Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/Archive 1

message: What an excellent article - has anyone thought of putting it on WP:FAC (or WP:PR first)?  It needs some references, but that can't be too hard. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC?

message: This is to discuss several corrections I'm making to improve accuracy.
First paragraph previously read: "first operational aircraft designed to use stealth technology". This is obviously not true, and the SR-71 article mentions this. The SR-71 had purpose-designed stealth features. These can be seen in these images: , . Note the sawtooth pattern around the tail and fuselage chines -- it is radar absorbent material designed to minimize radar cross-section. Joema 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: The article claims without reference that there are bombs "entering service" for the F-22 with "variable yield", as alledged justification of replacing F-117 with the F-22 at "F-117 Nighthawk#Future":
The new 250lb small-diameter bombs entering service and designed specifically to fit in the F-22A's internal munitions bays have a variable yield, from 250lbs up to 2000lbs, meaning that there is no loss in explosive capability despite the smaller physical size of the munition.
I think this is incorrect, or at least needs reference claiming "variable yield" for conventional explosives. Variable yield is a function of thermonuclear devices (nukes) where the fusion fraction of the explosion is controlled by fusion boosting gasses. The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs coming into service for the F-22 do not have variable yield. They have 50lbs of explosive for a total weight of 250lbs. Their only relation to 2000lbs bombs is that they were spesifically engineered to provide the same penetrating capability, with new case materials and precision terminal guidance. The explosive (Tritonal) used is more potent to make up for the smaller amount, but there is no option to limit the power after manufacture, according to public sources, such as globalsecurity.com. --85.156.128.99 10:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I fixed it. Joema 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Variable yield bombs"??? 

message: Does anyone have a better (ie more encyclopedic) reference for this not being a real nickname for the plane than http://www.f-117a.com/FAQ.html ? It seems badly written {and spelled!) and contains at least one factual error. Guinnog 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article published in the Air Force Association says [37th TFW pilots] strongly refuted claims that the airplane is not very nimble, a belief that has led some outsiders to coin the name "Wobbly Goblin" for the F-117A. Captain Salata maintains that its handling is similar to that of other Air Force aircraft. "We take offense at the term 'Wobbly Goblin.' We just call it 'the Black Jet.' " The F-117 has no official nickname, though "Nighthawk" is in popular use among crews and maintainers. Middenface 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'll update the article. Guinnog 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wobbly Goblin?

message: Two issues:
1.  I recall reading (sorry, I can't remember the source, but it was a general interest publication, not an aviation rag) that the F-117's were ID'ed either visually or using IR when they flew below the cloud deck, allowing IR or laser guided missiles to be launched without radar (see "Modern Upgrades" section of the SA-3 article).  Anyone else remember this?
Tracking by older longwave ground radar seems unlikely, because "Elvira", the onboard guidance computer, locates all potentially hostile emitters and guides the pilot to avoid their coverage below probable detection strengths.  In contrast, a "black jet" is easy to spot against clouds, particularly anywhere near a city with attendant light pollution.  This is the main reason for changing to the low-visibility grey that all other US aircraft use, not daylight operations.
2.  Does not the second loss count as a kill?  Or is successful RTB in a (functionally) destroyed aircraft not a kill?
One silly problem with advanced technology is over-reliance.  No non-stealthy aircraft F-16s or Harriers were lost, because the pilots were (and are) more careful to avoid ground threats. RandallC
: At least one F-16 WAS INDEED LOST during the war - it fell near the town of Sabac. It`s tail is in the Yugoslev Aeronautical Museum in Belgrade, and you can see a photo of it in the article Kosovo War.
Only 1?!?!?!LOL,thats a lie!!!!!!
We shot at least 3 of them sons of bitches down back in 1999,I personaly saw one of them near Batajnica on April 18th 1999.Off course,NATO wont ever admit it,but it was more then 1,trust meDzoni 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article will be changed as soon as you can provide a credible reference for this claim. Unreferenced changes will be reverted on sight. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any verifiable photos or a published article? Guinnog 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not allow original research. Is there a credible source you can cite? Serbian is okay, the emphasis here is on "credible," as defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The commander of the battery that shot down the F-117 has been in the media repeatedly but has never made any claims of a second shootdown. And please exercise some civility. --Mmx1 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I will be very curious to see the results of your search so that the "mistake" can be re-examined. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combat Losses

