This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Wikipedia editors follow. The basic tenets of Wikipedia use include:
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).
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. [1] 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)
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:
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):
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)
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.
- I can only agree with him, even the pricetag of this plane is manipulated, but why even bother, this WIKI page is clearly biased, and it will continue to be so. There should be a clear warning on this article about the bias -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
The airframe subsection uses the adjective small describing the airframe changes from the YF-22 to the F-22, but the changes mentioned are substantial- reduced the sweep of the leading edge, resized the tail, moving the cockpit, moving the inlets. Would it be more accurate to just leave out the word- small especially when the difference is described as substantial in a section deeper in the article?
Wnshelton ( talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 ( talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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 [August] 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html 70.243.231.144 15:23, 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 Speaketh 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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):
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 "Wikipedia - the website where we vote on what is factual". 162.84.187.178 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone
I'm Nova13 from the german Wikipedia ( userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:
+ | litres | gallons | pounds | kilograms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Internal | 13,022 | 3,082 | 20,635 | 9,360 |
External | 10,012 | 2,368 | 15,856 | 7,196 |
Total | 23,034 | 5,450 | 36,481 | 16,556 |
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)
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)
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))
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 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))
When filming the jet you need room for the big aircraft but Hollywood got no room.( TougHHead 06:46, 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))
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)
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."
Obviously, the two extreams cannot co-exist simultaneously. Recognizing there need to be some kind of compromise, MILHIST developed guidelines based on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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!
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)
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)
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))
Lets put up a random quote on every article then.( TougHHead 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
There really needs to be a separate section on criticism of this program, as criticism is coming from both sides of the political aisle, unlike earlier fighter programs. The main point should be the argument in politics on whether the aircraft is necessary at all. This is the first fighter program in modern history that I can recall that has had significant criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. Then you've got the price issue, the limited quantities that the issue forces, and the already-noted quality issues. This is an aircraft that's been in development since the late 80's, and still doesn't have the bugs worked out. Some of that is because of redesign issues, but that should be part of the criticism argument as well. DesScorp 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, dont expect criticism here, you landed on the official F-22 fanpage. One can only wonder how there are soo many things one could critize about the f-22, and yet this page have none. If you want to read the sources for cost, your are directed to: "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance" an article from USAF. The cost are not the average cost, but is more than $50 million lower, because prices from budget estimates are cherry picked. As I said, welcome to the F-22 fanpage, if you want "Criticism", go somewhere else. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I could fill out pages with criticism from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"):
GAO: June 20, 2006 - Subject: Tactical Aircraft: DOD Should Present a New F-22A Business Case before Making Further Investments: Read page 5: "In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract." [4]
GAO-04-391 (2004) "F/A-22 Aircraft": read e.g. page 12. "Current processors are old and obsolete, cannot be supported, and do not have sufficient capacity to meet the increased processing demands required for planned new air-to-ground capabilities beyond Global StrikeEnhanced....." [5]
GAO-01-310 (2001) Tactical Aircraft:
(read e.g. 25-26) - " the Air Force estimates that by the end of development, the F-22 will be able to complete 2 flying hours between maintenance actions; and when the F-22 reaches maturity in 2008, F-22s will be able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions. However, currently the flight-test aircraft are completing 0.6 flying hours between maintenance actions. This means that aircraft are now requiring significantly more maintenance than is expected when the system reaches maturity." [6]
This source from 2001, believe the F-22 will be "able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions" in 2008, but still in 2007 - 6 years later - the F-22 still cant even complete 1 flying hour between maintenance actions. Read page 87-88 in adope pages, in GAO report 2007 - "Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs" - GAO-07-406SP: "A key reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the number of maintenance actions. This is required by the time it reaches 100,000 operational flying hours, projected to be reached in 2010. Currently the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour, or half of what was expected at the end of system development" [7]
.....and yes the "100,000 operational flying hours" is pushed into the future in every report, because the F-22 have soomany bugs, it has less flying hours.
In short, i could fill pages of criticism from U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"), but because of "patriotic vandalism" from American wiki users here, it would be deleted within seconds, and i would waste my time. Watch [8], just to see some critic, all statements are from U.S. Government Accountability Office.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:
"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.
"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183. [9]
-- Financialmodel ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the price of the F-22 not correct? Are you simple not aware of the real price or do you try to manipulate it?
The F-22's are bought in smaller quantities at different years at different prices, but all in multiyear contracts, so if i wanted to, i could find you a price on over $200 million also excluding the R&D cost. It seems someone looked for the lowest prce in the USAF budget estimates and picked it, why? Are you not aware the average price of an F-22 is around $185 million? Or do you just pick $135 here on the wiki fanpage to make the F-22 look better?
you want sources?
Congressional reseach service (CRS) for Congress on June 12, 2007, page 7:
"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before the Subcommittee on AirLand Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on July 25, 2006, page 2:
"However, because the F-22A has turned out to be much more expensive than other fighter aircraft— procuring 182 aircraft will cost an average of $185 million per plane"
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) before Subcommittee on Defense, House of Representatives June 20, 2006 , page 5:
"In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf
Congress says $185 million is the average price for the F-22, but F-22 fans here on wiki says 135, based on budget estimates picked for one year out of a multi year contract Q.E.D. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also i find it interesting that the program unit acquisition cost (PUAC) for the F-22 (including reseach cost) is more than $350 million for each aircraft, but off course this is not mentioned either here on the F-22 WIKI fanpage. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you refuse to list the average price, you should at least list all the different prices paid in the different years for different quantities, so they can see what game you play here. Agenda or just plain stupid, i dunno, but i do know the listed price in this article is not the average price of the F-22. Instead its a cherry picked price from budget estimates over several years.... -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Its part of a multi year contract, if the average price of the F-22 is 185, and lets the the USAF needs two F-22's spread over 2 years, you could pay $185 million for one F-22 each year, or you could pay $369 million for one F-22 the first year and $1 million the next year, it wont matter, since the average price is still 185 (leaving out NPV calculation). The problem first exist when socalled moods here on WIKI start to use the $1 million dollar (paid in year two) as pricetag for the F-22, based on budget estimates from USAF.
Using the average unit procurement costs as U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Congressional reseach service (CRS) will prevent manipulation/mistakes as here on wiki. So in short, either you should show all the different prices for each year and each quantity, or you should use the average cost as US Congress does. What WIKI does it a mistake, whether made on purpose or with intent, I cant say, but readers should not trust what they read in this F-22 article.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your cost are cherry picked, I suggested average Fly away cost, but you continue this F-22 fanpage bias, and its Downtrip and Fnlayson again - Again you continue to play your game with hiding criticism. I was willing to let you keep your biased flyway price, if you had added the other numbers also, so readers can see your modus operandi. Government use UPC, so avoid such manipulation by producers as you pull here here with Fly away cost. Did you learn such manipulation at your job in the US aerospace industry, Fnlayson? Here is what you have done - F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation
You have 91 active F-22's stated in article, first 92 F-22's are bought at 168 million USA, next 21 F-22 are bought at 135 million USD, and next 21 F-21 are bought at 137 million USD. OF all the 91 active F-22's the pricetag is 168 million USD, but you F_22 fans want to make it look cheaper, and since 91 are bought at 168, and then prices are lowered, because its always best to get a large amount up front, read NPV. You refuse to use average because 92 F-22's at 168 million have a hig weitht, instead you use a pricetag for 21 F-22s, not even active yet, but which will make the Fly away cost for the F-22 seem cheaper, its part of a multiyear conctract, and this source is only budget estimates for the financial payment, not the cost of the fly away cost of the F-22 as such, do averages. F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation -- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
With your F-22 fanpage logic, you will put the cost of an F-22 at 0 USD in 2010. F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation-- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
With inflation price increases, and as you can see this is not the case here, your source is a "budget" that show the different payments in a multiyear contract, and it has nothing to do with the cost of an F-22. Spin it as you want, the F-22's price sudently got cheaper from the payment of 168 million for the first 92 F-22's, to 135 million USD for the next 21 F-22's the next year. It's not "due to material price change throughout time" or "inflation", it's finance 101, you want as much money in as soon as possible, because the Net Present Value is bigger. Right now this article hide this. Article says 91 active F-22's, and we know the first 92 F-22's cost 168 million USD, and yet we use the pricetag from a much smaller quantity of 21, that is the payment for the delivery of raptor number 114 to 134. This is a cash flow budget, not a source of the f-22 fly away cost as such. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a conflict, we should mark this page as such, and refer to an economics/business page on wiki, to solve this question. I dispute your use of numbers, and i question why you refuse to allow the adding of average procurement unit cost UPC, from Congressional reseach service (CRS), U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO)-- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The cost overruns of the F-22 project are huge, but is it mentioned? Read GAO to US Congress:
Summary:
Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force’s current stated “need” is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable [10]
.....The USAF want to buy 381 F-22's, which they say is needed as a minimum, but because of the huge cost overruns of this project, they can only afford 183, leaving a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable, is this conflict presented in the article? No. Instead its presented in a way, that dosent discuss the huge cost overruns of this project, read "Procurement" section, that just run over the numbers as headlines. It dont mention the current conflict where less F-22's are bought than what USAF state is needed, and it dont state why. Instead the article goes on, to speak about the benefits of buying more F-22's eventhought its limit is cut, because it cost too much. The article tells about how cheap this can be done by using fly-away cost, which has nothing to do which the real price, Congress pays, which is why all sources to Congress use UPC, the numbers certain editors refuse to even mention here in the start of article. Read article:
"If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance." USAF . + F-22 is not the most expensive aircraft"
And this is what critics tell you again and again, something not mentioned here either, read:
Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:
"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.
"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.
-- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL, how stupid are you allowed to be? So you want me to find a soure saying the original research done here isnt correct. Ask any economist if there is a difference in unit cost and budget payments (here budgt estimates), and they will tell you there is. Here on wiki you somehow use budget estimates at evidence of the unit cost, which is true original research. Find a source that validates the numbers you picked out of the thin air. You picked certain payments from a multiyear contract with lowest price tag in 2007 to make the F-22 look cheap, none of you even bother to change the price of the F-22 to 2008 payments, since budget payments per unit is now higher. Its bias and should be seen by even a elementary schoolgrader, no economist use budgetpayments in single years from multiyear contracts, to state the unit price. You claim I argue for original research, but facts are you moods have made your own sources out of the thin air - just look at the written sources i gave 3 congress agencies. Now stop wasting my time making up shit, and correct this price to real numbers. If you want to continue your bias cherrypicking numbers in single years, at least pick 2008 numbers in you budget estimates. we have 91 active f-22's and the price of these are badly manipulated. I know why people refer to wiki as a shitty source, even whn confronted with bias here, sources are not corrected and all one can do is to repeat yourself.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you can call the F-22 operational, though some did it already 3 years ago, read :
"An advanced stealth fighter jet in development since the 1980s has been declared fully operational, nearly three years after the first F- 22A Raptor arrived at Langley Air Force Base." "US Air Force: Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet Fully Operational"
(added now to latest)-- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I disbute the cost used here, and the refusal to add additional information to specify what the quoted cost cover. The real price of the F-22. We need admins from Economics/business wiki pages to solve this issue.
Besides the general cost disbute, the moods on this article carry a bias, that refuse to add, fix the disputed material, and there seems to be an adversion about critics about this plane in general, which should be looked into as well. Read Criticism -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Financialmodel ( talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Modus operandi is to delete and add what this group wants, if others disagree they refer to concensus, and close all debate, since there will never be consensus unlees you agree with them. Complain and article is locked with their input, and again is refered to consensus. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is disputed, and will continue to be such, until consensus have been reached, so stop removing the disputed tag again and again, until it has been discussed in details. I have provided lots of sources, but no commets are made. Read the topics of dispute and comment, but stop ignoring this. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed tag, removed, article locked, and dispute talk moved to buttom so noone even read it, nice work admins here on wiki. The bias is endless-- Financialmodel ( talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say so. Financialmodel has an axe to grind here and the other 2 articles in dispute. As stated elsewhere in this talk page, s/he has been posting essentially the same arguments over and over in wordy diatribes about how the editors here are in some sort of cabal aimed against any sort of criticism; this is hardly the case. There is criticism of the plane; it's just not in a section dedicated to criticism (which I believe is discouraged anyway; the relevant negative points should always go right after the positive points they dispute, not separated). IMHO, the cost issue is explained pretty clearly in the article; there isn't any hiding of costs, nor is there figure cherrypicking. The flyaway cost for the current contract is 137 million; that's a fact, and the most current fact, regardless of the average cost of the entire production run (which is, in fact, stated in the article as well). Parsecboy ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla For all concerned checkuser found that Downtrip ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the Indef blocked user Wikzilla ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). additionally it was found he routinely uses anon IP addresses for 3RR evasion and sockpuppetry. Freepsbane ( talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 3 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Wikipedia editors follow. The basic tenets of Wikipedia use include:
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).
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. [1] 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)
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:
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):
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)
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.
- I can only agree with him, even the pricetag of this plane is manipulated, but why even bother, this WIKI page is clearly biased, and it will continue to be so. There should be a clear warning on this article about the bias -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
The airframe subsection uses the adjective small describing the airframe changes from the YF-22 to the F-22, but the changes mentioned are substantial- reduced the sweep of the leading edge, resized the tail, moving the cockpit, moving the inlets. Would it be more accurate to just leave out the word- small especially when the difference is described as substantial in a section deeper in the article?
Wnshelton ( talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 ( talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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 [August] 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html 70.243.231.144 15:23, 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 Speaketh 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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):
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 "Wikipedia - the website where we vote on what is factual". 162.84.187.178 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone
I'm Nova13 from the german Wikipedia ( userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:
+ | litres | gallons | pounds | kilograms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Internal | 13,022 | 3,082 | 20,635 | 9,360 |
External | 10,012 | 2,368 | 15,856 | 7,196 |
Total | 23,034 | 5,450 | 36,481 | 16,556 |
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)
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)
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))
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 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))
When filming the jet you need room for the big aircraft but Hollywood got no room.( TougHHead 06:46, 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))
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)
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."
Obviously, the two extreams cannot co-exist simultaneously. Recognizing there need to be some kind of compromise, MILHIST developed guidelines based on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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!
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)
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)
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))
Lets put up a random quote on every article then.( TougHHead 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
There really needs to be a separate section on criticism of this program, as criticism is coming from both sides of the political aisle, unlike earlier fighter programs. The main point should be the argument in politics on whether the aircraft is necessary at all. This is the first fighter program in modern history that I can recall that has had significant criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. Then you've got the price issue, the limited quantities that the issue forces, and the already-noted quality issues. This is an aircraft that's been in development since the late 80's, and still doesn't have the bugs worked out. Some of that is because of redesign issues, but that should be part of the criticism argument as well. DesScorp 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, dont expect criticism here, you landed on the official F-22 fanpage. One can only wonder how there are soo many things one could critize about the f-22, and yet this page have none. If you want to read the sources for cost, your are directed to: "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance" an article from USAF. The cost are not the average cost, but is more than $50 million lower, because prices from budget estimates are cherry picked. As I said, welcome to the F-22 fanpage, if you want "Criticism", go somewhere else. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I could fill out pages with criticism from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"):
GAO: June 20, 2006 - Subject: Tactical Aircraft: DOD Should Present a New F-22A Business Case before Making Further Investments: Read page 5: "In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract." [4]
GAO-04-391 (2004) "F/A-22 Aircraft": read e.g. page 12. "Current processors are old and obsolete, cannot be supported, and do not have sufficient capacity to meet the increased processing demands required for planned new air-to-ground capabilities beyond Global StrikeEnhanced....." [5]
GAO-01-310 (2001) Tactical Aircraft:
(read e.g. 25-26) - " the Air Force estimates that by the end of development, the F-22 will be able to complete 2 flying hours between maintenance actions; and when the F-22 reaches maturity in 2008, F-22s will be able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions. However, currently the flight-test aircraft are completing 0.6 flying hours between maintenance actions. This means that aircraft are now requiring significantly more maintenance than is expected when the system reaches maturity." [6]
This source from 2001, believe the F-22 will be "able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions" in 2008, but still in 2007 - 6 years later - the F-22 still cant even complete 1 flying hour between maintenance actions. Read page 87-88 in adope pages, in GAO report 2007 - "Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs" - GAO-07-406SP: "A key reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the number of maintenance actions. This is required by the time it reaches 100,000 operational flying hours, projected to be reached in 2010. Currently the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour, or half of what was expected at the end of system development" [7]
.....and yes the "100,000 operational flying hours" is pushed into the future in every report, because the F-22 have soomany bugs, it has less flying hours.
In short, i could fill pages of criticism from U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"), but because of "patriotic vandalism" from American wiki users here, it would be deleted within seconds, and i would waste my time. Watch [8], just to see some critic, all statements are from U.S. Government Accountability Office.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:
"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.
"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183. [9]
-- Financialmodel ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the price of the F-22 not correct? Are you simple not aware of the real price or do you try to manipulate it?
The F-22's are bought in smaller quantities at different years at different prices, but all in multiyear contracts, so if i wanted to, i could find you a price on over $200 million also excluding the R&D cost. It seems someone looked for the lowest prce in the USAF budget estimates and picked it, why? Are you not aware the average price of an F-22 is around $185 million? Or do you just pick $135 here on the wiki fanpage to make the F-22 look better?
you want sources?
Congressional reseach service (CRS) for Congress on June 12, 2007, page 7:
"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before the Subcommittee on AirLand Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on July 25, 2006, page 2:
"However, because the F-22A has turned out to be much more expensive than other fighter aircraft— procuring 182 aircraft will cost an average of $185 million per plane"
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) before Subcommittee on Defense, House of Representatives June 20, 2006 , page 5:
"In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf
Congress says $185 million is the average price for the F-22, but F-22 fans here on wiki says 135, based on budget estimates picked for one year out of a multi year contract Q.E.D. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also i find it interesting that the program unit acquisition cost (PUAC) for the F-22 (including reseach cost) is more than $350 million for each aircraft, but off course this is not mentioned either here on the F-22 WIKI fanpage. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you refuse to list the average price, you should at least list all the different prices paid in the different years for different quantities, so they can see what game you play here. Agenda or just plain stupid, i dunno, but i do know the listed price in this article is not the average price of the F-22. Instead its a cherry picked price from budget estimates over several years.... -- Financialmodel ( talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Its part of a multi year contract, if the average price of the F-22 is 185, and lets the the USAF needs two F-22's spread over 2 years, you could pay $185 million for one F-22 each year, or you could pay $369 million for one F-22 the first year and $1 million the next year, it wont matter, since the average price is still 185 (leaving out NPV calculation). The problem first exist when socalled moods here on WIKI start to use the $1 million dollar (paid in year two) as pricetag for the F-22, based on budget estimates from USAF.
Using the average unit procurement costs as U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Congressional reseach service (CRS) will prevent manipulation/mistakes as here on wiki. So in short, either you should show all the different prices for each year and each quantity, or you should use the average cost as US Congress does. What WIKI does it a mistake, whether made on purpose or with intent, I cant say, but readers should not trust what they read in this F-22 article.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your cost are cherry picked, I suggested average Fly away cost, but you continue this F-22 fanpage bias, and its Downtrip and Fnlayson again - Again you continue to play your game with hiding criticism. I was willing to let you keep your biased flyway price, if you had added the other numbers also, so readers can see your modus operandi. Government use UPC, so avoid such manipulation by producers as you pull here here with Fly away cost. Did you learn such manipulation at your job in the US aerospace industry, Fnlayson? Here is what you have done - F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation
You have 91 active F-22's stated in article, first 92 F-22's are bought at 168 million USA, next 21 F-22 are bought at 135 million USD, and next 21 F-21 are bought at 137 million USD. OF all the 91 active F-22's the pricetag is 168 million USD, but you F_22 fans want to make it look cheaper, and since 91 are bought at 168, and then prices are lowered, because its always best to get a large amount up front, read NPV. You refuse to use average because 92 F-22's at 168 million have a hig weitht, instead you use a pricetag for 21 F-22s, not even active yet, but which will make the Fly away cost for the F-22 seem cheaper, its part of a multiyear conctract, and this source is only budget estimates for the financial payment, not the cost of the fly away cost of the F-22 as such, do averages. F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation -- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
With your F-22 fanpage logic, you will put the cost of an F-22 at 0 USD in 2010. F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation-- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
With inflation price increases, and as you can see this is not the case here, your source is a "budget" that show the different payments in a multiyear contract, and it has nothing to do with the cost of an F-22. Spin it as you want, the F-22's price sudently got cheaper from the payment of 168 million for the first 92 F-22's, to 135 million USD for the next 21 F-22's the next year. It's not "due to material price change throughout time" or "inflation", it's finance 101, you want as much money in as soon as possible, because the Net Present Value is bigger. Right now this article hide this. Article says 91 active F-22's, and we know the first 92 F-22's cost 168 million USD, and yet we use the pricetag from a much smaller quantity of 21, that is the payment for the delivery of raptor number 114 to 134. This is a cash flow budget, not a source of the f-22 fly away cost as such. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a conflict, we should mark this page as such, and refer to an economics/business page on wiki, to solve this question. I dispute your use of numbers, and i question why you refuse to allow the adding of average procurement unit cost UPC, from Congressional reseach service (CRS), U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO)-- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The cost overruns of the F-22 project are huge, but is it mentioned? Read GAO to US Congress:
Summary:
Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force’s current stated “need” is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable [10]
.....The USAF want to buy 381 F-22's, which they say is needed as a minimum, but because of the huge cost overruns of this project, they can only afford 183, leaving a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable, is this conflict presented in the article? No. Instead its presented in a way, that dosent discuss the huge cost overruns of this project, read "Procurement" section, that just run over the numbers as headlines. It dont mention the current conflict where less F-22's are bought than what USAF state is needed, and it dont state why. Instead the article goes on, to speak about the benefits of buying more F-22's eventhought its limit is cut, because it cost too much. The article tells about how cheap this can be done by using fly-away cost, which has nothing to do which the real price, Congress pays, which is why all sources to Congress use UPC, the numbers certain editors refuse to even mention here in the start of article. Read article:
"If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance." USAF . + F-22 is not the most expensive aircraft"
And this is what critics tell you again and again, something not mentioned here either, read:
Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:
"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.
"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.
-- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL, how stupid are you allowed to be? So you want me to find a soure saying the original research done here isnt correct. Ask any economist if there is a difference in unit cost and budget payments (here budgt estimates), and they will tell you there is. Here on wiki you somehow use budget estimates at evidence of the unit cost, which is true original research. Find a source that validates the numbers you picked out of the thin air. You picked certain payments from a multiyear contract with lowest price tag in 2007 to make the F-22 look cheap, none of you even bother to change the price of the F-22 to 2008 payments, since budget payments per unit is now higher. Its bias and should be seen by even a elementary schoolgrader, no economist use budgetpayments in single years from multiyear contracts, to state the unit price. You claim I argue for original research, but facts are you moods have made your own sources out of the thin air - just look at the written sources i gave 3 congress agencies. Now stop wasting my time making up shit, and correct this price to real numbers. If you want to continue your bias cherrypicking numbers in single years, at least pick 2008 numbers in you budget estimates. we have 91 active f-22's and the price of these are badly manipulated. I know why people refer to wiki as a shitty source, even whn confronted with bias here, sources are not corrected and all one can do is to repeat yourself.-- Financialmodel ( talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you can call the F-22 operational, though some did it already 3 years ago, read :
"An advanced stealth fighter jet in development since the 1980s has been declared fully operational, nearly three years after the first F- 22A Raptor arrived at Langley Air Force Base." "US Air Force: Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet Fully Operational"
(added now to latest)-- Financialmodel ( talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I disbute the cost used here, and the refusal to add additional information to specify what the quoted cost cover. The real price of the F-22. We need admins from Economics/business wiki pages to solve this issue.
Besides the general cost disbute, the moods on this article carry a bias, that refuse to add, fix the disputed material, and there seems to be an adversion about critics about this plane in general, which should be looked into as well. Read Criticism -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Financialmodel ( talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Modus operandi is to delete and add what this group wants, if others disagree they refer to concensus, and close all debate, since there will never be consensus unlees you agree with them. Complain and article is locked with their input, and again is refered to consensus. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is disputed, and will continue to be such, until consensus have been reached, so stop removing the disputed tag again and again, until it has been discussed in details. I have provided lots of sources, but no commets are made. Read the topics of dispute and comment, but stop ignoring this. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed tag, removed, article locked, and dispute talk moved to buttom so noone even read it, nice work admins here on wiki. The bias is endless-- Financialmodel ( talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say so. Financialmodel has an axe to grind here and the other 2 articles in dispute. As stated elsewhere in this talk page, s/he has been posting essentially the same arguments over and over in wordy diatribes about how the editors here are in some sort of cabal aimed against any sort of criticism; this is hardly the case. There is criticism of the plane; it's just not in a section dedicated to criticism (which I believe is discouraged anyway; the relevant negative points should always go right after the positive points they dispute, not separated). IMHO, the cost issue is explained pretty clearly in the article; there isn't any hiding of costs, nor is there figure cherrypicking. The flyaway cost for the current contract is 137 million; that's a fact, and the most current fact, regardless of the average cost of the entire production run (which is, in fact, stated in the article as well). Parsecboy ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla For all concerned checkuser found that Downtrip ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the Indef blocked user Wikzilla ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). additionally it was found he routinely uses anon IP addresses for 3RR evasion and sockpuppetry. Freepsbane ( talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 3 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |