Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Supercruise range

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/What-Russias-Stealth-Fighter-Developments-Mean-for-America#_ftn36

Due to its supercruise ability, the F-22 is capable of covering long distances in regions like the Arctic Ocean, the continental U.S., the Western Pacific, and the Persian Gulf with supersonic flight without the need to engage afterburners.

Note that they do not ref this paragraph because it has no connection to reality. The F-35 has a greater range than the F-22 when both aircraft are subsonic and engaging in supercruise reduces the range of the F-22. Hcobb (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose is getting to an area quickly then supercruise is vital. Yes supercruise is less efficient than normal cruise speeds but in the case of the F-22 the aircraft is moving roughly twice as fast as would the F-35. The F-35 is more efficient at going slow but the Air Force CLEARLY wanted an aircraft that could supercruise for a reason. The performance features arent added just to make the aircraft "cool" -Nem1yan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Even more crunchy stats

Add or not?

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/263.pdf Normal Load Factor -1.0 to 7.7 Angle of attack (degree) -5 to 62 Angle of slideslip (degree) 1.25 left/right Roll Rate (degree/second) 200 left/right

Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, read the context of the paper. Those numbers were the achived, to date, performance numbers of the the YF-22 prototpye (the document is dated 1991). They do not reflect either the production F-22 or the actual performance envelope. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Military-industrial espionage

This Guardian article says the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has "a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force's F-22." Do we have a reliable source that indicates military-industrial espionage has occurred? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but actually it's from the F-35 as can be seen with the chine-DSI bumps design. Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of public images to get the shape from. Espionage is not required to generate similar shapes, profiles. -fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

lol wut pure heresay by hcobb. chinese would not need to do espionage and even if they did doubt they would have gotten far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.101 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html Hcobb (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plasma vs. Coating

Can anyone explain why lockheed martin and the us air force didn't go for plasma stealth wouldn't it make the planes maintenance easier and cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please visit other sources to understand the power constraint and other challenges that have to be faced to create and continuously maintain plasma. Parijatgaur —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Empty Weight

Although I must congratulate the author on an excellent and concise description of the F-22 I must disagree with the figure for empty weight. The figure in the article (19,100 kg) is from the USAF but it is simply quoted as weight not empty weight. The real empty weight according to Jane's "all the world's aircraft" is 14,365kg (31,670lb). --95.148.180.30 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)David Pugh 30/1/2011

I did some research and it seems that those are earlier numbers, probably from the YF-22. Considering that the currents specs are taken from both the USAF and LockMart themselves, and the fact that Jane's often publishes rather conservative aircraft aircraft weights I dont feel there should be a change. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The empty weight listed in the AF fact sheet and LM spec page changed about 2 years ago. Not sure what happened. Maybe the USAF let the YF-22 number be listed by mistake or to mislead rivals. Seems like there was a long discussion section on this here, but I can not find it in the archive pages at the moment. -fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for a rewrite

...and pray tell, why? Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of "not ready for prime time" do they not understand?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/07/fly-f-22s-over-libya-advocates-say/

Apparently this article needs a rewrite to show very plainly just how unready this airplane is. At least the pundits acknowledge that it's the F-35 that will have the air to ground capabilities needed to deal with Soviet-era SAMs. Hcobb (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Air Force is planing to operate F-22s out of Egypt? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p28-293410.xml&headline=F-22s Could Be Assigned To Libyan Operation Hcobb (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And what part of "WP talk pages are not forums for discussing the subject" do you not understand? - BilCat (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gunsight

Does anybody have a ref on a gunsight for the Raptor? I assume that it must have one, but because the only imagining sensor onboard is the pilot's eyeballs (no FLIR, no SAR, etc.), the gunsight must be radar controlled and air to air only. So the gun is useless for ground attacks against say SAMs, which the Raptor has no ability to engage on its own. Hcobb (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)