Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Cockpit

I propose adding a new sub-secton, immedaitely after Avionics, entitled "Cockpit", with suitable references, using some or all of the following information:

Cockpit

Overview

The cockpit was one of the first so-called “glass-cockpits” without traditional round dials, standby or dedicated gauges and represents a marked improvement on the cockpit design of previous jets.

Start Up

There are only three steps to take the F-22 from cold to full readiness for takeoff: the pilot places the battery switch 'on,' places the auxiliary power unit switch momentarily to 'start' and then places both throttles in 'idle.' The engines start sequentially right to left and the auxiliary power unit automatically shuts down. All subsystems and avionics are brought on line and built-in testis are made. Navigation information and pilot's personal avionics preferences are loaded automatically. The airplane can be ready to taxi in less than 30 seconds after engine start.

HMI

The GEC-built monochrome Head-Up Display (HUD) offers a wide field of view (30 horizontal, 25 vertically) and serves as a primary flight instrument for the pilot. The HUD is approximately 4.5 inches tall with standardized symbology compatible with that used head down. The HUD is planned to also have a rubber buffer strip on it that will effectively shield the polycarbonate of the canopy when it flexes during a bird-strike and should prevent it shattering. Design is also underway for a HUD that will collapse during a bird-strike. The Integrated Control Panel (ICP) is the primary means for manual pilot entry of communications, navigation, and autopilot data. Located under the glare shield and HUD in the upper centre the instrument panel, this keypad entry system also has some double click functions, much like a computer mouse for rapid pilot access/use. There are six liquid crystal display (LCD) panels in the cockpit. These present information in full colour, are fully readable in direct sunlight and offer less weight and size than traditional CRT displays. Two Up-Front Displays (UFDs) (3"x4") located to the left and right of the ICP are used to display Integrated Caution/ Advisory/ Warning (ICAW) data, communications/ navigation/ identification (CNI) data and also serve as the Stand-by Flight instrumentation Group and Fuel Quantity Indicator (SFG/FQI). The Stand-by Flight Group also presented on LCD, shows basic information, such as artificial horizon, needed to fly the aircraft in IMC. The SFG is tied to the last source of power in the aircraft, so if everything else fails, the pilot will still be able to fly the aircraft. The colour Primary Multi-Function Display (PMFD) (8"x8") is located in the middle of the instrument panel, under the ICP. It is the pilot's principal display for aircraft navigation (including waypoints and route of flight) and Situation Assessment (SA). Three Secondary Multi-Function Displays (SMFDs) (6.25" x 6.25") are located on either side of the PMFD and under the PMFD between the pilot's knees. These are used for displaying tactical (both offensive and defensive) information as well as non-tactical information (such as checklists, subsystem status, engine thrust output, and stores management).

Integrated Caution, Advisory and Warning System (ICAW)

To reduce pilot workload in flight, the uniquely designed integrated caution, advisory and warning system (ICAW) can display a total of 12 individual ICAW messages at one time on the up-front display and additional ones can appear on sub pages of the display. All ICAW fault messages are filtered to eliminate extraneous messages and tell the pilot specifically and succinctly what the problem is. For example, when an engine fails, the generator and hydraulic cautions normally associated with an engine being shutdown are suppressed, and the pilot is provided the specific problem in the form of an engine shutdown message. ICAW also incorporates an electronic checklist. If multiple ICAWs occur, their associated checklists are selected by moving a pick box over the desired ICAW and depressing the checklist button. Associated checklists are automatically linked together.

Cockpit Display Symbology

Enemy aircraft are shown as red triangles, friendly aircraft as green circles, unknown aircraft as yellow squares, and wingmen are shown as blue. Surface-to-air missile sites are represented by pentagons, along with an indication of missile type and its lethal range. An in-filled triangle means that the pilot has a missile firing-quality solution against that target. The pilot has a cursor on each screen, and he can use this to request ask extra information more information. The Inter/Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) allows a number of F-22 to be linked together to trade information without radio calls with each F-22s in a flight or between flights.

Hands-On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS)

The F-22 features a side-stick controller (like an F-16) and two throttles that are the aircraft's primary flight controls. The GEC-built stick is located on the right console with a swing-out, adjustable arm rest. The stick is force sensitive and moves only about one-quarter of an inch. The throttles are located on the left console. HOTAS switches, both shape and texture coded, are used to control more than 60 different time-critical functions.

Accommodation

The cockpit accommodates the 0.5 to 99.5 percentile, i.e. the body size of the central 99% of the U.S. Air Force pilot population. This represents the largest range of pilots accommodated by any tactical aircraft now in service. The rudder pedals are adjustable. The pilot has 15-degree over-the-nose visibility as well as excellent over-the-side and aft visibility.

Lighting

The cockpit interior lighting is fully Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible, as is the exterior lighting. The cockpit panels feature extended life, self-balancing, electro-luminescent (EL) edge-lit panels with an integral life-limiting circuit.

Life Support

The F-22 life support system integrates all critical components of clothing, protective gear, and aircraft equipment necessary to sustain the pilot's life while flying the aircraft. In the past, these components had been designed and produced separately. These include:  An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) that supplies breathable air to the pilot.  An integrated breathing regulator/anti-g valve (BRAG) that controls flow and pressure to the mask and pressure garments.  A chemical/biological/cold-water immersion (CB/CWI) protection ensemble.  An upper body counter pressure garment and a lower body anti-G garment acts a partial pressure suit at high altitudes.  An air-cooling garment, also to be used by pilots on the Army's RAH-66 Comanche helicopter providing thermal relief for the pilot.  Helmet and helmet-mounted systems including C/B goggles and C/B hood; and the MBU-22/P breathing mask and hose system. Escape-system tests have proven the life-support system to wind speeds of up to 600 knots. Current life-support systems are designed to provide protection only up to 450 knots. The head mounted portions of the life-support system are approximately 30 percent lighter than existing systems, which improves mobility and endurance time for pilots. With its advanced design, the HGU-86/P helmet that will be used by F-22 pilots during EMD reduces the stresses on a pilot's neck by 20 percent during high-speed ejection compared to the current HGU-55/P helmets. The F-22 helmet fits more securely as the result of an ear cup tensioning device and is easily fitted to a pilot's head. The helmet provides improved passive noise protection and incorporates an Active Noise Reduction (ANR) system for superior pilot protection. The chemical/biological/cold water immersion clothing meets or exceeds Air Force requirements and fit a wider range of sizes and body shapes (the central 99%).

Canopy

The canopy is approximately 140 inches long, 45 inches wide, 27 inches tall, and weighs approximately 360 pounds. It is a rotate/translate design, i.e. comes down, slides forward, and locks in place with pins. The canopy's transparency (by Sierracin) features the largest piece of monolithic polycarbonate material being formed today. It has no canopy bow and offers the pilot superior optics (Zone 1 quality) throughout (not just in the area near the HUD) and offers the requisite stealth features. The canopy is resistant to chemical/biological and environmental agents, and has been successfully tested to withstand the impact of a four-pound bird at 350 knots. It also protects the pilot from lightning strikes. The 3/4" polycarbonate transparency is actually made of two 3/8" thick sheets that are heated and fusion bonded, with the sheets melding to become a single-piece and then drape forged, i.e. no laminate as in the F-16. Post-ejection canopy-seat-pilot collision has been designed out as the framed canopy weighs slightly more on one side than the other slices nearly ninety degrees to the right as it clears the aircraft.

ACES II Ejection Seat

The Ejection Seat is an improved version of the ACES II (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) used in nearly every other U.S.A.F. jet combat aircraft, with a centre mounted ejection control. Improvements over the previous seat models include: - An active arm restraint system to eliminate arm flail injuries during high speed ejections. - An improved fast-acting seat stabilization drogue parachute system to provide increased seat stability and safety, located behind the pilot's head and is mortar-deployed. - A new electronic seat and aircraft sequencing system that improves the timing of the ejection event sequence. - A larger oxygen bottle providing more breathing air to support ejection at higher altitudes (if required). The system utilizes the standard analogue three-mode seat sequencer that automatically senses the seat speed and altitude, and then selects the proper mode for optimum seat performance.

Discussion

Please offer your views and/or suggestions. Many thanks, Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One major thing this needs before it can be added into the article is some sourcing. It could also use some more wikilinks. A couple of specific fixes that I noticed in a brief scan of the proposed section are:

• the "centre" in the ACES II section needs to use American English
• U.S.A.F. -> USAF per MOS guidelines

Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Many thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Two small points, the first being that it is large amount of information that will require sourcing and the second is that it is a large amount of information. Have you considered a sub-article based on this material? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Many thanks. I agree a sub-aticle would be much better. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First look inside of the F-22.--HDP (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's a really good link HDP. Many thanks. Even though it's only the demonstrator in a dome, it gives a really good idea of pllot interaction with the displays via XY cursor. I think it would be a useful link in the artcile itself. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the dedicated cockpit page, does the paragraph in the main article really need to be expanded and if so by how much? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it should have more than just 1 sentence like does now. Something that touches on why it is the zenith in glass-cockpit design. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Will see what I can do. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Protection of this page has expired and I've not renewed it. Broad consensus seems to exist as to what cost to include in the article, and a compromise solution was held out last week to the one dissenting voice. That editor has not commented on the suggested solution. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No solution yet, since no change yet. Just because you dont comment on christmass eve dosent mean you have changed viewpoint. The problem existed before and it still exist now. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC) The price used in this article is based on original research, and false research that it. I wanted to correct this but was prevented, also i wanted to improve the cost section with UPC and unit program cost, so readers see what is what, with refference to what the difference is, but this too is prevented, eventhough we have clarl numbers fom 3 US congress agencies. In short, stop original research in fly away cost, which is manipulated numbers cherrypicked for small quantities with low pricetags in a multiyear contract. Using single year budget estimates in multiyear contract as source for the real price is something no economist would ever do. the 20 f-22's you picked the pricetag of isnt even active yet. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is resolved. Consensus has been reached; it need not be unanimous. The fact that you couldn’t sway consensus to your cherry-picked highest-number-ever-reported price for the F-22 does not make the officially released numbers “original research” or “false research”; it just simply doesn’t suit the objective of your personal POV campaign. For someone who styles himself “FinancialModel”, you seem to possess little knowledge of commercial economics in general or US budget processes specifically. If you did, you would not make so many absurd statements and claims (such as mistaking “UPC” – the abbreviation for “Unit Program Cost” – as two different things).

Any budget analyst familiar with the aerospace industry would be surprised to hear that “flyaway cost” is “original research”; rather, they would recognize it as a very traditional type of cost (that had been around and used for decades before UPCs came into use). They also understand that airplanes don’t have just one cost, but a range of different costs, each including different things and used for different purposes – and they appreciate that only the same types of costs should be used in comparisons. Any professional economist is well aware of the “bath tub effect” in the production costs of manufactured items: As production ramps up, production teams advance up their learning curves, and production rates approach the most economically efficient production rate, the cost initially drops, then stabilizes for a long period, until production begins tapering off at the end of the product’s life, when costs rise as production rates move away from the optimum. You might be surprised to learn that economists actually do consider the latest price to be the most accurate current price of a commodity, and use it in preference to prices of several years previously. They also understand that the whole purpose of a multi-year contract is to stabilize production for lower cost to the producer and a lower price for the buyer – and that that’s considered a good thing. This is all Econ 101, really. It's a new year, so why don't you please resolve to put aside the disruptive trolling and try to be a constructive editor instead? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just don't forget that the majority of people that read the article are neither budget analysts nor familiar with the aerospace industry; not to mention disinclined to read six articles just to understand one. Articles being difficult to understand was one of the things the Nature review of wikipedia found as a flaw. Articles, or large parts of them, are all too often written by experts in a way that assumes an advanced understand of the general topic, and requires one to decipher; particularly the science articles. Just try to keep in mind how the things in the article look to someone that doesn't have all that specialized knowledge. If it's all written with that one thing in mind, these sorts of problems will be a lot harder to push. More information and more clarity are nearly always better than less. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate to poke in again, but after some thought, and finding some articles in the WP namespace that I hadn't seen before, I feel more than a little compelled to do so. I think I can more clearly explain what I was trying to say back in December now. I gather the controversy has largely been resolved, but I know that I can sometimes be less than clear in getting things across, and was apparently so in this case.

First a couple minor, but relevant, personal details. I'm a huge fan of the F-22. Have been ever since I heard about the thing. I've been using the nick 'Graptor' since 1998, a personalized version of 'Raptor', a term I've had something of a fascination with since I first heard it. When the F-22 got named 'Raptor' it was already my favorite aircraft, bar none, but that was one hell of a bonus. I'd give damn near anything to fly one of the things, impossible though that may be.

Thing is though, it's a surprisingly controversial aircraft. Specifically the US Congress decided they didn't like the amount of money being spent on it, and wanted to cut it, but at that point the only way to cut it was to cut procurement. Which they did. Repeatedly. It's such a controversial topic that it's actually managed to creep into the mainstream media from time to time, with the issue of costs always coming up. Nearly always a cost-per-aircraft is cited, most recently generally in the neighborhood of $185 million, though in some cases as a derivative of the total program cost divided over the number of aircraft, a figure which goes up dramatically with lessened procurement.

Wikipedia for, as far as I can determine, completely valid reasons, uses the 'flyaway cost', which is, as I've gathered from the comments available, simply what it would cost if you went to Lockheed Martin/Boeing and wanted to buy one right off the line, with all the startup and development costs excluded. This figure is far lower than generally quoted figures, in particular as regards the controversial issue: the perceived high cost of the program as related to the number of aircraft acquired.

The problem is in fact pretty much specific to this one aircraft as far as the cost goes, and exclusively because of the controversy involved. Laypeople who hear of the controversy may very well come to wikipedia looking for more information. To such a person, the fact that flyaway cost was being used wasn't apparent, what 'flyaway cost' referred to is/was not readily apparent, and perhaps most importantly, the reason the flyaway cost differs so drastically from the figures often quoted by the opponents of additional procurement isn't readily apparent either. Combined they could serve to produce more edit wars(well meaning users changing 'unit cost' to what they think is the 'right' number based on other sources, not understanding why flyaway cost is used), a general confusion among people seeking information on that topic(particularly if they don't read further into the article. Many of them will probably be looking for confimation of a figure only and not more in-depth information), and perhaps worst of all, lead some to conclude that wikipedia is simply wrong.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the issue regarding the procurement and costs of the F-22 is far from dead. The US Air Force has never been happy with the number of aircraft congress has authorized, and the recent discovery of structural problems in at least part of the F-15 fleet could very well bring it right back to the fore. If it does end up being used as an argument for increased procurement of the F-22 to replace, rather than supplement, the F-15 fleet(as was intended by the Air Force all along!), it's all too likely the ensuing discussion will drive even more people to this article, and all the more important that it be clear to those people.

It was once said that there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. The whole controversy over the cost contains massive amounts of the latter, and it being a substantial issue that's dogged this aircraft for many, many years, I tend to think it requires some extra effort to make very clear, to the layman specifically seeking such information, what the actual numbers involved actually are within the article itself. Flyaway cost is a great, useful addition, particularly for an infobox. It just needs to be clear to some random person reading the article that is flyaway cost(achieved! yay!), what specifically 'flyaway cost' refers to, and how it relates to the other numbers they'd have heard tossed around so they can understand why it's so much lower.

-Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the procurement section very clear on the cost of the F - 22, it clearly states the current cost, and why the cost is so high. However, I would change the unit cost in the blue box at the top to a current unit cost at 339 million, and an additional unit cost at 137.5 million. This would clarify the difference to the casual observer. TwistedWeasel (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

I am requesting a discussion to fend off an edit-revert "conflab." I had placed the paragraph in this section as it provided a general statement regarding the capability of the F-22. I also consider the edit a "good faith" edit which necessitates other editors to alter or revise but not to outright revert the passage unless it contravenes MoS or other stipulations. The discussions on this page do not specifically address the issue. Read Help:Reverting, For your convenience:

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism> , or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism> .

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

• The comparison paragraph in the lead was part of the Comparisions section that we decided to remove in October. See Oct. 23 version. Some could say it falls under that consensus or does not. I think the paragraph should be moved to the Design section or just removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I think that the USAF and a fairly current high ranking RAAF officer are sufficient sources to include this on the basis of notability by recognized experts in the field. Obviously the "best" is going to be somewhat subjective. That however is not the point of including it in here. I think the real reason why it needs to be included is to put in context why the USAF is willing to pay upwards of 130M for each copy. I think how the air force and other experts aside from the manufacturer view the aircraft and the importance of the ability in their eyes at least to dominate the skies is very much relevant. While it may not belong in the lead paragraph I do think it is important enough to include it somewhere. Last, I was not the one who put it there originally. I noticed that it was recently removed (and that it was sourced) without discussion.Downtrip (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the opinion of, say, engineers would matter. The opinion of military officers on engineering design is not worth much. If only because "best" means nothing. Is it the fastest plane? Has it the longer range? Is it the stealthiest? Is its design so good that vast quantities for absurdly low price were produced? Etc. I think this sentence should simply be removed.

And it has another problem. It attracts fanboys, trolls, etc.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyrille, I see your point, these are pretty "broad" statements and even though they are sourced, are subject to controversy. The reason for my moving the passage up into the "lead" was that it seemed to be a defining statement of the purpose of the aircraft, ie. as an "air superiority" weapons system. I certainly am open to suggestions as to what to do with the statements and if the consensus is to alter, revise, reposition or even redact or remove them them, so be it; my main contention in initiating this discussion "string" is to engage discourse as well as stymie an edit/revert war. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

I understand the point, I'll just note that it is not so much a question of sources, but of relevance of opinion. My suggestion would be to keep the U.S. Air force opinion (they are users/buyers, after all), and remove the "external" opinions -- I don't believe Australia is considered for exports, or if it were, the cost of buying this plane would be outrageously prohibitive.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it attracts fanboys or trolls should be irrelevant to the discussion. Either it stays because it has merit or it does not. I think that is very much a slippery slope. Should no controversial information be given on Wikipedia because it may upset someone?Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It attracts troll only if it is open to partial interpretation. The current version is pretty good.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinion on military officers, many of whom have advanced engineering degrees are at the end of the day the most relevant opinions. It is their entire rational for buying the jet in the first place. If we put in price then we need to put in why they are willing to pay the price. The user feels that it is the best jet period. I am not here to argue if it is or is not. They think so and that is what matters.Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This, I disagree with. Indeed, they specifically do not pay the price: the taxpayer does. The engineering opinion of an aeronautical engineer has value, the tactical/strategic opinion of an officer has value. Any opinion of anyone saying item X is the best in category Y is utterly uninteresting except if you are interested in the person's opinion.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As for Angus Houston's comments. Again, a high ranking officer in a friendly air force that has close ties to the USAF, has no competing interest(other contemporary jets are not manufactured in Australia), and does in fact have an interest in buying F-22s somewhere down the road is again very relevant. Do a bit of research on current events. There is a large and vocal contingent in Australia that would like to see them buy F-22s instead of Super Hornets and F-35s.Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There might well be, but this does not mean the US would sell them, or that those wanting to buy F-22 are a (political) majority. Minority opinions on WP should be labelled as such.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am all for moving it to the characteristics section of the entry but it should not be removedDowntrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In the end it comes down to this: you think those opinion adds value to the article, I think they don't. I will not edit to get it removed, because I have no strong feelings about it, but I would support a move for deletion.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since downtrip calls for peer reviewed references. This should removed! This is not backuped per peer reviewed references! Then must 99% of this F-22 article and Wikipedia be deleted. Or measure we here with double standards, downtrip? --HDP (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

HDP, please review WP:POINT and WP:AGF. Nowhere in this section does he call for peer reviewed references in the stated capacity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think HDP means for the Eurofighter Typhoon. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • HDP, note the word "claim". There is a difference. Claims are included all the time in articles. The USAF, and at least one high ranking member of the RAAF publicly states that they feel it is the best fighter. Again whether it is is is not is irrelevant here. It does however speak volumes as to why the USAF, the RAAF, and the JDSF all either want it or want more of them despite the cost. That I think is an important fact that should be included.Downtrip (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

With Claims is that such a thing. You can claim that black is white. You can claim that the F-22 are optical invisible. Is it therefore true? How can an RAAF officer claim the F-22 would be the best machine? How much F-22 has the RAAF?

@BQZip01; Downtrip calls in Eurofighter and 4th generation fighter for peer reviewed references! He measure here with double standards!--HDP (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"SENIOR SKY"

Is that what you wanted when you asked for citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.17.128 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• None of these links: [1][2] [3] listed in your edit summary appear to be valid references. So no. Also, references should be put in article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Fnlayson, none of these are reliable sources. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether to remove the reference to "Senior Sky" again or not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did my best to follow the link, but it was no good. Maybe an active link on the page. Supergodzilla^20|90 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which link? All of the 3 above worked for me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was talking about the link that the IP posted in his edit summary, I followed that one. Supergodzilla^20|90 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually 74.134.17.128 posted 3 links (listed above) in the edit summary. No biggies though... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything with internet searches on *.mil & *.gov domains. I'll check my books at home later to verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[4] and [5] list Senior Sky for Advanced Tactical Fighter, but I would think it belongs in the ATF article not here since it doesn't appear to be specific to the F-22 alone. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever float's your boat. Supergodzilla^20|90 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22 in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

I'm unsure whether adding info in the pop culture section is necessary, but it does raise something interesting. In the film, the F-22 drops a nuclear bomb which is not fitted with a JDAM. I'm not sure if this is possible

May be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.38.87 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, considering the yield, fitting a JDAM guidance unit really isn't necessary. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

JDAM is just a kit that converts a 'Dumb Bomb' into a guided one, literally by bolting on the relevant fins and electronics. Thus as far as holding and dropping it, there really isn't any difference other than the electronics hookups. As long as the onboard computer had the appropriate software to calculate and display the impact point to the pilot,(CCIP for example) there's no reason it couldn't use an unguided bomb. So long as the bomb would physically fit in the bay or on one of the wing hardpoints(though as discussed, using the wing hardpoints DESTROYS the stealth). -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

EMD

The article uses the acronym "EMD" several times without explaining it. Anyone who knows what's meant by that, please add it in. --Reuben (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Stands for engineering and manufacturing development. It's the phase after flight testing involving the beginning of full production leading up to initial operational capability. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! My guesses were totally wrong. --Reuben (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear munitions

I believe, but I have no confirmation, that the F-22 is capable of carrying current air dropped/launched nuclear munitions. The B83 nuclear bomb article states that it is capable of being delivered by the F-22, but it has no citations. Is it possible that we can find citations for this? — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-helpful poking around: both the B83 and the B61 are approx 2 feet longer than the 1000 pound JDAMs the F-22 is stated to be able to carry internally, in fact they're closer in size to a 2000 pound JDAM than a 1000 pounder at about 12 feet, at least that's what wikipedia and its sources say. An AMRAAM however is about 12 feet long, so length wise either would probably fit.

Diameter wise you got a different story. B83 is about 18 inches, B61 about 13 inches. A 2000 pound JDAM is either around 18 inches, or a bit over 14 inches, depending on version. A 1000 pound JDAM is either 14 inches or not quite 11, again depending on version.

Weight on the other hand... B83 clocks in at around 2400 pounds, well over what the F-22 is supposedly capable of carrying internally. B61 is about 700 pounds.

Leading to the ultimate conclusion, assuming all this data is right, that if the dang thing can carry a B83, it's probably only on the wing pylons, the bugger's almost without a doubt too big and heavy for the bay. Granted it can probably carry just about anything we've got that's airdroppable on the pylons, as they're estimated at a capacity of 5000 pounds. A B61 might, might be possible internally(though it sounds like it might possibly be a tightish squeeze). Obvious problem there is you'd have to be nuts to carry stuff on the pylons atm, as it completely negates the stealth. Thus while it might be possible, a B83 ain't likely to happen anytime soon. Unless they get those stealth wing pods working and make them freaking big.

Trying to find something to verify that has so far turned up nada. Trying to get something about the B61 possibility in particular is heavily complicated by the fact that an old F-22 Flight Sim(which I have, actually), included such a possibility in the game. Being able to drop nukes was one of the most touted features of the game, so most attempts to link the F-22 to the B61 turn up that game high on the list. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight Correction. I got going so fast that I missed one thing, it's capable of carrying two 1000 pound JDAMs *with* two AMRAAMs, all of it in the bay. This suggests there's some extra room in the bay anyway, potentially allowing for larger sized ordinance if the AMRAAMs are left out(assuming it has an appropriate rack in the center of the bays to hold it, and that it's not too big in diameter to fit. I've got no evidence as to either, pure speculation here). The counter-arguement there is that nowhere have I ever heard anything about it being able to carry a 2000 pound bomb internally, AMRAAMs or not. As the B83 is reasonably close in size and weight to a 2000 pound conventional, finding somewhere that it could carry a bomb of that size would suggest(but obviously not prove) that possibility. Unfortunately, everything I've ever seen or heard indicated that two 1000 pounders was the internal limit. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

That 3rd to last picture/outline of the F-22 is of a YF-22 not the F-22. You may want to specify that. you've done a great job! Theo Wiersema

Just wanted to quote that, too. But it is already done. At least a note should be placed. --84.153.88.14 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unit Cost

I'm questioning the unit cost of the F-22 at ~$140 million. There's a discrepancy with the F-35 Lightning. The F-22 was supposed to be the pinnacle fighter for the USAF. The F-35 was supposed to be a "watered down" version of the F-22 and an F-16 replacement. How is it that we have a ~$140 million unit cost for F-22 and ~$200 million unit cost for the F-35? One of the Wiki's is wrong. I should add that a recent report by the GAO said the F-35 program had ballooned in cost and is also behind schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by gelato (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Flyaway costs are listed for military aircraft in the unit cost field per project policy (and is labeled as such). F-22 unit and flyaway costs have already been discussed plenty here. See Talk:F-22_Raptor/Archive3 -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Black-Out-Button

We need to add black-out-button property. This is very important for F/A-22 Raptor datas. Raptor is the unique fighter jet with black-out-button. 'Cause pilots cannot endure but they can get away at 22+G when incoming an enemy missile. kızılsungur 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have further detail, Kızılsungur, to add about this "property" and any suitable reliable references in support, please add to F-22 cockpit. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if the USAF makes a Unmaned jet fighter, the F-22 or the F-35 would be the ones to do it with. The F-22 is so mauverable that there are things that keep it from killing the pilot! if we took the pilot out and put in a robot, it would be a huge advantage over everyone. We still need maned fighters though. Coolguy0730 —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vectored Thrust?

Was thrust vectoring originally in the plans when the YF-22 was competing with the YF-23? Or was it an addition added later after it had won over the YF-23? Jigen III (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the YF-22 had thrust vectoring before it won over the YF-23, but I also think that the YF-23 had it too. I'm not sure as well. Coolguy0730

• Yea, the YF-22 had vectored thrust. The YF-23 did not. They both had the exhaust heat shielding. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

I see that this article was once a featured article candidate and was rejected due to missing citations and some poor structure in a part or two. The article has advanced since that time and virtually all information that needs a citation have been cited and there still remain a point that needs one (Current total aircraft production).

Is it possible to resend a request to make this article a featured article when the point mentioned above has been cited ? Because otherwise the article is unbiased, has complete information, good pictures and such.

Still new to wikipedia editing so I don't have that much information on this topic. --E.R.UT (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be put up for Good article nomination first, which is a lower standard. If it passes that, then on to featured article review later on. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Opinionated Quotes

I propose the removal of the opinionated, unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning of the F-22 Raptor article. There are two quotes; one from the USAF and one from the Chief of the Australian Defence Force. Both of which are nothing more than the personal views of naturally biased parties. I am of the belief that this does nothing in the way of educating readers on the aircraft. It would require little effort to scour the internet for various quotes regarding other aircraft, and then using them to litter the respective articles, but it would amount to nothing more than compromising the factual authenticity of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unsubstantiated?? All that is properly referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we got another one-edit-wonder posting on a topic that's been under dispute since July 2007 by everybody and his brother's socks. Just be careful here. - BillCJ (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't referenced; I said they were not factual. There is no need to post opinionated items within a factual text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

that they've said it IS factual. If what they said is true is open to debate I suppose. That they're biased in favor the aircraft is undoubtedly true, but keep in mind that *EVERYONE* is biased, including any possible source that can be used, and in fact each and every contributor to the article and any debate about it, including yourself. In your case you sound more than a little hostile and defensive right off the bat, a stance which is likely to attract all sorts of enmity from some of the very people you're trying to convince if it escalates. Keep in mind WP:MASTODONS and we can avoid the kinds of stress, strife, and most importantly punishments that come with such Bad Things as flame wars, edit wars, and personal attacks.

Keep in mind that quotes from people involving the aircraft can be and in this case are indeed relevant to the article. The key is to always, always, always keep in mind wikipedia's very strict Neutral Point of View rules. Any praise, or criticism, should be presented always in a neutral and balanced way. Simply including it does NOT make it non-neutral, unless it's included in a way that presents it as the 'correct' or 'better' point of view. In this case both quotes are qualified as being 'claims'. They are not in fact presented as facts, but as claims by the primary user and a potential user. It is very explicitly stated that they are in fact opinions and not necessarily true simply by the way they are included.

Rather than trying to get them removed(especially by confrontation! That's just bad things waiting to happen), a better response might be to find some illustrations of opposing viewpoints and include them as well, in order to improve the balance of it.

Also Rigdon, a few quick wikipedia tips. If you place a Colon(:) at the beginning of a line, it will indent that line, allowing a 'threading' structure. Each colon added does one indentation. Each level of a thread can be indicated simply by adding one more colon was on the last thread. None for the initial post, one for the reply, two for the reply to the reply, etc, making following the flow of the discussion far easier. You can also automatically sign and datestamp your posts by including four tildes(~) in a row at the end, which can be automatically inserted by clicking the 'sign your username' link just under the bold warning about not using non GFDL compatible text. These two things make attributing specific comments and understanding the discussion far easier on talk pages, and will contribute greatly to getting your point of view heard. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says that the US military is a fan of Michael Bay? If the military could have a favorite director I'm sure he'd be up there, but unless there is a DoD policy on Michael Bay preference or something it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.74 (talk • contribs)

The pop culture section only says "... military's support of director Michael Bay." in regards to letting him film actual aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently read an interesting interview with Gen Zelin of the Russian Air Force, so i decided to add the quote on his view on the Raptor, but apparently it was removed in less than a day. We've already got two extremely western-biased opinionated quotes (almost as if the USAF had edited this article in propaganda purposes), so why is it that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force General Alexander Zelin (an expert opinion if you ask me) is not allowed, while the two existing ones are? How is this neutrality? -MKM7 (talk)

It was removed by another user because it stated General Zelin's opinion of the F-22 compared to the Su-35 as a fact when it's not. Some rewording should fix that. I thought the reference was incomplete. No article title was provided. I could only find that quote on Aviation Week's Area blog page and blogs are not generally considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Most effective air superiority fighter

While I'm pretty sure that the Raptor does work as advertised and that it will kill anything in the skies, do we need phrases like "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft" in the summary section? I mean, considering the amount of money we put into building the thing I should hope it can't be matched by any known fighter aircraft. These "F-22 is the best airplane in the world" comments just sound unnecessary and unprofessional, even coming from official sources Masterblooregard (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

True dat. --Jaewonnie (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any claims are clearly stated as such. These type concerns have been well discussed before. Such as "Lead paragraphs" section above and older discussions in the archive pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why is some Russian bird listed as comparable in the article? -134.50.14.44 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another IP editor added that without giving any reason. Comparable does not equal by the way. It means similar and more specifically per WP:Air/PC guidelines that means aircraft "of similar role, era, and capability". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not saying its better, but the Typhoon is far more expensive, especialy when you consider development costs are split between 700 planes rather than 150. I agree, at least until they have actualy been used in real combat, or even good simulated combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Avionics

The article mentions that the communication bus for the F22 is IEEE1394B. This is incorrect. The F22 uses MIL-STD-1553 and fiber optics for its communications. I believe the person who entered this may have gotten the F22 confused with the F35 which is using IEEE1394B as its primary communications bus. EastonBats (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to find LM reference or direct USAF reference to MIL-STD-1553 being used, however numerous military reporting websites, the Digital Data Corp and a document titled "TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_32.pdf" all refer to MIL-STD-1553 as the communications bus for the F-22. EastonBats (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Other names for the F-22

Why is it I get a warning for being a vandal when I put in the quote (Sometimes referenced as "Starscream") because I know alot of people that call the F-22 "Starscream" and some news reports nickname the F-22 as "Starscream". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Starscream is a Transformers character, one that changes into an F-22 in the move, as covered in the Pop culture section. Without your above explanation, it looked as if that was what you were referring to, and that was why I warned you. ALot of aircraft have nicknames,a nd some have several, but most are not notable. On Wikipedia, "Notable" means that it has sources which show that it is notable or important. Warthog for the A-10 is definitely notable, and so universally known that no sources are really needed, tho it probably appears in every book written on or covering the A-10. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda see where you're getting at Bill. But to give me a slap across the face was a bit much. In my opinion, if you give a item a nickname, you embrace that name. For example you, what would you like to be called more, Bill or William? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear: It looked like vandalism, that's why I warned you. Nevertheless, it's a non-productive edit, and would have been removed by someone anyway. You've already removed the warning, so that's a moot point now. So far, you've shown no reliable sources that the nickname is even used for the F-22, much less that it is notable. Futher, the only references I have seen for the name are for the Transformer, not the F-22 itself. By the way,"Lightning II" "Raptor" is the official name assigned to the F-22 by the USAF, not "nickname" per se. - BillCJ (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Um...Bill? I'm sure you meant "Raptor". The Lightning II is the F-35... — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oops! Thanks BZip! I do know the difference, just accessed the wrong brain file when I typed that. Of course, "Lightning II" was Lockheed's preference for the F-22! - BillCJ (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Combat sorties

"This weapon platform has never flown a combat sortie in any theater of operations." I guess you're not considering air intercept missions as combat sorties.[6] I would think the Air Force would disagree with that statement. If you have a problem with the F-22's apparent/current lack of ground attack capability, provide a citation for this criticism. A hammer makes a poor screwdriver, but you're not editing the hammer article pointing that out. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture Source

Maybe I misunderstood this considering the placing of the "citation needed" mark, but it appears that the article is asking for a source that Tony Stark is Iron Man. Is that really necessary for the article? Spartan198 (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

• The tag was requesting a reference saying the F-22 had a notable appearance in Iron Man. This is covered in the hidden notes in the Pop culture section or read text at {{NoMoreCruft}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: "19:50, 22 October 2008 BillCJ (Talk | contribs) (67,477 bytes) (Undid revision 247009194 by 192.91.147.35 - minor, non-notable appearnce; one day I'd like to meet a gamer who reads above a 4th grade level) (undo)"

Actually, I'm an F-22 engineer who's worked on that particular jet (4006). Just once I'd like to meet a Wikipedia nerd who actually knows what he's talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's in reference to the very long disclaimer in the Pop culture section asking for new additions to be discussed first. You obviously had no trouble finding the discusion after the fact. BTW, it's still a minor, non-notable appearance. - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about thrust

I'm looking for some clarification about the F-22 engine's thrust. I've been going to various articles about fighters and trying to compare the levels of thrust and thrust to weight ration etc, but when I came to this one I see that the quoted figures are not in the same format as in the other articles. For instance in the Eurofighter article there are two separate figures provided for the thrust i.e. "Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each. Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,000 lbf) each", whereas this article only provides a single figure "Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans, 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each". So does this figure mean it has 156 kN Dry thrust or 156 kN Thrust with afterburner? Or is it that this engine system doesn’t distinguish between the two? (i.e. is 156 kN the Maximum or Average thrust?). So anyone know about this? --Hibernian (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For any article without dry power thrust listed, then the thrust listed is max thrust. That's one of the most common spec provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor Weapons Acquisition - IEEE article

The F-22 is featured on the cover of the November, 2008 IEEE Spectrum magazine under the title "Weapons Acquisition - Spending Too Much, Getting Too Little." (see http://spectrum.ieee.org/weapons )
The article cites a number of DoD programs, and includes a separate sub-article entitled "F-22: Success, Failure, or Both?" which provides a brief discussion of the F-22 acquisition and outlines its acquisition history, framing it as a failure (see http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/6931/weapsb1 ).

My question is whether/where/how to bring up this aspect of a weapons system, since it could be useful in classifying this weapons system's effectiveness. I'd like to know how experienced Wikipedians would deal with this dimension of this article in particular, and weapon systems in general.

See also Controversy section of V-22 Osprey article [7]Transformasian (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article already has plenty of coverage on the high costs of the F-22 program. It has just entered service in the last couple of years, so any statements about the fighter being unsuccessful are premature. That article does not really say that much anyway. Criticism/Controversy sections are just magnets for unsourced and often biased additions. No need for a dedicated section for that anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Should the IEEE article be cited somewhere? It does show the F-22 on the cover. Transformasian (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does F-22's thrust vectoring shorten its takeoff and/or landing?

Or no? — ¾-10 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, with gear down is the TVC locked for oscillation preventing, as experience from the YF-22 crash.--HDP (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention Iron Man Movie

In the 2008 film Iron Man, there is an extensive scene where Iron Man is engaged by a pair of F-22 Raptors. I know at my school, it is one of the landmark scenes that made the film recognizable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.13.59 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Loaded weight

How do we estimate the "loaded weight"? Would that be plane+fuel? If the empty F22 weights 19,700 kg and the internal fuel is given with 8,200 kg, how can the loaded planes weight be 25,107 kg?--HTG2000 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Loaded weight is often the normal takeoff weight. In other words a typical weapons load and not a full fuel load. Not sure where the value listed in the specs came from. It looked reasonable before the recent empty weight change/update. Still have doubts on that... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, I just checked the history and realised that the empty weight changed from ~15t to ~19t. With the old ~15t figure the "25t loaded" makes sense: ~15tplane+~8tfuel+~1tweaponary. But with the new 19t figure its all messed up. Wouldn't that mean we have to change the "loaded weight" and also the t/w ratio?--HTG2000 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some math and with the updated "empty weight" the "loaded weight" should be ~29.200kg (empty weight+8.2t fuel+6AMRAAM+2AIM9+pilot) That would make a T/W ratio of 1,09. Does everybody agree? --HTG2000 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, those estimated/calculated numbers look reasonable but that seems like original research. I'd say to just delete the loaded weight values from those fields if they weren't used for the thrust to weight ratio. Wait until the data is provided by a valid source. Any other ideas, anybody? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the "19t empty" figure given by LM and USAF is true the figures given for "loaded weight" and the t/w-ratio in the Wiki-article are definitely wrong. The problem is that my calculations are based on estimates (weapons/fuel), but so were the previous figures for "t/w" and "loaded weight". I checked the sources given for the "Specifications" section and none of them gave an actual t/w or "loaded weight" figure. Maybe we should remove both figures and replace them with a "Specification needed"-tag? I dont dare to do it myself..:) --HTG2000 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The German Wiki had the exact same discussion last night, at least they have a better calculation basis than my estimates: 19700kg(plane) + 8200kg(fuel) + 1142kg (6 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9X) + 292kg (munition for the canon)= 29334kg without Pilot. That makes a t/w ratio of 1.08 (31754/29334=1,08) I guess we should use those figures as they are more exact than my estimates. --HTG2000 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, that's OR, we really need a proper reference, but at least you've specified how you calculated it, so we can reasonably leave it in until the official figure appears.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have to weigh into this and ask, is it normal for a loaded weight to include the maximum internal fuel? I'm not trying to suggest lowering the figure but if you're going to do independent research perhaps it should be established first what the 'standard' fuel load for an F-22A is. There are ranges with different kinds of aircraft ... some light fighters have very limited internal fuel so carry a full load every time ... other heavy fighters are designed to take more internal fuel then is typically required just in case. The fact that the F-22A is a stealth aircraft might add to that. It is often equipped with external tanks BUT theres a good chance they would increase its RCS ... in other words perhaps it was designed so that in the interception role it could carry a 70-80% load of internal fuel, no tanks and still be considered 'loaded'. I suspect this is the case with the Su-27 ... although I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.140.247 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The weight-thrust ratio is ~1:1(from multiple sources) and thrust is 35000 lbs. per engine, so it seems like it is 70000 lbs (~31800 kg). WaffleMaster44 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture References again

After noticing the note in the pop culture section (as I was about to add a link to the stub on the F-22 ADF video game) I thought I'd ask thoughts first. This game doesn't just have the F-22 in it casually, the F-22 is the whole point of it. Also, it is in the orphan project, and I don't see much hope for it if it can't be linked to from here. Thoughts? F-22: Air Dominance Fighter Elliott Shultz (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you ought to expand and add references to that F-22 ADF article first. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There must be a dozen games featuring the F-22 as the main character, some are listed on F-22 (disambiguation). Why don't you link it on the F-22 Total Air War article as its predecessor and the EF2000 (computer game) page as a successor. Beyond that, I can't see a good reason to link this and every other F-22 game on this page. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Please remember that the appearance has to be important/notable to the F-22, not the other way around. The archtypical example is the F-14 and Top Gun. Mention Top GUn, and most people think of Tom Cruise "flying" an F-14. A few "might" even think of Tom Skerrit and an A-4, but not "too" many. :) - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point(s), I esp. had not considered whether the game was notable to the F-22, vs. the other way around, and good idea for the links. Elliott Shultz (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering here. But wasn't there a short copyright fight over the F-22 use in video games? Lockheed thought they could give exclusive use for it, until the US stepped in and said it was public domain, being property of the US. 70.241.247.215 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior to transformers I'm pretty sure the f-22 was featured in the movie The Incredible Hulk, the hulk grabs onto it and the F-22 pilot takes him for a ride. Is this worth mentioning? Seems like that would be it's Hollywood debut but it seems pretty likely that they were CG F-22's and not actual ones considering the angles/shots used. Shatzky (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article clearly states that Transformers was the first major Hollywood debut. Hulk was a brief minor appearance for the F-22. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't call Hulk anything other than major. In fact, it has probably as much screen time as the Transformers version, or very close. Monty2 (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stinks of favoritism towards Michael Bay.

Pop Culture Film Appearance

The article states that the plane made its theatrical debut in The Transformers film. Wasn't there an F-22 action sequence in The Hulk (the scene where he grabs an attacking plane and the pilot ascends until the Hulk blacks out in the upper atmosphere)? I no longer own that movie, so it will take me some time to check. Onikage725 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Read all the wording again and see the Popular Culture References section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had missed that section. Still though, what constitutes major? It isn't like Starscream was a focal point of the TF movie. Maybe my memory is off, but as far as Raptor action goes I recall him shooting a missile at the ground forces in the city and having a brief skirmish with the human Raptor squadron. He takes off when injured, the F-22's pursue, and next time we see Starscream he's running away. Hardly comparable to Top Gun and the F-14. It just seems that the F-22's appearances thus far in films have been relatively brief sequences of the military running afoul of some super-character or another, a scuffle ensuing, and then the film moves on. Onikage725 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I added that. If a complete fight with Hulk, in a scene lasted for several minuts is not notable, so what's the point to have a 'culture pop' section at all. Hulk was a notable movie (who says that Transformer is more notable, after all? Because it was made by Spielberg?) and the scene was surely notable, not a few seconds one, with no intereset. So it's definitively a notable appareance.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

More pop culture notes

USAF publicity photo of Tony Shalhoub and the F-22 during the filming of the final sequence of Mr. Monk and the Astronaut episode circa September 2005.

A recent submission was made to link to a TV appearance. I do not believe it qualifies as notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

THe entry didn't even claim that the F-22 was in the show, just that the show was flimed at the same base as the movie. Still would be a minor non-notable appearance if the F-22 were in the episode, but totally irrelevant if it were not. PS. I don't think it's a good idea to move whole threads out of order for a similar topic 3 months after the last post. FWIW. - BillCJ (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I offered the editor a chance to comment on his edit submissions and I wanted there to be a place where he would find the forum easily. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

• Those older sections cover different pop culture appearances. I had to refer back to an older section before, so moving them together should be of help. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its terribly notable. The F-22 appeared briefly in the final scene with the show's hero standing in front of the aircraft stopping the pilot from escaping. I certainly wouldn't stand anywhere near the intake of an aircraft with running jet engines. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

F-22's radio systems?

Is it me being thick or is there no section on the F-22's radio systems? Royzee (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll look into it. However they may be quite secret, just as they haven't been covered at all. RedSkunk^talk 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AM/FM/XM With 6 disc CD changer. 98.196.167.4 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a 5th Generation fighter; it should have an MP3 player plugin. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wing Loading

the wing loading number seems wrong 29300/78.04 = 375.4 Kg/m^2 and not 322 Kg/m^2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.48.135 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the wing loading numbers to 77 (375). Oraci (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mach Speed

Considering the mach number in the max speed specs, "At Altitude" specifies what altitude ? Mach 2.25 = 2756.35 km/h at sea level. Same deal for the supercruise since Mach 1.82 = 2229.58 km/h E.R.UT (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

With high-performance jet aircraft, "at altitude" usually means anything above 35,000 feet or so, where the speed of sound is constant to well above 100,000 feet, aproximately 660 mph. - BillCJ (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -E.R.UT (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can put in some numbers into Mach calculator on Nasa site to see numerically what BillCJ described. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the max speed is listed at Mach 2.25, since thetest pilot Paul Metz has clearly stated that its max speed exceeds Mach 2.42 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.162.206 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mach 2.25 and associated speeds are cited. Metz stated the speed is over 1,600 mph, which does not appear to be cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mach is actually more limiting than miles per hour as the aircraft will have problems when the control surfaces on the wings run into the shockwave from the nose at well below Mach 2.5. Hcobb (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

DoD Images on Amateur Website

An addition of an external link to an amateur website was reverted as it was a collection of public domain DoD images. Wikimedia is not a web directory and the content could be added to Commons if it added any value to the article. User:ViperNerd appears to think because they are not on commons and it is not his/her job to move them to commons then the link should stay. But despite the link being removed a number of times User:ViperNerd continues to revert the removals on this and the B-2 article. Please note that as well as the above the link is one of links to be avoided #11. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise I suggested at B-2 that we should add the official air force image gallery to the site http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=40 which has more than enough official images to cover any need. This would avoid linking and providing traffic to an amateur website. This would also give time for anybody who wants to to move some to Commons. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a fair compromise to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. --McSly (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a reasonable way to go. ViperNerd (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ban on exports

Why Japan stick to F-22

1)Financial Ministry's 350 Fighters Only Cap,because of twice labor cost as much as other OECD country's troops.

