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)

Removing restriction against ground attack[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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)

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)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).