hlg6016
A/C Wings Here
It was good for the missions it flew I'll give it that, But useless for ground supportIt was a bit more than a test bed. Hashtag GulfWar1991.
Also, hash tags are stupid.
Looking at this from a Marine's perspective.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-117 Retired??
- Thread starter BrandonJ1780
- Start date
Looking at this from a Marine's perspective.
That was not its purpose.
Just because you happen to need a hammer, doesn’t make the saw worthless.
Ugh. Go eat some crayons and sing some cadence. Even the 6 functions of Marine Aviation recognize that there is more to military aviation than assault support and CAS.
hlg6016
A/C Wings Here
We stuck to library paste and paint chips in my day, As I stated before at my level if could not fly off a boat and drop some bombs or put some warheads on foreheads it was not going to do me much good, It had a lousy bomb load as it was. It was how ever a pioneer for the technology that todays aircraft have. It was a start.
Based on what, exactly? This aircraft probably saved more American Aviators lives than any other platform, by taking out strategic infrastructure and Iraqi air defense nodes the night before the air war actually kicked off. For that, I'd say it had an ideal bomb load.
Two of these seems pretty useful. The F-117 is an impressive platform for a whole variety of reasons that go beyond its load out. Groundbreaking plane.
Really? While I clearly don’t have access to any classified stuff the report attached below gives the aircraft a grade somewhere along the line of a “C +” for its ODS work. Maybe the report was written by F-16 guys!
Possible correction to my earlier post…I am thinking ODS and perhaps @Brett327 is talking about OIF. The report I mention is about ODS, 1991.
While the GAO often does good work their military-related reports are often a bit 'off', evaluating things in a way that does not into account the reality of military operations that would be obvious to experienced military professionals.
No argument here, but that is true of almost any departmental study. Most internal defense reports are off the “reality” mark simply because lots of egos and budget issues are on the line. With that in mind I’d rate one agency as good as any other on those terms and you really have to read multiple reports to find what you are looking for.
GAO in particular just isn't very savvy when it comes to military stuff and their reports on the military often show it, 'grade' of C+ for their work in Desert Storm makes that evident to me.
Yes, absolutely.
My apologies, they don’t actually use that term, I was just extrapolating. Going from memory they say 8 of the 10 air defense targets they were assigned remained operational after the strikes and their overall success rate was something like 60%. As I said, no argument here as I simply don’t have access to anything beyond various official reports available to any person who bothers to look.
