Nighthawks

>>34582564
Well, at least they served well.

>>34582564
Shit was developed back in the '70s. If anything, I'm surprised it wasn't retired sooner

>>34583008
Lots of hardware were developed in the 70s you mooninite.

>>34582564
it was shit

t. Serbia

>>34583011
And? From a technology standpoint, it might as well be prop plane compared to what we have today

sexiest and coolest plane ever

>>34583022
Nah, that was a complacent command structure versus a very motivated serb with enough knowledge and equipment to beat the tech.

File: c4216dce385023e39c7f6e957d139857.jpg (847KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2100x1500px

Most Nighthawks are still not only flightworthy but kept in a more or less "operational condition". If the need arises (read: if theres really some shit brewing) they can be made ready within several days

>>34583114
It's almost as if a plane that sacrifices almost everything for stealth isn't the best choice when bombing people without radar.

>>34583148
More that there is no need to keep around 20 year old air frames when there are already fresh airframes that do the same job better.

>>34583148
Plus when the F-117 was retired the F-22 could also carry 2 JDAMs and was faster, stealthier, infinitely better at detecting enemies / targets, etc.

>>34583182
>More that there is no need to keep around 20 year old air frames when there are already fresh airframes that do the same job better.
So can we retire the B52 or nah

F-117 was a 3rd-gen plane on a 4th-gen battlefield. Good riddance.
Now we just need to put the U-2 in the garbage heap where it belongs, alongside other useless crap like the SR-71.

>>34583288
How dare you

>>34583022
>one shot down out of thousands of sorties
>Serbia had to make dedicated teams of SAM sites to shoot it down, taking up resources
>only did so because it would provide them propaganda, knew they couldn't actually effect its operations

Yeah man total failure

File: f-117-stealth-fighter-scrapped-wreck.jpg (38KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x427px

>>34583114
I thought that they were destroyed and scrapped

>>34582564
An F-35 can do its job better.

>>34582564
>implying it was not replaced by another black project
>F-117 2.0

>>34583428
While I'm sure such projects are in the works, the F-35 can do the F-117's job better.

>>34583543
>While I'm sure such projects are in the works
>works

>Air Combat Command's only F-117A unit, the 4450th Tactical Group, achieved operational capability in October 1983
>The stealth fighter emerged from the classified world while stationed at Tonapah Airfield with an announcement by the Pentagon in November 1988 and was first shown publicly at Nellis in April 1990
Retirement of F-117 is sign that her replacement reached operation capability.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (165KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1920x1080px

>>34583589
Or that stealth went from being something really special you put on a specific aircraft built just for that, it became a feature you put on pretty much any combat aircraft.

>>34583416

It was replaced with a UAV

>>34583607
Yeah, no.

For the Day 0 deep strike attack scenario? Nope.

>>34583288
Here's your (you)

File: 32423423423.jpg (127KB, 1620x820px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1620x820px

>>34583605
There is "stealth" and there is "stealth"

>>34583246
There are 5 times more F-22s and F-35s, they are safer, cheaper to operate and more capable.

The B-52 doesn't have an equivalent, cutting it would cut the US strategic bomber inventory in half until the B-21 production started up.

>>34583741
There's also the question of what you had to compromise away for the sake of stealth.

>>34583905
In the F-22 and F-35? Basically nothing.

File: 24701_18623dd.jpg (151KB, 720x482px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 720x482px

>>34583357
The government says a lot of things.

>fly by wire
>enormously expensive
>incapable of air to air engagements
>useless against dudes without radar
>maintenance is more expensive than the SR71
>Slow
>Black
>incapable of carrying heavy ordinance
>designed by a jew

Wow so progressive /k/. What a great plain to have around
The F35 surpasses it in EVERY measurable way and actually doesn't look like shit

File: 1456145265299.png (300KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 512x512px

>have a photo of myself as a kid in front of one at an air show
>now the plane and the airfield are both gone

>>34583935
>Slow
>Black
just gotta say 1 lmao

File: Y6djpZpdQ4pqEE0i1Ca--KEaHqgrddsZ84K02kBQ7dw.jpg?w=1024&s=2f31eda3a60476bd577b644fcf65d2ab.jpg (205KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1024x768px

>>34583945
i have one too, they even allowed me to sit in it!

>>34583935
>>incapable of air to air engagements

HEY GUYS THE AC-130 CAN'T DOGFIGHT! WE SHOULD SCRAP THEM!

Fuck off you ignorant mouthbreather

>>34583953

sometimes I wonder if it was ever really there

>>34583605
I'm hard over that image.

>>34583946
kek
>>34583963
>AC-130 shouldn't be scrapped
>fucking slow
>giant target
>only useful for carrying shit
>the C5 can carry more shit
>unguided munitions
>fucking 40 years old

Let me guess, you defend the A10 too?

>>34584064
Never said the C130 shouldn't be scrapped, numbnuts. I said that you don't judge a fucking stealth bomber designed to drop bombs and missiles behind enemy lines to a fucking strategic fighter, you gigantic twatwaffle.

>>34584064
>thinking the c5 and the c-130 serve the same purpose

go outside and light yourself on fire

>>34584064
>the USAF will never fix a triad of GAU-8's into the side of a Galaxy, creating the AC-5

Why live.

>>34584476
>the USN will never replace it's carrier planes with GAU-8s mounted in RCS stabilized flying wings launched by rocket and catapult at mach 2

>>34583022

All technology would be considered shit by the "it didn't work that one time" standard of criticism.

>>34584079
>changing the goal posts
Not an argument kiddo
>>34584279
Not an argument
>>34584476
That would be even more retarded
>>34584505
That is fucking retarded

>>34584573
>No Fun Allowed: The Post

>>34583905
There's also the question of what you would get if you build aircraft that can't be detected by any means.

>>34582564
>Too soon

Serbs with Soviet 60s era monkey model radar could kill them. They were in service far too long!

>>34583054
We have prop planes retard

File: Lockheed_C-130_Hercules.jpg (17KB, 300x214px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x214px

>>34583054

>>34583008
Explain how the F-15 is still operational and thriving.

>>34583114
It's stealth was made obsolete by newer radars. Now even fucking Iran has radars that can be used against these.

>>34584573
>>changing the goal posts
>Not an argument kiddo
I didn't change the goalposts, you colossal cuntasaurus. All I did was point out how monumentally mentally challenged you must be if you try to evaluate a stealth bomber using fighter metrics.

>>34584758
>Serbs with Soviet 60s era monkey model radar could kill them.
Because they knew exactly where it would be. And kept trying despite the very real risk of a HARM already on the way. And still only got a lock because the bomb bay door opened and gave them something to lock on to.

>>34583935
>fly by wire
so is everything else since these days
>enormously expensive
true
>incapable of air to air engagements
not in its mission profile so who cares
>useless against dudes without radar
still drops bombs on dudes without radar
>maintenance is more expensive than the SR71
dunno if true, but I doubt that it's more than an SR-71 although it is likely high
>Slow
no need for supersonic in its mission profile
>Black
uh
>incapable of carrying heavy ordinance
not in its mission profile
>designed by a jew
/pol/ plz go

>>34584917
they also modified their radar for easier detection

it proved that they weren't invulnerable, not that they weren't useful

>>34584784
Because we built brand new knows that only mostly look like the ones built in the 70s.

>>34584935
If anything it's evidence of how difficult it is for anti-air to deal with stealth, not a complete invalidation like the haters claim.

>>34584963
So we didn't upgrade 117s at all?

>>34584987
No reason to. Especially now that the F-35 has the same max A2G payload but more flexible selection of weapons and needs less planning to do the same missions.

was f117 a lockheed designation, or was it a military one?

>>34585048
Still sucks we didn't give it a longer life when it wasn't useless.

>>34582564
>you got serbed

File: IMG_20170713_193536.jpg (29KB, 480x344px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x344px

>>34584573
Holy shit, haven't seen this shitty trip in like a year. I thought you and Zed had fulfilled a suicide pact.

Disappointing.

>>34585171
hes done with summer school so hes back here

>>34585171
Go fuck yourself
>>34585181
Go fuck yourself

>>34584589
>not an argument: the post
>>34584904
>attacking the opponent and not the idea
>not an argument
Way to go kiddo
>>34584921
>implyig that mitigates any of my points
also
>MUH /pol/ boogeyman

>>34584476
*Brrrt intensifies*

>>34585194

>RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>34583953
>fighter

>>34585853
it was too pure for this world :'(

File: 1490521681846.jpg (33KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x388px

>>34582564

I'm sure I caught one of these fuckers flying overhead in KY back in the day.

I'd love to find the pilot and get his opinion of seeing some fucker watching him sail by near-overhead.

one the ultra-rare chance hes reading: Rotary beacon my man, and the rifle was a .458 win mag.

>>34583639

You're telling me this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45

isn't a replacement for that?

>>34586714

i admire your optimism

>>34586954
No, the F-22 was supposed to be its replacement.

>>34583945
They still fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_fje6VP0AE

>>34586954
>X-45
>X
Please think about this.

File: hq720.jpg (93KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x720px

>>34582564
*teleports behind you
Pfft, nothing personnel kid

Wasn't the success of the f117 the reason the USA even continued stealth jets?

>>34591407
It's the reason the f22 exists.

File: of what purpose comrade.jpg (110KB, 618x586px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 618x586px

>>34583312
jesus this denial

>>34583008
The F-15, F-16 and F-18 were developed in the 70s