| Revision as of 17:56, 29 February 2024 editSteve7c8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,161 edits →F-22 is "a critical component of the USAF's tactical airpower.": ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:09, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,559,928 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes |auto=yes |
{{Talk header|search=yes |auto=yes}} | ||
| {{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
| {{American English}} | {{American English}} | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| |otd4date=2020-12-15|otd4oldid=994446299 | |otd4date=2020-12-15|otd4oldid=994446299 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|B-Class-1= yes |B-Class-2= yes |B-Class-3= yes |B-Class-4= yes |B-Class-5= yes|Aviation= yes |US= yes}} | {{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|B-Class-1= yes |B-Class-2= yes |B-Class-3= yes |B-Class-4= yes |B-Class-5= yes|Aviation= yes |US= yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1= yes |B-Class-2= yes |B-Class-3= yes |B-Class-4= yes |B-Class-5= yes|Aircraft= yes }} | {{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1= yes |B-Class-2= yes |B-Class-3= yes |B-Class-4= yes |B-Class-5= yes|Aircraft= yes }} | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| {{annual readership}} | {{annual readership}} | ||
| ⚫ | == No YF-22 image? == | ||
| == Distribution between test and operational aircraft == | |||
| Surely this page can accommodate one photo of the YF-22 for comparison? It might also be prudent to add a picture of the YF-23. ] (]) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, the article states that of the 195 F-22s that were built, 8 were test (EMD) and 187 were operational aircraft. However, the correct figures are 9 EMD, (91-4001 to 91-4009), and 186, (99-4010 to 10-4195).<ref>{{cite web |title=F-22 Industry Team Delivers Last EMD Flight Test Aircraft - Raptor 4009 - To USAF Logistics Test & Evaluation Team |url=https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2002-04-15-F-22-Industry-Team-Delivers-Last-EMD-Flight-Test-Aircraft-Raptor-4009-To-USAF-Logistics-Test-Evaluation-Team |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=DEADLY RAPTOR: AN OVERVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT USAF F-22A OPS |url=https://www.key.aero/article/deadly-raptor-overview-past-and-present-usaf-f-22a-ops}}</ref> Unfortunately, the incorrect figures of 8 and 187 were stated in official sources sometimes, so I'm not sure how we can correct this. ] (]) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? They already have photos in their respective articles, ] and ]. Why would we need them in this article? ] (]) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Typically, when there is a discrepancy between sources, there are a few different ways to handle it, and some editorial judgment must come into play. First, you can weigh the reliability of sources against one another. For example, if a magazine says ] can cure all sorts of diseases and ailments, but a book written by medical experts that cites actual studies says the opposite, obviously we would go with the better source. However, in other cases the reliability of conflicting sources may be on par with each other, in which case we simply tell what both sources say, as in "Source A says this, while source B says that..." (or something along those lines). Of course, there are other cases where sources may conflict wildly, and often this comes from a lack of understanding or even a clear definition of a word. As an example of that, some sources say the first ] happened over France, while others say it was Germany, Russia, or even Mexico. Everybody wants to claim the all-important "first", but it really depends on how exactly you define a dogfight. (ie: Shooting with handguns or forward-firing guns? Close range or BVR?) In those cases I found it best just to avoid the word "first" and list the events in order, and let the reader decide. It all depends on the individual case. ] (]) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == More detailed description of NATF in the YF-22 article == | |||
| ::One explanation for the discrepancy is that the last two EMD aircraft are considered to be PRTV (Production Representative Test Vehicle), while later on a dedicated Block 30 test aircraft, 06-4132, was built specifically for the 411th FLTS. Perhaps this method of accounting is how we got 8 and 187 rather than 9 and 186, but this would be me doing synthesis and original research. Even Lockheed Martin itself doesn't stay consistent on this. ] (]) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, and I can't help but think that there may be a reason for that. I mean, we're talking about an industry that is inherently secretive and prone to misinformation and disinformation. Of course, being a very large project, it may be that somewhere along the grapevine some numbers got twisted around, or it may even be as simple as a typo that never got corrected, and was later picked up by other sources. Let me ask this, is there some reason you believe that one set of numbers are the correct ones, and if so, what is your reasoning that brought you to that conclusion? ] (]) 19:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It could also be an accounting thing, where the Block 30 test aircraft was paid for with production money, or some such thing. If a reliable source deals with a reason for the discrepancy, then we can cite that. ] (]) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I added a more detailed description of the Lockheed team's NATF design in the YF-22 article and linked it appropriately. The reason is that I try to keep most of the F-22 development information in this article on post Dem/Val work, including FSD/EMD, production, and modernization, while the YF-22 article would cover the period ATF RFI to Dem/Val. Given that the Navy began backing out of NATF even before the ATF winner for FSD/EMD was selected, the design never progressed beyond Dem/Val, which is why I feel that it's more appropriate to have it the other article. ] (]) 03:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::See my response below, but for correctness sake I'm inclined towards 9 and 186. The problem is that during the debate in 2009 about whether or not to continue production, 187 was the number used to describe the cap of operational production aircraft, which is why I'm hesitant to change it. Again, even Lockheed Martin isn't consistent in counting EMD and production aircraft, and the explanation I gave above is the one that makes the most sense. It's also noteworthy that the two PRTV aircraft were part of OT&E as they're essentially production quality. ] (]) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Uhhh... ok? No offense intended, but this reminds me of that quote from Robin Williams in ''Good Morning Vietnam'', "Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P." | |||
| ::::The reasoning behind 9 and 186 is that these are the numbers given by Lockheed Martin in 2022 F-22 Fast Facts sheet.<ref>{{cite web |title=F-22 Fast Facts, June 2022 |url=https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/F-22/F22FastFacts62022.pdf |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref> This also aligns with the serial numbers, where 4001 to 4009 are EMD aircraft (see reference above), while 4010 to 4195 are production aircraft. Again, the confusion comes from the fact that USAF and Lockheed Martin has previously released statements stating 8 and 187 respectively, such as this article from Lockheed Martin stating that 4195 is the 187th production aircraft.<ref>{{cite web |title=Lockheed Martin Delivers Final, Historic F-22 Raptor To U.S. Air Force |url=https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2012-05-02-Lockheed-Martin-Delivers-Final-Historic-F-22-Raptor-To-U-S-Air-Force |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref> ] (]) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Personally, I'd go with 187/8 in the infobox, and note the discrepancy of 186/9 in a footnote, but the reverse is OK if the majority here goes with that. Whichever way we go now, we can always switch it at a later date. We should also explain the discrepancy somewhere in the body with the sources. ] (]) 22:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Either way looks fine to me. In the grand scheme of things it's not something I would lose any sleep over. ] (]) 20:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :So the question I have is, how does that translate into English? ] (]) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The current number is 185<ref> {{cite web| URL=https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41106467/air-force-retire-f-22/| title= The Air Force Wants to Retire the F-22 to Fund the NGAD Fighter}}</ref>, of which 4 are for developmental test and 6-8 are used for operational test, depending on what's being developed. Note there were 186 until May 2020, when a training Block 20 aircraft crashed on takeoff<ref>{{cite web | URL=https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/20/human-error-tech-glitches-and-tape-caused-may-2020-f-22-crash/| title=Human error, tech glitches and tape caused May 2020 F-22 crash}}</ref>. Note also tail 4006, which was the first operational aircraft, was retired in 2012 due to budget cuts, and returned to service for testing in 2018. <ref>{{cite web |title=Oldest flying F-22 Raptor takes to sky again |url=https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/1617481/oldest-flying-f-22-raptor-takes-to-sky-again/}}</ref> | |||
| ::Explaining why I think the description of the naval variant should be in the YF-22 rather than F-22 article, because almost no development work on that variant happened after the downselect. Some of its design cues were taken for A-X and A/F-X but those are different aircraft and programs. ] (]) 06:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, because a number of EMD aircraft have been retired either as maintenance trainers or are in museums. For instance, 4002 became a maintenance trainer before being transferred to Hill AFB this year as a museum piece. 4006 is the oldest flying aircraft. | |||
| :Development test aircraft should be 4006, 4007, 4009, (Block 10 aircraft) and 4132 (Block 30), while operational test aircraft include 4065, 4069, 4070, and several others (don’t remember all the serial numbers). What’s odd is that it’s the OT aircraft that were seen wearing the reflective coatings. ] (]) 05:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Why are we referring to it as the Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor? == | |||
| :Developmental Test is an acquisition term, meaning using R&D funding. The 4 DT aircraft are at Edwards AFB. The Operational Test aircraft use production run or 'production representative' parts and software. And yes, while the OT jets aren't programmed for combat, they are functionally equivalent and could be sent as is if the conflict were urgent enough. ] (]) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{talkref}} | |||
| I don't want to start an edit war, but Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor seems to plainly violate WP:UCRN, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONTERM. | |||
| :You are all forgetting the most important fact that one hull (regardless of what aircraft) is always meant for stress test. As such it's not a complete aircraft as the rest and it's worthless after the test other than for display. That's why the count differ. ] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The F-22 does not appear on Boeing Defense's website as a aircraft they manufacture, the actual title of the article does not include Boeing, the Air Force museum refers to it as the Lockheed Martin F-22 (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196040/lockheed-martin-f-22a-raptor/). | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| There are other aircraft that have contract partners in the program, most importantly the F-35, but we don't refer to the F-35 as the Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman / BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II. | |||
| Hello! I just wanted to take a moment and explain why I believe that F-22 works better than ATF when describing how many fighters were initially going to be purchased. I understand that saying that they were planning to purchase ATFs makes more technical sense, but I think that may confuse readers a little bit, and that F-22, while not technically accurate, more effectively conveys the information. Cheers! ] (]) 16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Similarly, the F-16 has been manufactured by Lockheed since 1995, but we don't refer to it as the Lockheed Martin F-16, but, instead, the original designer General Dynamics. ] (]) 18:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to agree. Personally, I prefer to avoid acronyms whenever possible, but especially when they are easily mistaken for other acronyms, because that's like throwing a monkey wrench into the works. It's not much more difficult to just spell them out. In this case, the most common use for "ATF" is for "automatic transmission fluid", which doesn't belong in an article about planes. The second most common use is for the Bureau of "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms". I can't remember what the term stands for in this article, and I suspect many other readers will have the same problem, hence the monkey wrench. I'd either spell it out, or, if the context allows, replace it with F-22 as Googleguy suggests. ] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason is that unlike the F-35, where Lockheed is the prime contractor with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems being subcontractors, the F-22 was designed as a team with three roughly equal partners, originally Lockheed California (CALAC), General Dynamics Fort Worth (GDFW), and Boeing Seattle, and the work was split evenly between the three, not just the airframe but the entire system including avionics, training systems, etc. See the YF-22 article for the background of the partnership. Unlike other aircraft programs with partners, the Lockheed F-22 design involved GDFW and Boeing Seattle at the fundamental system level, including the overall shape and the avionics design. Lockheed only got majority of the program when they absorbed GDFW in 1993 (the design was also transferred from Lockheed California to Lockheed Georgia for EMD and production). It's for similar reasons that the YF-23 is listed as a Northrop/McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Given the involvement Boeing Seattle had in both the design and production of the F-22 since the program founding, I think it's suitable in this case to list them in the opening sentence. ] (]) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a bit more specific on the context that "ATF" is used vice "F-22". I would choose "ATF" when it's in the context of USAF program statements and procurement plans before the EMD downselect between the F-22 and F-23 in April 1991, and "F-22" for anything after that. ] (]) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Steve. It is possible that Boeing is no longer a principal partner in the program, which has been out of production for years, and became a mere sub-contractor at some point in the program. We'll have to research that. ] (]) 22:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The relationships and workshare has definitely shifted now that the aircraft is no longer in production and the program is in the sustainment phase as well as ongoing modernization. That said, the opening sentence should reflect the prime contractors and principal partners during the time of design and production, IMO. Other examples include the General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111 Raven, Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey, and the stillborn General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (flying Dorito). ] (]) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I totally agree. ] (]) 01:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looks fine to me. ] refers to article titles, but the first sentence of the article usually gives a subject's full name, which may differ from the title. (For example: ] or ]). Either way, it seems like a silly thing to edit war over. ] (]) 00:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Designation and testing section == | |||
| :Acronym obscurity aside both are also different aircrafts more so than the usual difference. The ATF had different placement of the intakes due to obviously different speed goals among others. So they shouldn't be viewed as one and the same to begin with. ] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* Advanced Tactical Fighter (AFT) was the program to procure a new fighter and had program requirements such as planned acquisition numbers well before the selection was made. Actual procurement plans for the F-22 after selection is another matter. ] (]) 16:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've noticed that the "Designation and test" section of this article is under "Operational history", which appears to be an exception as most aircraft articles have that under "Development". Should the section be moved? As a side note, this article is becoming quite along, and admittedly I may be guilty of a lot of content addition over the years, despite my earlier work that trimmed it down substantially. ] (]) 02:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mach numbers == | |||
| :I don't necessarily see that all aircraft articles need to adhere to some strict format. I don't really have an opinion on that one way or the other, but the question I would ask myself is: in which spot does it make the most sense? | |||
| The article says the top speed is mach 2.24, which it claims is 1500mph. Mach 2.24 is 1726mph. 1500mph is mach 1.95. ] (]) 13:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As for your other point, I quite agree that the article is excessively long. Not blaming anybody, it just is what it is. There are just a lot of boring details bogging down the flow and obfuscating the points. The thing to keep in mind is that an encyclopedia is a quick reference, which is why you find them in the reference section of the library. They're meant to give brief summaries of subjects in easily digested form, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out all the extraneous details and whittling it down to the nitty gritty. Such details are great for the avid enthusiast, but to the general reader they're boring and monotonous as hell. An encyclopedias purpose is to give the basic gist of the story for those who don't want to read the whole damn story. I think paring down on a lot of these details will improve the flow and understandability by a huge amount, while at the same time bringing this article down to a reasonable size. ] (]) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : The ] is related to speed and altitude. The speed of sound decreases with altitude. See also ]. ] (]) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In terms of prose, this article is currently about 11,600 words. I decided to check some featured articles to compare their lengths to this one, and the ] article is actually a bit longer at about 12,300 words. Another article, the ], is about 10,900 words while ] is around 11,300 words. So this article is long but not drastically so. All of these articles are smaller in terms of number of bytes, however, so I wonder if perhaps something else is adding to the size of this article other than the prose. That said, some sections do seem a bit bloated, partly because until recently the ] and ] articles weren't fleshed out yet so some of that information was in here. I can try my hand at pruning my own work to try to cut the article down some. ] (]) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've pruned the article a bit and also moved some testing information further up to help consolidate and reduce repetition. ] (]) 22:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == F-22 is "a critical component of the USAF's tactical airpower." == | |||
| :::* Images and templates are probably why the overall article size (not just prose) is larger here. ] (]) 00:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:Partly. Reading through the article, the design section is considerably more detailed and longer than most other fighter aircraft articles, likely because the F-22's development is pretty well documented with a lot of exposure in both books and in online sources. ] (]) 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|After a protracted development and initial operational difficulties, the F-22 became a critical component of the USAF's tactical airpower.}} This is cited to a book published in 1998 and another published in 1999, both well before the plane entered service. What is the basis for this statement? ] (]) 23:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The USAF's page for the F-22 states, " Raptor performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions allowing full realization of operational concepts vital to the 21st century Air Force." However, this is a primary source, but the GAO also described the F-22 as "critical" in a 2018 report on better optimizing its force structure. | |||
| :https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-190 | |||
| :https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/ ] (]) 17:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:09, 28 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 15 October 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to F-22. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
No YF-22 image?
Surely this page can accommodate one photo of the YF-22 for comparison? It might also be prudent to add a picture of the YF-23. Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why? They already have photos in their respective articles, YF-22 and YF-23. Why would we need them in this article? Zaereth (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
More detailed description of NATF in the YF-22 article
I added a more detailed description of the Lockheed team's NATF design in the YF-22 article and linked it appropriately. The reason is that I try to keep most of the F-22 development information in this article on post Dem/Val work, including FSD/EMD, production, and modernization, while the YF-22 article would cover the period ATF RFI to Dem/Val. Given that the Navy began backing out of NATF even before the ATF winner for FSD/EMD was selected, the design never progressed beyond Dem/Val, which is why I feel that it's more appropriate to have it the other article. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uhhh... ok? No offense intended, but this reminds me of that quote from Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam, "Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P."
- So the question I have is, how does that translate into English? Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Explaining why I think the description of the naval variant should be in the YF-22 rather than F-22 article, because almost no development work on that variant happened after the downselect. Some of its design cues were taken for A-X and A/F-X but those are different aircraft and programs. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Why are we referring to it as the Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor?
I don't want to start an edit war, but Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor seems to plainly violate WP:UCRN, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONTERM.
The F-22 does not appear on Boeing Defense's website as a aircraft they manufacture, the actual title of the article does not include Boeing, the Air Force museum refers to it as the Lockheed Martin F-22 (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196040/lockheed-martin-f-22a-raptor/).
There are other aircraft that have contract partners in the program, most importantly the F-35, but we don't refer to the F-35 as the Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman / BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II.
Similarly, the F-16 has been manufactured by Lockheed since 1995, but we don't refer to it as the Lockheed Martin F-16, but, instead, the original designer General Dynamics. 2600:4040:297C:8F00:3DF5:9183:2248:E353 (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason is that unlike the F-35, where Lockheed is the prime contractor with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems being subcontractors, the F-22 was designed as a team with three roughly equal partners, originally Lockheed California (CALAC), General Dynamics Fort Worth (GDFW), and Boeing Seattle, and the work was split evenly between the three, not just the airframe but the entire system including avionics, training systems, etc. See the YF-22 article for the background of the partnership. Unlike other aircraft programs with partners, the Lockheed F-22 design involved GDFW and Boeing Seattle at the fundamental system level, including the overall shape and the avionics design. Lockheed only got majority of the program when they absorbed GDFW in 1993 (the design was also transferred from Lockheed California to Lockheed Georgia for EMD and production). It's for similar reasons that the YF-23 is listed as a Northrop/McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Given the involvement Boeing Seattle had in both the design and production of the F-22 since the program founding, I think it's suitable in this case to list them in the opening sentence. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve. It is possible that Boeing is no longer a principal partner in the program, which has been out of production for years, and became a mere sub-contractor at some point in the program. We'll have to research that. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The relationships and workshare has definitely shifted now that the aircraft is no longer in production and the program is in the sustainment phase as well as ongoing modernization. That said, the opening sentence should reflect the prime contractors and principal partners during the time of design and production, IMO. Other examples include the General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111 Raven, Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey, and the stillborn General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (flying Dorito). Steve7c8 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I totally agree. BilCat (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The relationships and workshare has definitely shifted now that the aircraft is no longer in production and the program is in the sustainment phase as well as ongoing modernization. That said, the opening sentence should reflect the prime contractors and principal partners during the time of design and production, IMO. Other examples include the General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111 Raven, Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey, and the stillborn General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (flying Dorito). Steve7c8 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve. It is possible that Boeing is no longer a principal partner in the program, which has been out of production for years, and became a mere sub-contractor at some point in the program. We'll have to research that. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the first sentence of the article usually gives a subject's full name, which may differ from the title. (For example: Buck Dharma or Kim Kardashian). Either way, it seems like a silly thing to edit war over. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Designation and testing section
I've noticed that the "Designation and test" section of this article is under "Operational history", which appears to be an exception as most aircraft articles have that under "Development". Should the section be moved? As a side note, this article is becoming quite along, and admittedly I may be guilty of a lot of content addition over the years, despite my earlier work that trimmed it down substantially. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily see that all aircraft articles need to adhere to some strict format. I don't really have an opinion on that one way or the other, but the question I would ask myself is: in which spot does it make the most sense?
- As for your other point, I quite agree that the article is excessively long. Not blaming anybody, it just is what it is. There are just a lot of boring details bogging down the flow and obfuscating the points. The thing to keep in mind is that an encyclopedia is a quick reference, which is why you find them in the reference section of the library. They're meant to give brief summaries of subjects in easily digested form, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out all the extraneous details and whittling it down to the nitty gritty. Such details are great for the avid enthusiast, but to the general reader they're boring and monotonous as hell. An encyclopedias purpose is to give the basic gist of the story for those who don't want to read the whole damn story. I think paring down on a lot of these details will improve the flow and understandability by a huge amount, while at the same time bringing this article down to a reasonable size. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of prose, this article is currently about 11,600 words. I decided to check some featured articles to compare their lengths to this one, and the Boeing 747 article is actually a bit longer at about 12,300 words. Another article, the Boeing 777, is about 10,900 words while McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is around 11,300 words. So this article is long but not drastically so. All of these articles are smaller in terms of number of bytes, however, so I wonder if perhaps something else is adding to the size of this article other than the prose. That said, some sections do seem a bit bloated, partly because until recently the Advanced Tactical Fighter and Lockheed YF-22 articles weren't fleshed out yet so some of that information was in here. I can try my hand at pruning my own work to try to cut the article down some. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've pruned the article a bit and also moved some testing information further up to help consolidate and reduce repetition. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Images and templates are probably why the overall article size (not just prose) is larger here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Partly. Reading through the article, the design section is considerably more detailed and longer than most other fighter aircraft articles, likely because the F-22's development is pretty well documented with a lot of exposure in both books and in online sources. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Images and templates are probably why the overall article size (not just prose) is larger here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've pruned the article a bit and also moved some testing information further up to help consolidate and reduce repetition. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of prose, this article is currently about 11,600 words. I decided to check some featured articles to compare their lengths to this one, and the Boeing 747 article is actually a bit longer at about 12,300 words. Another article, the Boeing 777, is about 10,900 words while McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is around 11,300 words. So this article is long but not drastically so. All of these articles are smaller in terms of number of bytes, however, so I wonder if perhaps something else is adding to the size of this article other than the prose. That said, some sections do seem a bit bloated, partly because until recently the Advanced Tactical Fighter and Lockheed YF-22 articles weren't fleshed out yet so some of that information was in here. I can try my hand at pruning my own work to try to cut the article down some. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class aviation articles
- GA-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles