New Video of F-117s Flying Out of Tonopah Despite Their Fates Being Sealed

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22487/new-video-of-f-117s-flying-out-of-tonopah-emerges-despite-their-fates-being-sealed

by molecule • 8 years ago

130 132 8 years ago

thedrive.com

Invictus0• 8 years ago

Why is it so difficult to put them in museums?

anonymfus• 8 years ago

May be some parts of its construction are still secret?

packetized2• 8 years ago

Well, mostly the process of stripping their low-RCS paint.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4729/the-toxic-death-pa...

LeifCarrotson2• 8 years ago

Soda blasting? That's a ubiquitous process being performed literally all the time.

Yeah, blasting, grinding, cutting, forging, and dozens of other industrial processes are nasty and messy, but that isn't the hassle. The problem here is secrecy and finding shops with a large enough blasting bay (there are thousands of auto body shops with bays for blasting full size trucks and other large vehicles - literally 15 on Google Maps within half an hour of me) and having laborers with top-secret clearance to do the work. All so 1970s tech can stay a secret.

arprocter3• 8 years ago

Interesting how that stuff was apparently known to cause health problems by the people stripping the plane, but it also apparently wasn't to blame for folks getting sick at Groom Lake

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/area-51-burning-revealed/

h4b4n3r02• 8 years ago

Doesn't seem likely that they even need to remove it. An F-117 was shot down over Yugoslavia using a modified microwave oven as a lure, and an antiquated Soviet-era anti-aircraft system. Its remains were handed over to the Russians _and_ the Chinese. TL/DR: the nations that we're worried about having the low-RCS paint already have the paint, and whatever was secret about it is secret no longer.

kens• 8 years ago

The article links to another article (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21914/the-air-force-can...) that explains the difficulty with putting the F-117 or B-2 in museums. Not only does the toxic radar-absorbent paint need to be removed, but also all the secret internal components. Plus parts of the airframe need to be modified to avoid revealing classified features, including the complex radar-evading structure underneath its smooth skin.

sgillen• 8 years ago

My guess is that they are still a useful platform to tear new radars against.

toomuchtodo• 8 years ago

That is the thesis explicitly put forth in the middle of the article.

DanCarvajal2• 8 years ago

Got to see one in person at an airshow with my dad back in the late 90s. It was in an random hanger we were checking out. The main door was opened maybe five feet with a gate in front of it and guards were supervising people looking in. We had no idea what to expect. I will never forget looking around the door and there it was, gave me chills. It was the coolest thing I have ever, or will ever see.

As is hackernews tradition, I will now recommend "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich, fantastic book.

vvanders2• 8 years ago

Yeah, they're quite something. They had one on display at one of the Miramar Airshow a few years back and it's really a unique airframe in person.

hermitdev• 8 years ago

I got to see one in the lates 90s at an air show in Montana. It was the only plane guarded (was also a B1 present) by at least 6 guards with SMGs.

Still, was amazing. I didn't get to see it fly; it didnt fly during the show, only for delivery and departure.

Also, +1 for "Skunk Works". Great read.

rootusrootus• 8 years ago

I went to an airshow in Oklahoma in 1995 or 1996 while I was still in the Air Force (it was a civilian airshow at Will Rogers airport, not a military airshow) and they had one parked out on static display. I walked under the wing, even touched the bottom of it. We also got a B-2 flyover, land, take-off, flyover, the same year. It was a great show.

DanCarvajal2• 8 years ago

It was actually the Oklahoma airshow where this happened, so odds are we could be talking about the same plane. My dad was at Tinker back then.

Seriously those were phenomenal shows back in the day.

EvanAnderson• 8 years ago

I saw one at EAA Airventure 1991. It was flanked by armed guards and, if I recall properly, portions were covered with tarps. It was quite a thing to see. The guard detial definitely made for a vivid memory.

dingaling• 8 years ago

I was at the big RIAT air show in England earlier this month and the pair of USAF F-15s had armed guards whereas the Special Operations Wing Herk, Osprey and Pave Hawk were open for public viewing. That seemed somewhat back-to-front.

sean-duffy• 8 years ago

Saw one at RIAT in the UK as recently as 2007. Again it was flanked by armed guards, and had the pilot standing in front of it sharing some stories.

HeyLaughingBoy• 8 years ago

Until reading this I had completely forgotten that back in the late 80's during an airshow at Homestead AFB, I walked into an "open" hangar (door was open just enough for me to wiggle through) and climbed up onto an F-16 while my friends were frantically trying to get me to come back out before I got my ass hauled off by the security that for some unknown reason wasn't anywhere nearby.

When I got back out my answer to their "are you nuts?" remarks was "well, they left the door open, what do they expect?"

And, yes, I'm also going to recommend Skunk Works I loved the quote from one of Kelly Johnson's engineers, "that man could see air."

toomanybeersies5• 8 years ago

A bloke I was talking to had an interesting theory as to why it was labeled the F-117, despite being a ground attack aircraft rather than a fighter, and the number being out of sequence (everyone was expecting an F-19.

Around the same time as the F-117 aircraft was being developed, Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engine was being developed, which went on to be used in the C-17. The PW2000 was designated by the USAF as the F117 engine. By labelling the F-117 aircraft with the same designation, they were able to hide the development in plain sight. If anyone heard or saw anything about the F-117, they'd assume it was related to the engine, rather than the secret stealth aircraft.

I've never read anything on the internet regarding this theory, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

DrStalker• 8 years ago

Tanks are called tanks instead of "Caterpillar Machine Gun Destroyers" so the initial design could pretend to be a project related to mobile water tanks which gave an excuse for needing lots of steel plates and engine components.

That story about the F-117/F117 is definitely plausible.

arprocter3• 8 years ago

It wouldn't be the first time - look at the U-2

(U normally indicating Utility, but it's a spy-plane)

rurounijones6• 8 years ago

I remember seeing a documentary that had an interview with someone involved in the development who said it was designated F (Fighter) instead of B (Bomber) because it handled more like a fighter than a bomber so they wanted fighter pilots rather than bomber pilots.

No fighter pilot would have applied for the B-117 so F it was.

Don't really believe it but it is a funny thought.

toomanybeersies5• 8 years ago

It is an interesting thought, with some precedence. The F-111 Aardvark and the F-105 Thunderchief were labelled as fighter aircraft, but only ever used as bombers.

DuskStar2• 8 years ago

Theory I've heard was that it was for counterintelligence purposes, but more in the designation of "Fighter" - the thought being that the Soviets wouldn't be as interested in a new black fighter project as they would have been in a similarly black bomber.

No source for this one either, though.

jonathankoren• 8 years ago

Funny, I've heard it's because attack planes are the redheaded stepchild of the air force, and so it's purely a marketing move. DOD and AF brass don't want to fund an attack plane when they can spend money and fancy fighters, and all the pilots want to fly fighter jets.

dotancohen• 8 years ago

During the 1990's it was believed [citation needed] that there was a limit on the amount of bomber aircraft the USSR and USA could field. Calling this aircraft a fighter made it not count towards that limit. I actually thought that this was the "well-known" explanation until stumbling upon the uncertainty in this thread.

a_d8• 8 years ago

One of the closest experiences to flying this thing came in 1991, in the form of "F-117A Stealth Fighter" PC game, made by MicroProse. It was a masterpiece for its time in terms of the detailed console one had to learn to fly this. If you never play the game, you should just consider flipping through the incredible manual: http://www.abandonia.com/files/extras/25631_game_extra_1.pdf

The game and the manual had a ton of jargon that one had to learn to play the game, adding to the feeling of being in a real sim :) The section on evasion and defense systems was especially charming (Basically, this game was a dream for a kid who was into PC games and flying sims). The paper version that came with the box explained tons of small details about the plane e.g. how radar absorption paint works (I learned later from a documentary that F-117 had to be repainted after every mission, making maintenance very expensive).

Two highlights of the gameplay were: a) landing on an aircraft carrier and b) learning capabilities of different types of missiles and how to deploy them (i.e. one was forced to read the manual!).

When I hear about F-117, I can't help remember this hidden-gem PC game.

Relevant links:

1) Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/328920/F117A_Nighthawk_St...

2) Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117A_Nighthawk_Stealth_Fight...

acranox• 8 years ago

There was a similar game with the F/A-18. It had a 250 page manual. I read that whole thing. It was probably the most I read when I was 14.

rurounijones6• 8 years ago

If you still interested in that kind of thing. Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) recently released the F/A-18C Hornet: https://www.airdailyx.net/article/f-a-18c-hornet-released-fo...

Here is a video of a tutorial on CASE 1 carrier landings in the Hornet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuigBLhtAH8

Some of the DCS planes are study sim level (The A-10C Warhog, The KA-50 BlackShark, Mirage 2000, Viggten etc.) and the Hornet is going to join them (It is currently in beta and not complete).

"Study Sim" here means that you could learn the game using the real life documentation for the real aircraft. (Although they do have game specific guides).

A cheap'ish HOTAS (EDIT: See llimllib's comment below, the last link has examples. A Thrustmaster T-16000M is about 100 bucks ) is all you need harware wise.

a_d8• 8 years ago

It was probably the most I read when I was 14

True for me too. I remember that game. Reading the manuals for all the Jane's and Microprose's games, and taking them very seriously, was definitely a childhood highlight.

Btw, I found that GoG has F-117A and the reviews are awesome. I hope these are genuine reviews because they definitely echo my experience :-) Here is the link: https://www.gog.com/game/f117a_nighthawk_stealth_fighter_20

"...it will keep you on the edge of the seat.."

"This game is in the top three of all PC games I have ever played."

Definitely echoes my colored-by-nostalgia-memories :)

Edit: I have a question — what is the best way to play this game on a MacBook? (Without installing windows or Linux)

LaMarseillaise• 8 years ago

Is this it?

http://retrogamer.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FA-18_Korea...

beeskneecaps• 8 years ago

Thank you for this nostalgic throwback. I loved this game so much, I wrote a book based on it in second grade, illustrating one of the missions lol.

sehugg• 8 years ago

I'll always remember it as F-19 Stealth Fighter :) (Microprose issued a patch shortly after release to correct the name, 3D model, and a "realistic" mode to conform to actual payload specs)

sandworm1012• 8 years ago

F19 was the first version. I still have the box somewhere. The f117 verson came out a year later. There was more to it, new areas, new art and new game concepts.

Both games were noted for the quality of the AI, ground and air units working together.

roryisok3• 8 years ago

Fighter numbers always confuse the hell out of me. Where did they pull 117 from? There's no F-116.

linkmotif• 8 years ago

Wow a 69 page manual for playing a game. So cool. Thanks for sharing. I couldn’t have played this in 2nd grade. Big ups to you!

a_d8• 8 years ago

The original manual was about 200 pages! I can’t find it anywhere online. It goes into tons of other things — like the construction of this plane and dogfighting tactics (even though this plane isn’t designed for it) :)

wyldfire• 8 years ago

I remember when I got Falcon 3.0. The manual was 250+ pages [1]. Unfortunately for me, my 16MHz 386 just couldn't get the job done. I thought it might be playable with cranked-down details, but it really wasn't. So the manual stoked my imagination for an incredible flight sim on a capable computer.

[1] http://lucasabandonware.free.fr/manuels/Falcon%203.0.PDF

kasey_junk• 8 years ago

This was far & away one of my most cherished games.

Another aspect you didn’t mention was the cardboard keyboard overlay because the game used basically every key for something.

I wonder if muscle memory would kick in for me on this all these years later.

a_d8• 8 years ago

This was far & away one of my most cherished games.

Hmmm...going by this thread, I am really surprised that there are so many of us who like this game. This is quite cool actually! :)

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

Another aspect you didn’t mention was the cardboard keyboard overlay because the game used basically every key for something.

That was fairly common with sims from the mid-1980s into the 2000s.

jasonkester• 8 years ago

Those old flying games had some serious manuals. I remember getting my copy of Flight Simulator for the C64 at the same time I was learning to fly actual planes. The game manuals (plural) were actually thicker than the training materials for my Private Pilot's License.

cyberjunkie• 8 years ago

And that's where I first heard of the city, Tripoli. It sounded so cool.

That nasal whistle playing endlessly from the PC speaker though was something!

acjohnson55• 8 years ago

I used to play Gunship 2000 as a kid, also by MicroProse. It was probably equally as detailed.

partiallypro• 8 years ago

I used to play Jane's USAF all the time. Jane's was seemingly the industry standard for accuracy. It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore. Ace Combat was good in the 90s/early 2000s, then it transformed into some weird anime thing later on with a story line when I really just wanted to be Maverick. Maybe the new Top Gun movie coming out will renew interest.

senozhatsky2• 8 years ago

It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore

LockOn [0] (formerly known as Flanker, IIRC) and DCS World (never played that one) look quite cool.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_On:_Modern_Air_Combat

[1] https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

-ss

rurounijones6• 8 years ago

It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore

See my comments elsewhere about DCS World. It is modern air combat simulator and is incredibly detailed.

There is also Falcon BMS which is also extremely detailed.

For WWII look at IL-2 series.

Honestly. Right now we have 3 amazing combat simulators that blow everything in the past out of the water.

"This is why we fly" is a good video for DCS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn6kyNx7kG8

http://reddit.com/r/hoggit is a subreddit dedicated to the above sims (with a focus on DCS)

PhasmaFelis5• 8 years ago

It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore.

There's several. The problem is that, as hardware got better and the simulations grew ever more accurate, they become too complex for anyone but the most die-hard aviation fans to actually enjoy.

TeMPOraL2• 8 years ago

Oh, MicroProse. They did make a lot of good games, even if often underappreciated. I have strong feelings of nostalgia to some of the titles of theirs, that I used to play as a kid. In fact, I recently wasted couple of hours trying to get one of the old games (Star Trek: Generations) to run - and in the process I learned that it's quite hard to emulate a Windows 95 machine these days.

Also, manuals in XX century were great. They were often decent books by themselves, full of information and lore. Somehow, this concept was abandoned around 2000 +/- couple years (StarCraft, from 1998, originally had a small-book-sized manual with details and stories; that's the last one of this kind that I remember.).

a_d8• 8 years ago

Also, manuals in XX century were great. They were often decent books by themselves, full of information and lore. Somehow, this concept was abandoned around 2000 +/- couple years

Very interesting point. I wonder why did this happen? I believe the manuals/books with backstory/guides that came with the box, added to the engagement with the game. Why did they go away? Seems like a needless regression :)

Sometimes I lament that the entire character of PC games changed as well during the same timeframe, as they become more console-ish/FPS-style, rather than adventure/puzzle/strategy/sim style. But then I remember that probably every generation romanticizes the good old days. Technology advancement explains the shift to FPS (better game engines, graphics cards, leading to more immersive worlds and movie-like narratives + multiplayer is exciting), but doesn’t explain the death of the game “manual/novel/book” :)

nicolapcweek94• 8 years ago

Might be a Blizzard thing, I remember the original WoW box (the 5 CDs version) came with a small-book sized manual (200 pages or so, IIRC) with lore and explanations for the various classes, races, skills.

The battle chests (base game + expansion pack) also came with a detailed guide to all the new content, with leveling guides for the new areas, raid guides for the new bosses etc - though I don't think those were made by Blizzard, they just bundled them in the box.

erickhill• 8 years ago

It was super sweet on the Amiga.

tuomosipola• 8 years ago

I recommend the Designer Notes podcast episode [1] where Sid Meier (yes, that Sid Meier) explains how this game was designed. And if you are interested, listen all of the four episodes where he is interviewed.

[1] https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-...

a_d8• 8 years ago

Wow. Had no idea that Sid Meier was connected to this game. His Railroad Tycoon (esp RT2) is one of the greatest "business simulations" of all time!

NeedMoreTea2• 8 years ago

landing on an aircraft carrier

Sometime in the early 00's I got to see an aircraft carrier from a light aircraft, at about a circuit height and distance. I never, ever, want to try landing on a real carrier. They're so tiny!

toomanybeersies5• 8 years ago

The video of a Hercules landing and taking off on the USS Forrestal without no arrestor or catapult might interest you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

arianvanp• 8 years ago

If you're still really into this stuff. And want to relive the feeling of this module or Jane's F-18, another great simulator from the 90s. Definitely check out Digital Combat Simulator and it's awesome high fidelity modules. Expect 600 page flight manuals to dig through. It's a rush!

golergka• 8 years ago

I have long had it in my Steam library from some sale, and your comment finally pushed me to install it. Thanks! The manual is a wonderful read indeed - the introduction reads like a popular science artilce that is written better than most that get posted to HN front page.

netsharc• 8 years ago

a) landing on an aircraft carrier Interestingly, the real life F117 can't land on aircraft carriers, only the game version could. And in the game you can also shoot at air targets and even have machine guns for dog fights, in real life it's just a plane that bombs targets on the ground.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-navys-secret-...

hudibras• 8 years ago

The F-19 air-to-air missions were some of the most intense gameplay I've ever experienced. You had to fly deep into Soviet territory and kick off the war by shooting down an airborne command plane or an airborne early warning plane, and then make it out alive as World War 3 literally started around you.

rjsw• 8 years ago

The article in your link ignores the A-12 project [1] that had been going on during the timeframe described.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger...

zackola• 8 years ago

This was a truly great game. Thanks for these links. Many hours were spent flipping switches and not really understanding how to fly this thing but it was all so cool anyway.

engi_nerd3• 8 years ago

Another big highlight of the game was their (for the time and platform) pretty good RCS modeling of ownship against various threats. Your movements against the threat would change the threat's ability to see you. Opening weapons bay doors caused your RCS to spike.

tootie• 8 years ago

In 1991 I was immersed in Falcon 3.0. The incredibly vivid F-16 flight simulator. It was very similar. You really needed to learn aviation jargon, weapons and countermeasures capabilities and mission tactics.

greedo4• 8 years ago

I always looked forward to a future where Falcon 4.0's offspring were played on superfast PCs with incredible graphics. I was really annoyed when that genre of flight sims basically died off. The last I played was EF2000.

basementcat• 8 years ago

If anyone is interested, F-117's are on display at Blackbird Park at Palmdale, CA, Nellis Air Force Base north of Las Vegas, Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, and Nikola Tesla Airport in Belgrade, Serbia (only portions of aircraft).

arprocter3• 8 years ago

(only portions of aircraft)

The joke being that it was shot down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...

walrus01• 8 years ago

For those who haven't heard of them before, people might find the Janet flights interesting:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=jan...

DoD commuter flights between Las Vegas and Groom Lake.

raverbashing• 8 years ago

So, what's with the retirement of proven older aircraft in spite of the F35?

sgt101• 8 years ago

Cost, two types of aircraft are much harder to keep in the air than lots of one. Also the f117s have many hours on them.

mannykannot• 8 years ago

I would guess that anti-stealth technology has also developed since it first flew. I wonder if the recovery of the wreckage of the F117 shot down over Bosnia can be assumed to have revealed ways to counter its technology?

PhasmaFelis5• 8 years ago

Fun fact: The F-117 looks like a low-poly model on an underpowered computer because that's exactly what it is. Optimizing the shape to minimize radar cross-section took a whole lot of math, and it got too complex for '70s-era supercomputers unless you stuck with flat surfaces.

The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber was curvier because they had better computers by then.

mobilemidget• 8 years ago

geoblocked here :( getting redirected to https://geoscripts.meredith.services/public/html/no-access.h...

gchokov• 8 years ago

The web page you were trying to visit is not accessible in your country. What a shame. I live in Bulgaria, Europe.

icebraining• 8 years ago

That's curious, loads fine in my EU country, there's only a GDPR interstitial.

tim333• 8 years ago

hide.me free vpn is quite good for us European underclassers

Atreus• 8 years ago

The Chinese got something amazing out of the junk they bought from the F-117 shot down in Bosnia. This has to be something at least a little like when the U2 went down in USSR. Whatever they got, and reverse engineered, and are putting into their F-35 knock-offs, it has "us" worried, and we have to have tried-and-true countermeasures in place for when China uses those against our assets, or our allies in the next few years.

Politics and "sealed fates" are strange bedfellows.

steven2012• 8 years ago

Have these planes ever been used in real combat?

greedo4• 8 years ago

Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Panama IIRC.

mr_overalls• 8 years ago

As a child of the 80s and 90s, I sort of miss the public unveiling of secret aircraft. It seems like there hasn't been anything matching the mystery of the B-2 or F-117 in a long time.

stillsut• 8 years ago

Yeah today it's PRISM and Stuxnet.

But less sarcastically, there was that stealth helicopter destroyed during the Bin Laden raid, but I haven't seen much talk about it since.

New Video of F-117s Flying Out of Tonopah Despite Their Fates Being Sealed

Related Stories