| Revision as of 09:31, 10 July 2024 editQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,800 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]← Previous edit |
Revision as of 12:24, 11 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,652 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 8) (botNext edit → |
| Line 47: |
Line 47: |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
== Distribution between test and operational aircraft == |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, the article states that of the 195 F-22s that were built, 8 were test (EMD) and 187 were operational aircraft. However, the correct figures are 9 EMD, (91-4001 to 91-4009), and 186, (99-4010 to 10-4195).<ref>{{cite web |title=F-22 Industry Team Delivers Last EMD Flight Test Aircraft - Raptor 4009 - To USAF Logistics Test & Evaluation Team |url=https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2002-04-15-F-22-Industry-Team-Delivers-Last-EMD-Flight-Test-Aircraft-Raptor-4009-To-USAF-Logistics-Test-Evaluation-Team |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=DEADLY RAPTOR: AN OVERVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT USAF F-22A OPS |url=https://www.key.aero/article/deadly-raptor-overview-past-and-present-usaf-f-22a-ops}}</ref> Unfortunately, the incorrect figures of 8 and 187 were stated in official sources sometimes, so I'm not sure how we can correct this. ] (]) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Typically, when there is a discrepancy between sources, there are a few different ways to handle it, and some editorial judgment must come into play. First, you can weigh the reliability of sources against one another. For example, if a magazine says ] can cure all sorts of diseases and ailments, but a book written by medical experts that cites actual studies says the opposite, obviously we would go with the better source. However, in other cases the reliability of conflicting sources may be on par with each other, in which case we simply tell what both sources say, as in "Source A says this, while source B says that..." (or something along those lines). Of course, there are other cases where sources may conflict wildly, and often this comes from a lack of understanding or even a clear definition of a word. As an example of that, some sources say the first ] happened over France, while others say it was Germany, Russia, or even Mexico. Everybody wants to claim the all-important "first", but it really depends on how exactly you define a dogfight. (ie: Shooting with handguns or forward-firing guns? Close range or BVR?) In those cases I found it best just to avoid the word "first" and list the events in order, and let the reader decide. It all depends on the individual case. ] (]) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::One explanation for the discrepancy is that the last two EMD aircraft are considered to be PRTV (Production Representative Test Vehicle), while later on a dedicated Block 30 test aircraft, 06-4132, was built specifically for the 411th FLTS. Perhaps this method of accounting is how we got 8 and 187 rather than 9 and 186, but this would be me doing synthesis and original research. Even Lockheed Martin itself doesn't stay consistent on this. ] (]) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yeah, and I can't help but think that there may be a reason for that. I mean, we're talking about an industry that is inherently secretive and prone to misinformation and disinformation. Of course, being a very large project, it may be that somewhere along the grapevine some numbers got twisted around, or it may even be as simple as a typo that never got corrected, and was later picked up by other sources. Let me ask this, is there some reason you believe that one set of numbers are the correct ones, and if so, what is your reasoning that brought you to that conclusion? ] (]) 19:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It could also be an accounting thing, where the Block 30 test aircraft was paid for with production money, or some such thing. If a reliable source deals with a reason for the discrepancy, then we can cite that. ] (]) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::True, but I'm just trying to figure out if there is some "the sky is blue" fact or series of logical steps that would demonstrate that one set is correct and the other therefore must not be, but as I haven't read the sources (and don't really have time at the moment) I'm not seeing that as of yet. Perhaps we should simply note that there is a discrepancy and leave it at that, without any reason, but if there is some logical argument why one should prevail I'm open to hearing it. ] (]) 20:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::See my response below, but for correctness sake I'm inclined towards 9 and 186. The problem is that during the debate in 2009 about whether or not to continue production, 187 was the number used to describe the cap of operational production aircraft, which is why I'm hesitant to change it. Again, even Lockheed Martin isn't consistent in counting EMD and production aircraft, and the explanation I gave above is the one that makes the most sense. It's also noteworthy that the two PRTV aircraft were part of OT&E as they're essentially production quality. ] (]) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The reasoning behind 9 and 186 is that these are the numbers given by Lockheed Martin in 2022 F-22 Fast Facts sheet.<ref>{{cite web |title=F-22 Fast Facts, June 2022 |url=https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/F-22/F22FastFacts62022.pdf |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref> This also aligns with the serial numbers, where 4001 to 4009 are EMD aircraft (see reference above), while 4010 to 4195 are production aircraft. Again, the confusion comes from the fact that USAF and Lockheed Martin has previously released statements stating 8 and 187 respectively, such as this article from Lockheed Martin stating that 4195 is the 187th production aircraft.<ref>{{cite web |title=Lockheed Martin Delivers Final, Historic F-22 Raptor To U.S. Air Force |url=https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2012-05-02-Lockheed-Martin-Delivers-Final-Historic-F-22-Raptor-To-U-S-Air-Force |work=Lockheed Martin}}</ref> ] (]) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Personally, I'd go with 187/8 in the infobox, and note the discrepancy of 186/9 in a footnote, but the reverse is OK if the majority here goes with that. Whichever way we go now, we can always switch it at a later date. We should also explain the discrepancy somewhere in the body with the sources. ] (]) 22:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Either way looks fine to me. In the grand scheme of things it's not something I would lose any sleep over. ] (]) 20:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The current number is 185<ref> {{cite web| URL=https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41106467/air-force-retire-f-22/| title= The Air Force Wants to Retire the F-22 to Fund the NGAD Fighter}}</ref>, of which 4 are for developmental test and 6-8 are used for operational test, depending on what's being developed. Note there were 186 until May 2020, when a training Block 20 aircraft crashed on takeoff<ref>{{cite web | URL=https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/20/human-error-tech-glitches-and-tape-caused-may-2020-f-22-crash/| title=Human error, tech glitches and tape caused May 2020 F-22 crash}}</ref>. Note also tail 4006, which was the first operational aircraft, was retired in 2012 due to budget cuts, and returned to service for testing in 2018. <ref>{{cite web |title=Oldest flying F-22 Raptor takes to sky again |url=https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/1617481/oldest-flying-f-22-raptor-takes-to-sky-again/}}</ref> |
|
|
:Yes, because a number of EMD aircraft have been retired either as maintenance trainers or are in museums. For instance, 4002 became a maintenance trainer before being transferred to Hill AFB this year as a museum piece. 4006 is the oldest flying aircraft. |
|
|
:Development test aircraft should be 4006, 4007, 4009, (Block 10 aircraft) and 4132 (Block 30), while operational test aircraft include 4065, 4069, 4070, and several others (don’t remember all the serial numbers). What’s odd is that it’s the OT aircraft that were seen wearing the reflective coatings. ] (]) 05:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Developmental Test is an acquisition term, meaning using R&D funding. The 4 DT aircraft are at Edwards AFB. The Operational Test aircraft use production run or 'production representative' parts and software. And yes, while the OT jets aren't programmed for combat, they are functionally equivalent and could be sent as is if the conflict were urgent enough. ] (]) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{talkref}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are all forgetting the most important fact that one hull (regardless of what aircraft) is always meant for stress test. As such it's not a complete aircraft as the rest and it's worthless after the test other than for display. That's why the count differ. ] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Use of F-22 over ATF == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! I just wanted to take a moment and explain why I believe that F-22 works better than ATF when describing how many fighters were initially going to be purchased. I understand that saying that they were planning to purchase ATFs makes more technical sense, but I think that may confuse readers a little bit, and that F-22, while not technically accurate, more effectively conveys the information. Cheers! ] (]) 16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I tend to agree. Personally, I prefer to avoid acronyms whenever possible, but especially when they are easily mistaken for other acronyms, because that's like throwing a monkey wrench into the works. It's not much more difficult to just spell them out. In this case, the most common use for "ATF" is for "automatic transmission fluid", which doesn't belong in an article about planes. The second most common use is for the Bureau of "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms". I can't remember what the term stands for in this article, and I suspect many other readers will have the same problem, hence the monkey wrench. I'd either spell it out, or, if the context allows, replace it with F-22 as Googleguy suggests. ] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm a bit more specific on the context that "ATF" is used vice "F-22". I would choose "ATF" when it's in the context of USAF program statements and procurement plans before the EMD downselect between the F-22 and F-23 in April 1991, and "F-22" for anything after that. ] (]) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Using AFT (advanced tactical fighter) is the best choice since the total is from plans in the mid-1980s, before the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 in 1991. Regards, ] (]) 02:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Acronym obscurity aside both are also different aircrafts more so than the usual difference. The ATF had different placement of the intakes due to obviously different speed goals among others. So they shouldn't be viewed as one and the same to begin with. ] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Advanced Tactical Fighter (AFT) was the program to procure a new fighter and had program requirements such as planned acquisition numbers well before the selection was made. Actual procurement plans for the F-22 after selection is another matter. ] (]) 16:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mach numbers == |
|
== Mach numbers == |
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)
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)
