Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 14 November 2007

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. 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

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

air dominance?

I'm not an expert or even a buff... but most planes like this are listed as "air superiority". This one is "air dominance", which if you look it up, doesn't actually have a compatible definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a formal definition of "air dominance"; it's more a phrase intended to underscore that it not only is a top "air superiority" fighter in the traditional sense, but also has electronic, network-centric, stealth and other performance capabilities never seen before. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• As he said, Air dominance is the US Air Force's terminology. The infobox type does list air superiority. That should help, but may confuse some. -Fnlayson 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA398411 In a nutshell air dominance requires and aircraft to have stealth, supercruise, High-Altitude operational ceiling, integrated Avionics, dominant Air-to-Air Capability, significant Lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) Capability, substantial Precision Strike Capability, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability, network Expansion. http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/dominance.html It is much more than just air superiority.70.107.173.5 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither source actually defines what "air dominance" means. Although the article referred to in the first link might have a definition, this link is just to an abstract which does not. The second uses "Air Dominance" simply as a header; it's not clear that the list appended to the subsequent text is even intended to be a definition of "air dominance", but more probably a list of the F-22's capabilities that contribute to it. (All the text says is "F-22 capabilities distill nearly all requisite theater enablers into a single platform" – but the relationship of "theater enablers" to "air dominance" in toto is not at all clearly made.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are really splitting hairs. The air force, the user of the aircraft, the entity that wrote the requirements for it's development calls it an air dominance fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.173.5 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark's assessment. The F-22 is a multi-role air superiority fighter. Besides, 70.107.173.5, you do not have consensus for a change and are in violation of the 3R rule if you continue this edit war. FWIW Bzuk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Same here, the mission is clearly air superiority. The "air dominance" thing is just a PR stunt. --McSly 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just did a google search on F-22 and air superiority- 45,200 hits, F-22-air dominance- 4,200 hits- all recent and only on USAF releases (it is obviously a PR initiative by the USAF) and is not generally accepted terminology. FWIW Bzuk 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

• The Type field in the Infobox is for a general category info. We're not required to use the AF's precise terminalogy. Air dominace is used in the text. It looks like you're just trying to be disruptive here. -Fnlayson 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's all about accuracy and getting facts straight. The air force says that the plane whose requirements it wrote and who OPERATES it say that it is an air dominance fighter. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter. 35 years ago there where not too many references to air superiority until the F-15 came along. The F-22 takes it one step further.

• I really feel sorry for you if you call trying to get things right disruptive. As for consensus, well that is one of wikipedias flaws. Most of its editors value consensus over fact. 162.83.226.72 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, if you can't play by the rules, why are you here? FWIW Bzuk 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Facts, Facts. It's got nothing to do with rules but the information is taken straight (WORD FOR WORD)from the air force FACT file on the F-22. There really is nothing to discuss. 162.83.226.119 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Misplaced Pages. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Misplaced Pages editors follow. The basic tenets of Misplaced Pages use include:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
• Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
• Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
• Act in good faith;
• Never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point;
• Assume good faith on the part of others, and
• Be open and welcoming.

At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. FWIW Bzuk 06:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

BZuk, unless I'm greeatly mistaken, this is a user (Wikizilla) who has been banned for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's already demonstrated it's not interested in rules. Let's try to concentrate on forming a consensus without it, since they have no interest in gaining a consensus. For the record, gaining a consensus is not about ignoring "facts", but about convincing others that your facts are what should be presented. The USAF calls it an "Air dominance fighter", and no one disputes that, nor is anyone saying that can't be in the text. Should we use what is apparently a marketing term to describe one individual type fighter in the Infobox? The infobox is there to present a quick summary of information to those unfamilar with the type, or those wanting a quick overview. As such, we should use more general categories, not plane-specific terms. THose who disagree should focus on why such a narrow term should be used in the infobox. Up to this point, no attempt has been made to do this. Instead, a bunch of quotes have been thrown out, and then unilateral changes made to the article. So please: convince us, but don't insult us. - BillCJ 06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, again, you make perfect sense. No use arguing with someone who is looking to pick a fight. However, I think it would be useful to establish a few "standard" infobox designations: Fighter, Bomber, Reconnaissance aircraft, Fighter-bomber, and so on. FWIW Bzuk 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

