potential threats, the publication names the 5th generation Chinese fighter J-20 and J-31, as well as the promising H-20 bomber. In addition, the “invisible danger” for the United States may be a heavy unmanned vehicle from Russia “Okhotnik-B”.

F-117 - the first stealth fighter in the world, entered service in the late 1980s and participated in the suppression of Iraq's air defense during the 1991 Gulf War. This aircraft was hit by an anti-aircraft missile in Yugoslavia in 1999.
Photos used: https://www.flickr.com/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

60 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2020 11: 56
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    Yeah, only the subsonic F-117 in life has never been a fighter ...
    1. Dear sofa expert. 22 May 2020 12: 43
      +2
      • 2
      • 0
      Yes, it’s hard to call him a fighter.) Tactical bomber.
      1. Observer2014 Offline
        Observer2014 22 May 2020 19: 44
        0
        • 1
        • 1
        Quote: Dear couch expert.
        Yes, it’s hard to call him a fighter.) Tactical bomber.

        And here I agree. Its main armament was two high-precision and powerful bombs. And he doesn’t need more. It was developed for specific tasks. Where there were no tasks to throw a bunch of bombs on the enemy’s head. There is aviation special forces. Plus from me.
      2. Arkharov Offline
        Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 23 May 2020 14: 48
        -2
        • 0
        • 2
        Dear sofa expert. And I'm a plus for the first time. You can, if you want !!!
    2. Observer2014 Offline
      Observer2014 22 May 2020 19: 39
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Quote: Sergey Latyshev
      Yeah, only the subsonic F-117 in life has never been a fighter ...

      yes Five points for sure! good
  2. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 13: 36
    0
    • 2
    • 2
    F-117 - the first stealth fighter in the world

    And then the Americans are blamed for what they call "stealth" "invisible." While this is an invention of just such journalists who call the tactical strike F-117 a fighter.
    1. Observer2014 Offline
      Observer2014 22 May 2020 19: 50
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Quote: Cyril
      F-117 - the first stealth fighter in the world

      And then the Americans are blamed for what they call "stealth" "invisible." While this is an invention of just such journalists who call the tactical strike F-117 a fighter.

      And here is a plus. And rightly so, you said. yes
  3. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 13: 37
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    A very unusual and beautiful aircraft, for its time really breakthrough.
    1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 00: 08
      +1
      • 2
      • 1
      Nothing uglier has yet risen into the sky) He was only a breakthrough, as the first one where they used "stealth" technology. The car turned out to be extremely unsuccessful, since the designers laid in it too little potential for modernization. Plus (for the sake of invisibility) these non-aerodynamic angular shapes. Because of this, the “ugly duckling” never became a “swan”, securing for itself the fate of only a “tactical bomber” forever, so the program as a result was closed in favor of the F-22.
      In addition, the maintenance of the often damaged “hinged cover” was incredibly expensive, since the “canopy” for each aircraft was not standardized, but piece-wise (manual work was very different in size from each other) and damaged segments were made to order for each aircraft.
      So, somehow)
      1. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 00: 58
        -2
        • 1
        • 3
        Nothing uglier has yet risen into the sky)

        This is pure taste.

        He was only a breakthrough, as the first, where they used "stealth" technology.

        Everything is true, therefore breakthrough. For the 70s, when it was developed - especially.

        The car turned out to be extremely unsuccessful

        The “success” of a combat vehicle is determined by the effectiveness of its military use. The use of F-117 was effective.

        Because of this, the "ugly duckling" never became a "swan", securing for itself the fate of only a "tactical bomber"

        The ugly duckling was originally planned as a tactical bomber, no one was going to make it a fighter. The letter F in the designation was for privacy.

        therefore, the program as a result was closed in favor of the F-22.

        It is true that by the beginning of the 90s, computer technology had reached such a level that it made it possible to find a configuration that was optimal for maneuverable combat and for bombardment.

        In addition, the maintenance of the often damaged “hinged cover” was incredibly expensive, since the “canopy” for each aircraft was not standardized, but piece-wise (manual work was very different in size from each other) and damaged segments were made to order for each aircraft.

        What to do, modern technology requires expensive maintenance.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 05
          0
          • 1
          • 1
          The “success” of a combat vehicle is determined by the effectiveness of its military use. The use of F-117 was effective ...

          - The "success" of this aircraft was so appreciated by the Americans themselves. I did not come up with this)

          ... originally planned as a tactical bomber, no one was going to make it a fighter ...

          And this is not true. They wanted to squeeze more, but for the reasons I mentioned, it did not work out. Therefore, F-22.

          ... What to do, modern technology requires expensive maintenance ..

          and this is a bad excuse. There are special requirements for military equipment.
          1. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 36
            -2
            • 1
            • 3
            The "success" of this aircraft was so appreciated by the Americans themselves. I did not come up with this)

            Show these grades? Just let’s say so - it should be an assessment of the US military itself, representatives of the Pentagon, and not of some kind of freelance American magazine.

            and this is not true. They wanted to squeeze more, but for the reasons I mentioned, it did not work out.

            Nobody wanted to squeeze anything. The F-117 was designed precisely as a tactical bomber.

            and this is a bad excuse. Special requirements for military equipment

            This is not a bad excuse. The F-117 was not an attack aircraft, which should be cheap and durable. This is a specialized aircraft for precision strikes on air defense and infrastructure.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 39
              0
              • 1
              • 1
              ..Display these grades? Just let’s say so - it should be an assessment of the US military itself, the Pentagon.

              Are you normal, in general?)) You show me the opposite, if you have one) We all use information from the Internet. Or do you have access to the archives of the Pentagon?) Think at all what you write)))
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 53
                -2
                • 1
                • 3
                Are you normal, in general?)) You show me the opposite, if you have)

                Stop. Your words:

                "Success" of this aircraft so the Americans themselves appreciated. I did not invent it

                To my question, where did they value it that way, are you telling me to prove the opposite?
                The burden of proof lies with the approver. You said that the Americans rated the F-117 negatively - and you have to prove it.

                I claimed that the F-117 was quite successful - and I can prove it with facts:

                http://i.cons-systems.ru-20F-117.pdf

                Quote about the use of F-117 in the Gulf War in 1991 .:

                In total, during the war, the F-117A completed 1271 sorties with a duration of more than 7000 hours and dropped 2087 laser-guided bombs GBU-10 and GBU-27 with a total mass of about 2000 tons, i.e. about 1% of the total number of multinational aviation sorties (and less than 4% total number of combat sorties). Their effectiveness (the relative number of sorties with defeated targets) was, according to official estimates, 80-95%. In particular, it is alleged that the stealth pilots achieved 1669 direct hits, allowing only 418 misses. (In the course of the Vietnam War, productivity averaged 33%, and by the beginning of the 1990s, the norm for ordinary types of aircraft was 50%.) But the most impressive, perhaps, is the assertion that when the number is only 2,5% of of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf zone, operating in areas with dense object-based air defense, stealth fighters destroyed about 40% of priority ground targets, without suffering a single loss.

                And, I will add that during the entire War in the Bay of F-117 have not been shot down even once.

                So, I'm waiting for a statement by the US military about the low efficiency of the F-117.
                1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 55
                  0
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  ..On my question, where did they value it that way, are you telling me to prove the opposite?

                  The burden of proof lies with the approver. You said that the Americans rated the F-117 negatively - and you have to prove it.

                  I gave you a link on Wikipedia. There I read it all. Read for yourself, you will know the same.
                  1. Cyril Offline
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 07
                    -2
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    I gave you a link on Wikipedia. There I read it all. Read for yourself, you will know the same.

                    You did not give me any reference about the "inefficiency of the F-117".
                2. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 02: 00
                  0
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  .. I claimed that the F-117 was quite successful - and I can prove it with facts

                  - I prefer to read about the technology of NATO countries in the languages ​​of NATO countries. Of course, I don’t own all, but some.
                  1. Cyril Offline
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 08
                    -2
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    I prefer reading about the technology of NATO countries in the languages ​​of NATO countries. Of course, I don’t own all, but some.

                    Judging by the fact that you have not provided any, you do not own any.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 24
                        -2
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        Better learn how to search and find information that can be cited as evidence of your point of view.

                        Without this skill, you are just another “especially gifted”.
  • shadow Offline
    shadow 23 May 2020 02: 57
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    Yes, and they shot it down with the Soviet S-75, also invisible to me, and even 4 pieces.
    And in the USSR they refused it because it was garbage.
    And they raise it because there is nothing more to raise. All the trash is one.
    1. Arkharov Offline
      Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 23 May 2020 14: 50
      -2
      • 0
      • 2
      Firstly, not S-75, but S-125. And about 4 pieces just do not have to whistle. Spoil the only consensus of all time on the site on a particular issue. And so everything was good, for the first time, all the pluses and affectionate treatment of each other.
      1. shadow Offline
        shadow 23 May 2020 17: 48
        0
        • 2
        • 2
        Everywhere they write in different ways. S-75, and somewhere S-125. They also say different things in YouTube.
        The second one. It is also said that the American shot down the MiG-29 with a visual guidance missile. This is the second. Well, two more were also shot down, but they fell on the uncontrolled territory of the Yugoslav military. And since everyone knows that the Pentagon is very fond of understating losses, it is not surprising that it has only one F-117 shot down.
        Article 2012 of the year.

        https://topwar.ru/15180-poteri-nato-v-yugoslavii.html

        And here Buk destroyed the F-117. This is the third plane.

        1. Arkharov Offline
          Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 23 May 2020 17: 56
          -3
          • 0
          • 3
          One S-125 was shot down. Serbs also officially recognized this. No more evidence, fakes and wishful thinking.
          1. shadow Offline
            shadow 23 May 2020 18: 21
            +2
            • 3
            • 1
            Because of one downed plane, they would not begin to withdraw from service a whole series. So do not. And yes, they confirmed that they shot down only one from the S-125. And others were shot down from other weapons.
            1. Arkharov Offline
              Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 24 May 2020 09: 25
              -2
              • 0
              • 2
              And who told you that they removed (and did they remove them?) From armament “Because of one downed plane”? Why did he come up with such nonsense, or read it on his favorite Internet dumps? Other reasons for the withdrawal from service is very peculiar, and for the most part an experimental aircraft does not happen? Maybe the concept outlived itself, was a developmental stage, and as a result, the F-22, still unrivaled by anyone, appeared as a result?
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 10: 32
                -2
                • 1
                • 3
                I also do not understand this argument about "removed very quickly."

                F-117 was in service for about 25 years. In pre-production cars, in general, under the age of 30 years.
              2. shadow Offline
                shadow 24 May 2020 15: 32
                0
                • 1
                • 1
                ))))) Again stupid la-la.
                Here, read how good he is there.

                https://topwar.ru/14345-piloty-vvs-ssha-obyasnyayut-pochemu-oni-otkazyvayutsya-letat-na-f-22.html

                Well, to at least know what you are writing about.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 00: 15
        +1
        • 2
        • 1
        .. And about 4 pieces just do not have to whistle.

        Two combat losses, both in Yugoslavia, have been officially confirmed.
        Officially - I mean - by the Americans themselves. According to the version of the Serbs, maybe more were shot down, but the truth may be somewhere in between.
        One plane crashed, the second flew to the airfield, but in a very damaged condition. It was written off without repair.
        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 00
          -2
          • 1
          • 3
          officially confirmed two combat losses, both in Yugoslavia.
          Officially - I mean - by the Americans themselves.

          Show the official American confirmation of the second case?
          1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 18
            0
            • 1
            • 1
            And if I show, in a foreign language understand?
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 28
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              Go ahead, of course.
              1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 35
                0
                • 1
                • 1
                .. Eine weitere Maschine wurde während der NATO-Luftangriffe so stark beschädigt, dass sie außer Dienst gestellt werden musste.

                https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117
                1. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 40
                  -3
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  Show official American confirmation of the second case?

                  https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki / Lockheed_F-117

                  Do we now have the Pentagon make official confessions through Wikipedia?
                  1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 41
                    0
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    ..We now have the Pentagon through Wikipedia makes official recognition?

                    Does the Pentagon personally report to you?)
                  2. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 44
                    0
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    Do we now have the Pentagon make official confessions through Wikipedia?

                    Where there is an excerpt from the text, at the end there is such a small, blue number in brackets) If you do not know, this is a link to an official source. Click on it and go straight to the Pentagon. You’ll see everything there. I already made an admission to you there)
                    1. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 59
                      -2
                      • 1
                      • 3
                      If you do not know, this is a link to an official source. Click on it and go straight to the Pentagon.

                      The link at the end of this passage from German Wikipedia leads to:

                      1. United Press International - for short UPI - is a news agency in the United States. It appeared in 1958 from the United Press (UP) and the International News Service (INS). No Pentagon.

                      2. The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution - Again no Pentagon.

                      You have some kind of lucky day today.
                      1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 02: 02
                        0
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        You have some kind of lucky day today.

                        No, thanks, I'm fine)
                        Something you have not yet provided me with any evidence from the Pentagon archive? Have you been denied admission there today?))
                      2. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 05
                        -3
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        Something you have not yet provided me with any evidence from the Pentagon archive?

                        So this is not me who claims the second downed (knocked out) Stealth, but you - you need to prove it, not me.
                2. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 57
                  0
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  Here is that reference from tsiferki [18]

                  http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc
                  1. Cyril Offline
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 03
                    -3
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    Well, and?) Is the American regional newspaper an American military? American government?
                    1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 02: 05
                      +1
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      ..Well, and?) Is the American regional newspaper our American military? American government?

                      Okay, you killed me with your youthful maximalism) It's already one in the morning, I'll go to sleep.
                    2. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 02: 06
                      -3
                      • 1
                      • 4
                      And you killed me by the fact that you do not know how to prove your claims.
                    3. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 02: 08
                      +1
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      ..And you killed me by the fact that you do not know how to prove your claims.

                      But I don’t have such a goal, to prove something to someone. When I say smart people listen, smart people argue. To each his own)
                    4. The comment was deleted.
              2. shadow Offline
                shadow 24 May 2020 15: 35
                +1
                • 2
                • 1
                Who would talk about newspapers. After all, he referred to the yellow press.))))) Which then also apologized for her article.
              3. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 16: 01
                -2
                • 1
                • 3
                Who would talk about newspapers. After all, he referred to the yellow press.))))) Which then also apologized for her article.

                What yellow press did I refer to? Where?
              4. shadow Offline
                shadow 24 May 2020 16: 02
                0
                • 1
                • 1
                Forgot))) And about the flight to the moon.
              5. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 01: 40
                -3
                • 0
                • 3
                I did not refer to the yellow press, but found for you the source of your "argument." You are not capable of what to do.
              6. shadow Offline
                shadow 25 May 2020 02: 29
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                That's just your source was the yellow press, because comrade gave an interview to a completely different publication and this was said. And the link you gave was just to the article of the little yellow newspaper that nobody knows. So, the price of your words is a yellow piece of paper that can be lowered. I wrote about it there, but you, tail tail, screwed. What else to expect from the foolish.
              7. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 07: 04
                -3
                • 0
                • 3
                That's just your source was the yellow press, because comrade gave an interview to a completely different publication and this was said.

                This is not my source, but your source. I just found him for you, because you weren’t capable of it.

              8. shadow Offline
                shadow 25 May 2020 13: 43
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                Only the link to jaundice you threw off and called it the primary source. Which confirms that you are only on jaundice and ride. And now you kick out. A cheekbone escaped there, except for obligations, you cannot say anything else. Throw him out, he broke, let's get another Pinocchio.
              9. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 13: 47
                -4
                • 0
                • 4
                Only the link to jaundice you threw off and called it the primary source.

                Because the source of your meager “argument” about the “adviser to the US president” was a fake article on a humorous site.

                And you still can not realize this) What is not surprising - there is nothing to realize the log.
              10. shadow Offline
                shadow 25 May 2020 13: 49
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_eDaZ5dGJA&t

                With 47 seconds. Can you tell me which edition he made this statement? Write, only correctly, otherwise one gets the impression that you are not aware of what you hear. Well, inadequacy happens.
              11. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 14: 15
                -3
                • 0
                • 3
                Well, inadequacy happens.

                You said that to yourself correctly. You have it irreversible.

                No interview with Gelernther’s ScienceToday in which he said that Americans didn’t fly to the moon, There is no. The “news” about this interview with this publication, in which he allegedly says these words, appeared on a humorous resource that publishes entertaining fakes.

                Can you realize that?

                If you do not believe it, try it, find the ScienceToday publication and this is the interview itself.
              12. shadow Offline
                shadow 25 May 2020 14: 25
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                Well, they deleted it, it’s also known, but the Internet remembers it.
                Oh, how you wrote.)))) "News" about this interview with this publication, in which he allegedly says these words, appeared on a humorous resource that publishes entertaining fakes.
                From your words, this edition of jaundice, to which you refer and say that it is the source, publishes a humorous lie, as you wrote above. Q.E.D. You are just referring to this humorous lie. This is your level. Himself admitted.
                And why should I look. No one has denied this program and this interview that it was not there. What the newspaper has written there, which distributes humorous lies, seriously interests no one.
              13. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 14: 37
                -3
                • 0
                • 3
                Well, it’s been removed, it’s also known

                laughing laughing

                In your words, this is the publication of jaundice to which you refer and say that this is the source of humorous lies published, as you wrote above.

                That's it. And you are referring to this humorous lie.

                No one has denied this program and this interview that it was not there.

                Because no one dared to refute another nonsense about the “moon scam” with the TVC.

                What the newspaper has written there, which distributes humorous lies, is of no interest to anyone.

                You are interested, since you are referring to this lie.
          2. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 14: 22
            -3
            • 0
            • 3
            Moreover, Gelertner was never appointed to the post of President of the United States for Science. He was not him, no one even offered him this.
          3. shadow Offline
            shadow 25 May 2020 14: 37
            +1
            • 1
            • 0
            Review official messages and information again, and do not read your jaundice, which distributes humorous lies, as you rightly noted. Although it will not help with your awareness of what you have heard and read.
      4. shadow Offline
        shadow 25 May 2020 14: 08
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Here you see. I refer to official sources, and you to jaundice. Feel what's the difference?
      5. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) 25 May 2020 14: 30
        -3
        • 0
        • 3
        I refer to official sources,

        You refer to that which was not there. You refer to an official source, and to Vidos, which, in turn, refers to fake news published on a satirical magazine.

        Yes, there is a huge difference between you and me. I can verify information.
      6. shadow Offline
        shadow 25 May 2020 14: 51
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Are you normal?
        Listen again from 47 seconds and tell which publication he was interviewing?
        And yes, it’s you who sent the link to jaundice, you yourself confirmed that you threw the link. I don’t need to ascribe here what I did not do. I just dropped the link on the video, from which you have such a strong burning sensation under a chair that you squeal and call names, because there is nothing more to say. And besides, you yourself recognized everything above.