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, 7|
|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.|
- 1 Cheaper F-35
- 2 Copy-editing and trimming
- 3 Some speed claims from Jay Miller and AFM August 2008
- 4 Trim and compress ban on exports
- 5 Moving the hypoxia-related content from the intro section to operational issues
- 6 Removing this statement?
- 7 Trimming or removing this segment
- 8 Modifying the lead
- 9 How to format Raptor 4001
- 10 Is the USAF singular or plural?
- 11 Is this sentence grammatically correct?
- 12 Is this overcite?
- 13 Introduction date
- 14 Winner of the ATF competition
- 15 Use in combat
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 188.8.131.52 (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. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Copy-editing and trimming
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. 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. 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. 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."
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. 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. 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."
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.
- 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." 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.220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Some speed claims from Jay Miller and AFM August 2008
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
- 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?
"Lockheed Martin considers the aircraft to be the only one that combines supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform."
- Changed it to: "The Raptor is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform." 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Trimming or removing this segment
"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.
Modifying the lead
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."
- 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."
How to format Raptor 4001
- 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)
Is the USAF singular or plural?
- 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)
- "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?
"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."
- 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)
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". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this overcite?
"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. 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". The radar is capable of high-bandwidth data transmission; conventional radio "chatter" can be reduced via these alternative means."
- 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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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)
- Fair enough. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)