Was Nighthawk a good project? Did it achieve something that other planes were simply incapable of?
Was Nighthawk a good project? Did it achieve something that other planes were simply incapable of?
Was Nighthawk a good project? Did it achieve something that other planes were simply incapable of?
Yes.
Yes.
Lazerpig is a gay.
Yes the nighthawk still holds up today
I thought Lazerpig had only good things to say about it??
>Lazerpig is a gay.
He literally is, but the only bad thing he had to say about the F117 is that calling it a fighter is moronic.
What is it then? A stealth bomber?
Yes, the F-117 is effectively a bomber.
And that’s all it ever has been
>inb4 “But this one guy says that F-117s could TOTALLY carry AIM-9’s
No. He’s wrong and also a moron.
Tom Clancy said it could
No he didn’t. He said the F-19, which doesn’t exist, could.
>be USAF secret skunk
>read about Clancy's all curves F-19, which doesn't have any sharp angles at all because curves are the secret to stealth
>giggle
>"h-h-how did you get such amazingly accurate information, Tom?" (wink wink)
>snerk
>"oh you just bought Harpoon? you sly rogue you"
>chortle
>"well I won't tell anyone if you won't" (nudge)
best psych ever
Technically, the reason why the F-117 is angled is because computer hardware at the time couldn’t model complex curves, not because angles are better.
Which is why, when the B-2 and F-22 came around and computers got better, they were curvy. Pic unrelated.
I wonder how less efficient the F-117's stealth was because of those harsh angular curves. I know it made the thing about as aerodynamic as a school bus.
>computer hardware at the time couldn’t model complex curves, not because angles are better
nah, 1970s CAD could do curves just fine, the reason was because reducing RCS with the overall shape of the plane instead of scattering radar like the SR-71 shapes worked so well they just ran with the diamonds. Turns out it can work even better with curves, so most of the same design principles went into the next iterations of stealth airframes like the b-2 and f22
about 1 order of magnitude
>Clancy's
>curves are the secret to stealth
the difference between reality and fiction in a nutshell. Clancy couldn't be bothered understanding or research the correct answer so just went with the one that was sexiest and sounded plausible
So was the F-111 and F-105
Both were technically fighter-bombers that were never used as fighters because they sucked at it.
>only bad thing he had to say about the F-117 is that calling it a fighter is moronic.
No-one calls it a fighter though? Its an ground attack aircraft, the same way no-one in their right mind would call the F-111 a "fighter".
The F- designation is for fighter. Why did the F-111 and -117 have an F in their name? Nobody knows.
F-111 was originally meant to be a wonder plane that would fulfill all the combat roles for both the air force and navy. This included acting as an interceptor for the navy shooting down bombers, hence the F designation. Unfortunately it was far too fat to be of any use as a carrier based interceptor, so it was relegated to bomber/attacker for the air force. The failure of the F-111B did spawn the F-14 program, which ended up using the same AIM-54 missiles, AWG-9 radar, and TF30 engines as the F-111B.
Ah, I was wondering about the swept wings and why only those two aircraft had them.
>AIM-54 missiles
Wait, the F-111 could fire the Phoenix? Wouldn't that make it a premier interceptor as well as attacker?
Plenty of airplanes feature sweep wings. F-111, F-14, B-1, Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-27, Boeing SST, and a lot more I can't think of off the top of my head. As for the AIM-54, it was designed for the F-111B. The reason it didn't get far as an interceptor was firstly that it was wholly unsuited to carrier operations, and also the fact that it was designed at the tail end of the purebred interceptor idea. The F-4 was proving the value of a fighter/interceptor and with the advent of ICBMs airplanes needed to diversify their roles to avoid being axed.
What do you think the F stands for you giga moron
The F stands for "Frickup" because it should have been A-11
Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom you dumb piece of shit. Stealth Aircraft go in first to take out AA and Artillery, making the sky safe for planes and the ground safe for tanks. Are you that moronic?
tlam and ew exist
>tlam
yes, but to be fair, the F-117s dropped more bombs than Tomahawks existed at the time
>Stealth Aircraft go in first to take out AA and Artillery
That's what SEAD and AI are for.
