Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Popular Culture

BillCJ, whether you do or don't like 2003's Hulk, the F-22 is the main focus of multiple action scenes in that movie - one which happens to be a notable Hollywood film - and as such, unless there was a film in which it appeared earlier, Hulk is the F-22's debut in a Hollywood film. How that is "cruft" is beyond me.

Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

• I think so. It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"First prominent Hollywood debut." This is simply inaccurate and subjective. I had the same thought as the OP when I read this entry on the main page. IMHO, it should at least mention The Hulk, followed by Transformers. Seems like a silly spat to me. 216.160.102.166 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Happysomeone

Please explain to me why there is even a popular culture section at all. 64.142.65.164 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture continued

BillCJ, whether you do or don't like 2003's Hulk, the F-22 is the main focus of multiple action scenes in that movie - one which happens to be a notable Hollywood film - and as such, unless there was a film in which it appeared earlier, Hulk is the F-22's debut in a Hollywood film. How that is "cruft" is beyond me.

Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

• I think so. It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After being in place for a lengthy period of time, the following entry was recently removed: "The F-22 has been featured in numerous books, such as Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (1994) and Clive Cussler's Dark Watch (2005). In doing a brief google search, 910 matches were made on Tom Clancy and F-22 and 558 matches of Clive Cussler and F-22. Here are specific references: Information Warfare and Deterrence Appendix C. Fundamentals of Information Warfare: An Airman's View and Dark Watch book review . I will replace this item with references in the near future. FWIW Bzuk 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

The Google test doesn't work (WP:GOOG). Forgive me, but it seems you didn't actually read the links you provided. The former makes reference to both Tom Clancy and the F-22, but not at the same time. The latter link is a forum post, and doesn't seem to mention either author or their books. --Eyrian 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Clancy has also featured the F-22 in his 2004 Fighter Wing which in the Book Review describes: "including cutting-edge information on the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." FWIW Bzuk 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure we're reading the same review? I find no mention of Clancy, Fighter Wing, or any fiction at all in the review you've linked. --Eyrian 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a site with a mention of Tom Clancy's books: Amazon reviews. FWIW Bzuk 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Amazon is a store site and, as such, can't be used as a reference. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And another: Air Combat where Fighter Wing is referenced. FWIW Bzuk 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

your missing the point, transformers is not the first or only pop culture refrence, putting it in there by itself is just sillyHINSON1 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, statements restored and references cited. FWIW Bzuk 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Updated unit cost

I updated the unit cost in the Infobox. This is from FY 2008/2009 Budget Estimates, which lists $157.7 million on page 1-13 (pg. 51 in file). See if I missed something. I expected the numbers to be closer to last year's $120M. -Fnlayson 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It says 137 on that page, not 157. And also, that is not the "True Unit Cost", at least "true" as in comparable to other aircraft. You should add the Airframe, engine, and avionics costs per aircraft to get a "unit cost" that is comparable to what other aircraft are. Other aircraft's unit costs are calculated in this way. This comes out to $133 million as seen in that budget report. This is what was done for the previous $120million cost as well. Note, the increase in cost is mainly due to the lowering of the amount of aircraft being produced per year. 24 F-22s were being built per year before, but only 20 per year are being built from now on, so this rises total unit cost.129.82.86.201 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good, thanks. I was using the unit cost from the Total column. But that included projected costs for future years. -Fnlayson 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

...........................Thats BS, most of the F-22 (92) was bought at a price of 168M - you have found the lowest pricetag you could on that page an its for 20 planes only - do average cost and you get around 165. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.29.162 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

Bill CJ You "Reverted unsourced, good-faith additions by 90.240.101.73" on the F-22, on the basis that they were not from a verifiable source. You reverted to a form of words that was plainly, demonstrably wrong, which is witless - even if there was a verifiable source, and you reverted to something that gave a false, misleading impression.

The points at issue were connected with the F-22's capability in the SEAD, EW and AWACS roles.

Because of its sensor capabilities, F-22 does have POTENTIAL in these roles, but this potential is limited by the aircraft's inability to transmit any sensor data to other platforms, except by voice radio. The Raptor pilot can therefore report by radio, but this falls far short of a genuine AWACS or ISTAR capability.

The existing IFDL (Intra Flight Data Link) is limited to communicating with other Raptors, and its Link 16 capability is austere (text messages only) and Receive Only.

This was confirmed by Larry Lawson, the F-22 Programme Manager in his presentation at the Paris Air Show, and was reported in Flight Daily News. It was also confirmed by Colonel Sutter, Chief of ACC/A8F, 5th Generation Fighter Division, and can be inferred from the Air Force Link article at http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123024639

In answer to the question: Is it true that the F-22 intraflight datalink cannot communicate with other tactical platforms, AWACS, Rivet Joint JSTARS, etc? (…..thereby limiting F-22 pilots to voice radio?) Is an F-22 pilot limited to voice radio?

Sutter answered: Currently, F-22s link with each other but do not link with other platforms except thru voice radio.

Nor is the F-22's APG-77 being given a high bandwidth transmission capability. This was explicitely denied by Lawson, though it remains an unfunded future option, alongside Link 16 TX/RX, and TTNT.

90.240.101.73 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My full comment was: Reverted unsourced, good-faith additions by 90.240.101.73; as given, that is not a verifiable source; please discusss on Talk Pgae before re-adding, and we'll see what can be done.

You have to understand that anyone can claim anything - what matters is that the sources be verifiable by other editors. I said "good-faith" for a specific reasone, because I believe you really were at the conferece/meeting, and heard the report yourself. The problem is that simply stating that is not sufficient for sourcing. Please read WP:ATTR and WP:CITE for further information on Wikipedias policies on sourcing. We (the regular editors of this article) will be happy to help you with the particulars of getting the source info into the text.

There are several ways you can go about citing and sourcing what you heard. If you can find a published (print or online) transcript of the meeting, that would suffice. If that is not available, there may be published coverage of the meeting, and you can reference what is in those sources.

As to what is there now, if you believe it is inaccurate, there are several ways to handle that.

1. Remove it.
2. Tag it

You can tag it with {{citation needed}}, {{verify source}}, or {{dubious}}. There are other tags available, but they are the ones I usually use. - BillCJ 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in here... without a DL the F-22 is absolutely useless in any of the roles under discussion. Even with the addition of a good DL, the most one can expect the F-22 to do is act as a sort of remote sensor suite that would forward intel back to a real platform. I don't expect anyone here would argue that we might have F-22 pilots directing an air war while in the cockpit.

The extremely broad language used in the body of the article means that any aircraft with a radar could be used, it may as well be a F-15, or a Mosquito for that matter. I don't see claims in those articles suggesting this will happen though.

So unless there is some good evidence that these sorts of upgrades will be made, I'd prefer to see the entire section removed. And frankly, I trust AvLeak exactly as far as I can throw it. While it may be true that statements at a meeting cannot be used for CITE I'd still say they trump AvLeak. IE, in this case we have a rather dubious claim from AvLeak that I simply don't believe, countered by direct evidence to the contrary. Although it is reasonable to suggest that the direct evidence cannot be included due to its "format", that just argues for the entire section being removed, IMHO.

Maury 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exceptionally long testing period

Why did this aircraft take 20 years to enter operational service? That's kind of bizarre for any aircraft type. The basic design dates to the late 1980s. I wonder if there are technology obsolecence issues that might come into play. -Rolypolyman 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

you must have missed the article about the wi-fi which would cost 10,000 a month if it was comcast...theres nothing even approaching it commercially available-HINSON1 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

20 years of totality. The idea, the competition for the contract, took place mid-80s, but the plane's been in developement for 10-15 years, not 20. Still pretty long, but look at the result. The Walkin Dude 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Generals

The F-22 Jet is featured on the Command & Conquer Generals PC game as the American Raptor Jet, the main air unit for the American side. Should this be added to the popular culture section? Matty B 1000 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so; it's not really notable. Parsecboy 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

F-22's in Canada

I saw at least 2 F-22 in an airshow over Toronto, Canada today. So is this the first airshow their featured in outside of the United States. Friday August 31st, 2007. 1:05 PM EST.

GAO Report and Eurofighter Dogfight

There has been a user spamming info in F-22 videos, such as this one http://youtube.com/watch?v=fBUmRd4hKlg and used a source that a Eurofighter beat an F-22 in a mock digfight. I've actually heard rumors about this happening long before:

"The Eurofighter have already beaten the F22 - take this source:

"international AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.

"Two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake. There was little suprise that the Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight.."

He has also been spreading around info, using the US Congress GOA report as a source, saying that the F-22 is severely flawed and has even made a video into it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvgBbXKL5E

Now I'm wondering, how much of this stuff is actually true? Tsurugi 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's the GAO report? This one: F-22 Issues in Achieving.., March 1999 or what? -Fnlayson 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He was getting quotes from several other GAO reports from different years as well. Tsurugi 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to what I could find online, the relevant quote from the source reads, "During evaluations and trials at NAS China Lake last year two Typhoons were pitched against F-22s. The Typhoons excelled in close range combat with the F-22s, but surprised everybody by locking on to the F-22s before the F-22s could get a lock-on on the Typhoons during BVR trials as well." No context, such as whether this was reported by the source as a rumor or a solid source, nor what the rules of engagement might have been (e.g., a non-jamming environment, whether it was just a ‘BVR rodeo’ with no advantage taken of the Raptor’s BVR strengths, etc.). Since the F-22 is optimized for BVR combat, I wouldn’t consider it to be too surprising that the Typhoon – designed with a stronger emphasis on dogfighting maneuverability – could get a first lock-on in WVR. A very powerful radar at close range could detect an extremely stealthy airplane like the F-22. Low RCS means it takes much more radar power at a given range to detect it, so significant power at short range could have the same effect. As for maneuver performance, even if the F-22 dominated 90% of the performance envelope with respect to the Eurofighter (about which I have no idea) and the Typhoon’s pilot managed to maneuver his opponent into the 10% where the Typhoon has the upper hand, well then, that’s what a well-trained, top-notch pilot tries to do.

Such a snippet – of unknown reliability – certainly doesn’t support the recent POV vandalisms that the Raptor is “easy to shoot down.” Nor does much of anything in the 1999 GAO report on the YF-22 prototype development retain any relevance to today’s operational production F-22. Until something more substantive is offered and sourced, I believe that reverting such POV fluff, as our editors have been doing, remains the right thing to continue to do. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The report that the guy was drawing much of his information from was primarily in this more recent March 2007 GAO report. type in "88" to go that F-22 page. What about the info in there? Have any of those issues in that report been resolved yet, such as the "mean time between maintenance" issue? I know the SRP isn't done. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf Tsurugi 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this particular GAO publication is so recent, it is much more appropriate to cite. However, two-page assessments like these don’t tend to include much context, unlike the more detailed, program-specific evaluations the GAO produces from time-to-time; also these latter publications also provide room for the owning service to respond to key points as to whether or not they concur with its findings. GAO findings always tend to always sound “cataclysmic” or nearly so to readers with little understanding of how complex, advanced technology programs are developed. For one thing, it needs to be kept in mind that the GAO criticizes anything that isn’t “low-risk” as “immature”; the typical standard seems to follow a logic along the lines of “Buggy whips are ‘mature’; advanced technologies are not – until everybody else is already using them.” Their findings are inevitably subjective; in fact, this is the first time I’ve seen them use a non-arbitrary scale like the one in Appendix III for evaluating military aerospace technologies, but then they mis-apply it as well. Since the F-22 entered service in December 2005, it was essentially Technology Readiness Level 8 (not 7) by the time they began their investigations. Moreover, if every system, subsystem and component were individually tested to the “realism” standard required for Level 7, the aircraft cost would probably grow by at least an order of magnitude.

As the GAO correctly points out, the three critical technologies needed for the modernization program as it was configured in 2003 were “mature”; the three new critical technologies were added later to the modernization program as desirable to achieve, essentially, Technology Readiness Level 9, if you will. The whole purpose of adding them was to “mature” them. How the GAO can say, “Overall technology maturity is consequently lower now than when the modernization effort began” is quite beyond me. In any case, given their nature, I doubt that whatever progress made on the three identified technologies will be broadly reported.

• The reliability and maintainability issue is a legitimate one – and not uncommon in early production aircraft. To some degree it’s also due to ironing out the kinks in the spare parts flow. The fault isolation software and the thermal management systems are part of this issue, and the former may have been resolved by now. From what I’ve read, the F-22’s reliability has improved considerably, but I don’t know how well it is progressing toward making its 100,000 flying-hour goal in 2010, so I don’t know how much of an issue it is.

• The Structural Retrofit Program (SRP) is under way, although other sources report that only 41 aircraft need the modification. The two fatigue problems aren’t likely to make the plane unsafe to fly anytime soon, but rather shorten its overall expected service life. The USAF doesn’t appear to think either of them is urgent.

The way I read it, these are normal problems for a “juvenile” high-technology, highly complex fighter design and it sounds like all of them should be settled by 2010. In the grand scheme of things, the GAO’s findings are minor and being dealt with. More apropos and important are the issues that have long been raised about whether or not the design approach employed on the F-22 are the best-suited for the modern and future missions it will be called upon to perform. If it works perfectly but is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter much. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In your POV, Askari Mark, what do you think about the statements the user named Zeptocomp is saying about the F-22 on this forum? (his comments are in yellow) http://youtube.com/watch?v=vIvgBbXKL5E Is he making a good argument? Also, here is a site with another bunch of articles that claim supposed Eurofighter > F-22 dogfights that he cites from. The quotes are in the gray boxes [1]. In addition, what exactly is "mean time between maintainance"? I need some understanding about that. It can't be the amount of time where a plane can fly and has to land for maintainance (like the user is saying). Tsurugi 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Mean time between maintenance (MTBM) is the average time between repairs. It is one of several reliability measures. It gives an indication of how often and how much repairs must be done. -Fnlayson 04:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Now i understand. What about my other questions? Tsurugi 21:20, 5 September 2007 (PT)

Well, compare this discussion to the sentence ... The US Air Force claims that the F-22A cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft... , a claim without solid foundation and surely carrying a load of bias - right in the introduction as a crucial part of the article. Bitching about the source for the GAO-story and not including it in the proper context, maybe with a critical remark, seems like applying a double standard here. But as you may have noticed, every version of wikipedia has it's very own shortcomings, and this one's the desire to portray the US' holy grails as bright as possible, being less critical and more selective. Would the GAO-report support the "F22's superiority", it would be in the article, it's really as easy as that. 88.65.252.208 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsurugi, I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner, but work and family demands have kept me off-wiki for the last couple of weeks. Regarding Zeptocomp’s You Tube video, well, anyone can gather everything negative they can find on a subject, take it out of its proper context, and emphasize it beyond any reasonable point of relevancy, so I cannot say I’m impressed. I find critiques to be more helpful than diatribes. As most of the editors around here are aware, I don’t get into all of this “my-favorite-airplane-is-better-than-your-favorite-airplane” dueling that often goes on in these articles. As I’ve pointed out any number of times, every modern fighter has a place in its maneuver envelope where it can out-perform any of the others. The only way in which we can meaningfully say that one airplane is “better” than another is in a single characteristic or combat engagement situation. As for the IAPR claim, I’ll address that in more detail in the subsection below.

In any case, since You Tube is not deemed a reliable source by Wikipedia, Zeptocomp’s work is irrelevant here. As for 88.65.252.208’s criticism of the USAF claim in the intro, I’m somewhat sympathetic. The sentence is “acceptable” in that it is clearly a factual statement of what the USAF claims to be true and cites a reliable source for it. However, it is obviously a statement of what the USAF’s bias is with regard to its airplane, and IMHO would be inappropriate anywhere else but in the intro. It’s equally obvious that the USAF statement is itself bombast since, as I noted above, no single aircraft can best all others “known or planned” across the board in all areas of performance, capabilities and technologies – albeit there are no doubt more than a few in which the F-22 does excel. In the end, it macht’s nichts to me whether it’s kept or removed – and if that was this article’s only problem, it would still be an FA-class article. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fair point. I hadn't noticed that. The statement "The US Air Force claims that the F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft." has been moved to the Comparisons section where it fits in with rest. -Fnlayson 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I removed, but an IP or two keep adding that back say it is needed. Even though it already says the F-22 is an air dominance fighter. -Fnlayson 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

International Air Power Review content again

ADDING EUROFIGHTER DOGFIGHT TO PERFORMANCE I have added the Eurofighter Dogfight to performance... I then saw the discussions here. I don't agree with removing this reference (and I am not the guy you claimed to be responsible for the Utube and spams). The eurofighter engagement happened, it is a very reliable source and well documented. If these comparisons wouldn't have been fair, the USAF would have hardly agreed to send their F-22. So citing theoretical arguments to remove a real world engagement backed up with sources is not appropriate. Especially since you claim to not know the Eurofighter. At the end lets list the engagements that took place in real world and leave the speculations and simulations and your paper calculations on the side. Also before removing this source, please get the source in question, read it yourself first.

Also in regards to removing the other sources (a 2007 source even) just because you think it's not reliable or warranted is wrong. Honestly I think a 1999 or 2007 congressional report is a pretty reliable assessment and whether it still applies or not is irrelevant since the source contains the date and the user knows that is is older if he can see the date.

If you have a later source you can claim that the issues have been fixed and add the later source. However just reading this discussion and the deliberate removal of anything that sounds remotely negative seems wrong to me - it almost would want me to use the latest wiki-changes tracking tools to see where/what computer your edits are coming from... that might add some more information to this discussion or even topic.

Then my other request is to REMOVE the following quote: "Marshal Angus Houston, chief of the Australian Defence Force, and former head of the Royal Australian Air Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built"" The reason being that the quote is a pretty stupid thing to say and reflects more the Marshal rather then saying anything about the plane. First recent engagements show that this statement is simply not true. Second to use "EVER" in his statement is simply a dumb thing to say. I am sure there will be hundreds of fighter planes in the coming 1,000 years that will be much more outstanding then the F-22 - in fact I can think of a large number of planes in the previous century that were A WHOLE LOT more outstanding and revolutionary. Just because someone said something doesn't mean it should be included if what they say is just marketing talk.

How is it marketing talk? Where do we draw the line? The guy is the head of the Australian Air Force you would think what he is saying goes beyond marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The International Air Power Review paragraph was poorly written and dubious because it did not quote anyone. This has been discussed a lot on Eurofighter talk page. -Fnlayson 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently someone beat me to removing this. I'm sorry, please link or quote, this was written as if your own personal speculation plus fails the "smell" test. Additionally, I'm trying to find any info on this magazine and its article and there's precious little out there. At the rate at which they publish (EXTREMELY infrequently, semi-annually but without set schedule per their own website and forums) would suggest their information is very unlikely to be the most up to date and accurate... 2 issues per year at $20? Extremely light readership? I could see if this were in Jane's or something. -MazNJ 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper where opinion is often confused with fact. I would also point out that this claim really does not stand up under scrutiny. There is not much out there aside from the one un-verified, unattributable claim from a publication that publishes infrequently and on no particular schedule. In short it fails the smell test. Perhaps Janes or Aviation Week would be a better source for something like this. In fact the article clearly fails the threshold of inclusion according to wiki, read WP:ATTR. Look under Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources. The first two bullets sums up the problem with including it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Findings regarding the IAPR report of Typhoon-F-22 engagement

Although real-life has kept me off-wiki for the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to see what I could uncover about the incident alleged to have happened by the IAPR. So far I have found not the slightest confirmation that the event ever occurred and many reasons to disbelieve the report altogether.

The article as a whole is essentially an unapologetic puff piece on the Typhoon; that doesn’t mean anything written in it is automatically untrue, but it does caution any reader to beware of possible bias in anything uncited – and nothing regarding the Typhoon vs. F-22 incident is sourced, either internally or by footnote. The entirety of what was written about the story is a single paragraph:

Though still a relatively immature platform, Typhoon has already proved to be a hard opponent to beat, so that when a two-seat trainer was bounced by two F-15s during an operational conversion sortie, the Typhoon pilot was easily able to outmanoeuvre his assailants and position himself for a simulated ‘kill’ against both. More recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trials work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have performed better than was expected. There was little surprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate the ‘Within Visual Range’ fight, but the aircraft did cause a surprise by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long range. The F-22s reportedly cried off, claiming that they were ‘unstealthed’ anyway, although the next day’s scheduled two versus two BVR engagement was cancelled, and “the USAF decided they didn’t want to play any more.” When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the conversation on security grounds.

The F-15 engagement reported is reliably attested to by multiple reliable sources, so it is not at issue. (However, as the Scotsman makes a little clearer, the fighters involved were F-15E Strike Eagles, not the F-15C air superiority version, and it would have been shameful for the Typhoon to have been bested by these heavier, less-maneuverable birds.) In fact, one has to wonder if the Typhoon vs. F-22 report isn’t a garbled version of this event.

For this latter, the IAPR article mentions uncited “repeated reports” (which I’ve been so far unable to find online), but then goes on to refer to only the forum website report. (Perhaps the “repeated reports” were multiple acquaintances telling him about the website post?) The author seems to have only secondhand information on the forum – which goes unnamed (just like the “senior RAF officer”). While he mentions that it is “frequented by front-line RAF aircrew”, the original forum post appears to not have been made by someone in the RAF nor a witness to the alleged events – otherwise he would have said so to gain greater credibility. Furthermore, RAF professionals or in-place witnesses would not make the mistake of claiming that the F-22 flew against the Typhoon at NAS China Lake. That’s a US Navy facility, and the US Air Force has its own equivalent facilities. (Both do offer these facilities to the air forces of allied nations for testing that can’t be duplicated in-country at reasonable expense.)

Of the knowledgeable people I’ve spoken to, few had ever heard of this allegation and all were all but sure that the F-22 has not (yet) been to China Lake nor has it been flown in mock engagements against the Typhoon specifically or against any aircraft flown by non-US personnel. Of course, one can never prove with 100% certainty that such an event occurred and was highly classified – given how security rules go regarding stealth technology – but it seems unlikely. In fact, it reads more like “something made up on the Internet one day.” As it stands, all we have is a report of a rumor on a web forum about a rumor from an unknown source posted by someone without first-hand knowledge or professional experience. Until there is evidence based on what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, there seems to be no reason to include the alleged incident at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... one has to look at the context here. When entering F22 or eurofighter the wikipedia articles pop up as number 2 -3 on google. Each airplane costs millions of dollars - or billions when looking at contracts. The recent typhoon saudi deal is worth 75 billion. Here is what really happened to my opinion: The meeting took place, but once the results were made public, ANYTHING will be done from the US Side to suppress it, discredit it or mention it has ever happened. You likely won't find any USA military person who will confirm anything - their carreer would be over BIG TIME. In fact I think it would probably make sense from a manufacturers point of view to spend some $ and make sure that the number 2-3 spots on the web don't mention this incident - or even hint towards it. After all it would be disastrous if an army spends twice as much $ on a plane that might not be superior. At the end its economic interest... but I think it's wrong to have Wikipedia be ruled by those interests and allow to have these edits continue. The source is a respected print publication - I highly doubt that a wikipedia admin has more knowledge/clout then a print magazine subscribed to by probably all airforces in this world.

So let's face it - these 2 entries F22 / Typhoon are absolutely crucial and can win/lose millions for the countries economies. Looking at the discussions going on - It's hard to not notice the bias towards the raptor... which quite honestly means that the Europeans don't quite have their lobbying/PR muscle together.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to look at the context here. That would be called {{WP:OR|original research]]. The fact is, there are no reliable sources stating that the F-22 even went up against any foreign aircraft, let alone the Typhoon. The forum mentioned in the report doesn't count. Until something more reliable comes out (and for the reasons stated above by Askari Mark, I don't think it ever will, because the event probably didn't take place), it cannot be mentioned in this or the Typhoon article. Parsecboy 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok me again.. well parsecboy see that's what I don't get. Why do you ASSUME that THE SOURCE had no SOURCES (because they don't list it? You simply don't know it). I think if you have A SOURCE - a very respectable one, its ok to quote them unless you have PROOF that they lied - until you can bring that proof, or tell us all why YOUR clout or knowledge or experience should count MORE then a specialty print magazine subscribed to by all major airforces in the world, I suggest you just stop with your biased focus. It ruins wikipedia for all of us. Your arguments don't make sense, they are not logical and an insult to all of us. You say that the FORUM mentioned doesn't count - WHY - because you say so???? I think a professional aviation publication subscribed to by all major AF in the world is a valid source period - and if you think the source lied then bring proof.. until then the source is valid - period. Sirbidmaster 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me make my point clear, because it was obviously over your head the last time. Firstly, the forum isn't even named, so it's veracity cannot be judged. Second, forums do not in any way ever constitute a reliable source. Third, what academic source has reviewed the article in question and found it to be suitable or reliable? Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia policy page on reliable sources before you start calling people fools. And sign your posts; it's just 4 tildes. Parsecboy 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, 76.102.190.6, Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith on the behalf of other editors, so unless and until you have firm evidence that I or some other editor is shilling for the USAF, you shouldn’t make the assertion. It would be the same as someone calling you a shill for Eurofighter simply because you’re a fan of that airplane. As it is, I think my track record for non-partisanship on Wikipedia is well-attested to by my work. I also happen to be an aerospace engineer with three decades of experience who has worked with other professionals from many different companies and countries, so I have a broad range of contacts and considerable knowledge about how the “real world” of aerospace works. Since I found the purported incident personally and professionally interesting, I decided to explore and see what I could learn about it, if anything. (Contrary to popular opinion, not all embarrassments get classified.)

As I noted above, it’s impossible to prove the incident never occurred somewhat along the lines described in the IAPR article; however, there’s nothing more than rumor to assert that it ever actually happened. Given vague claims with no identification of sources other than a “forum frequented by front-line RAF aircrew” (for beer and grins perhaps?), all we have is a third-hand rumor at best, and one containing enough inaccurate content in that single paragraphs to raise at least some concern regarding the original source’s grasp of the subject matter. While that may be sufficient “reliability” for IAPR, it flunks Wikipedia’s explicit guidelines for “reliable sources” as well as its standards for verifiability. Should a reliable source be found to establish that the incident actually occurred, then I would by all means encourage coverage of the alleged incident here. If true, it would be an embarrassment to the USAF and Lockheed Martin, but it certainly won’t embarrass me. Until then, however, there seems to be less to it than a typical National Enquirer story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And besides, who bases billion dollar purchases on wikipedia entries? --Mmx1 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: An IP has begun adding this IAPR paragraph to the 4th generation jet fighter article and appending a further OR sentence to the effect of “This mock engagement happened during Exercise High Rider 10 during 2005”, which the IP cites to a prnewswire report that does not, in fact, make this claim nor even mentions the F-22 (or the F-15E engagement). (For those who aren’t aware of it, Prnewswire is a press release distribution service – companies and organizations pay them to distribute their press releases to news providers – and, as such, it is not considered a reliable source in of itself.) First, the F-15E engagement occurred over the UK in the Lakes District, not NAS China Lake. Second, while I do strongly suspect that ‘Exercise High Rider 10’ is the event at which the author of the IAPR article (and his source) believe the purported F-22 engagement occurred, even this Eurofighter press release makes no assertion that the Typhoon’s weapons trials at China Lake involved any non-RAF aircraft. It you read the article, it appears the only opponent aircraft involved were the Harrier GR.7 and Tornado GR.4 aircraft of the RAF’s Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (FJWOEU) that deployed with the Typhoon (from the Typhoon combined test team). Note that Eurofighter says only a single Typhoon was deployed, not two (as the IAPR article states); this is another strike against the accuracy of the story published by IAPR, and an unqualified one given that there are no “security” reasons why they couldn’t have said there were two, if there had been. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Air Show - Toronto Picture

The Raptor at the The Canadian International Air Show, Toronto, Ontario, 2007

The F-22 Raptor flown by an international landmark--the CN Tower--during its first public demonstration outside of the United States on the long weekend of September 1-3, 2007. This is undeniable an historic event. The event was captured on the picture (right). Some wikipedia contributors insist in removing the picture from the main article, their objection being that the picture is low quality. Truly, this is why this picture is published under the "Trade Show" heading: it is meant to be a record of a life event, not a glossy sales brochure. The article shows plenty of other quality pictures of the aircraft. If someone has a better quality picture to illustrate the subject event, be my guest and replace it. Until then, this picture may be the best available to illustrate that historic event.

Before someone just single-mindedly reject someone else's contribution, at least first take a breather, write up your thoughts in this "talk" section, then let's see toghether what is best for this publication.--JLdesAlpins 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others. The F-22 is too small in that image to tell what it is. Therefore, I don't see it adding anything to this article. For an air show article, it would be OK, I think. -Fnlayson 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The F-22 being such a young aircraft, there is no doubt that it will be shown in countless airshows for years to come. Do you think we shoud create a separate page dedicated to its airshow appearances?--JLdesAlpins 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I meant adding that image to this article: Canadian International Air Show. It might be a while before there's enough information available to make a decent F-22 air show article. Not sure about that.. -Fnlayson 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the pic. Please don't re-add it without a consensus to do so. In addition, I've never been happy with the "Air Show" section in this article, so I've removed that too. What other fighter article on Wkipedia even has one? It smacks of Original Research, even if the individual items are sourced. I don't think the section is very relevant overall, and certainly an article on F-22 airshow appearences would be a bad idea. I agree with Fnlayson (Jeff) that Canadian International Air Show would be a more appropriate place for such a pic, tho I agree with the original deleter of the pic that this one is poor quality. As such, it probably should not be used at all. - BillCJ 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I would like to make a case for retaining at least a mention of the F-22 Air Show Demonstration Team since this is a legitimate public demonstration of the aircraft. I do agree that the section itself was too esoteric and could be deleted. As to retaining the above photo, even blowing it up showed only a tiny blurred image. I have much better F-22 photos that show it in air shows. FWIW Bzuk 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

As long as it has the proper sources (which BZuk always includes!), I've no problem with that. - BillCJ 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph on air shows [tour] including this one is a good idea. Here's one article about starting air shows in May.Raptor Puts on the Ritz -Fnlayson 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given its technological sensitivity, its appearance at airshows is actually rather notable. I agree that a single para. on the appearance of the F-22 in its first domestic and foreign airshows is a worthwhile addition. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I meant mainly a paragraph on the air show tour with mention of notable shows. -Fnlayson 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Data link

This article currently reads: In 2007, tests carried out by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and L-3 Communications enabled the AESA system of a Raptor to act like a WiFi access point, able to transmit data at 548 Megabit/sec and receive at Gigabit speed, far faster than the current Link 16 system used by US and allied aircraft, which transfers data at just over 1 Megabit/sec. However, the Link 16 page claims a data rate of 31.6kbits to 115.2kbits/sec, about a tenth of that. The higher rate comes unsourced from an article at The Register, which is generally slightly less accurate than reading sheep entrails. Anyone have a good source for the data rate of Link 16? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleja (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

F-22 fanpage? This article should be marked as clearly biased

- Who wrote the propaganda piece on the F-22 Raptor, this sound more like an F-22 fanpage than anything else. This page should be marked as propaganda page, it has a clear bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Financialmodel (talk • contribs)

Someone is rying to make the jumper statement support a biased view that the f-22 is better than te typhoon, by saying they are desiged for "difference performence", while he deleted another statement by juumper that they run "neck on neck". - this article needs to be marked as biased, correct the quotes, or simply delete te biased comparison quotes taken out of context. --Financialmodel 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong in the end Jumper says the following: The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."

Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. Thinking that the Typhoon is anything more than a 4th generation fighter is sheer stupidity. While it is a capable aircraft more than a match for a SU-27 which it was designed to defeat it is not in the same class as the F-22 or the F-35 for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. ... as if the EF couldn't supercruise ;-) Just be a man and admit it, you desperately want things to be your way, no matter the facts. 77.56.111.155 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article. Disrespectful posts will not be tolerated. This article is not meant to show which fighter jet is better, or which continent is better. This page will not turn into a Typhoon comparison page. It is only appropriate to include information about each jet. Readers of this resource are the ones to decide what to think. Anyone adding content to this talk page must sign his or her post by typing four (4) tildes after added content. Nicholas SL Smith 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree there may be a bias to this article. I always attempt to think outside the box, even if it means a little bit to not believe in my religion possibly, but many opinions were given in this article. Perhaps some facts, but I would in the future like to see someone who has pictures of them actually going to these test sites and saying they have seen the actual results, and to be honest, I wouldn't want this to be like the olympics, and I would actually prefer unbribed judges of many countries, even if it means communists. - No offense to any judges of the olympics. CutNut 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that flies in the face of WP:V & WP:RS. You requirements of photographic proof are not IAW WP standards. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unit cost

Flight International (a respected publication) consistently cites the unit price as $200 million. And more recently than the USAF reference in this article's infobox. e.g.

• "Japan asks USA to ease fighter export restrictions" May 1, 2007
• "Japan studies interim deal to replace F-4s" May 8, 2007
• "Japan makes stealthy move for F-22 Raptor" July 31, 2007

Any thoughts? Mark83 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unit or flyway cost can be easily miscalculated, especially doing a simple, but incorrect calculation of dividing total costs by number of units. It is supposed to be the current incremental cost. FI could have got the wrong number and stayed with it. -Fnlayson 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371 By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.--90.186.147.65 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Way to copy what's already in the article and that's NOT how unit costs are properly calculated. -Fnlayson 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did this edit. The cost without the weapons systems, is a bit meaningless, that is, what is it, then, the cost of the airframe ? Plus, the values are taken from the same source.CyrilleDunant 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• WS cost includes aircraft costs, spares & other costs. Unit flyaway cost for the aircraft itself and is what is intended for the Infobox. Unit flyaway cost is based on recurring costs. -Fnlayson 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, this should probably be clarified in the infobox page...CyrilleDunant 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• For info on figuring out and understanding the different types of unit costs, please see my reference essay on the topic. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

is the united states planing to seel any of those fighter jets i n the future to nato or allied countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Read the "Proposed foreign sales" section of this article. -Fnlayson 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Be specific

Be specific when it comes to not to put popular culture on this websites. Like list of what not to be allowed on the Popular Culture all of it. Examples include no putting Ace Combat. (TougHHead 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC))TougHHead.

Did F-22 Raptors been featured in the films? (TougHHead 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

F-22 simulated kill?

Can anyone verify the source of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFpart (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

News; One F-22 loss at Red Flag attributed to bad tactics Amy Butler 28 Februar 2007 Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 5 Volume 221, Issue 39 2007 McGraw-Hill, Inc --HDP 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you're asking if it's a reliable source, yes. It explains the "kill" as follows:

The exercise was focused on training the youngest and newest F-22 pilots, according to Bergeson. Nearly one-third of the pilots involved in the F-22's portion of the exercise had less than 50 flight hours on the aircraft. The "red" force of aggressors consisted of various F-15s and F-16s that were able to regenerate upon sustaining damage; thus they were able to constantly flow into and out of the fight, maintaining a rigorous operational tempo.

The friendly "blue" force lost one F-22 during the exercise, Bergeson says. He attributes the loss to a confusing "mulligan," whereby an enemy "red" fighter regenerated or re-entered the fight unbeknownst to the blue forces. "We made some tactical mistakes and one slipped through," Bergeson told reporters Feb. 27 during a telecom from Langley Air Force Base, Va., upon returning from the deployment. Apparently, the F-22 pilot did not realize the aggressor was not out of the fight and should have continued to attack the aircraft.

The article also noted that one-third of the F-22 pilots involved had less than 50 hours in type, and that the F-22's AESA capabilities were not being factored in during the simulation. For the exercise, USAF F-16CJs and Navy EA-6Bs provided electronic jamming and attack. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1/3 had less than 50h and 2/3 had more as 50h on a F-22. How many hours on F-22 simulators and how many 1000 hours on other Jets like F-15? --90.186.140.193 07:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you a pilot? Are you aware that most planes all handle differently? Are you aware that simulators never come close to the real thing? Regardless, how is this even notable? Planes get "shot down" in mock engagements all the time. Just because the F22 is more advanced than most fighters doesn't mean it's invulnerable or error-proof (as was this case, where the pilot made an mistake). Parsecboy 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This F-22 kill was notable because the aircraft was sold on its superiority over others. On paper (and I emphasize paper) it's supposed to eat F15's and 16's and pretty much anything else out there for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and have more appetite for snacks in-between. What the article fails to mention is that the aircraft has an incredible integrated avionics and weapons suite, which increases the learning curve, but once mastered, is a multiplier to the lethality of the aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if this one loss also helps the Raptor drivers learn some humility and hence is an excellent learning opportunity for all. Aki Korhonen 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fighter pilots made humble??? I don't think that's possible. In any case, since shot-down fighters don't normally get to regenerate themselves in reality in mid-air and immediately return to battle, it's more a game-induced error. What it does emphasize is that no matter how "dominant" a fighter is, none is utterly invincible; their pilots will always be vulnerable to "surprises" – and it's usually the one you didn't see that gets you. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22

Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22--90.186.140.193 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what? I didn't think this article was about operator error. Parsecboy 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting article. While it means there's a bug in the system, the automatic immediate restart of the engines with effectively no indication of performance loss to the pilot or the ground crew monitoring the flight is in the category of ultra-cool. That might be worth commenting on in the article.Aki Korhonen 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

air dominance?

I'm not an expert or even a buff... but most planes like this are listed as "air superiority". This one is "air dominance", which if you look it up, doesn't actually have a compatible definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a formal definition of "air dominance"; it's more a phrase intended to underscore that it not only is a top "air superiority" fighter in the traditional sense, but also has electronic, network-centric, stealth and other performance capabilities never seen before. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• As he said, Air dominance is the US Air Force's terminology. The infobox type does list air superiority. That should help, but may confuse some. -Fnlayson 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA398411 In a nutshell air dominance requires and aircraft to have stealth, supercruise, High-Altitude operational ceiling, integrated Avionics, dominant Air-to-Air Capability, significant Lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) Capability, substantial Precision Strike Capability, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability, network Expansion. http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/dominance.html It is much more than just air superiority.70.107.173.5 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither source actually defines what "air dominance" means. Although the article referred to in the first link might have a definition, this link is just to an abstract which does not. The second uses "Air Dominance" simply as a header; it's not clear that the list appended to the subsequent text is even intended to be a definition of "air dominance", but more probably a list of the F-22's capabilities that contribute to it. (All the text says is "F-22 capabilities distill nearly all requisite theater enablers into a single platform" – but the relationship of "theater enablers" to "air dominance" in toto is not at all clearly made.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are really splitting hairs. The air force, the user of the aircraft, the entity that wrote the requirements for it's development calls it an air dominance fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.173.5 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark's assessment. The F-22 is a multi-role air superiority fighter. Besides, 70.107.173.5, you do not have consensus for a change and are in violation of the 3R rule if you continue this edit war. FWIW Bzuk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Same here, the mission is clearly air superiority. The "air dominance" thing is just a PR stunt. --McSly 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just did a google search on F-22 and air superiority- 45,200 hits, F-22-air dominance- 4,200 hits- all recent and only on USAF releases (it is obviously a PR initiative by the USAF) and is not generally accepted terminology. FWIW Bzuk 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

• The Type field in the Infobox is for a general category info. We're not required to use the AF's precise terminalogy. Air dominace is used in the text. It looks like you're just trying to be disruptive here. -Fnlayson 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's all about accuracy and getting facts straight. The air force says that the plane whose requirements it wrote and who OPERATES it say that it is an air dominance fighter. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter. 35 years ago there where not too many references to air superiority until the F-15 came along. The F-22 takes it one step further.

• I really feel sorry for you if you call trying to get things right disruptive. As for consensus, well that is one of wikipedias flaws. Most of its editors value consensus over fact. 162.83.226.72 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, if you can't play by the rules, why are you here? FWIW Bzuk 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Facts, Facts. It's got nothing to do with rules but the information is taken straight (WORD FOR WORD)from the air force FACT file on the F-22. There really is nothing to discuss. 162.83.226.119 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Wikipedia editors follow. The basic tenets of Wikipedia use include:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
• Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
• Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
• Act in good faith;
• Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
• Assume good faith on the part of others, and
• Be open and welcoming.

At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. FWIW Bzuk 06:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

BZuk, unless I'm greeatly mistaken, this is a user (Wikizilla) who has been banned for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's already demonstrated it's not interested in rules. Let's try to concentrate on forming a consensus without it, since they have no interest in gaining a consensus. For the record, gaining a consensus is not about ignoring "facts", but about convincing others that your facts are what should be presented. The USAF calls it an "Air dominance fighter", and no one disputes that, nor is anyone saying that can't be in the text. Should we use what is apparently a marketing term to describe one individual type fighter in the Infobox? The infobox is there to present a quick summary of information to those unfamilar with the type, or those wanting a quick overview. As such, we should use more general categories, not plane-specific terms. THose who disagree should focus on why such a narrow term should be used in the infobox. Up to this point, no attempt has been made to do this. Instead, a bunch of quotes have been thrown out, and then unilateral changes made to the article. So please: convince us, but don't insult us. - BillCJ 06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, again, you make perfect sense. No use arguing with someone who is looking to pick a fight. However, I think it would be useful to establish a few "standard" infobox designations: Fighter, Bomber, Reconnaissance aircraft, Fighter-bomber, and so on. FWIW Bzuk 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

“You are really splitting hairs.” – Not at all ... unless you call someone else offering better facts than yours “splitting hairs”. Frankly, ‘70’, the fact is that neither of the links you offered as evidence that “supports” your claims truly does so (“word for word” or otherwise). Moreover, it's irrelevant as far as the infobox goes, as I and BillCJ. Furthermore, what ‘162’ (same person, different IP?) calls an “air force FACT file” was clearly an advertising flier published by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. I do agree with ‘162’ on one thing, which is that further discussion does appear useless with anons who believe that their being able to unilaterally impose their opinions, posturing as “facts”, upon Wikipedia makes Wikipedia “flawed”. (BTW, it is not vandalism to remove facts – assuming they really are such – from an article if they are irrelevant to an article or to a particular section of it.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 Two thirds of the way down the page: "Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter" The last time I looked that URL clearly comes from the air force. Notice the URL af=air force mil=military domain. Not exactly an advertising flier published by Lockheed. In fact http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 is the one for the F-15. Made by Boeing. Notice further on the F-22 page at the bottom. The contact is Point of Contact

"Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or (757) 764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil" Hmmm Air Combat Command that must be some marketing organization I guess.

• Funny, like AF and .mil takes decoding. Watch the smarta- edit summaries and be civil. The military does "marketing" to get public and political support for their hardware. And it's not a new thing. -Fnlayson 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So tell me then, what is not "marketing"? Was it marketing when the the air force used the term air superiority fighter with the F-15. Your premise is ridiculous. Lets discount any citation from the air force about the plane. Of course its all just PR. Now we throw out citations from the air force about their fighter. Hahaha. Wiki falls to new lows. It would be funny except that anytime you do a search on something wikistupidity shows up in the top three entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't kowtow to everything the military says. Technical specs, fine. Fancy terms that no one else uses, to describe its newest fighter? Not fine. The funny thing about your comment above, about the sources you're using, is that you ignored that the POC is the Public Affairs Office, which is very much the military's very biased PR and marketing organization. Parsecboy 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Try again. I was referring to the two references you gave early in this section beginning with "Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here...". Apparently you can only be bothered to seek better sources when your bad ones are exposed. Perhaps careless inattention is why you keep seeking to put a marketing name in an infobox that calls for a generic name? Or do you just like trolling? Tell you what, if you can find the USAF's formal definition of "Air Dominance" – it's available, but I don't know if it's online – and show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter", then we can default to your desire. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My desire has been met with the term "fighter". Air Superiority clearly is not what the AF is calling it and whether it's PR or not it's their plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit war on the main article constituted a contravention of Wikipedia:Content forking; contentious issues should be deliberated first on the talk page. Continuing in this manner will result in future administrative actions. FWIW Bzuk 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC).