F-117 stealth fighters to make final flight no one will know about

Air Force buffs, prepare to salute a true American hero as it makes it way into the annals of military history: the F-117 stealth fighter. The planes -- one of the most enigmatic members of the military's arsenal -- will be making their final trip on April 21st from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico to Tonopah Test Range Airfield in Nevada, the home of their first flight. The aircraft is being replaced by a newer model, the F-22 Raptor, and the government says it has no plans to bring the radar-dodging planes out of retirement. In all, there have only been 59 F-117s that have rolled off the assembly line, 37 of which have already been taken out of the skies, and another seven which have crashed. We'll miss you, F-117, and all the totally awesome, completely secret stuff you did.

[mattwier @ Mar 11th 2008 10:17PM]

Sad to see such a cool plane go, luckily they're keeping them in mothballs so they can bring them back any time they might need!

[treats! @ Mar 11th 2008 11:55PM]

The funny thing is only a handfull of countries even have a plane close to being as advanced as the F-117 and we are retiring it. Military-industrial complex ftw.

[pundit @ Mar 12th 2008 8:06AM]

Although it's a shame to see the high-tech go, you should inform yourself on the subject of the CF-105 Avro Arrow. It can do essentially everything that the F-22 can, but it's a little more visible on radar and ran 54 year old technology.

Curse you Diefenbaker! Your only big mistake! (If we add the purchase of Bomarc missiles and Voodoos into the same group, since they're an after effect)

[Dan S. @ Mar 12th 2008 10:23AM]

Despite the official line from the Air Force, the first flights (and the entire Full-Scale Development program) took place at the facility at Groom Lake, not Tonopah Test Range. From 1974 to 1984, all XST, Have Blue and Senior Trend program operations occurred at the classified AFFTC Detachment at Groom Lake/Area 51, only moving to Tonopah once the type achieved operational capability in 1984.

[maveric101 @ Mar 12th 2008 8:53PM]

pundit:
are you serious? i just looked up the CF-105 Avro Arrow on wikipedia; that thing couldn't touch an F-15 eagle, let alone an F-22 Raptor. Actually, pretty much /nothing/ can touch an F-22 (one F-22 beat 5 F-15s in a practice flight before it was even spotted).

maybe the Arrow is good for Canadian tech...

[TedB @ Mar 11th 2008 10:18PM]

One of the most recognizable airplanes ever, tis a shame you have to go F-117.

[RyanTV @ Mar 11th 2008 11:29PM]

Agreed - I remember seeing these planes when I was a kid and being totally excited about them. Even 20 years later this plane is bad ass.

[Eric @ Mar 12th 2008 1:01AM]

Wasn't able to find an actual copy, but the Microprose game Night Hawk: F-117A Stealth Fighter was quite fun. I'm sure it's on an abandonware site somewhere.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/night-hawk-f-117a-stealth-fighter-20

[Glancing Aft @ Mar 12th 2008 10:19AM]

@ Eric, I loved that game as a kid! I always had trouble landing with it though!

[mike @ Mar 11th 2008 10:19PM]

What a waste of money.

[Juaquin @ Mar 11th 2008 10:34PM]

Well we can't really tell seeing as how we don't even know what they did.

[Prey521 @ Mar 11th 2008 11:09PM]

You're an idiot, aren't you, admit it.

[Patrick @ Mar 11th 2008 11:11PM]

and you base this on.....

[h.solo @ Mar 11th 2008 11:19PM]

What a frigging douche

[matt @ Mar 11th 2008 11:43PM]

Considering it's 25+ year old technology and not even able to break the sound barrier, it's about time for retirement.

[Sean O @ Mar 12th 2008 12:09AM]

Hey Matt. Are you for real? What are the Iranians rollin in these days? Somehow I doubt it's any match for the F-117.

[charles.a.ray @ Mar 12th 2008 1:24AM]

I don't know what kind of crack you guys are smoking, but yes, this thing is an incredible waste of money; that's part of the reason why they are retiring it. It is simply incredibly expensive to maintain and there is really no use for it. Note that it is called a stealth FIGHTER even though it is not nearly fast or agile enough to operate in the fighter role, nor is it large enough to function as a primary bomber, nor is it resilient enough to operate as a ground attack aircraft. It just has no function. The only time when this plane is useful is when we do not have air superiority and need to bomb targets quietly. For that role we have the B2, which is much more advanced and much easier to maintain. Then again, we very rarely fight any wars in which we do not have air superiority, which is why our primary bomber (B-52) is over 50 years old.

Seriously, you guys are just so clueless it's ridiculous. "We don't know what they are doing." Yes we do: they do nothing because they are too expensive and near-useless.

[Ayman @ Mar 12th 2008 3:02AM]

first of all it is taxpayers money... the good thing about the stealth "fighter" is that it open new possibilities to everyone. i remeber when i was a kid i used to think that all this sleek designs was to hid its massive weapons...( i was disappointed)
anyways the following message is to nih only... YOU FU&*EN IGNORANT RACEST BA$TARD

[Sean O @ Mar 12th 2008 3:11AM]

Only a complete tool thinks Iranians are Arab.

[Wwhat @ Mar 12th 2008 6:34AM]

iranians used to have the latest american fighters, until they got in that tiff with america, then they had the latest french fighters, but I'm not sure what they currently have, but they have oil so they have dough.. you do the math.
A quick google says that it's a bit unclear what they have now, but there are reports they got a lot of chinese made migs and bought a lot of russian made fighters, but they did use to have one hell of an impressive airforce it seems.

[Deputy Doffoos @ Mar 12th 2008 3:53PM]

Congrats to "nih" for the dumbest post of the day award!

[mushrooshi @ Mar 11th 2008 10:20PM]

Sleep tight, mighty ninja.

[Frankenstein Black @ Mar 11th 2008 11:16PM]

a.k.a. The Black Ghosts...

Wonder what the nick name is for the Aurora?

[YoJIMbo @ Mar 12th 2008 1:40AM]

@ Frank

The White She-Bitch?

[Rususeruru @ Mar 12th 2008 5:31AM]

@Frank: Wasn't the F-117 also known as the Woblin Goblin?

I imagine the F-22 handles considerably better having a more aerodynamic design.

[Frankenstein Black @ Mar 12th 2008 9:41AM]

Oh, and lets not forget "Have Blue"! The mother that bore these stealthy children...

[Sporkinum @ Mar 12th 2008 3:21PM]

That's Wobbly Goblin..
Photos from the ceremony.. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/photos/
article and photo of tacit blue
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=353

[Isaac @ Mar 11th 2008 10:21PM]

These are the guys who bomb the monster in cloverfield if memory serves.

[ECG @ Mar 11th 2008 10:29PM]

That would be the B-2 Spirit Bomber.

[michas_pi @ Mar 12th 2008 3:42AM]

Apparently, memory has failed to serve today.

[ericisshort @ Mar 12th 2008 10:31AM]

"It's a lion!"

[derX @ Mar 11th 2008 10:21PM]

This just makes me wonder what the F-22 Raptor looks like. If the F-177 looked that awesome, just imagine what the Raptor must look like. I mean, when has the next iteration of a product not looked better than the previous one?

*coughs*Sony Mylo2, 3G nano*cough

Regardless. *solemnly salutes planes*

[Asa79 @ Mar 11th 2008 10:24PM]

F22 Raptor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyKYw_p1Hrc

[Rafer @ Mar 11th 2008 10:24PM]

The raptor looks much less batman then this.

[oliveros123 @ Mar 11th 2008 10:25PM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

Here it is. its pretty cool, but more than that, its much more capable than the f117. Amazing machine.

[linumax @ Mar 11th 2008 10:26PM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

[alex @ Mar 11th 2008 10:28PM]

You might want to Google F-22 its never been a secret what it looks like .... its been public since 1991! and there are over 100 in service.

[derX @ Mar 11th 2008 10:31PM]

Wow, I am having one of those weird gadget nerd moments produced by wanting to choose a better looking gadget (F-117) over the better featured but less eye friendly gadget (F-22).

[Juaquin @ Mar 11th 2008 10:38PM]

Dude...you don't know what an F22 looks like? I would ask if you live under a rock, but you seem to be on the internet fairly often, reading Engadget and all. I'm thoroughly confused.

[Prey521 @ Mar 11th 2008 11:10PM]

What hole have you been living under that you don't know what an F-22 Raptor looks like! You're no nerd!!!!!! For shame....for shame!

[Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:42AM]

Can the f22 do stealth as well as the f117 though? I didn't think it could.

[Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:42AM]

@ Me. Lawl, I looked it up. I'm special. No need to answer my question.

[Miikun @ Mar 12th 2008 1:28AM]

Too bad they don't sell them to civvies, if I were Bill Gates, that would be perfect vehicle to sneak into my toy collection, next to the Porsche 959. Too bad it costs more than an entire fleet of ferraris to service between flights XD. Mig collections now belong on the uncool wall.

[YoJIMbo @ Mar 12th 2008 1:43AM]

They have one at Smithsonian Air and Space at Dulles Airport:

Here is a shot I took:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/girardi/924189970/in/set-72157601048878522/

[CL @ Mar 12th 2008 2:23AM]

That's one of the prototypes at the Smithsonian (notice the pitot tube on the nose), the production examples got slightly different wing shape and a tail section.

[Bryn @ Mar 12th 2008 7:11AM]

The reason the F-117A looks like it does is because the computers of the mid to late 70s were not up to the task of simulating the complex shape that would have been needed to scatter radar well, fly well, and look conventional in design; so they chose one of those, scatter radar. The F-117A can only fly because of onboard computer systems constantly correcting its inherent instability; current US military aircraft design doctrine states this is a desirable goal, but I suspect that this is a rationalisation of the facts after they threw enough technology the instability problem with the F-117A design.

[Wwhat @ Mar 12th 2008 6:39AM]

Also the US is now into bravely bombing people with no defences and no radar and no airforce, so that makes stealth a little pointless.

[Wwhat @ Mar 12th 2008 6:40AM]

Correction: Make that 'the west', silly to just pick on the US, excuse me.

[BluesK1d @ Mar 12th 2008 9:30AM]

@ Wwhat

Yeah maybe we should level the playing field and make sure everything is fair first. That would make perfect sense. Why would we want to prevent allied casualties with technological advantage? Thats just silly!

[Jet guy @ Mar 18th 2008 1:18PM]

@Bryn,

I just completed my doctorate in Aerospace Engineering. The F-117A as well as other modern fighters all have inherent aerodynamic instabilities by design because this allows them to be more maneuverable. This is better than, say, air-to-air combat with a very stable Boeing 777. The aerodynamic instability has very little to do with the multifaceted appearance of the F-117A.