Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|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:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 7, 2004 and December 15, 2011.|
|This article is written in American English (labor, realize, analyze), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|On October 15, 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to . The result of the debate was not moved.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 150 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Removing the Washington Post article
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."
since the Washington Post article has been thoroughly refuted by USAF. http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf
- 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
Powered air to surface missiles, the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II, or other systems capable of engaging moving ground targets
- 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)
- Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor: "but has additional capabilities that include ground attack,"
which links to:
- Attack aircraft: "with greater precision than bombers"
- 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)
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
However there are still noises about GBU-53 being onboard someday.
- 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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
Removing this section
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."