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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:02, 5 February 2023 editAzx2 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,496 edits →This sentence seems grammatically incorrect but I'm unsure how to rewrite it as I don't understand 100% the meaning.: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:09, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,617,410 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(136 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes \|auto=yes~~\|archive_age=180\|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III~~}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes \|auto=yes}}
	{{Vital article\|topic=Technology\|level=5\|class=GA}}
	{{Not a forum}}		{{Not a forum}}
	{{American English}}		{{American English}}
			{{Article history
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=16:06, 6 November 2006		\|action1date=16:06, 6 November 2006
Line 24:		Line 23:
	\|currentstatus=GA		\|currentstatus=GA
	\|topic=war		\|topic=war
			\|otd1date=2004-09-07\|otd1oldid=9704828
			\|otd2date=2011-12-15\|otd2oldid=466027648
			\|otd3date=2015-12-15\|otd3oldid=695323848
			\|otd4date=2020-12-15\|otd4oldid=994446299
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|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}}
	{{WPMILHIST\|class=GA
	\|B-Class-1= yes \|B-Class-2= yes \|B-Class-3= yes \|B-Class-4= yes \|B-Class-5= 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 }}
	\|Aviation= yes \|US= yes}}
	{{WPAVIATION\|class=GA
⚫	\|B-Class-1= yes \|B-Class-2= yes \|B-Class-3= yes \|B-Class-4= yes \|B-Class-5= yes
	\|Aircraft= yes }}
	}}		}}

	{{OnThisDay\|date1=2004-09-07\|oldid1=9704828\|date2=2011-12-15\|oldid2=466027648\|date3=2015-12-15\|oldid3=695323848\|date4=2020-12-15\|oldid4=994446299}}

	{{oldmove \|date=15 October 2012 \|destination=F-22 \|result=not moved}}		{{oldmove \|date=15 October 2012 \|destination=F-22 \|result=not moved}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config<!-- settings for bot archiving -->		{{User:MiszaBot/config<!-- settings for bot archiving -->
	\|maxarchivesize = 120K		\|maxarchivesize = 120K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 8
	\|algo = old(180d)		\|algo = old(180d)
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
Line 49:		Line 46:
	\|leading_zeros=0		\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{annual readership}}

			== 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. ] (]) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
	== GA reassessment ==

			:Why? They already have photos in their respective articles, ] and ]. Why would we need them in this article? ] (]) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
	{{WP:Good article reassessment/Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/1}}

			== More detailed description of NATF in the YF-22 article ==
	== Removing belly landing from Accidents section ==

			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)
	This is frankly not notable, and it's one of several that has occurred. ] (]) 00:28, 7 June 2021 (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."
	: This has already been removed. Regards, ] (]) 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

			:So the question I have is, how does that translate into English? ] (]) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
	== No mention of: possibility of shoot down the F-22 Raptor aircraft by a Syrian missile ==
			::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)

			== Why are we referring to it as the Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor? ==
	“According to the Oklahoman newspaper Post, citing U.S. military sources that the F-22 Raptor crashed in the north of Jordan, sources tell about the possibility of shoot down the F-22 Raptor aircraft by a Syrian missile Syrian everything and happened near the Syrian border, while a military expert John Blu Reed told the newspaper that the shoot down of the F-22 Raptor confirmation that Syria has a defense system updated the S-300, S 400 missiles or rockets, U.S. expert also stated that U.S. relations – Russia will be even more strained if it is confirmed that Russia has provided to Syria missiles S 400.

			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.
	On the other hand according to reports from the United States, according to the Los Angeles Times of America, the Syrian defense forces have shot down four missiles launched by the Americans type Tomahawk, sources tell us that it was the defense systems (Pantsir-S1) anti-aircraft missiles that have made that American missiles struck, and centered in the middle, the sources of Washington state that four missiles were launched to test the degree of defense of the Syrian forces, the sources have also confirmed that one of the main reasons in stopping aggression against Syria is the overthrow of the American F-22 Raptor crashed yesterday in the north of Jordan, also also deal with the part of the Syrian air defense missiles to the four Tomahawk, remember that Jordan is still home to its territory five F-22, and this was one of the main reasons to postpone the trial of aggression against Syria.”

			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/).
	Link: https://www.moddb.com/groups/aircraft-lovers-group/images/syrian-air-defense-possibly-shot-down-a-f-22

			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.
	Probably this information should be included in article since sources are US News papers… ] (]) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
	:We would need to see the actual sources before discussing this. A forum for a game modding website isn't a ]. --] (]) 03:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
	:The newspaper referred to in that post doesn't actually exist. This nonsense shouldn't be entertained. ] (]) 04:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	: Tail doesn't look like a F22; maybe an Iranian F14?

			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)
	== "Chrome coating" ==

			: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)
	Ok, I have a bit of a problem with the whole bit about the so-called chrome coating. The problem is, other than people having seen it, everything else is utter speculation. Now I know that much about this aircraft is still top secret, so in many cases speculation is all we have, but at least it's very reasonable and educated. In this case, it sounds more like those TV shows where they're trying to speculate on how UFOs function. It's just wild guesses, and that's how it reads.
			::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)
	My guess is that people often have a natural human-tendency to jump to the extremes of their imagination and forget to employ a little Occam's razor. It's probably something much more simple. The sources said these aircraft were spotted participating in actual Red Flag war-games as aggressor aircraft, rather than flying in some kind of testing arena, likely going up against other F-22s. I think it's just to make them look different, more like enemy aircraft so they're not easily confused with friendlies. But whatever the reason, I think we need something better than all these wild guesses. At most, we should just mention the sightings and leave it at that, at least until we have something that doesn't sound like we're tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks. ] (]) 22:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
	: I agree with this. While it's clear that USAF has many upgrades to the F-22 planned, including its RAM coatings, there's nothing definitively confirmed about the disposition of the chrome-like coatings (which frankly look almost like an applique on top of the existing skin). I would also move to the upgrades section. ] (]) 00:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
	: It's also worth mentioning that these jets, 04-4065 and 04-4070, are OT (Operational Test) jets based at Nellis, while development test is typically done with dedicated flight sciences jets like 06-4132 at Edwards. While it's not out of the question that upgrades may directly move to OT without being see at Edwards, it would definitely be unusual. ] (]) 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

			== Designation and testing section ==
	::I think, given the evidence, and especially the fact that the source says they were flying as ] during aerial-combat training, that they just painted them a different color for the same reason football teams wear different colored uniforms. It's important to know who's who. I wouldn't be surprised if it washed right off with some soap and a hot-water pressure washer. The source also mentions them mounting mirrors on the nose cones, which the only reason I could think of for that is to increase the radar signature to, perhaps, (I don't know) appear on the scopes as a enemy aircraft. That all makes much more sense than trying to pass off a chrome-plated aircraft as being somehow less visible (which makes no sense at all).

			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)
	::All of this, however, is just raw speculation without anything to back it up one way or another. We don't even know if it's chrome at all. Maybe it's just some metallic paint meant to resemble the aluminum of common aircraft. We just don't know, and there is no point in reporting on the things we don't know about. At this point, I would just call it a ]. I say include the reports of sightings if we want, but avoid the speculation without any facts to back it up. ] (]) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (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?
	== This sentence seems grammatically incorrect but I'm unsure how to rewrite it as I don't understand 100% the meaning. ==

			: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)
	<blockquote>"Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export."</blockquote> Any thoughts? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]</span>''' 08:02, 5 February 2023 (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)
			:::* 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)

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.

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: 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 6, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 13, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 31, 2020	Good article reassessment	Kept
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 7, 2004, December 15, 2011, December 15, 2015, and December 15, 2020.
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class 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

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

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the aircraft project.

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)

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)

Categories: