This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steve7c8 (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 17 April 2023 (→A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:25, 17 April 2023 by Steve7c8 (talk | contribs) (→A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Reply)(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. |
|
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 15 October 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to F-22. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
No mention of: possibility of shoot down the F-22 Raptor aircraft by a Syrian missile
“According to the Oklahoman newspaper Post, citing U.S. military sources that the F-22 Raptor crashed in the north of Jordan, sources tell about the possibility of shoot down the F-22 Raptor aircraft by a Syrian missile Syrian everything and happened near the Syrian border, while a military expert John Blu Reed told the newspaper that the shoot down of the F-22 Raptor confirmation that Syria has a defense system updated the S-300, S 400 missiles or rockets, U.S. expert also stated that U.S. relations – Russia will be even more strained if it is confirmed that Russia has provided to Syria missiles S 400.
On the other hand according to reports from the United States, according to the Los Angeles Times of America, the Syrian defense forces have shot down four missiles launched by the Americans type Tomahawk, sources tell us that it was the defense systems (Pantsir-S1) anti-aircraft missiles that have made that American missiles struck, and centered in the middle, the sources of Washington state that four missiles were launched to test the degree of defense of the Syrian forces, the sources have also confirmed that one of the main reasons in stopping aggression against Syria is the overthrow of the American F-22 Raptor crashed yesterday in the north of Jordan, also also deal with the part of the Syrian air defense missiles to the four Tomahawk, remember that Jordan is still home to its territory five F-22, and this was one of the main reasons to postpone the trial of aggression against Syria.”
Probably this information should be included in article since sources are US News papers… Calimero (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- We would need to see the actual sources before discussing this. A forum for a game modding website isn't a reliable source. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- The newspaper referred to in that post doesn't actually exist. This nonsense shouldn't be entertained. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just to follow up, not sure why this nonsense hasn't been deleted or archived yet, this story was first circulated in September 2013 in some Arabic online sources, which was then machine-translated into Italian and then into English. The allegation is extremely dubious as there is no newspaper that matches the name provided, and even accounting for errors in translation, no Oklahoman news sources have ever reported anything similar to confirms these allegations; there are no articles from the LA Times regarding Tomahawk shot by Pantsir either. Additionally, there are no sources or references for a "military expert" named "John Blu Reed" (a rather laughably generic name), and there is no evidence to show that the S-300 or S-400 was deployed to Syria in the 2013 timeframe, nor is there evidence to show any F-22 deployments to Jordan at that time either. To this day, no evidence of this allegedly shootdown has been presented. In other words, Calimero is basing his assumptions on an extremely dubious report with no actual news sources to back it up and no evidence to support or verify the alleged event. The fact that people fall for this kind of nonsense is quite irritating, but this shows the pernicious effect of disinformation on the ignorant or uninformed (or those who have an agenda and want to believe anything that may support that regardless of the truth). Steve7c8 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tail doesn't look like a F22; maybe an Iranian F14?
"Chrome coating"
Ok, I have a bit of a problem with the whole bit about the so-called chrome coating. The problem is, other than people having seen it, everything else is utter speculation. Now I know that much about this aircraft is still top secret, so in many cases speculation is all we have, but at least it's very reasonable and educated. In this case, it sounds more like those TV shows where they're trying to speculate on how UFOs function. It's just wild guesses, and that's how it reads.
My guess is that people often have a natural human-tendency to jump to the extremes of their imagination and forget to employ a little Occam's razor. It's probably something much more simple. The sources said these aircraft were spotted participating in actual Red Flag war-games as aggressor aircraft, rather than flying in some kind of testing arena, likely going up against other F-22s. I think it's just to make them look different, more like enemy aircraft so they're not easily confused with friendlies. But whatever the reason, I think we need something better than all these wild guesses. At most, we should just mention the sightings and leave it at that, at least until we have something that doesn't sound like we're tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Zaereth (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. While it's clear that USAF has many upgrades to the F-22 planned, including its RAM coatings, there's nothing definitively confirmed about the disposition of the chrome-like coatings (which frankly look almost like an applique on top of the existing skin). I would also move to the upgrades section. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's also worth mentioning that these jets, 04-4065 and 04-4070, are OT (Operational Test) jets based at Nellis, while development test is typically done with dedicated flight sciences jets like 06-4132 at Edwards. While it's not out of the question that upgrades may directly move to OT without being see at Edwards, it would definitely be unusual. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think, given the evidence, and especially the fact that the source says they were flying as aggressors during aerial-combat training, that they just painted them a different color for the same reason football teams wear different colored uniforms. It's important to know who's who. I wouldn't be surprised if it washed right off with some soap and a hot-water pressure washer. The source also mentions them mounting mirrors on the nose cones, which the only reason I could think of for that is to increase the radar signature to, perhaps, (I don't know) appear on the scopes as a enemy aircraft. That all makes much more sense than trying to pass off a chrome-plated aircraft as being somehow less visible (which makes no sense at all).
- All of this, however, is just raw speculation without anything to back it up one way or another. We don't even know if it's chrome at all. Maybe it's just some metallic paint meant to resemble the aluminum of common aircraft. We just don't know, and there is no point in reporting on the things we don't know about. At this point, I would just call it a WP:RECENTISM. I say include the reports of sightings if we want, but avoid the speculation without any facts to back it up. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This sentence seems grammatically incorrect but I'm unsure how to rewrite it as I don't understand 100% the meaning.
"Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export."
Any thoughts? Azx2 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Having re-read several times I now understand the meaning of the sentence and apologize for my initial failure to grasp the finer details of this construction. Azx2 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Max altitude 65,000 feet
Is this worth a mention in the specs? Hcobb (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- 65,000 ft is listed under "Service ceiling" in the specs table now. But there could be a difference between maximum altitude and service ceiling. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference. At 65,000 feet the air is incredibly thin, the sky above looks black and blue down below, and you can really see the curvature of the Earth. Control surfaces are extremely sloppy and slow to respond, engine speed is slowed and so is the rate of climb. There just isn't enough air to keep everything working at full potential.
- The max altitude a plane can go is called its absolute ceiling. This is when the craft can no longer climb any higher, and you can only fly at one speed (full power) and still maintain steady, level flight. "Service ceiling", on the other hand, sets a safety margin that is a little lower than the absolute ceiling, because it's very easy to lose control up above the service ceiling and end up in an unrecoverable spin. The service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the maximum rate-of-climb has fallen to 100 feet per minute. This is still a lot higher than the cruise altitude, which is where the aircraft tends to operate most efficiently, and that's generally limited by what's called the maximum operational altitude. I don't know if that helps, but I do think it's a number worth mentioning. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I thought there was a difference, thanks. So are altitude records based on the absolute ceiling, in level flight? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure about records. Service ceiling is something they usually determine during test flights, but not something pilots usually take the plane to in normal operation. Absolute ceiling often remains untested, simply because it is so dangerous. You're literally flying the plane just at the edge of buffeting, the ailerons don't have much authority and the vertical stabilizers (tail fins) aren't doing a whole lot to keep the yaw under control. And god help you if you hit a pocket of low pressure or turbulence. From a safety standpoint, I guess you could say that the service ceiling is (for all intents and purposes) the maximum altitude recommended for an aircraft. Not that it can't go higher, but it's usually too dangerous to attempt it, but I'm sure some daredevils have tried. There's a reason absolute ceiling is called the "coffin corner", because, once you get there, there is really not much you can do without going out of control. Zaereth (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe link to this? Ceiling (aeronautics) {{u|Gtoffoletto}} 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure about records. Service ceiling is something they usually determine during test flights, but not something pilots usually take the plane to in normal operation. Absolute ceiling often remains untested, simply because it is so dangerous. You're literally flying the plane just at the edge of buffeting, the ailerons don't have much authority and the vertical stabilizers (tail fins) aren't doing a whole lot to keep the yaw under control. And god help you if you hit a pocket of low pressure or turbulence. From a safety standpoint, I guess you could say that the service ceiling is (for all intents and purposes) the maximum altitude recommended for an aircraft. Not that it can't go higher, but it's usually too dangerous to attempt it, but I'm sure some daredevils have tried. There's a reason absolute ceiling is called the "coffin corner", because, once you get there, there is really not much you can do without going out of control. Zaereth (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The max altitude a plane can go is called its absolute ceiling. This is when the craft can no longer climb any higher, and you can only fly at one speed (full power) and still maintain steady, level flight. "Service ceiling", on the other hand, sets a safety margin that is a little lower than the absolute ceiling, because it's very easy to lose control up above the service ceiling and end up in an unrecoverable spin. The service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the maximum rate-of-climb has fallen to 100 feet per minute. This is still a lot higher than the cruise altitude, which is where the aircraft tends to operate most efficiently, and that's generally limited by what's called the maximum operational altitude. I don't know if that helps, but I do think it's a number worth mentioning. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Ref for "service ceiling 65,000+ ft.": https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2016/August%202016/0816classics.pdf Having just taken a shot w/o fear of airframe loss at 58k this doesn't sound absurd. Hcobb (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't sound absurd. I mean, that's getting pretty close to the max operational altitude (MOA) of the U2, but as the craft is supposed to be pretty lightweight, I'd imagine it can get up pretty high. Don't expect peak performance up there, though. Lockheed themselves says a pretty round number of 10 miles, here, which is 52,800', so I imagine this is where people are getting the 50K from. But they also say it can cruise and even supercruise at that altitude, so it looks to me like more of a MOA rather than a service ceiling, give or take a few thousand feet. (10 mi is a pretty round number.) The service ceiling is something defined by the FAA as the point where performance has dropped beyond an acceptable threshold, and the margin of error becomes exponentially narrower from then on, which is different from operational ceiling (MOA). So if Lockheed is giving an MOA of 10 mi, then a service ceiling of of 12 mi doesn't sound at all unreasonable. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The shilling could be a little more sublte.
"The fighter's combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and mission systems enable unprecedented air combat capabilities and set the benchmark for its generation."
That's just embarrassing. "the benchmark"? Why are you talking to me as though you're an advertising brochure? I don't know what your "benchmarks are." CrickedBack (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are two cited sources for that sentence. Did you follow up on them? As for benchmarks, consider how other 5th generation fighters are generally described in terms of their capabilities: mostly in comparison to the F-22. That isn't even necessarily a result of the F-22 being the best thing ever, rather, it's because it was the first 5th generation fighter aircraft. The F-35 gets compared to the F-22, for example, even though the F-22 surpasses it in a number of areas (and the F-35 surpasses the F-22 in some areas). The Su-57 is compared with the F-22, the J-20 is compared with the F-22, etc. Sometimes in those comparisons, the F-22 comes out on top, and sometimes it does not. Setting the benchmark often means little more than "being first," and so setting the standard. It doesn't mean it has the highest standard. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The F-22 was the the first operational fighter of its generation (5th). So it should be the benchmark. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to be a simple matter of misunderstanding the meaning of a word. "Benchmark" is often a word used in promotional campaigns, but it actually has a technical meaning. It was originally a point of reference that surveyors would use to measure altitude, like a church steeple whose altitude is already known. The modern definition is: "Something whose quality or quantity is known and which can therefore be used as a standard or reference point with which other things can be compared or measured." It's not an absolute scale but a purely relative one. Every new thing sets the benchmark until the next new thing comes along and leaves it in the dust. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am astonished such promotional language is in the lede. I am skeptical that the source supports that text added in 2014. Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The word "benchmark" was inserted rather recently too. Would it not be more objective and improve clarity if we simply said it was the first fifth gen fighter? Schierbecker (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Fighter generations" is a marketing term, so that would just be exchanging one form of shilling for another one. BilCat (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Fighter Generations is a technical reflection of the capabilities of the aircraft. Fifth Gen aircraft are substantially different in design architecture and capabilities. DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Saying it set the "benchmark" is not promotional, it's factual. No other fighter jet at the time of its release, or arguably now, has approached its level of sophistication.Belregard (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if we can really call anything marketing in this case, at least in the literal sense of the term, when they refuse to sell them to anyone. I guess one could make a case for boasting or maybe even a touch of propaganda, since a lot of the military involves sword rattling to make others think twice about messing with you. But sword rattling does little good if it's all just smoke and mirrors, and if anything the military has a history of downplaying its true capabilities. But any fighter that can get up to 58,000 feet --and still pull its nose up steeply enough to put a missile on something a good mile above it-- has definitely set a benchmark in the literal sense of the term. I agree that "unprecedented" was over the top, but I don't think "benchmark" is just a filler adjective (puffery) in this case. That said, it is kind of stating the obvious, and it is only a temporary thing, so it's not really written with that historical or "timeless" perspective in mind. Zaereth (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Fighter generations" is a marketing term, so that would just be exchanging one form of shilling for another one. BilCat (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The word "benchmark" was inserted rather recently too. Would it not be more objective and improve clarity if we simply said it was the first fifth gen fighter? Schierbecker (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Going to need a source regardless. Schierbecker (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Finding sources is not a problem. For example, this source from Air and Space Magazine. There are plenty of sources that use the word benchmark when describing the F-22. Have you read the already-cited sources to make sure that they don't say it? Perhaps the better argument against is not one of mere policy but of what separates encyclopedic writing from other forms of expository writing?
- I still think there is some misunderstanding about what the word means. The military is constantly benchmarking funds for one project or another. The latest Intel chip was the benchmark of its time until the next generation of computer chip came out. Under the definition of the word, it's plainly obvious that every new technology sets the benchmark for its time, however long or short that may be. It's easy to find sources for that too, such as this from the Air University, here: "The United States raised the stakes and established a benchmark in deception when it fielded the F-117, but even that aircraft is not invincible or invisible to radar.... Instead, the lesson learned is the inevitable downfall of technology in combat. The technological benchmark in warfare consistently resets, and there has yet to be a technology that cannot be countered."
- The point is, however true it is for the moment, or even maybe the next decade or two, an encyclopedia should be written as if what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now and not read as if it's dated. It's also not necessary and, to the contrary, more often than not comes off as condescending to point out the obvious. Finding sources is easy, but writing is hard work, and I think we could probably do a little more to make the writing seem less dated. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a better source? That one just makes a prediction, circa 1998, that the F-22 will be the one to beat. Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm the one who added the phrase "set the benchmark for its generation". Note that I specifically caveated with "for its generation", i.e. 5th generation fighter. The F-22 is widely accepted as the first 5th generation fighter, and 5th generation fighter programs from many other countries have used the F-22 as a point of comparison. Yes, as technology and tactics march on, the F-22 will no longer be benchmark, but the NGAD, or whatever comes after it. But again, this statement was qualified with "for its generation" for that very reason. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the future, please don't make unsourced changes to cited content (I'm assuming you didn't check the cited source to see if that claim was there?). Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- The point is, however true it is for the moment, or even maybe the next decade or two, an encyclopedia should be written as if what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now and not read as if it's dated. It's also not necessary and, to the contrary, more often than not comes off as condescending to point out the obvious. Finding sources is easy, but writing is hard work, and I think we could probably do a little more to make the writing seem less dated. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- The "benchmark" claim needs to be restated in the body at the very least. The lede isn't for making new claims. I would prefer that that statement would be removed from the lede too. Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I can't speak for the original edit that added the word "unprecedented", the cited source, Aronstein, does state something similar.
Aronstein, Piccirillo, F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter, page 254The success of all four Dem/Val prototype airframe/engine combinations in achieving unprecedented performance characteristics is just one example of how effectively technical risk was managed in the ATF program.
Steve7c8 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Wrong page link
"Update 5 in 2016 added automatic ground collision avoidance system (GCAS)"
Link leads to the Shell Star page. I have no idea why, but it does. Rockethead293 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The acronym in astronomy stands for Gamma Cassiopeiae variable, so the redirect should probably link to it. I don't see an article for ground collision avoidance systems, and I don't even find anything to pipe the link to, so I just removed it instead. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is an article on Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, so I've linked to that instead. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks BilCat. I guess I didn't look hard enough. I've made that mistake myself more times than I care to admit. I've found it's usually best not to use acronyms as links, and even then it's a good idea to check them first. I changed the redirect to link to the correct article. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is an article on Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, so I've linked to that instead. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Lead formatting
As I understand it, lists should generally be avoided and written as prose as long as it's not too cumbersome, per the MOS. I didn't think the lead was too cumbersome to read, so I'm not convinced that it should be written as a list. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I concur that this doesn't need to be in a list format. Further, I'd add that it's too much information for the lead, and needs to be summarized for instead. The details should be in the body of the article already, but I haven't had time to check that yet. BilCat (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
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). Unfortunately, the incorrect figures of 8 and 187 were stated in official sources sometimes, so I'm not sure how we can correct this. Steve7c8 (talk) 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 honey 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 dogfight 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. Zaereth (talk) 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. Steve7c8 (talk) 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? Zaereth (talk) 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. BilCat (talk) 19:21, 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? Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 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. Zaereth (talk) 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. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:49, 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. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 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. 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. Steve7c8 (talk) 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. BilCat (talk) 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. Zaereth (talk) 20:20, 13 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. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 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. 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. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- "F-22 Industry Team Delivers Last EMD Flight Test Aircraft - Raptor 4009 - To USAF Logistics Test & Evaluation Team". Lockheed Martin.
- "DEADLY RAPTOR: AN OVERVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT USAF F-22A OPS".
- "F-22 Fast Facts, June 2022" (PDF). Lockheed Martin.
- "Lockheed Martin Delivers Final, Historic F-22 Raptor To U.S. Air Force". Lockheed Martin.
No secondary
No secondary user option for why uses the f22 212.21.42.228 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- What is a "secondary user"? The U.S. Air Force is the only user if that's what you are asking. Schierbecker (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ditto! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- My guess is that English is not the IP's native language, but they're probably using something like google to translate, thus the syntax looks very odd to us. I think what they're asking is why, in which case the answer is simply, because the government said so. Zaereth (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, to summarize the "Ban on exports" section, Congress passed a law prohibiting exports of the F-22s. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- My guess is that English is not the IP's native language, but they're probably using something like google to translate, thus the syntax looks very odd to us. I think what they're asking is why, in which case the answer is simply, because the government said so. Zaereth (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Details on Dem/Val
I've made some additions to the Origins section of the article to cover some more information on Dem/Val that I think would be helpful and informative. That said, it did add some length and an entire paragraph to the section. Is this getting too long, or does it seem okay? Steve7c8 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- It does not seem like you added too much to me. But if there's an issue with length, details can be moved to the Advanced Tactical Fighter and/or Lockheed YF-22 articles as needed. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do intend to flesh out those two articles with more detail, specifically more program background for the ATF article and Lockheed's design evolution from RFI to Dem/Val in the YF-22 article. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll remove the file from the article for now, until the original source can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Warfare good articles
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class aviation articles
- GA-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles