Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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.

How did the F-117 designation come about?

WRT the F-117 being termed a fighter rather than the bomber it so obviously is for "political reasons" - what political reasons? --Robert Merkel

I've heard that the US and the USSR signed an agreement that said neither of them would build a stealth bomber, so the US called it a stealth fighter to get out of the blatant loophole. The guy might have been full of crap, though. Ryan Salisbury 01:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, one of the "cover names" used to hide development of the F-117 in the early 1980s was LT - standing for Logistics Trainer. RTC 02:04 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think all the debate about whether the F-117 is a "fighter" or "bomber" or "fighter-bomber" or "attack" aircraft is much ado about little or nothing. Since the USAF became an independent service, they've always seemed to considered their birds to be either (strategic) bombers for SAC or fighters for TAC. Even the A-10 is often called a (ground attack) "fighter." The USN is more of a stickler for using 'F', 'F/A', 'A', etc. When the series numbers were "rewound" back to '1' from the century series (which appears to have ended with the F-111), USAF quickly "lost" the 'A' designation after the A-10. Even the short-lived "F/A-22" designation was just that: a short-lived political expediency to emphasize its ability to carry a few bombs; it reverted to "F-22" upon service entry.

I believe the F-117 is best described as "a stealth attack fighter"; it seems the most fitting of all the variations I've heard or read. I'm unaware of any "political reasons" for the designation "F-117", much less an arms control agreement prohibiting "stealth bombers". (Can anyone here identify the agreement - and whether it was approved by Congress? If not, then the speculation "This misdirection could have also served to keep the Nighthawk from violating treaties or angering other countries" should be dropped.)

The best explanation for the "F-117" designation I've come across is that offered by "The Black Jet Website"[9] in its F-117A FAQ page:

"However, the most plausible theory that is believed by the author is that the F-117A really did get its number from the numbering system used for Soviet and other "black" aircraft at Groom. Numbers such as YF-110, YF-113, YF-114, etc., ... up through (and possibly beyond) YF-117A were used by the test pilots as radio callsigns. After a while, these radio call signs came to be sort of unofficial designations for these aircraft. The number 117 became so closely associated with the stealth fighter that when Lockheed printed up the first Dash One Pilot Manual, it had "F-117A" on the cover. Since the Air Force didn't want to pay millions of dollars to re-do all the manuals, the aircraft became the F-117A officially.(As a note: A similar mistake was made when LBJ announced the existence of the "Blackbird". It was supposed to have been designated RS-71, but LBJ announced it as SR-71 and no one had the guts to tell LBJ that he had goofed. The designation stuck.)"

I don't know if it's the correct explanation, but it seems the most plausible to me as well. --Askari Mark | Talk 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The same explanation, including Dash One pilot manual, is given by the Squadron/Signal book on the aircraft. However there have been recent ideas that the long believed story over LBJ's mistake on the SR-71 may be wrong. Buckshot06 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

3 Digit designation

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. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Range

"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)

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)

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)

Procurement History

I recall reading in Air and Space Museam Magazine some years ago that Lockheed not only completed the project quickly, but significantly under-budget. There was a comment to the effect that, Lockheed tried to find some avenue for refunding the extra money, but were unable to due to the existing guidelines for procurement for top secret military projects of this nature. Anybody else remember anything like this? I might be able to dig up the old magazine, but I am not sure. User:transentient 26 July 2006

Non-combat losses / Reliability issues

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.[10] --Askari Mark | Talk

There are 6 non-combat losses source : www.f-117a.com --Max Mayr 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I think it's a little assuming to delete all the trivia. Opinions? Goldencrisp87 02:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is still there, non-notable entries like flyovers were removed. PPGMD 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The trivia point about the Sprint commercial says that the F-117's schematic was shown and then misidentified as the B-2, but I just found the commercial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaA4fU2QiI and it looks exactly like the B-2 to me, not the F-117, which would mean that the Sprint Spokeswoman was correct. Either someone at Sprint realized the error and released a new version of the commercial with the correct schematic, or this trivia point is incorrect. I don't now which though. 67.182.220.187 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Future

F-117 Retirement sooner?

