This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
F-117 was a bomber, not a fighter. No offensive capability. I believe the label as "attack" is incorrect.
The plane was quietly retired after 25 years which is half the life of a normal military combat jet.
The F-15 is approx. 50 years old and still going, and the F-18 almost that as well.
2 F-117s were hit, one of which crashed in Yugoslavia according to first hand pilot testimony.
The Pentagon realized the susceptibility of the F-117 to long wavelength radar systems and no
easy mitigation was feasible. The plane was permanently removed from combat duty in 2008.
It was a failure from a stealth perspective despite all the patriotic fanfare.
Evidence of current flights at Tonopah and Nellis are only for target practice during exercises
and that is no evidence being fit or designated for combat duty. (Even old Sherman tanks are still used as targets
at firing ranges, but that does not mean they are used in combat or are viable.)
Despite Internet based propaganda, the F-117 was not replaced for cost reasons as the F-22
and F-35 especially were far more costly projects. The F-117 also had a lower RCS than the
F-35, and the F-22 as well (since the F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-22). Mention of the
lower RCS for the F-117 was published in the July.August 2019 edition of Air Force Magazine.
Therefore, the existence of more stealthy platforms was not the complete reason for its
retirement either.
It appears the F-117 had a major design flaw and could be exposed by older radar systems.
This is a clear embarrassment to the military and Lockheed.
Additionally, according to an Air Force Magazine July/August 2019 infographic, the F-117 has a radar cross section (RCS) of 0.003m2 square meters, or that of three insects. The F-35A has an RCS slightly more, 0.005m2 square meters. The B-2 Stealth Bomber has an RCS of 0.05m2 square meters—somewhat more. The F-16 Viper is around 4m2 square meters, depending on what is hanging off of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.135.132 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
F-117 was a bomber, not a fighter. No offensive capability. I believe the label as "attack" is incorrect. We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources call it an attack aircraft. Also, I fail to see how the lack of offensive capability (which is obviously untrue in the F-117's case, as it did have a limited offensive capability in the form of an internal weapons bay) differentiates a bomber and attack aircraft. The Attack aircraft article defines an attack aircraft as "a tactical military aircraft that has a primary role of carrying out airstrikes with greater precision than bombers, and is prepared to encounter strong low-level air defenses while pressing the attack", which accurately describes the F-117's capabilities.
The plane was quietly retired after 25 years which is half the life of a normal military combat jet. Comparing the F-117 to a "normal military combat jet" is a bit misleading. The F-117 was essentially a technology demonstrator with weapons. It was never designed to be a long-term solution, and as you said, it was found to have flaws in its stealth capabilities. Additionally, combat has changed a lot since 1983, and multirole aircraft such as the F-15 and F/A-18 you mentioned were designed with this in mind and were able to adapt with time. It is worth noting, however, that it is misleading to say that these aircraft are "approx. 50 years old and still going", as they have undergone major upgrades and a vast majority of F-15s and F/A-18s in service were built within the last 20-ish years. The F/A-18E/F specifically is almost an entirely different aircraft than the F/A-18s of 50 years ago.
Despite Internet based propaganda, the F-117 was not replaced for cost reasons as the F-22 and F-35 especially were far more costly projects. It's not that simple either. First of all, if you think any of the sources used in this article are propaganda, feel free to bring them up here. Second, the F-22 and F-35 weren't intended to replace only the F-117, but rather multiple other types as well (which ultimately didn't happen, but that was the intent). The F-22 could perform the role of the F-117 as well as that of an air superiority fighter, so keeping the F-117 around when a newer and better aircraft was in service in greater numbers would indeed be a waste of money.
It appears the F-117 had a major design flaw and could be exposed by older radar systems. This is a clear embarrassment to the military and Lockheed. Keep in mind this was the first stealth combat aircraft built and operated by any country, so obviously there would be flaws. The Wright Flyer wasn't a clear embarrassment because it crashed on its fourth flight, nor was the Messerschmitt Me 262 because its turbojet engines suffered frequent flameouts. As with all emerging technologies, the first generation almost always has flaws that are ironed out in future iterations.
