Sep 112010
 

NASA-Langley photos of a wind tunnel model, circa 1994, showing an F-117 packing two stealthy, flat-bottomed missiles with stowed flip-out fins. Propulsion system unknown, although similar “conformal” missiles were shown repeatedly in the 1980’s with an inlet up front for a turbojet engine.

f-117-1.jpg

f-117-2.jpg

f-117-3.jpg

 Posted by at 8:56 pm

  15 Responses to “F-117 With External Stores: Stealthy Cruise Missile”

  1. I have doubt that are cruise missile
    the f-117 is 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m) long
    so those missile are estimated
    15 ft 4 in(4,68 m) long and 3ft 7 in (1,1m) wide

    have they try to develop a bigger stealthy laser-guided bomb
    to replace the GBU-27 Paveway III ?

  2. > those missile are estimated 15 ft 4 in(4,68 m) long

    The AGM-129 stealthy cruise missiles which entered actual service for a few years were 20 feet 10 inches long witha range of 2000 miles. so a mille 15 feet long would still be plenty large enough for some substantial range.

  3. What do we know about the shame of that missile? Was it a subject of some published NASA research?

  4. “Shape.” It should have been “shape.”

    Damned keyboards don’t fit my fingers, and they certainly don’t know what I really want to write. Auuggghhhh!!!!!

  5. Hmmm. When I make a typo in a comment – and I make a lot of ’em – I can go back and edit it, if I see it and care enough. Is this not the case for regular commenters?

  6. Nope, we can’t edit our own comments. As for this almost-weapon, why? It seems like a lot of work to stage two weapons when very little more effort could put a B-2 in its place with a whole cloud of them.

    Jim

  7. We can edit them if we see them in time. I clicked submit before I re-read the thing.

  8. Hmmm. Seems like an oversight in the programming of the blog, unless it’s intentional. I guess a lack of editting capability *would* explain why Pat has allowed so many of his drunkposts to remain…

  9. […] on external mounts. While these would almost certainly have provided a much bigger bang than the weapons shown yesterday, they would have been noticably less stealthy… which would seem to defeat the purpose of […]

  10. If you check out this detailed drawing of the F-117’s belly:
    http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/f117a_3v.jpg
    …is it possible that you could take off the lower engine access hatches and replace them with an alternate set with weapon attachment points on them?
    Different hatch sets could be optimized for different specific weapons.
    One thing I always expected to see was a RF-117 with cameras and added fuel in the bomb bay for covert tactical reconnaissance at night, with the cameras peering out of windows in the bomb bay doors that were anti-radar coated like the ones on the windshield or covered with that metallic mesh like the ones over the front and bottom optical sensor/laser illumination balls.

  11. I *believe* this is a HAVE SLICK Advanced Weapon Dispenser Technology shape, though I was under the impression that program was over 2 years before this photo. In 1991-1992ish AvWeek published a poor photo of a white HAVE SLICK test article mounted under an F-111. HAVE SLICK was run out of the Eglin Armament Lab in the late 80s and into the 90s. Flight articles completed their initial testing in 89.

  12. Also very similar in configuration to this LM patent:

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=NmUmAAAAEBAJ

  13. That Google patent search is a ball. isn’t it?
    Decades back, AW&ST stated that the military had built a couple of high stealth helicopter prototypes for tests.
    I expected these to be something along the lines of a standard helicopter designs with plastic rotor blades, faceted fuselage construction with RAM on it, and IR/sonic mufflers on the engines.
    I was wrong.
    Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Lockheed patent for what almost _has_ to be the explanation for the “Black Triangle” UFO sightings from around the same time it was issued:
    http://www.google.com/patents?id=jACsAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=4,802,639&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=4%2C802%2C639&f=false

  14. Do you think the thing works, Pat? When was the last time one was seen?

  15. I think you have to be logged in to WordPress when you post in order to edit your posts.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.