Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Short legs

Can we have at least one mention of this being the shortest ranged air to air fighter in recent USAF history? You have to replace fuel with bombs to get the F-16 down to F-22 levels of reach. Hcobb (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We need sources before we discuss mentioning things. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Time article

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/10/25/military-mystery-world%E2%80%99s-most-capable-fighter-jet-struggles-to-stay-airborne/

This one talks in detail about the monitoring, but it seems a bit down in the weeds to me. Since the Raptor is itself sitting while weeds grow around it, there may not be much else to say about it. Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tropes

Should we have a tropes section?

Examples would be "We could fully fund Federal programs X, Y and Z for the cost of one F-22 Raptor, which has no rivals to fight" or "the F-X is arguably the second best fighter plane in the world, after the F-22 Raptor".

These two pop up all the fnording time. To the USAF, the F-22 isn't a fighter, it's a process (with a huge tail to tooth ratio), and for the rest of the world the F-22 is a symbol of excellence through extravagant spending. Hcobb (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I want you to think really hard about what the answer is going to be, Hcobb. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't actually asking a question, as he already knows that no more F-22s will be ordered. It's a forum post to give his opinions, nothing more. - BilCat (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Supercruise speed

Where did the Mach 1.82 come from? The highest that the Air Force has released is Mach 1.78, according to an aviation week article. I'll have to look it up. 169.232.220.179 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Raptor Enhancement Development and Integration contract

Should we post the link to the $7.4 billion contract itself? Normally I'm in favor of supporting documents, but this one is a mind altering substance as it will damage your brain.

http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100224-048.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The situation as I understand it from the refs is: Last mod brought it up from $1.4 billion to $7.4 billion out of an expected total of $16 billion to be reached someday. Does that match everybody else's understanding? Hcobb (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Emergency Oxygen System

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/air-force-f-22-crash-report-pilot-not-oxygen-system-blamed-121411w/

Note that the word "emergency" does not occur in this article, as it has been whitewashed out. Hcobb (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are likely referring to this edit of yours getting reverted. It would be nice if you would be direct, for once, and actually say that here instead of expecting other editors to read your mind and figure out what you are complaining about. As your new source specifically states, the pilot that died did not react quickly enough to activate the emergency oxygen system. The emergency oxygen system did not fail, it was not activated. Nothing has been whitewashed out, mind you. Your edit has been reverted as according to your reference, it is a system rarely called upon that has had anomalies rarely in the few times it was activated. It is of extremely low weight in terms of this article. I'm now going to edit the title of this section, as your question is inflammatory and blatantly false in premise per your own reference, which states that the emergency oxygen system did not kill this pilot. Furthermore, given your blatant ignoring of your own source and extreme showing of bias against the article subject (F-22), I will likely be seeking administrative intervention in your editing of this article, and that of the F-35. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that this user Hcobb be restricted from editing this article and the F-35 article. His blatant bias is extremely noticable and damaging to the article before it is reverted 93.97.255.48 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally work on egress systems, at Elmendorf, on the F-22, and I personally worked that jet numerous times, along with every other aircraft in the Elmo fleet. This paragraph regarding AF125 suggests based on an opinion based article that the AIB said there was a part incorrectly installed in the emergency oxygen system. The AIB does NOT say this. It gives an example of what a wedge installed backwards on an EOS bottle would have looked like, and further states that even if it had been installed backwards, it wouldn't have mattered. I've already tried to question that source, and reword the article, and both times it was deleted. What does it take for someone who actually works the system to make a change that will stick instead of being deleted??? (24.237.70.203 (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

You personal experience is not relevent to the article because we have no way of verifying your information. What we need is a reliable secondary source that mentions these things. The AIB report is a primary source. We generally try to avoid using primary source documents, but could quote from it if there is no good secondary information available. The best sources would be reliable sources that have looked at the AIB report and are commenting on it. Sperril (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacement

Attention. I read off of the page for air superiority fighters that the F-22 will be replaced around 2020. Anyone care to confirm or deny that, over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.186 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

When did you read this? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. The source article says 2025. Note that is not when the F-22 will be replaced, but when a replacement will be developed. The F-22 first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005, so it is not unreasonable that nearly 30 years after its first flight, its replacement would have its first flight. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger that. When do you think they will be retired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.186 (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I (and likely almost every editor here) are in absolutely no position to make such a prediction. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be retired after 8K, 10K or 12K flight hours. If its spends most of its time in a hangar then this could be many decades. Hcobb (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Added ref for 30 year lifespan to answer the question. Hcobb (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In service, out of production

AFAIK, this is the only aircraft in all of Wikistan to be so marked. Should the dozen of other aircraft in the same status be so noted? Hcobb (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That is used on other aircraft articles. It can be a bit redundant if the production dates are listed. But it's nothing to be concerned about. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for discussion

• $77 billion later, $412 Million per plane, and it's never been placed in combat, despite being in service since 2005. The air force is blaming pilot error instead of a failed oxygen system for a recent crash because "They paid a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't work." http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/19/business/la-fi-fighter-jet-down-20111220

• "Ultimately, the Air Force chose to blame Haney rather than attribute the crash to a malfunctioning bleed-air system and a difficult to use emergency oxygen supply." "Pilots have said that the emergency oxygen supply is notoriously difficult to use in the Raptor."http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/air-force-f-22-crash-report-pilot-not-oxygen-system-blamed-121411w/

• $200 million per plane, corroding from the inside out. Lockheed’s F-22 “may very well become the most expensive, corroding, hangar queen ever in the history of modern aviation,”. "cost, schedule and sky-rocketing maintenance costs for the F-22 that have made maintaining its stealthy surface cost-prohibitive to sustain over the long run." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-19/f-22-jet-is-expensive-corroding-hangar-queen-mccain-says.html

These are quotes from a former military accident investigator, pilots and combat veterans. Not quite the glowing review Wikipdia puts forth. --PumknPi (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the corrosion issues quite a while ago "rusting ejection seat rods" and the full story of Haney's wipe out has yet to come to light. Hcobb (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

any more detailed links about Haney's wipeout you know of? thanks --PumknPi (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a debunking of these points.

• The F-22 has not been placed in combat because it is an air superiority fighter, and the USA has not had an enemy with aircraft since 2003. So unless you want it to shoot AMRAMMs at the ground, of COURSE it's not going to be in combat. As for the recent crash, that is one incident. The F-22 has had almost 100,000 hours of flight, so how the hell does one incident with the OBOGS mean it "doesn't work"?

• You don't know whether or not it WAS his fault. And also, they DID ground the fleet for quite a long time, and have worked to fix any problems with the OBOGS.

• $150 million per aircraft, not $200 million. It is not a "hangar queen", it has nearly 100,000 flight hours (at latest source), and its maintenance per flight hour has been reduced from 30 hours in 2005 to 10.5 hours in 2009, which exceeds the 12 hour requirement. As for cost as a whole, the aircraft is very expensive yes, but its also extremely capable.

93.97.255.48 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since there appears to be a crusader involved, the onus is to provide verifiable reference sources to authenticate the claims above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Also, given the statment The F-22 has not been placed in combat because it is an air superiority fighter, and the USA has not had an enemy with aircraft since 2003. So unless you want it to shoot AMRAMMs at the ground, of COURSE it's not going to be in combat, apparently the commenter has not seen this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

One bomb dropped in a test does not an operational capability make. The article shows the timeline to get a minimal combat capability out of the Raptor and in the meantime the Super Hornets have swept anything that's flown against them from the skies. Hcobb (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Program Budget Decision 753

After the latest edit, the reader will need to dive into the references to see that while the 183 decision was made in 2004, this wasn't made public until 2006. Worth covering in the text here? Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also it was only a scheme in 2004. In 2006 they actually started pushing things towards Congress. (Which is were the money is actually allocated.) Hcobb (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This does not seem that critical now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Who lost the Raptor" seems to be the "Who lost China" of the 21st Century, so we might as well get the steps in the story correct here. Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New low for massive hyperbole, Hcobb. The F-22 is not a nation of hundreds of millions of people. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that Air International's recent issue has an article on the corrosion and hypoxia problems -- sparked a comparison in my mind with the F-22 being held back from Iraq and Afghanistan now and the B-1 being held back from Gulf War I. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

F22 cost

F22's cost is stated in article to be 150 million USD flyaway, and 350 million USD unit procurement. However, I believe correct numbers would be 250 million USD flyaway, 411 million USD unit procurement. http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=4710&programID=37&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/distance-kept-lockheed-f-22-out-of-libya-action-schwartz-says.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/honeywell-f-22-oxygen-systems-probed.html There are also few dozen other such reports I can't find right now. Picard345 (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)