|
Retired for quite a while now.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Do they still use those things in war zones? They were all officially retired a few years back since their mission was taken over by F-22s and B-2s. Whether you believe the official line is another story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Retired from combat but still flying, presumably for testing and training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
They were still flying around Nellis a year ago.  But yeah they've been officially retired for several years. I assume they've got a couple that are used for testing against various radars and the like. The F-22 is better in every way, operationally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
They are literally 1970s technology and one of them spontaneously disintergrated mid flight a while back so unless they got some sort of massive upgrade package I assume they got retired
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:All the UFO chatter led down the F-117 GIS rabbit hole, so here are a couple pictures: Wow they're a lot pointier than I thought. I guess I got the flying wing design of the B2 in my head and conflated the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:They are literally 1970s technology and one of them spontaneously disintergrated mid flight a while back so unless they got some sort of massive upgrade package I assume they got retired Mostly. A year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_fje6VP0AE USAF has stated that they're retired, but being maintained so that they can be called up if needed. Not sure if that means called up for ops (unlikely, IMO) or just called up for testing, surrogate training, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:They are literally 1970s technology and one of them spontaneously disintergrated mid flight a while back so unless they got some sort of massive upgrade package I assume they got retired So? F-15s have been doing that for years. mlmp08 posted:
I don't see any situation where an F-117 is recalled for operational use. An F-22 can do everything better and cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
I thought the f22 was strictly an air to air platform? If you needed a stealthy airborne mud mover your choices are the f-35 or... The 117? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:I thought the f22 was strictly an air to air platform? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:I thought the f22 was strictly an air to air platform? Nope. Been dropping SDBs and GBUs for years now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz5pe2C3DDs GBU-32 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
I remember the NovaLogic f-22 sim in the 90s would let you drop tactical nukes even.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Well there you go, I stand corrected. Having said that, there's only 187 f22s and I'm sure they're spread out around the place, and not all of them can be available at the same time, and there's the issue of airframe flight hours, so I could maybe see an f117 reactivation where it'd be "good enough" and f35s aren't on the cards for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
The F-117 will be recalled when North Korea goes hot and involves China and WW3 happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:I remember the NovaLogic f-22 sim in the 90s would let you drop tactical nukes even. I did this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
STRATCOM could probably rock B-2s more effectively than using F-117s in a hot war. Or just tell F-16 drivers good night and good luck. E: looks like congress blessed off on divesting the Nighthawks outright last year, though not immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
This is not a snark comment at all - how do civilians get the level of information you guys know? I wouldn’t expect this level of airfairing knowledge from, well, anyone. It’s cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Generally, we dont!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
There is a hefty chunk of open info on most air assets. Enough to get you 90% there from your computer chair. They don’t go into detail but the F22 is definitely stealthier than an F117, faster, and has more payload. B2s are also stealthier and have a LOT more payload. I also suspect the latest Russian gear would be unacceptably decent at tracking them as well. Bad mission planning plus a patient SAM operator got one splashed by Yugoslavians with a then 30 year old SAM system 18 years ago.
Alaan fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a lot of open source stuff. Especially if you're halfway keyed into the language to hone your Goolge-Fu. Obviously, there's plenty that active or former people in the know don't talk about, including not going out and finding the one theorist or journalist who has a good idea and then reposting it all "wink wink nudge nudge." That's a really bad idea. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, there's a lot of open source stuff. Especially if you're halfway keyed into the language to hone your Goolge-Fu. Basically what I was going to say. It's mostly a matter of being generally familiar with something, and then googling the right places for open source info. E.g., F-22 air to ground capability. Everything technical that gets posted in these threads (as opposed to weird anecdotes about how often AWACS ceiling panels fall off) is usually pulled from wikipedia or official press releases. There's also a form of institutional memory that's developed in long-running threads like this and the aeronautical insanity thread because the same topics tend to come up repeatedly over the years, so people tend to know answers to obscure trivia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
You can also look at the “study” flight sims. Figuring out how to fly the planes in Falcon BMS and DCS A-10 will expose you to the language of USAF aircraft. Their forums are full of crazy people just like this thread too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can also look at the “study” flight sims. Figuring out how to fly the planes in Falcon BMS and DCS A-10 will expose you to the language of USAF aircraft. Their forums are full of crazy people just like this thread too. When I hear stories about people flying a plane in a pinch I always think about trying a flight sim. When I was a kid I had a flight sim game and I figured out the blades of the helicopter could be used as a wheel. On the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
If you like helicopter rotors rolling along the ground the DCS Huey module may be of interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Well there you go, I stand corrected. And there are about 60 or F-117s, all of which require stupid amounts of expensive maintenance. And the AF is retiring 4 per year permanently, so that number drops. They're less effective than other platforms already in service. Bringing them back would be a sign of dire straits indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Guess it doesn't matter how much it costs if the bill falls due after everything has been reduced to a radioactive crater. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
No, but it does take time to return a preserved aircraft back to operational status. There's no way all the 117s are ready to go. There are probably only a couple that can be generated within a few days, the rest in a few weeks/months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
priznat posted:I remember the NovaLogic f-22 sim in the 90s would let you drop tactical nukes even. Not only that, but every mini campaign ended with you nuking something. Fighting north korea? nuke em. Fighting something in the middle east? nuke em. fighting drug smugglers in south america? Enable unlimited ammo and carpet bomb those nukes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
It always amazes me when I read you guys post about how much maintenance and fitting an aircraft takes just to keep flying. Especially the idea that reactivating an aircraft would take so much. It’s like, we drive cars for sometimes 300k miles without much in the way of maintenance, yet every time a plane flies it requires a ton of tinkering. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Um, jet planes shoot fire out of precision manufactured tubes that need to be kept to pretty tight tolerances. If they’re stealth you need to worry about every ding in the paint. Plus if something breaks you can’t pull over to the side of the road. Shits complex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Helicopters need an ungodly amount of maintenance per flying hour because they are just all "GIVE ME A loving REASON. GO ON!" and then try to kill everyone anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
As whatshisname once said, the helicopter symbolises the victory of ingenuity over common sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:It always amazes me when I read you guys post about how much maintenance and fitting an aircraft takes just to keep flying. Especially the idea that reactivating an aircraft would take so much. It’s like, we drive cars for sometimes 300k miles without much in the way of maintenance, yet every time a plane flies it requires a ton of tinkering. Why is that? Cyrano seriously understated the complexity of the manufacturing processes involved in jet engines. Not only are your alloys far, far beyond what existed before jets started getting serious(like the 1940s, where basic steel alloys and aluminium were your main things), but modern turbine blades? They're a loving monocrystalline structure. Yeah, that's right. Every single tiny steel crystal in the damned thing is aligned on the same axis, basically making it into a single big fuckoff crystal What kind of difference does that make, from a manufacturing and maintenance standpoint? Well, everything after the ore comes out of the ground is controlled and registered. You can track which smelter refined it, which company ran that smelter, what the alloying mix was, what shift it was cast on, etc. And then you get to the machining, where you make something out of this single big fuckoff hyper specific steel alloy crystal that can spin at speeds greater than 12000 RPM without getting any vibration, while being exposed to temperatures in the thousands of degrees Celsius. Milligram of weight off? It explodes at speed. Heats up a tiny bit too much during machining? Explodes. Not cast correctly at the foundry? Explodes. Then we get to maintaining the damned thing. Not enough oil? Explodes. Turbine blade damaged? Explodes. Fuel injection hosed? Explodes. Not enough coolant? Explodes. Afterburner nozzle damaged? Seizes, explodes. I am being a little bit hyperbolic with the explosions, but jet engine failure modes are pretty much 'catches fire', 'explodes', or 'suddenly does nothing at all, and is completely ruined.' A car can run with a cylinder or two out. Won't be easy on the engine, but it'll drive. You can chew your gearbox into almost nothing, and the car will still move forwards. Slash your tires, smash the radiator, cut everything but the seat, steering wheel, and drivetrain away and it'll still move forwards. But you gently caress something up on a jet that runs at several hundred kilometres an hour while cruising? You very well might not be a craft capable of flight at all anymore, so much as twenty thousand pounds of metal falling from ten+ kilometers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Most of the maintenance time an aircraft goes through is just inspections, too. Preventative maintenance is very much A Thing in aviation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Cyrano seriously understated the complexity of the manufacturing processes involved in jet engines. Not only are your alloys far, far beyond what existed before jets started getting serious(like the 1940s, where basic steel alloys and aluminium were your main things), but modern turbine blades? They're a loving monocrystalline structure. Yeah, that's right. Every single tiny steel crystal in the damned thing is aligned on the same axis, basically making it into a single big fuckoff crystal All sounds too complicated. Bring back WW2 prop planes. Think of the savings!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
i did not know about the steel crystal thing, and that is rad
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:All sounds too complicated. I say we go WWI. Nothing radiates "romance of the skies" like a total-loss oiling system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Seconding the WWI planes. Real men should fix their own planes with a thread and needle while their copilot tries to use his rifle to snipe other pilots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And there are about 60 or F-117s, all of which require stupid amounts of expensive maintenance. And the AF is retiring 4 per year permanently, so that number drops. They're less effective than other platforms already in service. Bringing them back would be a sign of dire straits indeed. Blind Rasputin posted:It always amazes me when I read you guys post about how much maintenance and fitting an aircraft takes just to keep flying. Especially the idea that reactivating an aircraft would take so much. It’s like, we drive cars for sometimes 300k miles without much in the way of maintenance, yet every time a plane flies it requires a ton of tinkering. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:It always amazes me when I read you guys post about how much maintenance and fitting an aircraft takes just to keep flying. Especially the idea that reactivating an aircraft would take so much. It’s like, we drive cars for sometimes 300k miles without much in the way of maintenance, yet every time a plane flies it requires a ton of tinkering. Why is that? To avoid turning into fireballs several dozen million dollars of taxpayer money. Thorough maintenance is cheaper than that. Cars are another thing entirely. These things are ridiculously cheap. You could buy ten thousand cars for the cost of procuring one single modern jet fighter. Cars are so cheap that even poor people have them. There are over one billion cars in active service throughout the world, most of which are privately owned by average joes and janes. And if the engine gives up while you drive, you can usually still use your momentum to park to the side safely and wait for help. You can't park your aircraft in the sky and wait for help there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:29
|
|
