Talk:F-117 Nighthawk/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old threads

According to the History Channel, the stealth fighter's targets in panama were a pair of barracks under enemy control. The military decided to capture the buildings instead of destroy them, so the F-117's were ordered to drop their bombs just in front of the buildings.

When the Stealth fighter was used in Panama during "Operation Just Cause", the military said that it had hit its target. I also read that a journalism went, a few months later, to the building targeted. It was still standing, totally intact. In fact, he found a crater in a parking lot quite a distance away. Does anyone have any info about this? I have found a mention by the journalist Robert Meyerowitz about this, but it is a casual reference (http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives/document32c0.html). Does anyone have any more specific information? Thanks. RayKiddy 02:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My memory says you are right, but I have no references. Tempshill 22:41, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I cannot find the book at the moment, but IIRC, in Bob Woodward's 'The Commanders', he mentions that the bombing was a kind of show of force against the Panamanian Defence Forces, and that Colin Powell personally ordered that the bombs be a certain distance away from the barracks. Apparently he wanted to avoid killing too many of the lower-rank PDF members, who were felt to be not very supportive of Noriega, and that he would have a problem with local support if he caused too many casualties. Identity0 09:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The F-117 was used in "Just Cause" to scare and confuse those loyal to Noriega. The black jets dropped at least 1 bomb *outside* of a barracks. The situation is discussed at length in Tom Clancy's Shadow Warriors: Inside The Special Forces.

Mr (or Ms.) Guzzler, could you provide a reference on the use of the F-117 with air-to-air armament? --Robert Merkel 05:29 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I have seen no (0.0) references to Roaches ever being armed with air-to-air weapons. It's difficult to prove a negative, but in the absence of positive evidence, I vote for removing the reference to Sidewinders. Tactically, it makes no sense to risk a Roach attacking an adversary's most heavily defended aircraft. A Phoenix from a Tomcat is the way to attack an AWACS, not a short-range bottle-rocket like a Sidewinder.

By the bye, that is one hideous table! --the Epopt 20:57 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I am under the impression that in Gulf War I, the most valuable contribution of the F-117 was to circle stealthily and keep a laser pointed at a target so that other, larger aircraft could drop a laser guided bomb and get lost. True? Tempshill 22:41, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"The F117 program was designed to employ the best figher pilots, and the explanation given (on a recently televised documentary) by a senior member of the F117 development team was that no fighter pilot of repute would fly a "B-" or even "A-" designated plane. Hence it was necessary to simply give it an "F-" designation. " I've just added this to the main page. Anyone got any details on this tv programme or the person who gave the explanation? I'll remove "recent" in the next update round. Cheers --/Mat 05:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, first-time edit. There are links to two unexisting pages. Either Lockheed Advanced Development Projects should be created from the content at Skunk works (and redirecting this last one), or both should point to the correct page (which is Skunk works right now). Since I'm a bit unexperinced, I welcome ideas! Meanwhile, I'll redact the "Skunk Works" link to "Skunk Works". I believe the page should be moved, but I'll leave that suggestion at the corresponding Talk page. Cheers! --Luis Bruno

I removed this paragraph:

Its fighter designation is most likey due simply to its orginal intended use as a nightfighter. While not a capable dogfighter, such a plane could follow soviet planes such as the Soviet "Bear" and strike at them unwares. For example, a stealth plane could approach a incoming Soviet bomber formation and get close enough to launch air to air missiles before being detected. The advent of effictive guided bombs also allowed for it function, in the end, much more effectively as a precision strike aircraft.

Earlier in the article we say that it didn't carry air-to-air missiles. Which is it? Rmhermen 04:56, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is strange. Cursory research is finding sites that say that the F-117 carries missiles and others that say it doesn't. Global Security says it only carries bombs (MK84s, Paveways, etc.), but some other sites (that I'm less likely to trust) say otherwise: [1] [2]. Of bigger question is whether or not the aircraft can carry AGM-65s and AGM-88s (I am uncertain).
Anyways, my guess (as the removed paragraph indicates) is that the original role for the F-117 was to be for air interdiction and not bombing (hence the F- prefix and not B-). I think the sentence should have its tense changed to Past Perfect Continuous for accuracy. Like so:
Its fighter designation was most likely due simply to its orginal intended use as a nightfighter. While not a capable dogfighter, such a plane would have followed Soviet planes such as the Soviet "Bear" bomber and strike at them unwares. For example, a stealth plane would be able to approach a incoming Soviet bomber formation and get close enough to launch air to air missiles before being detected. The advent of effictive guided bombs also allowed for it function, in the end, much more effectively as a precision strike aircraft.
Well, no, because it was originally called Have Blue. It was already into production when it received its F-117 designation. They already knew that the flight characteristics were too poor for it to work as a fighter, and I would say that no, I don't believe it was ever intended to be a fighter of any sort. I'm for changing the designation to A-11. Ryan Salisbury 01:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That sound OK? I'd like to add something to the effect that the aircraft is not used for AA combat at all, but I can't explicitly verify that this is the case. Can anyone verify? RADICALBENDER★ 05:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Air-to-air missile capability

I read somewhere the F-117A was capable of carrying Sidewinder missiles (1 per bomb bay) thanks to its IR targetting system. Is this true/anyone know of this?

Well, it's theoretically possible, because the mounting rails are universal, as far as I know, and the Sidewinder requires no special hardware. The problem is that the rear fins are fairly big, and might not fit in the bay.

The target the F-117's were staging against in Panama was a barracks that the military decided to capture. Thats why the bambs dropped by the Nighthalk in Pananma were intenetionally short of their mark.

Not that I disagree but "It is likely a poor dogfighter, but there is no expert opinion on its other abilities." needs a source

Answers?

The 'F' designation was assigned to attract fighter pilots to fly the plane during the test and evaluation phase, according to History channel (since they didn't want to fly a bomber, which is exactly what this is).

As for the Sidewinders, I believe that if they really wanted to mount AAMs, it would be very easy. A launcher has to be available now, and, if they didn't have one, they could easily engineer one.

The question is: If you arm your F117 with one AAM (for defense purposes, hopefully not for use as a fighter), how much space do you have left for AG ordnance?

If a Nighthawk cannot avoid getting intercepted by an enemy fighter before reaching its objective, it has been a complete waste of money, even more so than I had originally thought.

air-to-air missiles

The USAF has claimed the F-117 can carry two of "everything in the inventory," presumably excluding the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM (considering that it has no radar to guide them). It could carry Sidewinders, but the bay design means that it could only carry one in each bay (unless they were to develop a fold-out dual-rail system). It seems pointless -- the F-117 does NOT want to invite air combat, and if it's in a situation where it needs a self-defence weapon, it's in bad trouble anyhow, since it's not fast enough or manoeuverable enough to escape.

-- ArgentLA 17 Nov 2004 1221

Liquid Fuelled?

The article states that the F-117 that was shot down was hit with a "liquid fuelled Neva-M" missile. However during my research for the SA-3 article all my references stated that this missile has a two-stage solid fuel motor. They mention two SA-3 upgrades, but the first (in 1964) doesn't seem to have changed the propulsion method, and neither does the second (in 2000), but this was after the shoot-down anyway. Anyone know why this missile was quoted as being liquid-fuelled and why/where it came from?

Thanks, Nicholas, January 9 2005.

FAC?

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)

Corrections

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: [3], [4]. 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)

I removed the Nickname section and put a couple of corrected items in Trivia. The "Wobbly Goblin" nickname is almost certainly false, and is possibly based on a misunderstanding by a New York Times reporter, which has been repeated without verification many times [5]. The "Black Widow" statement is probably false, maybe based on confusion with the stealthy YF-23 Black Widow II, which briefly had a red hourglass painted on the bottom. If true for the F-117A, it needs verification and an authentic source due to the YF-23 similarity. Joema 14:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement "The black color of the fuselage results from a construction of radar-absorbing composites and radar-absorbing ferrite based paints." This is unlikely, as some current F-117As are painted gray, as were the Have Blue prototypes, also the B-2 Spirit and F-22. [6], [7], [8]. This has been discussed many times in books and periodicals about the F-117A, and the consensus is it's painted black because the Air Force wanted that color, not because it's an intrinsic characteristic of iron ball paint or the construction materials. Joema 15:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Variable yield bombs"???

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)

You're right; I fixed it. Joema 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wobbly Goblin?

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)

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)
Thanks, I'll update the article. Guinnog 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Combat Losses

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)

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)

I provided credible reference:I saw it with my own eyes in Batajnica,I saw the remanings of the NATO aeroplain.Can you please fix that now or do i need to do itDzoni 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable photos or a published article? Guinnog 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can found many,but in Serbian,if thats okDzoni 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Actualy,the commander that shot down f-117a was claiming that Serbian PVO(Anti-Air-Defence) shot more then 100 plains,so you cant really take hie word seriously.

He was the one who said to the American Army:"Just go with land agresion,you wont come back.THis will be another Vietnam".

He even said we should mobilize kids of age 16 to get killed in war.

So,you can notice that he is a moron and a retarded fool,so you shouldnt really pay attention to him.

Anyway,Im going to provide news reports from April 1999 very soon,so you can edit the mistake.Dzoni 11:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

If an old Soviet PVO system can detect and intercept F-117, what about modern S-400 Triumph system??? F-117 is a hoax created to fight with air forces of a 3rd world...Sea diver 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a real weapons systems designed to defeat the air defences of a superpower a full generation ago. Something can be very "whiz-bang" and bleeding edge in 1983 and not all that amazing in 2006. Furthermore, it can be awfully good and remain less than 100% effective in all conditions.

See F-117 Nighthawk alive

Actually, I meant on parts of F117 who shooted down in 1999. That parts are exposed now in Museum of Aviation, which is near by International Belgrade Airport Nikola Tesla, Belgrade, Serbia.