Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert Merkel (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 31 August 2005 (no original research). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 7 selected anniversary.

Will someone please add borders to table on the right. It's hideous.

Now that the Raptor is in production, I've removed the YF-22 prototype specs from the page. If someone's interested, they should be made into a separate entry for the YF-22. --Markonen

This is still work in progress. Feel free to edit. I need my bed for now:-) WojPob, 31.07.02, 22:40 CET

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

Hey, will you write anything on thrust vectoring? I don't have much in mind besides "well, the nozzles move" :) and I think it would be an interesting subject if you have some technical explanation. I can make a list of fighters that support it, starting with that first Sukhoi.

Ppetru

I'll do some research on it and see what I can find - WojPob

Weights

while the official F-22 webpage says that the weights are "Not releasable," there are many very reasonable weight estimates by reliable sources. would it be acceptable to add said estimates and note their source? mnemonic 12:21, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

F-22 cost

A recent aviationnow article places the cost at about $91 million. I think there needs to be some note in this wiki article of the nuances of military (particularly air force) equipment procurement costs mnemonic 12:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

The figure in that article does not account for R&D costs, which have already been paid for and is not a small amount. -jph 14:30, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

...which emphasizes my point regarding USAF cost quotes. who's up for a dedicated USAF aircraft procurement cost article? i think it's a very complex issue deserving of a thorough explanation. mnemonic 01:04, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

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

Data sources

Could somebody please cite sources on the specifications listed here? A lot of the real data is classified, so it would be good to know what the source of the guesswork/leaks are. this highly critical report (PDF), by a bloke who was reputedly high-up in the F-16 program, implies that the figures quoted are optimistic in some cases. --Robert Merkel 23:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That report is a bit... odd. The author grasps at straws (or misunderstands the subject) when he says the aircraft's stealth is a failure. Sonic booms only provide auditory detection clues, not tracking information. "Netted computers can track its sound" well yes, but to my knowledge no such systems exist, and there'd be a host of interference problems to handle. With the heat signature, IRST is still not reliable for ranging information and is all but useless at high aspect angles because the engine plume is obscured. The visibility of APG-77's LPI emissions is highly debatable, but the F-22 can use datalink and passive RWR tracking (it has been confirmed) for guiding weapons instead (leaving the radar silent). He brings up the hackneyed "21 B-2's" example, but doesn't mention the debunking; after the unit procurement reduction, Northrop drastically raised the unit cost (as every company does with changing purchase quantities). He misnames the B-52 as the "Stratobomber," which damages his "expertise" further. Then he claims that T/W and wing loading are the only measures of fighter maneuverability, ignoring things like drag (of any type), thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire etc. He's flat-out wrong when he says the F-15C and the F-22 carry the same weapons. And he misunderstands sensor fusion because he fails to realize that the software provides the upgrade-potential and flexibility of the system, not the hardware.

Anyways, I could go on but the man's just wrong. Yes, accurate sources are an important part of military equipment analysis. I've read everything from Jane's (British) to International Air Power Review (American) to official USAF advertised values. Everything in this article I've read is reasonably accurate, but performance values for any aircraft are endlessly debatable. This guy has a bone to pick with the F-22, and he's shaped his entire understanding around that. He is not a reliable source, because of his "facts" and because of his agenda. ✈ James C. 02:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And oh my god... he states that the F-22 -> F/A-22 re-designation marked an actual design change of the aircraft. It seems he confused it with the YF-22 -> F-22 revisions. This guy is ridiculous.

Stealth System

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

Your observations are interesting, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your original research. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. Good luck with your experimentation.--Robert Merkel 00:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)