Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk

Stealth Technology

I've heard anecdotally from ex-RAAF employees that the Jindalee Over The Horizon Radar System had no issues detecting the F-117. I've also heard anecdotally that Australia's old civilian Primary Radar System had no trouble picking them up and I think that South Africa had some technology that could pick them up. Apparently the F-117's stealth capabilities were a big disappointment. Does anyone know of any legitimate sources for this information for inclusion in the article (if true)? --Spuzzdawg (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? One a/c shotdown in nearly 30 years of operation is "a big diaappointment"? Whatever it is you're taking, I'd check the dosage. It was well known that the F-117A was not invisible, only low observable and even then only from certain angles. That's why missions were carefully planned to approach known air defense radars from certain directions.

Nighthawk vs. Night Hawk

I've undone a good-faith edit to change the F-117's popular name from Nighthawk to Night Hawk per the reference in the Nicknames section to DoD 4120.15-L. Unfortunately, the last published edition of DoD 4120.15-L (2004) is noted for its editorial sloppiness and a number of errors. (In fact, it assigns the popular name "Nighthawk" to the VH-60D, but it's actually the nickname for HMX-1, the unit that flies the VHs. If you google on "Nighthawk", you'll turn up links from the USAF, Lockheed Martin, and other normally reliable sources; if you google "Night Hawk" (including the quotes), you mostly get modelling and other aficionado sites. Unless someone has a problem with this, I'm going to revise the Nicknames section accordingly. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why, if Nighthawk is a nickname, that it has been used for the article header? I'm not sure I've ever seen an official name being relegated to a mere reference in a nickname section before! If the official name is Night Hawk, then an encyclopedia should, surely, take the neutral position of perpetuating reality/accuracy, not someone's personal preference? --621PWC (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The document lists the following:

• Night Hawk F-117A AF
• Nighthawk VH-60D MC
• Nighthawk VH-60N MC

searching both terms in Google, very few entries use "night hawk", with the vast majority (including official references) using "nighthawk", so I would be inclined to leave the article title as it is, and perhaps even remove the mention of the DoD document. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but that doesn't answer my central point that an encyclopedia should reflect accuracy, not preference. It could be easily corrected by using Night Hawk in the heading and then pointing out that despite the official name, the conjoined name appears to be the most commonly preferred - even in some official documents.--621PWC (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The USAF uses "Nighthawk" for the F-117 so it appears to be the preferred usage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

Meanwhile the article says (as of today) that "The aircraft's official name is 'Night Hawk', however the alternative form 'Nighthawk' is frequently used." If that is so, then the article should be titled with "Night Hawk", not with "Nighthawk" as it is today. Mind you, I do not purport to know what is right; I am just pointing out an inconsistency. Either the title is changed or the line is dropped. Would anyone step up to either? SrAtoz (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

F117 in fiction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There are also games that depict the Nighthawk capable of invisibility until they drop their payloads unto their targets. Cid SilverWing 12:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

F-117N

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)

I've added a reference link to the details and concept images at [1]. 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)

Troublesome doublespeak appearing in article

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

F-117 drops bombs = fact dropping bombs = bombing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.68.3 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To solve this issue , the word " strike" would be the most appropriate , its in between " bombing " and " attack " , since the F-117 was not a bomber like the B-2 or attack aircraft like the A-10 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Austrian Airforce Intercepted 2 F-117:

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) skiboy

Doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Great War for Civilization"

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)

Gallery?

Do we need an extensive gallery of images since one already exists on the Commons? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

No - thats why we have commons. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

F-35 not first nuclear armed stealth fighter

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Accident section

I'm surprised I need to mention this, but the "Accidents" section belongs under the heading "Operational history". It does not warrant being moved to its own section. Whoever you are, you should know better. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The current layout follows the layout guidelines at WP:Air/PC. If you have an issue with it, bring it up on the talk page there.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I'll reference it in the future. It also settles a dispute I'm having over the title of another article. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't one of the accidents/loses gain a fair amount of media attention, with the type of aircraft involved never identified at that time? If Yes, and verifiable, this is bes place to enter that information Wfoj2 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Zoltan Dani

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)

Ben Rich's Airplane

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)

I noticed this as well. It is Mr. Rich's plane as much as Johnson's are his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.10.153.170 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Rich is mentioned in the article in the Senior Trend section. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Weapons

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)

P18 meter band radar

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_24/69369732/ we used the Soviet-made P18 meter band radar which is capable of tracking any warplane irrespective of the configuration of its fuselage. The radar started to emit and we discovered a target at a distance of 15 kilometers

A good enough source? Hcobb (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly as it's a personal view from a non-specialist in an interview.

Detection of the F117A depends on a number of things, but different radar configurations will render different aircraft in a range of ways. A tactical radar may detect, based on glint and environmentals.

ALR (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

F-117A

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk → Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk –

The proper title should be Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk, for the simle reason ther has never been an F-117 Nighthawk. There is no need to sacrifice accuracy as there are re-directs aplenty that will point people to the correct designation, so why not have an accurate article title!!.Petebutt (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move - the series letter in the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system is optional. By consensus, WP:AIR doesn't use the series letter in designation unless it is needed for disambiguation and clarity, such as with the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see any real need to rename article to add the version letter (A). The F-117A is still the F-117. Omitting the version does not cause any confusion. Other articles such as AH-56, KC-767, VC-25, X-29, and others omit the A version letter without any apparent issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move per BilCat and Fnlayson above. --John (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, this isn't standard naming to include. Kyteto (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cost of Program

The info box says the cost of one aircraft was 42.6 million, and the entire program (including 64 aircraft built) was 111 million. That's obviously not possible. Sailboatd2 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not export retired F-117?

Since F-117 is retired, why US don't sell F-117 to Japan, South Korea or even Philippines, Taiwan, they can EARN money, right?125.82.254.94 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They are old and may not have much life left in their airframes. And not wanting to give any stealth technology away. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally aircraft are given, not sold, to museums. But in the case of the F-117, I'd imagine the officer petitioning for aircraft to be given over to third parties who could do anything with the aircraft, or let anyone study to reverse-engineer the aircraft, would be thought to be a complete idiot. So basically, any gains in money (and they'd probably actually lose money, as before they can be sold any sensitive or reusable equipment would likely be stripped, and that ain't free at all) would be far, far, far outweighed by the fact they've potentially handed unqiue design secrets to where everybody and their dog could be scraping them for tech info. These are the people who didn't want a MODEL of the B2 bomber to be displayed in fear that it would be too accurate and helpful to espionage, entire operational airframes are miles more sensitive. AND that's on top of the rumors that the F-117s were being specially maintained so that, if they were needed, they could be returned to operational service - Not at readiness, but being cared for so that they don't decay without someone watching. Frankly, they're too sensitive and too potentially useful to just chuck to the four winds - and that's before you consider the simple fact that most aircraft are not sold to collections, but given. Kyteto (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Combat Loss

Changed U.S. Marine Corps, to U.S. Airforce (http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/December%202006/1206vega.aspx).Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

F-111 as designation example

The article has a paragraph commenting on the USAF's apparent inconsistency of giving an F designation to what is actually an attack aircraft. Then it correctly states that the USAF has however used the F designation for attack aircraft in the past and cites the F-105 and F-111 as examples of this practice. First, I have to commend whoever wrote that, as the first sensible writer I have seen who acknowledges the F-105's deviation from norm, but then I beg to differ regarding the F-111: in the early 60s, this airplane was intended as both a tactical bomber (F-111A) and a long-range fighter (F-111B). Though the latter failed to materialise, I have always understood that the F designation absorbed the attack rôle when one single aircraft was able to perform both (until the advent of F/A-18, which was some fifteen years down the road). With that reasoning, the F-111 would be justified and not an exception regarding its F designation. In the very least, the F-111 would not be consensual here, so I ask: should we not drop it as an example? Would the F-105 not be enough? Any thoughts? SrAtoz (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Game reference?

Can someone add the game reference "F117a Nighthawk Stealth Fighter 2.0" from MicroProse, see... http://www.gog.com/game/f117a_nighthawk_stealth_fighter_20 --80.153.90.252 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

retirement section

This sentence doesn't make sense, "Other weapons began to take on the F-117A's roles, such as the F-22 Raptor gaining ability to drop guided bombs in 1993" since the F-22 wasn't introduced for 10 more years. 108.182.13.221 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)