Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

can of worms - peace time of F-22 verses F/A-18 wartime mission capable rates

"In 2010, the Air Force Association stated the mission capable rate for the F-22 fleet was 70%, comparative with the 71.2% that the F/A-18 Super Hornet managed during its first wartime deployment" Is it really comparing like for like, for a new aircraft operating out of fully-furnished land bases on the mainland at a time of peace, to have its mission rates compared with the F/A-18, out at sea far away from large maintainence depots and corperate contractors fighting in batle and taking damage? Presumably some F/A-18s might have been damaged by enemy weapon's fire, combat losses may count against, a lack of suppliers or a simple lack of manhours/manpower onboard a carrier to simply service the every demand the fleet had; I'm worried this isn't comparing like for like. Surely it would make sense to compare a Super Hornet's early peacetime mission capable rate with the Raptor's peacetime rate; where the service conditions are at least not coming under the pressures of war verses the leisures of homeland security. Have I looked too deeply into this? Kyteto (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that's all for new USA fighter aircraft and the Super Hornets were pushed into front line service as soon as they had any capability. The difference is that the Super Hornets are actually capable and needed. Hcobb (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor cockpit

Do we really need a seperate article for the cockpit? The F-16's cockpit/cockpit avionics are quite detailed on its article yet it is contained with the main fine enough. Much of the information on this sub article is minor, and much of it is uncited. Thus, a lot of that data can go, what is good and left over might be suitable for incorperating here and simply folding the sub-article out of existence. Kyteto (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could be covered here like with the F-16 and other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This has been merged, btw. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

2009 ATLC exercises

Here's a ref.

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/raptor-rules-the-desert-roost.html For these training missions, the F-22As flew only within visual range 1 vs 1 BFM (Basic Fighter Manoeuvring) sorties, and did so carrying under-wing fuel tanks, and with radar reflectors fitted, preventing opponents from seeing how ‘stealthy’ the F-22 is in operational configuration, or from experiencing the F-22’s AN/APG-77 radar and highly advanced AN/ALR-94 passive receiver system.

You're welcome. Hcobb (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"You're welcome" what? This isn't a link dump. If you have a proposal for the article, make it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put in the ref, it got reverted, it'll be back over and over again. You can state the truth once or put up with the rumors forever.

And here's another gem that will pop up over and over again:

http://www.waltonsun.com/articles/force-97398-newsherald-major-plan.html Major suggests F-22 as F-35 backup plan

Isn't it great how incredibly easy and inexpensive it will be to upgrade the F-22 to a carrier based aircraft with all the F-35 bells and whistles? Exactly the sort of crap that forced me to include all the upgrade heartaches into this article. Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again, drop the attitude. Keep it up and someone is going to report you and get you put on a topic ban, since you make plainly clear you are incapable of looking at this subject with objectivity and neutrality, and instead are emotional and with an ax to grind, and continue to ignore pointers and suggestions regarding your behavior, and to policies and guidelines such as WP:RECENT and WP:SYNTH. You've now directly threatened that you'll start an edit war.
Your reverted addition included gross examples of language not present in or supported by the article you used as a source. "Lugging around" is just plain unprofessional wording, and your phrase of "keep their full capabilities secret from American allies" implies a downright negative and sinister motivation and feeling not the least bit present in your source article. It's low grade editorializing on your part. Past that, all we have is another in a long string (many years now) of F-22s flying in exercises and demonstrations against other aircraft, and therefore not terribly notable. If it's for a specific customer, it might be notable on the article for that air force and their future procurement plans, but not necessarily on this article. It would need to be added with neutrality and impartiality as well, and must be kept absent of your style of editorializing and synthesizing.
Your article regarding the F-35 also needs to be looked at with some skepticism. We have a Marine Corps major, not a member of the senior leadership. The article doesn't even state what his connection to Marine Corps aviation is. Marine Corps leadership disagrees with him, and your own article has someone from the Brookings Institute pointing out that the F-22 is not a feasable aircraft for the Marine Corps job. He praises the Marines for allowing officers, such as this major, to think freely, but says the major is wrong. You go on to bring in your own WP:SYNTH or maybe even WP:OR when you suggest anything about the cost of upgrading the F-22 for carrier functionality (let alone amphibious assault ship functionality, which is a Marine Corps requirement). Your source does not speak to the subject of carrier capability upgrade costs at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that anybody who an interest in the topic would have been able to easily track down the original article here: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/f%E2%80%9335b-needs-plan-b

See also:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/09/30/f-22s-for-the-marine-corps/ He mentions a lot of the counter arguments against buying F-22s in his article but still, I’ve got to wonder how much it will cost to upgrade the F-22s avionics and sensors with those found on the JSF. Furthermore, how well would the Raptor stand up to being stationed at those expeditionary sites mentioned by Cannon?

Etc. Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of the comments directed at you? At all? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Space Combat

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/ASAT040108.xml&headline=General:%20AMRAAM%20Derivative%20Could%20Target%20Sats The Air Force general was much more blunt. “If you put the missile in an F-22 and launch it at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet while in a zoom and at a 45-degree angle, you’ve got an ASAT capability against spacecraft in low-Earth orbit,” he says.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like just talk at this point. Now if Air Force makes plans to add this capability, sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that capability in the AIM-120 AMRAAM article, though. NCADE development is already there, so citing ASAT capability of that variant would be good. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Short legs

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

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

Another Time article

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

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

Tropes

Should we have a tropes section?

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

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

I want you to think really hard about what the answer is going to be, Hcobb. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
He wasn't actually asking a question, as he already knows that no more F-22s will be ordered. It's a forum post to give his opinions, nothing more. - BilCat (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Supercruise speed

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

Raptor Enhancement Development and Integration contract

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

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

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

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

Replacement

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

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

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

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

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

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

In service, out of production

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

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

Articles for discussion

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

I added the corrosion issues quite a while ago "rusting ejection seat rods" and the full story of Haney's wipe out has yet to come to light. Hcobb (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
any more detailed links about Haney's wipeout you know of? thanks --PumknPi (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a debunking of these points.

  • The F-22 has not been placed in combat because it is an air superiority fighter, and the USA has not had an enemy with aircraft since 2003. So unless you want it to shoot AMRAMMs at the ground, of COURSE it's not going to be in combat. As for the recent crash, that is one incident. The F-22 has had almost 100,000 hours of flight, so how the hell does one incident with the OBOGS mean it "doesn't work"?
  • You don't know whether or not it WAS his fault. And also, they DID ground the fleet for quite a long time, and have worked to fix any problems with the OBOGS.
  • $150 million per aircraft, not $200 million. It is not a "hangar queen", it has nearly 100,000 flight hours (at latest source), and its maintenance per flight hour has been reduced from 30 hours in 2005 to 10.5 hours in 2009, which exceeds the 12 hour requirement. As for cost as a whole, the aircraft is very expensive yes, but its also extremely capable.

93.97.255.48 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Program Budget Decision 753

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

Also it was only a scheme in 2004. In 2006 they actually started pushing things towards Congress. (Which is were the money is actually allocated.) Hcobb (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This does not seem that critical now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
"Who lost the Raptor" seems to be the "Who lost China" of the 21st Century, so we might as well get the steps in the story correct here. Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
New low for massive hyperbole, Hcobb. The F-22 is not a nation of hundreds of millions of people. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that Air International's recent issue has an article on the corrosion and hypoxia problems -- sparked a comparison in my mind with the F-22 being held back from Iraq and Afghanistan now and the B-1 being held back from Gulf War I. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

F-22 cost

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

Emergency Oxygen System

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

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

You are likely referring to this edit of yours getting reverted. It would be nice if you would be direct, for once, and actually say that here instead of expecting other editors to read your mind and figure out what you are complaining about. As your new source specifically states, the pilot that died did not react quickly enough to activate the emergency oxygen system. The emergency oxygen system did not fail, it was not activated. Nothing has been whitewashed out, mind you. Your edit has been reverted as according to your reference, it is a system rarely called upon that has had anomalies rarely in the few times it was activated. It is of extremely low weight in terms of this article. I'm now going to edit the title of this section, as your question is inflammatory and blatantly false in premise per your own reference, which states that the emergency oxygen system did not kill this pilot. Furthermore, given your blatant ignoring of your own source and extreme showing of bias against the article subject (F-22), I will likely be seeking administrative intervention in your editing of this article, and that of the F-35. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I second that this user Hcobb be restricted from editing this article and the F-35 article. His blatant bias is extremely noticable and damaging to the article before it is reverted 93.97.255.48 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

USAF fails to determine cause of F-22 Raptor pilot episodes - The US Air Force's Scientific Advisory Board team has failed to determine the root cause of 14 such physiological events. 66.87.2.236 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

F-22 altitude limit makes my blood boil

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-vows-to-discover-root-cause-of-raptors-maladies-370164/ The restriction is due to the Armstrong Limit, which is found at an altitude of between 62000ft and 63000ft, where the outside air pressure is so low that water will start to boil at 37°C (98.6°F).

