LRS-B thoughts

a reply to: Shadowhawk

There have been radio communications overheard of the F-117 talking to a mysterious "companion" aircraft during operations in Iraq, giving coordinates for targets.

Yes, the F-117 did have a mysterious "companion" aircraft, perhaps not during all operations, but it did on some missions.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Shadowhawk

There have been radio communications overheard of the F-117 talking to a mysterious "companion" aircraft during operations in Iraq, giving coordinates for targets.

Yes, the F-117 did have a mysterious "companion" aircraft, perhaps not during all operations, but it did on some missions.

It was only "mysterious" to those that didn't know what an F-16 was.

a reply to: Psynic

No the whole point of a f117 is to hit targets early that the "f16's" can't get near or hit. Hows a f16 going to help a plane thats trying to be stealthy? Thats like a ninja deep in a raid on some shoguns castle and he decides to bring along a flashlight so that he can navigate the angry guard infested grounds easier. Kinda would draw attention to ones self don't you think.

The f117 doesn't have target designating radar. cause it would give it away too easily. So it has a companion go in ahead of it jamming radar, confusing missile batteries with EW, opening the back door for the f117 to come in and play. paint the targets for the f17 since the f117 can't do it well by it's self. let the f117 do a fly through dropping it's ordinance as quickly as it can and scooting out of the area as quickly as possible. The whole point is to keep the f117's alive by lessening their exposure not doubling up on their problems by using an f16.

An F16 wouldn't really work considering it would defeat the whole purpose of a stealth tactical bomber.

a reply to: BASSPLYR


There ya go, inventing another plane stealthier than a stealth bomber, even WITH it's target acquisition radar turned on.

Or is there an even stealthier plane still, that goes in ahead of the stealthier than the stealth bomber plane and "clears a path to the target"?

Where does this nonsense end?

So there was an AWACS in range that communicated with the 117s, that's hardly "mysterious".

'Course this IS 'ATS'.

There were several targeting and designator pods available for external hard point mounting, at the time of desert storm. Feasible, but worthless if the mating airframe didn't have EW capabilities, and was meant to fly ahead of stealth bombers such as the F-117's.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-117A was designed to operate alone.

Was it? It has a single pilot. Can the pilot identify, locate and lase targets, as well as fly in contested airspace and avoid detection?

F-15E, F-14D, F-111 and A-6 have a pilot and a weapons officer for this similar mission.

It seems most likely that the companion aircraft would be a variant of the F-117A. Maybe a two-seater with bomb payload replaced with ECM and target designators. Maybe one of these could serve as designator for multiple strike bombers?

Perhaps the split this way actually is a cheaper way to do the mission instead of having everything be a larger and expensive double-crew craft with bomb payload and target designation in one aircraft like the classic examples.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-117A was designed to operate alone. Requiring a companion aircraft would have added vast layers of unnecessary complexity, operational risk, and unwanted expense. Alone, the F-117A was a classic Skunkworks project: cutting edge for the time, yet relatively simple; effective as designed; and a bargain at $46 million per unit. Deploying the airplane into combat with a companion would have doubled the number of targets (however stealthy) being exposed to hostile airspace. It was little short of a miracle that all of the Nighthawks came through unscathed during Desert Storm. It seems to me that adding a companion would have also violated the Skunkworks philosophy of keeping things as simple as possible and minimizing program costs.

If a companion fleet had been built, how would we have no evidence of it to this day? It would have required its own production line, basing, logistic support, and flight crews. Thus far, there is nothing to support any of this. There is no documentation, no testimony from anyone involved with such a program, no hardware, and I have yet to hear any convincing sighting reports. Has anyone tried to find a money trail (funding)?

Probably not going to be any "testimony" either. My Dad helped build them. Yet, years later when I showed him a photo of the F-117 on the cover of a magazine and asked, "What about it Pop?" He simply smiled and said, "Nice airplane."

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-117A was designed to operate alone.

Was it? It has a single pilot. Can the pilot identify, locate and lase targets, as well as fly in contested airspace and avoid detection?

F-15E, F-14D, F-111 and A-6 have a pilot and a weapons officer for this similar mission.

It seems most likely that the companion aircraft would be a variant of the F-117A. Maybe a two-seater with bomb payload replaced with ECM and target designators. Maybe one of these could serve as designator for multiple strike bombers?

Perhaps the split this way actually is a cheaper way to do the mission instead of having everything be a larger and expensive double-crew craft with bomb payload and target designation in one aircraft like the classic examples.

Sure why do with one aircraft what you can do with two?

How the heck did ya get 9361 karma points anyways?

I don't even care about airplanes. I want whats next. I'm sure there is a pipeline crankin em out somewhere.

a reply to: weavty1

The problem with hard point mounting is that it reduces the stealthiness. That was one of the big things with the F-117, and any stealth. Stick external stores, or even open the doors on them, and your RCS becomes as big as anything out there.

For now there is something "bizare" this last months appear two different sighting with 2 different shape, what is it ???
Since the start the LRS-B program is designed like a family of system and not a lone wolf so thinking about it. In the web a lot of article spoke about "enablers" what are the enablers ? May be the RQ-180 (nobody know what realy it is) will help the futur bomber ?

originally posted by: Psynic
Sure why do with one aircraft what you can do with two?

How the heck did ya get 9361 karma points anyways?

[snip]

Lets have a wee little wander down through history then shall we?

QUARTZ.

Tier 3+

Funny little story behind it.

It made the B-2B look small change. Unmanned, technologically the most advanced airframe ever put into the skies even as a demonstrator.

Colour changing eyes in the skies for the B-2B. Hunting and sending target data to the B-2B fleet to strike mobile ICBMs, VLO that made the B-2B look like a flying barn door, and was designed to stay in orbit over the most heavily defended airspace there has ever been in history.

They canned it, the USAF got 20 B-2Bs.

Linked? they say not, but what good is a mobile ICBM strike aircraft if its got no eyes on?

Oh, and as a side note, the partner aircraft was often at RAF ##### ######

I'll leave you to do the digging. (hint - the now deceased Graham Birdsall had a pair of photosof it and the MoD slapped him down like a tonne of bricks - from from RAF ##### ####### and one from hill walkers in the Pennines)

originally posted by: Astr0
Oh, and as a side note, the partner aircraft was often at RAF ##### ######

Machrihanish

I would imagine a UAV with the 'pilot' sitting comfy in the bomber itself. No need for external communications, right next to the mission commander etc etc.

You would need one (plus a spare?) per mission as opposed to one per bomber.

Just my thoughts.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
I would imagine a UAV with the 'pilot' sitting comfy in the bomber itself. No need for external communications, right next to the mission commander etc etc.

You would need one (plus a spare?) per mission as opposed to one per bomber.

Just my thoughts.

P

My thoughts exactly. A bomber with several drone escorts flying air cover as well as targeting missions in support of the mother ship..

a reply to: Zaphod58
As a response to the original post (I'm a new / old member) I would think that the sister to the F-117 (if it existed) is certainly not in use today. Times have changed and so have technologies. The stealth tech in the 117 is ancient and so too would be the stealth tech in it's alleged sister craft, the TR-3 Black Manta - thus making it unfit to support current black aircraft.
I personally doubt that any sister craft is required to accompany an advanced tech, long range strike system in today's aerospace warfare environment.

a reply to: coldstar

I've been told, by a couple of sources, that as of January this year it was still flying. One of the things with stealth is that the skin is frequently changed, which changes the RAM coating. By the time it was retired, the F-117 skin was completely different than when it first flew, and much more effective. The same would be the case here as well.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes but the F-117 was retired due to its inability to be refined beyond a certain point. Surely the TR-3 would too since it supposedly had a similarly archaic airframe; albeit not a faceted design like the Nighthawk.

a reply to: coldstar

The F-117 was retired for several reasons, not least of which was the inability to be taken beyond a certain point. Among other things, it was becoming too expensive to maintain, with the skin changes required, as well as other aircraft coming on the board that could do the same mission, and be more flexible. There were also other weapons coming online that could do the job, such as JASSM. Interestingly there are still several F-117s flying, or were as late as last year.

They haven't quite reached the point of not being able to improve it, but they're getting pretty close. That's why I was wondering if there was something else out there. Sooner or later they ARE going to hit that wall, where they just can't improve it anymore, and they're going to be forced to find another way to do the mission.

Oh, and it's definitely not the TR-3.

My thoughts on force multiplyers go something like the Apache Longbow concept - one Apache Longbow could pop up and lase however many targets and track them, proiritise them and do all that stuff it does, the numerous Apaches could pop up and fire their weapons based on the one Longbows target data.

Take that to another level, one Apache Longbow lases 40 MBTs, three bomb trucks (drones or UAVs) carrying 20 Brimstones or Hellfires fly in and kill all 40 targets.

Take that to another level, one ultra stealth manned platfrom can loiter and designate numerous targets in a dynamic environment with several persons on board and a fleet of Unmanned Stealthy bomb trucks fly over and rain hell.

You only risk the one aircraft with men onboard which has different most advanced charachteristics of stealth, EW etc and is super expensive so it can remain on station and invisible whereas your bomb trucks only have receiving sensors - 1 way stealth (forward) and some other stuff but thay can be more mass produced.