Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Weights

while the official F-22 webpage says that the weights are "Not releasable," there are many very reasonable weight estimates by reliable sources. would it be acceptable to add said estimates and note their source? mnemonic 12:21, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

The official web site of US Air Force says that empty weight of F-22 is 40,000-pound class (approximately 18,000 kilograms) and not 31,670 lb (14,365 kg) as claimed in wiki article.

  • Key word there is 'class'. Meaning it weighs 40,000 lb or less. Similar thing with the Mach 2 class speed. The weights calculations are shown using sourced data in the F-22A Raptor Specifications. -Fnlayson 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Actualy this has just been tested using microwaves. I made a box thing and was confirmed that the substance is in fact epoxy and graphite. I put down two radios in a box with sheet lead on the outside and sheet lead between them. That way they can,t communicate. Then I made a box that I had equiped with the tech. I then turned one radio to scan and transmitted and nothing came in on the other. If you see any flaws in this test please tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.23.189 (talk • contribs)

The F-22A may make use of Active Cancellation stealth systems where Radar waves are returned slightly out of phase, thus cancelling them out. 69.248.224.18 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are "They"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.246.25 (talk • contribs)

  • Looks like radios or radio waves. - Fnlayson 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Procurement and Development sections overlap

The first few paragraphs of the development section and procurement section seem to overlap, maybe we should consolidate some of that information?

Selling F22 to Israel

I've heard that US wants to sell some F22s to Israel. Is there any sources for this? Should we include this in the article? 217.219.164.6 13:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the burden on Israeli defense spending before the current conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, it seems unlikely that Israel would be in the market for such an expensive air superiority fighter as the F-22, even using the generous military aid normally made available to the country by the USA. Add in the recent unpleasantness between the two countries over Israel's tendency to misappropriate US technology, the chances seem awfully low. Askari Mark | Talk 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1677470/posts Free Republic] repeats a news story on the issue, which seems mostly speculation. I have to agree with Mark; I doubt Israel could afford them, and they're almost certainly not a particularly high priority for the IDF given the air superiority Israel has over any conceivable enemy. --Robert Merkel 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera reported that Rumsfield promised Israel during its last war on Lebanon, august 2006, that the US will eventually sell it Raptors 22, and that the US would even secure soft loans for Israel to buy those.. Needless to say, Israel is famus for accuriing US technology and then selling to US foes or country's not on USA's export list (Twaiwan for example).

F-22A Image

Hey I'm going to edit the F-22 picture on the main header table, this picture is of two Raptors from the 27th FS after it went operational.

Comparable aircraft

I don't think there should be a comparable aircraft section at the bottom of the article. The reason for this is there is nothing comparable to the F-22 flying today anywhere in the world- it truly is unique- nothing comes close to the combat performance of the F-22.--Indian50 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurofighter has proven to be effective against F-22, especially since F22 costs twice as much.
Source and citation? "Proven" how? What, a mock engagement between an F-22 and a Typhoon? No such head-to-head has been made last I knew. I call shenannigans. Thorprime 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comprable aircraft? Maybe not. Ones the F-22 has to take seriously...definantly. The F-22 is not a panacea, and it is not just the technology of an aircraft that determines victory in battle. The F-22 may indeed be the greatest advance in fighter technology since the jet engine, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing else out there capable of competing on its level. No one knows how something performs until it goes into battle. Keep in mind the Air Force originally did not want the A-10, and expected it to take massive lossess. They were wrong. Meanwhile in Vietnam they thought the F-4 Phantom II would be unstoppable, they were wrong.

As far as comprable The F-22 is not the same kind of aircraft as the other next generation fighter. Notice the trend toward delta wings and forward canards appearing on most next generation aircraft but not the F-22. This layout is very much to improve dogfighting ability. But the F-22 is not meant to be a dofighter, it is designed to slip in fire its missiles, and leave without being detected. Only dogfighting with AIM-9's when necessary.

Klauth 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing those aircrafts directly, in my humble opinion is ridiculous. They are designed with different points of parameter. Lets point out at russian fighter which primarily concern of manuveurability while F-22 primarily concern on stealthiness. The main thing that they share is only they are fighters, and they are comparable by this main thing. I thing we should keep that section and fill it with same generation fighters. Draconins 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who was that remark directed at? 24.217.29.51 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any comparable aircraft, period. Not the Eurofighter, not anything. They aren't even in the same class. Nothing can detect a F-22, or even come close to outmaneuvering it. You might as well be comparing the F-15 to a Spitfire. Viperman5686 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No comparable aircraft? *Everything* with two engines from 1975 onward is comparable. Range, ceiling, thrust, and payload are all comparable to 1970's designs. The advantages of the F-22 seem to be top speed (I'm betting mach 2.7) and stealth, which is only effective during the opening moves of a dogfight. Thirty years and $130m can buy you a lot, but in this case, all it really bought was stealth. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 21:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
When we say comparable, we mean similar in capabilities (wow). So no, not everything since 1975 is comparable, nothing is. Furthermore, you say the F-22 only has speed as its advantage, which is rediculous (and classified). How about the extremely advanced radar system, the thrust vectoring allowing it to make 9.5g turns, and stealth that is a lot more effective than "only in the opening moves of a dogfight." Last time I checked, radar didn't pick up bumblebees, which just incidentally has a bigger radar cross section than the F-22. Please have some sort of inkling of what you're talking about before you waste others' time with your dreck. Viperman5686 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You may even compare apples and oranges

Well guys... here's my (a little ironic, sorry, couldn't resist, because I'm an "old european") comment: "two fighter aircraft take of from their base, meet and fight each other" is no realistic scenario. Fighters never come without support of AWACS (radar planes), satellites, ships, and / or ground support.

Stealth design and coating is not like a Star-Trek cloaking device. There is weather radar around, which can even track small clouds (so it eventually can also track F22 exhaust, unless the F22 exhaust also is stealth exhaust - just kidding!), and passive radar systems, which can detect stealth aircraft by detecting the disorder in electromagnetical background radiation caused by cellular phone systems, radio, satellites (GPS, TV, communication), radar etc., which is caused by the fact that stealth planes refract/absorb radiation. Of cause this requires a coupled network of "passive radar" stations, but as the stations do not emit any radiation, you cannot spot them (just in case there are people around who'd like to say "then the F22 flies around and takes out all those passive radar stations which it's super-high-range missiles before without being spotted! Hah!").

There are satellites overseeing the planet which can spot heat dissipation in real time and photograph a newspaper in your front lawn... and it's not only the US which actually has systems like that.

So any technically capable nation in the world can very probably detect an F22 in it's own airspace unless you destroy the whole communication infrastructure of that nation and/or the whole planet first.

Once the F22 is detected, there are missiles which can track it optically and/or by it's heat signature, as an F22 neither is optically invisible nor flies without creating heat.

The soviets shot down a B2, the serbs shot down an F117A (with a russian missile), so I really don't think an F22 is invincible. It's both naive and supercilious to believe that.

You can compare any aircraft to any other if you define criteria and measures (like, for example, "which aircraft can crush more meters of reinforced concrete by crashing into it at top speed"). You can compare packages of aircraft/engines/radar/missiles etc. in defined situations.

But it doesn't lead anywhere, as 1) there always are upgrades available for anything, so a modified version of fighter plane X maybe superior to plane Y in situation Z, and 2), you may not be able to influence the scenario in which the fighter aircraft is needed if it happens to come up.

