Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk

Post Retirement Sightings

OK - there are periodic post retirement sightings. When retired - a primary reason was the F-22 able to take over their role. The F22 is either supplemented by (or eventually replaced) by the JSF / F-35. The F22 and F35 are Quite different IRT thier Software. I have heard it stated the F-22 was the largest Software project fully written in the ADA programming language. The F-35 is mostly written in C++; With the LM programming guidelines document for the F35 released to the public and very highly thought of. I am certain the F-117 was a very software intensive project- have NO idea of the what programming language was used for it- or even think of the age of the hardware (CPU in use then). -Is it still flying using swapped out newer software or CPU- and verifing that? Wfoj3 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review 1-2

GA Review 1 failed. I am double checking for the deadlinks mentioned. Austrian Radar Plots on acig.org, " "The Black Jet.", ""Filling the Stealth Gap," in Air and Space Power Journal Fall 2006", F-117A Nighthawk page on FAS.org, The Advent, Evolution, and New Horizons of United States Stealth Aircraft, "Constant Peg.", "Unconventional Weapon.", "F-117 History", "DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles", "Pilot recognizes crashed F-117A.", "Omaha Nighthawks official page.", "410th FLTS 'Baja Scorpions' closes historic chapter.", "One of only four existing F-117s returns to Edwards.", "Stealth and Beyond: Air Stealth (TV-series)"., "New Mexico Air Force base at crossroads.", and "The Secrets of Stealth" on Discovery Military Channel" are all dead links or redirects.

I checked everyone one of these links and with a few edits they are good now. Czarking0 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

While the article is comprehensive, it contains multiple citation needed tags, including a claim that "The F-117 was later used in the Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003" that should be addressed with the article covering how the aircraft were used in these conflicts, and a tag requesting additional citations dating back to 2018. As such, I'm speedy failing this nomination. The section on post-retirement sightings should also be reworked to note how the USAF is using the aircraft, which has been covered in multiple sources, rather than the current content which doesn't reflect the explanations and is a semi-random collection of sightings of the aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fixed up sources and failed verification. I think post retirement still needs some work. Czarking0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I fixed up the post retirement section and expanded the Iraq and Afghanistan section. Do you have additional insight into what I should do prior to doing another nom ? Czarking0 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Other comments

So much b.s. here. The F-117 is not used any more. Seeing it flying around does not make it any less of a failure. Many old military planes still fly around as part of active historical collections or museum resources. I really don't care if an F-117 is stored somewhere today. The point is that it has been officially retired. Done with. Let's start telling the truth here. Cost has nothing to do with its retirement as evidenced by the USAF endeavor to quickly embark on the unimpresive F-35, the costliest program in military history. Stop making excuses. It was Russian long wavelength radar that rendered the F-117 useless. For all the cost and toxic nature of operations, the F-117 was not effective in its role. Confidence was lost after Yugoslavia and the decision to retire was inevitable. Another embarrassment for Lockheed in a long line of recent failures including the F-35 project shutdown and the recently failed hypersonic missile defense project scuttled in 2023. Kelly Johnson must be rolling over in his grave. What bothers me is the misinformation I see in Wikipedia often. The pride of the USAF, the F-117 failed in its primary mission. All the patriotic flyonvers at parades and football games was all it was good for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.231.213 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your sentiment and I would like to improve this article. I will respond to some of your frustrations as constructively as I can below. I wanted to note that WP:NOTAFORUM and I expect to keep the conversation on how to improve the article not on bashing the work of editors. Also I wanted to note that you are editing as an IP user and I would appreciate if you edit from a logged in account.

The post-retirement section is still WIP and I recognize that its notability may need to be reviewed. I think you expressed that where it is stored is not notable. This might hold some water. I personally thought it was notable because I would like to see one in person and the list was useful for me determining where I might be able to. Unfortunately none are near me but that is aside the point. I think WP has some actual standards on what is considered notable. If you can show that the storage of this plane is not notable by WP standards then I suggest you WP:BOLD remove that info.

I think the discussion of if the plane is a failure is notable and something that has a lot of source material on it. Overall, it is hard to categorize large military projects in binary success/failure categories since there is no single metric for determining that. I think the article could benefit from a section dedicated to the assessment of the program. Alternatively the assessment of the F-117 could potentially warrant a breakout article.

"It was Russian long wavelength radar that rendered the F-117 useless." This is certainly a notable claim that is not reflected in the article. Do you have a source for this?

"toxic nature of operations" I am not sure what this is referring to, do you have some sources on this?

"Confidence was lost after Yugoslavia and the decision to retire was inevitable." I disagree with this. Retirement for any plane is always inevitable no plane is going to be manufactured into eternity. The F-117 was heavily used in Iraq years after Yugoslavia. Certainly, the loss of the vega came as a surprise and made planners rethink its use. However, it was confidently used in Iraq and not retired for nearly a decade after the loss of the vega.

"Another embarrassment for Lockheed in a long line of recent failures including the F-35 project shutdown and the recently failed hypersonic missile defense project scuttled in 2023." There is as much truth in this as there is falsehood. Bottom line on this comment is it's outside the scope of what can reasonably be addressed in this article. There may be some value in a page on "LM projects with negative reception" which this plane may or may not be a member of. I think for this article, a section on ability of this plane to carry out its missions, the scope of possible missions created by F-117, the development process of the plane, the impact of the retrofit for the new bomb types, and cost overall would suffice. Czarking0 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: I know you have had some activity here and on other american planes. I am thinking to put this up for GAN again. Do you have any reservations before I do so? Czarking0 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but first try to verify that critical issues from the previous GAN have been addressed [as reasonably possible]. Some things mentioned above may just be unreasonable for the references available. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: I edited to address Nick-D's comments. Is there something you think I missed? Czarking0 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• No, nothing specific. Review comments are generally good things to double check. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment from IP who tried to open a GA review

The following comment should have been added to this talk page, but a GA review page was opened instead (IPs are not allowed to review GANs; I have copied the comment here, since that page will be deleted):

A retired F-117 pilot stated quite unequivocally that the F-117 was not a fighter, but a bomber ( armament of 2 bombs) and was designated F-117 ( and not B-117) so as not to deter ASAF pilots from flying the aircraft!! 203.7.123.1 (talk · contribs) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

—BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This article has had a Designation section that largely covers this for over 15 years. The Nighthawk is an attack aircraft and too small to be a bomber. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• "The USAF retired the F-117 in April 2008" but the article says August 2008.

Source review

No effort made to assess the quality of sources, as this is not required for GA.

• fn 6: date?

• changed source to full text and updated pub date to match full text source

• fn 8: Is this the same as fn 6? As what is the UCI there for?

• yes, repointed it to fn6

• fn 9: Air and Space Power Journal is a jpournal? Should be in italics

•  Done

• fn 13: Is the only one where the journal is linked.

• this is different journal from Air and Space Power. I could add Air and Space Power Journal to the sources? As far as I know neither way is standardized

• fn 21, 89, 129, 152: Access date?

• I did not add any of these sources so I am not sure what to do here? I suppose I could go into the history to find it? Maybe there is a bot for that?

• fn 78: Cites a whole book. Move to the bibliography and provide a page number.

•  Done

• fn 83, 154: page number required

•  Done

• fn 112: Aerotech News and Review is a magazine? Should be in italics

•  Done

• fn 124, 152: Publisher?

• Done I think

• fn 128: Flight International is a magazine? Should be in italics

•  Done

• fn 135, 145: Title?

•  Done

• fn 138, 139: The Drive is a magazine? Should be in italics

•  Done

• fn 141: Merced Sun-Star is a newspaper? Should be in italics

•  Done

• Reference formatting is inconsistent - some use sfn templates and others do not

• Ok, does that matter? Are there not bots to do stuff like that?

• Alphabetic order: "Goodall" comes before "Gunston"

•  Done

• In further reading, should The World's Great Stealth and Reconnaissance Aircraft come before "Winchester"?

  Because 'The' is before 'W' ? I don't think so.

• Clark (1992) is the only reference with an OCLC

  Ok, I don't know what to do about that.

The MOS says that newspapers should have the location, unless it is already part of the title.

• Ok, are you referring to things like AeroTech News? I don't think that counts.

Started responding in line Czarking0 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References required

• At end of F-117B section
• First sentence of "nicknames"

Overall

• Looks pretty good. Referencing needs improvement.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   No major issues. Passing. References may require further cleanup if FAC is desired.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.