f8fanatic

F8U-3 Super Crusader in 1/24--the best Navy fighter never to go into production
RF-101C Voodoo, 1/24, easily the best looking version of the Voodoo
RA-5C Vigilante, 1/24, because Viggie has always been just about the most beautiful jet to ever find itself on a carrier deck
 
I'd also go positively nuts for a 1/24 scale B-47, but that's definitely not above those three...
 
 
 

F8U-3 Super Crusader in 1/24--the best Navy fighter never to go into production
RF-101C Voodoo, 1/24, easily the best looking version of the Voodoo
RA-5C Vigilante, 1/24, because Viggie has always been just about the most beautiful jet to ever find itself on a carrier deck
 
I'd also go positively nuts for a 1/24 scale B-47, but that's definitely not above those three...
 
 
 

I do believe this is the one you're looking for:
 
https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/tbd/tbd-1a-devastator-buno-0268-1939-2/
 
Here's a link to a good number of color photos of a model of same:
 
https://www.modelaces.com/douglas-tbd-1a-devastator-floatplane/
 
A typical scene would show the plane near the beach in the water with crew members, and you could do that without specific buildings or other structures needed.  

Hiya, 
 
Looked it up on Joe Baugher's great site.  It started life as an F-4E-42-MC.  Assigned units as follows:
 
4th TFW, years unknown
57th FWW, years unknown
1979, transferred to 70th TFS, 347th TFW
Then to 35th TFW, years unknown
 
It was modified to F-4G standard, and then was sent to the 563rd TFTS (37th TFW) in 1987.  In 1994, it was with 190th TFS, 124th TFW Idaho National Guard at Boise Airport.
 
In April 1996, it was assigned ID FP1048 and sent to the boneyard in AZ.  It was later converted to QF-4 drone and was shot down in a missile test over the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 1998.  
 
This link shows the paint scheme worn by Wild Weasel F-4Gs while with the 563rd TFTS around the time this plane was there:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/563rd_Flying_Training_Squadron#/media/File:F-4g-george-1989.jpg
 

Looking closely, it does have the LERX's on it, the earlier wing's forward-most point where it joins the side of the air intake is further back.  But it doesnt have the newer nose on it.  This aircraft is 75-0609, and ended up in Yemen, where the remaining Tigers are now owned by the Iran backed Houthi rebels.  I'm not sure if 0609 is still flying or not. 
 
I've put a link to a 3 view plan of the -E with the LERXs and original pointed nose.  Notice the point where the leading edge meets the side of the intake--forward of the bulge on the side there.  It's the same as the photo above.  The earlier wing leading edge attaches noticeably further aft.  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#/media/File:Northrop_F-5E_Tiger_II_3-view.svg

Some of the changes were aircraft-specific, so to be certain, you should research the specific plane you wish to model.  All RF-8Gs got an uprated engine, but externally there were no visual differences from that.  144 RF-8As were built, 73 of these were converted to RF-8Gs.
 
RF-8 changes were different than the changes to the F-8 fighter models.  For example, it was standard from the F-8C onward to include the afterburner cooling scoops on either side of the vertical tail.  RF-8s were different, there were many RF-8Gs that did not get these scoops installed.  the fighter conversions were a lot more standardized.
 
The ventral fins is one common change....this was visually the biggest and most common change between the -A and -G.  The vertical tail also had either no antenna installed or one of three different variants installed depending on the plane.  Some specific planes actually had different antennas in this place over time.  Here are some examples of this:
 
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/812/pics/3_98.png  this one has just a small bump on the trailing edge of the vertical tail
 
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/812/pics/3_98_b1.png this one has the same as the first, but includes the larger fairing on the leading edge as well
 
http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/MM/MM-250/1028-11-2-1.jpg  this one has a longer antenna than the others
 
It was still possible, though rarer than the above options, to have none of those antennas at all installed on RF-8Gs.  The RF-8A typically had no such antenna on the tail.
 
As far as the camera placements, the camera bays on the RF-8G as far as I can recall had no changes compared to the RF-8As....they were able to be changed so that different cameras could be carried.  Again, researching the specific plane you wish to model will be helpful here, because not all RF-8s flew with the same camera/window arrangement all the time.
 
There should be no other visual differences.  The -G models did not get any of the "final" changes like BLC or the double droop leading edge like the F-8J got, so the regular kit parts will work fine for those.  
 
EDIT--reread your original post.  The stabs were the small stabs, and were the same on both models.  The seat changed from the lightweight Vought model to the MB seat early on, but two different MB seats were used in the Crusaders.  First was the Mk. 5, which was swapped for the later Mk. 7.  The two MB seats looked the same with the exception of the rocket pack at the bottom.  The Mk. 7 had zero zero capability while the Mk 5 did not.  Hope this helps.
 
 
 
 

You must be referring to an RF-8G from VFP-63....they did this every so often.  Here's a shot of one from the Coral Sea in 1973. 

You must be referring to an RF-8G from VFP-63....they did this every so often.  Here's a shot of one from the Coral Sea in 1973. 

You must be referring to an RF-8G from VFP-63....they did this every so often.  Here's a shot of one from the Coral Sea in 1973. 

There's another side to this discussion....Back in the 80s/90s, you could find kits at respectable prices.  Back then, I knew that when I spent some money on a kit, the price left room for errors to be present.  it simply was what it was, and that was that.
 
Today, one of the reasons why we expect more is because they expect us to pay more--a LOT more--for these kits.  In the other thread, someone posted a link to this brand new kit on ebay....for over $460.  Why on earth should any of us expect to pay that kind of money for a kit that then requires us to go out and spend more $$$ to correct such big errors?  There has to be an expectation of value, not just "hey, it's new and it's big so pony up".  

Thanks for the info. Display space isn't so much of an issue now I've worked out how to extend the cabinet I have. So wings up or down is not the problem it was. Also really pleased with the ZM kit. Wings down, Sandy mission Napalm loaded flying dump truck for me.

There's another side to this discussion....Back in the 80s/90s, you could find kits at respectable prices.  Back then, I knew that when I spent some money on a kit, the price left room for errors to be present.  it simply was what it was, and that was that.
 
Today, one of the reasons why we expect more is because they expect us to pay more--a LOT more--for these kits.  In the other thread, someone posted a link to this brand new kit on ebay....for over $460.  Why on earth should any of us expect to pay that kind of money for a kit that then requires us to go out and spend more $$$ to correct such big errors?  There has to be an expectation of value, not just "hey, it's new and it's big so pony up".  

I might be too late for this project, but some info regarding the interior zinc chromate.
 
During WWII, there were many companies and many factories sourcing components for aircraft.  It was quite common for these to have slight variations in the colors.  I recall reading an article on an A-6 Texan restoration not too many years ago, where "new old stock" components were sourced from some different places, and none of them had the same zinc chromate color on them.  Some were more green, some more yellow, some more faded, etc etc.  
 
While I believe, and it would make sense, that the entire interior area would be painted during assembly, these planes were treated in a very harsh utilitarian way during their service.  If a component in that cockpit needed to be changed, chances were at least fairly good that the replacement component might have a bit of a different color to it than the one it replaced.  Just food for thought, depending on the look you are going for.

Here is another one:
 
So it could carry 3 Zuni launchers if need be for air to ground missions.
 
Jari

You must be referring to an RF-8G from VFP-63....they did this every so often.  Here's a shot of one from the Coral Sea in 1973. 

This narrative will describe the mission I flew on July 10, 1968. My A-7A, Corsair II, callsign Streetcar 305, was armed with two AGM-12C, Bullpup B missiles. This is the largest of the line of Bullpup missiles and it had a 1000# warhead. I carried no other external ordnance on this mission. Our standard loadout for a typical bombing mission during that timeframe was 12-Mk 82, 500# General Purpose bombs in addition to 1000 rounds of 20mm loaded in the two internal cannons.
 
My squadron, VA-82, was deployed onboard the USS America (CVA-66) and I would end up flying almost 100 combat missions during this 9-month cruise. Most of our missions were over North Vietnam although the two missions described here were just below the DMZ. The squadron Executive Officer (XO) and I were to fly together in mutual support. He would attack his targets first with me looking out for enemy opposition (AAA, SAMS, or Migs) and then we would move on to my target with him supporting me.
 
His mission was to destroy dredging equipment operating in the rectangular moat surrounding the city of Hue Phu Bai, the old imperial capital of Vietnam and the 3rd largest city in Vietnam. We planned the attacks to be late in the afternoon so the sun would be low on the western horizon and make the targets have maximum contrast and definition. As we approached the target, we rolled in at about 7000’ and planned a 20-degree dive. I lined up behind him and offset about 1000’ as he started his attack as I followed him down. I was puzzled when he pulled off the target without a missile launch. Even though most of the squadron pilots had flown a couple of Bullpup deliveries in training to get some familiarity with the weapon but due to the high cost of the weapon, we didn’t have a lot of experience with it. But, when a Bullpup Missile launches, there is no doubt something dramatic has happened with lots of smoke and a very fast (Mach 1.8) missile. The only difference in the small Bullpup and the large one was the size of the warhead, which is not evident until it impacts the target on the ground. So, I was expecting a large fireworks show when the XO launched his missile but was puzzled when he pulled off his run with no apparent launch.
 
He grumbled something about his missile being a ‘dud’ and we recovered from the dive and climbed back to a roll-in position to attack again. The second attempt was a replay of the first with nothing apparent. We didn’t discuss it in the air but after getting back aboard the ship, I learned that both his missiles had been duds. That was an expensive afternoon with nothing to show for it.
 
The Bullpup had a powerful solid-fuel rocket motor which ignited flares on the tail-end as it launched to allow the launching pilot to visually track the missile and steer it to the target with a small joystick. Flying at Mach 1.8, it was extremely sensitive, and It was notoriously difficult to achieve pinpoint accuracy.
We proceeded north to my target and my mission was an attack on what photo analysts called a transshipment warehouse outside the town of Thanh Dam that they was suspected was being used to store explosives and weapons. It was a large, long, low building located adjacent to an open field. The enemy would drive trucks in at night and unload weapons and explosives. Below is a pre-strike reconnaissance photo of the warehouse. You can identify the warehouse as the large rectangular building on the right side with two white arrows near it. There appeared to be five hedgerows just to the right of the building in the photo.
 

