Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 
 
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Nighthawk vs. Night Hawk[edit]

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)

Accident section[edit]

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)

Cost of Program[edit]

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)

42.6 million is the marginal cost, if you wanted to build one more F-117 it would cost that. 111 million is the program cost, per airplane actually built. 64 aircraft X 111 million => 7.1 billion total program cost. Aesma (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not export retired F-117?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

I think your comment is valid in that DoD system nomenclature is fairly uniform and consistent since WW2, yet it has like I've just learned more to do with keeping the fighter designation from earlier in its operational history, in order for the program's heads to attract the kinds of pilots they sought for the operational goals. Symcophan888 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Game reference?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

A-7[edit]

Somebody needs to introduce more about why the A-7 was associated with the F-117, before the statement "After the announcement [of its existence] pilots could fly the F-117 during daytime and no longer needed to be associated with the A-7..." Give us some context here. Hermanoere (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Its explained in the first paragraph of the "Operational History" section, though I agree it would be easier to understand if that particular information came first.

Operational History[edit]

The section is primarily sourced around a single GAO report. While seemingly authoritative, its a minority report authored by Winslow Wheeler. For those of you who are unaware, Wheeler has a hard on against anything thats not an F-16 and while once widely listened to. The GAO report stands in contrast to nearly every other reliable source with respect to the F-117's performance during GW1 and while it has a place in this article, material taken from it currently runs a foul of WP:Undue. WeldNeck (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Location of Nellis AFB[edit]

The following line from the article ...

"All military personnel were permanently assigned to Nellis AFB, but most personnel and their families lived in Las Vegas. This required commercial air and trucking to transport personnel between Las Vegas and Tonopah each week."

... would seem to imply that Nellis AFB is somehow geographically detached from Las Vegas. It is not. All gates (I believe there are five) are in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, mostly within the incorporated city of North Las Vegas. The operational location of the unit during its early days was the Tonopah Test Range, substantially north of the Las Vegas valley; that would make somee kind of sense. The personnel of the original unit were counted on the rosters of Nellis AFB, they worked at the Tonopah Test Range, and were flown or bussed from Nellis to Tonopah on a daily or weekly basis. No planes or busses were or are required to get anyone from "Las Vegas" to "Nellis AFB," as the venues are physically and geographically contiguous. Just an observation from somone who lives here and worked there for a while. F117-A (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Criteria[edit]

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

  • 1
    1.a checkY
    1.b checkY, although the lede paragraphs are a bit skimpy.
  • 2
    2.a checkY
    2.b checkY
    2.c checkY
    2.d checkY
  • 3
    3.a checkY
    3.b checkY
  • 4
    4.a checkY
  • 5
    5.a checkY
  • 6
    6.a checkY
    6.b checkY
  • No Copyvio checkY
  • No DAB links ☒N F-117 (disambiguation) and F-117 are both dab links.
  • No Dead links ☒N "F-117 pilot school closes.", "The Advent, Evolution, and New Horizons of United States Stealth Aircraft", "DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles.", "F-117A Nighthawk.", "Cracks in the Black Dike, Secrecy, the Media and the F-117A.", "Tape Reveals Stealth of Our Ukrainian Pal.", Austrian Radar Plots on acig.org, " "The Black Jet.", ""Filling the Stealth Gap," in Air and Space Power Journal Fall 2006", F-117A Nighthawk page on FAS.org, The Advent, Evolution, and New Horizons of United States Stealth Aircraft, "Constant Peg.", "Unconventional Weapon.", "F-117 History", "DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles", "Pilot recognizes crashed F-117A.", "Omaha Nighthawks official page.", "410th FLTS 'Baja Scorpions' closes historic chapter.", "One of only four existing F-117s returns to Edwards.", "Stealth and Beyond: Air Stealth (TV-series)"., "New Mexico Air Force base at crossroads.", and "The Secrets of Stealth" on Discovery Military Channel" are all dead links or redirects.

Prose suggestions[edit]

GAN[edit]

This is a response to Iazyges' request over at WT:MILHIST regarding the GAN. Although I'm not exactly addressing lazyges' request, the way I see it, the article has some major issues. After having looked at the Operational history section, I'm inclined to say that there are significant improvements to be made, most notably to the prose. In particular, there isn't a lot of flow in the writing, and so as a result the information doesn't appear to link. For example, the first paragraph of the section talks about the basing of the aircraft during the period from 1984 to mid-1992, and the logistical measures the USAF took to shield operations from the public. Then in the next paragraph the article jumps back to 1983, and straight after it talks about what the pilots call themselves. In addition, the article is missing information about the aircraft's service during Operation Enduring Freedom (2001) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003). Given these two issues, I'm afraid it does not meet GA criteria. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Secrecy[edit]

The Development section says: 

very few people in the Pentagon knew the program even existed, until the F-117s were revealed to the public in 1988

The first reference for that is Cracks in the Black Dike that says: 

In mid-October, various news services announced that the Pentagon was about to reveal some information about the fighter

Implying that it was known about inside and outside the Pentagon before then. That is the closest it has on the subject.

The second reference is BBC News | Iraq | Top Gun - the F-117 Stealth Fighter and the closest that it says that is relevant is .... uh well where does it say anything relevant?

I was employed by Lockheed at the time they left Burbank in 1990. I know we talked about the ATF prior to the development of the prototypes. I do believe the Pentagon knew about the project before 1988.

I know that the two prototypes built by Lockheed were built in the building south of the main entrance to the Burbank (or Bob Hope or whatever) Airport.

I know that I wrote a program that processed Skunk Works aircraft manufacturing instructions to pick out the tools and materials to convert them to the same software that the White World used and it is nearly certain that the ATF is one of the aircraft it processed but of course I have nothing saying any of that is true. I know that we talked about the ATF a lot. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk&oldid=926083012"