• I'm live in Tokyo. Unfortunately Japan is oriented byLDP =Keidanren(keiretsu)=Beaurocrats complex's origarcy,Keidanren(keiretsu) donate money to LDP and let them decrease income tax and corporate tax.As the result of "Tax dodging" of Keidanren(keiretsu) Japanese goverment sunk in $9.8 Trillion deficit. 6times as much as US. And Japanese beaurocrat's saraly is alomost twice as much as other OECD country's public servant's saraly,at present.
• As the result of $90,000 cost of each troops, over 40% of Japanese defence budget absorved by labor cost of the troops/officers.
• JASDF have 45000Troops and 400 fighters. Each fighter need 70 staff(include indirect staff).70staff's 40years labor cost is $252Million
  • CaseA OneF22+80Troops =Cost$527Million ($275million+$252million)
  • CaseB TwoF35s+160Troops=Cost$724Million( $110millionx2+$504million)
  • CaseA can save $197million

2)Military balance of FarEast rough figure is as follows

• Land Troops(Thousand) China1600 NK1000 US650 SK500 Russ.430 Twn220 Jpn.160
• Tanks Russ.21000 China7000 US7000 NK3000 SK2000 Twn900 Jpn.600
• Fighters US2600 China1700 Russ.1600 Twn.400 NK380 SK380 Jpn.350
• Pacific Amphibious Tank transportation ability US450 China420 Russ.80 Jpn30 SK10
• Pacific submarine China60 US48 Russ.30 NK22 SK20 Jpn16
• If China/Korea say "F-22 change military balance" it is just Propaganda under the balance for above.

List of countries by size of armed forces

3)JSDF is a defending force and they need F4/F-15"INTERCEPTOR's" replacement

• Japan have 300 intercepters(F-4/F-15) and 100 anti-ship attackers(Mitsubishi F-2) and Mitsubishi F-2s are not so aged.
• F-35 is a multirole fighter but an attacker charactor aircraft, which suits to replace Mitsubishi F-2 .

4）Russian/Chinese fighters can not bombing NY but capable to Bombing Tokyo. So main potential threat for Japan is not terolist but 2Big Powers of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

• And Japan and South Korea and Taiwan surrounded by Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Russia's Militaly power have decreased but China's Military Power is arising. China have built world No2 amphibious freet,it is not threat for US but serious threat for Taiwan and Japan.

5)In far east there are 2Pair of devided country which seek unification like Vietnum.

• In 2003 China and North Korea uniratrally aimed 1300 missiles to South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.In 2009 it increased over 2000 missiles more than 1845 SS20s which Soviet Union aimed to Europe at European Cold War era. And more than 1.5million troops are still alarting beside DMZ of Korean peninsula. And North Korean old nationalist generals cannot accept south oriented unification and runnning on the road of Nuke armament. Legacy cold war still exist in far east, becuse of two divided country.

6)How Taiwan and South Korea and Japan asked them, North Korea and China have not Stopped their military expansion.

• Because of huge deficit of the goverment,Japan really hoped mutual disarmament but no chioce.

Merit for US employment and Trade deficit

• If pentagon finish development of "Confidential Part Delited Water downed export variant of F-22" until 2014-2018,and if congress aprove to build 60around F-22s for "bridging production",F-22 export Japan business can susutain 25000 direct employment and 70000poeople's indirect jobs,until 2030-2040. If Israel or Australia order it then employment will be increase.
• In 2007 US Trade deficit to Japan is $82billion,US grobal arm export is $7.5billion. 200 F-22s+150 F-35s value is $74billion

Development cost collection for US taxpayers

• F-22s development cost is $28billion. and unit procument cost is $142million. And US quoted Japan "Water downed Variant development cost" $2.3billion which Japan should pay,Unit salling price $233million per unit, for first lot 40 F-22s.($9.3 billion for 40 F-22s). That mean US taxpayer can recollect F-22's development cost,$91million($233million-$142million)per unit export. If US sell 200 F-22s then US taxpayers can correct $18.2 billion(200x$91million) by FMS. So it is strange Mr Gates complain to $8.5billion 60 F-22s bridge order investments for getting $18.2 billion export revenue for US Taxpayers. If pentagon report"Export is possible"then US Taxpayers can get 60 F-22s by FREE and more over can collect $9.7billion.

Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX

• F-22 is too eary born than her rivals but even if Soviet Union collupted,Russia still capable to develop & equip & export F-22's rival.And rising China also have been developping her indignus 5th Gen. Twin engine Stealth fighter J-XX by using world No2 military expenditure.
• In 2009 Russia start fright test of Sukhoi PAK FA and it will be deployed 2012-2015. J-XX are said to be deployed 2015-2020. If US only build 187 F-22s and close it's production line at 2009,and 2009-2015 Russia and China will start fright test of Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX.And if they deploy 400-600 each Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX,US may lose global air power superiority.
• There are no"stealth fighter mutual disarmament treaty". And China's production cost is much cheaper than OECD countries. At least US need to be wach out how many Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX will be built, before rush to close F-22s production line.
• That's why airfoce General mentioned "close production line at only 187 F-22s is risky, 247 F-22s still moderate risky." --Jack332 (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Even if I pasted Citation some left people continue to revert it. Cited article is not OR. And it is Vandalism to delite inconvenient article without discussion. Wikipedia is Not a propaganda board for left people. If you need more citation pls point out then I will paste citation because I'm not writing OR. --Jack332 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OR/synthesis or not it appears to give undue weight to Japan's needed/wants and is far from well written, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, your english is not nearly polished enough to be editing articles on English Wikipedia. Not a knock on you or any other person with this issue, it's just the way it is. Second, you're not helping your case by using the anonymous IP 202.239.229.7 to try to add this material. Familiarize yourself with WP:SOCKPUPPET. ViperNerd (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi If I have intention to do WP:SOCKPUPPET I will never use My ID. I never do such unfair trick. And I don't think I need to do. If US Export "Confidential part delited F-22" then US taxpater can gain more revenue than Shut down F-22's line now. And L&M's 25000 labor can keep stable employment and 70000 indirect labor can keep their Job. And even Russia/China equip hundreds of twin engine stealth fighter in the near future, US can react smoothly, need not lose air power superiority. I'm honestly recommending. I think it is not the question of Democrats supporter or GOP supporter but the question of US supporter or China/Russia supporter. Of course I support US,I hope US global air power superiority,and I hope US-Japan taxpayer's mutual revenue. Which do you support? ViperNerd? Anyway I hope US NewsPaper need to double check which way is more profitable for US Taxpayes, 1)Immidiately line stop & lose $18.2billion export revenue OR 2)Invest $8.5billion for bridge production and get $18.2billion export revenue. And I will paste citation for proof, what ever you request me. --Jack332 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above - this is not a discussion forum, and neither is the article. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and state facts that come from reliable sources, not personal opinion, no matter how honestly held, or how good an idea continuing production seems to be to individual editors. Much of what you are posting is opinion or original research and does not seem to be backed by reliable sources. Reversion of this is not political bias but conformance with Wikipedia's core values.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The content you recently added makes no connection to the F-22 Rator. It needs to be relevant to F-22 to be covered in this article. Specifics for the Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX belong in those articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the CAG?

Anybody know what happened with this group?

http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=292&yr=2007 A new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” — composed of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials — has launched a comprehensive review of Japan’s fighter requirements. That group will deliver a formal recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eventually President Bush on which American-made war plane Washington should pitch to Tokyo.

Adm. Timothy Keating, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, said he has passed his recommendation that the Raptor not be sold to Japan to that study team. Hcobb (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation rumors

I don't understand why my simple line about cancellation or cutback rumors in the media has been deleted. It made headlines around the world, and it is the most known "recent development" on the F-22 program. If not provided with a rationale, I'll recover it. Please explain. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons were given in the edit summaries when that was removed at least one time. The media is just talking about what might happen at this point. Wikipedia is not a news service (see WP:NOTNEWS). Wait until a decision made... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a news service, then half of the "recent developments" section is inappropiate. I have been reviewing the history of this article and found that any criticism or simple revelation of drawbacks in the F-22 program has been erased and silenced. This is deeply partial and against a fundamental Wikimedia principle (see WP:NPV). Don't get me wrong, I find that the F-22 is a great plane and I'm a follower (that's because I came to the article), but the points of view policy has been handled in a deeply wrongful way here. So I am going to review carefully the editions from now on in order to recover properly verified views (see WP:V), no matter if they're critical or supportive. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama administration is taking "scalps" - cutting military programs - that's no secret, nor a surprise either. The rumors at this point are all just general, with the reporters speculating about what will be cut. If a reporter stated something like "Sources withint the Obama admin/DOD have told me that the F-22 will be cancelled/cut back/whatever by next week," then that is more specific, and probably notable. But that's not the type of rumors being dealt with here. Anyway, we should know something concrete by the end of the month. Unfourtunately. - BillCJ (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually negative news from informal sources has recently been added. Just search for the word "paste" in the current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is objecting to all "negative news from informal sources", just vague claims and suppositions by people who don't actually know what is going to happen. We'll know soon enough. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Right. The stealth maintenance part has an Aviation Week article largely backing up the informal source. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at MaeseLeon’s source; basically, what we have here is a reporter’s misunderstanding of what he is writing about. (A first time for that, eh?) A cancellation of the F-22 would mean abruptly ending an existing production contract. What is actually going on is that the new administration is trying to decide whether to place further orders for the airplane. The DoD was supposed to have decided by March whether to place a firm order for the long-lead items for the first four of another 20-aircraft “Lot 10” batch, but they slipped that to April, and it may now not be until May. The longer the decision is delayed, the more likely it is that there will be a break in production, which would make further orders more costly. The USAF would actually like to have that and two further batches (11 and 12) of the same size before production ends. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

flightglobal writes, Mr. Gates wants to shut down the line.--89.245.230.111 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sec. Gates made a speech yesterday (Apr 6) in which he actually said that, so it's not a rumor anymore. Cited text giving the proposed cancellation was also added to the article yesterday. But thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sec. Gates is for STOPPING PRODUCTION OF ANY NEW F-22's (though, some Air Force generals and Senators don't want him to have his way), but HE ISN'T FOR CANCELING THE WHOLE PROGRAM and destroying those F-22's that are already part of the Air Force arsenal. Gates thinks that the F-22 is the best plane the Air Force has--the thing is, like most of the F-22 critics, he thinks that the F-22 is TOO GOOD, is tops in more areas than a CAPABLE jet needs to be tops in, and that's why it's unnecessarily expensive. Instead, he wants to keep the small numbers of the F-22's that we already have to use as sort of a first strike secret weapon, while making up the rest of the Air Force with cheaper, ALMOST as good, F-35's. Personally, not that it matters here, LOL, I agree with him. Why spend billions more on 100's of more F-22's that 10 years from now may be outclassed by stealth fighters made by other countries. Let's use the F-22's we have, build lots of F-35's, then when other nations build their 5th generation planes, we'll come out after them with even better F-22 Mark 2's.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shutting down the line is not necessarily the same thing as cancelling the program. Gates proposed canceling several programs, such as the VH-71. The F-22 program of record (POR) calls for 183 aircraft, and Gates is proposing 187 – the POR aircraft plus the 4 GWOT supplemental proposed by Congress. (It would actually be fair to say he is proposing extending the program by four aircraft.) "Cancellation" of a program is what happens either prior to its planned entry into production or a work halt imposed in the midst of an ongoing production contract; what Gates is really proposing is "capping" the program at 187 aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yak-43

Regarding the possible desing influences of the Yak-43 on the F-22, please note that both Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, the two most widley published authors of books on Soviet aircraft, have both stated that the similarities between the earlier Yak-43 design and the F-22 are too great for there not to have been an influence. Please remember that Lockheed-Martin was already working very closely with the Yak-43 design team on several systems for the future F-35 at the time the design of the F-22 was being developed. Finally, I would encourage anyone who wants to dismiss this as a possibility to first look at the design drawings of the Yak-43 dating from 1983-1984. There is little doubt that Lockheed-Martin gained a lot more than just VTOL development from their $400 million investment in Yakovlev. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, why don't the Russian's have a plane as good as the F-22 RIGHT NOW??? This is typical of the Russian mentality. They either invent EVERYTHING, or say other countries invent things only by using ripped off info created by Russian scientists or engineers. Perhaps the Russians will go back to saying they invented Baseball again. It is interesting that the "Medium Combat Aircraft" that is being built by both India and Russia LOOKS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE F-22! Check the MCA entry on Wikipedia.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft means more than appearance. They have to be "of similar role, era, and capability" per WP:Air/PC guidelines. Use those sources to cite the F-22 connection in the Yakovlev Yak-41 article.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This nails it. The F-22 is a 5th generation fighter, and the first of a new era. The Yak-43? Not even close, in era or capability. ViperNerd (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The YF-22 was developed in the 80s, and first flew on 29 September 1990; the design was settled long before that. Gunston and Gordon both state that the Lock-Yak cooperation began in 1991. Did Yak also develop time travel?? - BillCJ (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the first time I've heard it suggested that the Yak-43 (or its relatives) influenced the design of the F-22; I think Ken is confusing the Yak-41/141 influenced on the F-35. The role the F-22 was designed for is completely different from that of a STOVL fighter like these Yak designs. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a pic in Y. Gordon's book of one the Yak-41/-43 offshoots, and it does resemble the F-22. However, to even imply a connection without direct supporting statements from reliable sources is too much of a stretch. Companies are capable of arriving at similar designes totally independent of each other. At least that is what we are told re: the Su-24, Tu-144, Buran, etc! Btw, Mark, do you have any cited info on the extent of the relation between the X/F-35B and the Yak-141? We currently have conflicting info based on separate sources. Some discussion is on the F-35 talk page, along with edit warring on the Yakovlev Yak-141 and Yakovlev Yak-43 pages. Some informed opinion at the least would be welcome. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what image Gordon has (perhaps a publisher's error?), but when I look at them, I see no real resemblance at all. The Yak-43 layout follows a clear evolution from the Yak-38 and Yak-41/141. The F-22's layout comes from a variety of factors, not the least of which are signatures reduction. I frankly believe the general layout of the F-22's design was pretty much settled (though tweaking remained) well before the Yak-43 even became known to the West.

As for Yak's influence on the F-35, I've already added a link there to my earlier explanation of the exact relationship. I'll try to see if I can find some sources. Unfortunately, much of this occurred before the Internet became ubiquitous, so there might be little online and I might have to resort to digging through old material in my "spare" time. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on what few drawings one can find of the proposed Yak-43, the "eyeball test" would seem to reveal that the F-22 has much more of its basic layout design in common with the aircraft that it was built to succeed, the F-15. Not a surprise that Lockheed and Boeing (who had access to F-15 design) would choose to take many cues from one of the most capable and successful modern air superiority fighters. ViperNerd (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious: How did Boeing have access to the F-15 design? Were they a subcontractor on the F-15 when the F-22 design was finalized in the late 90s? - BillCJ (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...as it turns out, the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger wasn't finalized until 1997 (my memory had it occurring earlier than that), so I guess any F-15 design material they would have inherited wouldn't have made much difference since Lockheed's design for the YF-22 was well advanced (indeed, it was flying) prior to that date. I still assert that it's apparent that the overall design lineage of the F-22 can be better traced to the Eagle, as the Yak-43 wasn't even on paper when the YF-22 was under development. ViperNerd (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Per BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the X-35 Talk page. With regard to a possible influence of the Yak-41 or Yak-43 on the F-22 design, I've found nothing that would reliably support that, so I would consider the issue here to be moot. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Stealth is a fraud

Apparently the suit has yet to be filed. This moves it below the notability requirement at this moment.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/ex-lockheed-engineer-sues-lock.html "The document shown below is a draft copy of a lawsuit expected to be filed later this week." Hcobb (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article this links to DOES NOT SAY THAT THE STEALTH OF THE F-22 IS A FRAUD, it just says that Lockheed allegedly used some defective stealth coatings instead of the real stealth coatings. Let me guess, the person who wants this article be used as proof that the F-22 has no stealth is a jealous European or Russian, and is thus, like many biased people on Wikipedia, looking for ANY article they can find on the web that they can skew into making the aircraft a fraud, thereby enhancing the prestige of their own nation's aircraft?68.164.6.249 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fraud" is the OPINION of one disgruntled ex-employee fired by Lockheed a decade ago. Not a huge surprise that someone with an axe to grind would make unsubstantiated CLAIMS against his former employer and then file a lawsuit. I think I'll wait until all the facts are in before I line up behind this guy. Even after the suit is filed, this person's claims still will not be notable for an encyclopedic article until some facts are presented to support his case. ViperNerd (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I draw the line here between preparing to sue and actually having a case a judge has accepted. Once it is active in the courts it does become notable one way or another. Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a case accepted before a judge is not necessarily notable. I'm sure the spat between my former landlord and myself made the judge cringe at my landlord's arrogance, but it isn't notable. If the case is resolved and has widespread implications, it would certianly be notable, but not until. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as one has "standing", it isn't very difficult to put a case before a judge, and just because the judge thinks a case should go to trial DOES NOT mean he necessarily thinks the case has truth to it, just that he/she thinks the filer has "standing" and there is POSSIBLY an issue of law at stake.68.164.6.249 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference is a Blog so doesnt meet verifiable either! MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• True. The same site/publisher put out an article on that today. Ex-F-22 engineer to sue FWiW -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still the same single source with nobody else stepping up to collaborate him so it's still under the radar. (Pun intended.) Hcobb (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be under the radar, cause it sure isn't stealthy... (double pun intended) :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reorg to fit the template?

Why not make the F-22 article fit the same template as every other jet fighter? The first step would be to use the same top level categories as say the F-104 Starfighter (1 Development,2 Design,3 Operational history ...) and move all the scattered bits of the current article under these headings. And then reorg the moved subheads until they read smoothly. Any takers? Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the page follows the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, apart from the fact that Accidents/Incidents should be before Aircraft on Display and I have just fixed that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The main sections are all there. Just a lot of subsections under them. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But the subsections wind up in strange places. For example "YF-22 to F-22" under operational history? Hcobb (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some content should be moved, but most of that section is about designation and name changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Developmental crashes go under dev, see: F-100_Super_Sabre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends, but whatever. The name and designation stuff has next to nothing to do with Development however. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gold price

The current amount of gold that can purchase a unit of this particular aircraft is 5,200 kilograms of 24 karat gold. This could be used as a historical reference in case the currency of the U.S. dollar becomes obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.94 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, are you upset that the F-22 is better than your Eurofighter or Sukhoi's? Get over it.68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the US dollar will become obsolete at any time in the foreseeable future. Spartan198 (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

The price of gold also fluctuates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.110.169 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lock needed

I feel this page needs a lock to keep non members such as little kiddies from editing it. Joey3r (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So only "experts" and former test pilot jocks like yourself should be able to put in your two cents here?68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a non-member myself, I not only fail to see the connection between non-members and 'kiddies', but fail to see appropriate amounts of vandalism as it is.

It's just as easy for a 12 year old with a copy of Ace Combat 6 to make a Wikipedia account as it is anyone else. Locking wont do any true good, especially seeing as this article is so close to being featured, all it would contribute to is the slowing of progress by locking out a lot of our editors (which, again, few of which are [from my observations] 'kiddies'). 99.173.63.38 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI suspicion

I notice in looking at this article's history, that there appears to have been a sustained effort to promote a positive image of this aircraft and downplay criticism and controversy. I noticed that a lot of anonymous IP editors have been involved. As a precaution, I've posted a request at the COI Noticeboard to check to see if any of the IP edits are originating from Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If anyone is aware of any COI possibly taking place on this article, please note it here. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you friggin' kidding me? How the hell will Wikipedia--or fellow Wikipedians--tell if the IP's are coming FROM Lockheed Martin or Boeing, OR ANYWHERE??? Indeed, how do you know that NON-ANONYMOUS IP's aren't from an employee of Lockheed or Boeing (or maybe an employee of Sukhoi or an European firm)??? How do you know that the people who say that a certain IP comes from Boeing, etc., isn't bullshitting for a personal agenda of their own? Where the heck will Wikipedia get the legal authority to discover where certain IP's are coming from? And what about dynamic IP's? You make me laugh....Oh, P.S., I work for Saab!68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're just upset that the F-22 is better than the jets of your own country. Get over it.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where IP editors have removed properly cited content that has not been reverted/restored. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The way this article is written is absolutely no different than the way articles are written about any other aircraft on this site. Besides, how could you tell if an IP was from Lockheed or Boeing? How can you tell if a registered user doesn't work for some aircraft company? The article is fine as is. It presents the info and lets the reader choose to accept or reject it, just like any other article here.68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen nothing that hasn't been addressed (so I see no need to file at WP:COI), but it should also be noted that (in the past) there have been efforts to unnecessarily denigrate the aircraft as well. Both issues should be avoided IAW WP:NPOV. As Fnlayson stated, if there are any current issues, please be specific and we can discuss any changes to comply with policy/guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Defense Daily

Is there a page for Defense Daily? We seem to quote them a lot so they must be notable. Hcobb (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Never used in war

Someone really does need to inject some reality into this article. Has anyone asked why the Raptor has never been used in Afganistan or Iraq? Maybe the fact that the US military has repetedly said it does not want it. Keeping it going has more to do with jobs than any potential for future imaginary air combat. Zuber5 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the fact that by the time the Raptor entered service, air superiority was not an issue in Afghanistan or Iraq. By 2005, most combat aircraft sorties in these theaters were for close air support. In the future, try using some common sense before adding your rants to a talk page. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of an abrasive response, Viper. Is it really necessary to insult the poster? -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there has been entirely too much POV-pushing on this article lately, patience grows short and it becomes difficult to assume good faith when a newly registered user's first edit on Wikipedia is an ignorant POV post on this Talk page. This is not an internet forum for discussion of the merits of the F-22 project, it's a forum to discuss improvement of the article devoted to that aircraft. People would do well to remember that. ViperNerd (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“The best weapon may be the one that isn't used but instead deters a conflict before it begins.” Has anybody else read the latest CRS? Hcobb (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To address the poster’s question, there’s a very good reason why the F-22 has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan: Neither have an air force or “double-digit” SAMs. The point derives from a statement Defense Secretary Gates made a few months ago while discussing his reasoning behind not wanting more F-22s. It underscored his belief that future wars are going to be more like these current conflicts, for which the F-22 is not necessary, than more traditional scenarios with peer or near-peer opponents. Also, the USAF does want more, it’s Secretary Gates who does not; if they were in agreement, there’d be a whole lot less controversy. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CRS link names

When naming CRS links, please use the CRS number. There is no official CRS archive site (that is available outside of Congress) so we may wind up reffing the same report from two different sources and using the numbers should make this clear. This should also apply to CBO, GAO, etc. Hcobb (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Major Neutrality Problems with this Article

I came here to find some information and to see if the article could be used as a link as university course materials. While the article is excellent in its presentation of the plane's specifications and development history, its political and social history is severely lacking. After quickly reading through the discussion I can see that this has been a ongoing problem; a problem that this community should try to solve soon. As an encyclopeaida, especially a popular online wiki, the article needs to answer the questions of many different users who will come to this article for information. Wikipedia is not a Janes military reference book. As such, it also needs to have information about all aspects of a subject. This would include the plane's conception and design in the Cold War and why funding was proposed to be cut in the most recent DoD budget request. The controversies surrounding the plane also need to be covered, especially so since this would be one of the major motivating factors for users coming to the article at this particular moment in its history. Like I said, this is an excellent article in terms of the technical information and reference materials but it must have information about the social and political aspects, especially when the plane is so much in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DClearwater (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of that type info can not be found in an Encyclopedia. Encyclopedias and in particular Wikipedia do not cover current events like a news service. See WP:What Wikipedia is not for details or Wikinews -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's too much of that in now. The Wa Po version of the crash has already been invalidated by the Pentagon report. Who wants to replace with the truth? Hcobb (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean that the statistics and reference material be removed. As I said, that aspect of the article is excellent. What I mean is that there has to be factual information about the social and political nature of any topic. For example, the plane's length of development (i.e. conceived at the height of the Cold War) and recent changes to U.S. military strategy essentially resulted in a reduction of its planned use and then the funding cuts (these events affect it political history). From that comes its social history (including the controversy that resulted over the proposed cut to its funding). Such information can be presented in a factual manner that will not contravene WP:What Wikipedia is not. Similarly, listing factual information about criticism of the project as a whole does not mean that the entire article is biased. In fact, leaving out information about these aspects of the plane's history could be considered as contravening neutrality. I mean, imagine the entry for the Vietnam War (or any other controversial topic) not including information about protests or changes to public opinion. Also, when I mentioned that the plane is so newsworthy right now, I did not mean that this wikipedia entry should act as a new service, but that since the plane (and its funding cuts) are in the news, it would be reasonable to assume that many people would seek information by consulting its article here. That is why there needs to be factual information about all aspects of the plane and project. --DClearwater (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, another quick remark. The current version of the article sounds like an encyclopedic entry for an aeronautical engineering reference book. Of course, that is very good. But what the article lacks, are the perspectives of other disciplines. The wikipedia entry for Encyclopedia ( Encyclopedia ), clearly defines it as "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Wikipedia is general in nature so we need the approach from different disciplines or branches of knowledge. --DClearwater (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That says encyclopedias provide an wide ranging overview (comprehensive), and not provide every detail (compendium, summary). Providing details is partially where the news service part comes in (current event coverage also). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning here... if no detail, then why does the article already have many details about the engineering and procurement process? I understand that too much detail (compendium, summary) might necessitate that an article is broken into smaller ones. But for an article like this one, it should not just be limited to the engineering details. It needs to be wider in scope... and this should be reflected in the major sections of the article. --DClearwater (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for detailed coverage on politics, and all other matters related to the F-22. This article can't cover details on everything. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... the current article has a heading about the public display of the aircraft so there is a lot of detail already. I don't see it as a problem that the article is heavy in favour of the history of the engineering of the aircraft, but you are asking that no other aspect of the plane/project be included. I am sorry, but that is why the neutrality of this article is missing. This plane is not just a plane, it is a part of the U.S. defense sector and a major part of Pentagon funding and U.S. gov. expenditures. Sadly, as such it gets caught up in the larger politics of U.S. society... all I am saying is that we cannot deny that fact and therefore it needs to be reflected in the content of the article. --DClearwater (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to go in some article. Hopefully this article will be of broad enough scope to discuss the entire MIC and not just one fnording aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. Seriously though... this article has major neutrality problems. I understand that many who have contributed to the article have done an excellent job (and, more broadly, have contributed a lot to wikipedia) so I am not trying to be confrontational here. But, the scope of information on Wikipedia, goes beyond aeronautical engineering. The article needs to be more inclusive and a few other sections built, including ones that might include information not palatable to everyone. --DClearwater (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand you properly, your issue is not so much with neutrality, per se, as it is with the scope of coverage. Is that correct? That's always a challenge; at some point providing context plus balancing POVs runs into another problem with trying to balance it against WP:UNDUE. Considering that pretty much all major government programs — defense and non-defense — attract controversy, debate, and cost issues, it's unclear just what to cover. It's relative easy in those cases where the issue is unique to (in this instance) the airplane because those are usually fairly clear-cut; the problem is just how much all of the timeless dove/hawk debate should one cover? Perhaps you could share, from your perspective, what 1-3 issues are most notable with respect to the F-22 — what you think the average Joe/Jane Reader might most wish to find information on here. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Askari. Yes, but it is a neutrality issue in the sense that there has been a concerted effort here to prevent any mention of public or political controversy surrounding the plane and project as a whole. As a result, the cultural significance of the plane/project has also been resisted. It could be argued that restricting the scope of an article is similar to only allowing one dominant POV. My main issue here is that the article's current focus is almost exclusively from an aeronautical/engineering perspective. If wikipedia was solely an engineering/aeronautical encyclopedia, that would be fine. But the general scope of wikipedia means that other disciplinary perspectives need to be reflected in the article; for example, political science, media studies, popular culture studies, etc. Now, that may mean that others take the lead in creating these sections but since wikipedia is a collaborative and community-driven project, that should not present a problem. With a plane as iconic as this one, there definitely needs to be a 'cultural significance' section (which could include the current 'popular culture' section). A section on the criticisms of the program (that is, dealing with politics surrounding the program) and a section on funding controversy are needed too. As long as these sections are well-written, there should be few reasonable issues with balance or providing context... but, again, all perspectives need to be represented. Again, there is already an incredible amount of detail in the article but it is from a single discipline's POV. No group or discipline should have final say about the entire scope of an article here on wikipedia. Thanks. --DClearwater (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So as you can see, the edit bias even seeps into the talk page. What can be done about this? Hcobb (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP: mediation is needed imo. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A page was started on 7/23, but the initiator never bothered to reply or sign. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@DClearwater: Personally, I don't think the F-22 is all that "iconic" which makes it difficult for me to understand just what to do with your suggestions (which are more nebulous than I was hoping for). It's true that Wikipedia is not paper, there is an effective limit to the size of an article beyond which it engenders "reader fatigue" – which I rather suspect we're at already. This article is basically about the airplane; to cover a host of other disciplines' perspectives – and keep it within the bounds of WP:UNDUE would make the article even more unwieldy than it already is.

Despite the perceptions of some, the active editors here have never been opposed to including negative information and controversies about the F-22; indeed, much of it has already been worked into the article. As long as it's presented in a balanced, well-sourced and preferably pithy fashion, that's fine. You will have observed, though, a lot of resistance to the inclusion of a "Controversies" section. Experience here and on other articles has demonstrated that these become magnets for every sort of negative issue (notable and trivial) that can be found, only negative information is supplied with no attempt to present both sides, and they become overly long.

From what you have written, I see that you would like (ouch!) three new sections: a "cultural significance" section, one on "political issues" regarding the airplane, and another on "funding controversy". I would like to ask for more specifics and some clarifications. Regarding the first, I'm not aware of media studies or popular culture studies on the F-22; are there are some seminal ones you could point us to? I've already partially addressed the political issues theme, insofar as using a "Controversies" section per se; I'd appreciate your thoughts on a specific few you think most notable – as opposed to those issues simply endemic to major government (and particularly defense) programs. (I would suspect the politics of ending the program would be one – and we are already incorporating that.) As for the third, what specific "funding controversy" (or controversies) are you referring to? Thanks for your taking the time, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Askari: sorry, I have to be brief here. Honestly, one only has to look over the past discussions and edits to see that there has been an (informal?) effort here to limit the wiki page to just what is already there. I can even see a pattern that whenever a discussion of anything that might appear as negative comes up, it is quickly minimized away ('the article is too long already,' 'its a magnet for criticism,' or by simply posting one sentence replies that point to entire wiki-articles or definitions about POV or whatever). I do agree that some of the past information was not neutral in its wording but that only means that the wording has to be edited. Instead, these sections have been deleted. As for the 'iconic' status of the plane... of course, its iconic and very high profile. That is why there are multiple videogames entirely devoted to the plane itself... and this is a part of its cultural significance (which is not all negative BTW). "What funding controversies?" You're kidding right? --DClearwater (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not kidding. There are and have been a number of funding controversies regarding the F-22. Whether to fund further production is just one – and since it’s being addressed already and you seemed to be suggesting a funding controversy not being covered here. (By the way, whenever it is decided to end further production, there will be another controversy over which shut-down approach to follow and how much that costs. For instance, if there will be a need to hold onto items for further production – possibly for Japan – then that requires a different approach than a total shutdown and is more expensive.)

I’d dispute your perception that there has been an (informal) attempt to keep negative information out of this article; if it were true, then it would be hard to explain how any has made it in. Whether we agree on how iconic the F-22 might be, I think we’d both agree that this article attracts a very high degree of vandalism. Some attempts to add cited negative information may have been accidentally interpreted as such. On the other hand I’ve noted that when such editors have been invited to add properly cited negative material along with properly cited contrary views, nothing of the sort ever appears ... all that remains is griping by same that they didn’t get their (uncited or unreliably) negative material in. That tends to be a clear sign of POV-pushing; after all, it’s not that hard to find and provide such balanced information ... if one desires to. That invitation is a standing one and it's a good one for editors to hone their NPOV skills on.

In any case, I think your real beef is with those who aren’t the regular editors. Please note the quick removal of “negative” material Hcobb and I put in. None of those removing them were regulars. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@Hcobb. My apologies Hcobb... I honestly thought your comment was meant for the Raptor-SuperHornet discussion below as it seemed to make more sense there. My bad. --DClearwater (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After having a chance to thoroughly read the arguments and points here, I have to agree with user DClearwater, and Falcon 8765, on the above issues. Also, some of us are inspired by the possibility that this article could become more credible and reach next class at some point not too far in the future, yet, edits to include information on it's political and procurement controversies have been reverted at almost every turn. For example, Hcobb just vaporized some sourced material on a congressional vote, an edit I don't believe is very inclusive or appropriate. This article will never have the degree of encyclopedic dimension that the B-2 Spirit article has with such edits. It seems there's no clear consensus here so far on keeping the article in the style of a "Janes military reference book" or "aeronautical engineering reference book," and to be clear, it does currently smacks of such material, IMHO. That this article is listed in WP:project aircraft should not preclude or overshadow the inclusion of other notable economic and political issues. In consideration of the scope of public expenditure on this project, it's grossly lacking in comprehensive detail. Should we open an WP:Rfc on this? Or are we even deadlocked here against this question? ...that is, the question of expanding the sections on the procurement and proposed end of production. CriticalChris 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think an RfC is called – or is going to go far – when the issue is already being discussed. Why don’t you draft a candidate text and post it here (in Talk, not in the article) to develop a consensual version? Then it can’t be “pounced on” and removed before it gets discussed – and you’ll have all the active editors here fighting to keep the final result in. As I noted above, it’s more often drive-by editors who remove material here. (Please note what happened to the paragraph Hcobb and I worked on.) [On the other hand, if you were just venting over Hcobb’s removal of the Congressional material as no longer valid, well, you are both doing the right thing discussing it here – and I’ve chimed in.] Askari Mark (Talk) 00:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I opened up an arbitration page, but owing to a busy schedule, this is the first time I have been able to do anything wiki-wise in awhile. I just read over the talk page and it seems that some of these issues still have not been resolved. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when maintenance issues finally appeared in the article, though getting those there was a fight as well. The last two issues that have yet to be resolved are A: the role that the f22 will play in current and future likely combat scenarios and B: direct comparisons with the planes that the F22 will be replacing (the F16). Both issues need to be addressed if this article is not to read like a book from Lockheed-Martin. If need be, we can take this to arbitration. EricLeFevre (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Only thing the Raptor is replacing is the F-15C and only a few of those. The F-16 replacement is the F-35, always has been and always will be. As for the F-22 mission, it's really simple. The Raptor does overwatch for the F-35 "Pigeon". Hcobb (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware either of those points was at issue. Hcobb sums it up pretty nicely, albeit somewhat understated. If that's all there is, I guess our work is done here. <jk> Except for the performance comparison, it's all in the article already (or was last time I looked). As for adding a comparison of the F-22 and F-15, I'm afraid I don't see the point. Any reader can compare the specs from the two respective articles. To add such a section while not tripping over WP:RS by quoting Wikipedia nor conducting OR, we'd have to find a source that does so. I can't recall seeing one in quite a long time – long enough ago that the performance data would not be out of date. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

External tanks

In the Armament section, the paragraph about the external hardpoints says: "The wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank". But then later in the paragraph we have: "The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks". So, we have a little contradiction there :-) McSly (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's supposed to be the inner one on each wing (2 overall). All may be plumbed for a ferry configuration flight.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The resolution is that it can carry four fuel tanks, but only two of these can deliver fuel to the aircraft in flight. Hcobb (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Text, Repeated Text

Why repeat exactly the same words from the same source twice in one article? Hcobb (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of any. Why don't you "keep" the one where it most makes sense and remove or paraphrase the other? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Trading Raptors for Super Hornets?

Hcobb, I removed the following text because it needs further clarification and a couple of corrections before going back in:

• The effectiveness of stealth is greatly improved when combined with electronic jamming and the need for additional jammer aircraft was one reason cited by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the termination of the F-22 production line in favor of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

First, the clarification: Since the F-22 itself reputedly has jamming capabilities, it’s unclear why “additional jammer aircraft” are needed (or why they couldn’t be more F-22s). I think you meant to say something along the line of “when combined with standoff [or offboard] electronic jamming”.

Second, the correction. The F-22 line is not being terminated in favor of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. This statement does not accurately capture what the source says; what Gen. Cartwright said was “it was one reason for halting the Air Force’s F-22 fighter program and potentially redirecting that money toward electronic attack.” [emphasis added]. Note that he says nothing about the F/A-18 or any other aircraft – and in any case, it’s the EA-18G Growler that is the jammer. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the primary source, i.e. the actual transcript?

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/07%20July/09-58%20-%207-9-09.pdf Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried onboard the F–18. And so, looking at the lines that we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production line producing F– 18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare fight. So those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my part, that it was time to terminate the F–22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the Services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability, and that was in the F–18. In the F– 18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.

So yes, the Growler killed the Raptor. QED. Hcobb (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's taken me a month to let the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have his say about the Raptor, so let's see how long that stays in there. Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, that line of reasoning seems to go more like 'DEQ' than 'QED'. I'm not sure how Cartwright came up with the idea of shutting down a hot production line (that is the only extant hot fifth-gen line to boot) "to ensure that that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem", but that is what the man said. (He also has two "point two's" – I'm definitely not letting him teach my kids math.) In any case, the fact that EW was only "another thing" (after the first 2 – or 3 – points) hardly hand Death's scythe to the F/A-18. If you don't mind, I'm going to tweak that paragraph – which is actually a rather long run-on sentence – to get it closer to what Cartwright testified. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And every fnording word about the advantages of the F-35 over the F-22 for the USAF went poof. This from a gang that is trying to cover their tracks on the talk page by deleting their own autosigs. What more proof of bias is needed? Tell me. Hcobb (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the reasons given for the cancellation lasted one day until a sockpuppet smashed it. Is there anybody here who is the least bit surprised? Hcobb (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that no vandalized material is ever truly lost. I've reinserted the most recent version. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Day by day Congressional debate

What's the historical relevance of the day by work in Congress before they even close to a bill? Giving undue notice to these low level events in a POV violation. Nothing has changed since the 187 number was decided on. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, there's nothing that's --not-- notable about a vote of our elected representatives in the United States Congress, especially not one covered in the mainstream news media. We could put a current event template in the section if there are a number of different votes on amendments, and things change rapidly to the point where it's confusing to follow, but the votes belong there for now, IMHO. Now if there are a dozen or more votes on this bird, they don't all deserve their own paragraph, per se, but each vote or groupings of votes could be reduced to a well-sourced clause in a sentence, for example, if editors at that time feel that's appropriate. Bottom line, what our Congress decides on this is entirely significant to its long-term development and strategic deployment into the future, and how that might affect the development of other aircraft and defense systems, or how it might shape our foreign policy and efforts to project US military force around the globe. CriticalChris 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Chris. Removal of the information prior to the resolution bill making it out was premature. However, Hcobb is correct that there was no real or implied claim that the F-35 is all-around superior to the F-22. What has been said is that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in air-to-air (and SEAD, per some), but the F-35 is more flexible in that it is a multirole aircraft with excellent air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prowler comment

The last readd of the Prowler comment shows how it fails to actually tie the F-18 hot line to the F-22 production line ending. Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is true, but the source leaves that linkage implicit, not explicit. Right now the F-22 is the most capable “escort jamming” aircraft the USAF has. There are only a few ways they can redress this: 1) buy more EC-130s and EC-135s, which aren’t really suited for this role or survivable in it; 2) continue developing the EB-52, which has just been canceled (again), isn’t ready for production, and can’t keep up with modern fighters; 3) buy more F-22s (which wouldn’t seem to be in the cards, even assuming its reputed electronic attack capability is really up to the role); or 4) purchase – or transfer funds to the Navy to buy – EA-18Gs (which would make the USAF the poster child for lèse-majesté). But Cartwright does not say funds saved from cancelling the F-22 would go to EW at all, much less to Growlers. We may have to temporarily settle for the implied approach we currently have until Cartwright provides further clarification. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The next manned USAF jammer (if any) will be the Next Generation Jammer on the F-35. (Info added on F-35 page.) Until then they'll rely on the Navy to support them out of Navy funds... Hcobb (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but as of yet, there is no such program of record for an EA-35. Since the Navy will only procure sufficient Growlers for their own use, there won't be any extras to support the USAF with Navy or USAF funds, unless one or the other buys them (which would quite literally take an act of Congress). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What we do have at the moment is the RFI, which indicates that The Navy is the lead agency for the F-35 jammer. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=89e04cbe6efa2165df651ec98324a9fd&tab=core&_cview=0 (Putting links in the talk pages keeps them around for two weeks which is several times longer than adding actual facts to the articles...) Hcobb (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying some issues with the plane

I think it should be clarified that a) the plane has never flown a combat mission as the congress has voted to halt production (I think this is notable for a plane with these far reaching goals) , and b) that is has had issues with rain. Yes, there is a rebuttal regarding rain included, but I see no link to the counterclaim. — Northgrove 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument is a red herring. The same could be said about modern nuclear weapons: never used, no longer in production. However, without including the context (that they are slated to be used for decades to come and that they only recently became operational...after OEF and OIF), it would be misleading. We don't need every criticism and critique. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive, authoritative work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, we would be remiss (and just plain unencyclopedic IMHO) if we didn't make a good effort to include as many of the notable criticisms of this project as possible. This is especially true in the case of this article if one considers the weight and relative emphasis of all of the technical material about the aircraft that currently dominates the article.CriticalChris 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

However both McCain and Gates have pointed out that in the future the Raptor will only be useful in a limited set of scenarios. This is quite relevant and oft deleted from the article. Hcobb (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think comparing the F-22 to nuclear weapons is a good analogy, they are intended for completely different strategic and tactical purposes. I don't understand the repeated removal of true statements that are critical of the plane. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. First off, it's not true that the F-22 hasn't been used in combat because the Congress has voted to discontinue production. In actuality, Gates noted – several months before Congress voted on the issue – that the F-22 hadn't been used in Iraq or Afghanistan as one of his reasons why he saw no need for further production. Now, if I had not heard it with my own two ears, I would never have believed that anyone intelligent enough to serve as a Secretary of Defense (and a former Director of Central Intelligence to boot) would say something so inanely irrelevant – not to mention that detracts from his message by bringing into question the amount of thought that went into his other points. Think about it folks: what is being offered as a "criticism" of the F-22 is basically a recognition that the U.S. military has responsibly not mis-used the aircraft – and thereby wasting tight operations and maintenance funds – for missions it was not designed for. It's an air superiority machine that can also take out "double-digit" SAMs; neither the Iraqi insurgents nor Afghan Talibani have fighters (or any other aircraft, for that matter) or advanced SAMs networked in an integrated air defense system. Yes, it would be easy to send a few F-22s over to drop a few bombs on guerrillas and claim they are "battle-tested" – and Secretary Gates has all the authority he needs to "make it so". (And, yes, unfortunately, there are precedents for just such an irresponsible action.) That he hasn't done so is a "good thing"; that he effectively criticizes himself for not doing so is a bizarre thing; that intelligent people take this inanity for a "good thing" because they believe it to be a "criticism" of a "bad thing" is a truly, truly sad thing. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this Batman, how's that Raptor spotting that SAM without IRST and what weapon will it use against it? The next-gen SAM hunter is the F-35, which is constantly slammed for having decent air to ground capabilities. The truth is that it's insurgencies all the way down. We're gladly lacking in peer competitors and anybody foolish enough to take the open field against the Americans deserves their afterlife. So the mission for the F-22 is the same as the mission of the most advanced Russian fighters, attending airshows. Hcobb (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Joker, who says only an IRST can detect a SAM – or that only onboard systems can be used to find and fix a SAM’s location? And on what basis do you prognosticate that there will never be a need to achieve air superiority? If there was a way to 100% assure that all future conflicts will only involve insurgencies and no air defenses beyond MANPADS and AK-47s, well, then the heck with stopping production of the F-22s – we could scrap the ones we have built. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when the SAM Radar is switch off or in standby, how should your F-22 detect this whitout IRST?! How many HARMS destroyed only micro waves ovens in the serbia war? --HDP (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there’s something called network-centric warfare. One possibility is having a UAV (or other air- or ground-based source) that has spotted one (by having been alerted to the area by other intel) hand off the target coordinates to an F-22 which then delivers a brace of satellite-guided JDAMs on the real target instead of the displaced antennas. This is just one example among many of how NCW enables access to a wider range of information to achieve successes rarely possible earlier. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We can assume that the United States will be engaged in two types of conflicts in the future, against enemies who put a lot of thought into how to withstand the blows of Le Hyperpower and those that don't and we really don't need to worry too much about the later type. The F-35 has better LPI comms than the F-22, but if the F-22 is just a dumb bomb truck that depends on "something else" to find targets for it then you need to define what that something else is and that looks a lot like a F-35, which can drop bigger bombs than the F-22 can. As for air to air combat the best fighter radars the Russians have are outranged by the current AMRAAMs so they die before they see the F-35 and this is on top of being outnumbered by more than ten to one by those F-35s. These are of course the completely valid points that fade away from this article everytime they're added so I can see why you haven't heard of them. Hcobb (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reserve Raptors

Certain units of the Air National Guard are slated to get Raptors. What's the status of this and does it count as a pure USAF-only aircraft after this point? Hcobb (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, as we say, as clear as mud. The USAF has what is known as the Total Force Integration (TFI) concept which matches up active-duty and reserve-component (Guard and Reserve) units to fly and support some of its fighters. There is a main unit to which is attached a so-called "associate" unit. Each Guard or Reserve unit scheduled to fly F-22s is "associated" with an active-duty unit, except in one case. This exception is the 199th Fighter Squadron (Hawaii ANG) of the 54th Composite Wing, to which an active-duty unit, the 531st FS, will be associated. The other reserve component units to scheduled to fly the F-22 are the 149th FS (Virginia ANG) of the 192nd Fighter Wing – which became the first Guard unit to operate the F-22 back in June 2008 – which is an "associate" unit conjoined with the active-duty 27th FS of the 1st FW, and the 301st FS (AFRC) which will lose its F-16s to serve as an associate unit to the active-duty 49th FW. Since no more F-22s are to be built, it will probably be a very long time before any other reserve component squadron gets to fly Raptors.

The USANG isn't particularly happy with the TFI approach because it usually means supplying reserve-component air and ground crew personnel to support active-duty-owned airplanes; they would prefer their own aircraft on their own airbases. Their F-15s and F-16s are due to wear out before they are scheduled to get F-35s, so they were hoping for further F-22s to be ordered since they prefer to fly what the active-duty Air Force will be flying, not what it was flying. In any case, whether Guard-owned aircraft will be counted as belonging to the USAF, it depends upon what you are trying to count. If you are counting numbers operated by the USAF overall, yes; if you're trying to distinguish between active duty and reserve component aircraft, then no. Hope that helps. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)