Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wynne and the UAE

Is Wynne's request for mideast deployment related to the UAE deployment 5 years later? Hcobb (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A question about numbers

Does anyone know how many F-22s are in active service and how many are held in reserve? Flanker235 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Washington Post article

I propose removing this shit.

"By mid-2009, leaked reports from the Pentagon to The Washington Post made it apparent that the F-22 was suffering from poor reliability and availability performance, specifically an average of one critical failure for every 1.7 flying hours and 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.[46]"

since the Washington Post article has been thoroughly refuted by USAF. http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just add the Air Forces response with that source as a cite. That will present the situation and keep the Washington Post side from being re-added. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That link - (http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf) appears to just be a home-typed word document saved as a PDF. Even the page numbering is missing until page 5. There's no official seal or even an official looking header/footer. There's no author, source, address, department or other details. It doesn't even look like a good attempt at faking an official document.Z07x10 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
How can it be faked? The .gov domain is used specifically by the US government. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at it. It's not an official document by any measure and it's somehow ended up in the archives of the Utah senator's (Orrin Hatch) website, rather than say, the USAF website, or the US DoD website. Doesn't figure. No seal, no header, no footer, no classification (Confidential, Non-confidential), no department of origin, no source stated, no signatory, incorrect page numbering, no template format. I honestly used a piece of toilet paper this morning, and afterwards it appeared roughly as legitimate as this source.Z07x10 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really see any indication that it is an official document or actual USAF response. If we can somehow corroborate that I think we are fine, but I, in a teeny bit of searching, cannot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The same content was published by the AFA a few years back, which should be just as reliable as the WP in Air Force aviation matters. Unfortunately, the AFA seems to randomly take down content at times, or restrict them to people who are registered. Not only that, the WP article did make quite a few factual errors, i.e. there are only 11 KPPs. You can see this in GAO reports from 1998 to 2001. Frankly, what makes this any less reliable than the WP article? SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The AFA moved much of their content from afa.org to airforcemag.com a few years ago. I found the original WP article, but I can not find anything about a USAF response on airforcemag.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
SukhoiT50PAKFA, whilst I appreciate that the press occasionally makes detail errors, they're nevertheless an official source. If we allow unofficial documents with no header/footer/seal/template/department/author to count as a source, then before long people will be submitting post-it notes.Z07x10 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Understand your suspicion, but lacking a template, header, seal, etc. does not preclude it from being written by USAF. But whatever, I suppose you can remove on grounds of credibility until a more reliable source shows up. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Trimming the article

The production termination and upgrades section can be trimmed, since it has some information that's frankly not notable or important. It also seems unnecessarily detailed. For instance, this sentence, "The Increment 3.1 Modification Team with the 412th Test Wing received the Chief of Staff Team Excellence Award for upgrading 149 Raptors.[90][91]" can be removed since it's not particularly important. There are probably some areas that can be shortened or trimmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.21.174 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing this section

While it may be valid, I don't think this section belongs on this page, since it talks about perceived shortcomings of the F-22 by another company. Regardless of its validity, I believe it would be more suitable to place in the Sukhoi T-50 page, not here.

"The F-22's design did introduce some limitations, however, as aircraft designers at Sukhoi noted when they designed the T-50. The F-22's engines are very close together, so thrust vectoring is not available to assist roll or yaw (see Aircraft principal axes), and there is no room for weapons bays on the same plane as the engines; they had to be placed around and below inlet ducts. The inlets' twisting design adds extra weight and recovery from stalls is complicated if thrust vectoring fails.[128]"

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The text was trimmed to mention the weapon bay placement and twisting inlet ducts. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some speed claims from Jay Miller and AFM August 2008

Going over some of the sources for the F-22's speed, I saw some additional figures that weren't listed in this article. However, some of these figures look utterly ridiculous, such as a max speed of Mach 1.4 at sea level. I am not sure if this even realistic, let alone reasonable enough to add to this article. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly is Mach 1.4 listed in the article? I don't remember a max speed at sea level being listed in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Trim and compress ban on exports

I plan on trimming this section, since it's unnecessarily long and detailed. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing and trimming

I'm trying to do a bit of copy editing and trimming and make the tone of the article more professional and fix some of the grammar issues. Don't know why a lot of those edits got reverted. Also, is it really necessary to have the exact dates for everything? Consider this segment.

"On 24 September 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill funding continued production of the F-22.[68] On 12 November 2008, the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million approved by Congress to buy parts for an additional four aircraft, thus leaving the Raptor program in the hands of the incoming Obama Administration.[69] On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates called for ending F-22 production in fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with a production run of 187 fighters, minus losses.[12] On 17 June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011.[70]"

I find all these specific dates rather unnecessary. I think just stating the year is good enough. Like this.

"In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill funding the continued production of the F-22 and the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million approved by Congress to buy parts for an additional four aircraft, thus leaving the Raptor program in the hands of the incoming Obama Administration.[69] In April 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates under the Obama administration called for ending F-22 production in fiscal year 2011, thus leaving the USAF with a production run of 187 fighters.[12] However, in June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011.[70]"

Same message without the exact dates, because some of them are frankly just not important.

I'm also trying to reduce the usage of semicolons to make the sentences more fluid.

I'm also trying to fix errors. The first F-22 that flew in 1997 wasn't a production aircraft, it was an EMD jet, the first "true" prototype, if you will. The first production jet flew in the early 2000s. The YF-22s are strictly speaking not prototypes, but technology demonstrators.

RadicalDisconnect (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most times full dates are not needed. Month and year or just year are usually fine. I thought the previous wording seemed better in places. The wording about the YF-22 using thrust vectoring is supposed to convey the contractor team picked that and it was not a requirement. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think the introductory sentence can be shorter and less cumbersome. Something like "The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine stealthy fifth-generation fighter aircraft." I don't think supersonic and super maneuverable are needed in that sentence. It just makes it cumbersome. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to delete this sentence. "Time suggested part of the reason for it not being used in the 2011 military intervention in Libya may have been its high unit cost.[202]" since its importance is frankly questionable. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been making additional trims and tweaks some of which are done without signing in. I'm wondering what needs to be improved right now to make this an A- or FA-quality article. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I thought about it, because the F-22 is a pretty new aircraft I don't think it will be an FA article in quite a while.108.228.145.163 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving the hypoxia-related content from the intro section to operational issues

I'm moving the "Starting in 2010, the F-22 was plagued..." to operational issues section, since it currently feels out of place. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is already in the "Operational issues" section under Operational history. You really mean removing content from the Lead. The Lead is supposed to summarize the article while giving due weight. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing this statement?

"Lockheed Martin considers the aircraft to be the only one that combines supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform."

Since it was written in 2008, and it would seem like outdated info with the advent of the T-50 and J-20.108.228.145.163 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to: "The Raptor is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion into a single platform." 108.228.145.163 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Trimming or removing this segment

"The F-22's design has its engines positioned close together, so there is no room for weapons bays on the same plane as the engines; the bays were placed around and below inlet ducts. The inlets' twisting design adds extra weight and recovery from stalls is complicated if thrust vectoring fails."

Frankly, it just sounds out of place and doesn't belong here. This is what Sukhoi thinks is the F-22's limitations when designing the T-50. While it's relevant in the T-50 article, I don't think we need it here. I think it's much better to trim it to the following:

"The F-22's engines are positioned close together, with internal weapons bays placed around and below the inlet ducts. Though heavy, the serpentine inlets ensure the engine face remains out of the line of sight of any exterior view."

Alternately, we can just remove this section completely.

108.228.145.163 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The modified text seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Modifying the lead

I propose that we cut or modify portions of this segment in the lead.

"[The USAF] claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter. Lockheed Martin claims that the Raptor's combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, makes it the best overall fighter in the world today. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built.""

I think it just sounds way too promotional, and a tad outdated now that more advanced Russian and Chinese fighters are appearing and will enter service in a few years. I think the following cut will sound more objective and professional.

"The first fighter to combine stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, the Raptor offers greatly enhanced air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities compared to prior fighter aircraft."

108.228.145.163 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This Lead text has been discussed on this talk page before (probably in Archives now) and the text was modified to clearly state that was the USAF's position. This article passed GA criteria with that text. So there should be no real problem, unless a lot of users now object. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, so how about this:
"[The USAF] claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter. The first combat aircraft to combine stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, the Raptor offers greatly enhanced air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities compared to prior fighter aircraft."
Basically, keep that first part. That's just my preference, unless other users want to chip in. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How to format Raptor 4001

Should names of specific aircraft like Raptor 4001 be italicized or be in quotes? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a real name it is just made up, 4001 is part of the serial number 91-4001 it actually carried the markings Raptor 01 on the tail. When it was rolled out in a ceremony it carried the name Spirit of America. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the Raptor 4XXX is an informal name that is used by Lockheed and USAF, but I don't see them italicizing it or anything.108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the USAF singular or plural?

Which is it? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In US English, which this article should be written in, it's generally singular. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we use the CMH Style Guide? http://www.history.army.mil/html/about/CMH_Style_Guide_2011.pdf Hcobb (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
WP doesn't use any single external style guide, as it has its own MOS. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So should the plural usage of USAF in this article be changed then? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's the possessive not the plural. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a large article, 108.xxx - what specific sentences are you referring to? - BilCat (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Despite a protracted development and operational issues, the USAF considers the F-22 a critical component of their tactical air power, and claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter." 108.228.145.163 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it should be the singular possessive "its", not the plural possessive "their". In British English, it would probably read: "...the USAF consider the F-22 a critical component of their tactical air power, and claim that..." - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"USAF" in that sentence is singular. An easy way to tell is to check the verb next to it. By adding an "s" to the plural-verb "consider," it changes into its singular form "considers." The USAF is a singular entity and a proper name, so it is almost always singular. However, it is an entity consisting of many men and women. The singular-possessive "its" can work well in that sentence, but gives the connotation of an inanimate object, and how does an inanimate object consider anything? The plural-possessive "their" is often a preferred choice when talking about such an entity, not only because it refers to the people who make up the entity, but also because it is asexual. (ie: The high school track-team runs their laps every Friday evening.) Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Zareth. That's why I said "strictly speaking", but I couldn't think how to express what you said, so I left it out, but didn't recommend changing the sentence either. I also wasn't sure if the usage of then plural possessive in this case is considered acceptable in formal English. Apparently it is. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a complex language. England was once owned by just about everybody, so it's borrowed words and rules from many different languages. In Old English, plural words were denoted by an "e" at the end, and many still are, such as lede (lead) or pine. The use of "s" for that purpose was adopted from the French. That's why you always find these weird exceptions to the rules. I'm always happy to help when I can Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this overcite?

"The F-22 has a threat detection and identification capability comparative with the RC-135 Rivet Joint. The Raptor's stealth allows it to safely operate far closer to the battlefield, compensating for the reduced capability.[114] The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS", though the radar is less powerful than those of dedicated platforms such as the E-3 Sentry. The F-22 allows its pilot to designate targets for cooperating F-15s and F-16s, and determine whether two friendly aircraft are targeting the same aircraft. This radar system can sometimes identify targets "many times quicker than the AWACS".[114] The radar is capable of high-bandwidth data transmission; conventional radio "chatter" can be reduced via these alternative means.[114]"

This section cites the same source three times. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's often a response to citation needed tags. Sometimes simply putting the ref at the end of the paragraph is insufficient for some, so it ends up being put after every sentence. (I don't know if that's the case here, as I haven't read the source, but it is a possible explanation.) Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Putting the ref at the end of the paragraph should be fine here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

"To withstand stress and heat, the F-22 makes extensive use of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites whose structural weight percentages are 39% and 24% respectively."

108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this:
"To withstand stress and heat, the F-22's structure has extensive applications of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites whose structural weight percentages are 39% and 24% respectively."
RadicalDisconnect (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Changing to 'extensive applications' seem more vague to me. Consider breaking with a semi-colon like this: "To withstand stress and heat, the F-22 makes extensive use of materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites; these materials are 39% and 24% of the structural weight, respectively." -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's correct to say that the F-22 "makes extensive use". The aircraft contains the materials, while designer/manufacturer "makes extensive use" in the aircraft's construction. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, good point. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"The F-22 is constructed using materials such as..."? Electric Wombat (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"the F-22's structure contains extensive amounts of materials such as..." -RadicalDisconnect (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the sentence is a run-on. I'd first tackle this by breaking it into two sentences. The first sentence should be clarified in the manners that either RadicalDisconnect or Electric Wombat suggested. (I'll pick one at random.) I would also put the reasoning (the why) at the end of the sentence, because it is less important than "the what."

The latter sentence should begin with the sentence connector (respectively), because this serves the same purpose as a conjunction. The sentence should also be expanded and rearranged to show exactly what the percentages stand for. (Don't expect the reader to simply make the connection.)

Thus, I would have it read something like this: "The F-22 is constructed using materials such as high-strength titanium alloys and composites, to withstand stress and heat. Respectively, titanium accounts for 39% of the total weight while composites constitute 24%." But that's just my suggestion, based upon my interpretation of the context. (Feel free to rework it as needed.) Zaereth (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my take: "The F-22's structure contains extensive amounts of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the aircraft's structural weight."
I think the reader can make the connection between "high-strength materials" and "titanium alloys and composite materials". 108.228.145.163 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks just fine to me. I'd just drop the extra percent symbol, so it reads "39 and 24%." In the same sentence like that, it is easier to make the connection as to which percentage stands for which material. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction date

I think introduction time should be changed back to the IOC date of 15 December 2005. The 2007 date may be the FOC date, but it's not really when it was first introduced into USAF service. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, initial operating capability (IOC) seems more appropriate for 'Introduction'. That is when the aircraft can first be sent into the field. I've used that for the the military aircraft articles I've helped with. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not seen reasons why FOC should be used. If you have some reasons, please state them. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I felt that FOC more accurately reflects when the F-22 is truly operational, but now that I thought about it, IOC is more fitting for introduction, and FOC was specified later in the article anyways. Feel free to change it back. RadicalDisconnect (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheaper F-35

Guys, the F-35 is now more expensive at 153 million dollars per aircraft-the A variant, that is, and that's now the cheapest one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.162.18 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you factored in the F-22 upgrades that Hostage has said are needed? Hcobb (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's past the point where stating that the F-35 was the cheapest option is debatable. I've removed the statement from the artie. --186.203.192.31 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The cost here is unit cost over its production run and that was one of the reasons stated by Sec. Gates for ending F-22 production. The F-35 costs more early on because of a lower production rate and incorporation of changes from testing. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Winner of the ATF competition

I thought that the announcement of the winner was in 1990, but now I understand that I probably remember incorrectly. This section should be removed. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Use in combat

Apparently the strikes against ISIL within the last few hours involved the F-22, its first appearance in combat.[1] --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview with ACC General Hostage

The previous text summarizing the interview is included in the "Deployments" section of the article detailing the Syrian operations. However, the summary included information about "fifth-generation weapons" which was from a part of the interview in which Hostage was describing future changes to how the F22 would be used in operations. It was not directly relevant to the Syrian, or other current deployments, and so I replaced it with Hostage's general consensus on the F22 performance during operations. In my opinion, the "fusion" of F22 with other Air Force assets and future tactics and weapons changes would be more appropriate to include in a section on these general matters, not in a specific section on historical deployments. Vsekulic (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any other sources on 5th gen weapons? One can imagine a supercruise stealth missile, but is that what Hostage was taken with? Two missiles listed as "Fifth generation" are already integrated on the Raptor. Hcobb (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation in picture captions?

Should the photo captions have periods at the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.181.255 (talk)

The general rule-of-thumb is to only use periods/full-stops if the caption is a grammatically complete sentence, with subject and verb, etc. - BilCat (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To add, per WP:CAPFRAG: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Point of the quote boxes?

I'm not sure what the point of those are. They don't seem to really add anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.163 (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph Break

The first two paragraphs of Design is currently as follows.

"The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter that is considered fourth-generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform. The Raptor has large shoulder-mounted diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable tricycle landing gear. Flight control surfaces include leading and trailing edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails; these control surfaces also serve as the speed brake.

The aircraft's dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust to weight ratio in typical combat configuration is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners."

However, I think it makes more sense to break it up this way.

"The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter that is considered fourth-generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform.

The Raptor has large shoulder-mounted diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable tricycle landing gear. Flight control surfaces include leading and trailing edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails; these control surfaces also serve as the speed brake. The aircraft's dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust to weight ratio in typical combat configuration is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners."

Though the text breakup is less even, I feel that the part that talks about the Raptor's wings, empennages, etc is better connected with the second paragraph than it is with the first.

108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The decision on where to make a paragraph break should never be based upon a certain size. Instead, these breaks should be made when one point is finished and a new point begins. The first few sentence are like an introduction paragraph, so it is suitable to make the break just like you said. The next few sentences are about control surfaces, so they are well-suited to be their own paragraph. The last sentences are about the power plant, so that should be a paragraph of its own. Does that make sense?
Also, the sentence about the speed brake is not a clause but a complete sentence. There is a misplaced hyphen in 'fourth generation," and there are a few descriptions that are long and confusing, which could use hyphens and commas to improve the flow. The last sentence would be easier to understand if the word "in" a certain power-level was changed to "at" a certain power-level. In other words, I think it would read better like this:
""The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth-aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single platform.
The Raptor has large, shoulder-mounted, diamond wings, four empennage surfaces, and a retractable, tricycle landing-gear. Flight control-surfaces include leading and trailing-edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical-stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails. These control surfaces also serve as the speed brake.
The aircraft's dual-afterburning, Pratt & Whitney, F119-PW-100, turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis, thrust-vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has a maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio in typical combat-configuration is nearly at unity at maximum military-power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is estimated to be Mach 1.82 during supercruise and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners." Zaereth (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Although I don't think there should be a hyphen in "stealth fighter". In addition, are the commas in "large, shoulder-mounted, diamond wings" are necessary? Also, why the hyphen for "fifth generation" but no hyphen for "fourth generation"? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The hyphens and commas are added when more than one adjective is used to describe a noun. A hyphen is used when one adjective is used to describe another adjective, but a comma is used when both adjectives are used to describe a noun. This helps to avoid snags caused by confusion over which is which. For example, in "stealth-aircraft technology," the word "technology" is the noun, but the adjective "stealth" is being used to describe the other adjective, "aircraft." Therefore, a hyphen is used to connect the adjectives.
In "fourth generation," the word "generation" is the noun and "fourth" is the adjective. Because only one adjective is being used, there is no confusion and, therefore, no snag. Thus, no need for a hyphen. However, in "fifth-generation fighter," both "fifth" and "generation" are adjectives, describing the noun "fighter," so it is better to use a hyphen to show that the adjective "fifth" is being used to describe the other adjective and not the noun. (More importantly, it shows that the word "generation" is not a noun.)
Another snag is found in the phrase "large shoulder mounted diamond wings." With so many adjectives in a row it is difficult to tell which is describing what. By adding some commas and hyphens, it becomes clear what the adjectives are describing, and therefore eliminates the snag for the reader, improving flow. The long description of the engines are also in need of hyphens and commas, because that is a big snag. Zaereth (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I might also add that anytime there is a noun ending in "-ing," being used as an adjective to modify another noun, it should usually be hyphenated with the noun to avoid noun/verb confusion. (i.e.: "Landing-gear," or "dual-afterburning.") Zaereth (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing this section

"The USAF had originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the number to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. In 1994, it was cut to 438 aircraft entering service by 2004; in 1997, the number was further cut to 339."

I think the part that describes the gradual reduction in procurement numbers is overly detailed, especially the part above. After reading the source, how about we change it to the following:

"The USAF had originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the number to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability further cut the number to 339."

75.82.181.255 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reassess article under GA criteria?

This article has seen quite a bit of change since it was promoted to GA status back in 2011. Should we reassess it now? 108.228.145.163 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this article has insane US bias and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECNEE (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been no drastic changes to the article overall. Some changes to the article is not by itself a reason for reassessment. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Difference between ranges?

FTA: 

Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
...
Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,740 nmi, 3,220 km)

Since the ferry range also includes external fuel tanks, and the range doesn't include cargo because that would be the combat radius, what is the difference between the range and the ferry range in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.190 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Range, Combat radius, and ferry range are linked in the specs table. Either you not try clicking on those links or those pages were not clear enough. Ferry range is without payload (other than fuel), while range is with payload. Combat radius is the radius of a circular area of operation with a certain amount of time on station (combat radius is less than half of the range). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did click all the links, but it wasn't clear. The range doesn't specify what kind of range it is, most of relevant external links don't load, and those that do don't contain the figure, nor an explanation of what the figure means. The figure itself is also uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.15.244.30 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ferry range was given in Mark Ayton's AFM article.169.232.212.19 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove this bit

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."

I don't think this belongs in the lead. That is a subjective statement made more than 10 years ago, and it doesn't reflect new developments like the Sukhoi T-50, Chengdu J-20, or the USN's upcoming F/A-XX or the USAF's planned F-X. 131.179.45.108 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Second this removal. It's an old statement, and made in the context of the early 2000s assumption that manned fighters will disappear, a trend that doesn't reflect current DOD projections anymore. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

3.2A

http://afreserve.com/news-article/reserve-pilots-train-with-upgraded-f-22s

I'm unclear from the article if 3.2A is now an operational capability or still under testing. Do we have a better ref for this? Hcobb (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

F-35 lower cost?

"and development of the more versatile and comparatively lower cost F-35"

"newer F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export"

While the "versatile" claim still stands (though at the cost of lower performance), the lower cost part was made not true quite some time ago. F22 cost $150 million, F35 cost $200-230 million according to wikipedia data, and that has gone up since then for the F-35. I think any lines stating lower cost of the F-35 over the F-22 should probably be removed or the context changed to reflect that was the thinking 'at that time' which has not held true. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Absolutely agree, and recommend that the lower cost reference simply be removed from the introductory paragraph. Peter (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that the F-35 has not been the low cost aircraft it was intended to be, it still is part of the reason the F-22 was cancelled. Due to that, I believe it should remain in the opening paragraph. Although, maybe some changes on the wording to reflect the fact that the cost has not stayed that way could be added.

The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile and comparatively lower cost F-35 led to the end of F-22 production.

These are still the facts that led to the end of the F-22. Just because the F-35 is much more expensive now than it was intended doesn't mean it's initially suspected low cost wasn't a large factor in ending the production.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Has this Wiki been updated recently?

"more versatile and comparatively lower cost F-35"???? I got a laugh out of that one. Please fix that. It could be prefixed with "projected to be ..." for historical accuracy. 2001:4898:80E8:7:0:0:0:24E (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 46 external links on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Image sizing

Re: [2] [3]

@Fnlayson: 1. I can't read the text even at upright=1.35. I can read the text in the upper left at about upright=2.0, but I still can't read any of the rest. 2. That's why thumbnails are clickable. If the reader wants a better look at smaller detail, they will find their left mouse button and press it. There is no reason to assume that all or even most readers will care about what that text says. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-reverted after waiting 4 days.[4][5][6] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Clicking on the image to read it should be the last resort. The MOS (MOS:IMGSIZE, WP:IMGSIZE) allows enlarging images to show fine details. I can read the bulleted text on the upper left at 250px wide. But the smallest text can not be read without significant enlarging, like 3X. Some enlarging would help with the medium size text, but I am not going to argue over this. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No one is "arguing over this" or asking you to do so. Perhaps we can agree that a reply is in order when one is pinged from article talk per Wikipedia policy (as opposed to ignoring the ping, hoping the other party will simply forget about it). It's a matter of respect for fellow editors in good standing, and for established decision-making process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This looked like a minor issue and I forgot about it. Nothing more than that. Good day. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
If an issue is too minor for you to spend a couple of minutes responding to a ping, then don't revert in the first place. Good day to you sir. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have other suggestions for resizing this detailed image: File:F22 Raptor info.jpg or is leaving it at normal size OK? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have my computer on a 50 plasma TV, with the text enlarged 150% so I can read it from the couch, and the picture is difficult to see at its normal size even up close. This is largely due to the color scheme. There isn't much contrast between the plane and the background. On those grounds alone I think upsizing is not a bad idea, and since the pic is located next to a column upsizing doesn't really interfere with the article too much.
The text in the photo is impossible to see at its current size. Even the large text is on the order of 6 by 4 pixels. Upsizing would at least let the reader know that the info is the same as that in the column next to it. However, the pic really doesn't show much and, because the text and the column are the same, I have to wonder if it is even necessary at all, as it seems a little redundant. Due to this, the contrast issues and overcrowding in that section, perhaps it would be best just to cut it. Those are my observations, but I'll let you all decide. Zaereth (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Has this page been hijacked?

This page says that F-22 redirects here whereas it does not. When I search for "F-22" the closest I get is "F-22 (series)" and that takes us directly to F-22 (series) and that is a series of combat flight simulation computer games. Perhaps NovaLogic has modified Wikipedia to get F-22 to go directly to them. Sam Tomato (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Tomato: F-22 and f-22 redirect here for me, as advertised, when entered in the search box at the upper right of any page. The redirect page has not been changed recently. How are you searching? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
If I simply type f-22 and press Enter then yes I get here. However when I type f-22 then none of the suggestions (in the box that opens) get me here. Perhaps I misunderstand how the suggestions work but I think most people would expect a relevant suggestion when they type f-22. If there were a way to get a suggestion such as "F-22 (aircraft)" then that would really help those that are not interested in the games. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that we have any control over what the suggestions are. Hopefully people will just press enter.
I often have the same problem with google. The system is just not smart enough to comprehend what you are looking for, so it simply picks a few out of thousands of possible matches based on the limited amount of information it has to go on. If you refine your search a little, say by typing "f-22 r" then the system adjusts its parameters and the correct links will pop up. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think those suggestions are smart enough to put the target of a redirect first. Note that this article's title does not begin with F-22, and that's what is relevant to the suggestions. For a more thorough explanation, since this is not specific to this article, you might try WP:HD. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Range figures

Ferry range was quoted as 2,000mi/1740nmi with two tanks. But this Lockheed Martin slide clearly shows 850nmi combat radius with 2 tanks and applies a -6% routing factor, and includes 2 1000lb JDAMs and 4 AAMs. Allowing for that -6% routing factor brings actual radius up to 905nmi with 0% routing factor, which puts range at an absolute minimum of 1,810nmi. As a combat radius it may also include other manoeuvres. A ferry range has no payload, no manoeuvres and zero routing factor, therefore 2,000nmi is a better estimate, but it must be at least 1,810nmi by simply maths.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Using "Raptor" to refer to the aircraft

So is there a reason why the article uses "Raptor" so much to describe this aircraft? For a technical encyclopedia it sounds unprofessional. 63.108.119.77 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the aircraft's official name, not a nickname. What's "unprofessional" is repeatedly using the designation over and over in the same paragraph. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with BilCat here. This is a general article not a technical article (which are more concerned with the how than the what), so there is no need for excess repetition (especially of numbers). It is very common to use synonyms to avoid such repetition of any word when writing in English. If there were a specific reason why a certain term should not be used, that would be a different matter. (For example, in the technical article, basic fighter maneuvers, I tried to avoid the use of the common words "plane" or "airplane" in order to eliminate confusion between those and geometric planes. In the moose article, we try not to call the wapiti an "elk", because that is also another name for moose.) I see no problem with using the common name here; actually, I see as easier reading for the general audience. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Stealth

Russian scientists (including Poghosyan and Davidenko, the chief designer of the Su-57) believe that the front-RCS F-22 is about 0.3 - 0.4 m² (at the Su-57 - 0,5 m²). Lockheed-Martin representatives say that only 0.0001 m² - is 3.000 - 4.000 times less. Who is right? 212.41.61.97 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither probably, I am not sure that "russian scientists" who only "believe that" is a reliable source, I am not sure that a "LM representative" would be particularly reliable either. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Update 6

Is Kris Osborn a reliable source?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-22-the-worlds-most-lethal-stealth-fighter-its-about-22737 "The F-22 is designed to fly in concert with F-35. Software Update 6 for the F-22 will give the Air Force a chance to link their sensor packages together. Sensors are a key component to its capability. As the F-22 gets its new weapons on board – you are going to need to upgrade the sensors to use the new weapons capability," Cottam added.

I can sort of reverse engineer what he really means, but it seems a bit synty. Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

F-22/35 hybrid

Have added brief summary of these reports: [7], [8], in derivatives. Not sure if they should also be referred to on the F-35 page? Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on a quick read of those sources, I would say that if such an aircraft was built it would be a 22 variant, with at most a brief mention on the 35 page. However, given that right now it is just a proposal by Lockheed, I would recommend reverting your edits until something more official is announced. Sario528 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The proposal is significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. Japan has been seeking the F-22 for decades, as already covered in this article, so this useful additional information. We cover many unbuilt aircraft in Wikipedia, and mention many unbuilt variants and derivatives in other aircraft articles, so this is not unusual. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed and cleaned up version of Upgrades section

This section is a total mess, with upgrades strewn all over the place with no chronological order. I'll reorganize it and also remove some trivial and insignificant details. For example, we don't need to report every time LM gets an upgrade contract. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Where should aircraft block table be placed?

I currently have it under Upgrades, but perhaps it should be relocated to under Production. Thoughts? Steve7c8 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere other than in this article, we dont normally list block numbers by aircraft and the rest of the information is already mentioned in upgrades. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Block information isn't mentioned anywhere else under upgrades, and the only other mention is a sentence stating Block 20 aircraft for training squadrons and Block 30/35 for combat squadrons. The upgrade increments are related to specific blocks. Personally I think this is useful information, but perhaps others here think it's overly detailed? Steve7c8 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I suggest in Upgrades where it is now or under Variants sections, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not convinced that this level of detail on block numbers is actually encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne. No offense intended, but I think it's overly detailed. As I recently explained to an editor here, an encyclopedia's only purpose is to define the subject in the most precise yet concise way possible. Our purpose is to provide the sum of all knowledge. Not all knowledge, but a summary. What makes us different from a textbook is that we don't go into all the little details; we just give the gist of it. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd like to get a few more opinions here but if the consensus is that it's too detailed, I'll remove it. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Try converting the table to text and remove/reduce the redundant info. It shouldn't be near as long then. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like that maybe a valid compromise. Also, keep in mind that consensus is not a counting of votes but a weighing of arguments (eg: the ones that count are those which are convincing and free of logical fallacies while simple "I like it" votes are ignored). My suggestion, if you think the table should stay, is to explain exactly why, not necessarily to convince me (although that is entirely possible) but to convince everyone else. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I may be a bit biased since I come from an engineering background and I'm fairly familiar with this aircraft. I was motivated to create an aircraft block table because the article made mentions of Block 20 training aircraft and Block 30/35 combat aircraft, but doesn't specify what those blocks mean. Furthermore, the upgrade increments are linked to aircraft blocks, which I think is relevant. That said, I may be a bit biased for completeness and perhaps most readers may not find this information important or relevant. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. One thing to keep in mind is that the general reader is usually not an engineer, so to them most of that section is going to read like an onslaught of technical jargon. For example, even with the table, the term "block" is not defined anywhere in this article, so, unless you already possess that background knowledge, the term is rather meaningless to the general audience. Many other technical terms and jargon should be defined immediately after their first mention, so readers won't have to bounce back and forth though wikilinks trying to decipher what they mean. There's a danger in becoming too technical, because it's easy to forget this article is for a general audience, not just engineers. Sometimes broader explanations using simple terminology is better at helping even laypersons to follow along. (Of course, I may be a bit biased, because one of my goals is to make technical info more accessible to the general public.) Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a fairly technical minded person and am familiar with a lot of aviation jargon, but even my eyes started to glaze over when looking at the block table. I'd say it is definitely way too technical for the average reader, and needs to be re-worked. I'll echo the suggestions from above and recommend replacing the table with a paragraph or two explaining what blocks are and giving a brief overview of each block's upgrades. Sario528 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How about the following:
The first two F-22s built, tail numbers 4001 and 4002, were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration, which tested flying qualities, aircraft performance, and stores separation. The third EMD F-22, 4003, was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the structure of production airframes and was used for testing structural loads, flutter, and JDAM separation. Six more EMD aircraft would be built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing. Production for operational squadrons consists of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft.
The upgrade section can include sentences stating that Increment 2 is applicable for Block 20 aircraft onwards, Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft, etc.
Steve7c8 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That seems good to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Is including the tail numbers excessive? Steve7c8 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Overall it looks good to me. Including tail numbers definitely seems excessive. I also think we still need a few words explaining the term 'block' as it applies to aircraft upgrade cycles. Sario528 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Block is more of a production configuration. Certain upgrade increments are only applicable for certain blocks because of some internal differences such as wiring. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Block number has a bit about it MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a good compromise, and linked it in the first instance of "Block" in the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That looks good to me, except I think we should still explain the term "block" here, in parentheses, in addition to linking, basically just as you've described it above. Perhaps something like: "The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the 1.0 configuration Block (production variation group),..." That way it doesn't interrupt the flow (the reader won't have to stop reading to find out what the heck it means). Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Parenthetical description looks awkward, I think it's better to use a Note instead. Speaking of overly detailed, if we want to talk about unnecessary bloat, look at the F-35 article... Steve7c8 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I shudder at the thought. (Actually, I watchlisted this article because I put up a photo here, as I recall. Otherwise I tend to work more on the flying and leave the technology to the technicians, although I still like to follow along.) Zaereth (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ALR-94 and APG-77 developers

ALR-94 was originally made by Sanders and the APG-77 was originally made by Texas Instruments and Westinghouse (as stated by the citation and bibliography). These companies got acquired by BAe and Northrop Grumman only after development was largely finished and the systems were in production. Similarly, the CIP was originally made by Hughes. Should the company names be changed? Steve7c8 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

YF-22 vs. F-22, inventory size

Two questions. Should the YF-22 vs. F-22 paragraph be under Origins section or Production section? Secondly, do we need the inventory size in this article? It strikes me as a bit unnecessary especially given that the production number has been mentioned multiple times, and keeping it updated can be quite tedious if aircraft are damaged or lost due to attrition. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed the first one by moving section label above that. The total number procured should not be repeated later in article such as the Operators section, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I concur, and I removed the order number from the Operators section. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary note?

In the Introduction into service section, one of the paragraphs ended with this note. "The F-22 was "lost" when a victim exited the area, regenerated and immediately re-engaged; the pilot had erroneously assumed it was still "dead"."

I'm of the opinion that this line adds excessive detail and is thus rather unnecessary and think it should be removed. Steve7c8 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifications (new template)

F-22 Raptor schematic
USAF poster of key F-22 features and armament
F-22's underside with main bay doors open

Data from USAF,[1] manufacturers' data,[2][3] Aviation Week,[4][5] AirForces Monthly,[6] and Journal of Electronic Defense,[7]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.92 m)
  • Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
  • Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
  • Wing area: 840 sq ft (78.04 m2)
  • Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
  • Empty weight: 43,340 lb (19,700 kg)
  • Gross weight: 64,840 lb (29,410 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally, or 26,000 lb (12,000 kg) with two external fuel tanks
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis
    • Dry thrust: 26,000 pounds-force (116 kN)
    • Thrust with afterburner: >35,000 pounds-force (156 kN)[N 1][8]

Performance

  • Maximum speed: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,414 km/h) at altitude
    • Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h) at altitude
  • Range: 1,800 mi (3,000 km, 1,600 nmi) with 2 external fuel tanks
  • Ferry range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
  • Combat radius: 460 nmi (529 mi, 851 km)[9][N 2]
  • Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
  • g limits: +9.0/−3.0
  • Wing loading: 77.2 lb/sq ft (377 kg/m2)
  • Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.25 with loaded weight and 50% internal fuel)

Armament

Avionics

  • AN/APG-77 or AN/APG-77(V)1 radar: 125–150 miles (201–241 km) against 1 m2 (11 sq ft) targets (estimated range), 250 miles (400 km) in narrow beams
  • AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD)
  • AN/ALR-94 radar warning receiver (RWR): 250 nautical miles (460 km) or more detection range
  • MJU-39/40 flares for protection against IR missiles[11]

References

  1. ^ Actual thrust is in the 37,000–39,000 lbf (165–173 kN) range.
  2. ^ Combat radius details: 590 nmi subsonic clean, 850 nmi subsonic with 2× 600 US gal tanks, 750 nmi (with 100 nmi in supercruise) with 2× 600 US gal tanks. Figures include −6% routing factor, combat and 2× GBU-32 + 2× AIM-9 + 2× AIM-120.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference f22_factsheet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "F-22 Raptor Specifications". Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 21 April 2012.
  3. ^ "F-22 Technical Specs." Boeing. Retrieved: 16 October 2011.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference avweek_20070107 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bill Sweetman (3 November 2014). J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility. Retrieved 8 November 2014. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference AFM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference fighter_EW_next was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ AIR International, July 2015, p. 63.
  9. ^ "F-22 Combat Radius"
  10. ^ Miller 2005, pp. 94–100.
  11. ^ Wild, Lee. "US quick to return for Chemring's flares." Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Share cast, 26 March 2010. Retrieved: 26 September 2010.

I'm adding this here in case the change in template is made. I couldn't quite move everything over, so there are a few issues right off the bat:

  • Cruise Mach number doesn't appear to be a field that can be entered.
  • Combat radius is now listed as combat range, so is it confusing?
  • No field for ferry range.
  • It doesn't seem like > or + characters can be added.

Feel free to correct or fix anything. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm able to add most of the missing information and fix the issues I listed above. I believe this should be enough to put the new template in place. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Gates quote

Currently, there is a quote by Robert Gates in a separate box stating "The Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual when it comes to the F-22 or any other program in excess of our needs."

Is this quote still relevant and notable? It seems that the prose in the article already captures Gates' intent, so I find this quote to be rather redundant. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I have no love for boxed quotes. If there is a reason for having a particular quote, it should be woven into the text and evident from the context. (ie: Subject says "this", while critics say "that") If the quote is not significant or just adds redundant info, I say just delete it. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The quoted text in the template could be moved to be inline with related text or just removed as redundant. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that it's redundant. Gates' intent is already established in the text, i.e. "not relevant in ongoing irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan..." Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should YF-22 crash be moved to YF-22 article?

Given that YF-22 has its own article, should the crash mentioned here be moved there as well? Steve7c8 (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't make a difference much to me. I think a brief mention is germane to this article, and perhaps a bit broader explanation over there, but don't see that it hurts either way. Zaereth (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I moved the entry to Lockheed YF-22#Accidents a week or so ago, FYI. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Tuning the lead

I noticed that the lead has been tuned, but the second paragraph ends with this phrase "unmatched by any known or projected fighter, USAF officials said in 2009." I find the placement to be rather awkward and perhaps somewhat promotional. While the Su-57 and J-20 probably won't match the F-22 as a system, I still think that line sounds off and perhaps it would be better to remove it, especially since it was stated 10 years ago. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did that tuning; this change sounds good to me. I'll go ahead and remove that clause. PRRfan (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Some ATF history in Origins

I just finished adding some ATF development history in the Origin section. I'm not sure if the information is too much for this article and perhaps should go into the dedicated ATF article. Does the current writing look concise and high-level enough? Steve7c8 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Source that states hadrpoints can hold 5,000 lbs is incorrect

This article states that the F-22's hardpoints can hold up to 5,000 pounds. However, it also says it can carry 600-gallon drop tanks. 600 gallons is over 5,000 pounds, and then there is weight of the actual drop tank itself without the fuel; I don't know where you can find a correct source but I know the one used is incorrect.2601:245:C102:C0B0:0:0:0:EF02 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen multiple sources that say the exact same thing. These numbers are most likely round figures and not necessarily accurate, because most of the true specs are still classified. There are also a number of other factors involved. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 5300 lbs., but there is no requirement that it be filled all the way. The 5000 lbs. rating (on the ground) is also for 3.5 Gs in the air, so the true holding-capacity is many times the max-rated loading capacity. The max-rated load itself is typically much less than the true breaking-load, to leave a margin of error. But all we can do is go by what the reliable, non-classified sources say, and 5000 lbs. for a 600 gallon tank is what they say. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I take that back. My math was off. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 4100 lbs., so this is all really moot. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Is thrust vectoring worth mentioning in the Origins section?

I've tuned the Origins section to add some important background information on the ATF development process. At the same time, I feel that it's unnecessary to mention thrust vectoring in the high level summary of the design history, so I removed it. Does anyone feel strongly otherwise? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention to thrust vectoring in the following paragraph, as it's a bit more relevant when comparing the YF-23 and YF-22. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This was a great addition, I found this information fascinating. Thank you Steve7c8, keep up the great work --TomaHawk61 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Operators

the USAF unit listing is badly out of date and inaccurate but edits are not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.104 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Either you, or someone suspiciously similar, have been trying to change this for quite some time. These edits always get reverted because there are no reliable sources for this info. Simply provide sources for the changes you want made. Post them here, with a detailed list of the changes you believe are appropriate, and be prepared to discuss it. Make sure they are reliable, WP:Secondary sources. And please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a directory. This is trivial info at best, not really of an encyclopedic nature, and we do not necessarily need to keep up-to-the-minute tabs on where these panes are kept at any given moment. Encyclopedias should be written in a timeless manner, so that the info we give today will be info that is still relevant 20, 50, 100 years from now. Zaereth (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's User:Bob80q, an indefed user who socks with IPs, mainly on USAF and Citadel articles. BilCat (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zaereth: It certainly is odd, the same publisher as the one in the article cited 186 before the 183 claim? [9], A Forbes contributor also quoted 186 earlier this year [10] as well as Popular Mechanics [11] and Fox News [12]. I think it's worth changing it at this point (not sure why the IP didn't want to post any sources though). FozzieHey (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
We even have newspapers citing 186 back in 2017-2018 [13] [14] [15] so unless 3 are no longer in service and the news sources are misquoting 186 in 2020 I think it's appropriate to change it to 186? FozzieHey (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The total is probably better covered in the Infobox with reference 1 with 187 operational aircraft and 8 test ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That is the number built, in the source I just added to the article it does say 187 were built but the current inventory is 186 [16] FozzieHey (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good point. One of the F-22s lost in crashes must have been one of the 187 then. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I know there have been some crashes, but haven't been keeping count. Maybe I'm wrong, but my reading of the IP's request led me to believe they were referring to the list of military units who are currently flying the F22. There has been a long, slow-moving edit war over this going back at least a year now. For example, see this edit.Zaereth (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure, unfortunately I couldn't find a source that lists the amount of crashes and whether they were test aircraft, and whether it resulted in a hull loss etc. FozzieHey (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

247 F-22 Raptors ?

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/387645/f-22-raptor-gets-major-upgrades-courtesy-hill-afbs-574th-aircraft-maintenance-squadron "The maintenance team processed 247 F-22 Raptors through ..."

It's in the source, but I don't get it. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's probably a typo. BilCat (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably a typo. Some Raptors could have been serviced more than once but that's questionable over a 14-yr span. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A semi-related source that says 247 twice.

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2484046/f-22-raptor-gets-major-upgrades-courtesy-of-hill-afbs-574th-aircraft-maintenanc/

Hcobb (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My guess is a typo also. The second source is just a reprint of the first, but someone added a picture with a caption based on the typo. My guess is they meant "24/7", since they're talking about a list of jobs totaling over 3.8 million hours, or just under 450 years. We know that only 195 were ever built, and it would be hard to hide the cost of another 50, so I would just omit the number as an obvious error. Zaereth (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an error, but a different sort of counting.

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1354789704135290886

Hcobb (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering if they were counting each service on aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll buy that, but I still wouldn't put it in the article without explaining it or it'll just confuse people. I thought I was onto something there, but you gotta admit, the source was rather poorly written. I had to read through it a few times to sort out all the double meanings. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought perhaps they were double-counting airframes like that. It's certainly not something we put in the article unless it becomes a story that's reported on itself. We'll have to watch out for drive-by users trying to update the number in the Infobox to 247. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Anybody subscribed to check this article? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35354269/f-22-raptor-upgrades/ Hcobb (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally a correction at the first ref above

(Editor’s note: This article was corrected Jan. 28. The original article indicated 247 aircraft were processed at Hill AFB through the F-22 Structural Repair Program. The correct number for aircraft processed at Hill is 135. The original number incorrectly included aircraft that were processed at other locations and in some cases aircraft inducted more than once due to program modifications.)

Hcobb (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Most likely, it's because some aircraft have been modified more than once. Steve7c8 (talk)

Retirement?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36421838/air-force-plans-retire-f-22-raptor-downsizing-fighter-fleet/ Well, the sunset has begun. Thought this should be updated, if anyone wants to do that. KinneticSlammer (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems too newspaperish, and just a little crystal-ballish. I think a lot can happen between now and then, and we should report it when something actually does happen. It's just not ripe yet, in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw that they already retired 30 raptors from Tyndall AFB and it's older jets. The 20 years are up and the upgrade was canceled... I agree with Zaereth, it's not "ripe" yet, but it's going to be that time will come, sadly. Henry Ingraham (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The decision has not been announced. The older Tyndall Block 20s are still at Eglin. It would be really expensive to upgrade to match the rest of the fleet, so experts suspect they will be put in 'ready reserve' mothballing at the Boneyard and not canibalized for repair parts yet.

GA reassessment

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus to keep. Article submitted for confirmation by an author. Outside input, while limited, was positive. CMD (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has been significantly modified since its GA promotion almost nine years ago, with influx of new information as well as changes in the lead, major tuning of the prose, and rearrangement of certain sections. I believe the substantial changes warrant a reassessment of the article, although as a major contributor I don't feel that I should conduct an individual reassessment. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a read through and didn't notice anything major that would disqualify it from GA status. It is a little bit fan boyish, but most articles are here (people generally don't write about things they don't like) and it is not really that bad. I think it should stay a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to tune the prose for greater objectivity, for what it's worth. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Prose looks pretty solid in this article. The lede could be a tiny bit longer, to ensure it accurately summarises any pertinent design and history, as per the article. Images could also do with alt-tags. Thanks L150 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing belly landing from Accidents section

This is frankly not notable, and it's one of several that has occurred. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This has already been removed. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Chrome coating"

Ok, I have a bit of a problem with the whole bit about the so-called chrome coating. The problem is, other than people having seen it, everything else is utter speculation. Now I know that much about this aircraft is still top secret, so in many cases speculation is all we have, but at least it's very reasonable and educated. In this case, it sounds more like those TV shows where they're trying to speculate on how UFOs function. It's just wild guesses, and that's how it reads.

My guess is that people often have a natural human-tendency to jump to the extremes of their imagination and forget to employ a little Occam's razor. It's probably something much more simple. The sources said these aircraft were spotted participating in actual Red Flag war-games as aggressor aircraft, rather than flying in some kind of testing arena, likely going up against other F-22s. I think it's just to make them look different, more like enemy aircraft so they're not easily confused with friendlies. But whatever the reason, I think we need something better than all these wild guesses. At most, we should just mention the sightings and leave it at that, at least until we have something that doesn't sound like we're tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Zaereth (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. While it's clear that USAF has many upgrades to the F-22 planned, including its RAM coatings, there's nothing definitively confirmed about the disposition of the chrome-like coatings (which frankly look almost like an applique on top of the existing skin). I would also move to the upgrades section. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that these jets, 04-4065 and 04-4070, are OT (Operational Test) jets based at Nellis, while development test is typically done with dedicated flight sciences jets like 06-4132 at Edwards. While it's not out of the question that upgrades may directly move to OT without being see at Edwards, it would definitely be unusual. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I think, given the evidence, and especially the fact that the source says they were flying as aggressors during aerial-combat training, that they just painted them a different color for the same reason football teams wear different colored uniforms. It's important to know who's who. I wouldn't be surprised if it washed right off with some soap and a hot-water pressure washer. The source also mentions them mounting mirrors on the nose cones, which the only reason I could think of for that is to increase the radar signature to, perhaps, (I don't know) appear on the scopes as a enemy aircraft. That all makes much more sense than trying to pass off a chrome-plated aircraft as being somehow less visible (which makes no sense at all).
All of this, however, is just raw speculation without anything to back it up one way or another. We don't even know if it's chrome at all. Maybe it's just some metallic paint meant to resemble the aluminum of common aircraft. We just don't know, and there is no point in reporting on the things we don't know about. At this point, I would just call it a WP:RECENTISM. I say include the reports of sightings if we want, but avoid the speculation without any facts to back it up. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This sentence seems grammatically incorrect but I'm unsure how to rewrite it as I don't understand 100% the meaning.

"Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export."

Any thoughts? Azx2 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Having re-read several times I now understand the meaning of the sentence and apologize for my initial failure to grasp the finer details of this construction. Azx2 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Max altitude 65,000 feet

Is this worth a mention in the specs? Hcobb (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

65,000 ft is listed under "Service ceiling" in the specs table now. But there could be a difference between maximum altitude and service ceiling. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a difference. At 65,000 feet the air is incredibly thin, the sky above looks black and blue down below, and you can really see the curvature of the Earth. Control surfaces are extremely sloppy and slow to respond, engine speed is slowed and so is the rate of climb. There just isn't enough air to keep everything working at full potential.
The max altitude a plane can go is called its absolute ceiling. This is when the craft can no longer climb any higher, and you can only fly at one speed (full power) and still maintain steady, level flight. "Service ceiling", on the other hand, sets a safety margin that is a little lower than the absolute ceiling, because it's very easy to lose control up above the service ceiling and end up in an unrecoverable spin. The service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the maximum rate-of-climb has fallen to 100 feet per minute. This is still a lot higher than the cruise altitude, which is where the aircraft tends to operate most efficiently, and that's generally limited by what's called the maximum operational altitude. I don't know if that helps, but I do think it's a number worth mentioning. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I thought there was a difference, thanks. So are altitude records based on the absolute ceiling, in level flight? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure about records. Service ceiling is something they usually determine during test flights, but not something pilots usually take the plane to in normal operation. Absolute ceiling often remains untested, simply because it is so dangerous. You're literally flying the plane just at the edge of buffeting, the ailerons don't have much authority and the vertical stabilizers (tail fins) aren't doing a whole lot to keep the yaw under control. And god help you if you hit a pocket of low pressure or turbulence. From a safety standpoint, I guess you could say that the service ceiling is (for all intents and purposes) the maximum altitude recommended for an aircraft. Not that it can't go higher, but it's usually too dangerous to attempt it, but I'm sure some daredevils have tried. There's a reason absolute ceiling is called the "coffin corner", because, once you get there, there is really not much you can do without going out of control. Zaereth (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe link to this? Ceiling (aeronautics) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ref for "service ceiling 65,000+ ft.": https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2016/August%202016/0816classics.pdf Having just taken a shot w/o fear of airframe loss at 58k this doesn't sound absurd. Hcobb (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound absurd. I mean, that's getting pretty close to the max operational altitude (MOA) of the U2, but as the craft is supposed to be pretty lightweight, I'd imagine it can get up pretty high. Don't expect peak performance up there, though. Lockheed themselves says a pretty round number of 10 miles, here, which is 52,800', so I imagine this is where people are getting the 50K from. But they also say it can cruise and even supercruise at that altitude, so it looks to me like more of a MOA rather than a service ceiling, give or take a few thousand feet. (10 mi is a pretty round number.) The service ceiling is something defined by the FAA as the point where performance has dropped beyond an acceptable threshold, and the margin of error becomes exponentially narrower from then on, which is different from operational ceiling (MOA). So if Lockheed is giving an MOA of 10 mi, then a service ceiling of of 12 mi doesn't sound at all unreasonable. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong page link

"Update 5 in 2016 added automatic ground collision avoidance system (GCAS)"

Link leads to the Shell Star page. I have no idea why, but it does. Rockethead293 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The acronym in astronomy stands for Gamma Cassiopeiae variable, so the redirect should probably link to it. I don't see an article for ground collision avoidance systems, and I don't even find anything to pipe the link to, so I just removed it instead. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There is an article on Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, so I've linked to that instead. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks BilCat. I guess I didn't look hard enough. I've made that mistake myself more times than I care to admit. I've found it's usually best not to use acronyms as links, and even then it's a good idea to check them first. I changed the redirect to link to the correct article. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead formatting

As I understand it, lists should generally be avoided and written as prose as long as it's not too cumbersome, per the MOS. I didn't think the lead was too cumbersome to read, so I'm not convinced that it should be written as a list. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur that this doesn't need to be in a list format. Further, I'd add that it's too much information for the lead, and needs to be summarized for instead. The details should be in the body of the article already, but I haven't had time to check that yet. BilCat (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No secondary

No secondary user option for why uses the f22 212.21.42.228 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What is a "secondary user"? The U.S. Air Force is the only user if that's what you are asking. Schierbecker (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ditto! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
My guess is that English is not the IP's native language, but they're probably using something like google to translate, thus the syntax looks very odd to us. I think what they're asking is why, in which case the answer is simply, because the government said so. Zaereth (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, to summarize the "Ban on exports" section, Congress passed a law prohibiting exports of the F-22s. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Details on Dem/Val

I've made some additions to the Origins section of the article to cover some more information on Dem/Val that I think would be helpful and informative. That said, it did add some length and an entire paragraph to the section. Is this getting too long, or does it seem okay? Steve7c8 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  • It does not seem like you added too much to me. But if there's an issue with length, details can be moved to the Advanced Tactical Fighter and/or Lockheed YF-22 articles as needed. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    I do intend to flesh out those two articles with more detail, specifically more program background for the ATF article and Lockheed's design evolution from RFI to Dem/Val in the YF-22 article. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove the file from the article for now, until the original source can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor/Archive_7&oldid=1180178000"