“You are really splitting hairs.” – Not at all ... unless you call someone else offering better facts than yours “splitting hairs”. Frankly, ‘70’, the fact is that neither of the links you offered as evidence that “supports” your claims truly does so (“word for word” or otherwise). Moreover, it's irrelevant as far as the infobox goes, as I and BillCJ. Furthermore, what ‘162’ (same person, different IP?) calls an “air force FACT file” was clearly an advertising flier published by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. I do agree with ‘162’ on one thing, which is that further discussion does appear useless with anons who believe that their being able to unilaterally impose their opinions, posturing as “facts”, upon Misplaced Pages makes Misplaced Pages “flawed”. (BTW, it is not vandalism to remove facts – assuming they really are such – from an article if they are irrelevant to an article or to a particular section of it.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 Two thirds of the way down the page: "Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter" The last time I looked that URL clearly comes from the air force. Notice the URL af=air force mil=military domain. Not exactly an advertising flier published by Lockheed. In fact http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 is the one for the F-15. Made by Boeing. Notice further on the F-22 page at the bottom. The contact is Point of Contact

"Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or (757) 764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil" Hmmm Air Combat Command that must be some marketing organization I guess.

• Funny, like AF and .mil takes decoding. Watch the smarta- edit summaries and be civil. The military does "marketing" to get public and political support for their hardware. And it's not a new thing. -Fnlayson 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So tell me then, what is not "marketing"? Was it marketing when the the air force used the term air superiority fighter with the F-15. Your premise is ridiculous. Lets discount any citation from the air force about the plane. Of course its all just PR. Now we throw out citations from the air force about their fighter. Hahaha. Wiki falls to new lows. It would be funny except that anytime you do a search on something wikistupidity shows up in the top three entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't kowtow to everything the military says. Technical specs, fine. Fancy terms that no one else uses, to describe its newest fighter? Not fine. The funny thing about your comment above, about the sources you're using, is that you ignored that the POC is the Public Affairs Office, which is very much the military's very biased PR and marketing organization. Parsecboy 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Try again. I was referring to the two references you gave early in this section beginning with "Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here...". Apparently you can only be bothered to seek better sources when your bad ones are exposed. Perhaps careless inattention is why you keep seeking to put a marketing name in an infobox that calls for a generic name? Or do you just like trolling? Tell you what, if you can find the USAF's formal definition of "Air Dominance" – it's available, but I don't know if it's online – and show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter", then we can default to your desire. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My desire has been met with the term "fighter". Air Superiority clearly is not what the AF is calling it and whether it's PR or not it's their plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF doesn't call the F-22 an "air superiority fighter"? Au contraire. You must not have bothered to look. It took me all of the time to type in an appropriate Google search to find this: "The development and production of F-22 air superiority fighters is estimated to cost $99.1 billion (then-year dollars)." (Emphasis added.) You'd think this was rocket science; a little more looking and you'll find many more. So, please, no more trolling over this. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit war on the main article constituted a contravention of Misplaced Pages:Content forking; contentious issues should be deliberated first on the talk page. Continuing in this manner will result in future administrative actions. FWIW Bzuk 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

I want to remove this statement here: The US Air Force claims that the F-22A cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter. IT is speculation and marketing bs. IT has nothing to do in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a statement by the operator not the contractor and can hardly be characterized as marketing. Besides the removal of a cited statement is not normal practice. Instead of reverting, try to improve the statement. Bzuk 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Marketing does not need to come from the contractor per definition. The statement is not only absurd but principally wrong. Besides what you are critizing -removal of a cited statement- is exactly what YOU did with my cited statement content (the NAS china station incident). It's said to see how biased US weapon entries are on wikipedia. Instead of removing my citation of the NAS china station incident, try to improve the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean by "YOU" somebody else then that's fine, but I didn't revert anything. Check the edit history, you were reverted by an admin due to an example of coyviol. FWIW Bzuk 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

The problem with your NAS China Lake section is that has not yet been proven as true. Some forums and a Misplaced Pages mirror do not count as reliable sources. Read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Parsecboy 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on the debate – and attempt to gain consensus – regarding what generic class of fighter the F-22 is? So far, the only evidence offered by those who insist on “air dominance” – on their “say so” – have been the following:

1. A “formal definition of air dominance” that doesn’t define it.
2. A contractor webpage (see the copyright notice) that they say also defines “air dominance”, but doesn’t – it just offers a list generic F-22 capabilities under a header of “air dominance” and makes no attempt to define just what the concept entails.
3. Unsourced assertions that the USAF officially calls the F-22 “air dominance fighter” (in preference to “air superiority fighter” or “stealth fighter” or “next-generation fighter” or “5th-generation fighter” or “fighter aircraft” or several other appellations that can be found in USAF, DoD, or other US government entities).
4. A http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 USAF fact sheet that mentions two-thirds the way down the page a single summary info line that reads “Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter”, quite ignoring not only the fact that the very first line just calls it a “fighter”, but nowhere in text of the main article is the F-22 called an “air dominance fighter”.

I’ve invited them to offer the USAF's formal definition of “Air Dominance” and to show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter" – in short, to prove that there is such a thing (that is, beyond “marketing-speak”) – but no dice. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to accept that one term among the many terms the USAF uses to describe the F-22 as both “official” and meaning something – as yet unidentified – more than “air superiority fighter”. Kind of hard to kowtow to the sort of “evidence” that is really based on nothing more than “Trust me, I know better than you.”

And, yes, the USAF freely uses other terms for the F-22 with just as much aplomb. A few examples (emphasis added in all cases):

1. The Air University’s "Air & Space Power Journal": “Meanwhile, however, the Air Force has spent close to $20 billion on engineering and manufacturing development of the F-22 air superiority fighter (which will cost at least $100 million per copy to produce).”
2. Same source: “For example, the F/A-22, the Air Force’s new air-superiority fighter, only recently received congressional approval for production.”
3. MILNET fact sheet entitled: “MILNET: F-22 Raptor Air Superiority Fighter”
4. Air University Press publication: Title: “The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation; Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor” Foreword written by USAF Maj Gen Bentley B. Rayburn, Commandant, Air War College (Think he’d know?): “In this paper, Lt Col Devin L. Cate tackles the question of whether an air superiority fighter is relevant to warfare in the twenty-first century. Critics of the F/A-22, the US Air Force’s next generation air superiority fighter, have identified it as a cold war relic—unjustifiably expensive and out of step with the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation.”
5. "Airman", an official USAF publication: “Plans call for the F-35 to be the world’s premier strike aircraft through 2040, said Edward C. ‘Pete’ Aldridge Jr., under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. ‘It will provide air-to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter,” he said.” (Think he’d know?)
6. Same source: “An F-22 Raptor soars high above the Sierra Nevada. The Air Force’s new air superiority fighter will dominate the future air combat arena by integrating advanced avionics, stealth and supercruise.”
7. Air Force Link, the USAF’s official website: “Elmendorf became the second operational base and the first Pacific Air Forces installation to receive the Air Force's new superiority fighter.” (The term “air dominance” shows up nowhere.)
8. Same source: “Far from being just boxes of materiel or the world's largest model kit, this cargo, once assembled by the men and women of the F-22 test force, became the first of what is now officially the air superiority fighter providing air dominance for the Joint Force, the F-22A aircraft called ‘Raptor 1.’” (Note that “air dominance is just something the F-22 “air superiority fighter” provides.)
9. Same source: Article title: “Raptors to bring air superiority to Northern Edge 2006” “The F-22A, a critical component of the Global Strike Task Force, is designed to project air dominance rapidly and at great distances and defeat threats attempting to deny access to the nation's Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.” (Again, “air dominance” is something it “projects”.)
10. Also on the same LM F-22 website that the anons link as "proof" the USAF has named it an "air dominance fighter": “As the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor is, and will remain, unprecedented in its total integration of stealth and advanced avionics. … This fighter will provide air dominance and a precision ground attack capability for U.S. forces for the next 40 years.”

So, as you can see, the USAF is just as comfortable with using the term “air superiority fighter” to describe the F-22 as it is with “air dominance fighter” – and these sources date from 1997 to 2007. There is nothing official or even semi-official about the latter term and therefore no reason to prefer it over anything else. Let’s ignore the trolls, please, and get on with improving the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well stated Mark, this "tempest in a teacup" debate was very taxing and sapped a lot of energy. I agree, let's move forward, you have a consensus behind you for that decision. FWIW Bzuk 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

run this page through the Wikiscanner, to see where the edits come from... proving my point I made earlier regarding bias in the editing of this article. You see past edits coming from Boeing, Lockhead, the PENTAGON, LOTS AND LOTS from Washington, interestingly they tend to focus on comparisons and a variety of other military bases and institutions, Washington School Information Processing Cooperative (??)... It's even more extreme when you run Russian systems such as the S-400 Triumf through the scanner... 99th Communications Squadron San Diego, lots of different AFB... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm noone have an opinion on why government pops up on past edits...? It just proofs my point that this ARTICLE IS BIASED and simply should be marked as such.

Many people have responded (whoever you are). Please sign your posts as well. Furthermore, your assertions do not match with Misplaced Pages policy, WP:COI. It only states that people should be careful, not that they can't edit. — BQZip01 —  00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Airframe

I added a subsection to cover the F-22's airframe. The changes from the YF-22 to F-22 are there now. Another subsection just for that seems like oversectioning. I plan to add some description of the airframe's basic features. I don't see the chines mentioned. Also, the airframe uses a lot of composite skins and titanium. -Fnlayson 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrosion problem

F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't anon IP's edit the article?

Without explanation, the article can't be edited by anonymous IP's (I would sign in, but I've forgotten my password, and don't feel like looking it up at the moment). I wanted to remove the fact check for the "100th F-22 delivered in 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html 70.243.231.144 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment here as I was unaware that the article is protected but it may very well be as there was a contentious issue that arose concerning the F-22/Typhoon and it may have received some type of sprotect protection to limit the edits to established editors (not saying that anons could not provide valuable information but that is the standard route in the first level of protection is to limit the number of editors...). FWIW Bzuk 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, it was temporarily soft-protected, with the reason given as "edit warring by IPs", with an expiry time of 27 Oct. Parsecboy 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I s-protected it on 10/7 because of the problems with the Wikzilla socks/IPs, which were directly related to the Typhoon edit war. Since it's close to the 27th, I've gone ahead an unprotected it...IPs can edit again, but if an edit war breaks out, I'll not hesitate to s-protect again. AKRadecki 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long, and due to an attack by an IP editor who has no regards for working with others, the article is sprotected again. I'm sorry, 70.243.231.144, that you didn't get a chance to make your constructive addition. I've gone ahead and added the information for you. It's too bad that the antics of a few trolls make it difficult for other well-meaning IP editors to work here. AKRadecki 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Comparisons Section?

I've been considering this for a while now, but should the "Comparisons" section be deleted? Now I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything, I'm merely suggesting that, since this section is apparently upsetting some people and if the section was deleted, perhaps this could help improve the article's quality. RaptorR3d 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of the comparison section - perhaps it will make more sense to add it again later, but there really is not too much public data about the F-22 slight envelope or flight characteristics right now. Also, I believe the comparison section was removed from the Typhoon section as it was too controversial; no one seemed to come to a consensus about what was NPOV. Nicholas SL Smith 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THe section is definitely contentios, and is not a usual feature in aircraft airticles on Misplaced Pages. Concur with deletion. - BillCJ 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Go ahead and nuke it. Parsecboy 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, why not make it as a sub-article? FWIW Bzuk 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

• A separate comparison(s) article could turn into a speculation mess worse than 4th generation jet fighter before long. -Fnlayson 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some modern fighter aircraft comparison article may be a good thing - but I don't see how this information could stand alone. It seems best to allow readers to compare one article to another to compare aircraft. If we begin duplicating information, we may loose consistency. Also, I agree with Fnlayson, on other fighter pages such as the Typhoon, these sections turn into "pissing matches" between fans of respective jets. I can see the value of it - but it was be very difficult to keep on topic and accurate. Nicholas SL Smith 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed the sort of section that begs for fanwars. There is some good info in it, though, which should be migrated elsewhere before cutting the rest. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, unless there are any objections, then the comparisons shall be deleted for now. RaptorR3d 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Provide some description of your edit in the edit summary box in the future. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to remember that next time. RaptorR3d 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Call for a consensus on deletion/removal of the Comparisons section

Since there seems to be some disagreement about the removal of the section, I am requesting a formal vote on consensus (the following have already registered their vote):

• Agree RaptorR3d
• Agree Fnlayson
• Agree Nicholas SL Smith
• Agree Askari Mark (but salvaging what is useful)
• Agree Parsecboy
• Agree BillCJ FWIW
• Agree Bzuk 05:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
• Agree Gscshoyru 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Zaku 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Nicholas SL Smith I love the jet - but leave interpretation to readers.

Frankly you can all take your consensus and shove it. Those are relevant facts cited by reliable sources. They serve to help illustrate the F-22's advanced features and capabilities. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, since when does the decision to include or exclude relevant facts constitute something you vote on. Why not call it "Misplaced Pages - the website where we vote on what is factual". 162.84.187.178 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal views, Misplaced Pages operates by consensus to decide contentious issues. Register your vote and give the process time to develop a consensus from interested parties. My suggestion to you is to offer an alternative: perhaps creating a separate sub-article? working with others? taking a new direction? FWIW Bzuk 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

The above IP is another sock-puppet of User:WIkzilla. It's easy to tell. Until he changes his behavior, it's best to just ingore his opinions till he moves on. - BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. Article is s-protected once again thanks to Wikzilla's IP attack. AKRadecki 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note, is there any reason for the "The US Airforce Claims it cannot be matched by any projcted aircraft" in the introduction of the article? I'll admit, while I do support the F-22, I feel that that statement is really not necessary for the article. Any other thoughts? RaptorR3d 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I had moved that to Comparisons, but a couple IPs keep adding it back to the lead. That probably should be moved, but I'm not sure about where. The bottom on the Characteristics sections seems like a decent spot. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of the USAF aren't pertinent to the aircraft. I claim it can't fly the Incredible Hulk into orbit, but I shouldn't and wont add it to the article. Nicholas SL Smith 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine for the intro ... and the USAF did put a huge amount of (taxpayer) money into developing it to be so. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll submit to that - as long as it doesn't mislead to anyone or look like it is portraying a fact. Nicholas SL Smith 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's wrong and doesnt belong in here at all. The statement is a fairly dumb one. Claiming that no past nor future plane can match it is a marketing statement and does not belong here if it's so obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "projected" and "future". Projected fighters are those such as MiG 1.44 or the Sukhoi PAK FA. It's not a marketing statement; the F22 wasn't built by the Airforce; it's merely the primary operator. Parsecboy 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuel capacity / materials

Hi everyone

I'm Nova13 from the german Misplaced Pages (userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:

Fuel capacity

Materials

• Titanium: 40%
• Composites: 24%
• Aluminum: 15%
• Steel: 6%
• Other: 15%

Source: Tecnical Order 00-105E-9, 1 Feb. 2006, Rev. 11 Page 15/16

Feel free to integrate this information. Feedback welcome! --62.226.68.45 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The external fuel seems odd. I've never seen anything about the F-22 actually using external hardpoints for anything. That'd mess up its stealthiness. -Fnlayson 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have. It allows the F-22 to carry a greater load of fuel and/or weapons when stealth is not a factor, such as after the enemy's anti-air capability has been eliminated. I suspect that drop tanks could be used on the initial ingress to the target to extend range, then dropped before entering hostile space. - BillCJ 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I don't think my F-22 book mentions that or I haven't run across it yet. The F-35 will probably have more of that. -Fnlayson 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My Frawley Military book states it has 4 hardpoints capabel of 5000 lbs each. THough I haven't found a direct reference to when it would carry external weapons, it would make no sense to build heavier wings that could structurally carry external stores if you knew you could never use them. - BillCJ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The F-22 was specifically designed with the capability for external hardpoints, where (as mentioned above) stealth was not a factor, or the need was dire. Every missile in service in the USAF can be fitted to said hardpoints, as can aforementioned drop tanks.

Also, however, external munitions or fuel also slow the plane down. Supercruising would cost more fuel, and the top speed would be limited, by a few mph or a couple hundred, depending on cargo. In addition to this, the Raptor's manueverability is also limited by external usage, and is why internal stores are so important with the this plane. Hope this helps!Darkƒire 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW...here's a pic that's not really good enough for the main page, but which clearly shows the external fuel tanks. This pair went back and forth overhead several times in the R-2515 supersonic corridor over Mojave. AKRadecki 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out

Hey who kepts deleting the facts that the jet was used by the US air Force in the popular cultures section?(TougHHead 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

It looks like everyone who comes across this statement. It's redundant, and has been reverted by a number of editors as plain "poorly written." FWIW Bzuk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Also books are also not ever ever notable and thats considered spamming, hacking and a computer crime. Plus I read those books and never saw the part where the Raptor is in any book.(TougHHead 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

The F-22 has been featured in numerous books, such as Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (1994). A lengthy mission by F-22s dominates the last part of the book and Fighter Wing (1995) where the F-22 features as a major new combat aircraft in Clancy's non-fiction book. Clive Cussler's Dark Watch (2005) has a F-22 in a secret mission to take out a Syrian foe. BTW, where did you get the information that citing books in popular culture is a computer crime? FWIW Bzuk 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

TougHHead, please stop throwing a hissy fit. Some things are notable, some aren't. I've read most of those books and saw all those films when you were still in diapers. But I realize Misplaced Pages has rules, and I follow them. Notability is a policy, not a guideline, and we have to follow it; like it or not. THose books, games, films, and TV shows we all like and love have articles, and that is the proper place to mention what those films contain. So please, stop whining, and try to enjoy being able to contribute to making meaningful articles about the aircraft you love even better by focusing on the aircraft themselves. - BillCJ 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of lists of "appearances in popular culture" has been raised before and addressed with a sort of guidelines by the Military History Project, the guideline is here: WP:MILMOS#POP. These guidelines preclude lists or sections naming one appearance after the other. --Deon Steyn 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I looked up Hollywood and how are they supposed to film a 700 pound advanced tactical fighter in the boundaries of Hollywood? Jets can't land in the Hollywood boundaries and needed a very long runway which it had none. (TougHHead 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

What are you talking about? Bzuk 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

When filming the jet you need room for the big aircraft but Hollywood got no room.(TougHHead 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? FWIW Bzuk 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I think he;s nit-picking about the mention regarding the F-22's "prominent Hollywood debut". It appears TougH is trying to get back at editors like me who have been limiting the Pop culture appearences he's been adding by trying to take everything he thinks is equal to his items out. Only thing is, he's going about it bass-akwards, and may end up earning himself antoehr block for disruptive behaivor. Also, he doens't seem to realize that a lot of us aircraft aritcle editors actually don't want ANY pop culture netions in any of the articles, period/full-stop. However, we abide by the basic WIkipedia principle of following consensus, even when we disagree. That means THREE Transformers in the F-15 article, and flight sims in pop culture sections where applicable. - BillCJ 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, I believe something odd is going on here (now, that's an understatement given this is Misplaced Pages!). See: where this argument is being drawn out in a similar fashion. FWIW, it seems some people have lot of time on their hands. Bzuk 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Can we please end this discussion? For some reason edit warring on a popular Jet Fighter is not very fun along with arguing over the tlak pages.(TougHHead 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

• Just ignore it then.. -Fnlayson 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And don't edit war. (Note: you do seem to have stopped doing that, thankfully.) - BillCJ 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hulk - Again, again, again ...

I was here a while ago and thought the pop culture section was a bit odd - but even more bizarre was the erroneous mention of Transformers. It was clearly The Hulk. Duh.;)Happysomeone 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the instructions on the main page, I'll put off the proposed change above for a short period of time so others can review it. Here's an independent source that verifies the small but significant role played by the F-22 - A role significant enough that it struck me as odd it wasn't mentioned. The jets appear twice, for about 2 to 3 minutes of the film. They try to kill "The Hulk" both times in extended sequences. A quote from one of the pilots in the first scene: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/quotes Happysomeone 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Notably the F-22 pilot, actor Randy Neville, is credited: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/fullcredits Happysomeone 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, look here for the mention of the other significant scene. It's about halfway down the page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/triviaHappysomeone 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's still a minor role and non-notable. More links won't change that. -Fnlayson 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

then I suggest the entry simply read "The F-22 played a major role... Transformers," instead of using "first prominent Hollywood debut" which is POV, misleading and inaccurate. Happysomeone 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Those have the same basic meaning. Prominent is an approximate synonym for major. -Fnlayson 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. With due respect, the first definition of prominent, "1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable:" seems to agree with my assertion: several minutes of F-22 footage in a motion picture ("The Hulk") for the first time is conspicuous and particularly noticeable, therefore "notable."Happysomeone 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Or "leading, important, or well-known". -Fnlayson 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk appearance has been discussed numerous times already on this talk page, and has never been accepted by consensus as "prominent", or even notable. For the most part, notability is seen when the appearance garners attention is various reputable print/online media sources, or from military publications, as in the case of the Transformers, in which actual F-22s were used for filming, along with other real aircraft. However, if removing the Transformers appearance will mke you happy, I'm all for it! I know it would make me happy! But the Transformers mention is there by consensus, so to remove it, we'd have to get consensus here, or at WT:AIR. - BillCJ 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, I was trying to follow the older comments but it seems much has happened since I was here last. I could understand if part of the guidelines required use of actual or "real" aircraft to constitute playing a notable of "significant" role. But as you know, this issue has come up repeatedly. I still maintain it is POV, misleading and inaccurate to make the statement "first prominent Hollywood debut" without mentioning both. Barring that, the entry should be removed. If there is a running vote tally for removal, please add me to it.Happysomeone 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the heading mainly because the whole section was getting too long, and the Hulk topic made a good place to start.

PLease realize that many Wikipeidians active in the MILHIST, Aircraft and Aviation Projects consider themsleve (myself included) to be "serious editors". As such, we want the content of aircraft aritcles to focus solely on the aircraft itself, without ANY coverage of trivia (per WP:ATRIV guidelines) or the similar Popular culture sections. Many of these editors are aircraft mechanics, pilots, military officers (or both) and veteran enlisted personel, industry-related engineers and designers, light aircraft owners, aviation writers or people otherwise associated with the aircraft. Others, like myself, just have a long love for aircraft, and have read many serious avitaion publications for many years (since age 12 in my case). On the other hand, there many Wiki users whose primary connection to aircraft and military equipment is through video games, popular novels, movies, TV, anime, and comics. THese users tend to feel that EVERY appearance that they can persoanlly remember is import, and thus should be listed. THis is understandable, as everyone wants to contribute to Wikipeida, and it's easy to say, "I saw the X-xxX in this movie!" Or "THis aircraft is in Mental Smear Solid State."

• I would consider myself an enthusiast in the former category, although I do watch movies from time to time.Happysomeone 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the two extreams cannot co-exist simultaneously. Recognizing there need to be some kind of compromise, MILHIST developed guidelines based on Misplaced Pages's Avoid trivia sections policy/guidelines. WP:AIR followed with guidelines optimized for aircraft airticles, and limited apperances to those that were "especially notable" or in which the aircraft played a "major" role. Obviously, "especially notable" and "major" are open to interpretation, so in cases were ther are disputes, WP:AIR has required sources attesting to the appearances' notability, based on Misplaced Pages's Notability Policy for articles.

Rembember, this IS policy: WIkipeia is NOT a collection of lists, which is invariably what pop-culture sections turn into if they are not constantly pruned/cut back. We've even tried having pop-culture aritcles for Helicopters or specific, but it turned into such a messy cruft magnet that when the deletion-nazis went after it, we had no way to justify keeping it.

But rather than help solve the problem, may users want to argue incessantly over what constitutes notability. This is to the point now where serious editors like myself are ready to throw away the compromise, and BAN ALL pop culture mentions in aircraft article, PERIOD/FULLSTOP! I've found it's alot easier to explain to teenage and "adult" gamers that no pop culture items are allowed, than to explain why such-and-such movie is in the list, but their favorite game or cartoon is not. I've even had to explain this to someone who interpreted a section to mean "all movies" are notable, but games are not!

• Having now experienced a taste of this, I would be inclined to support the ban of all "pop culture" references, rather than have something inaccurate presented as fact.Happysomeone 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if you really like having some items listed, don't give us serious editors such a hard time over what's in the pop-culture sections. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem! THe alternative is that no pop-culture appearances will be listed at all. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: GO ahead, make my day! - BillCJ 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It was not my intention to give anyone a hard time. I have deferred to you thus far as we discuss this very minor issue with an otherwise excellent Misplaced Pages entry. My position is simple: I don't like inaccuracy or exaggeration. This raised a red flag for me. I would certainly like to be part of the solution. Again, I would move to delete it entirely. Kind Regards. Happysomeone 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, great discussion about a contentious topic. I think the points made by all parties have clearly exhibited the best of wiki discouse – reasoned, polite and well-intentioned. Congrats and as for the topic, probably the consensus-driven soultions still appear to be the best course. FWIW Bzuk 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, I'm having a hard time finding the thread that found consensus on this. Please direct me to the appropriate fora.Happysomeone 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It seems Fnlayson has kindly weighed my objection and made the appropriate changes. Well done & salutations. Happysomeone 18:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See the archive pages. An IP that signed as "Happysomeone" already replied on this. -Fnlayson 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

If you can't put the F-22 Raptor in Flight Sims, Hulk nor Iron Man and only in Transformers that means neither the other jets including the F-35 Lightning II.(TougHHead 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Please frame your comments in clear and cogent arguments. I can't understand what the hay you are getting at? I wonder if others have the same impression? FWIW Bzuk 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

• Something like listing the Transformers stuff is not fair because the other stuff isn't listed. An all or none thing. I think. But major flight simulators can be listed. -Fnlayson 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that if we don't allow the items he like on the F-22 page, he's going to try to remove similar items on other pages on that basis alone, even if it's disruptive. Clearly, Tough either doesn't understnad how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. Consensus at the page level is not precedent - if you want a consensus to apply to more than one page, you have to discuss it at the Project or Wiki-wide level. But going around to every aircraft page with a pop-culture section and trying to make it conform to the consensus here is disruptive, especially since it appears that Tough is doing this out of spite, not good-faith. - BillCJ 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets put up a random quote on every article then.(TougHHead 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I'd suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:DICK. What you are doing and suggesting is disruptive, and is against the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I gather from your talk page that you exhibited similar behavior on Wikia. I would hope that a person who is older than 35, as you claim to be, would be capalbe of growth, and learn better how to deal with people in a productive manner. Maybe you think that because you're anonymous, it doesn't matter how you behave. If you are really over 35, then you're not one of these typical late-teen/early-20s fanboy gamers we usually get here. I've said before that you show promise, and I meant it, and you then resorted to vandalism. I still think you're capable of better behavior than what you're exhibiting, but you have to choose to behave better. Please make the right choice. You won't have too many more chances. - BillCJ 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also just because this jet is mostly your favorites, most Misplaced Pages Users are mostly American, there is freedom of speech and finally there is an American website does not mean you edit war on any article.(TougHHead 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

1. "USAF F-22 Raptor fact sheet"

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles