F-117s for Israel?

[Guest rapier01]

https://www.examiner.com/x-5411-NY-Military...One-The-Problem

https://www.examiner.com/x-5411-NY-Military...wo-The-solution

It's an interesting idea, not sure if it's be feasible.

[Steve Davies]

You need only read this paragraph in order to appreciate that the author doesn't know what he's talking about:

Being a design that dates back into the 70s, the F-117 is not a particularly advanced aircraft having largely been built from off the shelf components taken from other aircraft. Its faceted design has long since been rendered obsolete by modern computer aided design technologies. Whatever classified technologies that remain onboard the aircraft- which the United States needs to protect- can probably be safely removed prior to any transfer of the aircraft.

[Guest rapier01]

The Have Blue project was from the 70s- 117 flew in 81, but the design work was done in the 70s and the faceted design is obsolete- we don't build stealth aircraft using those techniques anymore. The F-117 fly-by-wire is from the F-16, engines from the F/A-18 ect. Which part do you have problem with?

Edited March 15, 2009 by rapier01

[brickhistory]

The RAM material and joint sealing compound was, at one time, very classified. I'm betting it still is.

You'd have just an ugly jet without it though.

That would be one component that would be hard to "safely remove prior to delivery."

[Guest rapier01]

The RAM material and joint sealing compound was, at one time, very classified. I'm betting it still is.

The F-35 is also coated with RAM( probably not the same type) and we're selling that and the techniques to repair it. In Italy, they're going to be assembling the JSF, and applying the original coating ect. So I wonder if thats really that much of an obstacle.

[Steve Davies]

The Have Blue project was from the 70s- 117 flew in 81, but the design work was done in the 70s and the faceted design is obsolete- we don't build stealth aircraft using those techniques anymore. The F-117 fly-by-wire is from the F-16, engines from the F/A-18 ect. Which part do you have problem with?

Try this:

Being a design that dates back into the 70s, the F-117 is not a particularly advanced aircraft having largely been built from off the shelf components taken from other aircraft.

Duh #1: The OTS components in the the F-117 are not now, and never were, what one would use as a basis for defining how 'advanced' it is. That's like saying the F-22 is not advanced because it uses a tricycle landing gear similar to the P-38. What made the a/c advanced at the time was its ability to penetrate an IADS and put a bomb down a ventilator shaft - the landing gear, FLCS, motors and other OTS components weren't the real stars in making that happen.

Its faceted design has long since been rendered obsolete by modern computer aided design technologies.

Duh #2: No, its faceted design has been *superseded* by CAD that can create blended designs that are more efficient. If the F-117 is going to be described as 'obsolete', then it is the development of new IADS systems that increase its RCS in certain regimes that have rendered it so. In other words, he doesn't really understand what he's talking about.

Whatever classified technologies that remain onboard the aircraft- which the United States needs to protect- can probably be safely removed prior to any transfer of the aircraft.

Duh #3: 'Remain onboard'? What does that mean, exactly? Assuming he's talking RAM versus avionics, if you remove 'the classified technologies' - the skin, sealants, treatments and whatever other coatings are used - then you end up with an odd shaped a/c that has an RCS that would be far too big to allow it to be any use. There is a reason that the USAF has retired the F-117 to Tonopah, and it's not because they couldn't find anywhere else to store them.

The F-35 is also coated with RAM( probably not the same type) and we're selling that and the techniques to repair it. In Italy, they're going to be assembling the JSF, and applying the original coating ect. So I wonder if thats really that much of an obstacle.

There's a huge difference between sharing secrets with a valued defence partner on a project as important as JSF, and selling off retired F-117s at a discount to someone that you couldn't trust as far as you could throw them.

[Guest rapier01]

hat made the a/c advanced at the time was its ability to penetrate an IADS

Operative words:advanced at the time It's not particularly advanced compared to what's available now.

Duh #2: No, its faceted design has been *superseded* by CAD that can create blended designs that are more efficient. If the F-117 is going to be described as 'obsolete', then it is the development of new IADS systems that increase its RCS in certain regimes that have rendered it so. In other words, he doesn't really understand what he's talking about.

This is splitting hairs based how you interpreted the words.

Duh #3: 'Remain onboard'? What does that mean, exactly? Assuming he's talking RAM versus avionics, if you remove 'the classified technologies' - the skin, sealants, treatments and whatever other coatings are used - then you end up with an odd shaped a/c that has an RCS that would be far too big to allow it to be any use. There is a reason that the USAF has retired the F-117 to Tonopah, and it's not because they couldn't find anywhere else to store them.

Well, that just it. You don't know if it was referring to the avionics or the coatings. If it's RAM, sure that wouldn't make sense... but even then given the F-35 is going to be sold to them and we're letting other countries assemble and coat those planes- obviously if we're open to selling that kind of technology, arrangements could be made. Hence the part about the end-user monitoring.

But let's face it, the reason you're so adamantly against what's posted has nothing to do with the author but everything to do with a bias against the Israelis. Every time the topic of Israel comes up you always have something negative to say.

[BQZip01]

You need only read this paragraph in order to appreciate that the author doesn't know what he's talking about:

...and, what does this purportedly show? Seems somewhat on target, IMNSHO.

[bucky60k]

Would never happen. Every IAF fighter needs to be multi-role (even the F-15A/B/C/D have been modified for surface attack) so selecting such a specialized aircraft goes against 50+ yrs of IAF thinking.

[Guest Krabs]

Operative words:advanced at the time It's not particularly advanced compared to what's available now.

I would argue that the 117 is still an advanced aircraft in present day. Just because the computers of the 70s couldn't handle enough computations to make the design very aerodynamic does not at all mean that the 117 is any less effective at what it does, which is have a very low RCS when it threads munitions onto something important where the enemy thinks he's protected (sounds like something the Israelis might like to do maybe?).

I would almost go so far as to argue that the advances in computing have only allowed us to regain aerodynamic capability, rather than increase the ability to lower RCS by a significant margin. When they tested the model of the F-117 out in White Sands the shape was so efficient at bouncing away radar energy that the supervising technicians running the tests thought that the model had fallen off of the pole (and by the way, Lockheed had to design a STEALTH POLE for the model to sit on just to do testing). This also brings up the point of the necessity of RAM (since the models didn't need it unless my memory fails me). Geometry is probably about 90% of the LO battle, and RAM is extra help.

Of course, there have been a lot of advances (in radar, RAM materials etc.) since then as well, so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's impossible to know how things truly stack up these days. Everything is classified and LO technology is kind of a black art just like jet engine design.

If anybody is interested in the history of this stuff, then a great book is "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich:

https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal...d/dp/0316743003

Would never happen. Every IAF fighter needs to be multi-role (even the F-15A/B/C/D have been modified for surface attack) so selecting such a specialized aircraft goes against 50+ yrs of IAF thinking.

I've bolded the word "fighter" since I'm not sure if the Israelis would use it as such (since, as a literal fighter, it's worthless). I'm not an expert on the IAF (especially doctrine) so maybe they have other plans for it, assuming they want the F-117?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Krabs

[bucky60k]

I've bolded the word "fighter" since I'm not sure if the Israelis would use it as such (since, as a literal fighter, it's worthless). I'm not an expert on the IAF (especially doctrine) so maybe they have other plans for it, assuming they want the F-117?

The last "bomber" the IAF flew was the Sud Aviation Vatour back in the Six Day War. However their performance was poor especially compared to Mirage IIICJ which achieved better results attacking Arab airfields on top of clinching air superiority. Since then every combat aircraft could both dogfight and bomb. I'm no expert either but I would expect the IAF to focus more R & D and $$$ on improving their inventory of long range PGMs to strike Iranian targets rather than trying to acquire another bomber aircraft and all the ass pain of maintaining a "legacy" stealth, training cadre of pilots, etc.

[Hacker]

It is this simple:

There is a reason the airplanes are in storage up at Tonopah, in a secure location but still able to potentially be revived someday rather than having been chopped up or baking in the sun at AMARG.

There are a whole lot of people (apparently on BaseOps, in addition to the press) who seem to think that the people who owned/managed/operated the F-117 program are a bunch of total idiots. The USAF didn't decide on that fate randomly. The USAF isn't just in need of a "good idea" to pop up so they can figure out what to do with them.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Hacker

[Steve Davies]

Operative words:advanced at the time It's not particularly advanced compared to what's available now.

Says who?

This is splitting hairs based how you interpreted the words.

No, it is not splitting hairs. Professional writers are expected to know the difference between obsolete (out of date) and supersede (to take something's place). Readers less familiar with military aviation should not be expected to 'interpret the words' of an article of this kind - we're not talking academic research paper, here.

In this context, confusing what supersedes something with what makes something obsolete not only muddles the argument, but also shows a lack of understanding of the underlying issues.

Well, that just it. You don't know if it was referring to the avionics or the coatings. If it's RAM, sure that wouldn't make sense...

Indeed, we don't know, and I would suggest that the author has smudged this issue because he doesn't, either. What does that say for his credibility?

You'll notice that there appears to have been no effort made to talk to DoD, Lockmart, the USAF or any other authority on LO technologies. Indeed, there is not a single quote in either article from a defense industry source; this is simply a case of very poor journalistic practise (which was my original gripe in my first post)

Regardless, even someone with a basic unclassified knowledge of the F-117 would would be able to make an educated guess that for the most part there's nothing especially gee whiz about the avionics inside the jet - a FLIR/DLIR, RLG INS etc. So, the really sensitive technology he's unknowingly referencing is probably, a) the classified stuff that contributes to low RCS, and b) the classified mission planning software that you need in order to be able to get into and out of a target area protected by a multi-layered IADS. In the case of the latter, I am led to believe that it is almost as sensitive as the jet itself.

....but even then given the F-35 is going to be sold to them and we're letting other countries assemble and coat those planes- obviously if we're open to selling that kind of technology, arrangements could be made. Hence the part about the end-user monitoring.

You seem to be working on the assumption that if a certain technology has been superseded or is obsolete, then it is somehow less sensitive to export. That is not how it works.

There are plenty of technologies that have been replaced or improved upon that the US will never make available for export. As far as LO materials are concerned, just because there are new RAM coatings for the F-35 that the US is prepared to share with the partner nations in that programme, doesn't mean that older RAM technologies employed by the F-117 are no longer extremely sensitive, or that the US is prepared to share the details behind them.

Once again, I refer you to the current conditions under which the jet is being stored, which I would have hoped would tell you most of what you need to know about its sensitivity.

As for end user monitoring, how would you propose that would work?

But let's face it, the reason you're so adamantly against what's posted has nothing to do with the author but everything to do with a bias against the Israelis. Every time the topic of Israel comes up you always have something negative to say.

Wow. I am totally baffled by how you can go from me having an issue with a flawed article on the sale of LO technology, to me only commenting on this because I hate Israel (that's the inference I take from your accusation).

I confined my original comments to the validity of a particular paragraph about the F-117; I commented on the article, not on whether Israel would benefit or should benefit from the F-117. When you started moaning about how Italy has been trusted with RAM but Israel has not, I then mentioned the very important issue of trust - an issue that even the vague author of your article feels compelled to address!

You will want to be very careful about making comments like this... you have no idea what I think about Israel or whether I have a pro- or anti-Israel bias overall. And if you think that you can draw such conclusions about me based on my posts about the proportionality of Israel's military actions (or the wisdom of selling of sensitive technology to Israel) on an internet forum then you need to rethink the wisdom behind that logic.

[Guest rapier01]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. About poor journalistic practice- it's an editorial i.e. opinion piece... which as I'm sure you know are normally written in essay format. It not a news article or even a feature. If it were the later your issue with the lack of quotes would be valid- if you read the other articles, you'll note there are quotes and no opinions by the author to be found.

Edited March 17, 2009 by rapier01

[Steve Davies]

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I also note that you have decided 'to agree to disagree' with valid arguments from Hacker and Krabs.

About poor journalistic practice- it's an editorial i.e. opinion piece... not a news article or even a feature.

The distinction might make it OK in your view, but that's not a position that my own personal standards will allow me to subscribe to. If an editor or guest columnist doesn't know what they are talking about, then they should think twice about why they are writing.

In this case, you would expect him to know what he's talking about as his bio refers to him as a freelance defence and aviation journalist. I am sorry if you take offence at my insistence on calling him on basic errors that undermine the entire premise of his two page article, but I find people like him do little to enhance the reputation of an industry that already comes under the kosh from all quarters.

Then, of course, there are all the other errors that he makes... let me know if you want to have a quick look at those, too.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Steve Davies

[Guest rapier01]

Whatever- I don't care that much. I do find it impressive how you turn molehills into mountains. And don't drag Hacker and Krabs into this, I didn't mention them in my response- my response was purely directed at you and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth <sts>.

Edited March 18, 2009 by rapier01

[Steve Davies]

Whatever- I don't care that much.

Then don't get into a discussion about it in the first place.

And don't drag Hacker and Krabs into this, I didn't mention them in my response

They were making the same points as I was - points that you were taking issue with. I am not dragging them into it; as respondents to some of your posts, they are already a part of it. That's why this is called a 'thread' - the clue is in the name.

On which cheery note, I'll call it a day on this thread.

[spudsmac]

Seems they're flying again (no surprise). I wonder what they've been using them for. It would be neat to seem them in person again. I remember being at an airshow and one did a low pass and you could not hear it till it was right on you. It wasn't even moving at a really high speed either.

[matmacwc]

Old video

[mjk5401]

There is a reason that the USAF has retired the F-117 to Tonopah, and it's not because they couldn't find anywhere else to store them.

Ya...they're obsolete for the most part. If I'm not mistaken, they have one on a stick at Holloman. They did have them on display at the Bone yard for awhile, but since moved them to a more secure area (too many foreign tourist probably).

Yes, I know your (Steve Davies) post was 2.5 yrs old, but not much has changed since then. Well, minus the US giving up two of its biggest stealth secrets this year.

[Guest]

Ya...they're obsolete for the most part. If I'm not mistaken, they have one on a stick at Holloman. They did have them on display at the Bone yard for awhile, but since moved them to a more secure area (too many foreign tourist probably).

Yes, I know your (Steve Davies) post was 2.5 yrs old, but not much has changed since then. Well, minus the US giving up two of its biggest stealth secrets this year.

Dude, shh.