message: The Nighthawk's designation of F-117A marks it as a fighter bomber, using the same naming format of F, with three rather than two numbers as in the earlier F-111 bomber.
I removed the above sentence as it is unsourced and contradicts known facts. The F111 was named before they restarted at F1. It was a logical progression as it came after F104, F105, F106 and before such planes as the F4, F5, and F8. The gaps were filled by prototype aircraft. If all fighter/bombers were designated with 3 digit names, why do we have any 2 digit named fighters at all? Technically all of our current fighters are fighter/bombers. Certainly the F14/15/16/18 are both. Even the F22 is a fighter/bomber. By the logic of the above sentence, all of our multirole fighters should have 3 digit designations. AFAIK, the usage of the 117 designation is unexplained, as numerically it should have been the F19 I believe. Also, there were plenty of "century" series aircraft (F100+) which were not fighter/bombers. The F102, F104 and F106 were pure interceptors. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that 3-digit explanation is something I've never seen in a credible source. Aside from the F-117, the only 100-series aircraft designed from the get-go as fighter-bombers were the F-105, the F-107, and the F-111. That's 9 fighters/interceptors against 3 fighter-bombers. The most convincing explanation I've read for the F-117 rather than F-19 was secrecy and intentional feeding of misleading information. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There actually is an explanation: See the thread #How did the F-117 designation come about? above. (I've unburied it from the "Old Threads" collection.) Askari Mark (Talk) 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Century series designations are as follows: F-100, F-101, F-102, XF-103 (not produced), F-104, F-105, F-106, YF-107 (failed fly-off vs. F-105), XF-108 (XB-70-related, not produced), XF-109 (not produced), F-110 (USAF designation for F-4B), F-111, F-112 (rumored Su-15/Su-22 designations), YF-113A-E (rumored MiG-17/23 designations under HAVE DRILL/HAVE PRIVILEGE), YF-113G (rumored designation), YF-114 (rumored HAVE FERRY MiG-17 designations), F-117A, YF-117D (rumored designation). — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Digit designation  

message: "Unlimited (with air-to-air refueling)".  This should probably list the range on one full tank of fuel, and then it can go on to list the possibility of an unlimited flight with air-to-air refueling.  65.95.59.241 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with aerial refueling, the engines will eventually run out of oil, so is unlimited accurate? 71.252.242.154 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Finding an unclassified range is a challenge, though. However, I have managed to run one down. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: I also recall hearing, sometime in the mid-1990s, of an F-117A that was on its way to Andrews Air Force base that lost a wing over the MD suburbs and went down. I actually saw video footage of this on the news. Since then I have heard of a few instances of F-117s apparently falling out of the sky. Again, wondering if anybody else recalls this event. User:transentient 26 July 2006
:You are thinking of the loss of 81-793 on Aug. 14, 1997. --Askari Mark | Talk
There are 6 non-combat losses 
source : www.f-117a.com
--Max Mayr 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-combat losses / Reliability issues 

message: I think it's a little assuming to delete all the trivia. Opinions?
Goldencrisp87 02:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is still there, non-notable entries like flyovers were removed. PPGMD 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: According to this article http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,117958,00.html the F-117 is about to retire. The article does not give a specific date, but it would appear that its low capability/cost ratio and aging stealth technology (pretty much busted by long wave radar) has consigned it to an early retirement. 
210.8.39.38 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-117 'About To Retire' 

message: I think the F-117 would be better if it carried anti-runway bombs, instead of air-to-air armament, since destroying the runways prevents almost all of the enemy aircraft from taking off.  How many air-to-air weapons could the F-117 carry anyway; one or two?  During the Gulf War of the 1990s, the Panavia Tornado was given the responsibility of destroying the runways, and many were shot down by AAA guns and missles.  Sending in the F-117 to destroy the runways makes sense to me.204.80.61.10 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about anti-runway munitions?

message: "Choose not to" or "Could not" destroy wreckage?
I see that the text in "combat loss" changed from "United States decided not to annihilate the wreckage" to "United States could not annihilate the wreckage"
A quick looks at the referenced didn't show strong support either way, but leaned more towards the US deciding not to bomb, rather than being incapable of bombin.  I changed the text to "Did not" destroy wreckage, since that is certainly true.  If someone can find a better source for why the wreckage wasn't destroyed please add that in. - Occasional Reader 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Loss 

message: What kind of citation is expected? The air force website states it will be retired. - Dammit 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement 

message: I thought I read somewhere that the F-117A was made of composite materials, but can't remember where. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Anynobody 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composites

message: Do you think its need to be expanded ?--Max Mayr 06:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat service 

message: I think the B-2 being a heavy bomber and the F-117 being a light attack jet would make them not be comparable. I think it should be removed. Performance, size range, mission, there really is and will not be a comparable aircraft to the F-117.Philbaaker 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Aircraft 

message: This article should have information on the Lockheed proposal to the USN for a navalized F-117, that was to have replaced the cancelled A-12 Avenger ATF... 132.205.99.122 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-117N & F-117B & A/F-117X 

message: The claim that Candice on the sprint commercial incorrectly referred to a schematic of an F-117 as a B-2, wasn't incorrect. I am a pretty knowledgeable aviation enthusiast and that sure looks like a B-2 stealth bomber to me:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaA4fU2QiI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.107.70.45 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seemingly random comments

message: Anyone remember that infamous appearance at the Farnborough airshow in the 90's? While the aircraft was doing a flyby a cheeky BAE team displaying the Rapier decided to try and target it and were astonished to find such a bright silhoutte which they passivley tracked and locked onto. The IR camera footage from the Rrapier was used on the national news for several days and embarassed military officials claimed it wasnt in "full stealth" mode (engine heat being redirected) however the silhoutte showed even heat distribution. BAE used it in their marketing and their was reportedly (newspaper articles several months later) an upsurge in Rapier exports. Anyone remember the dates enough to dig up some newspaper references? I think it was a notable incident for the embarassment caused and the media hype that was created.
Edit: Think possibly it was its first appearance at the show? 83.104.138.141 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone an article on it from a reliable source that'll facilitate further discussion.  That sounds like tabloid story to me at the moment. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farnborough appearance 

message: Does anyone have a source that can confirm that the Night Hawk lost a good portion of its anti-radar capabilities when it flew under wet conditions?
142.16.22.18 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature reduction loss when hull is wet 

message: As an interesting coincidence, or part of Skunk Works "easter egg" - until very recently, to get the emergency services on a Lockheed phone system, you dialed "117"!24.130.59.172 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Theory on numbering 

message: Has anyone thought of including a reference to F117 in fiction - especially incorrectly? There are several bizzare references where F-117s are supposed to have shot down other aircraft (e.g. series 4, episode 16 of 24 ) and there's that Steven Segal film (he dies early on) where there is a mid-air transfer from an F117 with lots of room inside for the special forces unit... Purple Aubergine (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The mid-air transfer is already covered with the Executive Decision.  An appearance in pop culture need to be particularly notable to be listed.  See guidelines for inclusion at WP:Air pop culture. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take your point - I do wonder if there should be some comment on the general misrepresentation of the plane as a "fighter" with air-to-air weapons. That appears in lots of films and television programmes. --Purple Aubergine (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Designation section states it is a "a ground-attack aircraft so its "F" designation is inaccurate".  That seems fine as is. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  How about season 4 of 24?  I don't want to spoil for people who haven't watched yet and intend to, but the F-117A is a major plot-point, and performs an extremely notable air-to-air role... --Greycellgreen (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-117 in fiction 

message: I noticed that the article nevers makes a reference to the proposed afterburning, carrier-capable F-117N. Does anyone feel like contributing about that? I've got a couple sources if no one is interested... -SidewinderX (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference link to the details and concept images at . It also includes a few details about other variants, but the N and X variants seem to be the most interesting ones. --MikeZ (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-117N 

message: An unsettling behaviour and phenomena on wikipedia is the persistent insistence upon the use of doublespeak language (equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth). In this F-117 article, it tries to describe what is beyond any doubts a stealth tactical bomber and the act of bombing as "attacks" or "strikes". Any attempts to change this is immediately reverted. The F-117 carries free-fall bombs. It has no radar, is entirely impractical for anything except tactical/interdiction bombing sorties, which is what it is used for. Yet describing, for example, such sorties as "bombing targets in Baghdad" is reverted to "attacking targets in Baghdad", and any description of it's role and activities referring to bombing are reverted. The reason stated for these reverts is "wording nitpicking".
But this is an encyclopaedia. The highest standards of accuracy in describing objects is expected, even necessary for objective truth. Unnecessarily vague equivocational words being enforced when more accurate and easily understood ones are available cannot be justified. This misleading political language will serve to misinform and mislead readers, by intentionally making the facts more difficult to discern. Consider a reader being presented with the word 'attacking' compared to 'bombing' targets in a city. The immediate emotional and mental image to the word 'attack' is more of the line of smaller explosives, cannons or even machine guns, while bombs implies considerable high explosives and collateral damage. Politically for those who wish to distort realities of violence and retain public support for war, doublespeak such as this is a powerful tool. But for those interested in objective truth, it cannot be tolerated.
Even if your local media, government or even military uses these tactics in an official manner, please do not promote it or enforce it.
Mikkowl (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with your characterization of the words "attack" and "bomb". Merriam-Webster defines attack as "to set upon or work against forcefully", and bomb as "to attack with or as if with bombs". Clearly their meaning is related. Your definition of attack seems to, for example, apply to IED attacks, often called "roadside bombs". Futhermore, I don't understand what you are trying to say about the F-117's role. You say it is "impractical for anything except tactical/interdiction bombing sorties"... as opposed to what? Air-to-air combat? Carpet bombing? What distinction are you trying to make? -SidewinderX (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bombing" in the context of an aircraft refers specifically to dropping bombs. This is a more descriptive, accurate and easy to understand word than the ultra-vague "attack". As for the F-117's role, if labelled 'attack' as in 'ground attack', this is another vague, wide definition that typically refers to close air support, strafing with cannons and unguided rockets. 'Bomber' is also a general term which can include strategic bombing through carpet bombing or nuclear means. Since the F-117 does none of these things and only drops free-fall bombs on targets, it should be defined as a tactical bomber. Mikkowl (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attack" is not vague, but a correct word to use in the context of small offensive aircraft. We have "attack" aircraft such as the A-6, A-7, and A-10, and attack helicopters such as the AH-1 and AH-64. WHile "attack" is often used in the sense of "ground attakc"/CAS type missions, it also applies to tactical roles beytond the battlefield such as interdiction, which are often done using missles, not just bombs. I sense that English may not be your first language, so perhaps you're missing the normal connotations of the word as normally used. Please don't read some kind of conspiracy or "doublespeak" into the usage here - it's the norm in military aviation writing. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  Ground attack is stated early in the article so the context with attack is made clear.  I did switch most "strikes" to "attacks" since strike can be associated with interdiction.  Ground attack includes bombing so that's not being left out. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what Mikkowl is trying to say is that the term "attack" generally has less negative connotations than the term "bomb" and is therefore euthanising what the F-117 does. 219.89.205.8 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troublesome doublespeak appearing in article 

message: Austrian Airforce Intercepted 2 F-117. should this be mentioned in the article?
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_381.shtml
http://www.caveman.co.at/f117.html
77.74.115.81 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian Airforce Intercepted 2 F-117: 

message: I removed this source because it is not of any great value in understanding the F-117 (no judgment about the rest of it, because I only read the portion relevant to the 117). The author provides no reference to verify or dispute his claim, and his point is fairly incoherent. I'm not going to transcribe it because that might violate his copyright, but he stops just short of calling stealth a lie, attacks the success rate of -117 bombing runs with an unsupported statistic that cries out for context, and wanders on to bemoan the fact that only 8% of bombs were guided. All this within a single sentence!
Sniping aside, the F-117 is tangential, at best, to the point he is trying to make, and that's probably why it's unsupported. In turn, we should leave him to that point, and leave this paragraph with the remaining sources. 89.211.58.138 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Great War for Civilization" 

message: Do we need an extensive gallery of images since one already exists on the Commons? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No - thats why we have commons. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: No, this article is long and has several images already.  I moved 2 images elsewhere and deleted the Gallery.  I believe this follows the appropriate policy (WP:Galleries). -fnlayson (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery?

message: I see all sorts of refs as to the "Mark 61" on the F-117, but not in this article.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/f117a.html
Hcobb (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what it has to do with the F-35 but the page you have linked to clearly says in the specification section Armament: 2 Mark 61 MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the one and ONLY reference I have found for a nuclear armed stealth fighter (other than the F-35). Hcobb (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, your original question seemed to indicate it wasnt in the reference used but they were plenty of other references, is it not a reliable reference? MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My mind would be settled on the question if I could find anything sourced from the USAF. Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, perhaps it should be removed if a more solid source can not be found. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Appears to be a lot of none citable sources around that say the F-117 was designed to be nuclear capable and carry Mk 61s but it appears it never did. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-35 not first nuclear armed stealth fighter 

message: The following sentence sounds extremely misleading to me:
"The Nighthawk was shot down by a missile fired by elements of the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, a Hungarian national with extensive experience in missile defense systems who was employed with the Yugoslav military's air defense."
Although Zoltan is an ethnic Hungarian he was born in Serbia and is a Serbian (and was a Yugoslav) citizen and he served in the Serbian/Yugoslav army as such. The way it is put in the article sounds like he was a Hungarian mercenary hired by the Yugoslav army.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.122.3 (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoltan Dani

message: Why is Kelly Johnson credited as the designer on the U-2, SR-71 and F-104 articles but Ben Rich is not credited as the designer of the F-117?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.213.192 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why Rich is mentioned in the article in the Senior Trend section. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Rich's Airplane 

message: I've made an edit to the weapons section. It listed the BLU-109 as a weapon when it is a warhead option with the other weapons. I have added the most common warhead variants to each weapon and changed the JDAM entry to GBU-31 (I think the GBU-38 500lb JDAM came into service just as the F-117A was being phased out).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.220.245 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons 

message: Title shoud revert to F-117A as there has never been an F-117. The Us designation system currently in use assigns the sub-type A to the first model regardless of whther it is a prototype or demonstartor. Whoever changed it got it WRONG!!! Petebutt (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: F-117A