 
I was fearful that my missiles would also be duds so when I rolled in and pulled the trigger, I was actually surprised when the missile roared away with a tremendous rush of debris and turbulence. The missile launch was picture perfect and streaked steadily towards the target. The XO didn’t mention any gunfire or other opposition, so I was able to concentrate fully on guiding the missile. As I said, it was very sensitive on the joystick and I was dismayed to see the missile eventually hit and explode in the open area just on front of the building. With that 1000# warhead, it made a gigantic explosion but when the smoke and fire faded away, as I flew over the target, I could see that the warehouse was still standing and largely intact with fires in the surrounding vegetation.
 
I recovered and climbed back to a roll-in point to launch my second missile. When I pulled the trigger, the missile again roared away but this time, it suddenly shot up above my head and I could barely keep it in sight as it climbed above my line of sight. Apparently, it was stuck in a nose-up mode and I had no effective control of it, so I immediately pushed the joystick full nose down to try to regain control. Lateral control seemed to be responding. After a few seconds, the rate of climb slowed, and it finally started coming back down. In fact, it was now streaking down at an alarming rate, so I had to counteract that movement with a full nose-up command. It was still out of control but at least it was responding somewhat to my control inputs. I was really having difficulty getting it under control. There seemed to be a delayed reaction to my control input. I could see the flares on the missile, and I thought it was going to impact the ground well short of the target. But apparently it was pulling out of it’s dive and from my point of view, it appeared to be streaking along at treetop level. I still had no effective pitch control and with full nose-up command, the missile incredibly seemed to fly right into the front door of the target. It hit dead center in the target and went inside the building with no apparent damage.
 
But, a few beats later, as I flew directly over the target, both ends of the building exploded like a Roman Candle in a large fireball and it completely blew out both ends of the warehouse. Then, as I flew directly past the target, I looked back and saw another massive explosion that blew debris and fire almost up to my altitude and totally destroyed the warehouse. Obviously, the photo intelligence guys had it right and it had been full of explosives. The after-action photo taken later by the RA-5C photo bird the next day showed that the warehouse was totally destroyed, actually vaporized, and all that remained was the scars in the earth showing the where the foundation of the building had been. There was nothing left of the target the next day which can only be identified by proximity to the five hedgerows.
 

 
We rejoined in formation and returned to the ship and recovered with a night landing. The XO was not as jubilant as I was and in fact, he never debriefed or mentioned that mission.
 
Tom.

This article might shed some light on the issue:
 
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/
 
It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition.  
 
I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with.  Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design.  It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service.  The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap.  Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well.
 
The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO.  F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can.  Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs.  That's it.  No defensive weaponry.  No room for expansion.  The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally.  The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets.  F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons.  Technology for one....multi-role ability for another.  The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way.  Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second.  The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it.  When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern.  F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility.  Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS.  So radio silence was key.  Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan.  F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35.  Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date.  
 
F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs.....
 
Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology.  The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.  

This article might shed some light on the issue:
 
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/
 
It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition.  
 
I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with.  Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design.  It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service.  The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap.  Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well.
 
The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO.  F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can.  Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs.  That's it.  No defensive weaponry.  No room for expansion.  The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally.  The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets.  F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons.  Technology for one....multi-role ability for another.  The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way.  Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second.  The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it.  When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern.  F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility.  Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS.  So radio silence was key.  Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan.  F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35.  Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date.  
 
F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs.....
 
Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology.  The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.  

This article might shed some light on the issue:
 
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/
 
It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition.  
 
I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with.  Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design.  It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service.  The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap.  Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well.
 
The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO.  F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can.  Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs.  That's it.  No defensive weaponry.  No room for expansion.  The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally.  The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets.  F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons.  Technology for one....multi-role ability for another.  The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way.  Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second.  The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it.  When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern.  F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility.  Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS.  So radio silence was key.  Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan.  F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35.  Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date.  
 
F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs.....
 
Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology.  The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.  

This article might shed some light on the issue:
 
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/
 
It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition.  
 
I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with.  Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design.  It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service.  The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap.  Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well.
 
The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO.  F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can.  Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs.  That's it.  No defensive weaponry.  No room for expansion.  The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally.  The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets.  F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons.  Technology for one....multi-role ability for another.  The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way.  Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second.  The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it.  When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern.  F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility.  Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS.  So radio silence was key.  Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan.  F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35.  Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date.  
 
F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs.....
 
Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology.  The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.  

This article might shed some light on the issue:
 
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/
 
It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition.  
 
I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with.  Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design.  It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service.  The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap.  Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well.
 
The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO.  F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can.  Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs.  That's it.  No defensive weaponry.  No room for expansion.  The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally.  The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets.  F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons.  Technology for one....multi-role ability for another.  The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way.  Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second.  The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it.  When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern.  F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility.  Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS.  So radio silence was key.  Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan.  F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35.  Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date.  
 
F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs.....
 
Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology.  The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.  

Holy.....absolute....crap.....that's amazing....