Old Birds or Old Minds?

Today I was wandering through my magazines and I found an old article written by Jon Lake in Combat Aircraft April-May 2008. I have followed for more than three years this magazine due to the quality of news and updates of the military air industry that others (like Spanish Avión Revue) do not provide. The article discussed several things, which I do not agree completely, about the retirement of the F-117A Nighthawk and I thought it would be a good matter for discussion.





After the usual explanation of the development and background required for the casual reader to grasp the article, Lake begins to state the different causes that made the Congress and the USAF to retire the plane. The usefulness of the aircraft is according to Lake, the consecuences derived from: "This meant that the F-117A was best suited to operating against a modern structured integrated air defense network..." (39). Stating that it was the radar cross section low profile that made it outstanding, Lake concludes that this caused the early retirement, mentioning briefly the incident of the first casualty that took place in early 1999 on Yugoslavia. I think that one of the main reasons that the USAF retired the F-117A was due to the fact that the rebel Yugoslavian forces sold the scraps and remaining debris of the aircraft to the Russian AF. This incident, kept secret from spreading in the news (although mentioned in CNN and The Washington Post) was a handicap that compromised the use of this technology to the USAF. Thus retirement of the precious and most valuable asset in the late nineties, was a painful, but needed job. Since stealth technology had evolved in giant leaps since the F-117A getting rid of it was not that dificult, with all the projects concerning this new technology (B-2A, F-22A, UCAV and F-35).





Later Lake again reiterates that the aircraft "is an old design, and was never designed for easy and low-cost supportability." (37) If the first was the case why have not the USAF retired the aging B-52, or the F-16? That is in the broader sense due to the adaptability that these aircrafts have in order to receive upgrades. But would not it make an upgrade a more suitable aircraft fo the callenges that the AF is facing? This is were Lake seems to go with the flow of the previously mentioned high price of sustaining that the F-117A has. But if you think of keeping a small, effective and decisive squadron of aircraft upgraded it would be the same as to try to upgrade the different airframes of the jeopardized F-15. It is the same as including it on the budget as an upgrade. Lake contradicts himself and even helps my argument in: "but in today's ongoing opearation, an F-16 or an F-15E can undertake the same missions the F-117, and can do so more cheaply..." (40).
One thing to mention was that in the usual article in Combat Aircraft, footage detail is provoded, but not in this case. Even though Richard Cooper took the photos and that there is the advertising in the last part of the article of a new book on F-117A it is curious that the details are not portrayed.





There are plenty of matters to discuss from this the article, but from the whole stealth program. One of them is the naming of the aircrfat and it subsequent changes. The letter 'F' stands for fighter but to this aircraft, certainly do not fit, not even the number. These two devices were used by the USAF to conceal the identity of the plane to the Russians, in that time Soviets. The Soviets suspected that a highly secret program involving DARPA and Skunk Works was taking place and in order to not get fooled, as with the SR-71, they implanted several resources to know the projects's nature. But the American did all the possible to conceal it (from naming it after a fighter, putting a "hundreth" number, avoiding it in FY spendings acquisition) until, as Lake accurately depicts, was discovered (or revealed) in 1989. The fact that it is named 'F' put into predicaments several analysts and later, publishers.
For example Sharpe, although translated by Macarena Rojo, carefully evades the discussion naming it "Avión monoplaza de ataque indetectable por radar"(150) [Single-seated stealth attack aircraft]. And interestingly enough Eden puts the F-117A in the "Attack aircraft" section. But Jackson names it as "Stealth Interdictor" (236).

Other accurate term can be found in F-22 Raptor America's Next Lethal War Machine by Steve Pace, exactly in "...a Lockheed Martin F-117A Stealth Fighter, the world's first operational aircraft designed to exploit low-observable or stealth technology." (8) Concerning generations Pace accurately describes: "The Lockheed Martin F-117A Nighthawk, which was a third-generation stealth aircraft, was a Skunk Works achievement just like its SR-71A Blackbird stable mate—the first-generation stealth aircraft. The Have Blue prototypes were the second-generation. The fourth-generation is the Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit, while the fifth-generation is the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22A Raptor." (51)


Of course that it has been buried, and the final word said: "Thus, after what had been a remarkably short career by modern standards, teh F-117's retirement is likely to be permanent, though it has more than earned its place in the history books as the world's first stealthy attack aircraft." (41) Even though the effort made in the article is substantial it is obvious that the legacy of the F-117A is far from being just in some Primary school book.


-Eden, Paul. Anatomía de Aviones y Helicópteros Militares Modernos. Madrid: Libsa, 2003.
-Jackson, Robert. The Enciclopedia of Military Aircraft. London: Parragon, 2003.
-Lake, Jon. "the Last Black Jet Bows Out." Combat Aircraft 9.2. April-May 2008. New York: Ian Allan Publishing, 36-41.
-Pace, Steve. F-22 Raptor America's Next Lethal War Machine. New York: McGraw and Hill, 1999.
-Sharpe, Michael. Jets de Ataque y de Defensa. Madrid: Libsa, 2002.
-Withington, Thomas. B-2A Spirit Units in Combat. Osprey Combat Aircraft 64. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.