You may have recognized that the actual revision of the (probably initially assumed uncomparably superior by some) M1 Abrams is the M1A2 (upgraded twice), and the AH64 Apache already is built in it's fourth / fifth revision. Please answer the question: Why that?

The answer is: The other guys do not actually sleep or something, so if the F22 will ever become engaged in an actual battle against the air force of any competitor in aircraft design, I'd not bet too much on the F22's uncomparable superiority.

^ The soviets never shot down a B2. TwinTurboZ 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

^ I presume he mispoke and meant the Soviets shot down a U2. If the Soviets had shot down a B2, it would have been during WW3 which, as I'm still sitting here and alive, has not happened. MazNJ 08:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So of course there are comparable aircrafts. --83.171.150.187 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire section (comparisons) looks like it's an add for lockheed or Boeing. I seems that the main "sources" to the section are one excercise and three quotes by three people of whom two can hardly be described as "Neutral" and the other is a 2004 quote by an air marshall speaking of the future. An air exercise in which aircrafts simulated other aircrafts in a simulated situation, simply says nothing about the F22 in comparison to other aircrafts.

Nobody here has any hardcore knowledge about how the aerodynamical properties of the F22 compares to other modern aircrafts. And hence the article shouldn't imply aerodynamical superiority, since the authors simply don't know. The same goes for the sensors, data processing cababilities and trust vectoring.

"trust vectoring" - that's, um, like, a stealth equivalent of a deception jammer, right? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Philip Trueman 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


So for the sake of "objectivity" maybe "know-not"s should stop making comparisons that they do not have the necessary technical skill nor knowledge to make.

F-22 foreign Sales and Multi Year Contract

The F-22 foreign sales issue was settled today by Congress along with a multi year contract with Lockheed Martin.

I think someone should add this new development to the F-22 article, and perhaps the part about ANG F-15C's to the Eagle article.

Thanks

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_story.jsp?id=news/F2209176.xml

Deleting OR comparison

I have and will delete on sight any uncited comparison between this plane and others, for example:

Basing on maneuverability, F-22 is close to Mig-35, which has slighly higher 1.19 thrust/(loaded) weight ratio and more agile 2D-vectoring engines. However, aside of maneuverability, F-22 is more stealthy, can take twice as much of arming than Mig-35 and has supersonic cruise mode, which is more economic and helps against old types of missiles (that only lead by the heat of afterburners and thus may have less success rate in tracking F-22).

T/W is not the only benchmark of maneuverability and does not present a complete picture. Concluding anything about maneuverability from a single number is a gross WP:OR violation. Similarly, "more stealthy, twice as much armament, etc" are all uncited original research and do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you'd like to compare these aircraft, go write an essay or get a job at RAND. --Mmx1 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC Comment Deleted

I'm deleting that BBC commet because first and foremost it's bull and does not belong there. The F-22 has never ever gone up against a Eurofighter, and that comment about stealth aircraft not being able to maneuver is too general and unfounded, with respect to the F-22. I'll post a few Raptor video links if I find them.

removing Weasel Words

I've read through the article and have found no "Weasel Words" at all, please stop making such accusations.

Australia procurment

should the fact that australia was going to be buying the f-22 be added

--Noshpit 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia has never been going to buy the F-22. There are some people, notably Kim Beazley, who think we should seriously look at it [1] instead of the F-35, but the government remains solidly behind a JSF purchase at this stage (though decision time was kicked back from 2006 to 2008 recently). --Robert Merkel 05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

F-22A Raptor Specifications

I am changing several F-22 specifications due to my calculations below.

The F-22 does not weight 40,000 lb empty it weights 31,670 lb. The 40K figure is an overestimate put out by the USAF on purpose to marginalize F-22 capabilities. The original Lockheed Martin goal was to have the YF-22 weight 30,000 lb, no they did not miss the mark by 10K.

Sources http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/muddin/F-22.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-specs.htm http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=9

  • Also, NASA Langley's page lists an empty weight of 31,670 lb and a MTOW of 60 klb. This matches the Global Security specs. -Fnlayson 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Next, the F-22 does not carry 25,000 lb of internal fuel, again that's just an estimate, the ture figure is 20,650 lb according to an official USAF safety DOC ( Technical Order 00-105E-9) See page 15. The Link is below.

http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf

Total fuel minus the four external fuel tanks is 20,650 lb.

The F-22 carries the M61A2 gun with 480 20mm rounds for its cannon, the entire system weights 648 pounds. The gun weight 202 lb, feed mechanism weights 176 lb and the ammunition weights 270 lb. The gun and feed mechanism are included in all aircraft produced so they are already part of the empty weight figure, only the ammunition is added on later.

(My Opinion - They need to add more ammo for that gun - The air force always pays dearly when undestimating the dogfighting role - and this thing costs way too much for such mistakes.)

Source http://www.gdatp.com/Products/PDFs/F-22A.pdf

A normal pilot (average weight 180 lb) and all his flight support systems will weight a total of around 250 lb.

The AIM-120C weighs 356 lb, the F-22A carries six internally, so 6 x 356 lb equals 2,136 lb.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/rms/documents/content/cms01_054563.pdf

The AIM-9X weights 188 lb, the F-22A carries two internally, so 2 x 188 equals 376 lb.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_054518.pdf

Now we can truly know the takeoff weight of the F-22A Raptor with a standard air to air load out.

31,670 lb + 20,650 lb , + 270 lb, + 250 lb, + 2,136 lb, + 376 lb = 55,352 lb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.30.36 (talk • contribs)

  • I think rounding that to 31,700 lb or 32,000 lb would be better to cover unknowns and such. -Fnlayson 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Internal Fuel

Does anyone mind if I add an internal fuel category in the specifications area?

Neutrality Issue

Someone here obviously has an issue with the F-22. That Comparisons Section describes the F-22 as "The World's Most Effective Fighter" some people have a problem with that statement. Need I remind everyone that it is simply an opinion and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like the F-22, then don't read this article. -- RaptorR3d.

Wikipedia is not a place for opinions, we should only use facts to stay neutral. --Denniss 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

- Anyone who has a problem with that statement is either being "neutral" for the sake of it or they have their head stuck in in the sand, in either case I recommend this article for ALL.

F-22 Dominates

- I'm fine with that, For I also support the F-22. -- RaptorR3d.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2006/articles/jul_06/alaska/index.html

Actually, the statement begins with "The F-22 is claimed by several sources to be the World's Most Effective Fighter." It is then foloowed by a quote of one of those sources. It is true that the F-22 is CLAIMED to be... This is an accepted way of inserting opinions into articles - as long as the source is still verifiable and notable. I can't quote my Uncle Don's opinion on the matter, unless he happens to be Don Rumsfeld (which he isn't, btw). - BillCJ 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

- Very well then; let's just leave it as that and it should settle this debate. -- RaptorR3d.

People need to stop whining anyway. The Mclaren F1 is faster than a Ford Focus. It doesn't matter if your feelings get hurt because you really like the Ford Focus. The simple truth is the F-22 is the best at what it does - air superiority. Viperman5686 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The funny thing is, this aircraft has not seen any combat yet now has it? Have to see what happens when it goes into battle. Iran 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.125.28 (talk • contribs)
Why wait that long? Just kidding. Not trying to start a war or nothing...or am I?... — BQZip01 — talk 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reworking/structure

I made a few minor changes to the article; I hope nobody minds. Anyhow, I believe it needs some severe restructuring. Mainly, I believe that the outline of the various sections probably needs to be rethought. Does anyone have any ideas? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It could use some reorganizing. It is not organized like other US fighter articles. Too many subsections in places, imo. I suggest a section arrangement along these lines:
1 Background
2 History
2.1 YF-22 'Lightning II'
2.2 F-22 Raptor
2.3 F-22 to F/A-22 to F-22 again
2.4 Production
2.5 Procurement
2.6 Proposed foreign sales
3 Description
3.1 Characteristics
3.2 Combat systems
3.3 Armament
3.4 Stealth
3.5 Testing
3.6 Comparisons
3.7 Variants
4 Operators
...
I'm using the current sectiions to show where things would go. Some of the subections could be removed. What do you think? -Fnlayson 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work moving things around and all Joseph. A Combat service section could be added in the future. -Fnlayson 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Lockheed ATF concept

Can anyone think of a way that we could utilize this image from this page? It's obviously a Lockheed image. I'd like to find a way to use it under {{fair use}} or {{promotional}}. What does everyone think? It's certainly more appropriate than this image which is currently in use (but is better than nothing.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, since Boeing is an F-22 partner, the image we're using now isn't irrelevant, but I'd like to be able to use that Lockheed image as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I found all the ATF images we can handle at this DoD site. All you have to do is type "ATF" in the search field. After a few pages are several concept images. I'll be working them in soon at this page, Advanced Tactical Fighter, and YF-23 Black Widow II. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I eliminated the ATF concept pictures because they should belong in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article, not here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.160.190 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I've restored the deleted pics, as there have been no other objections in the discussions to this point. Please achieve a consensus to remove the pics before trying to delete them again. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the concept pics are relevant to the article, as there is no dedicated YF-22 page. Yes, there is a gallery of concept pics on the ATF article, but that should not preclude their being here also. - BillCJ 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

M61 Vulcan will be replaced by GAU-12 Equalizer ?

Somebody heared somerhing about it && —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.163.233 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

  • The plane is currently being put in squadrons. If it hasn't been changed yet, why change it now? -Fnlayson 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like someone confused the F-22 with the F-35. Considering how infrequently an F-22 is likely to use its gun, who'd be willing to fund the integration of a differrent gun for the Raptor? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

GA potential?

This page might have the potential for a GA rating on the quality scale. It has seen improvements so in my opinion, it could be put up one level. -- 24.6.160.190

Stealth section devoid of content and biased

The Stealth section is elliptical at best. It features vague examples of what the F-22 isn't, followed by negative assertions about other stealth aircraft without reference or support. Bias is evident throughout - "plagued by deployment problems..." would be improved by "maintenance heavy". There is no actual information about the stealth of the aircraft, or how the F-22 responds to issues raised about the B-2 or F-117. The entire section is taken from an aviation fan-zine, and struggles from lack of any real meat in the source material. I say this section should be scrapped until actual non-classified content about the stealth of this aircraft is referenced. Comparisons of the stealth capability and design approach to other stealth- and non-stealth aircraft would be welcome. As the F-22 is a "low-observable" stealth fighter aircraft, I would think that this is a section of high importance, and the abysmal dearth of content here limits the quality of the whole article severely. -- Metaxis 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The section could probably use some clean-up. But with the sources for comparisons cited there's no justification for removing the whole section. -Fnlayson 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Metaxis' claims of "bias" are bunk. It links to a hard article with recent content from one of the most reputable aviation sources in existence. Some of the claims are rather interesting but are well sourced. We might need to add content, but to claim "bias" is not being truthful. To be fair, I do not know much about what the first paragraph is asserting, but those are not the most significant claims. Aviation Week & Space Technology is not a "fan-zine" and is read by aviation industry and financial professionals alike. If you think it's a fan-zine, then it is likely that you have no real exposure. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I deleted specific RCS claims from the article because no source was provided. If somebody can provided a sourced estimate for the RCS, that would be kind of good...--Robert Merkel 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First deployment overseas

Being deployed to Okinawa... Worthy of mention? Dunno. -- MyrddinEmrys 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That could be listed in the Operators section with the other locations. But the article desribes it a temporary 3 month stint. Not sure.. -Fnlayson 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are rumours that the 6-ship deployment was nearly a disaster, with all aircraft suffering total avionics failure when they approached the IDL. Supposedly they had to be nursed back to Hawaii by their tanker. I can't find a source for this yet, but just saw discussion of it on CNN's "This Week At War". Banality 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are a few links about the reported problems

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/14/212102/pictures-navigational-software-glitch-forces-lockheed-martin-f-22-raptors-back-to-hawaii.html http://english.people.com.cn/200702/18/eng20070218_350967.html slashdot story http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/02/11/us_delays_f_22_raptor_fighters_arrival_in_japan/ Gadgetgeez

I added a source that indicated multiple computer failures coincident with crossing the international date line. --Duk 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting news articles:
The aborted deployment was of 6 aircraft; the remaining 6 aircraft were to follow on a different day. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Belly Camera?

Does the F-22 have any video camera electronics in its underside? --24.249.108.133 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Stats

In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all."[34]
In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times

All this stuff about war game stats is kinda dumb considering kills in these games are solely acheivable by gaining radar locks. Of course you will get zero radar locks on a stealth plane, however theoretically they could still be killed by enemy fighters lucky shots. I'm just saying it's just basically a pointless stat. It might as well just say current radar systems equiped on US planes are unable to lock onto the F22. -Arch NME 10:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

F-35 to Related Devlopment

Seing as the F-35 isn't in the same class of plane as the F-22, but is derived from it, I suggest moving the F-35 from Comparable Aircraft to Related development.

To whoever (since you don't sign your posts!) thought of putting the F-22 and F-35 under "related development": Thanks! I should have thought of that my self! I guess I was too close to the tree to see the forest. Even worse, I do alot of editing in the "Related content" sections of aircraft articles, and that type of move is what I usually do! Ohe well, that's why Wikipedia is co-operative. Thanks again. - BillCJ 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the F-22 & F-35 are both related and comparable. But related is fine. -Fnlayson 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I usually only list a particular type once. If it fits in Related, then that's where I put it. Not sure if this is in the page content guidelines or not, but that's how I handle it. - BillCJ 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Airshows

Have there been, or are their any publicly scheduled flight demonstrations of the F-22? I think the answer to the question would be relevant to the article. If my memory serves, it was a really big deal when the MiG-29 made its first western appearance in the Paris Airshow. Plus it'd be really cool to be, or have been at an f-22 demonstration. RMelon 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple google search on "F-22 Airshow" reveals plenty of results from the 2004 and 2005 airshow at the Nellis AFB to the 2006 New Castle County Airshow (U.S. not UK). This link states the first visit to a public airshow was at the Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, Florida. --Deon Steyn 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External F-22 Link

Hi,

I'd like to put forward my own website as an external link for the F-22 Raptor page. I won't add the link myself, as that is considered spamming. Please have a look, we feature active discussions and a ton of photos of the F-22 Raptor.

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,292.0.html

Cheers, Roger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhino Roger (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Plagarism

There are plagarized passages in this article taken from at least three sources. I will be removing them once I have looked up the exact locations to support the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klauth (talk • contribs)

  • Wait a minute. Where and what sources? If it is US Government material, that may not be copyrighted and can be copied. Also, some sites copy Wikipedia material (with or without a 'license'). -Fnlayson 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


One of the passages discussing the aircraft's speed I recognize from the handbook of the computer game "Total Air War" as I said when I can list specific page numbers and books I will list them, then remove the plagarized pieces. Another I recognize from a Jane's Book, etc. Just give me a day or two to dig the books out of their boxes.

Possibly. Plagiarism works both ways. I've personally had the experience of writing something for Wikipedia, and seen it used (unacknowledged) in commercially published work. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Weight - Engine Thrust

According to LTC "Dozer" (Raptor Driver) the F-22's combat loaded weight is around ~64-65K, considering we know all of the other weight variables (as listed previously on this page)that means that the empty weight is roughly ~40K. Also, the same source said that he has sustained more than 9G's in the F-22 while maneuvering (9.5). Furthermore in the Langley 2007 air show the announcer commented that the F-119 produced 37K of thrust (most sources however think the real maximum 39K. I'm making these changes to the official specifications list.

Sources - Fence Check Langley Show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAp5EVjucEs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.204.65 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but we can only used published sources. A video of an announcer, or hearsay from som pliot, does not count. - BillCJ 04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What good are "published" sources when the people who fly the aircraft for a living are telling you otherwise? Considering journalistic ethics are nothing to look up at I'd go with a pilots word any day. Anyway, Is this too considered hearsay from a pilot?...

"Moga noted that he recently pulled 10.2 Gs in the F-22, performing a pullout from a hard turn. The F-22’s specifications say only that the aircraft can pull 9.5 Gs, but can take more, depending on “the ability of the pilot” to bear the pressure. Still, technicians checked the fighter for signs of strain but found none." http://dailyreport.afa.org/AFA/Features/newtech/box051807demo.htm

  1. Please get a user name so we know to whom we are talking.
  2. Please sign your posts
  3. "Accuracy" is less important than "verifiability." If you can back up your claims then you should be able to put them in an article. Gs of 10.2=interesting, but is not the G limit of the aircraft (probably classified or simply un-needed since the aircraft is generally restricted from going above 9.5 by the flight computer).
  4. If you'd go with any pilot's word just because he's a pilot, you obviously haven't been in any of the fighter bars I've been in. They are worse than fishermen...
  5. BillCJ is a good guy and means well. You should assume as much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) — BQZip01 — talk 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
THanks BQZ. I assume you didn't sign your post to illustrate what NOT to do. :) Oh well, we all make mistkes ervy onec in a wihle. - BillCJ 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about...and never mind the fact that my signature's timestamp is after yours...and matches this one exactly...must be a wikipedia glitch...— BQZip01 — talk 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't see the need for an account, anyway if 10.2G or 9G for example is not the structural limit of the AC in question (and it's not), nor the limit of pilot, then what is the point of putting down -3 to 9G in the specifications?. Might as well write "classified" or put 9.5+... Or are there no "published" sources reporting such... Also might I remind you that the Raptors FCS places no limit on how many G's can be performed, neither are there speed limitations, that function is left up to the pilot. The Navy however does place a self imposed limit of 7.5G to reduce airframe stress, however even that can be overridden by the pilot in order to make use of the full performance envelope available (if need be).

As for pilots themselves, not all talk for the sake of it, and it is important to distinguish BS from a late night at the O Club from actual first hand accounts and information. To disregard all information from such an invaluable source is, quite frankly, foolish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.239.76 (talk • contribs)

I was at an Blue Angles airshow the other other day, and the one of the USAF pilots told me that the Eurofighter is a piece of crap. He said an F-4 could out-turn it, and an A-4 could out-run it on the deck. The radars don't work have the time, and when the do, the keep tracking birds. Its supercruise capability was laughable, and only works if 3 kg of rabbit droppings are added to the fuel. He's heard rumors that Britain is gettign ready to scrap the whole lot, and by the Dassualt Rafale instead, partly to make sure the French by the CVF design.
Btw, if you didn't already figure it out, I made the whole thing up. Wikipedia has open editing - anyone can say or claim anything they want. THat's why the threshold on what is allowable is verifiability, not truth. Hearsay, unpublished information, rumor, etc., have no place on this site as they cannot be verified. If you strongly disagree with that policy (not a suggestion, not a guideline, but POLICY), then WIkipedia is probably not the site for you. - BillCJ 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


That pilot has probably never seen a Typhoon in person let along fly DACT with it to know such details, probably drives Hercs for a living, again distinguish.

  • Key words: I made it up. - BillCJ 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you're right, Wiki is not the place for me, I know that most of the specifications given are not even in the ballpark let alone accurate. I just find it odd that say someone involved with the F-22 program could not edit something unless it was "published" somewhere, even thought the published information used now is clearly incorrect....

I assume Lockheed and the Air Force are well aware of the correct performane specs for the F-22. When they release it to the public, we can use it. For now, I expect they are content with the exact figures being a bit of a mystery. - BillCJ 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed sales

This section needs to be pared. The fact that the F-22 is being considered by other nations is fine to mention but look at the detail here especially in the passage on Australia. Comments? Bzuk 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Concur. - BillCJ 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I shortened the last paragraph some. -Fnlayson 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Macintosh advocacy

I replaced "Apple Macintosh" with "personal computer" since IEEE 1394 is common on many different computers; it's not unique to Macs. In fact, most computers with IEEE 1394 are IBM-compatible computers and not Apples. I see no reason to showcase one particular brand of computer when the technology is common on many different computers now. It's also misleading, since it leads the reader to believe that the only computers that have the technology are Macs. Whoever keeps reverting the article to read "Apple Macintosh" is simply being an advocate for Macs. TwinTurboZ 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, this is the first explaination of the change. Changes like this with no explanation in the edit summary can look like vandalism. -Fnlayson 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not my changes, but weren't Apple the first to introduce IEEE 1394 (as 'Firewire') and wasn't it a Mac innovation? Common now, it used to be associated principally with the Mac platform.

Rules for comparable aircrafts

I propose a clear rule for the chapter “Comparable aircraft” in order to avoid all the nationalis fervor like “F-22 is in a league of it's own” or frustrations like “Why my favorite plane (Typhoon/Rafale) is not included even if it rates almost the same and cost 5 times less”. The comparables planes should the ones that (1) are produced/developed in the same time and (2) have at least some characteristics that are relatively comparable. While some planes are without discussion superior in some scenarios better than the direct competition they may find in a realistic battlefield ether as opponents or allies. More they are regularly compared by governments for acquisitions and in this case the winner is not necessarily decided by quality but also price, availability, easy to maintain, political pressure, corruption.... More it is useless to send an expensive F22 to police the sky of Somalia, a Mig 21 will do the job. BdB134.157.93.124 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions:
  1. Register! - you are more likely to be taken seriously if you take the time to register, which, among other things, makes sure you have one talk page for communications from other editors.
  2. As the "Comparable aircraft" field is on all WP:AIR project articles, they are better posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page.
  3. You've forgotten the users who add their nation's proposed subsonic attack trainers. I have personally removed the IAMI Shafaq from this page on at least one occasion. - BillCJ 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillCj for the answer. Well the peoples should use also common sense, otherwise a hot air baloon is able to reach higher altitudes and a zeppelin has a bigger range than F22. The problems is that users think that Wiki is for funs to express their desires and not to give an information as realiably and neutral as possible. BdB-18 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

YF-22 3D view

The 3D view pic in the "specifications" section is that of the prototype, YF-22. Since that pic is png, captions can't be added. Shouldn't we get a 3D view of the F-22?

Actually, captions can't be added because "thumb" is not in the image line, as 3-views aren't usually thumbnails. If you can find a legally-usable thumbnail of the F-22A, or create one, then by all means do so. But the YF-22 image is close enough to be included, and the image filepage does make clear which variant is used. It's not like we're trying to pass of a YF-23 or X-35 as the F-22! - BillCJ 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

discovery channel show about f22 vs f23

I remember that discovery channel showed a 2 hr episode about yf22 vs yf23.I dont know te link,can you help me. manchurian candidate 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Active Status

What does that 73 number represent? The Number of combat ready F-22's delivered to the USAF or the number of AC in current squadron use? I ask because I know for a fact (and can prove) that Raptor's number 087 and 088 (90th FS Alaska) have been delivered to the AF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.54.112 (talk • contribs)

  • The 73 is from reference 1. Which is the 2007 USAF Almanac. Data is from Sept. 30, 2006. A web link to this is provided. -Fnlayson 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know that the data is from Link 1 however all I'm saying is that it's incorrect (or at least not up to date). Since September of 2006 the USAF has begun receiving AC for the 90th FS, and as I said before Raptor's 87 and 88 have been delivered. That means the USAF is in possession of at least 88 Raptors... (Raptor 088 is marked with the tail sign AK 90th FS)

See for yourself... (these pictures were not meant to be released to the public by the way...)

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4070/ak5rp8.jpg http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7310/10720862qo7.jpg

It is Wikipedia policy to only use sources attributable to verifiable sources. Until the USAF publically releases an updated number, we have to to use the last known published figures. Anything else is original research, and not useable. - BillCJ 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the latest source available. If those pics aren't meant for public release, why are you posting them on a public site? Nobody said you were wrong, btw. -Fnlayson 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur. LanceBarber 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If one does a little 'homework' you can find the following quote from the official Langley AFB web site: "Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, is the second base scheduled to receive operational Raptors; however, each aircraft will come through Langley. For the near future both "AK" Elmendorf and "FF" 1st FW tails will be seen along the newly renovated Langley flightline. " Find it, mod the F-22 article, and give the formal ref. Regards, LanceBarber 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Climb performance

The article says "its climb rate is faster than the F-15 Eagle due to advances in engine technology, despite the F-15's thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2:1, with the F-22 having a ratio closer to 1:1"

This doesn't sound right. If it's able to climb faster, that means that it either has a better thrust/weight ratio or the aircraft is just more aerodynamic. The fact that the max engine thrust is classified but we know that it climbs faster than the F-15 suggests that it may have more thrust than commonly believed, making the actual thrust/weight ratio better than the F-15's.TwinTurboZ 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

References

For an aircraft as significant as the F-22 Raptor, there should be some textual (book) references available. All I see are websites which are not exactly vetted for accuracy at times and can hardly been considered authoritative compared to major references. IMHO Bzuk.

fibre optics?

Does the Raptor use fibre optics for its bus? Found no mention of this in the text.Bumper12 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert attention

This article deperately needs editing by someone who isn't a 17 year fanboy and who has a basic grasp of physics - stealth does not mean "no detection by radar" but "reduced detection range, based on the fourth root of the radar signature". There's no discussion of the criticism of the plane by Ricconi and Sprey (eg poor fuel factor, massive visual signature) or of the criticism of the aircraft for not having a BVR weapon system equivalent to the Meteor. A key claim - that missile bays are only open for a second while launching an air to air missile - is made without a source or comprehension of its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.90.70 (talk • contribs)

  • The article never states Stealth means "no detection by radar". Where do you get that? -Fnlayson 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

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

Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
  • I think so. It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"First prominent Hollywood debut." This is simply inaccurate and subjective. I had the same thought as the OP when I read this entry on the main page. IMHO, it should at least mention The Hulk, followed by Transformers. Seems like a silly spat to me. 216.160.102.166 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Happysomeone
Please explain to me why there is even a popular culture section at all. 64.142.65.164 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture continued

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

Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
  • I think so. It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The Google test doesn't work (WP:GOOG). Forgive me, but it seems you didn't actually read the links you provided. The former makes reference to both Tom Clancy and the F-22, but not at the same time. The latter link is a forum post, and doesn't seem to mention either author or their books. --Eyrian 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom Clancy has also featured the F-22 in his 2004 Fighter Wing which in the Book Review describes: "including cutting-edge information on the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." FWIW Bzuk 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
Are you sure we're reading the same review? I find no mention of Clancy, Fighter Wing, or any fiction at all in the review you've linked. --Eyrian 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a site with a mention of Tom Clancy's books: Amazon reviews. FWIW Bzuk 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
Amazon is a store site and, as such, can't be used as a reference. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And another: Air Combat where Fighter Wing is referenced. FWIW Bzuk 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Updated unit cost

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

It says 137 on that page, not 157. And also, that is not the "True Unit Cost", at least "true" as in comparable to other aircraft. You should add the Airframe, engine, and avionics costs per aircraft to get a "unit cost" that is comparable to what other aircraft are. Other aircraft's unit costs are calculated in this way. This comes out to $133 million as seen in that budget report. This is what was done for the previous $120million cost as well. Note, the increase in cost is mainly due to the lowering of the amount of aircraft being produced per year. 24 F-22s were being built per year before, but only 20 per year are being built from now on, so this rises total unit cost.129.82.86.201 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, thanks. I was using the unit cost from the Total column. But that included projected costs for future years. -Fnlayson 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Verifiable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor is the F-22's APG-77 being given a high bandwidth transmission capability. This was explicitely denied by Lawson, though it remains an unfunded future option, alongside Link 16 TX/RX, and TTNT. 90.240.101.73 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My full comment was: Reverted unsourced, good-faith additions by 90.240.101.73; as given, that is not a verifiable source; please discusss on Talk Pgae before re-adding, and we'll see what can be done.
You have to understand that anyone can claim anything - what matters is that the sources be verifiable by other editors. I said "good-faith" for a specific reasone, because I believe you really were at the conferece/meeting, and heard the report yourself. The problem is that simply stating that is not sufficient for sourcing. Please read WP:ATTR and WP:CITE for further information on Wikipedias policies on sourcing. We (the regular editors of this article) will be happy to help you with the particulars of getting the source info into the text.
There are several ways you can go about citing and sourcing what you heard. If you can find a published (print or online) transcript of the meeting, that would suffice. If that is not available, there may be published coverage of the meeting, and you can reference what is in those sources.
As to what is there now, if you believe it is inaccurate, there are several ways to handle that.
  1. Remove it.
  2. Tag it
You can tag it with {{citation needed}}, {{verify source}}, or {{dubious}}. There are other tags available, but they are the ones I usually use. - BillCJ 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to jump in here... without a DL the F-22 is absolutely useless in any of the roles under discussion. Even with the addition of a good DL, the most one can expect the F-22 to do is act as a sort of remote sensor suite that would forward intel back to a real platform. I don't expect anyone here would argue that we might have F-22 pilots directing an air war while in the cockpit.
The extremely broad language used in the body of the article means that any aircraft with a radar could be used, it may as well be a F-15, or a Mosquito for that matter. I don't see claims in those articles suggesting this will happen though.
So unless there is some good evidence that these sorts of upgrades will be made, I'd prefer to see the entire section removed. And frankly, I trust AvLeak exactly as far as I can throw it. While it may be true that statements at a meeting cannot be used for CITE I'd still say they trump AvLeak. IE, in this case we have a rather dubious claim from AvLeak that I simply don't believe, countered by direct evidence to the contrary. Although it is reasonable to suggest that the direct evidence cannot be included due to its "format", that just argues for the entire section being removed, IMHO.
Maury 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exceptionally long testing period

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

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

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

Command & Conquer Generals

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

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

F-22's in Canada

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

GAO Report and Eurofighter Dogfight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to what I could find online, the relevant quote from the source reads, "During evaluations and trials at NAS China Lake last year two Typhoons were pitched against F-22s. The Typhoons excelled in close range combat with the F-22s, but surprised everybody by locking on to the F-22s before the F-22s could get a lock-on on the Typhoons during BVR trials as well." No context, such as whether this was reported by the source as a rumor or a solid source, nor what the rules of engagement might have been (e.g., a non-jamming environment, whether it was just a ‘BVR rodeo’ with no advantage taken of the Raptor’s BVR strengths, etc.). Since the F-22 is optimized for BVR combat, I wouldn’t consider it to be too surprising that the Typhoon – designed with a stronger emphasis on dogfighting maneuverability – could get a first lock-on in WVR. A very powerful radar at close range could detect an extremely stealthy airplane like the F-22. Low RCS means it takes much more radar power at a given range to detect it, so significant power at short range could have the same effect. As for maneuver performance, even if the F-22 dominated 90% of the performance envelope with respect to the Eurofighter (about which I have no idea) and the Typhoon’s pilot managed to maneuver his opponent into the 10% where the Typhoon has the upper hand, well then, that’s what a well-trained, top-notch pilot tries to do.
Such a snippet – of unknown reliability – certainly doesn’t support the recent POV vandalisms that the Raptor is “easy to shoot down.” Nor does much of anything in the 1999 GAO report on the YF-22 prototype development retain any relevance to today’s operational production F-22. Until something more substantive is offered and sourced, I believe that reverting such POV fluff, as our editors have been doing, remains the right thing to continue to do. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Since this particular GAO publication is so recent, it is much more appropriate to cite. However, two-page assessments like these don’t tend to include much context, unlike the more detailed, program-specific evaluations the GAO produces from time-to-time; also these latter publications also provide room for the owning service to respond to key points as to whether or not they concur with its findings. GAO findings always tend to always sound “cataclysmic” or nearly so to readers with little understanding of how complex, advanced technology programs are developed. For one thing, it needs to be kept in mind that the GAO criticizes anything that isn’t “low-risk” as “immature”; the typical standard seems to follow a logic along the lines of “Buggy whips are ‘mature’; advanced technologies are not – until everybody else is already using them.” Their findings are inevitably subjective; in fact, this is the first time I’ve seen them use a non-arbitrary scale like the one in Appendix III for evaluating military aerospace technologies, but then they mis-apply it as well. Since the F-22 entered service in December 2005, it was essentially Technology Readiness Level 8 (not 7) by the time they began their investigations. Moreover, if every system, subsystem and component were individually tested to the “realism” standard required for Level 7, the aircraft cost would probably grow by at least an order of magnitude.
As the GAO correctly points out, the three critical technologies needed for the modernization program as it was configured in 2003 were “mature”; the three new critical technologies were added later to the modernization program as desirable to achieve, essentially, Technology Readiness Level 9, if you will. The whole purpose of adding them was to “mature” them. How the GAO can say, “Overall technology maturity is consequently lower now than when the modernization effort began” is quite beyond me. In any case, given their nature, I doubt that whatever progress made on the three identified technologies will be broadly reported.
  • The reliability and maintainability issue is a legitimate one – and not uncommon in early production aircraft. To some degree it’s also due to ironing out the kinks in the spare parts flow. The fault isolation software and the thermal management systems are part of this issue, and the former may have been resolved by now. From what I’ve read, the F-22’s reliability has improved considerably, but I don’t know how well it is progressing toward making its 100,000 flying-hour goal in 2010, so I don’t know how much of an issue it is.
  • The Structural Retrofit Program (SRP) is under way, although other sources report that only 41 aircraft need the modification. The two fatigue problems aren’t likely to make the plane unsafe to fly anytime soon, but rather shorten its overall expected service life. The USAF doesn’t appear to think either of them is urgent.
The way I read it, these are normal problems for a “juvenile” high-technology, highly complex fighter design and it sounds like all of them should be settled by 2010. In the grand scheme of things, the GAO’s findings are minor and being dealt with. More apropos and important are the issues that have long been raised about whether or not the design approach employed on the F-22 are the best-suited for the modern and future missions it will be called upon to perform. If it works perfectly but is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter much. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In your POV, Askari Mark, what do you think about the statements the user named Zeptocomp is saying about the F-22 on this forum? (his comments are in yellow) http://youtube.com/watch?v=vIvgBbXKL5E Is he making a good argument? Also, here is a site with another bunch of articles that claim supposed Eurofighter > F-22 dogfights that he cites from. The quotes are in the gray boxes [2]. In addition, what exactly is "mean time between maintainance"? I need some understanding about that. It can't be the amount of time where a plane can fly and has to land for maintainance (like the user is saying). Tsurugi 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tsurugi, I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner, but work and family demands have kept me off-wiki for the last couple of weeks. Regarding Zeptocomp’s You Tube video, well, anyone can gather everything negative they can find on a subject, take it out of its proper context, and emphasize it beyond any reasonable point of relevancy, so I cannot say I’m impressed. I find critiques to be more helpful than diatribes. As most of the editors around here are aware, I don’t get into all of this “my-favorite-airplane-is-better-than-your-favorite-airplane” dueling that often goes on in these articles. As I’ve pointed out any number of times, every modern fighter has a place in its maneuver envelope where it can out-perform any of the others. The only way in which we can meaningfully say that one airplane is “better” than another is in a single characteristic or combat engagement situation. As for the IAPR claim, I’ll address that in more detail in the subsection below.
In any case, since You Tube is not deemed a reliable source by Wikipedia, Zeptocomp’s work is irrelevant here. As for 88.65.252.208’s criticism of the USAF claim in the intro, I’m somewhat sympathetic. The sentence is “acceptable” in that it is clearly a factual statement of what the USAF claims to be true and cites a reliable source for it. However, it is obviously a statement of what the USAF’s bias is with regard to its airplane, and IMHO would be inappropriate anywhere else but in the intro. It’s equally obvious that the USAF statement is itself bombast since, as I noted above, no single aircraft can best all others “known or planned” across the board in all areas of performance, capabilities and technologies – albeit there are no doubt more than a few in which the F-22 does excel. In the end, it macht’s nichts to me whether it’s kept or removed – and if that was this article’s only problem, it would still be an FA-class article. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I hadn't noticed that. The statement "The US Air Force claims that the F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft." has been moved to the Comparisons section where it fits in with rest. -Fnlayson 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I removed, but an IP or two keep adding that back say it is needed. Even though it already says the F-22 is an air dominance fighter. -Fnlayson 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

International Air Power Review content again

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

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

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

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

How is it marketing talk? Where do we draw the line? The guy is the head of the Australian Air Force you would think what he is saying goes beyond marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The International Air Power Review paragraph was poorly written and dubious because it did not quote anyone. This has been discussed a lot on Eurofighter talk page. -Fnlayson 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently someone beat me to removing this. I'm sorry, please link or quote, this was written as if your own personal speculation plus fails the "smell" test. Additionally, I'm trying to find any info on this magazine and its article and there's precious little out there. At the rate at which they publish (EXTREMELY infrequently, semi-annually but without set schedule per their own website and forums) would suggest their information is very unlikely to be the most up to date and accurate... 2 issues per year at $20? Extremely light readership? I could see if this were in Jane's or something. -MazNJ 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper where opinion is often confused with fact. I would also point out that this claim really does not stand up under scrutiny. There is not much out there aside from the one un-verified, unattributable claim from a publication that publishes infrequently and on no particular schedule. In short it fails the smell test. Perhaps Janes or Aviation Week would be a better source for something like this. In fact the article clearly fails the threshold of inclusion according to wiki, read WP:ATTR. Look under Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources. The first two bullets sums up the problem with including it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm... one has to look at the context here. When entering F22 or eurofighter the wikipedia articles pop up as number 2 -3 on google. Each airplane costs millions of dollars - or billions when looking at contracts. The recent typhoon saudi deal is worth 75 billion. Here is what really happened to my opinion: The meeting took place, but once the results were made public, ANYTHING will be done from the US Side to suppress it, discredit it or mention it has ever happened. You likely won't find any USA military person who will confirm anything - their carreer would be over BIG TIME. In fact I think it would probably make sense from a manufacturers point of view to spend some $ and make sure that the number 2-3 spots on the web don't mention this incident - or even hint towards it. After all it would be disastrous if an army spends twice as much $ on a plane that might not be superior. At the end its economic interest... but I think it's wrong to have Wikipedia be ruled by those interests and allow to have these edits continue. The source is a respected print publication - I highly doubt that a wikipedia admin has more knowledge/clout then a print magazine subscribed to by probably all airforces in this world.
So let's face it - these 2 entries F22 / Typhoon are absolutely crucial and can win/lose millions for the countries economies. Looking at the discussions going on - It's hard to not notice the bias towards the raptor... which quite honestly means that the Europeans don't quite have their lobbying/PR muscle together.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't have to look at the context here. That would be called {{WP:OR|original research]]. The fact is, there are no reliable sources stating that the F-22 even went up against any foreign aircraft, let alone the Typhoon. The forum mentioned in the report doesn't count. Until something more reliable comes out (and for the reasons stated above by Askari Mark, I don't think it ever will, because the event probably didn't take place), it cannot be mentioned in this or the Typhoon article. Parsecboy 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Let me make my point clear, because it was obviously over your head the last time. Firstly, the forum isn't even named, so it's veracity cannot be judged. Second, forums do not in any way ever constitute a reliable source. Third, what academic source has reviewed the article in question and found it to be suitable or reliable? Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia policy page on reliable sources before you start calling people fools. And sign your posts; it's just 4 tildes. Parsecboy 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First off, 76.102.190.6, Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith on the behalf of other editors, so unless and until you have firm evidence that I or some other editor is shilling for the USAF, you shouldn’t make the assertion. It would be the same as someone calling you a shill for Eurofighter simply because you’re a fan of that airplane. As it is, I think my track record for non-partisanship on Wikipedia is well-attested to by my work. I also happen to be an aerospace engineer with three decades of experience who has worked with other professionals from many different companies and countries, so I have a broad range of contacts and considerable knowledge about how the “real world” of aerospace works. Since I found the purported incident personally and professionally interesting, I decided to explore and see what I could learn about it, if anything. (Contrary to popular opinion, not all embarrassments get classified.)
As I noted above, it’s impossible to prove the incident never occurred somewhat along the lines described in the IAPR article; however, there’s nothing more than rumor to assert that it ever actually happened. Given vague claims with no identification of sources other than a “forum frequented by front-line RAF aircrew” (for beer and grins perhaps?), all we have is a third-hand rumor at best, and one containing enough inaccurate content in that single paragraphs to raise at least some concern regarding the original source’s grasp of the subject matter. While that may be sufficient “reliability” for IAPR, it flunks Wikipedia’s explicit guidelines for “reliable sources” as well as its standards for verifiability. Should a reliable source be found to establish that the incident actually occurred, then I would by all means encourage coverage of the alleged incident here. If true, it would be an embarrassment to the USAF and Lockheed Martin, but it certainly won’t embarrass me. Until then, however, there seems to be less to it than a typical National Enquirer story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And besides, who bases billion dollar purchases on wikipedia entries? --Mmx1 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: An IP has begun adding this IAPR paragraph to the 4th generation jet fighter article and appending a further OR sentence to the effect of “This mock engagement happened during Exercise High Rider 10 during 2005”, which the IP cites to a prnewswire report that does not, in fact, make this claim nor even mentions the F-22 (or the F-15E engagement). (For those who aren’t aware of it, Prnewswire is a press release distribution service – companies and organizations pay them to distribute their press releases to news providers – and, as such, it is not considered a reliable source in of itself.) First, the F-15E engagement occurred over the UK in the Lakes District, not NAS China Lake. Second, while I do strongly suspect that ‘Exercise High Rider 10’ is the event at which the author of the IAPR article (and his source) believe the purported F-22 engagement occurred, even this Eurofighter press release makes no assertion that the Typhoon’s weapons trials at China Lake involved any non-RAF aircraft. It you read the article, it appears the only opponent aircraft involved were the Harrier GR.7 and Tornado GR.4 aircraft of the RAF’s Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (FJWOEU) that deployed with the Typhoon (from the Typhoon combined test team). Note that Eurofighter says only a single Typhoon was deployed, not two (as the IAPR article states); this is another strike against the accuracy of the story published by IAPR, and an unqualified one given that there are no “security” reasons why they couldn’t have said there were two, if there had been. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it the engagement has happened. I think the press release and the exercise name are hints for people who want to , to dig a bit deeper. As a manufacturer you can't claim X beat Y... but the press release provides plenty of information. It just named what aircraft from Europe were deployed but not which one they competed against.

I am still concerned by the bias that is being adopted here. The claim at the beginning of the article is pure "marketing" and has no place on wikipedia, the fact that it is left there shows my earlier assumption of a pr war. I'll remove it to protest it. The claim that "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter" is simply marketing BS and not worthy wikipedia.... ITS MARKETING period - and any discussion about it is useless and just shows bias. Let's face it guys. The Typhoons raped the Raptors at NAS china lake and there are tons of people working on hiding that fact. Let's all dig a bit deeper, so far there are MORE THEN ENOUGH proof/sources that all point into the same direction. Typhoon's were at china lake at the same time as raptors, exercice name etc. etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no reliable proof the engagement ever took place. The source you were using to put the incident back in the article is a Wikipedia mirror. Wikipedia is never allowed to source itself. We've already discussed the problems with your other sources earlier (forums, the article that got several key facts wrong about the F15/Typhoon engagement, etc.). The fact that there is an exercise name means nothing. Parsecboy 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Show - Toronto Picture

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

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

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

I agree with the others. The F-22 is too small in that image to tell what it is. Therefore, I don't see it adding anything to this article. For an air show article, it would be OK, I think. -Fnlayson 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The F-22 being such a young aircraft, there is no doubt that it will be shown in countless airshows for years to come. Do you think we shoud create a separate page dedicated to its airshow appearances?--JLdesAlpins 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant adding that image to this article: Canadian International Air Show. It might be a while before there's enough information available to make a decent F-22 air show article. Not sure about that.. -Fnlayson 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the pic. Please don't re-add it without a consensus to do so. In addition, I've never been happy with the "Air Show" section in this article, so I've removed that too. What other fighter article on Wkipedia even has one? It smacks of Original Research, even if the individual items are sourced. I don't think the section is very relevant overall, and certainly an article on F-22 airshow appearences would be a bad idea. I agree with Fnlayson (Jeff) that Canadian International Air Show would be a more appropriate place for such a pic, tho I agree with the original deleter of the pic that this one is poor quality. As such, it probably should not be used at all. - BillCJ 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Now I would like to make a case for retaining at least a mention of the F-22 Air Show Demonstration Team since this is a legitimate public demonstration of the aircraft. I do agree that the section itself was too esoteric and could be deleted. As to retaining the above photo, even blowing it up showed only a tiny blurred image. I have much better F-22 photos that show it in air shows. FWIW Bzuk 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
As long as it has the proper sources (which BZuk always includes!), I've no problem with that. - BillCJ 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph on air shows [tour] including this one is a good idea. Here's one article about starting air shows in May.Raptor Puts on the Ritz -Fnlayson 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Given its technological sensitivity, its appearance at airshows is actually rather notable. I agree that a single para. on the appearance of the F-22 in its first domestic and foreign airshows is a worthwhile addition. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant mainly a paragraph on the air show tour with mention of notable shows. -Fnlayson 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Data link

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. Thinking that the Typhoon is anything more than a 4th generation fighter is sheer stupidity. While it is a capable aircraft more than a match for a SU-27 which it was designed to defeat it is not in the same class as the F-22 or the F-35 for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. ... as if the EF couldn't supercruise ;-) Just be a man and admit it, you desperately want things to be your way, no matter the facts. 77.56.111.155 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


I agree this article is biased and should be marked as such. Check out my other post, if you run the edits on this page through wikiscanner you'll see tons of edit coming from government agencies, pentagon, boeing, etc. etc. That history alone is proof enough that this article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the fact that IPs from various government agencies, some of which have nothing to do with the developement or operation of this aircraft, have editted this article means absolutely nothing. Employment by the government does not immediately imply bias one way or the other. That's like saying Germans can't write about Germany, because they'd be biased. Total and complete rubbish. Be constructive at this article, or go elsewhere. Parsecboy 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Here, here! — BQZip01 — talk 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, if we checked all the IPs on the Eurofighter Typhoon page, what are the chances of finding British/European government and company links? Not that it matters to me, but it's interesting that the complainer hasn't checked those and complained on the Typhoon page. Justr asking! - BillCJ 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If we look up at the Eurofighter page, then we find the Lockeed (on the F-22) worker Nicholas Samuel Lee Smith! [3]The same Nslsmith change here massively the F-22 page!--90.186.142.183 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's really quite suspicious. Someone who works for an aeronautical company is...interested in...airplanes. I'm speechless. That's a monumental discovery. You know, I think you're right. You've convinced me, at least. Let's put up POV and Totally-disputed tags. Maybe we should even file a request with ARBCOM. I mean, someone working on articles that interest him. What kind of madness is that? Parsecboy 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:COI. What you assert is specifically accepted on Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict. --90.186.87.180 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
And...where is that happening, again? How about you provide a specific edit made by Nslsmith (or anyone else, for that matter) where he violated WP:COI. Until then, disrupt another article. Parsecboy 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just wasting time. I say WP:NOFEEDING. -Fnlayson 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
And just who are you, 90.186.87.180? You edit anonymously so that we have no idea if you're editing in a COI fashion, and yet make accusatory statements without discussing specifics? Stick to improving the article. If there's something specific about the article that you feel is not properly sourced, or is not backed up by the sources, or is spammish, present the specific text here, describe what you think is wrong with it (in view of our guidelines), and suggest an alternative. That's the way constructive, consensus-based editing is accomplished. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks 90.186.142.183 for pointing out my name, I am not anonymous and I am very interested in aircraft articles. I also must point out that it is impossible for me to have edited this article in any biased way because I've never actually edited this article. Not once. I have never edited this article. Also - if you read what I have suggested, you'll see that I oppose fan-boy content such as comparison sections, and quotes from fans such as Air Force Generals (they love it, they say it is great, I don't think that content is necessarily appropriate but others disagree, and I yield.) All of this and you think that I am biased? I am simply interested in good writing - so let us get back to improving this article and some day it may be featured again! Nicholas SL Smith 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unit cost

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

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

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

  • Unit or flyway cost can be easily miscalculated, especially doing a simple, but incorrect calculation of dividing total costs by number of units. It is supposed to be the current incremental cost. FI could have got the wrong number and stayed with it. -Fnlayson 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371 By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.--90.186.147.65 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Way to copy what's already in the article and that's NOT how unit costs are properly calculated. -Fnlayson 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did this edit. The cost without the weapons systems, is a bit meaningless, that is, what is it, then, the cost of the airframe ? Plus, the values are taken from the same source.CyrilleDunant 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WS cost includes aircraft costs, spares & other costs. Unit flyaway cost for the aircraft itself and is what is intended for the Infobox. Unit flyaway cost is based on recurring costs. -Fnlayson 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Very well, this should probably be clarified in the infobox page...CyrilleDunant 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

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

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

F-22 simulated kill?

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

News; One F-22 loss at Red Flag attributed to bad tactics Amy Butler 28 Februar 2007 Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 5 Volume 221, Issue 39 2007 McGraw-Hill, Inc --HDP 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're asking if it's a reliable source, yes. It explains the "kill" as follows:

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

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

The article also noted that one-third of the F-22 pilots involved had less than 50 hours in type, and that the F-22's AESA capabilities were not being factored in during the simulation. For the exercise, USAF F-16CJs and Navy EA-6Bs provided electronic jamming and attack. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1/3 had less than 50h and 2/3 had more as 50h on a F-22. How many hours on F-22 simulators and how many 1000 hours on other Jets like F-15? --90.186.140.193 07:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you a pilot? Are you aware that most planes all handle differently? Are you aware that simulators never come close to the real thing? Regardless, how is this even notable? Planes get "shot down" in mock engagements all the time. Just because the F22 is more advanced than most fighters doesn't mean it's invulnerable or error-proof (as was this case, where the pilot made an mistake). Parsecboy 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This F-22 kill was notable because the aircraft was sold on its superiority over others. On paper (and I emphasize paper) it's supposed to eat F15's and 16's and pretty much anything else out there for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and have more appetite for snacks in-between. What the article fails to mention is that the aircraft has an incredible integrated avionics and weapons suite, which increases the learning curve, but once mastered, is a multiplier to the lethality of the aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if this one loss also helps the Raptor drivers learn some humility and hence is an excellent learning opportunity for all. Aki Korhonen 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Fighter pilots made humble??? I don't think that's possible. In any case, since shot-down fighters don't normally get to regenerate themselves in reality in mid-air and immediately return to battle, it's more a game-induced error. What it does emphasize is that no matter how "dominant" a fighter is, none is utterly invincible; their pilots will always be vulnerable to "surprises" – and it's usually the one you didn't see that gets you. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22

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

So what? I didn't think this article was about operator error. Parsecboy 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting article. While it means there's a bug in the system, the automatic immediate restart of the engines with effectively no indication of performance loss to the pilot or the ground crew monitoring the flight is in the category of ultra-cool. That might be worth commenting on in the article.Aki Korhonen 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor/Archive_2&oldid=1136961798"