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)
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 126.96.36.199 (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. --188.8.131.52 (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)
"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."
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". 184.108.40.206 (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)
"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."
This section cites the same source three times. 220.127.116.11 (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)
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. 18.104.22.168 (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)
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)
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)