That is certainly possible, if all of those conditions exist, but only if those conditions exist.

That’s really the point – “accidents” usually happen after a series of failures and conditions line up “perfectly.” You try your best to mitigate the risk factors as much as possible depending upon desired outcomes. Every time I fly, I am required to file a risk assessment in which you weigh all kinds of factors, compute a score – and if it is too high, you don’t fly.

They didn’t knowingly fly a route with SAM coverage. There was SAM coverage because they kept flying the same route, and the mobile SAMs could be positioned to best engage. Had the F-117 flown random routes, the same circumstances that allowed for the shootdown would not have occurred. The SAM site wouldn’t have had the reaction time, were it a random flyby, as the F-117 was 10 miles or less away, when detected.

Flying random routes reduces risks, no argument there. However, the routine routing worked with EA/EW support – the SAM’s were suppressed – and it failed when EA/EW wasn’t available. The mission staff/pilot knew that there were mobile SAM’s in the areas where the F-117 was to overfly, and they knew the EA-6B was out of position to support the mission (and the Serbs know when you are not jamming,) yet elected to procede without EA/EW support. And got caught.

How about this scenario: The F-117 is on a random routing. There is no EA/EW support available. Clear night. Spies call in the launch time. A forward observation post with acoustic sensors detects and localizes the plane, and passes the info along. Another observation post is able to track optically. Luckily, a SAM site just happens to be in position to take a shot because it’s launch envelope hasn’t been degraded by EA/EW. Same outcome – the only difference is the routing.

Had the F-117 not flown the route it had, it wouldn’t have gotten shot down, even without EA/EW assets.

Source? I will agree that if the F-117 flew another route that had no SAMs within effective range, then of course that statement would be true. But to knowingly fly a route with SAM coverage without EA/EW support is stupid, and the result in this case was a downed F-117. All the other nights that the route was flown – with EA/EW support – there was no loss, even though the Serbs had the same intel and equipment. Do you think that Serbs cannot detect when EA/EW is be used? Or not? When it is being used, does it affect there ability to acquire and track target aircraft? When it is not used, would it make it easier for them engage a target?

Like all accidents, the were a number of errors and factors combined to cause the loss – the “swiss cheese” for those who are familiar with risk management. Not having EA/EW available provided another hole in the accident scenario. And this time, the holes lined up perfectly.

This seems like a major redesign. Taking off the rear nozzle with tail feathers and all and designing a new one seems like a lot of work.
If the rear nozzle and the front fan doors are both in position, isn’t there any heat mitigation from the huge amount of thrust (20K) washing down from the cold source. This s how it was portrayed in a F-35 video i cant seem to locate.

Apparently not – the damage is coming from the jet exhaust and not the lift fan, and the cooler air generated by the fan can’t dissipate the hot jet exhaust. Another solution being discussed is piloting technique – not using full power on takeoff until off the deck. That would make me somewhat nervous if I was the pilot, and doesn’t address landing – although the aircraft would presumably be much lighter on landing.

So is the IPP In the engine, or is it that circular thing near the tail?
I owe you an apology if the F-35 is indeed the Mother of all blow torches instantly incinerating all decks or any surface it needs to land on.
I was easily to be mistaken since the F-35 is only 18 degrees hotter than a AV8 engine, and that there is 20K Lbs of cold thrust pluming just a feet feet ahead of the rear nozzle for give my insolence oh great one. /grovel

Several heat issues going on here. First, the IPP (which has two issues):

From LM: “The aircraft’s integrated power package (IPP) combines into a single system the functions traditionally performed by the auxiliary power system, emergency power system, and environmental control.

At the heart of the IPP is a small gas-turbine engine “turbomachine” that provides power to the engine-mounted starter/generator, bringing the engine to its threshold starting speed. The engine then increases to idle speed and the electrical system, which includes the engine-mounted starter/generator (ES/G) transitions from operating as a motor to operating as a generator. The IPP is also available for in-flight emergency power.” In the F-35B (unlike the -A/C) the exhaust from the IPP points downward – which can damage the deck. If you operate the IPP in “bleed” mode, the amount of fuel consumed is decreased – resulting in cooler IPP exhaust temp. The disadvantage is operating in bleed mode does not allow the ECS to run efficiently/at all? – resulting in high cockpit temps – and another heat issue.

Second: The problem with the F-35B engine exhaust is not really the temperature, it’s the concentration, volume, and velocity of hot exhaust gases. Apparently there is/was concern that it has the potential to destroy decks and concrete. Reshaping the nozzle diffuses the exhaust over a broader area, theoretically lessening the potential for damage.