Article

2007-01-10 China-Japan-Koreas

US sends stealth fighter planes to South Korea

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-01-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Move along. Nothing to see here folks. Just deploying a dozen or so invisible bombers to Korea.

BTW, one thing that has always puzzled me is why the Nighthawk, whose principle role seems to be dropping bombs, is designated as a fighter.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-10 00:59|| 2007-01-10 00:59|| Front Page Top

#2 12 F22s are also going to Kadena AFB Okinawa and train with the US F15s and Japanese. Part of a sales effort?

Posted by ed 2007-01-10 01:31|| 2007-01-10 01:31|| Front Page Top

#3 From Wikipedia...so read this with the same skepticism that you read the New York Times with...

The "F-" designation for this aircraft has not been officially explained; however, it seemed to use the pre-1962 USAF fighter sequence like the F-111. Other modern aircraft also have old pre-1962 numbers (such as the B-52, C-130, and a number of lesser known aircraft), but the F-117 seems to be the only later aircraft not to use the new system. Most modern U.S. military aircraft use post-1962 designations which follow (somewhat) predictable pattern whereby "F-" was usually an air-to-air fighter, "B-" was usually a bomber, and "A-" was usually a ground-attack aircraft. Examples of the foregoing include the F-15 Eagle, the B-2 Spirit and the A-6 Intruder. Still, since the Stealth Fighter is actually primarily a ground-attack plane, the fact that it retains an "F-" designation is one of the reasons there are several other theories. The USAF has always been more proud of its fighters than its ground-attack aircraft, which are sometimes denigrated as "mud movers."[8] Officials may have felt that they could more easily generate political and military support for the radical new aircraft if it were called a "fighter" rather than a bomber or attack plane. Or, the "F-" designation may have been part of the attempt to keep the Nighthawk secret (the program was classified until the late 1980s). This misdirection could have also served to keep the Nighthawk from violating treaties or angering other countries. During development the term 'LT', for Logistics Trainer, was often used. The Lockheed U-2 should have had "R" for reconnissance instead of a "U" for utility, but, was purposely given the wrong letter to cover its true mission.

F-117 at the Miramar Air Station

Also, a recent televised documentary quoted a senior member of the F-117A development team as saying that the top-notch fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an F- plane, as opposed to a B- or A- aircraft.[9] There has been something of a class distinction between fighter and bomber crews, particularly in the days of the Strategic Air Command (1945-1991), and flying one type often limited a pilot's prospects for flying the other.[citation needed]

The USAF maintains that the F-117A can carry air-to-air missiles, giving it air-to-air combat capability in addition to its primary air-to-ground mission. While that may be technically true, the aircraft is of unknown capability in air-combat. It is likely a poor dogfighter, but there is no expert opinion on its other abilities.

Posted by gromky 2007-01-10 01:36|| 2007-01-10 01:36|| Front Page Top

#4 The F-117 is actually getting ready to retire from the Air Force after 25 years of service. No one really heard about this aircraft until the first Gulf War.

Posted by Armylife 2007-01-10 04:39|| 2007-01-10 04:39|| Front Page Top

#5 Preparing for China would be a bit premature, right?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-10 07:18|| 2007-01-10 07:18|| Front Page Top

#6 ...Just a couple quick notes re: the -117. The F-series designation was indeed a ploy to keep the bird a secret as long as possible. At least one or two captured/stolen/bought Soviet fighters that were regularly test-flown at Tonopah or Indian Springs (part of the Nellis AFB complex) also got Century Series F-numbers. One of my former wing commanders, who flew the -117, told me that the bird by right should have had a B-series number because it is, by rights, a light bomber. An A-for-Attack number is used to denote an aircraft that works in and around the front lines in direct support of the troops.
Lastly, it can indeed fire AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles - but they are sufficiently short-ranged that it would be putting the -117 into far more danger than it was worth to use them. In addition, to lock onto a target with them the -117 would have to open its weapons bay doors, which would increase the radar return from the plane and in turn increasing the chance it could be spotted. The -117 isn't a bad aircraft to fly (the 'Wobbly Goblin' nickname the MSM gave it early on is a complete fiction) but it's no dogfighter. However, in one of Tom Clancy's novels a Stealth fighter with AIM-9s was used to whack Soviet AWACS planes over the Central Front - and that mission would have been worth the risk.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-10 07:19|| 2007-01-10 07:19|| Front Page Top

#7 No one really heard about this aircraft until the first Gulf War.

I think it got its first workout during "Just Cause" in Panama. Dunno if that was revealed at the time or not.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-01-10 08:03|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-01-10 08:03|| Front Page Top

#8 Rob,
It did get quite a bit of publicity at the time, all of it bad - but not for the reasons you'd think. The -117s weren't really needed in Panama, but the USAF brass was desperate to get the plane into action and prove it was worth the expense. Two birds were on their way to hit one airfield and they were actually lined up on the target and told to hit another airfield instead - at the same time that they had been instructed to hit the first airfield. The -117 drivers had to do a very quick and dirty approach to the second airfield and IIRC neither aircraft actually hit the actual aimpoint.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-10 08:31|| 2007-01-10 08:31|| Front Page Top

#9 No-one here's any ideas about the F117s real replacement?

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-01-10 10:09|| 2007-01-10 10:09|| Front Page Top

#10 No-one here's any ideas about the F117s real replacement?

F-302, hopefully. :)

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2007-01-10 10:15|| 2007-01-10 10:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Steve, it is much easier to get proc dollars, black or white, for a fighter. Remember at the time we still had two bombers, one black and one white, in R&D and use. The AF is brilliant at this game. The joint strike fighter is another great example, they say it will do both ground support and act as a fighter. This is just bull. Once the aircraft is modded to be a fighter it costs too much money and down time to demod the aircraft and remod it for ground support.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2007-01-10 10:31|| 2007-01-10 10:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks, guys. Interesting stuff about secrecy, procurement and R&D. I figured the diff between A- and B- designations was that A- stood for Asskicking-.

I googled, but blew off the wikipedia article on the grounds that fas.org had actual information.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-10 10:42|| 2007-01-10 10:42|| Front Page Top

#13 49Pan,
Amen to that unfortunately. The -35 is a small fighter that has the ability to haul air-to-ground munitions. Given the cost (original unit cost was estimated to be at LEAST $24M USD for the USAF version in 1994 dollars; last I heard was $45M to $55M USD in '05 and the USN and USMC versions will be at least 15 to 20% more expensive)no commander will be very willing to risk them where some illiterate jihadi can get lucky and bring one down.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-10 12:06|| 2007-01-10 12:06|| Front Page Top

#14 ...And just a note: by way of comparison, this is what one F-35 would buy in the past if we split the difference an call it $50M USD per bird:

1.8 F-16s
3.3 F-15s
20.8 F-4 Phantoms
5.1 F-111s
75.3 F-100 Super Sabres
280.9 F-86 Sabres
980.6 P-51 Mustangs

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-10 13:07|| 2007-01-10 13:07|| Front Page Top

#15 You are so right! The AF will put their aircraft and pilot safety above the ground troops every time. Sad but true fact of life.

Posted by 49 Pan 2007-01-10 14:58|| 2007-01-10 14:58|| Front Page Top

00:37 Thaviger Glailing4873
23:54 Broadhead6
23:39 Pappy
23:22 crazyhorse
23:14 Swamp Blondie
23:12 Mike N.
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 mojo
23:04 Lanny Ddub
23:02 mojo
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Hupomock Claimp8056
22:52 liberalhawk
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 liberalhawk
22:46 RD
22:45 Cyber Sarge
22:36 twobyfour
22:36 RD
22:08 smn
22:05 tu3031
21:43 RD
21:42 badanov
21:30 Nimble Spemble