Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:06, 22 July 2009 editEricLeFevre (talk \| contribs)244 edits →Critics section?← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:07, 22 July 2009 edit undo65.188.37.65 (talk) →Maintenance issues and Controversies Next edit →
Line 438:		Line 438:

	I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There is controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. ] (]) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)		I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There is controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. ] (]) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
			:It's POV-pushing, plain and simple, and it's not welcome on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:07, 22 July 2009

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 6, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 8 months

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 8 months

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 7, 2004.

Loaded weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular Culture References again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pop Culture Film Appearance

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

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

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

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

More pop culture notes

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

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

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

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

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

That's more like daydreaming

> The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." <

That is impossble to do owing to human overload. The ex-WARPAC countries tried to play Mini-AWACS with the MiG-23MF shortly after the commie block fell. The MiG-23 has a really big radar dish, with a lot of rotation horizontally (plus an extra 60 degrees left and right available with manual steer override) and good ground clutter canceller. Sorrowfully, playing AWACS proved too much workload for a single pilot and that's not a issue a glass cockpit could fix. It is also very costly to use a supersonic fighterplane for mini-AWACS and USA has its economic problems nowadays. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, you completely failed to even understand the whole point of that section, let alone read all of it. Second, what the hell does our economic situation have to do with the validity of a single pilot fighter being operated as a "mini-AWACS" have to do with anything? Need I remind you that Europe is feeling the pinch too. RaptorR3d (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that the F-22 is a lot more modern than the Mig-23MF is and, as such, may have more tasks automated by the onboard computer? Besides, given that nobody here actually has any personal knowledge of what the F-22 can really do, I think we should list all the capabilities that the manufacturer and USAF say it can do rather than dismiss an "official" capability just because some Wikipedian thinks that if something couldn't be done with the Mig-23 than obviously it can't be done with the F-22. PS, the US has been through worse times before and it's still here, so don't get your hopes up that it will go under (and if it does, so will your country).68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure the F22 HAS been used as a mini AWACS, during simulated combat against f15's, after expending all their missiles and cannon rounds, planes stayed on station, presumably an F22 can track an enemy and use the wireless link to tell another where it is.

Gold price

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

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

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

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

Lock needed

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

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

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

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

Mach Speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critics section?

I'm missing a critics section in the article, similar to the german wiki page. Especially the corrosion problems, budget problems and operational readiness (2008: 62%) seems to be worth writing. Check german page for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section is not needed to point out negatives. They just become magnets for biased and/or unsourced content. High costs are already well covered in the article. The corrosion issue looks to be minor. The op readiness should be mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not needed" or "bad for the article"? I think criticism sections are good in any Misplaced Pages article, especially in such a long article. Tempshill (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Criticisms sections on Misplaced Pages turn out to be nothing more than a long, rambling diatribe by ignorant, impotent, and spiteful people who want to bash something (especially if it's something about the USA), and instead of looking at the facts first AND THEN coming to a conclusion, they have an agenda first and then scour the internet (or use books that, surprise, surprise, CAN'T be accessed online) for some source--skewing the info or context of that source if need be--to give their own opinions the force of expert fact, all the while ignoring supportive bits of information (such as the F-22 being a first-strike aircraft designed to seize control of the skies immediately, or launch a decisive first strike behind enemy lines, so, ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the plane needs high-maintenance or isn't robust as some other aircraft, because it has the ability to sneak into enemy territory and destroy an enemy's (e.g., Russia's) more "robust" fighters on the ground, or at least destroy the runways so those robust fighters can't take off in the first place....The F-22 kicks in the door, and the more robust F-35 and Strike Eagles take it from there....)68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My post was clear. There's a good bit of criticism in the article now, especially high costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to put in another place for people to say biased, unreferenced opinions, we get a lot of that in this talk page. Maybe a section talking about issues with the F-22, but not criticism. Williamrmck (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very, VERY controversial program and has been for the better part of 15 years. A controversy section complete with FACTS is necessary. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention Iron Man Movie

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

F-22's radio systems?

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

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

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

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

Cancellation rumors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F-22 loss

An F-22 operating out of Edwards AFB, CA, on a test mission crashed around 10:00 am local time today. No details yet on a possible cause or the status of the pilot. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A reference http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/25/324350/us-air-force-f-22-raptor-crashes-in-california.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep Dave Cooley's family in prayer. While I only knew him by reputation, I have many friends who knew him personally. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI suspicion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yak-43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wing Loading

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

DoD Images on Amateur Website

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

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

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

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

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

Ban on exports

Why Japan stick to F-22

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

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

2)Military balance of FarEast rough figure is as follows

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

List of countries by size of armed forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merit for US employment and Trade deficit

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

Development cost collection for US taxpayers

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

Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F-22 Stealth is a fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to the CAG?

Anybody know what happened with this group?

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

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

Further procurement and proposed end of production

Does any other editor besides me think that this section is getting out of control? Does an encyclopedic article on a subject really need to contain a running list of every comment made by a general, congressman, senator, etc. before a Congressional committee or in a white paper? Not to mention that some editors appear to be using the section to promote a fairly obvious anti-Raptor POV agenda. I think the entire section needs to be carefully examined and made more concise to improve its relevance to the article as a whole. ViperNerd (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the section does not need to list so many comments and quotes, and needs to be much more consise. Enough time has passed that one could probably convey the relevant info. HCobb seems to use his edit summaries to summarize the contents of the material he adds, rather than just to explain the what or why of his edits. I am not certain they always represent his own point of view, as I believe he does the same with both sides of the arguments in articles he edits. But I could be wrong on that observation, as I haven't taken the time to run through his edit summaries right now. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is getting into a lot of detail on Congressional budget moves. Probably too much to be notable overall. I trimmed back some info. Things can be cut down more when the final budget is passed. Looks like both sides of additional procurement have been presented. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There does seems to be some bias in his additions in other sections. In this diff, he added "However the F-22 will still lack the helmet mounted cueing system that allows the F-35 to dominate in high off-bore sight dogfights", followed by this source: Sharpening the Raptor's talons. The sense of phrase in italiacs (which I added) is not found anywhere in the article, which never mentions the F-35. One rarely hears of the F-35 being considered able to dominate any dogfight, and in fact generally hears quite the opposite. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It does mention the lack of the helmet cueing system and the F-35 does have that (and the sensors to use it). I'll go dig up my ref on off-boresight advantage in dogfights and move that part to a separate section here about F-22 limitations. Hcobb (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC) And there is one other wrinkle in this pie. The F-22's primitive IR sensors can only detect missile launches and not track aircraft all around it, but it may be able to make off-boresight attacks if another aircraft (perhaps a wingman F-22 with a radar lock or a F-35 running silent) provides targeting data. I've found references that this is under development for other platforms, but I'll keep looking to see what the plans for the F-22 are. Upgrading the F-22's IR sensors to a full DAS would of course fix the problem, but then it would need to upgrade the processors to F-35 levels. Hcobb (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that adding that type of comment without direct support from the cited source or another one is OR. Anyway, all the issues could be fixed with a proper upgrade, and that costs money - something the current adminsitration prefers to spend on other things. And I don't mean F-35s! Those will probably be cancelled in due time, as it's costs aren't coming down either. In the meantime, Japan seems to be willing to pay full price for F-22s, and the government won't sell them to one of our most important and trusted allies! Even though selling more F-22s would bring the overall pice down to where the USAF could afford a few more. Go figure. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here I am putting in almost direct quotes from major American publications and these edits are being rejected for "Anti-Raptor POV"? Is it the American mainstream media that is too anti-Raptor or is it just reality? Hcobb (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't think American newspapers write stories with particular slants and bias? Wow, I'd like to live in your fantasy world. The fact is that every aircraft (especially newly fielded ones with new technology) in the inventory of every air force on the planet has maintenance issues and "limitations", but I don't see you scouring the internet for sources about any of those and adding them to any other articles except the F-22. Hmm...wonder why that is? We get that you think the Raptor is a terrible aircraft and the F-35 is going to be the best plane the USAF has ever flown (when it actually starts to be flown), but POV agendas are not welcome on Misplaced Pages. ViperNerd (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see only a couple of notable problems with the section as it currently exists. One is that it reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia. Second – and more importantly – it begins part way into the story and the end of it is neither fully complete nor totally current (e.g., it lacks mention of the widespread criticism of Donley's and Schwarz's claim of "no military need" within the USAF or of the strength of Congressional support). I’m not quite sure how to clean up the latter without making it breach WP:UNDUE, though. The entire section needs to be more condensed, while offering broader contextual coverage, which is a real challenge here.

The debate over how many the USAF needs to have began before 183 became “the” number and the rationale for this number is nowhere addressed (not even in the Procurement section, where it is first mentioned). This was decided by Gordon England, the Secretary of Defense, against the opposition of the USAF leadership, whose opposition eventually led to the dismissal of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. After placing a gag order on anyone in the Pentagon talking about budget planning without his approval, Robert Gates, England’s successor as SecDef, got the new SecAF, Michael Donley, and USAF CoS Norton Schwarz to announce that 187 was the “right number” and that there was “no military requirement” for more (although few others in the USAF or Congress seem to agree). ACC commander John Corley is one of several USAF leaders who has pressed for a compromise of a 240-250. Continued production toward whatever number currently has significant support in Congress, although the Obama administration has some major Democratic leaders lined up to fight the effort. The threat of a veto has been made, so there is still a lot of beer-and-chips excitement ahead. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Raptors were free and cost nothing to maintain then by all means we should have as many as we can find parking places for. The problem is that the out of control costs to build, maintain and upgrade the current fleet of Raptors is already causing the USAF to send older generation fighters that are being used in the wars that the nation is fighting today into early retirement. Building additional Raptors will simply force the USAF to retire all of their current fighters and so retire from the field in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Hcobb (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda obvious the F-22 is the AF's red-headed step-child at the moment, whose mere existence seems to threaten the existance of the current darling, the F-35. Why else would empty arguments such as the previos post be put forth (their not original to HCobb - he's just repating them)? But F-35-lovers beware: Politics cuts both ways, and the current administration has other plans for defense money - "scalps" anyone? The F-35 is not getting any cheaper either, and it has many opponents too, many of which also make fighters. And who vetos a whole defense budget over a few F-22s? It's just a ploy, one that might or might not work. Anyway, Mark makes some good points on the way forward, but it won't matter if the newspaper-style entries don't stop. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting list of quotes against the F-22. (WARNING! Has refs to WaPo article.) http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090713.html Hcobb (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Puh-leese. The only people who might find that "interesting" are those who've already made up their minds that the Raptor is a waste and the F-35 is the greatest thing to take to the skies since the Wright Brothers flew at Kill Devil Hill. ViperNerd (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ViperNerd, I can't recall that POGO has ever found a defense program that it didn't believe was a waste of taxpayer money, the F-35 included. In any case, Gentle Editors, this is degenerating into a blog thread. There actually is a credible NPOV story to be told about the F-22 and it's not being written in this thread. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorg to fit the template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Daily

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

Maintenance issues and Controversies

I had what I thought was a lot of knowledge of the F-22, including first-hand experience, but I was blown away by a Washington Post article on the maintenance issues of the F-22. Yesterday I checked this wikie and found no mention of the maintenance issues, so I added it. Then another user deleted every *referenced* fact I added and called them "biased" (a fact can be biased?) and "redundant" (there is no other mention of any of the facts I added). The facts included the cost of maintenance according to the SecDef, the average time between critical failure, susceptibility to rain and abrasion, flight readiness, and the need to hand-fit pieces.

I agree that one sentence I added does sound biased "The F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, so actual battle data is not available." but I added that as an explanation as to why the data is from exercises. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me, or I will attempt to.--Skintigh (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Raptor has indeed flown on non-exercise missions where the remote possibility of armed conflict was very real. These missions have however been flown out of bases in the United States. Can we add a Bear intercept photo to the main page as a memorial to this brave combat history? Hcobb (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There *is* controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing, plain and simple, and it's not welcome on Misplaced Pages. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: