RAF offered F117 by Reagan? [Archive]

Background Noise

3rd Jan 2017, 09:11

I'm not sure it couldn't have been operated by someone other than the USAF, but I agree that basing it over here would have been difficult. We were involved in it, with at least 2 test flights and a brit exchange pilot, from the early days. My worry is that if we had procured it we would have inevitably messed it up - a paragraph in that article sums it up:

Believed to be dubbed F-117C, the British variant, was planned to be equipped with “B-2 type intakes, a F-22 type clear-view canopy, British avionics, F414 or EJ200 engines, plus a number of BAE structural components or sub-assemblies.”

Pegasus107

3rd Jan 2017, 09:21

Good job we didn't take up the offer, a 'one-trick pony' in my opinion. Might have done the job in GW1/GW2 and Balkan conflict, but would have ended up being a millstone around the taxpayers neck.

Like most things that come from that side of the pond, USDoD would put down limitations on what we could have, then BAe would have had their say.

Wee Weasley Welshman

3rd Jan 2017, 12:32

The RAF might have gotten a few F-117s, but if we didn't have the jammer support and probably wouldn't have had Elvira (and the trained operators) we'd have been left with a small force of aircraft with very limited payload. The main selling point (low observability) was compromised by lack of support. Good for headlines, poor for utility.

A key issue with the F-117 was that it needed a great deal of mission planning and routing (including the "Elvira" emitter database) and heavy support including standoff jammers like the EA-6B or EF-111 to be effective. With those, as seen in the Gulf in 1991, it worked well: without them fully deployed, rather less so (Serbia).

WWW

sandiego89

3rd Jan 2017, 13:22

On counterpoint, the 117 could have offered some utility to the RAF despite all the above.
- Yes it was perhaps a one trick pony, but it was a pretty good trick. A small element of "Silver Bullet" aircraft can prove handy in the first few days of a conflict.
- It would have given the UK access to stealth some 30 years before the UK fields a stealth aircraft. Perhaps this could have been useful for UK doctrine and aircraft development- maybe influenced the next generation of aircraft programs.
- Some comments about basing in the UK giving away the secret perhaps don't really matter. The offer was made in 1986. If the UK had taken up the offer it would have taken several years to build up the capacity (likely with a UK element in Nevada). So perhaps IOC a few years later- all by the time the 117 was first officially acknowledged in the US in 1988. There are quite a few RAF bases off the beaten path...a few have even been known to operate certain unmentioned aircraft..... Sure spotters would have seen them, but again we would be around the 1988-1990 time frame when the cat was already out of the bag.
- Much is made about the loss in Serbia, but no one ever said the aircraft was invisible. The USAF used poor tactics: underestimated the AA defenses, used predictable flights paths and unencrypted radio traffic during the raid, and IIRC the aircraft overflew the same target several times. Definite no no's.
- "might have done a good job in GW1/GW2 and Balkans, but...." That is why you buy warplanes. Yes it might have been expensive, but war is expensive. 6 Tornados were lost in combat in GW1. I believe all were lost on airfield attacks using non-precision weapons, all at night I believe, ~4 at low level. What is a better tactic? Penetrating at low level with dumb bombs, or dropping a precision weapon onto a shelter from a stealth fighter at a much safer altitude? The 117 excelled at these night precision strikes. What was the "cost" of the lost aircraft and brave crews?
- On support aircraft- granted support helped, but the 117 still had some utility by itself.
- The aircraft could self-designate. The UK used buddy designation for years which is less efficient.
- Now taking a perfectly good aircraft, having BAE rip everything out a put in UK engines and avionics- I believe we have been down that road before.

Just my thoughts. Maybe not such a terrible idea....

melmothtw

3rd Jan 2017, 13:31

Good job we didn't take up the offer, a 'one-trick pony' in my opinion.

With the exception of the F-4, I'm hard-pressed to name one truly multirole aircraft (not just in name) that the RAF was operating in the mid-1980s. Even the F-4 was only operated in one role at a time.

PDR1

3rd Jan 2017, 13:50

(a) There's no way the UK could have afforded it (both to buy and to operate - the MMMH/FH for the 117 is hideous due to all the signature management processes never mind all the mission planning faffing).

(b) The UK didn't have a mission for it. In GW1 its tiny population flattered its stats. In the skies over bagdad the principle threat was unaimed, unguided AAA and stealth is no use at all against that threat. There were only (IIRC) 12 F117s in GW1, and so the loss of a single airframe would have been an 8.3% loss rate. I don't believe *any* coalition aircraft suffered an 8.3% loss rate with the possible exception of the Tonkas doing the runway denial role, which is an inherently dangerous role.

My interpretation of Ronnie's note (FWIW) would be that he had just been briefed on these new toys and got a bit excited, so he wanted to talk to his best buddy about them to play a game of top-trumps.

€0.03 supplied, YMMV,

PDR

unmanned_droid

3rd Jan 2017, 15:48

sandiego89

3rd Jan 2017, 18:33

PDR1: There were only (IIRC) 12 F117s in GW1, and so the loss of a single airframe would have been an 8.3% loss rate.

Actually 36 F-117's deployed, with over 1200+ missions and 6,900 hours, many in very contested airspace in the early nights of the conflict. Had a high availability rate during the conflict.

36 deployed to combat in GW1 from 59 produced.

None were lost, so rather moot point about possible % fleet loss. Other aircraft had higher loss rates, namely the Tornado and Harrier family (UK and US).

F-117 mission stats by airframe: F-117A: Desert Storm (http://www.f-117a.com/DS.html)

Wee Weasley Welshman

3rd Jan 2017, 19:29

I did not know that. Thanks,

WWW

MAINJAFAD

4th Jan 2017, 15:55

Most of the RAF Tornados lost during GW1 were in the process of carrying out loft attacks or at medium level when they were hit (one of them was actually fragged by one of its own bombs detonating as soon as it armed). Only one was carrying JP233 and that was shot down post attack at low level. 2 of the aircraft were shot down in daylight (the first one and the last)

RAFEngO74to09

4th Jan 2017, 18:24

Details of RAF Tornado GR1 losses during GW1 here:

RAF - RAF Tornado Aircraft Losses (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/RAFTornadoAircraftLosses.cfm)

msbbarratt

4th Jan 2017, 19:01

TBH, even back in the 1980s it was difficult to see what sort of operation we would have conducted with F117s of our own that wouldn't also have involved allied operations with the USA. GW1 was a good example of that being so. We couldn't have used them in a Falklands scenario, and probably wouldn't have needed them either. Any kind of European conflict would have been a NATO affair.

Acquiring F117s would have been a nice demonstration of "The Special Relationship", and with Thatcher and Reagan getting on very well it's not wholly surprising that it was considered. What is moderately intersting is the timing. The DoD only confirmed the existence of the F117 in 1988, yet the offer was apparently made in 1986, two years earlier. Certainly, reading Ben Rich's book, one gets the impression that the F117 was the most closely guarded manned weapons system in the US inventory at the time, the holiest of holies, for use only when it really really matters. Perhaps the fact that Rich had a British father, and Alan Brown (Rich's programme manager) was British, also had something to do with it too.

PDR1

4th Jan 2017, 19:29

Other aircraft had higher loss rates, namely the Tornado and Harrier family (UK and US).

RAF Harrier loss rate in GW1 was zero...

PDR

BEagle

4th Jan 2017, 19:34

RAF Harrier loss rate in GW1 was zero...

As was RAF Harrier deployment.....

Davef68

4th Jan 2017, 22:30

Big negative on UK F117 operations (or at leass independent operations) - lack of a compatible air to air refuelling system. Unless the update included a probe....

sandiego89

5th Jan 2017, 01:27

Thanks for the corrections PDR & BEagle. I was likely reading this list Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm (http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/) too quickly and mixed up the various GR.1, Jaguar (French) and AV-8B loss and damaged list. Perhaps whenever I see GR.1 my mind goes to Harrier, even as those models were retired/converted long ago. Now if the list had read "Jag" I may have been sharper...

An interesting list nonetheless.

Airbubba

5th Jan 2017, 02:34

Big negative on UK F117 operations (or at leass independent operations) - lack of a compatible air to air refuelling system. Unless the update included a probe....

This inflight refueling compatibility issue was raised with the recent RAF Rivet Joint acquisition:

Embarrassment for MoD because new £650million spy planes cannot refuel in mid-air

By Ian Drury, Defence Correspondent
Published: 08:44 EST, 22 January 2013 | Updated: 20:00 EST, 22 January 2013

The RAF cannot refuel its new £650million spy planes in mid-air, it has been revealed.

In a fresh humiliation for the Ministry of Defence, it emerged that Britain must rely on other nations to fill up the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft once it is in the skies.

Military analysts warned that crucial reconnaissance missions could be jeopardised by the UK's failure to act independently.

But the Ministry of Defence said fuel efficient engines allow the plane to operate for longer while avoiding the spiralling costs and delays involved in converting it.

Ministers bought three second-hand Rivet Joints from the U.S. Air Force in March 2010 to eavesdrop on enemy communications.

Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266417/Embarrassment-MoD-new-650million-spy-Airseeker-planes-refuel-mid-air.html)

The first RAF RC-135W, ZZ664, arrived in 2013. It was originally delivered to SAC as a tanker in September, 1964. :eek:

I understand the F-117 operated out of the UK for (admittedly) short exercises without making the papers.

UK nationals would have been working in the LO engineering field back then on this and other projects so we weren't out of the race really.

The UK has always been great about looking the other way with some of our 'special operations' and we appreciate it. :ok:

Our spyplanes have been warmly hosted by the UK for decades. I can remember the SR-71 pilots strutting around the O'Club at Mildenhall in their orange flight suits years ago until the Pentagon made them tone down the wardrobe.

I believe at least four RAF pilots flew the F-117 as exchange officers. I've seen reports that two RAF pilots flew the F-117 as early as 1986 for 'evaluation', was this perhaps the 'Project Moonflower'?

BossEyed

5th Jan 2017, 08:50

Pontius Navigator

5th Jan 2017, 09:02

On another website

I guess the MOD didn't want the hassle of having to order and keep secret a foreign black programme and be responsible for blowing its cover until the US had publicly revealed its existence.

Unlike deepest Norfolk RAF Sites are much more open to public view.

Airbubba

5th Jan 2017, 17:29

In Bernard Noble's "Properly to Test: Book Two", a collection of reminiscences from pilots and trials personnel who worked at Boscombe Down, the late Air Commodore Colin Cruickshanks wrote about how he and Dave Southwood ended up evaluating the F-117 prior to the 1988 DoD announcement of the program.

Thanks, that sure makes sense in light of the recent archive disclosures.

Here's a 2004 post on another forum that mentions the declined F-117 offer to the UK:

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:01 AM

Actually a RAF pilot was almost deployed tot he Gulf in DS I. RAf pilots were put into F-117 squadrons to evaluate and test the planes. The U.S. was willing to sell the plane to the Brits, but the cost etc, may have been a bit much for the budget. No doubt, if they wish to pony up for the Raptor, they will be allowed acess to it as well.

F-117 in the UK, page 1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread99581/pg1#pid1008351)

Concerning possible unannounced F-117 deployments to the UK, I found these comments, along with many other fond reminiscences, in Lockheed's Code One magazine:

On my second tour in F-117s, the wing was in the white world. We had relocated to Holloman and things were moving very well. It was a time when lots of things were happening. We were quite often called on to execute deployments and we did on several occasions. Some of those deployments came under the cover of darkness and we did them well. We packed equipment and flew the aircraft out of town and nobody noticed.

Other times we went overseas in support of contingencies. When we deployed for Kosovo, one squadron went to Aviano in Italy and one squadron went to Spangdahlem in Germany. – Bill Lake, Bandit 252

F-117 Nighthawk Memories | Code One Magazine (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=175)

LOMCEVAK

5th Jan 2017, 19:27

There is more detail on the involvement of RAF pilots in the F-117 programme in books on the aeroplane by Paul Crickmore. The two Boscombe Down pilots mentioned above flew the evaluation of it in 1986. From 1988 onwards until the aircraft went out of service with the USAF there was always one RAF pilot flying it on an exchange tour.

In 1986 the F-117 squadrons operated from Tonopah. Therefore, whilst still a 'black' programme all flying was done in secrecy. The A-7s that the 4450th also operated at that time as cover aircraft allowed deployments to be made to non-US bases to exercise operational procedures without compromising the F-117's existence. At least one such detachment was made to the UK (possibly Bentwaters about 1985).

It is interesting to compare the capabilities of the Tornado GR1 and the F-117 in 1986. The only targeting pod in RAF service at that time was Pavespike on the Buccaneer. This was a TV/visual spectrum system with, therefore, no night capability and one that required the navigator to locate the target visually as a screen image, slew the reticule onto it then maintain an input to generate the required sightline spin rate; there was no form of reticule ground stabilisation (FIN 1063 had not been fitted to the Buccaneer yet). Paveway III had not been cleared on the Tornado at that time and so it did not possess a 2000 lb guided weapon delivery capability. The navigation system had a gimballed IN with a 1nm/hour drift rate blended with a doppler through a Kalman filter which improved the drift rate to about 0.5nm/hour. The F-117 IRADS was an IR spectrum system which allowed night attacks. The inertial navigation system, SPN-GEANS, had a 0.12nm/hour accuracy which gave good pointing accuracy and ground stabilisation for the IRADS. The standard weapon was a GBU-27 2000 lb LGB. Therefore, in 1986 the weapon system and capabilities of the F-117 for heavy PGM delivery was vastly superior to the Tornado GR1.

One major consideration with respect to potential F-117 use by the RAF would have been that the UK's main theatre of interest in 1986 was central Europe. The F-117 was a medium level delivery platform that required line of sight to the target and, therefore, the amount of low and medium altitude cloud in Europe would have precluded its use in that theatre for a significant percentage of the year.

Please note that all that I have said above is already open source data.

BEagle

5th Jan 2017, 20:03

chopper2004

6th Jan 2017, 13:21

I understand the F-117 operated out of the UK for (admittedly) short exercises without making the papers.

UK nationals would have been working in the LO engineering field back then on this and other projects so we weren't out of the race really.
There were several rumours and sightings (?) in the 80s that the 117 had been operating in UK airspace.

The only physical proof that the then unit ws here is this photo of 'Goat Suckers' A-7D chase a/c from RAF Bentwaters FB page , taxiing at BW sometime in mid 80s

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/11017662_10153092695249400_5080547133978469338_o_zpsffb65sq6 .jpg

As there were a number of 'the Goat Suckers A-7 got deployed to overses bses such as Osan where the ground crews were told to lay flat facing the ground as the a/c taxied past as it was aalleged it was carrying very top secret sensors or pod (empty pod lol ) thus part of adding to the myth secrecy cover up of the unit and F-117 ..

When I was an air cadet, I heard rumours from other ATC cadets in the suffolk area who claimed that the F-117 had oeprated out of the 'Hall at night claimed to have seen.... quite laughable as it be better off flying from the 'heath where there are HAS's and more woodland. Then forgot about the L-M Skunk Works personnel and the SR-71 'Habu' twin barns which were vacant after the recent departure of Det 4 and subsequent retirement of the Blackbird. If you look at the individual 'barns' at Tonopah, they are similar to the Det 4 ones here at the 'Hall

cheers

AR1

6th Jan 2017, 13:32

When I was an air cadet, I heard rumours from other ATC cadets in the suffolk area

Love it :D

chopper2004

6th Jan 2017, 13:42

Love it :D
Would it be better if I had said they were from Norfolk :cool::p

In all seriousness, how come in the many recent books on the F-117, why is there no official acknowledgement or pilot stories about deploying to the UK if it ever happened?

The 117 is officially retired albeit kept under wrap and still several examples still flying out in Nevada desert in support of 'other programs'.

cheers

chopper2004

6th Jan 2017, 13:44

On another website

Unlike deepest Norfolk RAF Sites are much more open to public view.
Happy New Year PN,

I did read in Air Forces Monthly and other publications in the late 80s, that the 117 was rumoured to have been flying out of RAF Sculthorpe ...which at the time was still under full USAFE control -

cheers

Airbubba

6th Jan 2017, 13:52

The A-7 cover story did make it rather obvious that there was more to the ???th TFW, Tonopah AFB than Uncle Spam would admit!

When I joked about 'The odd looking black jets at Tonopah' to our USAF Exchange Officer, his reply of "There's just a bunch of A-7s there" was such an obviously weak cover that it was laughable.

A tragic accident on a cross country flight in 1987 drew unwanted attention to the A-7's and Bandit 222:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Indianapolis_Ramada_Inn_A-7D_Corsair_II_crash

And there was more to cover up than just the F-117's. There was a small cadre of C-5 crewmembers read into the program that transported the F-117's with wings removed. I believe they publically did missions like taking F-5's to RAF Alconbury to hide their primary covert mission. The C-5 operation was known by some unofficial name like 'Major Mannion's Black Hole' since everyone who went into the program disappeared from the rest of the Military Airlift Command except for training.

melmothtw

6th Jan 2017, 14:49

In all seriousness, how come in the many recent books on the F-117, why is there no official acknowledgement or pilot stories about deploying to the UK if it ever happened?

The 117 is officially retired albeit kept under wrap and still several examples still flying out in Nevada desert in support of 'other programs'.

Perhaps your second para answers the question in your first para? Perhaps deploying to the UK still comes under 'other programmes'?

OMG Itz Fulovstarz

6th Jan 2017, 16:49

Folks,

I hope you will forgive another intrusion form the civil side.

Mr. Chopper2000,

In case you are interested, this is the "secret ECM pod" carried by the 4450th's A-7's. Basically a baggage pod fitted with the seeker head of an AGM-65 and a few additional aerials. IIRC it also had a red LED light that flashed when the pod was "active" and a prominent yellow radiation symbol on it too.

Photo was taken after it had been retired and marked up as the "A-7 Klingon Cloaking Device". Sorry for the quality, thought I had a better one somewhere, but can't find it.....

http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv301/Skydancer_photos/A-7%20Klingon%20Cloaking%20Device.jpg (http://s694.photobucket.com/user/Skydancer_photos/media/A-7%20Klingon%20Cloaking%20Device.jpg.html)

Airbubba

6th Jan 2017, 17:53

In case you are interested, this is the "secret ECM pod" carried by the 4450th's A-7's. Basically a baggage pod fitted with the seeker head of an AGM-65 and a few additional aerials. IIRC it also had a red LED light that flashed when the pod was "active" and a prominent yellow radiation symbol on it too.

Here's another account of the pod, mentioning a UK deployment, from an article by Tyler Rogoway:

Retired Air Force Col. Doug Robinson, who wrote for one of the Stealth Fighter Association’s newsletters, picks up the story of how the Klingon Cloaking Device came to be from here:

“We began to stretch our legs and plan deployments using the A-7s as a surrogate for the F-117. We planned the deployment of a few aircraft to Homestead AFB, Florida, and learned from our actions. The OSI was specifically charged with finding out what was going on. We captured them before they got to our perimeter fence at Homestead AFB. The only outward signs that there was something out of the ordinary going on at Homestead was an OSI notation that there were some folks at a nearby motel wearing cowboy boots and other western apparel. We took note of that and were more careful of our “western” markings on later deployments.

We used the A-7 in our deployments to Young Tiger in South Korea and then to Great Britain. It was under our cover story for the A-7 of advanced avionics testing that the Klingon Cloaking Device was developed. We needed some purpose for the A-7s to be so special, and have all the attention and security that seemed to accompany the 4450th wherever we went.

It was in this vein that TSgt’s. Phillip Barta and Charles Baggerly took a BLU-27 napalm bomb shell, reinforced it according to Tactical Air Command instructions for a baggage pod, and constructed the Klingon Cloaking Device.

Col. Robinson's description of the construction of the mysterious pod:

It has the front lens from an electro-optically guided glide bomb on the nose with a red light that had a soft pulsing glow showing through a ground glass lens. It had numerous blade antennas from the UHF and VHF frequency spectrum and several faux blowout ports similar to those used as exhaust ports for gas grain generators on early generation nuclear weapons. It was truly an awesome looking thing when mounted under the wing of an A-7.

Pictures in the article linked below.

The F-117 Stealth Fighter Program Actually Had A 'Klingon Cloaking Device' (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-117-stealth-fighter-program-actually-had-a-klingo-1759842067)

Airbubba

9th Jan 2017, 18:53

I ran across these messages on another aviation forum about the LV tailed A-7's UK deployments with the 'avionics test pod'.

also had a spell actually working on Bentwaters airfield whilst LV coded A.7 Corsairs were operating out of Woodbridge; familiarisation flights for F.117 pilots in Europe I believe? ... Again any ideas on the dates and aircraft involved.

The A-7D's were Nellis machines from of the 4450th TG.

They were in at Woodbridge from the 31st Oct 84 until 14th Nov 84, and they returned again from the 8th to 22nd of May 86.

I think they were here conducting trials for the F-117s avionics rather than for F-117 pilot familiarisation.

Nellis F.16s at Bentwaters + LV A.7s at Woodbridge. FighterControl Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=317&t=41580)