Can anyone confirm if a rumor that states that the recent Quadrennial Defense Review has pointed to the Air Force retiring the F-117 in 2008? Thanks. --Conehead107 | Talk

F-117 'About To Retire'

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) Jake Morrison, Oct 31, 2006

I would guess true, I was watching on CNN on Oct 30th when there was a newscast about the entire F-117 fleet flying in formation towards retirement, but theres no article on it 74.108.121.105 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

read [[11]] 74.108.121.105 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The future section needs to be updated to reflect the latest info that the plane will actually be retired by 2008 after all. Riddley 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because no one honestly knows what going to happen. There are a group that want to retire it, and another that want to keep it as there is no exact replacement for it's role yet. PPGMD 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the latest information from several sources seems to make it clear that the battle is over and the F-117 will be phased out over the next few years. Given the level of the F-22 Raptor's deployment, and the fact that 24 Raptors are being added to the fleet each year, it seems clear that the F-117 will not be needed in a few years, especially when you consider the tremendous advantages that the Raptor's speed and altitude bring to a first day of the war strike capability. Bombs can be released at a much greater distance from the intended target, since they are released higher and faster. With the SDB many more targets can be struck at even greater stand-off distances. The F-22 gives a tremendous speed and range benefit to a stealthy strike capability. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no exact replacement for it's role"... the Raptor can do everything the F-117 can, only better. The F-22 has better situational awareness, better electronic countermeasures, it is much harder to stop (even if you could see it), and it can defend itself. I believe there are already more Raptors in the fleet than F-117 NightHawks (Raptor #87 just rolled off the assembly line... we have full squadrons at Langley and Tyndall AFB, with additional Raptors at Nellis and Edwards). So, if there are no indications to the contrary, it would be best to update the article to remove statements that suggest that the F-117 will not be retired in the next several years. Tvaughan1 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything you said makes logical sense. Just one thing I don't get, though. If retirement is imminent, why keep flying in an upgrade flight test program at EDW? Akradecki 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, there are signs that the F-117 is being retired, and then there are others that the F-117 has life left in it. It's the usual Air Force case of two different agendas colliding, but it seems the people that hold the money (congress) want the F-117 to continue to serve. PPGMD 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have reverted my edits, the contradiction remains. I don't get it. I think the discussion of the F-117 versus the F-22 is highly relevant to the article on the F-117... it goes to the heart of a critical issue.. is the F-117 still relevant and needed? If the 4 bullet points that exist for this discussion remain, I don't see why anyone would have an issue with a couple more highly relevant points (speed, altitude, range). Tvaughan1 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer Akradecki's question, the F-22 has only begun to be deployed. There are only 2 full squadrons at present, and one of them (Tyndall) is a training squadron. So it will be a few years before there are enough F-22's to deploy them without hesitation to a conflict area. Without the F-117 we wouldn't have enough stealthy strike capability in the interim. Tvaughan1 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A total revert of my edits was totally inappropriate. A total revert is only appropriate in the case of vandalism, or obvious nonsense. Please refer to Help:Revert. Tvaughan1 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed a section of referenced texts, and added unreferenced text that is unrelated and unneeded to the article. I could have called it something else, but pure and simple it was a revert. PPGMD 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And it was totally inappropriate, and not in keeping with the way things are supposed to work at WP. See WP:OWN. It is my opinion that the "unreferenced text" I added was related and needed. If you disagree, we can discuss it. Wholesale deletion of my edits were not appropriate. Tvaughan1 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note Unreferenced, first strike against it. Second is that the text added, added nothing to the debate, were not related, and was way too much detail for anything except an article about it or the F-22. I readded a section that you removed that noted from above that ATM the future is unclear because the last proposal to offically retire it was withdrawn. PPGMD 23:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced? When I edited the top section of the article several days ago I added 2 references to the F-117's imminent retirement. It's official, and it is well referenced. I just added references to video and a text story on AF.mil. The section that I deleted about the future being unclear was deleted appropriately... the future is clear, the proposal to retire it was not withdrawn, and it is being retired. Tvaughan1 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The F-117 is being retired, according to the Air Force. Is this reference enough for you? [12]. Tvaughan1 23:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A transcript of the same story is here... [13] Tvaughan1 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Made several phrasing changes to this section, hopefully without changing any of the main points or arguments. There was extraneous verbiage, run-on sentenances, and several peacock terms. See Elements of Style, use active voice, omit needless words, and avoid a succession of loose sentences. Joema 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I got to ask what the AF article is based on, because the QDR that had the F-117 retiring was only a draft and it was pulled from the final QDR. PPGMD 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Strategy Page article explains more... [14] Tvaughan1 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As fine as the F-22 is, it is not true that "the Raptor can do everything the F-117 can, only better." The F-22 is designed to be an air superiority fighter with a (very) secondary air-to-ground role; the F-117 was designed to be a (stealthy) ground-attack fighter only, period. The F-117 can carry most of the USAF's largest precision-guided A/G weapons internally and the largest (like the GBU-28 bunker busters) it can carry externally. The F-22 has a small weapons bay sized to carry AMRAAMs and a small number of SDBs. In a sense, the F-117 won't have a replacement because the F-35, which is designed to be principally a ground-attack (although fully multirole), won't have a large internal bay either. Of course, the F-117's stealth characteristics are at least a generation older than those of the 5th-generation F-22 & F-35.

The USAF's leadership still wants to retire them by 2008, but Congress opposes this plan. There are two reasons. The technical one is that they're not sure the USAF doesn't need the F-117's unique capabilities a while longer — at least until the F-35 is in service. The political one is that Congress hates to let aircraft retire if it means a loss of jobs in their district (which is especially true if a base closes as a result). Nevertheless, the F-117s are coming to that phase in their service life where they will need to have a major overhaul and service life extension — in addition to improvements in their avionics — if they are to continue to serve a further decade or more. When Congress has to decide on spending that much money to keep the F-117 in service longer or else let the USAF retire them, we'll know. At this point, it is safest to say that the USAF would like to retire the F-117 in 2008, but Congress has not yet decided whether to permit this or to appropriate funding to further extend the fleet's service life. Askari Mark | Talk 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you just love it when politicians micro-manage our armed forces? Anyhow, recent articles suggest that Congress will not oppose the F-117's retirement. It has been reported as fact that the F-117 pilots school is closed as of October 13, 2006, and no more pilots will be trained to fly the F-117. All recent articles describe the retirement as a done deal ([15]). Every single article says it is being retired. This article [16] says "over the next 2 years". None say it is debatable, or otherwise. For this F-117 article to suggest otherwise flies in the face of the available information. Tvaughan1 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you are saying, I would not agree that the F-22's air to ground role is "very secondary". This role was designed into the aircraft very early in the production phase, and for a number of years the aircraft was designated the F/A-22 (yes... this was a political move... but anyhow, the aircraft is fully capable of providing ground attack just like our other multi-role fighters). In almost any role the ground attack capability of the F-22 is second to none, due to the performance of the aircraft. The only case where an F-22 is not capable of doing what an F-117 can is when 2000 lb. bombs are needed to do what 2 precision 1000 lb. JDAMs can't do. The F-22 also has external hardpoints capable of carrying 5000 lbs each (although I haven't seen it mentioned that anyone has attached 2000 lb. bombs... in all likelihood this wouldn't be difficult). Of course we also have B-1 and B-2 bombers (as well as B-52s, F-15E's, F-16's and F/A-18's) to drop the heavy stuff. The main role for the F-117 has clearly been to strike well defended targets, using stealth to counter air defenses such as surface to air missiles or enemy aircraft. In this role the F-22 is far superior due to it's improved stealth, speed, ceiling, range, avionics, and air to air capability. Each F-22 will carry 8 SDBs. While the max range of the SDB when dropped by an F-22 at max speed and altitude is classified and not published, it is obviously much much greater than the test results published for an F-15E dropping the SDB from 30,000 feet (60 nautical miles), or anything an F-117 could accomplish with an unpowered weapon. While I understand why a defender of the F-117 would say that adding up these facts is unreferenced speculation, common sense tells us that 1 + 1 = 2. The F-22's pure performance gives JDAMs and SDBs a big boost, and much greater stand-off range. The F-22's greater unrefueled range gives the USAF a deeper strike capability. The F-22's stealth, speed, and ceiling give the pilots less time in hostile territory, and make it much harder to shoot down. The avionics, including data links to other sensors (AWACS, other F-22s, Ground radar, satellite, special forces, whatever...), advanced radar, advanced electronic counter-measures, and other sensors are almost certainly superior to what exists in F-117s today. If you were an Air Force general charged with striking a heavily defended target deep in enemy territory what would you choose? Similarly, the SDB's advancements are relevant to the F-117 vs. F-22 discussion... advanced precision using differential GPS and inertial navigation, excellent penetrating capability, supersonic deployment, improved stand-off due to wings and aerodynamic "missile-like" profile, reduced collateral damage. For many strike scenarios the SDB will be the weapon of choice, and the F-22 will be the weapons delivery platform of choice. Tvaughan1 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully expect the F-117 to be retired by the end of this decade, and I have no personal problem with that. It has done its job and performed it well ... but technology and threat capabilities have continued to advance. My point, though, that the F-22 does not do "all that the F-117 does and does it better" still holds. The F-22 can effectively attack certain high-value targets, but not the full array that the F-117 can. In particular, the F-117 can successfully attack hardened, buried command and control centers that the F-22 cannot; the warheads on the weapons employable to it simply do not have the explosive and penetration capabilities required. Responsibility for those targets which the F-22 cannot effectively address will be passed on to the F-117's "actual" replacement ... the (very) non-stealthy F-15E Strike Eagle and, where stealth is required, the B-2.

What the F-22 will be able to do better than the F-117 is suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD), particularly against "double-digit" SAMs. It will also be a weapon of choice against unhardened "time-critical" targets of value. Other than that, I doubt the F-22 will be used much more in the A/G role than the F-15A/C. Furthermore, if there ever is an "FB-22" produced, I fully expect that all of the F-22A's A/G responsibilities will be transferred to that aircraft (à la the F-15E).

Do not be overly impressed by external hardpoints on a stealth aircraft. First, they can only tell you what the aircraft cannot carry; second, they tell you that the aircraft won't have much of an A/A and S/A threat remaining by the time they switch over to serving as unstealthy "bomb trucks." If an aircraft's hardpoints – and wings – aren't stressed to carry a particular weight and class of ordnance, it is not necessarily a simple job to make them so. Moreover, there is the matter of sufficient lateral drop clearance between weapons on different types of pylons on different hardpoints (and from the fuselage sides), which can itself prohibit carriage of particular weapons. More to the point is that precision-guided weapons require particular sensor and cockpit software integration. JDAMs & SDBs aren't so much "precision weapons" as they are mostly just more precise dumb bombs (as are WCMDs). While exact range parameters are classified, the range equation for an unpowered object dropped from altitude is mostly simple physics based on a parabolic descent: increasing altitude provides a decreasing margin of extra range – and the longer the actual flightpath, the greater the raw CEP. GPS-assisted guidance improves the CEP, but there's still no good reason to drop such munitions from max altitude ... just from an altitude that optimizes survivability against surviving enemy S/A weaponry. Having adjustable winglets allows for controlled, but glider-like flyout, but the longer the flyout, the lower the accuracy in hitting the desired aimpoint ... even using differential GPS and inertial navigation. All these technologies serve to improve accuracy, but they don't perfect it. I agree that for many strike scenarios the SDB will be the weapon of choice, but the F-22 will not be the weapons delivery platform of choice for "most" of them, only some of them. Askari Mark | Talk 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark - good points... thanks for contributing to the discussion. The FB-22 is an active program, with a program manager... but it is starting out as a black program, so it is not being discussed. The USAF has made a new bomber its top priority, and this would seem to be one of the best ways to get there without breaking the bank by starting with a clean sheet of paper. Anyhow, the SDB has very high precision, due to the GPS correction that can be given just prior to release. A version is being developed for mobile targets also. I agree that this is not the weapon of choice for hardened targets such as bunkers, despite its penetration capability. From all of the available information, there is no reason to believe that launching (not dropping) an SDB higher and faster would reduce the CEP. As an engineer, I don't understand why that would be the case (as long as the guidance system works correctly and the SDB has enough velocity to continually correct its course, it should still end up in the same spot regardless of how far it traveled to get there. Clearly the laws of physics dictate that launching an SDB higher and faster provides increased range. And clearly there are some situations where increased stand-off range is desirable or totally necessary (you can only fly so far with the aircraft before you run out of fuel, and you might need to strike something 80 miles beyond the aircraft's unrefueled range, for instance). The point is, the farther the stand-off for weapons of this type, the better. This is an established fact widely referenced in numerous articles. The point I was trying to make when I first edited this article was that the F-22 has a better stand-off strike capability than the F-117... and it clearly does (and this point has been referenced). Not only with JDAMs, but now even more so with SDBs. Tvaughan1 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, Tvaughn. A lot of this discussion is, I believe, useful for less experienced and knowledgeable editors here. As an aircraft design engineer with many of experience (including preliminary design of quite a few of the original ATF concepts), one of the lessons I've learned is that there are vagaries to the actual performance of aircraft and their weaponry that aren't widely understood — stuff that doesn't get taught in the textbooks. The atmosphere doesn't work like a vacuum and the more an object moves through that very dynamic "soup", the more it encounters (turbulence, heating effects, etc.) that "nudge" it off its intended course. While the engineers who designed INS guidance systems understood the basics of this, they were surprised by the "extra measure" of error induced by flight through such a dynamic medium; moreover, induced errors are greater when that flightpath involves large changes in altitude than when a more-or-less level altitude is flown. The greater the distance/time flown, the greater the error that is "accumulated." The great value of GPS is that one can periodically "correct" for error — that is, significantly reduce, but not eliminate, error, which then begins to "accumulate" once more. However, the faster an object travels, the greater the distance it will go between "updates". This means that it is more likely to have "accumulated" a larger error by the time it reaches its target. (Just imagine how many updates a hypervelocity SAM would get compared to a "standard" one, and you get the idea. If this wasn't the case, there'd never be a miss.) Unless the SDB has a target acquisition sensor on it, it will as accurately as it is able hit where it "thinks" the target is. Gliding does extend the range, but not the accuracy.

Yes, the F-22 can achieve a better stand-off range than the F-117, but a B-2 could probably do even better. Every airplane has some performance parameter or a place in its performance envelope where another aircraft is better than it is. Every design is a tradeoff and every plane is "optimized" toward a specific role, even "multirole" aircraft. Askari Mark | Talk 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

F-117 vs. F-22 and Small Diameter Bomb

The SDB stuff is the unreferenced content. PPGMD 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The SDB was internally referenced. See Small Diameter Bomb. All one has to do is read the SDB article to note that it "has integrated "DiamondBack" type wings which deploy after release, increasing the glide time and therefore the maximum range." The combination of the F-22 and the SDB has a much better range than an F-117 with JDAMs or other "smart bombs". This is not an insignificant point when the discussion is about which is the better strike aircraft. The SDB has just become operational, and now that it is, it effects the debate. It quadruples the number of targets that an F-22 can strike, while improving the accuracy and stand-off range. While the SDB can also be deployed on the F-117, the effective range of the weapon is much greater on the F-22, due to these factors. So, if the article is going to discuss which is the better strike aircraft and why, I think it should include all of the relevant facts (max ceiling, unrefueled range, speed, stealth, weapons, etc.)... and not just a select few. Tvaughan1 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That provides nothing that wouldn't apply to the F-117 the wings would provide about the same range if they are released at the same altitude, unless the F-22 has some magical aerodynamics easier in it's avionics package. Mentioning the SDB that reportedly has the same penetration capabilities as the 2,000lb LGB can be put in the F-22 is relevant, the wings are not. PPGMD 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the logic. The F-22 has a much higher operating altitude (60,000 ft +) than the F-117 (33,000 ft), as well as a much faster speed at military power (Mach 1.7 vs. Mach 0.9)... roughly twice the altitude and speed... and the F-22 can use afterburners to increase this advantage (Mach 2.4 vs. Mach 0.9). None of this would matter if the bomb went straight down, but it doesn't... it glides. The SDB is designed like a missile with wings. The F-22's advantages are even greater with such a bomb. The higher you are and the faster you are going when you drop the bomb, the farther it can go before it hits the ground. This means you can turn around sooner, staying farther from a heavily defended target area. You might be able to hit more targets over a wider area in one mission. You also spend less time in a threat area, and are harder to hit when you are moving faster at higher altitudes in a stealthier plane. The point is: the F-22 has a much greater stand off distance than the F-117, and this advantage is greatly enhanced by the SDB. Tvaughan1 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of many PGM dropped at Mach 1.0+, or bombing missions done at FL600+ but hey I could be wrong. You are still talking about small beans, articles that mention the SDB and the F-22 vs F-117 generally mention it to counter the fact that it will probably provide the same capabillity as the F-117 carrying it's largest weapon. Almost none talk about the wings like it's a new feature or one that uniquely makes the F-22 a better aircraft then F-117.

The F-22 able to carry the SDB which may provide it combat capabillities that it wouldn't otherwise have compared to the F-117, relavent. That the SDB have wings, which may allow it to get more glide range on an atypical bombing sortie, not relavent. PPGMD 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

USAFE 48th Tactical Fighter Wing F-111F's dropped PGM's from a speed of Mach 1.5 during the 1991 Gulf War. See info from USAFE Yearbook 1991-92. Wikiphyte 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference in the stand-off distance of the two strike alternatives is highly relevant. SDB's wings and slim profile give it the extended range. Combined with the speed, altitude, and unrefueled range of the F-22, the air force now has a tremendous new strike capability. The relevant point is that the F-22 can strike faster and deeper, while keeping a pilot safer. The fact that the SDB has wings is highly relevant to explain this point. In my opinion, this fact is just as relevant as the fact that the SDB has a hardened case that has the same penetrating capability as a BLU-109 (which seems to be much less relevant to a comparison of the 2 aircraft). The point that many people miss about the Raptor is that the combination of all of it's 5th generation attributes give it a truly transformational capability. The SDB contributes substantially to this transformational capability. Unlike previous "smart bombs", the SDB is more of a "flying bomb". It doesn't just have small winglets to steer it as it falls, it has actual wings that enable it to glide. It has a stand-off range of more than 60 nautical miles (when dropped from 30,000 feet by an F-15E). I'm sure you've seen the video from the gulf war, showing targets being struck from F-117's that were directly above. Pilots would rather strike targets from a safe distance. Tvaughan1 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes... the Raptor can release weapons at supersonic speeds (see [17]). The SDB is specifically designed and tested for supersonic load-out [18]. In the discussion of the F-117 versus the F-22 this is a point worth making... in my opinion. I've seen this point made repeatedly by F-22 pilots... the combination of stealth, speed, ceiling, maneuverability, fuel efficiency, range, and advanced avionics (both defensive and offensive situational awareness) give the Raptor a revolutionary set of capabilities... one of which is the "first day of the war" strike capability formerly the domain of the F-117 and the B-2. Even the F-117 pilots interviewed in the AF.mil video story recognize this. Tvaughan1 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And how does it differ to the F-117 if loaded out with SDB? The F-117 is likely to get similar distances unless of course that number was based on a FL600 release at Mach 2. In a real world drop, both dropping the same weapon they would get similar distances.

Also just because something is tested to be dropped at Mach 1+ doesn't mean it's a normal procedure. B-1 Pilots still train to do low level strikes against targets, despite the fact it hasn't been used in that role ever. Yes it can glide for a longer range if released by an F-22 at higher speed and higher altitude, that doesn't mean that it's a huge advantage since it's unlikely that you will see it normally sortied that way. Finally in addition to my opinion that it's not a huge advantage no source makes the point that the wings are unique advantage for the F-22, it can be used almost as well by the F-117. PPGMD 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We know for a fact that the F-22 has nearly (possibly more than) twice the ceiling of the F-117. We also know it can supercruise at Mach 1.7 (according to General Jumper). We know the top speed is Mach 2+. We know that it can launch weapons supersonically, and we know that the SDB is designed to be launched supersonically. We know that the SDB is designed to be utilized as an unpowered stand-off weapon. The laws of physics tell us that if you release a missile at twice the altitude and twice the speed it will be able to travel substantially farther than otherwise (especially when it is gliding, not falling). The gliding capability of the SDB can be utilized to a much greater extent with the F-22 than the F-117. These are all relevant facts. Your statement that "it's unlikely" is just speculation. The article doesn't need to speculate on the choice of how planes and weapons will be deployed in a given situation. Tvaughan1 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you are doing. Speculating how the weapon would be used on the F-22 vs how it would be deployed on the F-117 (assuming the aircraft survives to recieve the upgrade program to deploy them). None of the sources state that on the F-22 the SDB would get longer range vs the F-117. They simply state that it had wings which can allow it to be deployed upto 60 miles from the target. PPGMD 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From F-22... "As other air forces upgrade capabilities in the areas of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, one key aspect of the Raptor must be kept in mind. Its very high sustained cruise speeds, and operational altitude (something that is often ignored), add tremendously to the effective range of both air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions. Indeed, these factors could provide a strong rationale as to why USAF has not pursued long-range, high-energy air-to-air missiles such as the MBDA Meteor. The launch platform, in this case, provides the additional specific impulse to the missile. This speed and altitude characteristic also helps improve the range of air-to-ground ordnance. While specific figures remain classified, it is expected that JDAMs employed by F-22s will have twice or more the effective range of munitions dropped by legacy platforms [1]. The SDB, as employed from the F-22, should see even greater increases in effective range, due to the improved lift to drag ratio of these weapons. Cruise altitude is a huge factor in performance. The F-22 is the first tactical aircraft to significantly increase sustained cruise altitudes within the last forty years or more." Tvaughan1 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the point completely. There is no source that says "Because of the wings on the SDB, and the high alitude and speed that F-22 gets, it's SDB fly further, and thus are better then the F-117 in that regard." The section is weakly sourced as is, and borders on original research already. As I said before it may be true, but we have no reliable source that says it in the contex of this debate, the SDB only come up as a counter argument to the fact that the F-22 can only can two thousands pounds of bombs in it's internal bay. PPGMD 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the F-22's performance is classified, you aren't going to see articles that state specifics, such as the improved range of stand-off weapons when delivered by the F-22. There are many articles discussing this advantage in general terms, but none that can state the numbers definitively. This is not original research at all... nor is it speculation. Wikipedia articles should describe all relevant aspects of an issue to the best of their ability. It is OK to say that X is most likely better than Y because of obvious or known attributes A, B, and C, especially when such a general discussion has been held in many referenced articles. It is also good to add in other facts that are relevant and support one hypothesis or another, as long as unsubstantiated conclusions are not added to the article. In other words, Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of referenced facts. It's OK for editors to "be bold", and contribute to articles in a way that thoroughly describes the subject from all angles. The sub-section of the [F-117] article that we are discussing has to do with the future of the F-117, and why the F-117 is being retired. The main reason for the F-117 being phased out is that the USAF has a better solution to the problem of striking heavily defended targets. In describing this better solution it doesn't hurt to mention all relevant facts, including the details of the weapons being deployed in the new alternative. The F-22 can strike faster and deeper in large part because the SDB has wings. Tvaughan1 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok this will be the last time I will explain it. Wikipedia does not attempt to do A+B = C not even if you can prove it's true. C must be stated out right by a reliable source and the source must also state it's because A+B. Beyond this you are just argueing something that has no place and is getting tiresome. PPGMD 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right... WP:NOR doesn't allow a synthesis of arguments. I was paraphrasing these points from articles I have read in a number of places... Tvaughan1 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"The USA's 55 F-117A Nighthawks, aka. "Wobblin' Goblin" stealth attack planes, would be withdrawn from service before their original date of 2018. They would be replaced by far more capable F-22 stealth aircraft currently in inventory, which would combine attack (via the Small Diameter Bomb) and self-escort capability. Candidly, the F-117 was a wonder weapon in its day, but the F-22/SDB combination more than replaces it." [19] Tvaughan1 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"The new F-22 and F-35 warplanes are stealthy and normally carry their bombs internally. This limits how many they can carry, but with the SDB, an F-22 can carry eight of them. ... The SDB is basically an unpowered missile, which can glide long distances. ... The small wings allow the SDB to glide up to 70-80 kilometers (from high altitude.) SDB also has a hard front end that can punch through several feet of rock or concrete, and a warhead that does more damage than the usual dumb bomb (explosives in a metal casing.) The SDB is thus the next generation of smart bombs." [20] Tvaughan1 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"The SDB range is more than 50 nautical miles when launched at 40,000 feet at Mach .95. This enables an aircraft to launch SDBs to multiple targets, while beyond the range of many anti-aircraft systems." [21]

"A key Air Force requirement for the SDB is that it must be able to be released safely from the F-22 at its supercruise speed of Mach 1.7." [22]

So, while it is patently obvious that the range of a gliding missile is greater when launched supersonically at higher altitudes, we can't say it unless we can find it in print elsewhere. Fine. The point that I initially tried to make was that the SDB can glide long distances, because of the wings, and that this gave the F-22 an excellent strike capability. These are all referenced points. Obviously, this is a heavily defended article, and you need permission from the owner to edit. Tvaughan1 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally you are starting to get it. Argument A, F-22 + SDB allows equal or greater bomb capability as the F-117, argument B, the SDB can glide in from a longer range, thus you come to the conclusion that C, the F-22 is better then the F-117 simply because it's SDB can glide further. Though likely close to the mark, it's not a cited argument instead it's original research. As far as article ownership, I actually came here editing it because it lacks references, I simply monitor it and remove unreferenced statements such as the ones you added. Now if you add a referenced statement that doesn't extend into original research, I would not revert it. I actually edited it incorporating a reference that you included here on talk. PPGMD 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What about anti-runway munitions?

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)Bennett Turk

Request: Avionics

Good article, Congrats to earlier contributors. As a stealth design, the article needs more focus on technology used. And it needs more coverage of the RF leakage issue. In this context, it would need discussion of its Avionics controls used, like the IR. And of backup control systems (compromising stealth). Thanks. --Connection 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At 2m:41s into this movie you can see the schematic structure of so called "re-entrant triangles" which trap the radar waves that gets through the special radar-absorbing paint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezikpG0-Q4g&mode=related&search=

F-117s up for grab?

Are the retired planes available to allies, say the britons or Japan or the jews may wish to buy them and refurbish them to scare the hell out of their arab, chinese, russian and nokorean enemies with newly acquired stealth strike capability? Me thinks a lot of close US allies would be willing to pay for the required major overhaul and modernization of the F-117 fleet. It is known that about 10 british pilots have flown the Nighthawk and are fully certified with it. Jewish pilots were also trained in the USA. They could give a new life to the hopeless diamonds. 81.0.68.145 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is "Israeli". Jews have served with distinction in both the British and US armed services through many wars. In my own country, perhaps our most reknowned military leader, Sir John Monash, was Jewish.

Our country does not recognize the zionist entity until an independent and free arab homeland is also created in the Holy Land, in accordance with the 1948 UN declarations. There is no other solution for the palestinian problem, but the jews will never accept it.

As to your question, it's unlikely. The F-117 may be stealthy, but it's old, expensive to maintain, and a sitting duck if modern radars (such as the S-400 SAM system) get a lock on it. Both Israel and Britain already have "stealthy" strike capabilities with various cruise missiles, and will get more when they both acquire the F-35 strike fighter. If Israel were to acquire another stealthy strike aircraft beyond that, it'll almost certainly be the F-22. --Robert Merkel 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The planes are not available to anyone, they will be stored in pieces which can be reassembled should the aircraft be needed again. (I asked one of the demo team pilots @ RIAT if they were for sale). - Dammit 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Combat Loss

"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)

• Huh, I always thought that the wreckage had been bombed and there was nothing left to scavenge. Oh well Masterblooregard 07:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

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

Yes, it is being retired, the citation revolves more around the exact date. The only date I saw was the one in the Boston Globe article, which claims a retirement date of Sept 2008. And the article text is fairly clear about that. But the info box has been changed several times in the last month, being set to: Retired 2008/Status Active; Retired 2008/Status Decommissioned; Retired 2007/Status Decommissioned; (Retired Entry removed)/Status {Citation needed}; Status Active Service; Status {Citation needed}; Status Decommissioned; Status {Citation needed};
And only the first of these changes referenced any source (and that source is not currently accessible).
I guess the real issue is: how best to fill out an info box for a plane that is in the process of being phased out. - Occasional Reader 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

30% Percent Lower?

The article states the among some of the costs of stealth, the powerplants have 30% lower thrust. Doing the math, 70% of the 11,000 lbs of thrust from the F404 is 7,700 lbs. Either a Air Force's statement is wrong, or the 30% Mark is. Your Call. The Walkin Dude 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the sentence I took it to mean the aerodynamic penalties equaled a 30% drop in performance, but on reading your statement I think it could definitely use some improvement. Anynobody 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or the design of the intakes limits the performance of the engines. It is hard to say for sure without knowing the source for the statement. -Fnlayson 08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• The 30% reduction is due to the fact that the compressor blades has to be shielded. This means that the inlet channel has to be curved. Furthermore, there are screens that produce further losses. The outlet is also compromised. In order to reduce the infrared signature, there is a broad flat outlet. What I heard, there is about 20% losses in the outlet and 10% in the outlet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Petkr (talk • contribs)

The airforce says 18,000lbs thrust sea level. The F-404s as used in the F-117 are a derivative of that used in the Hornets. It has nothing to do with intakes and everything to do with the type of engine and the way in wich the engines' exhaust is cooled and shielded. I would suggest go with the Air Force fact sheet http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=104, and leave the comparisons to the forums.Philbaaker 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• GE's page says it is non-afterburning with a max thrust of 10,540 lb. See GE F404 F1D2 engine Looks like the 30% reduction is just wrong. -Fnlayson 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove the 30% thrust reduction comment, as it is unsourced. As to GE's thrust rating,, that should be what the engine is capable of. The inlet/exhaust arrangement of the F-117 could very well affect the engine's installed output, but that certialy needs a source. As to the AF fact sheet thust rating of 18,080 lbs (wich doesn't specify 1 or both engines), if you divided that by 2, its 9,040, which is roughly 85% of 10,540. THat would seem to imply that there is some intalled thrust reduction, tho certainly not 30%. - BillCJ 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Composites

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)

• If you mean made entirely of composite materials, no. -Fnlayson 03:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely, but heavy use of carbon fiber because of its radar absorbing properties. Anynobody 04:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat service

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

Comparable Aircraft

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)

F-117N & F-117B & A/F-117X

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)

• What timeframe; like around 1992? -Fnlayson 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like 1992-93. Here's some links on it f-117a.com, Vectorsite, & JBaugher for anyone interested. -Fnlayson 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• 1993 [23] F-117N ; 1995 [24] A/F-117X ; 132.205.99.122 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly random comments

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)

Serbian Air forces during 1999 shot down several of these air crafts pruf is in Serbian air force musium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.237.96 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Several? There was only ever one. They have been verified multiple times visually in the time since. (58.166.239.109 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Farnborough appearance

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)

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)

Signature reduction loss when hull is wet

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)

Alternate Theory on numbering

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).

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.

A lot of the radars that exist today that are less affected by stealth technology are often long-range, low-frequency radars (with wavelengths approaching the gross physical dimensions of the aircraft, which reduces the impact of any low-observable features). These are well known to be better at spotting stealthy aircraft.

However, due to their large wavelength, the positional resolution is very low - that is, they are great for detecting things at long ranges, but it would be very difficult to guide a weapon with one as you may only know the aircrafts positions to the nearest several-hundred-metres.

Obviously, the designer/operator of a stealth aircraft would prefer it to be completely invisible - but just as "stealth" technology is not a magic device to make planes invisible, so too, radars that can "see" stealth aircraft do not render anything obsolete or ineffective.

F-117 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 [25]. 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)

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.