Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.


Removing the Washington Post article[edit]

I propose removing this shit.

"By mid-2009, leaked reports from the Pentagon to The Washington Post made it apparent that the F-22 was suffering from poor reliability and availability performance, specifically an average of one critical failure for every 1.7 flying hours and 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.[46]"

since the Washington Post article has been thoroughly refuted by USAF. http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just add the Air Forces response with that source as a cite. That will present the situation and keep the Washington Post side from being re-added. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That link - (http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf) appears to just be a home-typed word document saved as a PDF. Even the page numbering is missing until page 5. There's no official seal or even an official looking header/footer. There's no author, source, address, department or other details. It doesn't even look like a good attempt at faking an official document.Z07x10 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
How can it be faked? The .gov domain is used specifically by the US government. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at it. It's not an official document by any measure and it's somehow ended up in the archives of the Utah senator's (Orrin Hatch) website, rather than say, the USAF website, or the US DoD website. Doesn't figure. No seal, no header, no footer, no classification (Confidential, Non-confidential), no department of origin, no source stated, no signatory, incorrect page numbering, no template format. I honestly used a piece of toilet paper this morning, and afterwards it appeared roughly as legitimate as this source.Z07x10 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really see any indication that it is an official document or actual USAF response. If we can somehow corroborate that I think we are fine, but I, in a teeny bit of searching, cannot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The same content was published by the AFA a few years back, which should be just as reliable as the WP in Air Force aviation matters. Unfortunately, the AFA seems to randomly take down content at times, or restrict them to people who are registered. Not only that, the WP article did make quite a few factual errors, i.e. there are only 11 KPPs. You can see this in GAO reports from 1998 to 2001. Frankly, what makes this any less reliable than the WP article? SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The AFA moved much of their content from afa.org to airforcemag.com a few years ago. I found the original WP article, but I can not find anything about a USAF response on airforcemag.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
SukhoiT50PAKFA, whilst I appreciate that the press occasionally makes detail errors, they're nevertheless an official source. If we allow unofficial documents with no header/footer/seal/template/department/author to count as a source, then before long people will be submitting post-it notes.Z07x10 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Understand your suspicion, but lacking a template, header, seal, etc. does not preclude it from being written by USAF. But whatever, I suppose you can remove on grounds of credibility until a more reliable source shows up. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheaper F-35[edit]

Guys, the F-35 is now more expensive at 153 million dollars per aircraft-the A variant, that is, and that's now the cheapest one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.162.18 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you factored in the F-22 upgrades that Hostage has said are needed? Hcobb (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's past the point where stating that the F-35 was the cheapest option is debatable. I've removed the statement from the artie. --186.203.192.31 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The cost here is unit cost over its production run and that was one of the reasons stated by Sec. Gates for ending F-22 production. The F-35 costs more early on because of a lower production rate and incorporation of changes from testing. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wynne and the UAE[edit]

Is Wynne's request for mideast deployment related to the UAE deployment 5 years later? Hcobb (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing this section[edit]

While it may be valid, I don't think this section belongs on this page, since it talks about perceived shortcomings of the F-22 by another company. Regardless of its validity, I believe it would be more suitable to place in the Sukhoi T-50 page, not here.

"The F-22's design did introduce some limitations, however, as aircraft designers at Sukhoi noted when they designed the T-50. The F-22's engines are very close together, so thrust vectoring is not available to assist roll or yaw (see Aircraft principal axes), and there is no room for weapons bays on the same plane as the engines; they had to be placed around and below inlet ducts. The inlets' twisting design adds extra weight and recovery from stalls is complicated if thrust vectoring fails.[128]"

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The text was trimmed to mention the weapon bay placement and twisting inlet ducts. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A question about numbers[edit]

Does anyone know how many F-22s are in active service and how many are held in reserve? Flanker235 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Trimming the article[edit]

The production termination and upgrades section can be trimmed, since it has some information that's frankly not notable or important. It also seems unnecessarily detailed. For instance, this sentence, "The Increment 3.1 Modification Team with the 412th Test Wing received the Chief of Staff Team Excellence Award for upgrading 149 Raptors.[90][91]" can be removed since it's not particularly important. There are probably some areas that can be shortened or trimmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.21.174 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing and trimming[edit]

I'm trying to do a bit of copy editing and trimming and make the tone of the article more professional and fix some of the grammar issues. Don't know why a lot of those edits got reverted. Also, is it really necessary to have the exact dates for everything? Consider this segment.

"On 24 September 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill funding continued production of the F-22.[68] On 12 November 2008, the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million approved by Congress to buy parts for an additional four aircraft, thus leaving the Raptor program in the hands of the incoming Obama Administration.[69] On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates called for ending F-22 production in fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with a production run of 187 fighters, minus losses.[12] On 17 June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011.[70]"

I find all these specific dates rather unnecessary. I think just stating the year is good enough. Like this.

"In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill funding the continued production of the F-22 and the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million approved by Congress to buy parts for an additional four aircraft, thus leaving the Raptor program in the hands of the incoming Obama Administration.[69] In April 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates under the Obama administration called for ending F-22 production in fiscal year 2011, thus leaving the USAF with a production run of 187 fighters.[12] However, in June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011.[70]"

Same message without the exact dates, because some of them are frankly just not important.

I'm also trying to reduce the usage of semicolons to make the sentences more fluid.

I'm also trying to fix errors. The first F-22 that flew in 1997 wasn't a production aircraft, it was an EMD jet, the first "true" prototype, if you will. The first production jet flew in the early 2000s. The YF-22s are strictly speaking not prototypes, but technology demonstrators.

RadicalDisconnect (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most times full dates are not needed. Month and year or just year are usually fine. I thought the previous wording seemed better in places. The wording about the YF-22 using thrust vectoring is supposed to convey the contractor team picked that and it was not a requirement. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think the introductory sentence can be shorter and less cumbersome. Something like "The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine stealthy fifth-generation fighter aircraft." I don't think supersonic and super maneuverable are needed in that sentence. It just makes it cumbersome. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to delete this sentence. "Time suggested part of the reason for it not being used in the 2011 military intervention in Libya may have been its high unit cost.[202]" since its importance is frankly questionable. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been making additional trims and tweaks some of which are done without signing in. I'm wondering what needs to be improved right now to make this an A- or FA-quality article. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I thought about it, because the F-22 is a pretty new aircraft I don't think it will be an FA article in quite a while.108.228.145.163 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Some speed claims from Jay Miller and AFM August 2008[edit]

Going over some of the sources for the F-22's speed, I saw some additional figures that weren't listed in this article. However, some of these figures look utterly ridiculous, such as a max speed of Mach 1.4 at sea level. I am not sure if this even realistic, let alone reasonable enough to add to this article. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly is Mach 1.4 listed in the article? I don't remember a max speed at sea level being listed in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Trim and compress ban on exports[edit]

I plan on trimming this section, since it's unnecessarily long and detailed. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving the hypoxia-related content from the intro section to operational issues[edit]

I'm moving the "Starting in 2010, the F-22 was plagued..." to operational issues section, since it currently feels out of place. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is already in the "Operational issues" section under Operational history. You really mean removing content from the Lead. The Lead is supposed to summarize the article while giving due weight. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing this statement?[edit]

"Lockheed Martin considers the aircraft to be the only one that combines supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform."

Since it was written in 2008, and it would seem like outdated info with the advent of the T-50 and J-20.108.228.145.163 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to: "The Raptor is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform." 108.228.145.163 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Trimming or removing this segment[edit]

"The F-22's design has its engines positioned close together, so there is no room for weapons bays on the same plane as the engines; the bays were placed around and below inlet ducts. The inlets' twisting design adds extra weight and recovery from stalls is complicated if thrust vectoring fails."

Frankly, it just sounds out of place and doesn't belong here. This is what Sukhoi thinks is the F-22's limitations when designing the T-50. While it's relevant in the T-50 article, I don't think we need it here. I think it's much better to trim it to the following:

"The F-22's engines are positioned close together, with internal weapons bays placed around and below the inlet ducts. Though heavy, the serpentine inlets ensure the engine face remains out of the line of sight of any exterior view."

Alternately, we can just remove this section completely.

108.228.145.163 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The modified text seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Modifying the lead[edit]

I propose that we cut or modify portions of this segment in the lead.

"[The USAF] claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter. Lockheed Martin claims that the Raptor's combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, makes it the best overall fighter in the world today. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built.""

I think it just sounds way too promotional, and a tad outdated now that more advanced Russian and Chinese fighters are appearing and will enter service in a few years. I think the following cut will sound more objective and professional.

"The first fighter to combine stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, the Raptor offers greatly enhanced air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities compared to prior fighter aircraft."

108.228.145.163 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This Lead text has been discussed on this talk page before (probably in Archives now) and the text was modified to clearly state that was the USAF's position. This article passed GA criteria with that text. So there should be no real problem, unless a lot of users now object. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, so how about this:
"[The USAF] claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter. The first combat aircraft to combine stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, the Raptor offers greatly enhanced air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities compared to prior fighter aircraft."
Basically, keep that first part. That's just my preference, unless other users want to chip in. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How to format Raptor 4001[edit]

Should names of specific aircraft like Raptor 4001 be italicized or be in quotes? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a real name it is just made up, 4001 is part of the serial number 91-4001 it actually carried the markings Raptor 01 on the tail. When it was rolled out in a ceremony it carried the name Spirit of America. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the Raptor 4XXX is an informal name that is used by Lockheed and USAF, but I don't see them italicizing it or anything.108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the USAF singular or plural?[edit]

Which is it? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In US English, which this article should be written in, it's generally singular. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we use the CMH Style Guide? http://www.history.army.mil/html/about/CMH_Style_Guide_2011.pdf Hcobb (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
WP doesn't use any single external style guide, as it has its own MOS. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So should the plural usage of USAF in this article be changed then? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's the possessive not the plural. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a large article, 108.xxx - what specific sentences are you referring to? - BilCat (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Despite a protracted development and operational issues, the USAF considers the F-22 a critical component of their tactical air power, and claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter." 108.228.145.163 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it should be the singular possessive "its", not the plural possessive "their". In British English, it would probably read: "...the USAF consider the F-22 a critical component of their tactical air power, and claim that..." - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"USAF" in that sentence is singular. An easy way to tell is to check the verb next to it. By adding an "s" to the plural-verb "consider," it changes into its singular form "considers." The USAF is a singular entity and a proper name, so it is almost always singular. However, it is an entity consisting of many men and women. The singular-possessive "its" can work well in that sentence, but gives the connotation of an inanimate object, and how does an inanimate object consider anything? The plural-possessive "their" is often a preferred choice when talking about such an entity, not only because it refers to the people who make up the entity, but also because it is asexual. (ie: The high school track-team runs their laps every Friday evening.) Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Zareth. That's why I said "strictly speaking", but I couldn't think how to express what you said, so I left it out, but didn't recommend changing the sentence either. I also wasn't sure if the usage of then plural possessive in this case is considered acceptable in formal English. Apparently it is. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a complex language. England was once owned by just about everybody, so it's borrowed words and rules from many different languages. In Old English, plural words were denoted by an "e" at the end, and many still are, such as lede (lead) or pine. The use of "s" for that purpose was adopted from the French. That's why you always find these weird exceptions to the rules. I'm always happy to help when I can Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this sentence grammatically correct?[edit]

"To withstand stress and heat, the F-22 makes extensive use of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites whose structural weight percentages are 39% and 24% respectively."

108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this:
"To withstand stress and heat, the F-22's structure has extensive applications of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites whose structural weight percentages are 39% and 24% respectively."
RadicalDisconnect (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Changing to 'extensive applications' seem more vague to me. Consider breaking with a semi-colon like this: "To withstand stress and heat, the F-22 makes extensive use of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites; these materials are 39% and 24% of the structural weight, respectively." -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's correct to say that the F-22 "makes extensive use". The aircraft contains the materials, while designer/manufacturer "makes extensive use" in the aircraft's construction. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, good point. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"The F-22 is constructed using materials such as..."? Electric Wombat (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"the F-22's structure contains extensive amounts of materials such as..." -RadicalDisconnect (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the sentence is a run-on. I'd first tackle this by breaking it into two sentences. The first sentence should be clarified in the manners that either RadicalDisconnect or Electric Wombat suggested. (I'll pick one at random.) I would also put the reasoning (the why) at the end of the sentence, because it is less important than "the what."

The latter sentence should begin with the sentence connector (respectively), because this serves the same purpose as a conjunction. The sentence should also be expanded and rearranged to show exactly what the percentages stand for. (Don't expect the reader to simply make the connection.)

Thus, I would have it read something like this: "The F-22 is constructed using materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites, to withstand stress and heat. Respectively, titanium accounts for 39% of the total weight while composites constitute 24%." But that's just my suggestion, based upon my interpretation of the context. (Feel free to rework it as needed.) Zaereth (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my take: "The F-22's structure contains extensive amounts of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the aircraft's structural weight."
I think the reader can make the connection between "high-strength materials" and "titanium alloys and composite materials". 108.228.145.163 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks just fine to me. I'd just drop the extra percent symbol, so it reads "39 and 24%." In the same sentence like that, it is easier to make the connection as to which percentage stands for which material. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this overcite?[edit]

"The F-22 has a threat detection and identification capability comparative with the RC-135 Rivet Joint. The Raptor's stealth allows it to safely operate far closer to the battlefield, compensating for the reduced capability.[114] The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS", though the radar is less powerful than those of dedicated platforms such as the E-3 Sentry. The F-22 allows its pilot to designate targets for cooperating F-15s and F-16s, and determine whether two friendly aircraft are targeting the same aircraft. This radar system can sometimes identify targets "many times quicker than the AWACS".[114] The radar is capable of high-bandwidth data transmission; conventional radio "chatter" can be reduced via these alternative means.[114]"

This section cites the same source three times. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's often a response to citation needed tags. Sometimes simply putting the ref at the end of the paragraph is insufficient for some, so it ends up being put after every sentence. (I don't know if that's the case here, as I haven't read the source, but it is a possible explanation.) Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Putting the ref at the end of the paragraph should be fine here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction date[edit]

I think introduction time should be changed back to the IOC date of 15 December 2005. The 2007 date may be the FOC date, but it's not really when it was first introduced into USAF service. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, initial operating capability (IOC) seems more appropriate for 'Introduction'. That is when the aircraft can first be sent into the field. I've used that for the the military aircraft articles I've helped with. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not seen reasons why FOC should be used. If you have some reasons, please state them. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I felt that FOC more accurately reflects when the F-22 is truly operational, but now that I thought about it, IOC is more fitting for introduction, and FOC was specified later in the article anyways. Feel free to change it back. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Winner of the ATF competition[edit]

I thought that the announcement of the winner was in 1990, but now I understand that I probably remember incorrectly. This section should be removed. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Use in combat[edit]

Apparently the strikes against ISIL within the last few hours involved the F-22, its first appearance in combat.[1] --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)