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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:21, 2 September 2005 edit68.218.114.174 (talk) poop← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:09, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,634,667 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=yes \|auto=yes}}
	''An event mentioned in this article is a ]''.
			{{Not a forum}}
	---------
			{{American English}}
			{{Article history
			\|action1=FAC
			\|action1date=16:06, 6 November 2006
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/F-22 Raptor/archive1
			\|action1result=not promoted
			\|action1oldid=86064021

			\|action2=GAN
	Will someone please add borders to table on the right. It's hideous.
			\|action2date=00:27, 13 September 2011
			\|action2link=Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/GA1
			\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=450114571

			\|action3=GAR
	---------
			\|action3date=22:17, 31 March 2020
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/1
			\|action3result=kept
			\|action3oldid=956941781

			\|currentstatus=GA
	Now that the Raptor is in production, I've removed the YF-22 prototype specs from the page. If someone's interested, they should be made into a separate entry for the YF-22. --]
			\|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=
			{{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 }}
			}}

			{{oldmove \|date=15 October 2012 \|destination=F-22 \|result=not moved}}
	----
			{{User:MiszaBot/config<!-- settings for bot archiving -->
			\|maxarchivesize = 120K
			\|counter = 8
			\|algo = old(180d)
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|archive = Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{annual readership}}

			== No YF-22 image? ==
	''This is still work in progress. Feel free to edit. I need my bed for now:-)'' WojPob, 31.07.02, 22:40 CET

			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)
	''Wow, that was fast :) I just discovered Misplaced Pages today, and the F-22 was the first thing I thought I'd contribute on. I added some specs.''
	ppetru, 01.08.02, 00:34 EEST

			:Why? They already have photos in their respective articles, ] and ]. Why would we need them in this article? ] (]) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
	----
	Hey, will you write anything on thrust vectoring? I don't have much in mind besides "well, the nozzles move" :) and I think it would be an interesting subject if you have some technical explanation. I can make a list of fighters that support it, starting with that first Sukhoi.

			== More detailed description of NATF in the YF-22 article ==
	]
	:I'll do some research on it and see what I can find - ]

			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)
	== Weights ==

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

			:So the question I have is, how does that translate into English? ] (]) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
	== F-22 cost ==
			::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? ==
	places the cost at about $91 million. I think there needs to be some note in this wiki article of the nuances of military (particularly air force) equipment procurement costs ] 12:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
	:: The figure in that article does not account for R&D costs, which have already been paid for and is not a small amount. -] 14:30, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
	::: ...which emphasizes my point regarding USAF cost quotes. who's up for a dedicated USAF aircraft procurement cost article? i think it's a very complex issue deserving of a thorough explanation. ] 01:04, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

			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.
	This sentence in the "Procurement" section seems to be missing a subject: ''"In 2005, for the fiscal year 2006, under further DoD cost cutting measures, is forecasting the number of aircraft procured at 180 saving an additional $15 billion but raising the per unit cost."'' I would have fixed it up if I knew what it was supposed to mean. ] 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (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/).
	== Data sources ==

			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.
	Could somebody please cite sources on the specifications listed here? A lot of the real data is classified, so it would be good to know what the source of the guesswork/leaks are. , by a bloke who was reputedly high-up in the F-16 program, implies that the figures quoted are optimistic in some cases. --] 23:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
	:That report is a bit... odd. The author grasps at straws (or misunderstands the subject) when he says the aircraft's stealth is a failure. Sonic booms only provide auditory detection clues, not tracking information. "Netted computers can track its sound" well yes, but to my knowledge no such systems exist, and there'd be a host of interference problems to handle. With the heat signature, ] is still not reliable for ranging information and is all but useless at high aspect angles because the engine plume is obscured. The visibility of APG-77's LPI emissions is highly debatable, but the F-22 can use datalink and passive RWR tracking (it has been confirmed) for guiding weapons instead (leaving the radar silent). He brings up the hackneyed "21 B-2's" example, but doesn't mention the debunking; after the unit procurement reduction, Northrop drastically raised the unit cost (as every company does with changing purchase quantities). He misnames the ] as the "Stratobomber," which damages his "expertise" further. Then he claims that T/W and wing loading are the only measures of fighter maneuverability, ignoring things like drag (of any type), thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire etc. He's flat-out wrong when he says the F-15C and the F-22 carry the same weapons. And he misunderstands ] because he fails to realize that the software provides the upgrade-potential and flexibility of the system, not the hardware.

			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)
	:Anyways, I could go on but the man's just wrong. Yes, accurate sources are an important part of military equipment analysis. I've read everything from Jane's (British) to International Air Power Review (American) to official USAF advertised values. Everything in this article I've read is reasonably accurate, but performance values for ''any'' aircraft are endlessly debatable. This guy has a bone to pick with the F-22, and he's shaped his entire understanding around that. He is not a reliable source, because of his "facts" and because of his agenda. ] 02:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
	:P.S. And oh my god... he states that the F-22 -> F/A-22 re-designation marked an actual design change of the aircraft. It seems he confused it with the YF-22 -> F-22 revisions. This guy is ridiculous.

			: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)
	== Stealth System ==
			::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)
	The stealth system on the F/A-22 is pretty simple. What it does it absorb radio waves and act as an antenna to a radio. It is covered with a substance (most likely graphite and epxoy) that absorb them. Those that are not absorbed are put into random directions by saw like edges that are very small. It acts as a radio antenna by catching radio waves and altering there direction. This also explains the w shape of the B-2 Spirit bomber. Another thing it does is that its two rudders are tilted so that when radio waves hit them the ones that arent absorbed are sent to the other wing just like a satellite focuser. The F/A-22 also has its bottum wings bent ever so slightly so it can do this and keep aerodynamics. It also probably has about 4-8 Radio jammers on its bottum to keep people that see it from reporting it... or so it can kill them before they do
	But dont think the F/A-22 is invincible because its far from. Ive already discovered a developed a radar system that can show an F/A-22, a F-117, and a B-2 bomber at there full size. it works with a frequency that can not be altered by an antenna actualy this frequency is in the catogory of microwaves and burned a hole in my wall when i first tested it. Plus i developed a pistol that would shut down any plane with an E.M.P and then magnetize a steel projectile that is flung at the craft, it is magnetized to a certain degree where it will "seek" a fighters engine and go down the shaft. When i tested this I made a mini without a projectile and it shut down my computer for about a week and erased all my info, luckily i had a paper copy of the stuff. Another side effect of the E.M.P is that it infected my computer with a virus, which was not fun when it finally turned back on.
	I've figured out a lot more than this but if I told the FBI and the Air Force would be pretty mad. So dont think ive told you everything and go do something like try to shoot an F/A-22 down cause I wouldnt give that info out on the internet unless I was paid to.
	Daniel Glisson

			== Designation and testing section ==
	:Your observations are interesting, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your original research. See ]. Good luck with your experimentation.--] 00:46, 31 August 2005 (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)
	== Reply ==

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

			: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)
	== Apology ==
			::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)
	i apologize for my bad grammar and spelling
			:::* 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)
	== poop ==

	i like to eat poop

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: