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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 13, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          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.


Interview with ACC General Hostage[edit]

The previous text summarizing the interview is included in the "Deployments" section of the article detailing the Syrian operations. However, the summary included information about "fifth-generation weapons" which was from a part of the interview in which Hostage was describing future changes to how the F22 would be used in operations. It was not directly relevant to the Syrian, or other current deployments, and so I replaced it with Hostage's general consensus on the F22 performance during operations. In my opinion, the "fusion" of F22 with other Air Force assets and future tactics and weapons changes would be more appropriate to include in a section on these general matters, not in a specific section on historical deployments. Vsekulic (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any other sources on 5th gen weapons? One can imagine a supercruise stealth missile, but is that what Hostage was taken with? Two missiles listed as "Fifth generation" are already integrated on the Raptor. Hcobb (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation in picture captions?[edit]

Should the photo captions have periods at the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.181.255 (talk)

The general rule-of-thumb is to only use periods/full-stops if the caption is a grammatically complete sentence, with subject and verb, etc. - BilCat (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To add, per WP:CAPFRAG: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Point of the quote boxes?[edit]

I'm not sure what the point of those are. They don't seem to really add anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph Break[edit]

The first two paragraphs of Design is currently as follows.

"The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter that is considered fourth-generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform. The Raptor has large shoulder-mounted diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable tricycle landing gear. Flight control surfaces include leading and trailing edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails; these control surfaces also serve as the speed brake.

The aircraft's dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust to weight ratio in typical combat configuration is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners."

However, I think it makes more sense to break it up this way.

"The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter that is considered fourth-generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform.

The Raptor has large shoulder-mounted diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable tricycle landing gear. Flight control surfaces include leading and trailing edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails; these control surfaces also serve as the speed brake. The aircraft's dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust to weight ratio in typical combat configuration is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners."

Though the text breakup is less even, I feel that the part that talks about the Raptor's wings, empennages, etc is better connected with the second paragraph than it is with the first.

108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The decision on where to make a paragraph break should never be based upon a certain size. Instead, these breaks should be made when one point is finished and a new point begins. The first few sentence are like an introduction paragraph, so it is suitable to make the break just like you said. The next few sentences are about control surfaces, so they are well-suited to be their own paragraph. The last sentences are about the power plant, so that should be a paragraph of its own. Does that make sense?
Also, the sentence about the speed brake is not a clause but a complete sentence. There is a misplaced hyphen in 'fourth generation," and there are a few descriptions that are long and confusing, which could use hyphens and commas to improve the flow. The last sentence would be easier to understand if the word "in" a certain power-level was changed to "at" a certain power-level. In other words, I think it would read better like this:
""The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth-aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform.
The Raptor has large, shoulder-mounted, diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable, tricycle landing-gear. Flight control-surfaces include leading and trailing-edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical-stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails. These control surfaces also serve as the speed brake.
The aircraft's dual-afterburning, Pratt & Whitney, F119-PW-100, turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis, thrust-vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio in typical combat-configuration is nearly at unity at maximum military-power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners." Zaereth (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Although I don't think there should be a hyphen in "stealth fighter". In addition, are the commas in "large, shoulder-mounted, diamond wings" are necessary? Also, why the hyphen for "fifth generation" but no hyphen for "fourth generation"? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The hyphens and commas are added when more than one adjective is used to describe a noun. A hyphen is used when one adjective is used to describe another adjective, but a comma is used when both adjectives are used to describe a noun. This helps to avoid snags caused by confusion over which is which. For example, in "stealth-aircraft technology," the word "technology" is the noun, but the adjective "stealth" is being used to describe the other adjective, "aircraft." Therefore, a hyphen is used to connect the adjectives.
In "fourth generation," the word "generation" is the noun and "fourth" is the adjective. Because only one adjective is being used, there is no confusion and, therefore, no snag. Thus, no need for a hyphen. However, in "fifth-generation fighter," both "fifth" and "generation" are adjectives, describing the noun "fighter," so it is better to use a hyphen to show that the adjective "fifth" is being used to describe the other adjective and not the noun. (More importantly, it shows that the word "generation" is not a noun.)
Another snag is found in the phrase "large shoulder mounted diamond wings." With so many adjectives in a row it is difficult to tell which is describing what. By adding some commas and hyphens, it becomes clear what the adjectives are describing, and therefore eliminates the snag for the reader, improving flow. The long description of the engines are also in need of hyphens and commas, because that is a big snag. Zaereth (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I might also add that anytime there is a noun ending in "-ing," being used as an adjective to modify another noun, it should usually be hyphenated with the noun to avoid noun/verb confusion. (i.e.: "Landing-gear," or "dual-afterburning.") Zaereth (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reassess article under GA criteria?[edit]

This article has seen quite a bit of change since it was promoted to GA status back in 2011. Should we reassess it now? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing this section[edit]

"The USAF had originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the number to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. In 1994, it was cut to 438 aircraft entering service by 2004; in 1997, the number was further cut to 339."

I think the part that describes the gradual reduction in procurement numbers is overly detailed, especially the part above. After reading the source, how about we change it to the following:

"The USAF had originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the number to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability further cut the number to 339."

75.82.181.255 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Difference between ranges?[edit]

FTA:

Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
...
Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,740 nmi, 3,220 km)

Since the ferry range also includes external fuel tanks, and the range doesn't include cargo because that would be the combat radius, what is the difference between the range and the ferry range in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.190 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Range, Combat radius, and ferry range are linked in the specs table. Either you not try clicking on those links or those pages were not clear enough. Ferry range is without payload (other than fuel), while range is with payload. Combat radius is the radius of a circular area of operation with a certain amount of time on station (combat radius is less than half of the range). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did click all the links, but it wasn't clear. The range doesn't specify what kind of range it is, most of relevant external links don't load, and those that do don't contain the figure, nor an explanation of what the figure means. The figure itself is also uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.15.244.30 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)