So it's yet another place where the Raptor cannot go, because the pilot cannot bail out. If he did eject the sudden loss of pressure would cause him to foam at the mouth to death. (Worth a mention?) Hcobb (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

F-22 climb rate

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-testfly.htm The airplane reached 15,000 feet in less than three minutes.

So until The Force releases a new number, we have a number. Hcobb (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
No, we do not. That article does not claim that as it's functional climb rate. It had its gear down, and flew at "military power" (no afterburner), on its first flight. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Increment 3.1 tested

http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123297248 It was also the first time that increment 3.1, a recent F-22 hardware and software upgrade, was used in a large force employment exercise.

As this is the first time the F-22 has ever been tested in a combat ready configuration, is it worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Your article does not say that it is the first time the F-22 has ever been tested in a combat ready configuration. It states that this was the first time they did so in this exercise, which are often annual events. Given that F-22s are already on deployments, such as air defense in Alaska, where they can be called upon for combat, they are already tested in combat configuration. Just not this specific configuration, and not at this exercise. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Raptor is finally combat ready, it's gotten deployed for its first combat strike.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-stealth-22-raptor-fighters-now-irans-back/story?id=16227614

Do we cover this now, or wait until after the bombing? Hcobb (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Raptor was combat ready before, as I pointed out, and we don't start saying we're at war with Iran when we aren't. You tried pushing this idea of our imminent war with Iran almost a year ago. Drop. The. Attitude. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

60 Minutes pilots change position

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-major-jeremy-gordon-and-captain-josh-wilson-from-sundays-60-minutes-episode-are-dealing-with-much-more-they-let-on-2012-5

Apparently they're all set to fly again. Or Maybe not...

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/05/pilots-arent-guinea-pigs-ground-the-f-22-until-dangerous-oxygen-problem-resolved.html

Ouch! Hcobb (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speed is Stealth

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/88337/bird-prey-bulldogs-accept-delivery-last-raptor "In the anti-access, area-denial role, altitude and airspeed are some of the keys to survivability when you start talking about going against very robust surface-to-air missile systems. The higher you are and the faster you are, the better your stealth works. That has been proven."

What he is not saying here is that the F-22 is harder to pick up on radar because it operates at altitude (increasing the distance from ground radars) and at speed (decreasing the time the radars have to track it). However this pushes the F-22 up into a flight regime that other fighters do not operate in, exposing the pilots to conditions that the USAF has not prepared them for. Unless we can find a ref for this, it's all OR and all we could report is that Speed is Armor for these battlecruisers of the skies. Hcobb (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor JSOH.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor JSOH.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 28, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 10:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
The F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth-generation supermaneuverable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. Introduced into service with the United States Air Force in 2005, production finished in 2011 after 195 were built.Photo: Rob Shenk
Archive – More featured pictures...
Image is fine but anybody know where the words come from as they are clearly POV and shouldnt appear on the front page per WP:BOLLOX. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No idea what the correct forum is but I have tweaked the words to be more neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The original language was taken pretty much from this article's introduction. LM claims it's "the best overall fighter in the world today" (from which one can conclude that it's a desirable plane), but despite that, there was no funding allocated for production. —howcheng {chat} 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It was the "despite that" link between the two ideas I had the problem with. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, good change, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

One doesn't have to fly the Raptor to fall ill!

CNN now reports the F-22 ground crews are also getting sick, while doing engine runs on the ground. They do not wear face mask in the cockpit.

See: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/09/mystery-of-f-22-illnesses-grows/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9195-pilots-as-lab-rats-the-reprehensible-risk-taking-on-the-f-22-raptor

And this source pins the blame on deadly toxic stealth goo, but I'd like a better source please. Hcobb (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
And another ref on the toxic stealth goo.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-toxic-glue-the-cause-of-mysterious-health-problems-in-f-22-raptor-pilots/

But I'm not quite convinced about Sprey's notability on the issue. Hcobb (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

$63 million in upgrades

Is it OR to divide $11.6 billion by 185 aircraft? (And couldn't you buy a F-16 for the cost of upgrading one F-22?) Hcobb (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Always within 30 minutes of a landing field

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57471520/has-the-f-22-oxygen-problem-been-solved/ but limited to flights within 30 minutes of a landing field.

Is this source good enough to define the mysterious proximity? AFAIK, that would be the limit of the emergency oxygen bottle supply. Assuming that only subsonic speed was allowed, that's a range limit of 380 miles. That means that any strike on Fordo would be made from Kuwait. (Wildly ORing here.) Hcobb (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Limitations section?

I've tried to note the aircraft limitations inline, especially in terms of upgrades, but users keep jumping in with comments that it does everything better than every other aircraft. Perhaps add a section on multirole that defines exactly what the Raptor is and is not capable of doing? (Like say laser spot tracking, not.) Hcobb (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Radar Cross Section

There is a table In paragraph "2.5 Stealth" comparing the radar cross sections of various aircraft to the F-22. It states that the radar cross section of the Typhoon is around 1 m². According to the German Typhoon article on wikipedia, the radar cross section of the Typhoon is around 0.05 to 0.1 m². This is due to the use of radar absorbant material on key radar reflectors and design measures such as jet inlets that conceal the front of the jet engine (a strong radar target) from radar. The source for this information is the Japanese aircraft magazine J-Wings, in particular "J-WINGS」 2010年08月号 イカロス出版 (J-WINGS 08/2010, Ikaros Publications)". That's more than a magnitude lower than the figure published here. So I think this should be corrected.77.4.82.138 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that said I am not sure that the table of RCS for some random types adds that much value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The same source is cited on the Japanese Wikipedia article! So the source of the RCS is a renowned Japanese magazine. The present source for the RCS is someone calles "Richardson". How is that reliable? Bhigr (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That source is a book written by Doug Richardson. It was reviewed, etc. and clearly meets Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. This book was not listed in the Bibliography section and has now been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The aircraft was introduced in 2005 and then Richardson hitchhiked in the TARDIS and had his book published in 2001. To suggest otherwise would be to question the reliability of his "prediction" against the actual RCS of the aircraft. (RCS being a four dimensional function and not a number of course.) Hcobb (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's quite true, the Richardson book was published in 2001. However, the first production model was released in June 2003. So Richardson was merely guessing. That's not reliable information by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, I suggest deleting the Typhoon from said list.Bhigr (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the first production F-22 flew in 1997. And none of this has any real bearing on removing data for another aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about the radar cross section of the F-22, we are talking about the radar cross section of the Typhoon. The first production model of the typhoon was delivered at two to three years after the cited book was published. Furthermore, we have an additional source, a Japanese flight Journal that discloses contradictory information. Therefore, the information is not reliable. Therefore, I am going to revert the revert. Bhigr (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole table should be thrown out. It was rejected from the Eurofighter Typhoon article earlier in the year, due to controversies over the validitity of the source's ability to know the information they claim to have, and an arguement was made that it is effectively an instance of WP:Synth due to it comparing statistics that none of the original sources compared to create a synthetic comparison. After being chucked out on the Typhoon page, it shortly enough emerged here. To be consistent, it either shouldn't have been removed from the Typhoon article, or it shouldn't have been added to this one. Kyteto (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(E/C) Similar thing with there. The Typhoon first flew in the 1990s. Why not actually cite the number from your source instead of just removing the entry? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the Eurofighter Typhoon defintely did not fly in the 90s. There were experimental aircraft flying, which were under developement. Type acceptance of the EFA was achieved in June 2003. The first series production aircraft was delivered in August 2003. Here is the source: http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/chronology/jumper/chronology-2003.html. Prior to that the plane was still in developement. I have cited my source previously, I don't have to repeat myself. This is an article about the F-22 and not the typhoon. Including unreliable information about the typhoon is not right.Bhigr (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Take the table about other fighters to the RCS or stealth articles. This article is more than long enough already with tales of Starscream choking the pilots one by one. Hcobb (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to remove, and the table highlights what is considered an important aspect of the F-22, its stealth capabilities in comparison to contemporary aircraft. Feel free to come in with a real justification other than Transformers snarkiness. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The table acts as an excellent "visual aid" of the F-22s stealth capabilities, it is a constructive and well sourced piece of information that I think benefits the article. TalkWoe90i 09:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's peacocking. First RCS is a function and not a number, and second the RCS "number" gives a very misleading feel for performance. A causal reader might assume that stealth that is "twice as good" would allow a fighter to only be detected at half the range. This requires an RCS that isn't halved, but instead divided by a factor of 16. Putting this table in the RCS article itself would at least expose the reader to the math behind the science. Hcobb (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that happens here is an edit war: I would like to ask all the people who want the table to be included to explain the following: 1.How did the author know about the radar cross section in 2001, when the first production plane was delivered in 2003?

2.The radar cross section is a function, it depends on the angle of view and the frequency of the radiation. For which radar frequencies and angles of view do the numbers stand for?

3. Why is it that a renown Japanes aircraft magazine reprots a completely different figure für the Typhoon viewed from the front?

If you can't answer these questions, then you must stop the edit war and remove the table once and for all! Bhigr (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been agreed upon previously that if content can't be agreed upon or is held in contention between editors, the normal course of action is to remove the content in question. I, for one, am certainly not happy with the table on WP:Synth grounds, which appears to explicitly forbid such combining of sources; nor that it has been dumped here after being rejected elsewhere on Wikipedia for the exact reasons that have been stated. It isn't policy-compliant, and that's not a good thing. Kyteto (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

o.k. since no one could address these questions, I am going to delete the information about the Typhoon in the table. The information is not reliable.Bhigr (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As it has been over three weeks; the table has been removed. Four editors spoke in favour of removal, and two spoke in favour of its inclusion - thus the removal was carried out. Kyteto (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable…May Result in Pilot Debilitation or Fatality

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-air-force-warned-fatal-22-fighter-flaw/story?id=16957535

And it did. Ouch! Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Another innocent victim of the F-22 Starscream?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/25/4206035/safety-concerns-linger-after-f.html Now, after reading reports of strange occurrences involving other F-22 pilots and comparing notes with other wives, Tinsley said she can't help but believe that the Air Force's prized fighter is a health risk. Something about the F-22, she theorizes, may have triggered her husband's suicide.

Worthy of inclusion? Hcobb (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reporters notes from the same source were turned into a quote by another editor.

Here is the actual quote from the actual source:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/air-force-confident-in-source-of-f-22-problem/ "If you haven't eaten normally or you haven't fully hydrated, those type of things can begin degrade your personal performance," Lyon said. "These folks had some of these symptoms, which are ambiguous for other things that could happen to them so they reported based on that so there's a chance their diet wasn't right that day, they didn't have the hydration level that they needed."

So revert to my summary or toss in this entire mess? Hcobb (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The text in the article is copied right from the Star-Telegram source. So that has to be in quotes or reworded not to be a copyright violation. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

hypoxia-like symptoms

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/f-22-oxygen-unsolved/ Service leaders have stopped using the term “hypoxia,” which means oxygen shortage, instead referring to “hypoxia-like symptoms.” Low blood sugar, dehydration and hypocapnia — a shortage of carbon dioxide in the blood — could also cause pilots to get dizzy and black out, testified Maj. Gen. William Lyon, who heads the service’s F-22 investigation.

Rewrite on that basis? Hcobb (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Operational history

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/f-22s-scrambled-to-intercept-aircraft-during-obama-nyc-visit/ F-22s have previously been scrambled to intercept aircraft from Maryland to Illinois, according to NORAD, and once, in 2009, F-22s reportedly shadowed a Russian patrol near the arctic.

That seems to be all the aircraft have ever done. Copy rewrite and stick in as the operational history section? Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Could we see that expressed as average cost (from whole F22 program) per operational flying hour? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Math is OR. Hcobb (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor → F-22 – This topic has been established as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for F-22 since 2006 (F-22 has redirected to this article since 2006[1]). "F-22" is the most common name given to this topic. "F-22" meets the WP:TITLE criteria better than the current title. The move to this title in 2010 was experimental[2], apparently with no discussion on this talk page. "Lockheed Martin" and "Raptor" are all unnecessary disambiguation in this title - material which belongs in the article lead, not the title. Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose nothing wrong with current name no reason to use shortened designation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with last two comments; also, the F-22 disambiguation list is long and contains 3 other real aircraft and a pretend one as well as a ship, a locomotive, drugs, camera setting etc., so I don't agree the disambiguation offered by the full name is "unecessary". Thought all aircraft articles began with the manufacturer's name; it is the practice across all, or maybe almost all, the aviation literature.TSRL (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You seem to be suggesting this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for F-22, or that even if a topic is primary for a given title, the number of other uses of that name on WP should be considered in deciding the title for that topic. The latter is a novel argument; I don't think I've ever heard it before, much less that it has basis in policy, convention or consensus. I considered the former, but could find no indication that that is supported by consensus. But, if it was, then I would have proposed F-22 Raptor as the title for this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest a discussion about this proposal would be more productive in terms of determining consensus if the points made in the proposal were at least addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support either F-22 or maybe some halfway house like "F-22 Raptor". Sources don't always spell out the whole name; what we currently have is an unwieldy combination of manufacturer name, formal designation, and nickname. I think that something shorter would bring us back to WP:COMMONNAME territory. The first three Google News results I found don't even mention Lockheed Martin at all: [3] [4] [5]. That some other articles have similarly unwieldy names is no reason to keep this one. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just to put in my $0.02, it does seem to be standard for articles on planes to begin with the manufacturer, the model, and then the name (if any). When writing articles I find this very helpful, because often that is all the information I'm looking for. If I'm looking for the manufacturer of the S-199 or the Dr1, or the name of the F-104, I can usually expect to type in the model and find the full designation to be the title of the article. (Saves a lot of time.) Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The utility of more descriptive titles is a sound argument in favor of having more description in titles, but it's contrary to the criteria we use to title our articles, which tends to favor simply using the most common name of the topic as the title, when reasonably possible, which it certainly is in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - contradicts the consensus naming criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming and if applied to other aircraft would cause enormous disambiguation problems, (ie Cessna 206 and Bell 206 are both commonly referred to as 206, with user context indicating which is being discussed). As long as all possible combinations are redirected to the main article title then the reader will have no problem finding the article, which is the point of WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent argument for disambiguating the Cessna 206 and Bell 206 article titles per the disambiguating guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming (which is not even a naming guideline, BTW, much less a policy like WP:TITLE). But it has nothing to do with titles of articles like this one, which don't need that disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well-established aircraft article name convention, no convincing reason given for making an exception for this particular aircraft. What are redirects for? I say on yer bike, Born2cycle.TheLongTone (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The "aircraft article name convention" (which I didn't know about), is apparently the problem here, then. It directly contradicts WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not just in this case, but in general. The current title follows the standard format of manufacturer-designation-name used by WikiProject Aircraft for all aircraft articles: see here, here, and especially here. It seems to be a good, reasonably complete, and unambiguous format, without being overly long, and it gives the reader the aircraft's full name at a glance. Since it also helps to disambiguate designations that have been used repeatedly, of which there are a number in the history of U.S. military aircraft, it gives all aircraft article titles a consistent form, without needing special cases to disambiguate aircraft where the designation has been reused. Shorter forms which allow readers to quickly find the proper article can easily be handled with redirects, as they are at present. As for your objections that this does not follow Wikipedia's title criteria, you should read that section more carefully. Conciseness is only one of several characteristics listed, and the section states "These should be seen as goals, not as rules" and "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced." For this project the consensus has been to use the current title form, a consensus that has been heavily discussed (see here) and which I would continue to support. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would draw an analogy with articles on biological subjects, where the formal Latin names are used, eg Ranunculus repens: It might be commonly called a creeping buttercup, but Ranunculus repens is its proper name, & the accepted article name.TheLongTone (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "F-22" is nonstandard and an incomplete name. Raptor is commonly used name for the fighter as well. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) has worked well for providing a consistent naming conventions for aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too many disambiguation pages would be needed. F-22 alone tells you nothing. It could be the Lockheed Martin fighter, the transport built by Fokker, an artillery piece, a whole bunch of frigates (from several navies), a psychedelic drug, a training aircraft built by Farchild, and a ton of others. The current fighter is not so much more important than anything else that it should take that page name. F-22 should be a disambiguation page.NiD.29 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; "F-22" alone is rarely used without context in reliable sources. I would support a move to F-22 Raptor; the manufacturer name is completely unnecessary. Powers T 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to F-22 Raptor - resolves any ambiguity, and stays within the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per just about every argument above. Buffs (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment those using WP:COMMONNAME as a reason to move this article should, I think, actually read these quidelines. Which recognise the use of article naming conventions for article types.TheLongTone (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we do this we need to do this for every aircraft article, most people would find this very confusing. For example : boeing 737 will be 737 and the Sukhoi Su-27 Su-27 and I don't see the need for this, IT's fine with the manufacturer name and if I type in F-22 I get redirected to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. so no need for this it is just fine now otherwise it would be confusing for most of the people who don't know much about aviation. Redalert2fan (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Why do you say we would have to "do this" for all aircraft, rather than just, say, all fighter aircraft? Certainly "Boeing 737" is the common way to refer to that aircraft, just as "F-22 Raptor" is common for this one; there's no reason you'd have to move it to 737 just because this one gets moved to F-22. Powers T 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I said oppose so I completely am against it. This was my original comment that I posted on the wrong place : (don't see the need for this, it looks perfect now with the manufacturer name and otherwise this would be needed for every jet-fighter article.) it was just to show it sure, choosing the Boeing 737 wasn't a really great example but as an second example I used the Sukhoi Su-27. I`m sorry that I wasn't very clear about it. I wanted to refer to wp:snowball Redalert2fan (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As the person who moved this article from F-22 Raptor (not F-22!) to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, it is totally incorrect that the move was "experimental". My edit summary stated "Lockheed/LM selected for trial run of implementing proposal", which refers to [this proposal and lengthy discussion held in June 2010, but which I admittedly did not link to in the summary. We moved the Lockheed articles to the new title format (M/D/N) first to give other users a chance to respond to the proposed naming convention revision. There was no opposition at that time, so the new conventions were implemented for all aircraft articles soon after. The first major opposition to the proposal was in Feb 2011 (8 months later), at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Systemic common name rule violations, which failed to gain a concensus to overturn the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose as per "opening a can of worms" dictum and wp:snowball, as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Move to F-22 Raptor, per Britannica and Insight on the News, Associated Press, and Aviation Week. The subject is typically given as "F-22 Raptor" on first mention, "F-22" on subsequent mention. A title should tell the reader the name of the subject, what it is commonly called in the real world. The current aircraft naming conventions allows Wiki to designate aircraft by names no one else has ever called them. Such titles mislead the ordinary reader. Kauffner (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    How exactly would it mislead them? We already have disambiguation links and redirects to cover this and they lead directly to the associated pages. This "it'll mislead people" is a strawman argument: this is a phantom problem. Buffs (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ANY Move - encyclopedia articles on aircraft nearly always begin with the name of the manufacturer. Media sources are not a useful source for this as they truncate names all the time, and the ones you list aren't even authoritative. If you want to use a truncated form in a link, go ahead, but there is no need to shorten the name of the aircraft on its own page.NiD.29 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason for disambiguation is that there are some planes that are NOT so easily distinguished. Example: the "F4" could be the hellcat or the phantom or any number of aircraft or other definitions...By keeping the naming consistent throughout, it allows for people to ind what they are looking for without additional searching. Currently there is a 16-3 majority viewpoint here and a clear consensus to keep the status quo. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all moves of this nature - a case of a solution looking for a problem IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    Well said. Buffs (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misleading

Perhaps this is a little late, but I will answer Buffs question as to "How exactly would [the current title] mislead them?" Our guidelines and usual practice is for the title to be the common name of the subject, and the current title is obviously not that. So what is it? I suspect many readers will think this is the name aviation specialists use. But that is not the case either, judging from Aviation Week and Aviation News. Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What is truly misleading here is the small sample of published works you've evidently consulted, primarily if not exclsively those available on the internet. The vast majority of printed aviation encyclopedias and reference works use the M-D-N format for lisitng the entries on individual aircraft. I have several dozen books on aviation published over the past 35 years, and then majortiy of them use this format. These are books by leading authors in the aviation consuimer-reference field, including Bill Gunston, Mike Spick, Bill Yenne, David Donald, David Mondey, and several of Jane's print works. I am sure that other editors here have books going back even further than that. A lot of these books have been available in libraries and book stores for many years. Since WP is a reference work writ large, it was natural for the editors of WP aircraft articles to chose to put the manufacturer first in the titles. Futher, many of the fan sites on the internet also use this format.
So your earlier claim that "The current aircraft naming conventions allows Wiki to designate aircraft by names no one else has ever called them" is clearly inaccurate.
Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit conventions, "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." (Italics mine.) The "clear benefits" here are a consistent naming format across all aircraft articles that matches that found in the majority of printed reference works, and so would be familiar to readers with even a basic knowledge of aviation. As to readers with no such knowledge, redirects are avalable to point them to the correct articles. Further, after reading several aircraft articles, an average reader should have clear idea of how the WP aircraft articles are titled, and as it's a fairly intuitive format, should be able to find other aircraft articles quite easily, especially with redirects. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

F-22 squadron commander questions value of F-22

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/02/unfriendly-f-22-fire/

I'll be adding in bits over the weekend. Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite, merge and trim hypoxia sections yet?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJdqnslrDkXARnnd_NSHojsf94oQ?docId=b4a0ddff5cdd4f71ba401d4568d8a5d6

Less than a year after getting "rainbow enhanced", the USAF took a critical look at their clothing and narrowed down the problem to the vests.

So my rewrite would go along the lines of...

  • The crash
  • Problem determined
  • Alternative paths tried
  • Vests fingered
  • Current restrictions
  • Fixing and testing vest and other fixes and plan to lift altitude restrictions.

I would leave minimal references in other sections (such as cockpit) that largely just pointed to the operational problems section.

So is that agreeable to everybody? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again The Force blames their Combat Edge http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reiterates-that-combat-edge-vest-is-the-cause-of-raptors-maladies-374960/ So is it time for us to rewrite to follow their line and push all other possibilities to the side as "other things they looked at"? Hcobb (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That would make sense. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of hypoxia related subtopics on the talk page. I request them merged for better overview, too. Mightyname (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Empty weight ?

19,7 tonnes looks too much. F-15's EW is about 13 tonnes, an old Soviet MiG-25 has 19 tonnes. Raptor is smaller than MiG-25 and built from titanium and composites. Why the hell Raptor is heavier?! --XaHyMaH (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The official weights in this article are either disinformations or ambiguously given and misplaced by editors unfamiliar with aeronautics. For example velocities given for aircrafts are generally given with the altitude because they are different for different latitudes. All articles have them missing. I'm going to correct some in this article. Mightyname (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Make sure you have reliable sources for this because changes for speed/weight/range have been contentious in the past.--McSly (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Done, but they have been removed due to redundancy etc. Sorry, obviously some people here don't want data displayed that can reveal weights, engine power and speed. For example the different speeds at different altitude would reveal the engine power settings and actual thrust power, and aerodynamics or the wheels reveal the weights. Mightyname (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Please assume good faith from other editors. Some of the parameters you used for the speed were not part of the template and therefore the values were not displayed on the page.--McSly (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The F-22A is a very solidly built aircraft (to handle thrust vectoring) and it has that thick layer of spray-on-stealth that the aluminum F-15 doesn't. The next generation fighter after the F-22, the F-35, is much lighter and so goes further with the same fuel load. Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the official weight statements again they do not say it's empty weight at all. They simple say Weight. After a bit of reading it appears the 43,430 lb statement may refer to an intercept configuration with 2 AIM-9X, 50% fuel and about 500 lb extra if the empty weight is considered to be 31,640 lb. The small armament is quite odd, though. The 500 lb would fit what is known as Taxi fuel (TF) and Take Off fuel (TOF) for civilian airline designs. It should be enough for taxiing, high speed afterburner start, and military power maximum climbing up to 37,000 ft within a minute and leveling to operational altitude. It may be enough for afterburning all the way, but I wouldn't be so sure. In any case it makes no sense for any flight configuration to have less than 50% fuel. Mightyname (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/ The F-22's projected empty weight has increased from 13,980kg at the preliminary design-review in 1992 to 14,365kg at the critical design-review, completed in February. Programme officials are confident that the additional 225kg allowance will not be needed.

The growth is a result of design teams requesting additional weight budgets to meet requirements such as reliability, survivability and observability. The USAF says that it is "...trying to hold the line on affordability" and wants to trade weight against cost and performance.

That wasn't an option for the VTOL-driven F-35. The USAF, unlike the USMC, doesn't require their aircraft to do pushups. Hcobb (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind this statement refers to design Configuration 645 for the first production F-22 EMD (from Code one Magazine 1998). By now it may differ somewhat albeit not that terrible off. Actually, all released information prior to 1998 are quite accurate and not much censored. Since then it appears censorship kicked in. And since the production F-22 has higher performance than the YF-22 most YF-22 performance values still apply, except fuel and max. possible velocity. There's only a little unknown regarding wet empty weight which is empty weight plus oils, lubricants etc. Although, it's a given we don't really know for sure if the empty weight stated is really the empty weight. Official information may not lie but the wording may be misleading.
As to the load weight calculation in the article, it certainly is wrong. The load weight calculates by adding the pylons (if any), the weapons, the launchers and racks for the weapons (if any), unlinked cannon ammo (in this case the linking is already part of the cannon magazine system), fuel (+ fuel additions), oil lubricants, hydraulics, coolants, and pilot. Like that I would get for A2A with 100% fuel a load of 24757 lb (12 lb error margin) without coolant and empty weight. Added your 31640 lb empty would give 56397 lb. Added max. external load of 21544 lb would give a max loaded weight of 77941 lb. The difference of internal bomb load and missile is just 68 lb (-8 lb error) more. This happens to be within the max 83500 lb given. A discrepancy of 5500 lb which happens to be the missing fuel specified originally (25000 lb). Unless this is wrong the weight problem seems solved. Mightyname (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's my ref that says empty weight:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

Do you have a different ref from another company that also makes F-22s? Hcobb (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no other and if it probably won't solve anything due to the information policy. As you have seen there is only a 5,000 lb margin to meet all the load requirements. Further the ATF specification says: "a gross take-off weight of 50,000lbs". If you use the 43,340 lb as empty weight the A2A take-off weight will end up being 68,187 lb instead of 56,397 which is way over the allowance the Air Force was willing to give in the news article above. It is possible that it's a typo that just so happens to have a leading 4 instead of 1 and lb instead of kg turning 13,340 kg to 43,430 lb. It wouldn't be surprising if american professionals mess up SI units and calculations. Mightyname (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

F-22 cheaper, more versatile than the F-35

  • Moving this section to the end of the talk page. - Nick Thorne talk 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Until today, when I corrected these glaring factual errors, the article was perpetuating the falsehoods that the F-35 is "cheaper" and "more versatile" than the F-22. The reverse is actually true.

The F-22 was always designed and intended to be superior to the F-35 in both air to air and air to ground combat, and that is indeed the case. In air to air combat, the F-22 can carry eight A2A missiles internally, in stealth mode; its high power aperture APG-77 radar is much more powerful than the F-35's APG-81; and it is far superior kinematically and aerodynamically with a top speed of Mach 2.25, a top supercruise speed of Mach 1.82, and a combat ceiling of 65,000 feet, versus the F-35's meager top speed of 1.61 (on afterburner) and combat ceiling of 43,000 feet. In fact, on dry thrust the F-22 outperforms the F-35 by a good margin. Moreover, the F-22 is Very Low Observable from all aspects, while the F-35 is VLO only from the front and only in the S/X-band.

In A2G combat, the F-22 is also superior to the F-35. Not only is it VLO from all aspects across a much broader range of radar bands than the F-35 (whose deeply sculpted lower fuselage and classic engine exhaust nozzle make for splendid radar wave returns), it (the F-22) can defeat most air defense systems by kinematics alone, due to its high speed and combat ceiling. It's too fast and flies too high for most radar to detect it. The F-35, by contrast, cannot rely on kinematics to evade radar, and if spotted from below or the rear, would be easily detected. Furthermore, on an A2G mission, both aircraft can carry 8 Small Diameter Bombs, but the F-22 (as Wikipedia's article on the subject admits) can also concurrently carry four A2A missiles for self defense internally.

More on the F-35's decisive inferiority in both A2A and A2G combat is available here and here.

The F-22 is now also cheaper than the F-35, costing only $150 mn compared to the cost of all three F-35 variants, which is yet to be finally determined but is currently at ca. $200 mn per copy, for all F-35 variants, per Wikipedia's own page on the F-35 program. As the F-35 experiences further cost overruns and delays, the unit cost of an F-35 will go up, not down.

In short, the assertion that the F-35 was "cheaper and more versatile" than the F-22 was and is totally incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.109.30 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum, but where exactly is the SAIRST of the F-22? (Your own refs talk about the "InfraRed Search Track system" of hostile aircraft. AAP always compares today's F-35 not against the capabilities of the current F-22 but rather against some future F-22 that magically has all of the F-35's capabilities, so we don't take them very seriously here.) Hcobb (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The UK govt seems to think the F35 has become way too expensive, and it's no great improvement over the Typhoon. The place where the F22 would work best is in Europe, particularly in the east. It then counters the newer Russian machines, with apparently very good phased-array radar, and supercruise abilities. The F22 is just a big waste of money sitting around on US soil. The US govt should simply sell the entire F22 fleet/project to the Europeans.220.244.247.195 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to politely remind everybody that this discussion page is not a place to discuss personal opinions and speculation about the subject. Discussions involving "should," "would" and "could" should be avoided, as they do nothing to improve the article itself. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I left a comment on User:Hcobb's talk page. Hopefully he improves his posting quality. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Where do you insert the black box into the pilot?

http://www.omglobe.com/2012/10/24/fit-to-fly-from-f-22s-to-jumbo-jets-real-time-info-on-pilots-needed-mayo-experts-say/

The systems I've heard about implement dead man detection via control inputs, but I'll keep digging in on this. Just remember that once brain wave detection is added to the helmet, you'll need to think in Russian in order to launch missiles. Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Helmet weight probably already at (or even beyond) safe limits? But surely there's a whole gradient of monitoring function, between basic physiological measures and higher-order ECG pattern matching, that might be used. Simple monitoring of neck muscle tone might be more effective to protect in (some) GLOC situations? But for some reason there's now a lot of interest in monitoring of blood oxygen saturation level. A provocative article nevertheless. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Operational issues sub-section rewrite?

I suggest that the article subsection Operational issues be summarized and then perhaps split off into a separate article, perhaps one that is somewhat differently formatted to allow the information to be more visually accessible and appealing, as right now it's just a block/mass/wall of monolithic text. The info is important, no doubt, especially the operational issues as covered by CBS 60min w/ the whistle-blower claims, etc., but I think this sub-section could be better rendered for the readers' benefit. I'd like to hear from others though as to their thoughts on the matter. Thanks. joepaT 20:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to rewrite from hindsight and cover the following:
  • Initial design choices and review that foreshadowed the problem.
  • The incidents that finally got the ball rolling.
  • Reactions by pilots and others.
  • The partial fixes to date and the plans going forwards.
Okay? Hcobb (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The best thing to do is a rewrite. There is probably enough information to warrant having a sub-article, which could be summed-up here in the parent article. However, the style used in that section is all wrong for an encyclopedia. (Note: This is only meant as constructive criticism.) The section is written like a series of excerpts from newspaper article, with very little coherency, except the long string of dates linking everything together. Unless you're very good at keeping track of numbers, this linear method of explaining makes it very difficult to keep track of exactly what the problems are, and what has-been/is-being done to fix them. Information presented in this manner would be well-suited to a timeline, but not so much for a summary. That's what this section should be about, is a summary of the problems, the tragedies that reesulted, and the solutions (or lack thereof) --in that order. Zaereth (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm glad there is some commonality here in our evaluations of the sub-section in question, and yes of course Zaereth I don't know how your feedback could be interpreted as anything but an attempt to be helpful! I haven't contributed anything to the sub-section as it now stands so I'd be first in line to be labeled a complainer, but in this case I think it's justified for the reasons already elucidated above. I most likely will not have the time to begin rewriting anything or even summarizing in the next few days, so if anyone else feels up to it, there's no need to defer to me. I'll ask another editor w/ whom I've collaborated on some other projects if he might be interested in contributing, too. joepaT 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
In re-reading the sub-section, it seems like it's 99.9% about oxygen-related issues, w/ one brief mention of a "software glitch in the F-22s' on-board navigational computers related to the International Date Line"? In rewriting the section, would we choose to maintain a title re. "operational issues" w/ the expectation that there will probably be other issues in the future that would be summarized therein, or do we title it something referencing "oxygen issues"? joepaT 23:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would stick with "operational issues," because the title does effectively describe an oxygen problem, (whether that is the only one or not), plus it leaves room for expansion. I'd love to help more, but am too busy in real life, plus trying to sort out the problems over at entropy. If it helps, I did put some info on my user space about coherent writing (link on my user page). Zaereth (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I gave an attempt at an opening paragraph that might summarize the concerns with the aircraft. I don't really know much about this aircraft but took a look at the section when joepa asked me to come by. Hopefully it's a start for you guys. Of course, you can just revert it if you don't care for it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That paragraph looks excellent, and sums-up the section quite nicely. If one more paragraph is added about the possible solutions the USAF has devised, I would say the rest could be either cut or moved to a sub-article. Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I put the closing paragraph up. I am a little out there on this stuff, so feel free to adjust it. A sub article would be a fine idea for the remainder. It does not appear that this issue is closed yet. Best of luck! Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Upon reading it, I'd say you summed-up the issue rather nicely. Personally, I don't have time right now to sit down and compare it to the timelime, (gotta go), but I'm sure that others will have no problem correcting any possible mistakes. The timeline itself seems rather redundant at this point. My personal preference is to cut it for now, to improve readability. That way, the reader won't feel like their up against a wall of text. Then we can provide a link to the diff here, so anyone who wants to write the sub-article will have access to the full timeline. Zaereth (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

i went ahead and took the initiative, and cut the entire timeline, leaving the new summary. Here is the diff, if anyone wants to use it to build a sub-article. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

hey just wanted to say that you guys did a bang-up job! So nice to see that kind of execution and follow-through. joepaT 05:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is a single pilot notable?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-raptors-need-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-to-take-full-advantage-of-aim-9x-381748/ "Don't get me wrong, it will still be better than having a 9M, but it won't be anything close to what a fighter with a helmet and an externally carried missile has," the pilot says. "Hence, probably not the savior we've all been waiting on."

Sufficiently notable griefing? Hcobb (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Might be notable if repeated by the Chief of the Defence Staffs of maybe President Obama. As it is, it probably belongs on the pages of a discussion forum? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Myths, Performance and Analysis

Out of interest and to deter wild speculation or guesses, I'm going to give some insights into aeronautics. I could be wrong in some details but the following are mostly basic knowledge. Any aircraft enthusiast should know them already except for some aerodynamic issues. In case you need to look-up refer to the following terms: air density, Mach speed, lift force, drag force, Drag coefficient, Transonic, shock front, bow shock, wave drag, aerodynamic efficiency lift-drag-ratio (L/D). I will only explain some. For reading references: Modern Air Combat (1983); U.S. Supersonic Commercial Aircraft: Assessing NASA's High Speed Research; Temperature Issues for a Mach 2.4 High Speed Civil Transport. Further I'm using aeronautic language which means 'miles' are 'nautical miles' or knots and SI units.

Subsonic drag force rises roughly "linear" with the speed. Supersonic drag is roughly normal drag squared. In the transonic area the drag rises dramatically, more than supersonic drag even. That's why for most aircrafts afterburning is needed to break the Mach barrier. One official statement said the YF-22 can do 800 kn max. (Mach 1.2) at sea level. Interestingly, drag becomes "linear" again beyond Mach 1.2. That's why some aircrafts like the Concord can supercruise with normal dry thrust. Air density changes with altitude. At 36000 ft it's only about one-fourth. That's why some people estimate the max speed to be Mach 2.4 for the YF-22. At Mach 2.4 the skin temperature would be 177 °C (350 °F). According to Nasa, only in 2009 are non-foreign materials available that could be used.

However, the wing leading edge sweep was increased to 48° for the production F-22. Aerodynamic efficiency (L/D) virtually dictates that its max speed is reduced to around Mach 2.2 (likely less). The reason being the nose wave drag cone wall touching the wing tip at this speed. It simply will be trouble flying faster. Due to air density Mach 2 can only be achieved around 37000 ft and beyond. As air gets thinner lift gets less which means at higher altitude an aircraft has to fly faster to keep itself aloft. Beyond 37000 ft airspeed stays the same for the same lift despite flying faster. It was stated that the F-22 supercruised at Mach 1.58 at 36000 ft. and afterburned at Mach 1.7 at 30000 ft. Based on air density that would be Mach 2.04 afterburned at 36000 ft. a bit faster than the F-16.

This is definitely true for a fixed inlet but the F-22 has 'slots and slats' to divert excess air out. It was obviously inspired by the movable guide vanes in the intakes of the Sukhoi Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-29. This allowed intake air to be regulated to some degree allowing higher speeds.

Mach 2.04/Mach 1.58 squared gives 0.667 as the difference of drag force, hence, engine power between dry thrust and afterburner. However, afterburning is generally and stated to be about 40% more than mil power. Adjusted for military power would give a max supercruise of Mach 1.724. That's about true for most engines, though. At Mach 2.2 the skin temperature would be 153°C (307°F)

Each F119 engine is supplied by an air mass flow of (exactly) 150 kg/s (-1.5 error)(+unknown precision error). Mightyname (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You really do need hard refs for these things. The F-22 (and especially the F-35) are not just software defined aircraft in their internal operations, a large amount of computation has gone into their aerodynamics. Hcobb (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This was an analysis to show the range of what's possible and what's not based on physical laws. There is no need for hard fact other than the references for calculations (Jane's 2004-5). The error margin is near zero but based on released speeds which are of course not true maximums. The real error margin is probably 5-10%. The aerodynamic efficiency, however, is dependent on the form of the aircraft, and is in plain view. Only the real angle of the nose will reveal the finer tweaking, but the error margin is small and won't have that much of an impact. And frankly the maximum possible speed isn't that important or used often other than for running away. By the time it's used there won't be much fuel left, and fuel will be the major factor in sustaining it. In short it can't be used for long. Supercruise on the other hand is more important, but it's not like it's new or unexpected. The F-18/F-16 with missiles can go about Mach 1.8 in interceptor role, only not long of course. The Su-27 has more fuel and can go as fast with afterburner and should be able to give a good chase 1/3 of the way given same fuel. Long enough to use some missiles. Yes, a lot of computations but they were more for maneuvering ability and stealth than speed. Mightyname (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Mightyname is quite right. See: Kermode, A.C., Mechanics of Flight, Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering Series, Pittman Publishing Limited, London, 1972. ISBN 0 273 31623 0 pp.371-75. Plenty of discussion there about the relevance of wing planform in supersonic applications, particularly in reference to Mach cones/lines. This will tend to support his conclusions on top speed.Flanker235 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Corrected a minor error for drag above. On a side note, most of the official values are partly standard values the Air Force gives for many aircrafts. On another note, due to speed limit engine power isn't as important as for the F-35. However, it is important for acceleration as the recent Red Flag 2012 showed how the better powered Typhoon won the energy battle dog fight. On another note, BMI composite at the time of production was limited to the 250°F range according to numerous papers, although, there were better foreign alternatives according to NASA. Mightyname (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the Typhoon and the F-22 probably have very similar T/W but the Typhoon has an advantage in being a smaller, lighter aircraft to start with so has an inertial advantage. Also, the F-22's likely corner speed would probably be between 330-440 kts (not sure where I read this) while the Typhoon apparently works a bit better at lower speed where it can use its acceleration better. In short, the F-22 is more an energy fighter and the Typhoon more an angles fighter though both perform exceptionally well throughout their respective envelopes.
Did the Typhoons win? Nobody seems know for sure what the score was in Red Flag (this was the unofficial part) because, in theory, nobody was keeping score. I suspect it's classified information anyway, regardless of the score. What is known is that two Typhoons were seen sporting kill marks, one German aircraft - 30+30 - had three.Flanker235 (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
T/W=acceleration. Inertia is already accounted for by the mass because that's what it is. Saying they have the same T/W while inertia is different is a contradiction. The only difference is for rotation see Moment of inertia. That's because of torque and the size or distance at which it works is different. Then again the F-22 has vector thrust which should result in a better torque effect. A delta flyer like the Typhoon likely dives (harder to stir up), have higher corner speed, and is unstable. How much better the canards can improve that is unknown. The F-22 was designed to rotate even when it falls with zero speed as has been demonstrated during air shows. Perhaps both are equal in this respect. Corner speeds seem all very similar for most fighters (without any real data available). All in all, the inertia and angle reasoning seems off. The real reason should be a combination of differences in drag and T/W. What we know for sure is that the X-31 beats the F-18 which in turn beats the F-22. 217.81.41.126 (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
T/W is a static measure. Wing loading is a static measure. There are static and dynamic stability considerations too. Both can tell you a lot about the aircraft's potential but don't necessarily give you a complete picture, even in combination. There are any number of other things which can be factored in.
All of these factors will contribute to an aircraft's agility. No single factor will be absolute.
But whatever the case, I was actually referring to the specific example of straight line acceleration. What I was questioning was the ability of the aircraft to accelerate in a straight line, based on inertia. The EJ200 engine, which is about 60% of the weight of the F-22 engine, should theoretically have lighter components and might possibly spool up slightly quicker than the Pratt & Whitney F119. I don't know the answer to this because much of the P&W's performance is classified. Unlike a car, jet aircraft don't have positive traction in the normal sense. It's purely aerodynamic and it takes more time for the reaction to occur. I guess what I'm really talking about is Specific Impulse. Let's say the EJ200 can spool up from idle to max afterburner in 3 seconds and the F119 in 3.5. Let's assume there is no perceptible difference in AB light time. The advantage is with the Eurofighter.
Conversely, I would expect a lighter aircraft to slow more rapidly when power is reduced than a heavier one, even allowing for the increased size and drag of a larger airframe. What I'm proposing is that, in the merge I would expect to see the two aircraft approaching at say M=1.5 and decelerating to commence the engagement. Admittedly, the F-22 would likely be at its corner speed slightly sooner, given that I would expect it to be between 330 and 440kts, whereas the Eurofighter has to drop back to say 280-350kts. But it is axiomatic that combat slows as it goes. If the Eurofighter pilot can train his guns early on, he will maintain initiative.
If, on the other hand, the F-22 pilot can get a bead on the Eurofighter, if would be in the pilot's best interest to slow the combat down until he can either gain initiative or break off. This is where I would expect to see a smaller, lighter aircraft be able to accelerate away a little better. Whether it would be successful is anyone's guess but, as I said, I'm speculating and not proposing that anyone is right or wrong.
Unfortunately, F22 debates being what they are, it's not always easy to get a rational answer and equally, this sort of question I'm proposing probably falls outside the scope of a Wiki article.Flanker235 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It's all relative that's why static measurements under equal conditions are done. No matter the change of conditions the relative difference will be the same for the same conditions. The only dynamic difference is for example flow changes due to different aerodynamic flow over the body and or wind shadows from the body.
The limits for intake airflow is the same for any aircraft. There may be differences in the pressure and temperature regime limits of an engine inlet, but they all work in the same "main regime". Therefore, we can ignore the end limits. Since these are turbofans the flow at the turbines is more important than the fans. As the engines are similar they are roughly scaled version of each other which also means they will work relatively the same for the same air flow. The difference is the amount of air (=energy potential) stored. The bigger engine has exceeding more volume for any scale, hence, more power can be exerted. So the F119 should develop more power in the same time period for turning the turbine. Specific impulse is nothing more than an expression for energy density or flow potential if you so will. In this case the mixture of fuel and air. It doesn't say anything else. Thrust is its actual performance for an engine. Spooling time is as good as instantly since the General Electric J79 with its revolutionary ability to turn the blades of its fan. At least that's what I'm understanding what the literature says. So it seems the spooling time is negligible now-a-day.
The F-22 has been optimized to maneuver at high mach speeds. I dunno about the Typhoon in this regard. On paper the F-22 is supreme. The literature says an aircraft slows down instantly as soon as thrust gets lower this is due to the enormous supersonic drag. I think that overrides the weight difference. According to the literature, the head-on-fight would be over already before both maneuver as both will open fire 3km away. It's also historically the most kill event with guns. Also it says early aiming is bad because the pilot will be forced to maneuver to correct the angle when it counts. In theory initiative=speed=energy, you have to keep yourself on the move no matter what => Speed is life. Mightyname (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
From a NASA TM X-73648 research paper on the F100 in 1977, it had a "time to achieve commanded thrust change" of 0.5s at Hi alt. and 2.0s at Lo alt. From sci.aeronautics.simulation/E-dYnE2nJrk someone (insider?) said "The F100-PW-229 that is used in the F-15E has a starting RPM of 20 % N2. From Idle to mil the response time is almost immediate, the same goes from mil to max." The idle N2 given seems low, though. Mightyname (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Closer examining reveals that it's slower on low power setting. In the tested higher power range (propably mil power) the time ranges from 0.4 to 0.7 seconds. There are no data on the combat relevant settings. Idle is obviously at 20° PLA which explains the 20% citation above. Based on the 35 year old and early F100 engine data, and design differences the F119 has likely better reaction times. On a side note max N1 rpm is (a lot) less than half of max N2. That's all regarding combat engines for now. Mightyname (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's all relative that's why static measurements under equal conditions are done. No matter the change of conditions the relative difference will be the same for the same conditions. The only dynamic difference is for example flow changes due to different aerodynamic flow over the body and or wind shadows from the body.
This is not true. It is true that the results are usually predictable but dynamic stability changes with airspeed, the centre of pressure shifting further aft as the aircraft accelerates. The changes in dynamic stability depend on design, particularly when canards are brought into the equation. In short, the dynamic stability of the F-22 will likely be more linear than that for the Eurofighter.
As for the engine spool up speed, it's worth remembering the formula F=MxA. We're talking about "work done" here and a larger mass will need a larger amount of energy. FWIW, the General Electric F404-GE-400 takes 4 seconds to go from idle to max reheat.Flanker235 (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's an official performance graphic presented by Gen. Davis in 2008.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1319/genf22f15.jpg

Obviously handrawn, and resized or reshaped, as well as different graphs mixed together. Only the F-22's shape is about correct and the known significant points match other statements. Mightyname (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Another performance analysis by James P. Stevenson in 2006:

http://www.pdfio.com/k-1066801.html

It is a conservative analysis without real classified F-22 data, though. The performance graph found on p.71 is quite good. Note how it's cut off at Mach 2 with some room for imagination. Mightyname (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A range research paper from Lookheed Martin, page 8:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9206/f22range8.jpg

It also has standard values, though. Mightyname (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this talk page (and other Wikipedia talk pages) is not a discussion forum. Please limit discussions here to article improvements or take it to another site with discussion forums. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted. Cheers. Flanker235 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Basic math inconsistency

The article says "The F-22 was in production for 15 years, at a rate of roughly two per month", quoting the referenced article [33] which says: "“We’ve usually delivered two per month for the past 15 years,” said F-22 Program Manager Jeff Babione." but 2/mo for 15yrs is 360 aircraft, and the true output was 195. This ought to rate at least some sort of acknowledgement in the text. Clearly Babione has inflated his estimate by 100%. 154.5.56.245 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC) anonymous occasional contributor

They didn't deliver two aircraft in the first month and they didn't start two aircraft in the last month, so consider that his average might not have been that far off. Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"Usually two per month" does not mean "always two per month." He could also have been referring to the full rate production period, which probably was not 15 years. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

F-22 vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Regarding the statement that slicked or stripped down Typhoons had a maneuverability advantage over the F-22, this was directly from the perspective of the Luftwaffe's EF Typhoon pilots. However the USAF's pilot accounts were never taken into context. According to an interview conducted with the Raptor pilots, some of the accounts were quite interesting to say the least.

“I reviewed the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22′s to the Eurofighters and not a whole lot coming back,” one Raptor pilot reported.

“the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but we were able to outmaneuver the Germans due to the Raptor’s thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. “We ended up with numerous gunshot kills,” another USAF pilot says.

The Raptor pilots were reported to have won 4 out of the 8 engagements

more info on the link below: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-german-eurofighters-impress-during-red-flag-debut-373312/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww930 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unit Cost

Why is there still a unit cost of 150 millions in the box? It is an estimate from 2006 and doesn't seem to have any more relevance, since it since went up significantly. It seems the price is more like well over 300 millions (also mentioned in the section production and procurement). Since it is known, that the whole programm cost over 66 billion and 195 planes were built, its not so hard to come up with the actual unit cost. Can anybody enlighten me? Basilicum 21 June 2013

The $150 million is correct. That is the production cost. The $300 million per is based on the project cost divided by the number aircraft built and delivered. That's not what it cost to actually build the plane, it's a common misconception. Dkspartan1 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fighter Mafia and Eurofighter Red Flag engagement

The Eurofighter claims of downing Raptors is not a notable event. The consensus on the Eurofighter talk page was that it doesn't belong on that article either. Even if it was notable, the Eurofighter page is where it would go. The claims aren't NPOV, they don't include the US side of the story. We don't know what the exercise parameters were. The statement is nothing more than propaganda.

The Fighter Mafia bias of the F-22 and F-35 are well known. They try and claim the F-16 is just as good as the F-22. They are not reliable sources. If they are included then I'll just add a paragraph that debunks them if need be. Dkspartan1 (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • David Axe is the last guy you want to use as reference, since he likes to use misleading words. I suggest we delete this line, since it implies that the Air Force doesn't care, which is obviously false. "In 2012 reports, the Air Force concluded that nothing can be done to prevent Raptor cough and that the ground maintainers illnesses were not the result of exposure to toxic substances from the aircraft.[257]"

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

How would you state the conclusions of that ref then? Hcobb (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
See that part now. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability and Availability Figures

I posted reliability and availability figures of 1 critical failure for every 1.7 flying hours and 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight respectively. I backed this up with 2 sources, MSNBC and Washington Post, which the protagonist of the delete has prevented me from posting on this page. I'd like to discuss this matter and get some input if I could. It seems to me that these figures, leaked from the Pentagon, are very relevant to the F-22 page. Apparently this source is now okay to post.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-07-10/politics/36781432_1_f-22-plane-pentagonZ07x10 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are from a while back. It's been getting (glacially slowly) better.
Hcobb (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

F-22 can not communicate with F-15E or F-16? They only can communicate with F-22 themselves.

How about F-22 communication with F-35? As they are both fifth generation jet fighters, can they communicate with each other?119.85.245.211 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


why wouldn't the F22 be able to communicate with older fighters? (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

c.f. EMCON Hcobb (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

200 m/s rate of climb?

Where did that figure come from? 169.232.220.170 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So can we delete this unsubstantiated crap? I've scoured the net and still can't find a source for this. 128.97.85.182 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mach 2.5 stated on "Top Tens - Fighters" Documentary

Video is on YT. Can't link it because of copvio rules. I don't know if it would count as a valid secondary source or how it rates against the current one??Z07x10 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it, but maybe. I would rather a secondary source like Jane's. This was a TV show right? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It is a TV documentary. They go through various types of equipment and interview different experts to get facts and opinions on combat performance etc. If you type 'Top Tens - fighters' on Youtube search and go to 1:51 you will find it.Z07x10 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, yes I have seen it. I would doubt it is an RS, but that is really probably a gut feeling. I would take it to WP:RSN, or wait for some opinions here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's a legitimate link for those interested http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-countdown/videos/top-10-fighters.htm.
Here is the RS discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Military_Channel_-_Top_tens._Reliable_Source.3F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
F-22 is operationally limited to Mach 2 due to materials and damage to stealth coatings. The T-50 will also likely be limited in this regard. The aerodynamic limit of the airframe is classified. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing referencing style

I am planning to shortly insert cite templates throughout the article in an effort to standardize the referencing style. This will be part of a major revamp of the article, but to give it a shake-up, I need to use my referencing style, which can be observed at AV-8B. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing restriction against ground attack

Powered air to surface missiles, the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II, or other systems capable of engaging moving ground targets[1]

The removal of this bit leaves the false impression that the F-22 is capable of attacking mobile surface targets. Hcobb (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hitting moving ground targets with bombs is mostly a recent thing. Why would average readers assume this capability is present if not stated as so? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

which links to:

However EVERY American bomber is more adept at attacking ground targets than the F-22 is. Hcobb (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS. Dedicated attack aircraft and "bombers" are almost always "more adept at attacking ground targets than" any aircraft designed primarily as a fighter, as you well know. It's not a problem unique to the F-22. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This article currently includes the claim of ground attack sufficiency, without the well documented restriction that is unique to this platform WRT all other USAF bombers, fighters and attack aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It's still synthesis to take a definition of "ground attack" from a WP article and attempt to prove that the F-22 is insufficient in the role based on that definition. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Which is why we should leave in the well documented restriction and let the readers judge it for themselves. Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
What exact text and refs do you want re-added? - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The USAF currently has no requirement to upgrade the F-22 with powered air to surface missiles, the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II, or other systems capable of engaging moving ground targets[1]

However there are still noises about GBU-53 being onboard someday.

http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2010/August%202010/Day25/SDBII_factsheet_0810.pdf

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/

http://www.deagel.com/library/Two-GBU-53B-bombs-along-with-an-AMRAAM-missile-in-the-F-22-main-internal-bay_m02010082400007.aspx

Hcobb (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In the article's current revision I don't think that it provides any opinion or viewpoint on the F-22's capability (or lack thereof) to engage ground targets. Perhaps instead of putting a non-upgrade in the Upgrades section (which is rather paradoxical), a sentence about this vacancy in its armament capabilities should be placed in the Armament section? I would recommend that the term 'current' should be minimized; statements in an encyclopedia should have a stated frame of time or be written in a timeless nature; what is current at the time of writing does not remain current for time immemorial - which is sort of the perspective we're supposed to be writing towards. I would suggest a statement along the lines of: "As of 2014, the F-22 has not be equipped with munitions, such as GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II, that are capable of engaging mobile ground targets." As the source has access restrictions, I can't reflect on its exact wording to work on the sentence from its origins. Kyteto (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hostage to the F-22 upgrades

The recent interview with the Hostage had him indicate how important the upgrade process was to the F-22's future. I.e. the F-35s and the rest of the USAF do not matter if they can't get it up to 5th gen level finally. Hcobb (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Staff (13 October 2013). "The F-22 Raptor: Program & Events". Defense Industry Daily. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor/Archive_6&oldid=1072575625"