Article

2007-01-14 China-Japan-Koreas

NKorea condemns US deployment of stealth fighters

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 Fred 2007-01-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It's funny, but the last thing I had read on the subject of f-117's was that they were in the process of being decommissioned as of October 2006.

If thats the case, whats a couple of squadrons doing in Skor? 300 airmen (mechanics, pilots, ground support) isnt exactly a small contingent, and dont tell me its training, because thats a real expensive deployment for something that A) is going to be demobbed in the next couple of FY's and B) could be done pretty cheaply and easily in NM or NV.

Sure, theres a mammas boy with a bad haircut living just a few miles north of there, and maybe its worth it just to freak the little dork out, but really, its a long way to go just to get someone to 'wet the bed'.

Do you think someone is misdentifying something else? A global hawk derivative or other ucav-like 'players to be named later'? What confirmation do we have that the f-117 is in fact the aircraft that is "on site"? sure, its our public affairs guys that are saying that its on site, but so what? They have been known to ahem, 'bend the truth' before, right?

You park a couple of squadrons of spooky jets, known for their ability to sneak around other 'peoples republic of fill-in-the-blank' with great success, it does tend to make you return phone calls, but then again, so does having a carrier off the coast.

unless...the carrier task force is 'otherwise occupied' in parts further south as it were...

hmmmm... lotsa carriers moving around out of pattern lately, aint there?

Posted by frank martin">frank martin 2007-01-14 01:25|| www.varifrank.com]">[www.varifrank.com] 2007-01-14 01:25|| Front Page Top

#2 I concur

Posted by Kim 2007-01-14 03:22|| 2007-01-14 03:22|| Front Page Top

#3 Why are they decommissioning these? Seems like only yesterday they were the cat's meow. Do they have something that can do its job better?

Posted by gorb 2007-01-14 03:42|| 2007-01-14 03:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Gorb,

The reason the -117s are eventually going away is because as stealthy as they are they have two serious drawbacks. First, they're 1970s technology. As much as I hate to say this, don't forget it was Jimmah Cathuh who approved development of the -117 and the B-2 - mainly to keep the USAF happy as he tried to dismantle everything else. (Little known fact - he tried very hard to convince the Joint Chiefs that we could safely discard 90% of the ICBM force, 75% of the missile sub force, and all of the bombers). Secondly, the -117 is not a dogfighter and although it's had some electronics upgrades, it is comparatively slow and cannot be plugged into the new system we've designed around the F-22 and F-25 - both of which are an order of magnitude or so more stealthy than the -117, and both of which can actively defend themselves (by speed or maneuver) if need be. The decision to get rid of them was made last October, but it's going to be some time yet before they're gone. In the meantime, they still have a place in the order of battle, but as soon as the new birds are in full production they'll be retired. In fact, their biggest asset right now is that the whole world is scared sh*tless of them. Kimmie's air defense system isn't as good as Saddam's was (there's more of it, but it's the same vintage and it's ALL ex-Soviet as compared to the French and Chinese stuff he had in the mix)and he knows that if we wanted to, the -117s could fly right through it.

Mike

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-14 08:35|| 2007-01-14 08:35|| Front Page Top

#5 And the -117 is probably not subject to being detected over NK by distortions it causes to the cell phone network, which was a potential problem in Iraq.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-01-14 09:39|| 2007-01-14 09:39|| Front Page Top

#6 If a Nighthawk squadron is all it takes to keep the Norks in the box while events unfold in and around Persia it is money very well spent.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-14 09:52|| 2007-01-14 09:52|| Front Page Top

#7 both of which are an order of magnitude or so more stealthy than the -117

Oh Mercy! Do tell! Are you serious?

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-14 10:15|| 2007-01-14 10:15|| Front Page Top

#8 That's the logic behind shutting them down. Even the F-35 is stealthier. But when you consider how far things have come in electronics since 1980 there's no reason to expect the same isn't true of stealth technology, especially with 25 years of operational experience.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-14 10:19|| 2007-01-14 10:19|| Front Page Top

#9 Ol Kimmy knows these planes are not fighters, they are bombers. They hold a small payload and take mutiple passed to expend the ord that is on it. But they still could take his bad hair out.

We were debating a few days back on why it even carried the"F" designation. Now with Carter being the approving prez it is all clear. He's so stupid he could not tell the difference between a bomber and fighter. Slick one forthe air force.

Posted by 49 Pan 2007-01-14 11:08|| 2007-01-14 11:08|| Front Page Top

#10 Oh Mercy! Do tell! Are you serious?

Yes, Ship - unless we're being fed clever disinformation. I assume your question is serious.

F-117
The F-117 had a radar signature about a hundredth as large as that of conventional airplanes, making it appear little larger than a bird on radar scopes.

F-22:
"Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems

I couldn't find a similar analogy for the F-35, but it's probably comparable to the F-22.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-01-14 12:29|| 2007-01-14 12:29|| Front Page Top

#11 From the F-22 link.

parity... in air dominance is unacceptable"

With an attitude like that it's no wonder the USAF owns everything they engage.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-14 14:48|| 2007-01-14 14:48|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks, Mike. Interesting that he was using it as a bone for the USAF. I understand that bone got taken away, however, and reinstated by Reagan. Am I thinking of the B-1 here?

In any case, I don't care if it was enormous flying Oscar Meyer Weiner cars, if you can't see 'em and if they can drop JDAMs on you, it's something to worry about. :-) The F-117s will probably wear out before they are retired.

Posted by gorb 2007-01-14 16:32|| 2007-01-14 16:32|| Front Page Top

#13 Thanks Xblanke, I didn't realize things had moved so quickly.

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-14 16:53|| 2007-01-14 16:53|| Front Page Top

#14 It seems to me that coordinated radars could pick up the F-117, as some of the radar energy is absorbed and some is reflected and scattered away from the radar transmitter. I would imagine that Kimmie's defenses are not as up to date as others, including his ~~sugardaddies~~ suppliers. We are putting carrier groups and air groups well within striking range of a$$holes like Kimmie and Dinnerjacket. Let them sweat for a while about our intentions. I am sure that our intentions cover a broad range of actions. About time we get off the defensive and be poised for the offensive.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-01-14 18:11|| 2007-01-14 18:11|| Front Page Top

#15 AP, the idea of coordinated radars requires that 1) you know where to point the thing and 2) the reflection is bounced back at a true angle. The 117s claim to fame was not that it was invisible to radar, but that due to its faceted shape, any radar beam that painted it was deflected away from the originating radar site. Think of a disco ball; all those mirrors catch a flashlight beam, but only a fraction of them are shot back at you (the flashlight holder) and you know where the disco ball is; Kimmie would only be guessing where the wobblies are. The 117 that got shot down in Kosovo several years ago was not due to any sort of radar lock, but rather the USAF was running flight ops on a pretty regular schedule and the ingress / egress routes were known to the bad guys. They knew how long it took to reach any given point and their runway spotter simply called in that a bird was on the way and they started their stopwatches.
Re the #12 comment about flying Oscar Meyer wiener cars: Google up "Tacit Blue" sometime; this was a Skunk Works project thet was used for the next generation of stealth development (post 117) At first glance it looks more like a flying UPS truck, but its RCS is reportedly an order of magnitude smaller than the 117. (sorry I do not have the link to that, but it may be in Ben Rich's book "The Skunk Works.")

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-01-14 20:18|| 2007-01-14 20:18|| Front Page Top

#16 The B1 was canceled by Carter and reinstated by Reagan. Carter had the B2 approved for initial development, but I wonder if he would have ordered actual production.

We say that if our pilots are ever in a "fair fight," we contractors haven't done our jobs.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-01-14 20:20|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-01-14 20:20|| Front Page Top

#17 USN, ret.---I realize that about the F-117. I just wondered if you had arrays of radar stations, like some kind of a grid, and they received the scattered or a smidgen of scattered energy from another radar station, that they might be able to somewhat "paint" the F-117. Only thing is that our side could spoof the radar and creade a mass of confusion. I would imagine that if the enemy had some kind of solution, that things would change so fast that their solution would be out of date pdq.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-01-14 21:38|| 2007-01-14 21:38|| Front Page Top

#18 Various mil boards report that elements within the USAF-MIC are arguing to keep the B-2 around for up to 50 years, plus an unknown number of REBUILT [REWIRED?] F117's for 20 more years. As for "brink of war", it was the CHICOMS whom first said that full-scale war agz the USA may begin as early as Year 2014, which is only 8 yarns/years away, and exclusive??? of the Russians.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-14 21:55|| 2007-01-14 21:55|| Front Page Top

#19 AP: thoretically I guess you colod, but realisticall it would be superexpensive and given all the variables the many 117 could present ( among other factors: course, speed, altitude, and then you would have to have computing power to deduce all this after you got a reflection at station n# 2 that began at station #1.) And that would only be one data point; you would need to collect several to be able to predict the course of the bird to vector anti-aircraft defenses towards it.
A bit of stealth trivia: When Jack Northrop built his first flying wing, radar was in its infancy, but was a reliable tool. There are stories that even when his aircraft were visually spotted by tower personnel, the radar screen was blank, even with the transmitter / receiver pointed dead at the plane. Too bad we didn't know then what we know now, the Korean War might have turned out different and this thread wouldn't even exist.

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-01-14 22:33|| 2007-01-14 22:33|| Front Page Top

#20 colod = could
realisticall= realistically
variables the many = many variables the

I really hate it when my Preview-an-ator is in the shop!

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-01-14 22:41|| 2007-01-14 22:41|| Front Page Top

#21 That series of radar thing seems far too difficult to put to use. It would seem that every transmitter would have to also have its own identifying signal, which would be the easiest part part, but how do you get this signal to reflect off the planes surface? At least that's how I see it. If you don't know which transmitter the radar came from, how the hell can you figure out where the object it hit was? It would seem to me that it would just be an incoming signal with no origin.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-14 23:06|| 2007-01-14 23:06|| Front Page Top

23:53 JosephMendiola
23:40 xbalanke
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:31 Zhang Fei
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:06 Mike N.
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:47 3dc
22:41 USN, ret.
22:33 USN, ret.
22:24 SteveS
22:22 ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
22:16 liberalhawk
22:08 SwissTex
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:02 USN, ret.
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:53 jds
21:52 Alaska Paul
21:52 jds
21:49 USN, ret.
21:49 jds
21:44 JosephMendiola