Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

That's more like daydreaming

> The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." <

That is impossble to do owing to human overload. The ex-WARPAC countries tried to play Mini-AWACS with the MiG-23MF shortly after the commie block fell. The MiG-23 has a really big radar dish, with a lot of rotation horizontally (plus an extra 60 degrees left and right available with manual steer override) and good ground clutter canceller. Sorrowfully, playing AWACS proved too much workload for a single pilot and that's not a issue a glass cockpit could fix. It is also very costly to use a supersonic fighterplane for mini-AWACS and USA has its economic problems nowadays. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well first off, you completely failed to even understand the whole point of that section, let alone read all of it. Second, what the hell does our economic situation have to do with the validity of a single pilot fighter being operated as a "mini-AWACS" have to do with anything? Need I remind you that Europe is feeling the pinch too. RaptorR3d (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Have you considered that the F-22 is a lot more modern than the Mig-23MF is and, as such, may have more tasks automated by the onboard computer? Besides, given that nobody here actually has any personal knowledge of what the F-22 can really do, I think we should list all the capabilities that the manufacturer and USAF say it can do rather than dismiss an "official" capability just because some Wikipedian thinks that if something couldn't be done with the Mig-23 than obviously it can't be done with the F-22. PS, the US has been through worse times before and it's still here, so don't get your hopes up that it will go under (and if it does, so will your country).68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure the F22 HAS been used as a mini AWACS, during simulated combat against f15's, after expending all their missiles and cannon rounds, planes stayed on station, presumably an F22 can track an enemy and use the wireless link to tell another where it is.

The datalinking ability of the F22 does not require the pilot to run tactical mission allocation. Ground teams and a real AWACs would do that. While the pilot could be a FAC, the aircraft is essentially an extension of the sensor reach of the combined air assets that are data linking. Ditto with the canceled Comanche, but for the JSTARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to kinda rain on IP 82.131's parade here...the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War used under-maintained F-14s as "mini-AWACs" because of it's radar. So the F-22 being used as one is hardly a stretch here. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Critics section?

I'm missing a critics section in the article, similar to the german wiki page. Especially the corrosion problems, budget problems and operational readiness (2008: 62%) seems to be worth writing. Check german page for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section is not needed to point out negatives. They just become magnets for biased and/or unsourced content. High costs are already well covered in the article. The corrosion issue looks to be minor. The op readiness should be mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not needed" or "bad for the article"? I think criticism sections are good in any Wikipedia article, especially in such a long article. Tempshill (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Criticisms sections on Wikipedia turn out to be nothing more than a long, rambling diatribe by ignorant, impotent, and spiteful people who want to bash something (especially if it's something about the USA), and instead of looking at the facts first AND THEN coming to a conclusion, they have an agenda first and then scour the internet (or use books that, surprise, surprise, CAN'T be accessed online) for some source--skewing the info or context of that source if need be--to give their own opinions the force of expert fact, all the while ignoring supportive bits of information (such as the F-22 being a first-strike aircraft designed to seize control of the skies immediately, or launch a decisive first strike behind enemy lines, so, ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the plane needs high-maintenance or isn't robust as some other aircraft, because it has the ability to sneak into enemy territory and destroy an enemy's (e.g., Russia's) more "robust" fighters on the ground, or at least destroy the runways so those robust fighters can't take off in the first place....The F-22 kicks in the door, and the more robust F-35 and Strike Eagles take it from there....)68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My post was clear. There's a good bit of criticism in the article now, especially high costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There actually isn't much criticism anywhere in the article. The F22 is slated to replace the F14 and the F16, as such a neutral would contain sections comparing the two, explaining the rationale for why they need to be replaced. This article does not have that. I have read the whole thing more times and I care to count and I have been noticing that every time any material is introduced that contains a whiff of criticism, it is deleted.EricLeFevre (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to put in another place for people to say biased, unreferenced opinions, we get a lot of that in this talk page. Maybe a section talking about issues with the F-22, but not criticism. Williamrmck (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very, VERY controversial program and has been for the better part of 15 years. A controversy section complete with FACTS is necessary. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We are much better off dealing with each aspect of the program in one place, rather than taking issues out of their context by listing every critic one by one. Hcobb (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the only trouble is that criticism of the F-22 is found nowhere in the article and every time someone tries to add some, it gets deleted. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Counting:

F-35 noted better than F-22, 6 cases. F-22 Too expensive noted, 6 times. F-22 not used in wars, 2 times. F-22 lacks capability or limited, 5 times. F-22 Maint problems, 5 times. F-22 structure problem, 1 time F-22 computer crash or bugs, 3 times. So my count is 28, not zero, but I'd love to add a source about the aircraft's IR blindness. (Compare to combat configuration of B-52, F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-35, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the technical criticisms should be separated from the criticisms of the program or the controversy over the reduction/funding-cuts as they are different issues. The discussions over technical problems/flaws (not sure what the right word would be) could go into its own section under the technical aspects of the article (But as Hcobb says, there is plenty in the various sections already). The criticisms of the program and the funding controversy should go into separate sections in order to keep the engineering merits of the plane separate from the political struggles that these programs usually get caught up in. --DClearwater (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And 99% of these articles will be critics of the MIC in general rather than just one program and so should be listed in the page that matches their coverage. Hcobb (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that... so we should keep any general MIC criticisms for those appropriate entries. But we still needs to acknowledge any specific criticism of the F-22 program itself (especially as this relates to U.S. politics). More importantly, there needs to be information (in its own section) on the funding controversy. --DClearwater (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This page will never have a critics section. After all, Raptor is just perfect, right? (sarcarsm). I do not use Wikipedia as source for any military or historical info because this "north-americans as the best of the best" view. Use this as construtive critic, after all one of most important goals of Wikipedia is the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.3.166 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

F-22 loss

An F-22 operating out of Edwards AFB, CA, on a test mission crashed around 10:00 am local time today. No details yet on a possible cause or the status of the pilot. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A reference http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/25/324350/us-air-force-f-22-raptor-crashes-in-california.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep Dave Cooley's family in prayer. While I only knew him by reputation, I have many friends who knew him personally. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen it, there is a Wiki article on Cools. He was a fine man and will be missed. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Four AIM-9X, not

There were plans to squeeze a pair of AIM-9X into each of the side bays, but this has been dropped.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/HonedtoaRazor’sEdge.aspx Lewis and Miller said, when specifically asked, that there are no plans on the books today to install items like side-staring radar arrays in the aircraft. (There is internal space for them.) Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs. Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That just refers to side "radar arrays", (even though Aim-9X uses infrared trackers such as DAS). In an earlier quote from within the same article, it states "Increment 3.2 is expected to add the AIM-9X air-to-air missile to the Raptor’s quiver and incorporate the multi-function advanced data link on the aircraft." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs." So only two Sidewinders will be carried. Hcobb (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Image

Hi all. I would like to alert that the main image is not a real one. It's from some kind of game. If you see it closer, you can realise that it is not real. I suggest a change in that part of the article. Thank you all. --Prtgl93 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Prtgl93

I don't think so. If you look closely you can see every panel and how each of them is aligned. Notice how the rim of the forward cone is not straight. Hcobb (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance issues and Controversies

I had what I thought was a lot of knowledge of the F-22, including first-hand experience, but I was blown away by a Washington Post article on the maintenance issues of the F-22. Yesterday I checked this wikie and found no mention of the maintenance issues, so I added it. Then another user deleted every *referenced* fact I added and called them "biased" (a fact can be biased?) and "redundant" (there is no other mention of any of the facts I added). The facts included the cost of maintenance according to the SecDef, the average time between critical failure, susceptibility to rain and abrasion, flight readiness, and the need to hand-fit pieces.

I agree that one sentence I added does sound biased "The F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, so actual battle data is not available." but I added that as an explanation as to why the data is from exercises. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me, or I will attempt to.--Skintigh (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Raptor has indeed flown on non-exercise missions where the remote possibility of armed conflict was very real. These missions have however been flown out of bases in the United States. Can we add a Bear intercept photo to the main page as a memorial to this brave combat history? Hcobb (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The maintenance cost data can be considered against WP:Air project policy. See WP:Air guidelines, Operating costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There *is* controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing, plain and simple, and it's not welcome on Wikipedia. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel you brother, as I've had similar experiences editing B-2 Spirit, especially in regards to my edits on its astronomical costs, issues over "procurement costs" vs. "air vehicle costs." Here's an example of the kind of knucle-dragging, opposing editors I had to deal with at B-2 Spirit, though its quite theoretically possible there are different breeds of editors lurking here with similar amounts of structured time on their hands to edit this article...

"...I have no fucking clue who Askari Mark is, but unless he writes my paycheck or joins in the conversation, what you say he says is 100% immaterial to this discussion. Add whatever figures you want, but you are not going to get away with suppressing the properly referenced and wholly accurate airframe cost on my watch. Add the dozen figures and any amortization you want, but don't suppress. The $737M figure is the important one as is the $2.2B one. Tweak whatever fucking numbers you want inbetween to your heart's content but that won't help anybody's understanding of the article. (further reading at Talk:B-2_Spirit/Archive_1#Price_Per_Plane.2F.22Procurement.22_costs). CriticalChris 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen that one before, but it’s all too common, I’m afraid. Anyone who “knows the ABSOLVTE TRVTH!!” is not about to be derailed by contrary facts or viewpoints – and people can be surprisingly and aggressively confident about things they “have no fucking clue” about. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I can link right now about 10,000 articles with a controversy section on Wikipedia. Lets establish some facts. 1There are a lot of people opposed to this (former Pres. Bush, Pres. Obama, Sec. Gates, Chairmen of the joint chiefs, Sec. of the Airforce, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Levin just to name a few off the top of my head) 2. Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and 3. Not stating the views of those opposed to this project would flatly violate NPOV. Since you are on a NPOV crusade, I would recommend that you visit the tens of thousands of articles that have controversy sections and delete them all. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OSE 83.242.226.130 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored EricLeFevre (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is your last warning from me here on this talk page, one more reverting and I will report you for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_warring . From glancing at your talk page I can see you have been repeatedly warned about edit warring. Please stop. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had the same user repeatedly delete my facts for being "biased" and "covered other places" when they are mentioned no where else. I started this discussion to talk about it but he would rather continue his vandalism. How do I report abusing users such as this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.78.227 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the proposed "Controversies" section, I have to take exception to the claim that it was full of "non-biased source citations". Every claim quoted was an opinion from a source with an anti-F-22 position, and no rebuttals from supporters. There was nothing NPOV about it. The Maintenance section is better balanced, although most of the problems cited are sourced to a single Washington Post article. Given that its sources are anonymous or have a fish to fry, that makes it a thin reed for reliability. It should also be kept in mind that WaPo is well-known for publishing spin from anonymous insiders in the government. As the article itself notes, "Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes….". Since the SecDef himself is against more F-22s, anonymous material coming out of DoD that gives support to his preference should be taken with eyes fully open.

I would also like to point out that in the sentence reading, "However, the Washington Post reported the aircraft skin is vulnerable to rain and abrasion, which partly accounts for the average flight time of 1.7 hours before critical failure" the last clause is misleading; in fact, it's original research in that it draws two different WaPo sources together for an original conclusion. The Post article mentions the skin sensitivity issue and attributes it to a variety of sources (cf. that article's 2nd para.). The portion about 1.7 average hours flying time between critical failures comes from – as WaPo expressly points out – "a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record" [emphasis added]. That source does not appear to have provided any substantiating evidence, so it's just his say-so, as an F-22 opponent. We also don't know what kind of "critical failure" it is (e.g., mission-critical or any failure at all), or whether his figure is from early in the program or recent. Frankly, if we are to keep it, we should find a better, more reliable source than a passing-along of hearsay by an admittedly biased and safely anonymous individual. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally an editor I can have a discussion with. I glanced at your talk page, edit history and such. Before I say anything else, I would like to state that I too am a Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer (currently completing my last year of schooling, I will sit for the EIT exam this coming spring). Given my experience in the field and given your edit history it is readily apparent that you either work in the Aerospace industry or for a subcontractor that does work in that industry. You present a specific and unique viewpoint on this matter. The problem is that you assume that your view point is the only view point. More background for me, I am a four year high school debator, and have also spent many, many hours pouring over argumentation and logic. Yes that background is important.

The sources you claim that are "unbiased" come directly from industry groups that make parts for the plane. That in and of itself presents a clear conflict of interest as those groups have a direct financial incentive to convince people that this plane is needed. You attack as "biased" every single source that disagrees with that industry assessment. For an FYI, the WaPo, NYTimes both maintain massive editorial staff whose sole purpose is to fact check their reporters and sources, certainly they slip up every now and then but no one is perfect. Flagrantly biased sources such as the Citizens Against Government Waste and The Nation represent biased sources, but on opposite sides of the US ideological spectrum. We have a truely unbiased source (Sec Gates), a liberal biased source (The Nation), a conservative biased source (Citizens Against Government Waste) and two of the world's leading newspapers (WaPo and NYTimes) all coming out against this project. You claim bias, so the burden of proof is on you to explain in this discussion thread why those sources would want to have this program terminated.

That is criticism that crosses every bias of the US political system. Yet you sit here today, declare that none of them have a right to be heard and actively seek to prevent those voices from being heard. That is called censorship. I will restore that section one more time, if it is deleted again I am going to report that editor for vandalism. EricLeFevre (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your background on the high school debate team could not be less important to this project, as Wikipedia is not a debate contest. If you insist on adding material against consensus by way of edit warring (as you've already done), you will be the one who finds themselves being reported for violation of Wikipedia policy. I'd suggest you read up some more on what Wikipedia is, because you've clearly got some false assumptions. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that Wiki is a debate contest. That background is important because of the insights it gives to argumentation and logic. All sources are biased. I would highly, highly recommend that you read some of the articles about wikipedia that you keep posting. Here are some of my favorite parts.

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

I suggest that you read, re-read, and read again the part that I italicized. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and linking the article from the WaPo is not original research. Original research is scholar A doing a study then either publishing it on wikipedia or writing a book then writing a wiki about his own research. Situation here, a squad commander outlined why the F-22 sucks and shouldn't be used, so he leaks to the WaPo who verifies his info and writes a story about it. The story is not original research as it referenced documents authored by Lockheed Martin. Another example of trying to squelch opposing views EricLeFevre (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@ EricLeFevre: Yes, I am an aerospace engineer with three decades of experience, having worked with two major defense aerospace firms, for the U.S. Air Force, and as a consultant to the DoD (on a non-aerospace but systems-engineering-related program.) My primary responsibility these days is to sift through extensive, incomplete, conflicting, partially mal-informed, heavily politicized, and marketeer-spun material to determine "ground truth" and to identify and project the impacts of long-term trends in the global defense aerospace sector. So, while I did not participate on a debate team during my school years, I am nevertheless very experienced in sifting through bias and minimizing its footprint in my analyses. As for the F-22 particularly, whether the program is extended or curtailed at 187 makes no difference to me and I expect the outcome will have no impact on me. What is important to me here is that the edit warring cease and a consensual and NPOV outcome is reached.

That said, I do have to point out that the strawman against which your polemic your polemic is addressed bears no relation to what have written in this thread. It is, for instance, your own – boldly incorrect – assumption that "[I] assume that [my] view point is the only view point." You obviously do not know me and are unfamiliar with my body of work on Wikipedia. I do think, though, that I can fairly claim that I have greater expertise than the average Wikipedian in those area in which I am a subject-matter expert. [You will find out eventually, though, that the average Wikipedian does not hold experts in awe – nor should they.]

To address your other specific points succinctly,

• Nowhere in this thread have I identified "sources [I] claim that are 'unbiased'", much less any that "come directly from industry groups that make parts for the plane."
• I have nowhere "attack[ed] as 'biased' every single source that disagrees with that industry assessment." That would take a lengthy tome, indeed, were I even slightly interested in writing one. What I objected to was that the proposed Criticism section contains only presentations of material from opponents of continued F-22 production. NPOV is not about removing bias, but rather presenting both (or all notable) sides' POVs. Yes, opposition to the F-22 comes from organizations or individuals with a wide range of positions along the political spectrum – but the same is true of its supporters! Adding a section composed solely of "anti-F-22"-biased views is not made neutral because its proponents are bipartisan politically. That is why several editors here have, not incorrectly, disparaged the proposed (unbalanced) section as POV-pushing.

As I mentioned in my original post here, the current section on Maintenance presents a much better handling (in the Wikipedia point of view) of conflicting positions. A more Wikipedia-appropriate presentation of the material issue can be – and should be – developed. (That said, I find "Criticism" sections to be objectionable magnets for collecting all sorts of criticisms which then are not presented in an NPOV manner and which quickly grow to constitute an undue proportion of the article as a whole. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Askari Mark, for disagreeing with what I posted in a logical and rational manner, rather than just deleting like some others have been doing. You may be right about the sources being biased, but the other quote about rain/abrasion is from someone who's job is a squadron commander, probably a little biased to. I left both for balance. Also, I did not realize what I had done constitutes original research, I will be more aware of that in the future. I will attempt to find another source.--Skintigh (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Skintigh: It's an easy mistake to make, especially when it material taken from a single article drawing on multiple sources and not always being clear about what parts came from which. Remember: All mistakes are learning opportunities – and there are lots and lots of learning opportunities on Wikipedia!  :-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my third-party opinion in favor of EricLeFevre. The Washington Post is probably one of the best sources you could have as far as news goes; the F-22 obviously has maintenance and cost issues, the recent Senate budget cuts only helps to confirm that. Not including such issues when they have been featured prominently on a major, third-party news source like the Post smacks of censorship. -Falcon8765 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Falcon8765: The issue is not one of whether or not the Washington Post is a credible, responsible, and reliable source – it is. Nonetheless, that does not excuse us from responsibly handling material sourced from it. Are news articles, op-eds and advertisements all equally reliable sources (per Wikipedia's definitions of it)? Obviously not. One of the things that makes WaPo reliable is that they provide information on the quality and reliability of their sources. One of the WaPo articles I addressed earlier uses a DoD source that WaPo was required to keep anonymous. Well, that could be anyone from the janitor to the SecDef himself. We don't know. But the journalist who wrote the article made clear that the source was an "F-22 critic"; to wit, it identified his bias, which is the responsible thing for a journalist to do. To the intelligent reader, it's a warning to treat the source's claims cautiously – which is what responsible Wikipedia editors should do. If the blogs and personal websites of known individuals are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, then how can an anonymous source with a known agenda but without any hard evidence be more reliable source than they? That is one of the matters that is at dispute here. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While op-ed material from WaPo, NYT, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, etc. may not be "reliable," the news reporting in these publications is distinct from the opinion pieces as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations. The news stories from these neo-con/neo-lib publications, like them or not, are considered the most reliable sources available to us, as per WP:RS. It's my considered opinion that anyone who is attempting to challenge the use of a NEWS source/NEWS article from one of these dead tree publications is fighting an uphill battle here. They are dying on the vine and going out of business right and left, but while they're still around, until WP policy changes, they are considered the most credible sources available to us. And oh one more thing, to anonymous IP address editor 65.188.37.65, the notion of WP:CONSENSUS can evolve here, as other editors join the fray. CriticalChris 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You will find that most of the big claims have been rinsed through the CBO and CRS which manage to retain NPOV while having every line reviewed by the services. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is debating the reliability of the sources, but that doesn’t excuse irresponsible handling of unreliable information in those sources. Mistakes, for instance, occur all the time (and get “regretted” in subsequent issues, if on paper). The use of an “anonymous critic” by a reporter as a source doesn’t mean we can’t use the article, but it does oblige us to point out in our article that the specific material used is from such an origin. Furthermore, in line with Hcobb’s point, when one RS reports on material from another RS, it’s better for us to use the latter than the former. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as a reliable source? http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.117.2 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still selective. So I'd rather rely on Bolkcom and ... Say what! The main CRS F-22 paper ref got deleted again! Good grief. Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

CRS RL31673 is used as a reference (ref. # 71), so it should not be repeated in the Ext. links section. Check the article first... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's being used for one tiny part of the paper while other issues in the article are covered (silently now once again) in this paper. Hcobb (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• So get WP:External links adjusted. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If we had a F-22 vs F-35 page

Should such a page exist I'd list out the various factors from all the sources every which way.

For example on SEAD we have supercruise against time sensitive targets as an advantage for the F-22 vs the F-35's ability to track launchers as they fire (much better IR) and instantly strike back. (DEAD SAMs).

Both platforms lack the ability to stealthily carry the AARGM so there is a capability gap until we get some sort of super AMRAAM upgrade. Hcobb (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) --

All that's needed is more on the Air Dominance role of the F-22. The F-35A/C does not have any special advantage in BVR combat over 4 and 4.5 gen fighters except for its stealth characteristics, which are compramised when carrying external stores. Sensor fusion is helpful when there are other workloads, but on the offensive a conventional fighter pilot will not be any slower launching on targets in a MIG-29 assuming his systems have already detected targets. When it is all the pilot is focused on and he/she is well-trained, sensor fusion is a luxury, allowing less concentration, even laziness. Nice, but doesn't necessarily win the fight. Most of the research on JSF's air combat effectiveness is based on dogfighting, but the fact is even a Harrier will beat most aircraft in a dogfight. Removing the VTOL, the F-35 is only as effective as the pilot and the weapons he's got in a close-in fight. And if both sides have off-boresight, they might as well eject after launching in the merge. Because they'll both be dead otherwise. The F-22 cruises at high altitude, very fast, has more range, and thus the kenematics of its medium range missiles are greatly enhanced. U.S. AAM technologies have ALWAYS trailed the Russians. The whole point of the F-22 was to allow us to use (in some ways inferior) AMRAAMs and still beat top-line MIG and SU fighters of the future. The fact that the F-35 is an attack aircraft that can fill an air superiority role with a small loadout does not nullify that it is NOT air dominance capable against any potential future air threat. Now, 187 aircraft is no small potatoes, but this article and the F-35's when taken together are making biased and unsubstantiated cases that F-22's are not a prudent thing to have around at all.

And do any of you have a clue how the Nazis started out, with anti-western indoctrination youth camps? Putin's been pulling the same stuff. A whole generation of brown shirts for the 21st century. And he created a new position just so he'd stay in the top leadership of his country. Scary stuff. Now the Russian navy has proved it can still deploy its subs all the way to the U.S. Rumsfeld said, "you don't fight with the military you want, you fight with the military you have." Well, what you're going to have in the future is decided first in the past and present. And there's something of a conflict of interest, you have to admit, in having a former DCI put in charge of the military and saying technology is less important than HUMINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The case was not being made that another 500 F-22s were required to prevent WWIII, only that it was rational to spend $2 billion (chump change in the Pentagon budget) to slowly build a few more to keep the production line open, in case it was decided that more were needed. The opponents of the Raptor created an imaginary counter-argument that obviously they'd win against. A real discussion over the facts did not occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

-Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the ref on the F-22 range? Every source I've seen gives F-35A/C more range. This is mostly because they are pudgy little underpowered flying fueltanks. Hcobb (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

F-35 has a few other tricks during a BvR fight, not to say that stealth isn't a major factor(Its a HUGE factor), the F-35's avionics suite is second only to that of the raptor. The range for example matches or excels that of the latest Eagle. As for WvR, the trick the F-35 has is the capability to use DAS to acquire, and fire at any target, in any direction, thus, negating the need to try to out turn the other. These are Huge advantages over any 4.5th generation fighter. F-35 doesn't just have off bore sight capability, but rather one that fully covers all directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

People editing are confused between the F-22's possible future and current Mission capabilities

Just because the F-35 in the future will be a great plane, does not mean the F-22 does not have an useful mission now. This is a article about the F-22. Why are Editors bringing in information about a future F-35 plane and future modifications to the F-22 to prove that the F-22 is currently useless currently now? There are numerous articles that speak about that the **CURRENT** capabilities of the F-22 are useful in Air-Ground combat. Surely, the Air-Ground capabilities will be improved in the future but they are sufficient **NOW** for the Israeli's to want them given **THEIR** knowledge of when they will take deliver of the **F-35**. Why do editors attempt to make some convoluted argument that the future deliver of the F-35 somehow makes the current model of the F-22 useless when this is not supported by the facts. It's very frustrating that editors are trying to show that the F-22 has no useful mission in todays current Political climate even when this is not supported logically by the facts. I can only image they have some dog in this hunt. Doug rosenberg (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding missions where the current F-22 can actually be useful. If the entire mission profile is BVR a2a then the Raptor is the best choice. Once you go hunting for ground targets it gets a lot trickier. Currently the F-22 can not see a S-300 launcher before it turns on its radar and it's ability to strike back in a stealth configuration is limited to a pair of unguided half-ton bombs, because it has no SAR, FLIR or designator.

This entire picture changes with the F-35 that can spot and designate targets on the ground and plink them from a long ways off using the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (internal stealthy carry on all except for the F-35B). Not to mention that the F-35A has a longer range on internal fuel.

Now if only we can explain reality to people who confuse the F-22's current mission capabilities with its possible future capabilities. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, anybody got a primary ref for Dunn on F-22 vs S-300? All I've gotten is a video link so far. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The F-22's air-ground ability is kind of an afterthought once they figured out they won't be in dog fights with the Soviets. It's not ideal but it may be the only possible tool for certain missions now. I personally don't think Israel will strike Iran since they don't have the bunker buster technology to do enough damage to the Iranian nuclear bomb development effort even if they can evade the S-300. So I think the argument is a little specious. It will be interesting to see what the US uses if and when they have to attack Iran. As to to the limitations of the F-22 in Air to Surface, I think it would be interesting for you to expand upon the limitations of the F-22 in Air to Surface.Doug rosenberg (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) And if you want to Nuke a country you would just use a missile.Doug rosenberg (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have F-15Cs flying cover during SEAD missions despite F-16s being capable of engaging in a2a?

F-22s will aid F-35s greatly during any missions over hostile airspace, allowing F-35 to focus on ground targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.117.2 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Developed Into?

Is it common practice to list theoretical (un-designed, un-built) aircraft in the "developed into" field? I think the FB-22 and the MANTA have spots to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be a strech to say that the F-22 was "developed into" either of those proposed aircraft. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a new field in the Infobox template. Those are designs based on the F-22 and are not simply variants. The idea is right, but maybe the wording needs adjusting.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the developed into field has a place in it's current wording (For example, F-15 Eagle was developed into the F-15E Strike Eagle), I'm just suggesting that the X-44 and the FB-22 belong in a less concrete field, something like "related development", which we happen to already have in the See Also section. I think they should be left there (where they are already listed), and we can just leave the "Developed into" field blank in the infobox. My $0.02. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Those two links have been listed under "Variants" for at least a year, possibly more, and ther were no complaints then. "Developed into" is supposed to be a little broader, not narrower. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

When we say that an aircraft has been "developed" doesn't that mean that it flies or at least exists? Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the justification for this? I'm just curious. In my mind (and Hcobb's too it seems), "Related Development" is open ended enough to included everything from an aircraft to a design study (like the X-44 and/or FB-22), while "Developed Into" implies something much more concrete. I would say the F-16 was "developed into" the F-16XL because a test article was built and flown. I would not say the F-22 was developed into anything, because nothing has gotten beyond initial propsals or the marketing department's photoshop machine. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matters whether it's theoretical or not. It's just a field to list some related articles - it's not meant to walk on all fours grammatically. Again, there was no problem stated when it was just "Variants", though that was clearly not appropriate. If someone has a better suggestion than "developed from", propose it. I don't have a monopoly on good ides! - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to hear my idea after thinking about it, perhaps a better wording would be "Development upon", which doesn't imply so much that the planes were actually developed, just that these concepts were a development of the currently discussed planes. Equally, one can poke holes in this as well, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if it gets any bites. Kyteto (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Export Variant

Can someone clean up that section in the article? There's no reason to copy and past part of a defense approps bill into the body of the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

totally ruine every thing on the page, I was just trying to replace that gay first image, didn't work out to well, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. It's been fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I successfuly changed the lead image to a ACTUAL image but it got deleted!! WHY!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 (talk)

Why do think it's not a real image? The image file claims it is real. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not from the real world its computer animated - Brainiack16 (talk)

And how do you know that? - You can't just make accusations without some kid of proof. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude just look at it, the cockpit is orange, a purple stream is coming out the back!! You can just tell it isn't real!! - Brainiack16 (talk)

The current image looks similar to the one that 207.199.226.126 changed to. So either they are both real or fake. The canopy uses a gold film to reflect radar signals. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This picture looks perfectly fine to me [1]. Also please read WP:CIVIL about the general tone of your messages. --McSly (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mc, I've just warned him on his talk page with regards to this rude attitude of his. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 09:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Braindude, stop being so condescending! The photograph was taken by semi-professional photographer using a REAL camera during an open house air show at Andrews Air Force Base (click this link and confirm it for yourself!). Please stop assuming things and ask all the regular editors here before making any uneducated assumption, and stop harassing Bill on his talk page when there is an ongoing discussion here already, it's very rude. You have just been warned~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up no matter what I do you'll just undo it, no matter what I say you'll just deny it. Even though the lead image is clearly computer animated, and you guys are to stubborn to say so. So I quit. - Brainiack16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

You should try looking at the image in the full resolution, that should dispel any doubts. In any case the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar. It is similar to the faceplates in the spacesuits used by the Apollo astronauts when they were walking on the moon. The shapes appearing in the exhaust stream of the engines is a very common effect with any jet powered aircraft under the right operating and lighting conditions. BTW, you could try acting a little more gracefully, it will save you a lot of grief in your Wikipedia career. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinion Nick, but I did look at it in full and it looked fake still, and I couldn't find any proof of your statement "the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar". I would like to know what source you got that from.--Brainiack16 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not gold actually, it's an indium-tin oxide but that does explain the gold tint just the same. Here is the link. --McSly (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I stand corrected. That's what you get from relying on memory. I think I must have been recalling a comparison I read somewhere between the canopy and the Apollo visors (which were coated with actual gold) and didn't recall all the relevant details. Next time I'll check the references before I open my mouth. Nevertheless, the canopy has that gold appearance as in the photo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to F-22_cockpit#Canopy Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it is fake, now that the gold canopy has been explained? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "purple stream" is due to a well-known phenomenon known as shock diamonds (also see Shock Diamonds and Mach Disks). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

-Nice try but these "shock diamonds" do not come out in such a tint of purple as the one in the picture. The only "shock diamond" I found that was close to that tint was from a nitrogen plasma jet (which the f-22 doesn't have). And this "indium-tin oxide" that was said to give the raptor a gold tint is also wrong. Indium-tin oxide can appear pale-yellow, yellow-green or even gray, the picture showed it as a strong goldish/yellow orange color. Plus no other picture has the cockpit in that color, all other pics of the f-22 have it as see-through glass (with a glare of yellow when shined in the sun, but not competelty gold as in the main image).--Brainiack16 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a photo from Oshkosh where you see the same golden canopy: http://www.airventure.org/media/images/F22_Oshkosh2.jpg . Here's an official Lockheed photo where you see the shock diamonds: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/F22_inflight.jpg . Here's another photo where you see the canopy and the shock diamonds http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/07/f-22-raptor-nellis-2008-1024x682.jpg . Here's an air force photo where you see the canopy http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2009/06/airforce_appropriations_f22_060509/060509_f22_raptor_800.JPG . -SidewinderX (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you the gold canopy, but the shock dimonds still aren't right. The shock dimanods in the main image don't look like any thing I've seen in any other pictures. Like the picture you had that showed the shock diamonds, it had some purple, but it also had alot of orangish color to it. The main image was bright purple. --207.199.226.126 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(I indented your comment for neatness) I think trying to analyze the color of exhaust plume is a bit silly. On my uncalibrated LCD monitor, the color isn't very purple. Maybe your monitor is more saturated or or mine is undersaturated. Or maybe the deep blue of the sky is affecting the apparent color of the photo. Or maybe the photographer increased the blue saturation level in photoshop to give you that nice sky, and it had the unintended side effect of making the exhaust purple-ish. There are a lot of possibilities, but I submit that we can all, finally, agree that this is a real photo, and not from some video game. -SidewinderX (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW: The Raptor is a strange case as it is a supersonic aircraft with rectangular exhausts. So it shows shock diamonds under conditions that other aircraft would not. Hcobb (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

-Personaly I still think the picture is fake, but so many people say its real. And I can't change their minds, so I have no choice but to drop it. Cheers!--Brainiack16 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please, stop making trollish comments here. Get over it if you cannot disprove that the image is a fake. And personally, I'd like to think that everyone here would love to see you take a real photo of the actual aircraft and prove us wrong once and for all. Otherwise, its utterly a waste of time for you to keep harping and trolling around here, we don't have time for such nonsensical remarks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thrust alt thrust main

Those numbers keep changing, it seems to vary between 35,000/39,300/29,300/29,000lb and 156/170/130kN. Someone needs to find sourced info, settle it in the talk page instead of edits, leave it blank for now.

Either way Layson, the guy you reverted seems to be restoring an older version. It was changed many times without explaining or citing before this.

First iteration by User:Karl Dickman (05:16, 27 February 2006) says:

thrust main=35,000 lb

Thrust alt=160 kN

This is cited nowhere and all subsequent changes are done arbitrarily according to what the author feels is right. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I reverted an unreferenced change to the afterburning thrust numbers (35,000+ lb/156+ kN). The thrust main/alt fields are for max thrust without afterburner. The afterburning thrust numbers have been cited (reference 3 currently). -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are those numbers cited exactly? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The engine's thrust with afterburner comes from the US Air Force fact sheet and other sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it, it was on page 109 of the book...99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no call for misnaming users here - consider yourself warned. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I checked out his page: Karl Dickman I didn't misname anyone. Assume good faith, consider yourself WARNED BilCat. >_< 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, you called him "Karl Dickface" by accident. My bad. - BilCat (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs To Be Updated!

It would seem everyone thinks that after production ended it is no longer used. Many things need to be updated, for instance, Service Histroy, the F-22 was in Red Flag on February 2, 2010. This is not mentioned, just a reminder, thanks--Pilotstockle (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No rudeness intended but why not fix it yourself? Anyone can edit this article this is Wikipedia after all... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

People can think a lot of incorrect things. Parts of this article are updated or added to fairly regularly. I have not seen any articles on the 2010 Red Flag to write & cite from. Can you point us to such an article? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of typing in each and every training exercise. Now I'd be tempted to add the details of the Aircraft Investment Plan, which cover USAF plans for the aircraft up to 2040, but one of the usual suspects would revert that as Not Gnews, so why bother? Hcobb (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I probably would. And it's "Gnot Gnews"! - BilCat (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The AIP says the F-22 needs another $1.9 billion in development funds. Is this even more good money after bad or the final "$2 billion" from this?

Defense Writers Group transcript, page 15

So one thing that's in the budget and I talked about yesterday is to bring more of that fleet, most of that fleet, to a common, high end, capable configuration. But the cost of that is $6.3 billion of R&D. This is in a platform we've already developed. We're going to spend six billion more of R&D to engineer the 3.2 upgrade for the software and the changes in the jet, and then about $2 billion to modify on the jets. That's $8 billion more, and $8 billion I think needs to be spent in order to make sure the 183 airplanes we have will be highly capable fighters.

Hcobb (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be the same thing. But just a guess. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a very significant thing to be left out, the first time the F-22 participated in Red Flag against foreign Air Forces.--Pilotstockle (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to an article that says that with some details? Here are the articles I found so far. 2010 Red Flag, 2009 exercises -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Supercruise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

Can somebody explain, supercruise is a flight at most fuel efficient or not? Der russische Patriot (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Supercruise the ability for sustained flight at over Mach 1 without using afterburners/reheat. Since afterburners/reheat is not used, it is much more fuel efficient. See the Supercruise article for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand so, that a supercruise is not a supersonic cruise speed. In other words, the supercruise is not the most efficient speed. Am I right? Der russische Patriot (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Supercruise is likely not the *most* efficient flight speed for the aircraft, but it is the most efficient means of flying supersoniclly, if that makes sense. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. I want to know this :) Der russische Patriot (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No! This is most efficient flight speed for the object on supersonic speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.241.211 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Supercruise" isn't a specific speed. As User:Fnlayson explained above, supercruise just describes the capability of an aircraft to fly supersonically without using its afterburner. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean efficiently and without the use of afterburners.Supercruise isn`t only possibility sustained supersonic flight without the use of afterburners —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.241.211 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, supercruise is merely a word defining supersonic flight without an afterburner. See the wikitionary definition. It is mostly commmonly used in the context of an aircraft being able to carry a useful load; there are probably several aircraft that can fly supersonically without afterburner in a completely "clean" configuration, but we don't consider them to be supercruising aircraft becomes they cannot perform their intended mission in that state. I don't understand what additional criteria you're trying to add to the definition of supercruise. Flying without afterburners is inherently more efficient than flying with them. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

S-300

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Please note that this discussion page is not a forum~!

I doubt that the F-22A is the only aircraft to evade the S-300 , B-2A being the primary stealth bomber of USAF must be able to evade it because it was built orginally to penetrate the soviet union and the S-300 was already present , also I don't think Israel needs the F-22A , considering in mind that Israel bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear facility and according to the S-300 page Syria had the S-300 , the whole Syrian air defence system shut downed during that bombing ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And American defense brass have indicated that the F-35 is the primary S-300 killer.

For fun ask sometime why the T-50's IR is top forwards while the F-35 has IR sensors pointing in all directions with the prim ary sensor being bottom forwards. Hcobb (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth are you self-appointed analysts getting any of this nonsense from? The F-22 hasn't set foot in a warzone or for that matter flown much outside of the United States.

I sincerely doubt it has completed CAP's near Russian territory or purposely tried to evaluate it's stealth characteristics by flying near enemy S2A sites. The USAF are still ironing out the wrinkles in the F-22's stealth suite, and trying to overcome it's very limited flight duration in poor weather or at high speed (which deforms/erodes the RCS-reducing contours and the radar-absorbing coating; requiring significantly costly maintenance to restore).

I don't think they'd throw the Raptor into harm's way without being sincerely sure it would be able to evade detection.

Please, stop the speculation, there's enough of that crap as it is.

Also for your information, the specific knowledge of which countries possess the S-300 or any of its variants (SA-10, SA-12, SA-20) is extremely sketchy at best and there is no confirmation Syria are fielding the system. Only that they announced their intention to purchase it at sometime.

And finally the S-300's/400's/500's target acquisition and early warning radars (NATO reporting names: FLAP LID & TIN SHIELD) are some of the most potent & advanced S2A radars in the world. They do have extensive capability to detect low-observable and reduced-RCS aircraft at range. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP debating and argumentation. full of systemic bias. I've not seen yet any fact. There are many sources I'll leave one. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId659890 anyway this is not a forum neither is the s-300 article. 92N2E grave stone est SA-21 is capable of detecting a 0.1RCS target at about 75 nautic miles. this is a FACT. but there are more radars capable of operating in the X band and therefore being capable of better detection of a stealth object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.217.195 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Maximum g-load

The article currently states "Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" This would be better stated as "Design g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" The difference is that the aircraft is designed to withstand those g-loads without reducing the life of the airframe or requiring additional, unplanned inspections and maintenance. They are by no means the absolute limits of what the plane can survive. Righteous9000 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

F-22E

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

If the term F-22E pops up in a reliable source then you can discount it as Goon's latest delusion.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300310-1.html Following the example of a very successful and cost-effective development of the F-15E from the F-15A&C, the F-22A needs to be developed along the lines of the Strike Eagle – a two-place, much enhanced “F-22E” fighter with the rear seat Weapons System Officer monitoring sensor feeds, advising the pilot and managing the passive and active terminal countermeasures – and, yes, it must have the agility and persistence to overmatch both the PAK-FA and the Su-35S.

What Goon doesn't get is that this busy work for the back seater is handled by the computer in a true fifth generation jet fighter. (Which the F-22A will be some day.) Hcobb (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note, April Fools' Day is over. Let's move along now people, nothing to look here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What Goon and his boys don't get is BVR ACM or Combined Arms Tactics. The F-35s in their scenarios always seem to fly directly at their opponents despite the fact that their stealth and networking would allow them to engage from the sides of the opponent. Additionally, the US has made extensive use of other assets when facing IADS especially during the initial stages of a conflict when the opponents systems are fully functional. Righteous9000 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

Censorship of theories of cross-use of operating system in spacecraft on this talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

On 16 June an editor, "Doomsday212," gotta love the name,! in this edit [[2]] suggested the F-22's operating system has a cross application or dual purpose for use in spacecraft. However fringe, "far out" or inaccurate this might be, should this theory, even if a conspiracy theory, be censored and suppressed? Shouldn't we at least give this editor a chance to provide a source for the edit, if he is putting his credibility at risk? The reversion and suppression of his edits to the talk page here...not the article itself....but the talk page! flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BITE. CriticalChris 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

“ Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination?Doomsday212 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK] ”

"Censorship"?? Talk pages are not forums to discuss F-22s operating in outer space. That's why I removed this. It's not censorship, but WP guidleines. - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Censorship? Sure, it seemed as though you were promptly reverting his remarks on the topic, which smacks of --censoring-- another's writing, and you never intelligently addressed his point, however ludicrous or factual it may have been. He never placed this totally unsourced topic in the article, and I wonder what Wikipedia guideline calls for vaporizing his remarks? I:t seemed to me to be quite uncivil. CriticalChris 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM, specifically "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines", and from those guidelines "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." -SidewinderX (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(E/C) Speculating comments like the the above are discussion forum material and do not help improve the article. See WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:TALKNO. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I took the comment to mean Lockheed using NASA's help to modify the operating system so as to use the F-22 in space itself, not "the F-22's operating system has a cross application or dual purpose for use in spacecraft." If I was in error, I'm sorry, byt as writtrn, that's how I understood it. I did look up "ADA" in the article (not there) and on WP (DAB page, but nothing relevant). I also looked at the user's other contributions, which seemed borderline constructive at best, nonsense/trolling at worst. Even if "the F-22's operating system has a cross application or dual purpose for use in spacecraft", it's probably beyone the scope of this article except for a brief mention. S, please, when warning regular editors of WP:BITE, don't eat the regulars! - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Raptor shares something with manned spacecraft and I'm adding that now. (Check your tinfoil hats at the door.) Hcobb (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit on the GHS operating system, though in my personal opinion, which many do not share, you should be a bit more careful throwing around tinfoil hat comments, lest it be taken as incivility by a new editor, or congressional staff that regularly peruse this article (and other articles on military aircraft) and its talk page. Of course if you work for Lockheed Martin you might actually want to chase such editors away to narrow the debate and scope of edits. Of course, despite quite comical attempts during 2009 to spin the shit out of this article to stoke the procurement fires, even cold warriors like Bob Gates ultimately became enlightened by more credible sources, possibly those in the corporate news media. Actually, maybe it was a conspiracy of his boss and others wearing tinfoil hats on the hill. CriticalChris 05:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it me or is all this a bit misleading, the edit reads as if all the aircraft computer systems use Integrity operating system which appears to be unfounded. It is also probably that the operating system is running ADA software and as ADA is a modular language designed to be re-used then it is not suprised if the combination of os and ada modules are used on other military systems. None of it appears to be particularly notable to the F-22. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 is a computer running Integrity in the same sense as a gamer PC with a really massive graphics card is still a computer running Windows. The vast majority of the mflops may be running some special purpose assembly code with a micro boot loader, but it all answers to the same overall operating system. If I had my way I would erase the mention of Integrity from the text of the article and put it in the category of "Aerospace Craft using Integrity". Hcobb (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

Software "Glitch" Unverifiable?

The following quote (3rd para. of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Service_history) seems to be largely unsupported by the cite given [3]
141. Johnson, Maj. Dani. "Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Gets Zapped by International Date Line: Raptors arrive at Kadena." Air Force, 19 February 2007. Retrieved: 9 May 2010.

“ While attempting its first overseas deployment to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, on 11 February 2007, a group of six Raptors flying from Hickam AFB, Hawaii experienced multiple computer crashes coincident with their crossing of the 180th meridian of longitude (the International Date Line). The computer failures included at least navigation (completely lost) and communication. The fighters were able to return to Hawaii by following their tankers in good weather. The error was fixed within 48 hours and the F-22s continued their journey to Kadena.^[141] ”

All the source says about the issue is:

“ While en route, a software issue affecting the aircraft's navigation system was discovered Feb. 11 causing the aircraft to return to Hickam. The issue was corrected and the aircraft continued on to Kadena. ”

No mention of:

1. "multiple computer crashes"
2. "coincident with their crossing of the 180th meridian of longitude (the International Date Line"
3. "completely lost" re navigation
4. "and communication"
5. "by following their tankers in good weather" re. able to return to Hawaii
6. "fixed within 48 hours"

The article also mentions "Ten" (source says 6) F-22 Raptors. From past experience it is possible the source article has been changed; a reference has been lost in editing; or an editor has in good faith added true information, but not added a reference to support it. Less AGF some synthesis has occured.

The interesting thing is I have heard of such a bug in a USAF aircraft, but as I recall (unverifiable!), it was discovered in testing before practical application of the software. In this case the aircraft would have flipped upside down as it crossed the meridian! In any case the para. I have quoted in unverifiable in it's present form. Comments please? -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article is says the F-22 (150 million unit cost) is controversial due to it added cost over the F-35 (191 million unit cost)? Come on wikipedia ....the numbers you are providing are calling your Encyclopedia credability in question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.165.203 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Prices need to be checked

The article states "... and the development of the cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production." In the description of the F-35 it is stated that the production cost of the F-35 is in fact higher than the one of the F-22. Either the price of the F-22 has changed significantly in the past year or this should be corrected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.138.230 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The joy of mass production is that production costs suffer from vast Economies of scale which is especially true with the F-35 as tools are being built to build massive numbers of F-35s. By counting these tool costs in addition to the current costs of building F-35s by hand you get to a higher cost than the last few F-22s. The F-35 costs continue to drop year after year and will soon be half or less of the F-22s. The other issue which is not mentioned is that the F-35 is built to be maintained and so will require vastly lower operating costs than the B-2s and F-22As that take so much loving care to fly. Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is any difference in operating cost due to any difference in the design of each aircraft's "stealthy skins?" Does the F-35 require air conditioned hangars like the B-2 Spirit? While said hangars don't require advertisements on the DC metro system to sell opinion leaders on this idea, that can still get pretty expensive to keep at a cool temperature in a place like Diego Garcia. CriticalChris 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiber mat to the rescue! I wish the term man-hour would be used more often. So it takes 60 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight? Does that mean if you fly a 24 hour mission you won't be able to use it again for another two months?  :-( Hcobb (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ADA Operating System

Jeff, you reverted my F-22 edit which clarified the problem with the ADA operating system as per the cited reference at sldinfo.com. You said Ada is a DoD programming language. That's true, but that's not what Michael Wynne said in his article about the problems with the F-22 development program. He said:

Because of a nagging fear of being hostage to an industrial solution, the Defense Department specified in detail its own operating system, called ADA...

I acknowledge your expertise in the industry, but can you please explain how you go from "ADA operating system" to "Ada programming language"? Or are you asserting that Wynne was incorrect in his article? Because unless I'm missing some exotic nuance, they're completely different things. Jogar2 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he meant an operating system written with ADA code. The Pace book says most of the F-22's avionics software was written in the DoD's Ada. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination?Doomsday212 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK

Just a pointer that this "issue" has been addressed with the note about INTEGRITY-178B. Hcobb (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No section about tailhook?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNSaKBjtoNA

It clearly does have one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it comes equipped with a tailhook, otherwise how would the plane land during an emergency? Remember though that this is not a naval fighter, so that means that the tailhook is meant only for use at a regular air base equipped with the appropriate arresting gear. Any other thing you might want to state or ask, please take note that this is a discussion page for improving this article, not a forum. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™} 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was just suggesting you add something about it, because it's tailhook is clearly visible from the rear, and has infact raised questions from some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 having a tailhook is not anything new or special. Many modern fighter have a tailhook for safety backup. Maybe mention the tailhook somewhere fitting, but it does need a dedicated section. -fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the bad choice of wording of "section". I kinda was just looking for a mention of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Comparable list

Is F-15, And Eurofighter really comparable with the raptor? If so, then what about their counterparts? Rafale, Flankers? I know this is picking, but seriously though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the PAK FA would be, but since it's being assembled in a Potemkin village, details are sparse. Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, since the F-22 is claimed to be the first 5th-gen fighter, only the YF-23 and PAK-FA belong. One could also make a case for the J-XX, but too little is known about it to say for sure at this time. I'm going to be bold and make the changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

eurofighter is a 4++th generation fighter. anyway, "generations" is just pure marketing. but eurofigher was on the comparable list of the pak-fa so it would make it comparable to the f-22. anyway, they are very different aircrafts with very distinct roles. like the pilot who as flight both said, f-22 is like a nascar car and eurofigther is like a Formula 1. it's not the same category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.69.229 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The two jets are not comparable. The Su-30's, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, late model F-15's etc were all developed around the same time as the Typhoon and are comparable. The F-22 is a later development with better avionics, radar, stealth, engines, maneuverability, cruise speed, range... Just because they both make alot of noise, shoot stuff and fly doesnt mean they are comparable. Nem1yan (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note the statement on the aircontent template's "similar" section. aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability as this design. Eurofighter's Role and Era are directly comparable, and the Capability gap is smaller than F-22's proponents would like to admit. Also, for the record, I believe we need more F-22s and I personally loathe Typhoon for a variety of reasons, so it's not a case of fanboyism like the squabbles around Tejas and the various Chinese jets. The European fighter aircraft that is comparable to the American and Russian so-called "fifth generation" jets is Eurofighter Typhoon - another reason being there will be no European "true" fifth-generation jet, more's the pity. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur totally. In my opinion, the "Fighter generation" stuff is next to useless in real-world analysis, being suitible only for marketing hype and fanboyish nationalism. Development of the what became the F-22 (the ATF program) was actually begun before the Typhoon itself. Even more, the F-22's stealth advantages have not be "tried by fire", so we really don't know how effective it really is. That said, it's still a good airframe/system. It's certainly better in the short run than the F-35 "Aardvark II" (a reference to one of Robert McNamara's many follies, the "multi-role" F-111), which really looks like it will at least as expensive as the F-22 by the time it enters production. And the funny thing is that Japan is willing to buy the F-22 no matter the cost, and such a sale would lower the production price. But what else do you expect from an administration that thinks Southern rednecks and Wall Street capitalists are its enemies, and Islamic terrorists and Iranian fundamentalists are not?? - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the fighter generation stuff is next to worthless. Honestly, I with they would go away, just to save us the headaches on wikipedia. And, without getting too far into the off-topic reeds, I'll just say this- While the F-22 is the most capable aircraft we could be making, and the cost of the F-35 is rising, blaming Obama for ending the F-22 production speaks to a political dislike for Obama and not the facts of the matter. The decision process to end the F-22 production began in 2006, and its chief champion was SecDef Gates, who was originally a Pres. Bush appointee. Gates and the Joint Chiefs both wanted to end F-22 production to free up money for F-35 and other upcoming programs. Obama got a lot of press for ending F-22 production because Gates reccomended (and Obama threatened) vetoing the approps bill if LockMart lobbied their way into adding it back to the budget (See Boeing and the C-17 for a similar situation), but Obama didn't start the process. He just ended it. For what it's worth. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the fact he ended production that I have a problem with! And how he did it. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All BHO did was agree to the number that Dick Cheney set. Remember the Dick who reduced Raptor numbers early and often is all I ask. Hcobb (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And I disagreed with Vice President Cheney then too. (Trust me, I've never forgotten that he axed the A-6F, the F-14D, etc! We really could have used their full capabilites in the long-range carrier strikes on Afghanistan.) Anyway, as Side tried to point out, we're way off topic on this one. Post on my page if you want to hear more Barry-bashing ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Of all humanity, only Wikifreaks get to vote on which aircraft are comparable to which other ones. No mere reporter or book writer has any say on the issue. Doesn't that make us all really special? Hcobb (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm an editor of a consensus-driven internet encyclopedia - who did you you think you were?? Sorry, but it's just a list of articles which may be of interest to users. It's not supposed to be a huge production, and it certainly was never intended to need citations for inclusion. It's just a list of aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability as this design, "Fighter generations" are not and never were the standard for inclusion. It's not rocket science, and it doesn't have to be here if it's going to cause all this much trouble. - BilCat (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The comparable aircraft are aircraft that fufill a simmilar role with simmilar ability. Right now, I'd include the F-15, SU-35, SU-30 MKI, J-10, and Mirage 2000 as aircraft comparable to the F-22, as those are the primary air superiority aircraft the F-22 would be competing against. [Note the exclusion of mutli-role aircraft from this list, which excludes the F-18E and Eurofighter from this discussion, as well as the Pak FA and F-35]. The issue is that we don't have a solid definition of "comparable" to go by. Generation? Ability? Role? We need a solid definition to work with, then we can figure out what aircraft to include. My list simply focuses on aircraft of the same type [In this case, Air Superiority] which are in active service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerk2 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All F-15s? Or just the F-15SE Silent Eagle? The F-22 is not comparable to the F-15C, nor is it comparable to the F/A-XX. In each case the replacement aircraft is a major step forwards. Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree strongly with BilCat. The comparable list should be there to illustrate what might be in the air at the same time, doing a broadly similar job, on the same side, on the opposing side, or neutral. The facts (hopefully) in those articles should make it clear how comparable planes are, and importantly make it clear to what degree one can really know and to what degree of generality. Incidentally this article just suggests that the F-22 is invincible, which I suspect was the intention. Almost makes me WANT some afghan to shoot one down with a catapulted rock in the fanblades ;). In reality however, it might get sand in the gearbox like those helicopters did in the desert.

We could always relabel the section "Contemporary Aircraft" or "Projected Allied & Hostile Combatants"... Princeofdelft (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue about range

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

It come to my attention, by someone that responded to a bloggpost, that the F-22 is short legged (especially considered the substantial fuel load). The subjects to compare with would be the Flankers, the Pak-FA and F-35. Wikinegern (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Range doing what and with what load? Do you have a change in the way the performance blocks are formatted or the terms used in them? Also different aircraft are designed for different missions and so state their ranges for their own missions so it's difficult to compare ranges between aircraft. Finally the F-35 is a slow pudgy flying fuel tank so it goes a lot further on purely internal fuel than most other jet fighters. Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The only way that the F-22 has limited range is from supercruise, which makes it seem like it's short legged, but really, it's trading endurance for energy (speed/maneuverability). Also, the actual range in any form isn't even truly known.18.33.1.78 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 carries 18,000 lb fuel internally while the F-35A has 480 more lb fuel and its one engine burns less fuel than the two engines on the F-22 (and the F-35A has a much lower empty weight to drag around). Hcobb (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Removed variants section

I've removed the variants section, simply because this aircraft has no variants. There have been proposed variants, but none of these materialized in anything more than vaporware. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So don't call them variants but proposed development projects. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

That has my support! Hiberniantears (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please retain links to the articles on these design concepts, as they do have their own articles. Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no requirement for variants to actually be built to have a section at WP:Air/PC. The text makes it clear they were all planned or proposed. So no real problem. -fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that actually be a requirement, then? The plane has no variants, so anything listed under the variant section isn't a variant. Aside from the F-22B, the other designs mentioned are actually spin-offs using some of the technology of the F-22, but they would represent entirely different aircraft rather than variants. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the section isn't being used as intended. Generally the Variants section is an annotated list of actual, planned, and proposed variants; the details are usually covered in the main text. This presents all the main designations used or proposed for the aircraft. Also, derivitives are often covered here, usually as part of the list, with links to any articles on the derivitives.

The Variant section should look like this:

• YF-22A - annotation.
• F-22A - F/A-22A from (200?-0?), single-seat, annotation.
• F-22B - planned two-seat version, cancelled to save costs in 199?.

Derivitives

• FB-22 - annotation.
• X-44 MANTA - annotation.

The derivitaves are listed (without annotations) in the See also section, so they aren't necessarilt needed. - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, and I think that's a much clearer presentation that allows us to maintain all the links. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to it, guys, I'll bat cleanup. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

That's been mostly done, but not sure what to list the Naval NATF variant as. -fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd discuss the NATF proposal under the derivatives section. If taking the tail off (the MANTA) makes it a derivative, I'd say making it a swing-wing does the same! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy of my post on talk page ofUser:Bzuk about Oct 7, 2010 edits

F22: Which one is "Martin article," and can you put citation for it next to disputed sentence? Hi Bzuk, I had thought the sentence and in particular the phrase about the versatility of F35 was unsupported, because when I looked up the next footnote number, I saw no mention of F#% in it. Which article is the "Martin article" that supports it? There are a number of citations from Lockheed Martin. Is it one of those? Best wishes, Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Rich (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See a new article with an unambiguous analysis of the F-35's "versatility." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

The F-35 is more versatile

In response to the latest Koppian edit I just undid: A short list of things the F-35 can do, that the F-22 can not.

• The F-35 can track and engage targets outside of a narrow 120 degree arc and with sensors other than just active radar. (The F-22 isn't a fighter, it's an interceptor and had best stay out of dogfights with HOBS equipped fighters like the PAK-FA and F-35.)

• The F-35 can carry a much wider selection of weapons internally, including the one-ton bombs that will not fit inside the F-22.

• The F-35 B and Cs can deploy from the seas, while the F-22 is limited to airfields with long runways, greatly limiting the role of the F-22 in projected conflicts with China.

• The F-35 has MADL built in and this has been delayed yet again on the F-22. The result is that the F-35 gets to whisper to the B-2, and the F-22 does not.

And so on. The F-35 is more versatile, but the F-22 does have a few "silver bullet" capabilities that make it a better interceptor, if not multirole fighter. Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you've removed sources to the contrary, and not provieded reliable sources to back up these claims when requested. Your analysis is OR at best, and not all that accurate either. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Using SandS for ref because the SOD's speech would be a primary source and also to avoid his exact statement of course. (It's more truthy to quote how the speech made that reporter feel and so closer to the consensus reality of Wikistan, right?) Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Too spread out to fail, failed

A note was placed on my page about my last edit about the policy of spreading F-22 production too thinly over the country and how this killed the Raptor. I stand by my refs and can provide many more if needed. Hcobb (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of your refs is from a few years before the F-22 was cancelled and after reading both other sources I see very little connection to how the plane being built all over the nation was a killing point. The F-22 had always been excessively expensive and the USAF (along with congress for that matter) had no problem with that. The pressure to terminate production came almost exclusively from the executive branch. Most jets have parts that are built in several different locations (how many people are supposed to be building the new 787?) Honestly it seems like you formed an opinion based on what you read, and your addition was more of a mixed creation. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

CIP not COTS?

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/blogs/john-kellers-blog/blogs/military-aerospace/john-keller-blog/post987_4043823520228615935.html

Remember the Common Integrated Processor (CIP) design for the F-22 Raptor advanced tactical fighter? It was developed two decades ago by what was then Hughes Aircraft (bought later by Raytheon), and was based on the Intel 80960 processor. Hughes promoted the CIP as an open-systems computer, but anyone who took a look at it quickly realized that Hughes held the keys to the architecture, and no third-party suppliers could participate in the CIP without the approval and support of Hughes.

Add or not? Hcobb (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think not as it is not that relevant and it also comes from an unreliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

GOP control of House could revive the F-22 fight

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/11/12/gop-control-of-house-could-revive-the-f-22-fight/

It's back.... Hcobb (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could is not encyclopedic, a blog is not a reliable source and this is not a forum. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Highest accident rate

http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/stealth-crash-in-alaska-pushes-f-22-raptor-accident-rate-higher/19724448 This article was used to show the F-22's high crash rate in comparison to other fighters in the USAF inventory, but there is one flaw in the article that makes it rather questionable.

"According to the latest statistics provided by the Air Force, which go through 2009, the F-22 since being fielded has suffered six Class A accidents -- accidents that result in more than $1 million in damage -- since entering the inventory."

Since no less than two aircraft have been completely destroyed in crashes so far how does the total result in "more than $1 million"? The aircraft are over $150 million a pop and considering the overall cost of the F-22 program $1 million isn't even something worth writing about. It makes it seem like the author might not really understand the issue. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the author's fault. A Class A accident has been considered $1 million or more of damage for many years. That should be updated to account for inflation though. -fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I read the article incorrectly. I thought it was saying the total cost for the accidents was only around $1 million. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even more crunchy stats

Add or not?

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/263.pdf Normal Load Factor -1.0 to 7.7 Angle of attack (degree) -5 to 62 Angle of slideslip (degree) 1.25 left/right Roll Rate (degree/second) 200 left/right

Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, read the context of the paper. Those numbers were the achived, to date, performance numbers of the the YF-22 prototpye (the document is dated 1991). They do not reflect either the production F-22 or the actual performance envelope. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Military-industrial espionage

This Guardian article says the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has "a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force's F-22." Do we have a reliable source that indicates military-industrial espionage has occurred? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but actually it's from the F-35 as can be seen with the chine-DSI bumps design. Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of public images to get the shape from. Espionage is not required to generate similar shapes, profiles. -fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

lol wut pure heresay by hcobb. chinese would not need to do espionage and even if they did doubt they would have gotten far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.101 (talk) 17:29, 6 Jaynuary 2011 (UTC)

there is a high possibility that the chinese did hack in to the DoD

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html Hcobb (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plasma vs. Coating

Can anyone explain why lockheed martin and the us air force didn't go for plasma stealth wouldn't it make the planes maintenance easier and cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please visit other sources to understand the power constraint and other challenges that have to be faced to create and continuously maintain plasma. Parijatgaur —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Empty Weight

Although I must congratulate the author on an excellent and concise description of the F-22 I must disagree with the figure for empty weight. The figure in the article (19,100 kg) is from the USAF but it is simply quoted as weight not empty weight. The real empty weight according to Jane's "all the world's aircraft" is 14,365kg (31,670lb). --95.148.180.30 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)David Pugh 30/1/2011

I did some research and it seems that those are earlier numbers, probably from the YF-22. Considering that the currents specs are taken from both the USAF and LockMart themselves, and the fact that Jane's often publishes rather conservative aircraft aircraft weights I dont feel there should be a change. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The empty weight listed in the AF fact sheet and LM spec page changed about 2 years ago. Not sure what happened. Maybe the USAF let the YF-22 number be listed by mistake or to mislead rivals. Seems like there was a long discussion section on this here, but I can not find it in the archive pages at the moment. -fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for a rewrite

...and pray tell, why? Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of "not ready for prime time" do they not understand?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/07/fly-f-22s-over-libya-advocates-say/

Apparently this article needs a rewrite to show very plainly just how unready this airplane is. At least the pundits acknowledge that it's the F-35 that will have the air to ground capabilities needed to deal with Soviet-era SAMs. Hcobb (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Air Force is planing to operate F-22s out of Egypt? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p28-293410.xml&headline=F-22s Could Be Assigned To Libyan Operation Hcobb (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And what part of "WP talk pages are not forums for discussing the subject" do you not understand? - BilCat (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The aircraft was designed to avoid and burn out radar, if the airforce wants to give it the ability to drop bombs too then thats their business but it doesnt mean the aircraft is unfit or the article needs to be re-written. Should we rewrite the Typhoon article since it doesnt have the thrust vectoring nozzles that are planned for it? -Nem1yan (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Limited to 25,000 feet

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6041977&c=AIR&s=AMEurl

Time to update the stat block. Hcobb (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a temporary restricitn, as I'm sure you already knw - we don't change the specs for that. - BilCat (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

F-22 not sutiable for ground attack

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/29/an_ex_harrier_pilot_explains_the_difference_between_firing_at_other_airplanes_and_s

Notable enough to put in? (And yank out that multirole tag of course.) Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it - one persons opinion that it is rubbish at one of the secondary roles doesnt mean it cant actually do it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) as noted above, it is one person's opinion.

(2) That opinion is in a blog

(3) Ground attack is much more than strafing runs . Jeff Song (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Jeff Song the source is suggesting that the air to ground role is restricted solely to the cannon. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a source handy, but I think F-22 ground attack capabilities are are being implement in Block upgrades. For example this AvWeek article discusses the ongoing integration of the Small Diameter Bomb onto the F-22 (it even has a photo!). So ground attack for the F-22 is coming, even if it's not quite there yet. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when the F-22 has SAR and multiple SDB delivery options then it will be a multirole aircraft. But at the moment it is a pure stealth Interceptor aircraft and we should reflect this. (Calling the T-50 or J-20 "fighters" when they are currently both unarmed and without sensors also seems a bit odd to me.) Hcobb (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand but disagree with your take on the F-22's attack capability, the T-50 and J-20 are clearly meant to be fighter prototypes, not technology demonstrators. Such incredulous comments are more suitable for the F16.net forums, not here. - BilCat (talk)

optimised for air-to-air combat

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/30/stateside-basing-kept-the-f-22-out-of-the-libya-fight Air Force Secretary Michael Donley added that the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air combat while the vast majority of operations in Libya have been focused on air-to-ground strikes better handled by jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and other “bombers.” He added that the mission in Libya has shown the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s bomber forces.

So now that Donley is not a RS, can we please remove everything he's said from wikistan? Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. - BilCat (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Supercruise range

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/What-Russias-Stealth-Fighter-Developments-Mean-for-America#_ftn36

Due to its supercruise ability, the F-22 is capable of covering long distances in regions like the Arctic Ocean, the continental U.S., the Western Pacific, and the Persian Gulf with supersonic flight without the need to engage afterburners.

Note that they do not ref this paragraph because it has no connection to reality. The F-35 has a greater range than the F-22 when both aircraft are subsonic and engaging in supercruise reduces the range of the F-22. Hcobb (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose is getting to an area quickly then supercruise is vital. Yes supercruise is less efficient than normal cruise speeds but in the case of the F-22 the aircraft is moving roughly twice as fast as would the F-35. The F-35 is more efficient at going slow but the Air Force CLEARLY wanted an aircraft that could supercruise for a reason. The performance features arent added just to make the aircraft "cool" -Nem1yan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The optimal cruise altitudes and optimal cruise speeds of Raptor are above FL400 and above mach 1.2 significantly below mil power. That's the whole point of the fixed inlets, low drag (without the external hardpoints), and high-surface area lifting body-like design. You can easily go over FL500 and mach 1.5 with power potential to spare on dry thrust, but then you're getting into progressively less efficient fuel consumption if you're worried about extreme range without refueling. Ultimate capabilities are entirely limited by fuel efficiency and thermal/wear concerns on the airframe and engine outlets. Afterburner is entirely intended for acceleration (linear and angular) and rapid climbing to cruise altitude. Nothing more. -Ben 66.178.144.73 (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Multirole

Would anyone like to discuss this here before altering the page? I don't find it all that odd that the Air Force is refusing to send its trump card in to do the job of its' less capable aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199 Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter

Get them to correct it there first please. Hcobb (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly how it is listed in the Infobox here.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

LockMart on need for upgrades

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-prototype-stealth-fighter-rival-uss-best-report/story?id=13561596&page=2 "Such emerging threats illustrate the need to continue enhancing the F-22's capabilities so that it stays ahead of evolving threats," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said.

If ABC had named the spokescritter I would have considered including this under the upgrades section. Hcobb (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The US Military needs at least 750 F-22 for it to destroy the Chinese Airforce. The F-35 should only be ground attack, IT ONLY HAS 2 MISSILES FOR GOD'S SAKE. There should be about 500 hundred F-35 and 1000 improved Raptors, or the US will suffer a crushing defeat by the Chinese like Japan during WW2. The F-22 should have a HMD, better radar, more and better weapons and more combat range and speed.

Incremental cost for one fifth generation fighter

I saw this added today so I ask, what exactly would you include in the incremental cost for one fifth generation fighter?

• The R&D costs for the type?
• One year of keeping the "50 state" supply line running?
• Lease for the buildings where the construction is being done?
• All parts, equipment and labor to get the aircraft ready to fly out of the factory and into war?
• The pilot training?
• A few decades of upgrades, fuel, basing costs and maintenance?

How exactly can we break down batch costs to per unit costs when there's so much overhead to have a place there for the workers to stand as they insert the bolts? Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bogus production rate

http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/13886238/article-As-the-F-35-program-revs-up---the-F-22-ramps-down?instance=special _coverage_right_column “We’ve usually delivered two per month for the past 15 years,” said F-22 Program Manager Jeff Babione.

Do the math! 2 * 12 * 15 = 360. Actually the production rate is much closer to one jet per month. Hcobb (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Shot down by Chinese?

I've heard people saying that an F-22 was shot down by the Chinese. I'm sure its not true but what does the Wiki community say about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.134.55 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we would have heard about it by now if it was true rather than blog speculation over the Alaska crash. Have you a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been three (or more) claims by China of shooting down F-22s. One was over Alaska by a Chinese submarine firing a laser at it (how the Chinese Laser Sub got past the equally fictional American Hypersonic Anti Submarine aircraft is unexplained), another F-22 was apparently flying over a Chinese city (why? Who knows) and a J-10 shot it down (the images aired as 'proof' were photoshopped images with a 'suprising' similarity to dated images of an F-22 crash in the US...). Often these news reports can't keep their own story straight, as reports conflicted as if a J-10 or ground based missile fire had downed the aircraft. One has to ask, why would a nation shoot down another nation's aircraft in peacetime, potentially provoking a war, surely that would be extremely major news? And why would the U.S. even risk the F-22 in the first place, what would be so crucially important for them to put it in harm's way to begin with? The stores make no sense, and they stink to high heaven. Chalk it down as sad propaganda. Kyteto (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Forum

File:Spirit_of_the_Raptor.jpg

I would like to suggest the use of this image for this article. It is by artist Lee Bivens and from what the original author of the article claimed, as I have no found a source for it, is that it was created while the F-22 was still classified and in development. It is supposedly the first painting for the F-22.--v/r - TP 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lockheed's proposed design concept for the NATF program.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lockheed's proposed design concept for the NATF program.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many images

Hi everybody, I'm a bit concerned with the number of images on the article. To extract my dialogue with Fnlayson, "Some are perfectly legitimate, while others serve no objective at all. I understand that there is ample space for these images, but they don't serve any real purpose, as well as distracting the reader from the information itself. Furthermore, they make the article look like a photo collection from enthusiastic photographers." Comment? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alt text

The reason I removed the alt text is that it is much less descriptive of the image than the non-alt text, but it is now showing up as the caption instead of the non-alt text. I don't know how this happened, but apparently this edit did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor&diff=next&oldid=450254449 Jeff Song (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think I found it - an extra space. Fixed Jeff Song (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that was very strange. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)