It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another "F-117 Companion" thread and a bit of history!

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
funny things you find when you search around a topic.

probably unrelated. posted before in a different thread. might be fake. who knows.

www.flightglobal.com...
edit on 12-1-2018 by grey580 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580 Look at the date. The F-117 wasnt revealed until 88 and was based at TTR at the time.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR




posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

there is something interesting their but its not the f-19



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Thank you guys for your feedback and steer of direction.

Something interesting....would that be a certain NASP? Funny how far things went before sudden silence....



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
When the 117 was used during gulf war pt1 we had aircraft that performed ECM/jamming duties quite well, like F4's and 111's. I don't see the need for a "companion" of the 117.

Considering how lame it was as a light bomber...designing and producing a secondary system then keeping it under wraps, 117 to this day seems too much of a hassle and waste to deliver 2 bombs at a time. Hell, just the logistics of having a companion that is separated and isolated from its partner is HUGE.

Please don't forget although the 117 a/c was declassified there may still be systems/capabilities on it or other aircraft that have not... and some maybe unacknowledged

Just my opinion..



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: wileel

And after Desert Storm we completely lost the EW mission. The Air Force currently has pilots flying with Navy EW units because they don't have a single platform to do the same mission.

Now does it really make sense to you, that after showing how vital EW platforms, even Vietnam era platforms are, the Air Force almost immediately completely guts the mission and disposes of every EW platform they have? Because it sure as hell doesn't to me.

The Air Force is actually behind Russia and China now in the EW game because they haven't developed an EW system, that we know of, in over 25 years. Think about that for a minute. Either they're planning to go to war using 80s era EW technology, against defenses that have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, or they've been developing something in the black world. And that means it needs something to fly on.
edit on 1/12/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

You talking about the SSTO discussion with Dr. Raymond Colladay? Looks pretty interesting to me!



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Well - as a random contribution - there's an interesting graphic of an aircraft (shown from 2 different angles) on BAE's web-page about EW technology.

www.baesystems.com...

...they also mention "classified platforms" re: both fixed wing and other aircraft.
Obviously there's no idea if the graphic image relates to anything realistic or even if it did - it may have nothing to do with a US aircraft, but I have never seen that shape of stealth aircraft before.

...it's an interesting subject though


edit on 13-1-2018 by muzj03 because: ...correction re: 2nd platform type.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: wileel

And after Desert Storm we completely lost the EW mission. The Air Force currently has pilots flying with Navy EW units because they don't have a single platform to do the same mission.

Now does it really make sense to you, that after showing how vital EW platforms, even Vietnam era platforms are, the Air Force almost immediately completely guts the mission and disposes of every EW platform they have? Because it sure as hell doesn't to me.

The Air Force is actually behind Russia and China now in the EW game because they haven't developed an EW system, that we know of, in over 25 years. Think about that for a minute. Either they're planning to go to war using 80s era EW technology, against defenses that have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, or they've been developing something in the black world. And that means it needs something to fly on.



You absolutely have some great points here. It is very odd the EW platforms were dropped without a publicly disclosed replacement. For what is worth I haven't heard even a rumor of a traditional companion "aircraft". I have a couple thoughts on it...
-Maybe it was decided a platform wasn't needed because, like you said, the Navy could handle the requirement
-Maybe the "success" of the 117 was so great on its own that it was deemed there was no need for EW...not likely since it had some help on most missions

I personally think it may have been some thought process combining the two. When the powers to be looked at programs in development it is completely feasible they decided based on the current threats and the time till the next capability other assets (like the Navy) could fill that gap. I'm just spit balling here, but I've seen worse decisions made when it comes to saving money. One ore angle to this scenario is the increase in weapon stand off capability, even since to 90's its gotten WAY easier to even lob a bomb a VERY long distance with amazing accuracy.

We the do have some significant EW capability with fifth gen aircraft like the F22 (fairly limited resource),F35 (kinda), cruise missiles and don't forget about RPA's, however there was a huge gap in time with nothing publicly filling that hole.

I think I have a good idea that you are probably well aware of toys we use or have been using during that gap in time...all beit not as good as an 111 putting the lights out they hold their own and the latest stuff is damn good. I can assure you the EW game hasn't been completely dropped, it has evolved and we still don't play fair... but I agree its not as apparent as it used to be for sure!



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: wileel

The Air Force wouldn't have given up the mission to the Navy. Just as the Navy wouldn't have given it up to the Air Force. There's too much risk involved if they couldn't get assets to the area for some reason.

The F-117 was a tiny fraction of our fighting capability. There's no way they would have gotten rid of our EW forces because they did better than expected. They were far too important to everything that wasn't an F-117.

The F-22 was still in the very early stages. Again, they wouldn't have killed the EW fleet when it was still 6 years from flying.

Yes, there's a limited EW capability in the F-22 and F-35, but they're nowhere near as capable as a dedicated escort, and using them in that role ties up assets that are much more valuable elsewhere. That also doesn't explain the incredible reluctance on the partn of the leadership to put money into any kind of EW platform.
edit on 1/13/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There were a number of failed EW projects that were supposed to be based off of Embraer airframe. So it isn't like they weren't trying.

So the EF-18 does not count?



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Apparently you missed the repeated use of the words Air Force. Show me a Growler unit with Air Force on the aircraft.

You don't gut your EW force based on "we're trying to replace them". The Raven had years left on the airframes. They easily could have flown them until they had something in place.
edit on 1/13/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/13/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm like not following what you're getting at.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh pa-lese. The plane is practically a joint use aircraft. There hasn't been a Red Flag without the EA-6B or EF-18 in the two decades.

You act like the USAF is allergic to salt water.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

The point is that there are going to be situations where the Navy can't get Growlers where they're needed. You're the one that said that carriers are obsolete and useless. So if a carrier gets forced out of the area? They don't normally operate from land bases. The Marines do sometimes, but they won't have as many aircraft available.

You don't put all your eggs into one basket. It was stupid to gut the EW force and put everything on to one airframe that isn't the best choice for the mission to begin with.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The growlers are so old now, they remind me of the B wing from Star wars.


I always liked the radiation symbol on the front


I was thinking of the E6 my bad
edit on 13-1-2018 by penroc3 because: Wrong one



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

That's the Prowler. The Growler is based on the F model Super Hornet. And yeah, I always did too.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

bwing. ha! tie advanced and defender series for the win.



what didn't any of you guys play tie fighter as a kid?



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well it was a function of mission creep. The Embraer projects kept out growing the airframe. I think they tried two airframes and just gave up. You have to wonder how the pods on the EF-18 are considered suitable while what the USAF wanted couldn't fit on a commercial shuttle plane.

Ya know, those EF-18 work on the ground too. Given the BRAC in the Bay Area, when they spot a bogey, usually a Lemoore F-18 arrives. If we had to depend on the USAF, all we could do is crash a C-5 from Travis into the intruder.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join