These babies had even more important task: cripple the C2 by taking out 50% of Iraq's military communication capability, attempt a decapitation strike by bombing Saddams palace and couple other crucial pieces of infrastructure in what was at the time probably the most heavily defended airspace in the entire world.
Best post in this thread, F-117's crippled Iraqi air operations and air defence combined HQ's as the first shot of the war, along with other targets. Iraqi interceptors and AD batteries were left under regional control against the massive coalition airstrikes, and the results we know.
moron
Everytime I see this I thank God for boomers and the fact I was born in the US.
Relax nerd
Yes, it was one of the most important milestones in stealth plane technology
>Did it achieve something that other planes were simply incapable of?
well the SU-57 still can't beat it's RCS so I think its just a case of other nations being incompetent when it comes to MIC, at least quality wise.
>F designation
>not a fighter
Oh I bet they thought they were so clever...
as much as a fighter as the F-111
kek I think that's gass peak in the background, they're gonna be building houses on that land soon
wonder if they will build any houses on top of UXO
>houses on gass peak
I can only imagine how expensive that'll be. I wonder who's going to live there
the F-111 was actually intended to be a fighter/bomber originally. then they realized it was a terrible fighter and just kept it as a bomber. another one of mcnamara's brilliant ideas
It was the original f-35.. one airframe for everything so we have an extreme commonality of parts. It just turns out that specialized stuff is preferable to a generalist when your concern is getting shit done instead of balancing a budget.. it’s pretty easy to see that we’re more than happy to sell the f-35 to allies but won’t sell the f-22 nor will we offer the ngad fighter they’re working on… wanna take a bet on how bad the Air Force thinks an f-35 would get raped in air to air combat vs a 22? I’d be willing to bet even 4 or 5 35’s to one 22 would work out, especially if those 35’s had their data link systems running on training wheels because the country running them doesn’t have it fully implemented.
it would be great beyond-visual-range missile truck
I suppose that idea was too forward thinking in 70s
early sidewinders and sparrows were kind of crap and I get why all the WWII veterans in charge of USAF and USN did not jump at the idea after they saw the performance of missile armed F-4
The air force has always been moronic with their designations.
The reason the Air Force designated it a fighter is that they were trying to attract the best available pilots to fly it, since it is or was a b***h to control. Giving it a B- or A- designation drives away fighter pilots, F- designation attracts all types of pilots.
You are repeating a made up myth, there's absolutely 0 evidence supporting this, it's pulled out of someone's ass.
OK so what is the real reason it is the F-117 and not an A- or B- whatever
isn't it weird that, despite being a fighter it's only a bomber.
sure would have been confusing if you only got a few of the documents and tried to piece together what the project actually was.
The main differentiating factor of the aircraft (its stealth properties) is independent of its role.
If you are in the espionage bureau of the glorious Soviet Union you don't give a flip whether it is "only" a bomber, you need to know how the stealth tech works. Any other subterfuge is as confusing to the Air Force as it is to you
>damn how do they get fighter performance from that shape?!
yeah, intelligence agencies have never grossly misunderstood the performance metrics of an airplane from limited information and gone way overboard in their analysis of an opponents hardware.
that could never happen.
Meanwhile, in another thread /k/ scoffs at Russian hypersonic weapons as being grossly unrealistic from slavs
>grossly unrealistic
no, just either:
>not developed
>just the top half of an SRBM strapped to a heavy jet
>a strategic-only option too expensive for literally anything other than a nuclear deterrent
>photos of the mig-25 show giant wings that would translate to incredible speed, climb, and maneuverability
>they believe it would crap all over all existing fighters and they develop the F-15 to outperform the mig-25
>defector lands a mig-25 in japan, giving them a chance to see how it stacks up against their fighters
>turns out, its really fast and not much else
>the giant wings were necessary just to get up to height because it was made of steel and not titanium like assumed, so the airplane was stupid heavy
>avionics were also still made of vacuum tubes and made it heavier and more fragile
Titanium is less dense than steel?
yes. and it has a higher specific strength.
titanium is as strong as steel and about 50% lighter, giving it an unparalleled strength-to-weight ratio and is much more resistant to heat and corrosion to boot
though, while strong, it is more brittle than steel so its not as effective when used as armor
but, basically, it allows you to make a fuselage slightly thicker for the same weight giving the structure much more stiffness and strength without a gain in weight
the effect is really pronounced when you are looking at space craft
the spacex starship was going to be made out of steel instead of aluminum or titanium
to get steel down to the required weight limit it had to be paper thin, so thin that it would have buckled under its own weight also like paper, and so only kept its shape from the internal pressure of the fluids inside pushing back out like a metal balloon
a lighter metal like aluminum or titanium could have been made thicker and stiffer for the same weight and actually hold their shape
>the spacex starship was going to be made out of steel
So what is it actually made of then?
Steel
Because it was supposed to be a fighter, much like it's predecessor the F111 it's was going to be a multi-role fighter. But then everyone involved realized that it would be absolutely moronic to force it into roles it wouldn't be and instead of redesignating it they just made and kept the name.
Great anon. So where is the documentation for this explanation that differentiates it from a myth someone just pulled out of their ass
NTA but it's all rumors, the pilot shit came from a general, so did the congressional funding myth. The myth of it being for secret shit I have never seen a source for. The sort of myth about it being multirole is just false with a grain of truth since the "fighter" variant was never made and it was proposed years after the aircraft was in service. Quite honestly it's probably a combination of all of these things but knowing how military procurement goes the congressional one feels the most probable. After all that was the reason the F-111 got it's name.
I don’t think an official reason has ever been given.
The popular theory is that the designers knew it would be a cast-iron b***h to fly, and wanted the best pilots to fly it, but those people would be hesitant to fly something without an “F” designation.
There’s a small group that think it’s because it was definitely a fighter that could carry air-to-air weapons (these people are moronic)
Personally, my theory is that they wanted to disguise it from the Russians. Since the F-112 though F-116 designations we’re used as cover for testing captured Russian fighters, maybe they figured the Russians would assume it’s another captured aircraft.
It was given an F-designation to deceive the Soviets. This is the conventional wisdom and there's no reason to doubt it, especially since they had recently been scared shitless by Able Archer.
Subterfuge aside, Nighthawk probably would've been A-17.
It looks cool. So, yes.
Yes, it was essential for americans to win against nuclear warhead carrying camel hordes in iraq
>Did it achieve something
They're still using it, bub. "Retired" was just for the newspapers
The major drawback of the nighthawk was that it is subsonic. Otherwise it was a marvel of the time and pioneered precision airstrikes with guided weapons.
Modern targeting pods and glass wienerpits and data links have made basically every western fighter capable of the same bombing abilities.
Overall success. Succeeded by F-35 which is better in every meaningful category.
>pioneered precision airstrikes with guided weapons.
the A-6, F-4 and Buccaneer were all doing that before the F-117
Subsonic means more stealth. Velocity is only bad.
>The major drawback of the nighthawk was that it is subsonic
That's where you're wrong though. Engineers designed it to be subsonic in part to reduce it's IR signature. Go fast, glow bright.
NTA but would that at the very least be considered a tradeoff?
>Go fast, glow bright.
Today is the day I discovered feds were hypersonic
No one else has ever built a stealthier plane so I'd say yes
Akthuly...The F-22 and F-35 are marginally stealthier.
That is why I specified no one ELSE
The F-117 was a horribly janky aircraft that needed advanced electronics to stay airborne, had a barely acceptable payload for a bomber, and could not engage other aircraft in any meaningful way.
It was also impossible to detect while it's bomb bays were closed.
it literally still flies today. it's still useful and providing valuable information and capabilities.
The F-117 was created specifically to bomb the Soviet's Northern Group headquarters in Legnica, which is was well suited for.
Downed by S-125 produced in the early 60s
i have always thought it was super ballsy for the USAF to fly them over Baghdad weeks before the war kicked off.