Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcobb (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 27 January 2021 (247 F-22 Raptors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:21, 27 January 2021 by Hcobb (talk | contribs) (247 F-22 Raptors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Template:Vital article

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

Current status: Good article

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

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

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

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

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

Aviation: Aircraft

	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.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 7, 2004, December 15, 2011, December 15, 2015, and December 15, 2020.

On 15 October 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to F-22. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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

Is thrust vectoring worth mentioning in the Origins section?

I've tuned the Origins section to add some important background information on the ATF development process. At the same time, I feel that it's unnecessary to mention thrust vectoring in the high level summary of the design history, so I removed it. Does anyone feel strongly otherwise? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention to thrust vectoring in the following paragraph, as it's a bit more relevant when comparing the YF-23 and YF-22. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This was a great addition, I found this information fascinating. Thank you Steve7c8, keep up the great work --TomaHawk61 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some ATF history in Origins

I just finished adding some ATF development history in the Origin section. I'm not sure if the information is too much for this article and perhaps should go into the dedicated ATF article. Does the current writing look concise and high-level enough? Steve7c8 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Source that states hadrpoints can hold 5,000 lbs is incorrect

This article states that the F-22's hardpoints can hold up to 5,000 pounds. However, it also says it can carry 600-gallon drop tanks. 600 gallons is over 5,000 pounds, and then there is weight of the actual drop tank itself without the fuel; I don't know where you can find a correct source but I know the one used is incorrect.2601:245:C102:C0B0:0:0:0:EF02 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen multiple sources that say the exact same thing. These numbers are most likely round figures and not necessarily accurate, because most of the true specs are still classified. There are also a number of other factors involved. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 5300 lbs., but there is no requirement that it be filled all the way. The 5000 lbs. rating (on the ground) is also for 3.5 Gs in the air, so the true holding-capacity is many times the max-rated loading capacity. The max-rated load itself is typically much less than the true breaking-load, to leave a margin of error. But all we can do is go by what the reliable, non-classified sources say, and 5000 lbs. for a 600 gallon tank is what they say. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I take that back. My math was off. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 4100 lbs., so this is all really moot. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus to keep. Article submitted for confirmation by an author. Outside input, while limited, was positive. CMD (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has been significantly modified since its GA promotion almost nine years ago, with influx of new information as well as changes in the lead, major tuning of the prose, and rearrangement of certain sections. I believe the substantial changes warrant a reassessment of the article, although as a major contributor I don't feel that I should conduct an individual reassessment. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a read through and didn't notice anything major that would disqualify it from GA status. It is a little bit fan boyish, but most articles are here (people generally don't write about things they don't like) and it is not really that bad. I think it should stay a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to tune the prose for greater objectivity, for what it's worth. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Prose looks pretty solid in this article. The lede could be a tiny bit longer, to ensure it accurately summarises any pertinent design and history, as per the article. Images could also do with alt-tags. Thanks L150 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Operators

the USAF unit listing is badly out of date and inaccurate but edits are not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.104 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Either you, or someone suspiciously similar, have been trying to change this for quite some time. These edits always get reverted because there are no reliable sources for this info. Simply provide sources for the changes you want made. Post them here, with a detailed list of the changes you believe are appropriate, and be prepared to discuss it. Make sure they are reliable, WP:Secondary sources. And please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a directory. This is trivial info at best, not really of an encyclopedic nature, and we do not necessarily need to keep up-to-the-minute tabs on where these panes are kept at any given moment. Encyclopedias should be written in a timeless manner, so that the info we give today will be info that is still relevant 20, 50, 100 years from now. Zaereth (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's User:Bob80q, an indefed user who socks with IPs, mainly on USAF and Citadel articles. BilCat (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: It certainly is odd, the same publisher as the one in the article cited 186 before the 183 claim? , A Forbes contributor also quoted 186 earlier this year as well as Popular Mechanics and Fox News . I think it's worth changing it at this point (not sure why the IP didn't want to post any sources though). FozzieHey (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We even have newspapers citing 186 back in 2017-2018 so unless 3 are no longer in service and the news sources are misquoting 186 in 2020 I think it's appropriate to change it to 186? FozzieHey (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The total is probably better covered in the Infobox with reference 1 with 187 operational aircraft and 8 test ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That is the number built, in the source I just added to the article it does say 187 were built but the current inventory is 186 FozzieHey (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. One of the F-22s lost in crashes must have been one of the 187 then. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I know there have been some crashes, but haven't been keeping count. Maybe I'm wrong, but my reading of the IP's request led me to believe they were referring to the list of military units who are currently flying the F22. There has been a long, slow-moving edit war over this going back at least a year now. For example, see this edit.Zaereth (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, unfortunately I couldn't find a source that lists the amount of crashes and whether they were test aircraft, and whether it resulted in a hull loss etc. FozzieHey (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

247 F-22 Raptors

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/387645/f-22-raptor-gets-major-upgrades-courtesy-hill-afbs-574th-aircraft-maintenance-squadron "The maintenance team processed 247 F-22 Raptors through ..."

It's in the source, but I don't get it. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Categories: