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 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I propose adding a new sub-secton, immedaitely after Avionics, entitled "Cockpit", with suitable references, using some or all of the following information:
The cockpit was one of the first so-called “glass-cockpits” without traditional round dials, standby or dedicated gauges and represents a marked improvement on the cockpit design of previous jets.
There are only three steps to take the F-22 from cold to full readiness for takeoff: the pilot places the battery switch 'on,' places the auxiliary power unit switch momentarily to 'start' and then places both throttles in 'idle.' The engines start sequentially right to left and the auxiliary power unit automatically shuts down. All subsystems and avionics are brought on line and built-in testis are made. Navigation information and pilot's personal avionics preferences are loaded automatically. The airplane can be ready to taxi in less than 30 seconds after engine start.
The GEC-built monochrome Head-Up Display ( HUD) offers a wide field of view (30 horizontal, 25 vertically) and serves as a primary flight instrument for the pilot. The HUD is approximately 4.5 inches tall with standardized symbology compatible with that used head down. The HUD is planned to also have a rubber buffer strip on it that will effectively shield the polycarbonate of the canopy when it flexes during a bird-strike and should prevent it shattering. Design is also underway for a HUD that will collapse during a bird-strike. The Integrated Control Panel (ICP) is the primary means for manual pilot entry of communications, navigation, and autopilot data. Located under the glare shield and HUD in the upper centre the instrument panel, this keypad entry system also has some double click functions, much like a computer mouse for rapid pilot access/use. There are six liquid crystal display ( LCD) panels in the cockpit. These present information in full colour, are fully readable in direct sunlight and offer less weight and size than traditional CRT displays. Two Up-Front Displays (UFDs) (3"x4") located to the left and right of the ICP are used to display Integrated Caution/ Advisory/ Warning (ICAW) data, communications/ navigation/ identification (CNI) data and also serve as the Stand-by Flight instrumentation Group and Fuel Quantity Indicator (SFG/FQI). The Stand-by Flight Group also presented on LCD, shows basic information, such as artificial horizon, needed to fly the aircraft in IMC. The SFG is tied to the last source of power in the aircraft, so if everything else fails, the pilot will still be able to fly the aircraft. The colour Primary Multi-Function Display (PMFD) (8"x8") is located in the middle of the instrument panel, under the ICP. It is the pilot's principal display for aircraft navigation (including waypoints and route of flight) and Situation Assessment (SA). Three Secondary Multi-Function Displays (SMFDs) (6.25" x 6.25") are located on either side of the PMFD and under the PMFD between the pilot's knees. These are used for displaying tactical (both offensive and defensive) information as well as non-tactical information (such as checklists, subsystem status, engine thrust output, and stores management).
To reduce pilot workload in flight, the uniquely designed integrated caution, advisory and warning system (ICAW) can display a total of 12 individual ICAW messages at one time on the up-front display and additional ones can appear on sub pages of the display. All ICAW fault messages are filtered to eliminate extraneous messages and tell the pilot specifically and succinctly what the problem is. For example, when an engine fails, the generator and hydraulic cautions normally associated with an engine being shutdown are suppressed, and the pilot is provided the specific problem in the form of an engine shutdown message. ICAW also incorporates an electronic checklist. If multiple ICAWs occur, their associated checklists are selected by moving a pick box over the desired ICAW and depressing the checklist button. Associated checklists are automatically linked together.
Enemy aircraft are shown as red triangles, friendly aircraft as green circles, unknown aircraft as yellow squares, and wingmen are shown as blue. Surface-to-air missile sites are represented by pentagons, along with an indication of missile type and its lethal range. An in-filled triangle means that the pilot has a missile firing-quality solution against that target. The pilot has a cursor on each screen, and he can use this to request ask extra information more information. The Inter/Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) allows a number of F-22 to be linked together to trade information without radio calls with each F-22s in a flight or between flights.
The F-22 features a side-stick controller (like an F-16) and two throttles that are the aircraft's primary flight controls. The GEC-built stick is located on the right console with a swing-out, adjustable arm rest. The stick is force sensitive and moves only about one-quarter of an inch. The throttles are located on the left console. HOTAS switches, both shape and texture coded, are used to control more than 60 different time-critical functions.
The cockpit accommodates the 0.5 to 99.5 percentile, i.e. the body size of the central 99% of the U.S. Air Force pilot population. This represents the largest range of pilots accommodated by any tactical aircraft now in service. The rudder pedals are adjustable. The pilot has 15-degree over-the-nose visibility as well as excellent over-the-side and aft visibility.
The cockpit interior lighting is fully Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible, as is the exterior lighting. The cockpit panels feature extended life, self-balancing, electro-luminescent (EL) edge-lit panels with an integral life-limiting circuit.
The F-22 life support system integrates all critical components of clothing, protective gear, and aircraft equipment necessary to sustain the pilot's life while flying the aircraft. In the past, these components had been designed and produced separately. These include: An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) that supplies breathable air to the pilot. An integrated breathing regulator/anti-g valve (BRAG) that controls flow and pressure to the mask and pressure garments. A chemical/biological/cold-water immersion (CB/CWI) protection ensemble. An upper body counter pressure garment and a lower body anti-G garment acts a partial pressure suit at high altitudes. An air-cooling garment, also to be used by pilots on the Army's RAH-66 Comanche helicopter providing thermal relief for the pilot. Helmet and helmet-mounted systems including C/B goggles and C/B hood; and the MBU-22/P breathing mask and hose system. Escape-system tests have proven the life-support system to wind speeds of up to 600 knots. Current life-support systems are designed to provide protection only up to 450 knots. The head mounted portions of the life-support system are approximately 30 percent lighter than existing systems, which improves mobility and endurance time for pilots. With its advanced design, the HGU-86/P helmet that will be used by F-22 pilots during EMD reduces the stresses on a pilot's neck by 20 percent during high-speed ejection compared to the current HGU-55/P helmets. The F-22 helmet fits more securely as the result of an ear cup tensioning device and is easily fitted to a pilot's head. The helmet provides improved passive noise protection and incorporates an Active Noise Reduction (ANR) system for superior pilot protection. The chemical/biological/cold water immersion clothing meets or exceeds Air Force requirements and fit a wider range of sizes and body shapes (the central 99%).
The canopy is approximately 140 inches long, 45 inches wide, 27 inches tall, and weighs approximately 360 pounds. It is a rotate/translate design, i.e. comes down, slides forward, and locks in place with pins. The canopy's transparency (by Sierracin) features the largest piece of monolithic polycarbonate material being formed today. It has no canopy bow and offers the pilot superior optics (Zone 1 quality) throughout (not just in the area near the HUD) and offers the requisite stealth features. The canopy is resistant to chemical/biological and environmental agents, and has been successfully tested to withstand the impact of a four-pound bird at 350 knots. It also protects the pilot from lightning strikes. The 3/4" polycarbonate transparency is actually made of two 3/8" thick sheets that are heated and fusion bonded, with the sheets melding to become a single-piece and then drape forged, i.e. no laminate as in the F-16. Post-ejection canopy-seat-pilot collision has been designed out as the framed canopy weighs slightly more on one side than the other slices nearly ninety degrees to the right as it clears the aircraft.
The Ejection Seat is an improved version of the ACES II (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) used in nearly every other U.S.A.F. jet combat aircraft, with a centre mounted ejection control. Improvements over the previous seat models include: - An active arm restraint system to eliminate arm flail injuries during high speed ejections. - An improved fast-acting seat stabilization drogue parachute system to provide increased seat stability and safety, located behind the pilot's head and is mortar-deployed. - A new electronic seat and aircraft sequencing system that improves the timing of the ejection event sequence. - A larger oxygen bottle providing more breathing air to support ejection at higher altitudes (if required). The system utilizes the standard analogue three-mode seat sequencer that automatically senses the seat speed and altitude, and then selects the proper mode for optimum seat performance.
Please offer your views and/or suggestions. Many thanks, Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
First look inside of the F-22.-- HDP ( talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have the dedicated cockpit page, does the paragraph in the main article really need to be expanded and if so by how much? Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection of this page has expired and I've not renewed it. Broad consensus seems to exist as to what cost to include in the article, and a compromise solution was held out last week to the one dissenting voice. That editor has not commented on the suggested solution. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No solution yet, since no change yet. Just because you dont comment on christmass eve dosent mean you have changed viewpoint. The problem existed before and it still exist now. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC) The price used in this article is based on original research, and false research that it. I wanted to correct this but was prevented, also i wanted to improve the cost section with UPC and unit program cost, so readers see what is what, with refference to what the difference is, but this too is prevented, eventhough we have clarl numbers fom 3 US congress agencies. In short, stop original research in fly away cost, which is manipulated numbers cherrypicked for small quantities with low pricetags in a multiyear contract. Using single year budget estimates in multiyear contract as source for the real price is something no economist would ever do. the 20 f-22's you picked the pricetag of isnt even active yet. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a discussion to fend off an edit-revert "conflab." I had placed the paragraph in this section as it provided a general statement regarding the capability of the F-22. I also consider the edit a "good faith" edit which necessitates other editors to alter or revise but not to outright revert the passage unless it contravenes MoS or other stipulations. The discussions on this page do not specifically address the issue. Read Help:Reverting, For your convenience:
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
Is that what you wanted when you asked for citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.17.128 ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[4] and [5] list Senior Sky for Advanced Tactical Fighter, but I would think it belongs in the ATF article not here since it doesn't appear to be specific to the F-22 alone. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether adding info in the pop culture section is necessary, but it does raise something interesting. In the film, the F-22 drops a nuclear bomb which is not fitted with a JDAM. I'm not sure if this is possible
May be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.38.87 ( talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article uses the acronym "EMD" several times without explaining it. Anyone who knows what's meant by that, please add it in. -- Reuben ( talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe, but I have no confirmation, that the F-22 is capable of carrying current air dropped/launched nuclear munitions. The B83 nuclear bomb article states that it is capable of being delivered by the F-22, but it has no citations. Is it possible that we can find citations for this? — scetoaux ( talk) ( My contributions.) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That 3rd to last picture/outline of the F-22 is of a YF-22 not the F-22. You may want to specify that. you've done a great job! Theo Wiersema
I'm questioning the unit cost of the F-22 at ~$140 million. There's a discrepancy with the F-35 Lightning. The F-22 was supposed to be the pinnacle fighter for the USAF. The F-35 was supposed to be a "watered down" version of the F-22 and an F-16 replacement. How is it that we have a ~$140 million unit cost for F-22 and ~$200 million unit cost for the F-35? One of the Wiki's is wrong. I should add that a recent report by the GAO said the F-35 program had ballooned in cost and is also behind schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by gelato ( talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to add black-out-button property. This is very important for F/A-22 Raptor datas. Raptor is the unique fighter jet with black-out-button. 'Cause pilots cannot endure but they can get away at 22+G when incoming an enemy missile. kızılsungur 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if the USAF makes a Unmaned jet fighter, the F-22 or the F-35 would be the ones to do it with. The F-22 is so mauverable that there are things that keep it from killing the pilot! if we took the pilot out and put in a robot, it would be a huge advantage over everyone. We still need maned fighters though.
Coolguy0730 —Preceding
comment was added at
23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Was thrust vectoring originally in the plans when the YF-22 was competing with the YF-23? Or was it an addition added later after it had won over the YF-23? Jigen III ( talk) 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the YF-22 had thrust vectoring before it won over the YF-23, but I also think that the YF-23 had it too. I'm not sure as well.
Coolguy0730
I see that this article was once a featured article candidate and was rejected due to missing citations and some poor structure in a part or two. The article has advanced since that time and virtually all information that needs a citation have been cited and there still remain a point that needs one (Current total aircraft production).
Is it possible to resend a request to make this article a featured article when the point mentioned above has been cited ? Because otherwise the article is unbiased, has complete information, good pictures and such.
Still new to wikipedia editing so I don't have that much information on this topic. -- E.R.UT ( talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the opinionated, unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning of the F-22 Raptor article. There are two quotes; one from the USAF and one from the Chief of the Australian Defence Force. Both of which are nothing more than the personal views of naturally biased parties. I am of the belief that this does nothing in the way of educating readers on the aircraft. It would require little effort to scour the internet for various quotes regarding other aircraft, and then using them to litter the respective articles, but it would amount to nothing more than compromising the factual authenticity of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't referenced; I said they were not factual. There is no need to post opinionated items within a factual text. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rigdon86 (
talk •
contribs)
10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Who says that the US military is a fan of Michael Bay? If the military could have a favorite director I'm sure he'd be up there, but unless there is a DoD policy on Michael Bay preference or something it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.74 ( talk • contribs)
I recently read an interesting interview with Gen Zelin of the Russian Air Force, so i decided to add the quote on his view on the Raptor, but apparently it was removed in less than a day. We've already got two extremely western-biased opinionated quotes (almost as if the USAF had edited this article in propaganda purposes), so why is it that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force General Alexander Zelin (an expert opinion if you ask me) is not allowed, while the two existing ones are? How is this neutrality? -
MKM7 (
talk)
While I'm pretty sure that the Raptor does work as advertised and that it will kill anything in the skies, do we need phrases like "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft" in the summary section? I mean, considering the amount of money we put into building the thing I should hope it can't be matched by any known fighter aircraft. These "F-22 is the best airplane in the world" comments just sound unnecessary and unprofessional, even coming from official sources Masterblooregard ( talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why is some Russian bird listed as comparable in the article? - 134.50.14.44 ( talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not saying its better, but the Typhoon is far more expensive, especialy when you consider development costs are split between 700 planes rather than 150. I agree, at least until they have actualy been used in real combat, or even good simulated combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 ( talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that the communication bus for the F22 is IEEE1394B. This is incorrect. The F22 uses MIL-STD-1553 and fiber optics for its communications. I believe the person who entered this may have gotten the F22 confused with the F35 which is using IEEE1394B as its primary communications bus. EastonBats ( talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Unable to find LM reference or direct USAF reference to MIL-STD-1553 being used, however numerous military reporting websites, the Digital Data Corp and a document titled "TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_32.pdf" all refer to MIL-STD-1553 as the communications bus for the F-22. EastonBats ( talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it I get a warning for being a vandal when I put in the quote (Sometimes referenced as "Starscream") because I know alot of people that call the F-22 "Starscream" and some news reports nickname the F-22 as "Starscream". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I kinda see where you're getting at Bill. But to give me a slap across the face was a bit much. In my opinion, if you give a item a nickname, you embrace that name. For example you, what would you like to be called more, Bill or William? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"This weapon platform has never flown a combat sortie in any theater of operations." I guess you're not considering air intercept missions as combat sorties. [6] I would think the Air Force would disagree with that statement. If you have a problem with the F-22's apparent/current lack of ground attack capability, provide a citation for this criticism. A hammer makes a poor screwdriver, but you're not editing the hammer article pointing that out. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood this considering the placing of the "citation needed" mark, but it appears that the article is asking for a source that Tony Stark is Iron Man. Is that really necessary for the article? Spartan198 ( talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
RE: "19:50, 22 October 2008 BillCJ (Talk | contribs) (67,477 bytes) (Undid revision 247009194 by 192.91.147.35 - minor, non-notable appearnce; one day I'd like to meet a gamer who reads above a 4th grade level) (undo)"
Actually, I'm an F-22 engineer who's worked on that particular jet (4006). Just once I'd like to meet a Wikipedia nerd who actually knows what he's talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 ( talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for some clarification about the F-22 engine's thrust. I've been going to various articles about fighters and trying to compare the levels of thrust and thrust to weight ration etc, but when I came to this one I see that the quoted figures are not in the same format as in the other articles. For instance in the Eurofighter article there are two separate figures provided for the thrust i.e. "Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each. Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,000 lbf) each", whereas this article only provides a single figure "Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans, 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each". So does this figure mean it has 156 kN Dry thrust or 156 kN Thrust with afterburner? Or is it that this engine system doesn’t distinguish between the two? (i.e. is 156 kN the Maximum or Average thrust?). So anyone know about this? -- Hibernian ( talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The F-22 is featured on the cover of the November, 2008 IEEE Spectrum magazine under the title "Weapons Acquisition - Spending Too Much, Getting Too Little." (see
http://spectrum.ieee.org/weapons )
The article cites a number of DoD programs, and includes a separate sub-article entitled "F-22: Success, Failure, or Both?" which provides a brief discussion of the F-22 acquisition and outlines its acquisition history, framing it as a failure (see
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/6931/weapsb1 ).
My question is whether/where/how to bring up this aspect of a weapons system, since it could be useful in classifying this weapons system's effectiveness. I'd like to know how experienced Wikipedians would deal with this dimension of this article in particular, and weapon systems in general.
See also Controversy section of V-22 Osprey article [7] Transformasian ( talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Should the IEEE article be cited somewhere? It does show the F-22 on the cover. Transformasian ( talk) 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Or no? — ¾-10 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, with gear down is the TVC locked for oscillation preventing, as experience from the YF-22 crash.-- HDP ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In the 2008 film Iron Man, there is an extensive scene where Iron Man is engaged by a pair of F-22 Raptors. I know at my school, it is one of the landmark scenes that made the film recognizable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.13.59 ( talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How do we estimate the "loaded weight"? Would that be plane+fuel? If the empty F22 weights 19,700 kg and the internal fuel is given with 8,200 kg, how can the loaded planes weight be 25,107 kg?-- HTG2000 ( talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I did some math and with the updated "empty weight" the "loaded weight" should be ~29.200kg (empty weight+8.2t fuel+6AMRAAM+2AIM9+pilot) That would make a T/W ratio of 1,09. Does everybody agree? -- HTG2000 ( talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If the "19t empty" figure given by LM and USAF is true the figures given for "loaded weight" and the t/w-ratio in the Wiki-article are definitely wrong. The problem is that my calculations are based on estimates (weapons/fuel), but so were the previous figures for "t/w" and "loaded weight". I checked the sources given for the "Specifications" section and none of them gave an actual t/w or "loaded weight" figure. Maybe we should remove both figures and replace them with a "Specification needed"-tag? I dont dare to do it myself..:) -- HTG2000 ( talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The German Wiki had the exact same discussion last night, at least they have a better calculation basis than my estimates: 19700kg(plane) + 8200kg(fuel) + 1142kg (6 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9X) + 292kg (munition for the canon)= 29334kg without Pilot. That makes a t/w ratio of 1.08 (31754/29334=1,08) I guess we should use those figures as they are more exact than my estimates. -- HTG2000 ( talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The weight-thrust ratio is ~1:1(from multiple sources) and thrust is 35000 lbs. per engine, so it seems like it is 70000 lbs (~31800 kg). WaffleMaster44 ( talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
After noticing the note in the pop culture section (as I was about to add a link to the stub on the F-22 ADF video game) I thought I'd ask thoughts first. This game doesn't just have the F-22 in it casually, the F-22 is the whole point of it. Also, it is in the orphan project, and I don't see much hope for it if it can't be linked to from here. Thoughts? F-22: Air Dominance Fighter Elliott Shultz ( talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There must be a dozen games featuring the F-22 as the main character, some are listed on F-22 (disambiguation). Why don't you link it on the F-22 Total Air War article as its predecessor and the EF2000 (computer game) page as a successor. Beyond that, I can't see a good reason to link this and every other F-22 game on this page. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point(s), I esp. had not considered whether the game was notable to the F-22, vs. the other way around, and good idea for the links. Elliott Shultz ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering here. But wasn't there a short copyright fight over the F-22 use in video games? Lockheed thought they could give exclusive use for it, until the US stepped in and said it was public domain, being property of the US. 70.241.247.215 ( talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Prior to transformers I'm pretty sure the f-22 was featured in the movie The Incredible Hulk, the hulk grabs onto it and the F-22 pilot takes him for a ride. Is this worth mentioning? Seems like that would be it's Hollywood debut but it seems pretty likely that they were CG F-22's and not actual ones considering the angles/shots used. Shatzky ( talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stinks of favoritism towards Michael Bay.
The article states that the plane made its theatrical debut in The Transformers film. Wasn't there an F-22 action sequence in The Hulk (the scene where he grabs an attacking plane and the pilot ascends until the Hulk blacks out in the upper atmosphere)? I no longer own that movie, so it will take me some time to check. Onikage725 ( talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I added that. If a complete fight with Hulk, in a scene lasted for several minuts is not notable, so what's the point to have a 'culture pop' section at all. Hulk was a notable movie (who says that Transformer is more notable, after all? Because it was made by Spielberg?) and the scene was surely notable, not a few seconds one, with no intereset. So it's definitively a notable appareance.--
Stefanomencarelli (
talk)
21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A recent submission was made to link to a TV appearance. I do not believe it qualifies as notable. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Is it me being thick or is there no section on the F-22's radio systems? Royzee ( talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
the wing loading number seems wrong
29300/78.04 = 375.4 Kg/m^2
and not 322 Kg/m^2 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.240.48.135 (
talk)
02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the wing loading numbers to 77 (375).
Oraci (
talk)
03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering the mach number in the max speed specs, "At Altitude" specifies what altitude ? Mach 2.25 = 2756.35 km/h at sea level. Same deal for the supercruise since Mach 1.82 = 2229.58 km/h E.R.UT ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Why the max speed is listed at Mach 2.25, since thetest pilot Paul Metz has clearly stated that its max speed exceeds Mach 2.42 ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.97.162.206 (
talk)
13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An addition of an external link to an amateur website was reverted as it was a collection of public domain DoD images. Wikimedia is not a web directory and the content could be added to Commons if it added any value to the article. User:ViperNerd appears to think because they are not on commons and it is not his/her job to move them to commons then the link should stay. But despite the link being removed a number of times User:ViperNerd continues to revert the removals on this and the B-2 article. Please note that as well as the above the link is one of links to be avoided #11. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Why Japan stick to F-22
1)Financial Ministry's 350 Fighters Only Cap,because of twice labor cost as much as other OECD country's troops.
2)Military balance of FarEast rough figure is as follows
List of countries by size of armed forces
3)JSDF is a defending force and they need F4/F-15"INTERCEPTOR's" replacement
4)Russian/Chinese fighters can not bombing NY but capable to Bombing Tokyo. So main potential threat for Japan is not terolist but 2Big Powers of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
5)In far east there are 2Pair of devided country which seek unification like Vietnum.
6)How Taiwan and South Korea and Japan asked them, North Korea and China have not Stopped their military expansion.
Merit for US employment and Trade deficit
Development cost collection for US taxpayers
Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX
Hi Even if I pasted Citation some left people continue to revert it. Cited article is not OR. And it is Vandalism to delite inconvenient article without discussion. Wikipedia is Not a propaganda board for left people. If you need more citation pls point out then I will paste citation because I'm not writing OR. -- Jack332 ( talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi If I have intention to do WP:SOCKPUPPET I will never use My ID. I never do such unfair trick. And I don't think I need to do. If US Export "Confidential part delited F-22" then US taxpater can gain more revenue than Shut down F-22's line now. And L&M's 25000 labor can keep stable employment and 70000 indirect labor can keep their Job. And even Russia/China equip hundreds of twin engine stealth fighter in the near future, US can react smoothly, need not lose air power superiority. I'm honestly recommending. I think it is not the question of Democrats supporter or GOP supporter but the question of US supporter or China/Russia supporter. Of course I support US,I hope US global air power superiority,and I hope US-Japan taxpayer's mutual revenue. Which do you support? ViperNerd? Anyway I hope US NewsPaper need to double check which way is more profitable for US Taxpayes, 1)Immidiately line stop & lose $18.2billion export revenue OR 2)Invest $8.5billion for bridge production and get $18.2billion export revenue. And I will paste citation for proof, what ever you request me. -- Jack332 ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody know what happened with this group?
http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=292&yr=2007 A new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” — composed of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials — has launched a comprehensive review of Japan’s fighter requirements. That group will deliver a formal recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eventually President Bush on which American-made war plane Washington should pitch to Tokyo.
Adm. Timothy Keating, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, said he has passed his recommendation that the Raptor not be sold to Japan to that study team. Hcobb ( talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why my simple line about cancellation or cutback rumors in the media has been deleted. It made headlines around the world, and it is the most known "recent development" on the F-22 program. If not provided with a rationale, I'll recover it. Please explain. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a news service, then half of the "recent developments" section is inappropiate. I have been reviewing the history of this article and found that any criticism or simple revelation of drawbacks in the F-22 program has been erased and silenced. This is deeply partial and against a fundamental Wikimedia principle (see WP:NPV). Don't get me wrong, I find that the F-22 is a great plane and I'm a follower (that's because I came to the article), but the points of view policy has been handled in a deeply wrongful way here. So I am going to review carefully the editions from now on in order to recover properly verified views (see WP:V), no matter if they're critical or supportive. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
flightglobal writes, Mr. Gates wants to shut down the line.-- 89.245.230.111 ( talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the possible desing influences of the Yak-43 on the F-22, please note that both Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, the two most widley published authors of books on Soviet aircraft, have both stated that the similarities between the earlier Yak-43 design and the F-22 are too great for there not to have been an influence. Please remember that Lockheed-Martin was already working very closely with the Yak-43 design team on several systems for the future F-35 at the time the design of the F-22 was being developed. Finally, I would encourage anyone who wants to dismiss this as a possibility to first look at the design drawings of the Yak-43 dating from 1983-1984. There is little doubt that Lockheed-Martin gained a lot more than just VTOL development from their $400 million investment in Yakovlev. - Ken keisel ( talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[Unindent] Per
BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the
X-35 Talk page. With regard to a possible influence of the Yak-41 or Yak-43 on the F-22 design, I've found nothing that would reliably support that, so I would consider the issue here to be moot.
Askari Mark
(Talk)
20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the suit has yet to be filed. This moves it below the notability requirement at this moment.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/ex-lockheed-engineer-sues-lock.html "The document shown below is a draft copy of a lawsuit expected to be filed later this week." Hcobb ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not make the F-22 article fit the same template as every other jet fighter? The first step would be to use the same top level categories as say the F-104 Starfighter (1 Development,2 Design,3 Operational history ...) and move all the scattered bits of the current article under these headings. And then reorg the moved subheads until they read smoothly. Any takers? Hcobb ( talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The current amount of gold that can purchase a unit of this particular aircraft is 5,200 kilograms of 24 karat gold. This could be used as a historical reference in case the currency of the U.S. dollar becomes obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.94 ( talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the US dollar will become obsolete at any time in the foreseeable future. Spartan198 ( talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
The price of gold also fluctuates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.110.169 ( talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel this page needs a lock to keep non members such as little kiddies from editing it. Joey3r ( talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice in looking at this article's history, that there appears to have been a sustained effort to promote a positive image of this aircraft and downplay criticism and controversy. I noticed that a lot of anonymous IP editors have been involved. As a precaution, I've posted a request at the COI Noticeboard to check to see if any of the IP edits are originating from Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If anyone is aware of any COI possibly taking place on this article, please note it here. Cla68 ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a page for Defense Daily? We seem to quote them a lot so they must be notable. Hcobb ( talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone really does need to inject some reality into this article. Has anyone asked why the Raptor has never been used in Afganistan or Iraq? Maybe the fact that the US military has repetedly said it does not want it. Keeping it going has more to do with jobs than any potential for future imaginary air combat. Zuber5 ( talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When naming CRS links, please use the CRS number. There is no official CRS archive site (that is available outside of Congress) so we may wind up reffing the same report from two different sources and using the numbers should make this clear. This should also apply to CBO, GAO, etc. Hcobb ( talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I came here to find some information and to see if the article could be used as a link as university course materials. While the article is excellent in its presentation of the plane's specifications and development history, its political and social history is severely lacking. After quickly reading through the discussion I can see that this has been a ongoing problem; a problem that this community should try to solve soon. As an encyclopeaida, especially a popular online wiki, the article needs to answer the questions of many different users who will come to this article for information. Wikipedia is not a Janes military reference book. As such, it also needs to have information about all aspects of a subject. This would include the plane's conception and design in the Cold War and why funding was proposed to be cut in the most recent DoD budget request. The controversies surrounding the plane also need to be covered, especially so since this would be one of the major motivating factors for users coming to the article at this particular moment in its history. Like I said, this is an excellent article in terms of the technical information and reference materials but it must have information about the social and political aspects, especially when the plane is so much in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DClearwater ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It needs to go in some article. Hopefully this article will be of broad enough scope to discuss the entire MIC and not just one fnording aircraft. Hcobb ( talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So as you can see, the edit bias even seeps into the talk page. What can be done about this? Hcobb ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I opened up an arbitration page, but owing to a busy schedule, this is the first time I have been able to do anything wiki-wise in awhile. I just read over the talk page and it seems that some of these issues still have not been resolved. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when maintenance issues finally appeared in the article, though getting those there was a fight as well. The last two issues that have yet to be resolved are A: the role that the f22 will play in current and future likely combat scenarios and B: direct comparisons with the planes that the F22 will be replacing (the F16). Both issues need to be addressed if this article is not to read like a book from Lockheed-Martin. If need be, we can take this to arbitration. EricLeFevre ( talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In the Armament section, the paragraph about the external hardpoints says: "The wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank". But then later in the paragraph we have: "The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks". So, we have a little contradiction there :-) McSly ( talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why repeat exactly the same words from the same source twice in one article? Hcobb ( talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hcobb, I removed the following text because it needs further clarification and a couple of corrections before going back in:
First, the clarification: Since the F-22 itself reputedly has jamming capabilities, it’s unclear why “additional jammer aircraft” are needed (or why they couldn’t be more F-22s). I think you meant to say something along the line of “when combined with standoff [or offboard] electronic jamming”.
Second, the correction. The F-22 line is not being terminated in favor of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. This statement does not accurately capture what the source says; what Gen. Cartwright said was “it was one reason for halting the Air Force’s F-22 fighter program and potentially redirecting that money toward electronic attack.” [emphasis added]. Note that he says nothing about the F/A-18 or any other aircraft – and in any case, it’s the EA-18G Growler that is the jammer. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/07%20July/09-58%20-%207-9-09.pdf Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried onboard the F–18. And so, looking at the lines that we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production line producing F– 18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare fight. So those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my part, that it was time to terminate the F–22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the Services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability, and that was in the F–18. In the F– 18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.
It's taken me a month to let the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have his say about the Raptor, so let's see how long that stays in there. Hcobb ( talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the reasons given for the cancellation lasted one day until a sockpuppet smashed it. Is there anybody here who is the least bit surprised? Hcobb ( talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the historical relevance of the day by work in Congress before they even close to a bill? Giving undue notice to these low level events in a POV violation. Nothing has changed since the 187 number was decided on. Hcobb ( talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The last readd of the Prowler comment shows how it fails to actually tie the F-18 hot line to the F-22 production line ending. Hcobb ( talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be clarified that a) the plane has never flown a combat mission as the congress has voted to halt production (I think this is notable for a plane with these far reaching goals) [2], and b) that is has had issues with rain. Yes, there is a rebuttal regarding rain included, but I see no link to the counterclaim. [3] — Northgrove 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Riddle me this Batman, how's that Raptor spotting that SAM without IRST and what weapon will it use against it? The next-gen SAM hunter is the F-35, which is constantly slammed for having decent air to ground capabilities. The truth is that it's insurgencies all the way down. We're gladly lacking in peer competitors and anybody foolish enough to take the open field against the Americans deserves their afterlife. So the mission for the F-22 is the same as the mission of the most advanced Russian fighters, attending airshows. Hcobb ( talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Certain units of the Air National Guard are slated to get Raptors. What's the status of this and does it count as a pure USAF-only aircraft after this point? Hcobb ( talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
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 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I propose adding a new sub-secton, immedaitely after Avionics, entitled "Cockpit", with suitable references, using some or all of the following information:
The cockpit was one of the first so-called “glass-cockpits” without traditional round dials, standby or dedicated gauges and represents a marked improvement on the cockpit design of previous jets.
There are only three steps to take the F-22 from cold to full readiness for takeoff: the pilot places the battery switch 'on,' places the auxiliary power unit switch momentarily to 'start' and then places both throttles in 'idle.' The engines start sequentially right to left and the auxiliary power unit automatically shuts down. All subsystems and avionics are brought on line and built-in testis are made. Navigation information and pilot's personal avionics preferences are loaded automatically. The airplane can be ready to taxi in less than 30 seconds after engine start.
The GEC-built monochrome Head-Up Display ( HUD) offers a wide field of view (30 horizontal, 25 vertically) and serves as a primary flight instrument for the pilot. The HUD is approximately 4.5 inches tall with standardized symbology compatible with that used head down. The HUD is planned to also have a rubber buffer strip on it that will effectively shield the polycarbonate of the canopy when it flexes during a bird-strike and should prevent it shattering. Design is also underway for a HUD that will collapse during a bird-strike. The Integrated Control Panel (ICP) is the primary means for manual pilot entry of communications, navigation, and autopilot data. Located under the glare shield and HUD in the upper centre the instrument panel, this keypad entry system also has some double click functions, much like a computer mouse for rapid pilot access/use. There are six liquid crystal display ( LCD) panels in the cockpit. These present information in full colour, are fully readable in direct sunlight and offer less weight and size than traditional CRT displays. Two Up-Front Displays (UFDs) (3"x4") located to the left and right of the ICP are used to display Integrated Caution/ Advisory/ Warning (ICAW) data, communications/ navigation/ identification (CNI) data and also serve as the Stand-by Flight instrumentation Group and Fuel Quantity Indicator (SFG/FQI). The Stand-by Flight Group also presented on LCD, shows basic information, such as artificial horizon, needed to fly the aircraft in IMC. The SFG is tied to the last source of power in the aircraft, so if everything else fails, the pilot will still be able to fly the aircraft. The colour Primary Multi-Function Display (PMFD) (8"x8") is located in the middle of the instrument panel, under the ICP. It is the pilot's principal display for aircraft navigation (including waypoints and route of flight) and Situation Assessment (SA). Three Secondary Multi-Function Displays (SMFDs) (6.25" x 6.25") are located on either side of the PMFD and under the PMFD between the pilot's knees. These are used for displaying tactical (both offensive and defensive) information as well as non-tactical information (such as checklists, subsystem status, engine thrust output, and stores management).
To reduce pilot workload in flight, the uniquely designed integrated caution, advisory and warning system (ICAW) can display a total of 12 individual ICAW messages at one time on the up-front display and additional ones can appear on sub pages of the display. All ICAW fault messages are filtered to eliminate extraneous messages and tell the pilot specifically and succinctly what the problem is. For example, when an engine fails, the generator and hydraulic cautions normally associated with an engine being shutdown are suppressed, and the pilot is provided the specific problem in the form of an engine shutdown message. ICAW also incorporates an electronic checklist. If multiple ICAWs occur, their associated checklists are selected by moving a pick box over the desired ICAW and depressing the checklist button. Associated checklists are automatically linked together.
Enemy aircraft are shown as red triangles, friendly aircraft as green circles, unknown aircraft as yellow squares, and wingmen are shown as blue. Surface-to-air missile sites are represented by pentagons, along with an indication of missile type and its lethal range. An in-filled triangle means that the pilot has a missile firing-quality solution against that target. The pilot has a cursor on each screen, and he can use this to request ask extra information more information. The Inter/Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) allows a number of F-22 to be linked together to trade information without radio calls with each F-22s in a flight or between flights.
The F-22 features a side-stick controller (like an F-16) and two throttles that are the aircraft's primary flight controls. The GEC-built stick is located on the right console with a swing-out, adjustable arm rest. The stick is force sensitive and moves only about one-quarter of an inch. The throttles are located on the left console. HOTAS switches, both shape and texture coded, are used to control more than 60 different time-critical functions.
The cockpit accommodates the 0.5 to 99.5 percentile, i.e. the body size of the central 99% of the U.S. Air Force pilot population. This represents the largest range of pilots accommodated by any tactical aircraft now in service. The rudder pedals are adjustable. The pilot has 15-degree over-the-nose visibility as well as excellent over-the-side and aft visibility.
The cockpit interior lighting is fully Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible, as is the exterior lighting. The cockpit panels feature extended life, self-balancing, electro-luminescent (EL) edge-lit panels with an integral life-limiting circuit.
The F-22 life support system integrates all critical components of clothing, protective gear, and aircraft equipment necessary to sustain the pilot's life while flying the aircraft. In the past, these components had been designed and produced separately. These include: An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) that supplies breathable air to the pilot. An integrated breathing regulator/anti-g valve (BRAG) that controls flow and pressure to the mask and pressure garments. A chemical/biological/cold-water immersion (CB/CWI) protection ensemble. An upper body counter pressure garment and a lower body anti-G garment acts a partial pressure suit at high altitudes. An air-cooling garment, also to be used by pilots on the Army's RAH-66 Comanche helicopter providing thermal relief for the pilot. Helmet and helmet-mounted systems including C/B goggles and C/B hood; and the MBU-22/P breathing mask and hose system. Escape-system tests have proven the life-support system to wind speeds of up to 600 knots. Current life-support systems are designed to provide protection only up to 450 knots. The head mounted portions of the life-support system are approximately 30 percent lighter than existing systems, which improves mobility and endurance time for pilots. With its advanced design, the HGU-86/P helmet that will be used by F-22 pilots during EMD reduces the stresses on a pilot's neck by 20 percent during high-speed ejection compared to the current HGU-55/P helmets. The F-22 helmet fits more securely as the result of an ear cup tensioning device and is easily fitted to a pilot's head. The helmet provides improved passive noise protection and incorporates an Active Noise Reduction (ANR) system for superior pilot protection. The chemical/biological/cold water immersion clothing meets or exceeds Air Force requirements and fit a wider range of sizes and body shapes (the central 99%).
The canopy is approximately 140 inches long, 45 inches wide, 27 inches tall, and weighs approximately 360 pounds. It is a rotate/translate design, i.e. comes down, slides forward, and locks in place with pins. The canopy's transparency (by Sierracin) features the largest piece of monolithic polycarbonate material being formed today. It has no canopy bow and offers the pilot superior optics (Zone 1 quality) throughout (not just in the area near the HUD) and offers the requisite stealth features. The canopy is resistant to chemical/biological and environmental agents, and has been successfully tested to withstand the impact of a four-pound bird at 350 knots. It also protects the pilot from lightning strikes. The 3/4" polycarbonate transparency is actually made of two 3/8" thick sheets that are heated and fusion bonded, with the sheets melding to become a single-piece and then drape forged, i.e. no laminate as in the F-16. Post-ejection canopy-seat-pilot collision has been designed out as the framed canopy weighs slightly more on one side than the other slices nearly ninety degrees to the right as it clears the aircraft.
The Ejection Seat is an improved version of the ACES II (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) used in nearly every other U.S.A.F. jet combat aircraft, with a centre mounted ejection control. Improvements over the previous seat models include: - An active arm restraint system to eliminate arm flail injuries during high speed ejections. - An improved fast-acting seat stabilization drogue parachute system to provide increased seat stability and safety, located behind the pilot's head and is mortar-deployed. - A new electronic seat and aircraft sequencing system that improves the timing of the ejection event sequence. - A larger oxygen bottle providing more breathing air to support ejection at higher altitudes (if required). The system utilizes the standard analogue three-mode seat sequencer that automatically senses the seat speed and altitude, and then selects the proper mode for optimum seat performance.
Please offer your views and/or suggestions. Many thanks, Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
First look inside of the F-22.-- HDP ( talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have the dedicated cockpit page, does the paragraph in the main article really need to be expanded and if so by how much? Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection of this page has expired and I've not renewed it. Broad consensus seems to exist as to what cost to include in the article, and a compromise solution was held out last week to the one dissenting voice. That editor has not commented on the suggested solution. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No solution yet, since no change yet. Just because you dont comment on christmass eve dosent mean you have changed viewpoint. The problem existed before and it still exist now. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC) The price used in this article is based on original research, and false research that it. I wanted to correct this but was prevented, also i wanted to improve the cost section with UPC and unit program cost, so readers see what is what, with refference to what the difference is, but this too is prevented, eventhough we have clarl numbers fom 3 US congress agencies. In short, stop original research in fly away cost, which is manipulated numbers cherrypicked for small quantities with low pricetags in a multiyear contract. Using single year budget estimates in multiyear contract as source for the real price is something no economist would ever do. the 20 f-22's you picked the pricetag of isnt even active yet. -- Financialmodel ( talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a discussion to fend off an edit-revert "conflab." I had placed the paragraph in this section as it provided a general statement regarding the capability of the F-22. I also consider the edit a "good faith" edit which necessitates other editors to alter or revise but not to outright revert the passage unless it contravenes MoS or other stipulations. The discussions on this page do not specifically address the issue. Read Help:Reverting, For your convenience:
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
Is that what you wanted when you asked for citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.17.128 ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[4] and [5] list Senior Sky for Advanced Tactical Fighter, but I would think it belongs in the ATF article not here since it doesn't appear to be specific to the F-22 alone. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether adding info in the pop culture section is necessary, but it does raise something interesting. In the film, the F-22 drops a nuclear bomb which is not fitted with a JDAM. I'm not sure if this is possible
May be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.38.87 ( talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article uses the acronym "EMD" several times without explaining it. Anyone who knows what's meant by that, please add it in. -- Reuben ( talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe, but I have no confirmation, that the F-22 is capable of carrying current air dropped/launched nuclear munitions. The B83 nuclear bomb article states that it is capable of being delivered by the F-22, but it has no citations. Is it possible that we can find citations for this? — scetoaux ( talk) ( My contributions.) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That 3rd to last picture/outline of the F-22 is of a YF-22 not the F-22. You may want to specify that. you've done a great job! Theo Wiersema
I'm questioning the unit cost of the F-22 at ~$140 million. There's a discrepancy with the F-35 Lightning. The F-22 was supposed to be the pinnacle fighter for the USAF. The F-35 was supposed to be a "watered down" version of the F-22 and an F-16 replacement. How is it that we have a ~$140 million unit cost for F-22 and ~$200 million unit cost for the F-35? One of the Wiki's is wrong. I should add that a recent report by the GAO said the F-35 program had ballooned in cost and is also behind schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by gelato ( talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to add black-out-button property. This is very important for F/A-22 Raptor datas. Raptor is the unique fighter jet with black-out-button. 'Cause pilots cannot endure but they can get away at 22+G when incoming an enemy missile. kızılsungur 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if the USAF makes a Unmaned jet fighter, the F-22 or the F-35 would be the ones to do it with. The F-22 is so mauverable that there are things that keep it from killing the pilot! if we took the pilot out and put in a robot, it would be a huge advantage over everyone. We still need maned fighters though.
Coolguy0730 —Preceding
comment was added at
23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Was thrust vectoring originally in the plans when the YF-22 was competing with the YF-23? Or was it an addition added later after it had won over the YF-23? Jigen III ( talk) 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the YF-22 had thrust vectoring before it won over the YF-23, but I also think that the YF-23 had it too. I'm not sure as well.
Coolguy0730
I see that this article was once a featured article candidate and was rejected due to missing citations and some poor structure in a part or two. The article has advanced since that time and virtually all information that needs a citation have been cited and there still remain a point that needs one (Current total aircraft production).
Is it possible to resend a request to make this article a featured article when the point mentioned above has been cited ? Because otherwise the article is unbiased, has complete information, good pictures and such.
Still new to wikipedia editing so I don't have that much information on this topic. -- E.R.UT ( talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the opinionated, unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning of the F-22 Raptor article. There are two quotes; one from the USAF and one from the Chief of the Australian Defence Force. Both of which are nothing more than the personal views of naturally biased parties. I am of the belief that this does nothing in the way of educating readers on the aircraft. It would require little effort to scour the internet for various quotes regarding other aircraft, and then using them to litter the respective articles, but it would amount to nothing more than compromising the factual authenticity of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't referenced; I said they were not factual. There is no need to post opinionated items within a factual text. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rigdon86 (
talk •
contribs)
10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Who says that the US military is a fan of Michael Bay? If the military could have a favorite director I'm sure he'd be up there, but unless there is a DoD policy on Michael Bay preference or something it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.74 ( talk • contribs)
I recently read an interesting interview with Gen Zelin of the Russian Air Force, so i decided to add the quote on his view on the Raptor, but apparently it was removed in less than a day. We've already got two extremely western-biased opinionated quotes (almost as if the USAF had edited this article in propaganda purposes), so why is it that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force General Alexander Zelin (an expert opinion if you ask me) is not allowed, while the two existing ones are? How is this neutrality? -
MKM7 (
talk)
While I'm pretty sure that the Raptor does work as advertised and that it will kill anything in the skies, do we need phrases like "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft" in the summary section? I mean, considering the amount of money we put into building the thing I should hope it can't be matched by any known fighter aircraft. These "F-22 is the best airplane in the world" comments just sound unnecessary and unprofessional, even coming from official sources Masterblooregard ( talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why is some Russian bird listed as comparable in the article? - 134.50.14.44 ( talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not saying its better, but the Typhoon is far more expensive, especialy when you consider development costs are split between 700 planes rather than 150. I agree, at least until they have actualy been used in real combat, or even good simulated combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 ( talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that the communication bus for the F22 is IEEE1394B. This is incorrect. The F22 uses MIL-STD-1553 and fiber optics for its communications. I believe the person who entered this may have gotten the F22 confused with the F35 which is using IEEE1394B as its primary communications bus. EastonBats ( talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Unable to find LM reference or direct USAF reference to MIL-STD-1553 being used, however numerous military reporting websites, the Digital Data Corp and a document titled "TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_32.pdf" all refer to MIL-STD-1553 as the communications bus for the F-22. EastonBats ( talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it I get a warning for being a vandal when I put in the quote (Sometimes referenced as "Starscream") because I know alot of people that call the F-22 "Starscream" and some news reports nickname the F-22 as "Starscream". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I kinda see where you're getting at Bill. But to give me a slap across the face was a bit much. In my opinion, if you give a item a nickname, you embrace that name. For example you, what would you like to be called more, Bill or William? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"This weapon platform has never flown a combat sortie in any theater of operations." I guess you're not considering air intercept missions as combat sorties. [6] I would think the Air Force would disagree with that statement. If you have a problem with the F-22's apparent/current lack of ground attack capability, provide a citation for this criticism. A hammer makes a poor screwdriver, but you're not editing the hammer article pointing that out. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood this considering the placing of the "citation needed" mark, but it appears that the article is asking for a source that Tony Stark is Iron Man. Is that really necessary for the article? Spartan198 ( talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
RE: "19:50, 22 October 2008 BillCJ (Talk | contribs) (67,477 bytes) (Undid revision 247009194 by 192.91.147.35 - minor, non-notable appearnce; one day I'd like to meet a gamer who reads above a 4th grade level) (undo)"
Actually, I'm an F-22 engineer who's worked on that particular jet (4006). Just once I'd like to meet a Wikipedia nerd who actually knows what he's talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 ( talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for some clarification about the F-22 engine's thrust. I've been going to various articles about fighters and trying to compare the levels of thrust and thrust to weight ration etc, but when I came to this one I see that the quoted figures are not in the same format as in the other articles. For instance in the Eurofighter article there are two separate figures provided for the thrust i.e. "Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each. Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,000 lbf) each", whereas this article only provides a single figure "Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans, 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each". So does this figure mean it has 156 kN Dry thrust or 156 kN Thrust with afterburner? Or is it that this engine system doesn’t distinguish between the two? (i.e. is 156 kN the Maximum or Average thrust?). So anyone know about this? -- Hibernian ( talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The F-22 is featured on the cover of the November, 2008 IEEE Spectrum magazine under the title "Weapons Acquisition - Spending Too Much, Getting Too Little." (see
http://spectrum.ieee.org/weapons )
The article cites a number of DoD programs, and includes a separate sub-article entitled "F-22: Success, Failure, or Both?" which provides a brief discussion of the F-22 acquisition and outlines its acquisition history, framing it as a failure (see
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/6931/weapsb1 ).
My question is whether/where/how to bring up this aspect of a weapons system, since it could be useful in classifying this weapons system's effectiveness. I'd like to know how experienced Wikipedians would deal with this dimension of this article in particular, and weapon systems in general.
See also Controversy section of V-22 Osprey article [7] Transformasian ( talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Should the IEEE article be cited somewhere? It does show the F-22 on the cover. Transformasian ( talk) 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Or no? — ¾-10 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, with gear down is the TVC locked for oscillation preventing, as experience from the YF-22 crash.-- HDP ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In the 2008 film Iron Man, there is an extensive scene where Iron Man is engaged by a pair of F-22 Raptors. I know at my school, it is one of the landmark scenes that made the film recognizable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.13.59 ( talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How do we estimate the "loaded weight"? Would that be plane+fuel? If the empty F22 weights 19,700 kg and the internal fuel is given with 8,200 kg, how can the loaded planes weight be 25,107 kg?-- HTG2000 ( talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I did some math and with the updated "empty weight" the "loaded weight" should be ~29.200kg (empty weight+8.2t fuel+6AMRAAM+2AIM9+pilot) That would make a T/W ratio of 1,09. Does everybody agree? -- HTG2000 ( talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If the "19t empty" figure given by LM and USAF is true the figures given for "loaded weight" and the t/w-ratio in the Wiki-article are definitely wrong. The problem is that my calculations are based on estimates (weapons/fuel), but so were the previous figures for "t/w" and "loaded weight". I checked the sources given for the "Specifications" section and none of them gave an actual t/w or "loaded weight" figure. Maybe we should remove both figures and replace them with a "Specification needed"-tag? I dont dare to do it myself..:) -- HTG2000 ( talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The German Wiki had the exact same discussion last night, at least they have a better calculation basis than my estimates: 19700kg(plane) + 8200kg(fuel) + 1142kg (6 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9X) + 292kg (munition for the canon)= 29334kg without Pilot. That makes a t/w ratio of 1.08 (31754/29334=1,08) I guess we should use those figures as they are more exact than my estimates. -- HTG2000 ( talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The weight-thrust ratio is ~1:1(from multiple sources) and thrust is 35000 lbs. per engine, so it seems like it is 70000 lbs (~31800 kg). WaffleMaster44 ( talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
After noticing the note in the pop culture section (as I was about to add a link to the stub on the F-22 ADF video game) I thought I'd ask thoughts first. This game doesn't just have the F-22 in it casually, the F-22 is the whole point of it. Also, it is in the orphan project, and I don't see much hope for it if it can't be linked to from here. Thoughts? F-22: Air Dominance Fighter Elliott Shultz ( talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There must be a dozen games featuring the F-22 as the main character, some are listed on F-22 (disambiguation). Why don't you link it on the F-22 Total Air War article as its predecessor and the EF2000 (computer game) page as a successor. Beyond that, I can't see a good reason to link this and every other F-22 game on this page. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point(s), I esp. had not considered whether the game was notable to the F-22, vs. the other way around, and good idea for the links. Elliott Shultz ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering here. But wasn't there a short copyright fight over the F-22 use in video games? Lockheed thought they could give exclusive use for it, until the US stepped in and said it was public domain, being property of the US. 70.241.247.215 ( talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Prior to transformers I'm pretty sure the f-22 was featured in the movie The Incredible Hulk, the hulk grabs onto it and the F-22 pilot takes him for a ride. Is this worth mentioning? Seems like that would be it's Hollywood debut but it seems pretty likely that they were CG F-22's and not actual ones considering the angles/shots used. Shatzky ( talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stinks of favoritism towards Michael Bay.
The article states that the plane made its theatrical debut in The Transformers film. Wasn't there an F-22 action sequence in The Hulk (the scene where he grabs an attacking plane and the pilot ascends until the Hulk blacks out in the upper atmosphere)? I no longer own that movie, so it will take me some time to check. Onikage725 ( talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I added that. If a complete fight with Hulk, in a scene lasted for several minuts is not notable, so what's the point to have a 'culture pop' section at all. Hulk was a notable movie (who says that Transformer is more notable, after all? Because it was made by Spielberg?) and the scene was surely notable, not a few seconds one, with no intereset. So it's definitively a notable appareance.--
Stefanomencarelli (
talk)
21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A recent submission was made to link to a TV appearance. I do not believe it qualifies as notable. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Is it me being thick or is there no section on the F-22's radio systems? Royzee ( talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
the wing loading number seems wrong
29300/78.04 = 375.4 Kg/m^2
and not 322 Kg/m^2 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.240.48.135 (
talk)
02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the wing loading numbers to 77 (375).
Oraci (
talk)
03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering the mach number in the max speed specs, "At Altitude" specifies what altitude ? Mach 2.25 = 2756.35 km/h at sea level. Same deal for the supercruise since Mach 1.82 = 2229.58 km/h E.R.UT ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Why the max speed is listed at Mach 2.25, since thetest pilot Paul Metz has clearly stated that its max speed exceeds Mach 2.42 ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.97.162.206 (
talk)
13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An addition of an external link to an amateur website was reverted as it was a collection of public domain DoD images. Wikimedia is not a web directory and the content could be added to Commons if it added any value to the article. User:ViperNerd appears to think because they are not on commons and it is not his/her job to move them to commons then the link should stay. But despite the link being removed a number of times User:ViperNerd continues to revert the removals on this and the B-2 article. Please note that as well as the above the link is one of links to be avoided #11. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Why Japan stick to F-22
1)Financial Ministry's 350 Fighters Only Cap,because of twice labor cost as much as other OECD country's troops.
2)Military balance of FarEast rough figure is as follows
List of countries by size of armed forces
3)JSDF is a defending force and they need F4/F-15"INTERCEPTOR's" replacement
4)Russian/Chinese fighters can not bombing NY but capable to Bombing Tokyo. So main potential threat for Japan is not terolist but 2Big Powers of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
5)In far east there are 2Pair of devided country which seek unification like Vietnum.
6)How Taiwan and South Korea and Japan asked them, North Korea and China have not Stopped their military expansion.
Merit for US employment and Trade deficit
Development cost collection for US taxpayers
Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX
Hi Even if I pasted Citation some left people continue to revert it. Cited article is not OR. And it is Vandalism to delite inconvenient article without discussion. Wikipedia is Not a propaganda board for left people. If you need more citation pls point out then I will paste citation because I'm not writing OR. -- Jack332 ( talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi If I have intention to do WP:SOCKPUPPET I will never use My ID. I never do such unfair trick. And I don't think I need to do. If US Export "Confidential part delited F-22" then US taxpater can gain more revenue than Shut down F-22's line now. And L&M's 25000 labor can keep stable employment and 70000 indirect labor can keep their Job. And even Russia/China equip hundreds of twin engine stealth fighter in the near future, US can react smoothly, need not lose air power superiority. I'm honestly recommending. I think it is not the question of Democrats supporter or GOP supporter but the question of US supporter or China/Russia supporter. Of course I support US,I hope US global air power superiority,and I hope US-Japan taxpayer's mutual revenue. Which do you support? ViperNerd? Anyway I hope US NewsPaper need to double check which way is more profitable for US Taxpayes, 1)Immidiately line stop & lose $18.2billion export revenue OR 2)Invest $8.5billion for bridge production and get $18.2billion export revenue. And I will paste citation for proof, what ever you request me. -- Jack332 ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody know what happened with this group?
http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=292&yr=2007 A new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” — composed of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials — has launched a comprehensive review of Japan’s fighter requirements. That group will deliver a formal recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eventually President Bush on which American-made war plane Washington should pitch to Tokyo.
Adm. Timothy Keating, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, said he has passed his recommendation that the Raptor not be sold to Japan to that study team. Hcobb ( talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why my simple line about cancellation or cutback rumors in the media has been deleted. It made headlines around the world, and it is the most known "recent development" on the F-22 program. If not provided with a rationale, I'll recover it. Please explain. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a news service, then half of the "recent developments" section is inappropiate. I have been reviewing the history of this article and found that any criticism or simple revelation of drawbacks in the F-22 program has been erased and silenced. This is deeply partial and against a fundamental Wikimedia principle (see WP:NPV). Don't get me wrong, I find that the F-22 is a great plane and I'm a follower (that's because I came to the article), but the points of view policy has been handled in a deeply wrongful way here. So I am going to review carefully the editions from now on in order to recover properly verified views (see WP:V), no matter if they're critical or supportive. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
flightglobal writes, Mr. Gates wants to shut down the line.-- 89.245.230.111 ( talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the possible desing influences of the Yak-43 on the F-22, please note that both Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, the two most widley published authors of books on Soviet aircraft, have both stated that the similarities between the earlier Yak-43 design and the F-22 are too great for there not to have been an influence. Please remember that Lockheed-Martin was already working very closely with the Yak-43 design team on several systems for the future F-35 at the time the design of the F-22 was being developed. Finally, I would encourage anyone who wants to dismiss this as a possibility to first look at the design drawings of the Yak-43 dating from 1983-1984. There is little doubt that Lockheed-Martin gained a lot more than just VTOL development from their $400 million investment in Yakovlev. - Ken keisel ( talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[Unindent] Per
BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the
X-35 Talk page. With regard to a possible influence of the Yak-41 or Yak-43 on the F-22 design, I've found nothing that would reliably support that, so I would consider the issue here to be moot.
Askari Mark
(Talk)
20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the suit has yet to be filed. This moves it below the notability requirement at this moment.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/ex-lockheed-engineer-sues-lock.html "The document shown below is a draft copy of a lawsuit expected to be filed later this week." Hcobb ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not make the F-22 article fit the same template as every other jet fighter? The first step would be to use the same top level categories as say the F-104 Starfighter (1 Development,2 Design,3 Operational history ...) and move all the scattered bits of the current article under these headings. And then reorg the moved subheads until they read smoothly. Any takers? Hcobb ( talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The current amount of gold that can purchase a unit of this particular aircraft is 5,200 kilograms of 24 karat gold. This could be used as a historical reference in case the currency of the U.S. dollar becomes obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.94 ( talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the US dollar will become obsolete at any time in the foreseeable future. Spartan198 ( talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
The price of gold also fluctuates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.110.169 ( talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel this page needs a lock to keep non members such as little kiddies from editing it. Joey3r ( talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice in looking at this article's history, that there appears to have been a sustained effort to promote a positive image of this aircraft and downplay criticism and controversy. I noticed that a lot of anonymous IP editors have been involved. As a precaution, I've posted a request at the COI Noticeboard to check to see if any of the IP edits are originating from Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If anyone is aware of any COI possibly taking place on this article, please note it here. Cla68 ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a page for Defense Daily? We seem to quote them a lot so they must be notable. Hcobb ( talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone really does need to inject some reality into this article. Has anyone asked why the Raptor has never been used in Afganistan or Iraq? Maybe the fact that the US military has repetedly said it does not want it. Keeping it going has more to do with jobs than any potential for future imaginary air combat. Zuber5 ( talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When naming CRS links, please use the CRS number. There is no official CRS archive site (that is available outside of Congress) so we may wind up reffing the same report from two different sources and using the numbers should make this clear. This should also apply to CBO, GAO, etc. Hcobb ( talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I came here to find some information and to see if the article could be used as a link as university course materials. While the article is excellent in its presentation of the plane's specifications and development history, its political and social history is severely lacking. After quickly reading through the discussion I can see that this has been a ongoing problem; a problem that this community should try to solve soon. As an encyclopeaida, especially a popular online wiki, the article needs to answer the questions of many different users who will come to this article for information. Wikipedia is not a Janes military reference book. As such, it also needs to have information about all aspects of a subject. This would include the plane's conception and design in the Cold War and why funding was proposed to be cut in the most recent DoD budget request. The controversies surrounding the plane also need to be covered, especially so since this would be one of the major motivating factors for users coming to the article at this particular moment in its history. Like I said, this is an excellent article in terms of the technical information and reference materials but it must have information about the social and political aspects, especially when the plane is so much in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DClearwater ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It needs to go in some article. Hopefully this article will be of broad enough scope to discuss the entire MIC and not just one fnording aircraft. Hcobb ( talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So as you can see, the edit bias even seeps into the talk page. What can be done about this? Hcobb ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I opened up an arbitration page, but owing to a busy schedule, this is the first time I have been able to do anything wiki-wise in awhile. I just read over the talk page and it seems that some of these issues still have not been resolved. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when maintenance issues finally appeared in the article, though getting those there was a fight as well. The last two issues that have yet to be resolved are A: the role that the f22 will play in current and future likely combat scenarios and B: direct comparisons with the planes that the F22 will be replacing (the F16). Both issues need to be addressed if this article is not to read like a book from Lockheed-Martin. If need be, we can take this to arbitration. EricLeFevre ( talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In the Armament section, the paragraph about the external hardpoints says: "The wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank". But then later in the paragraph we have: "The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks". So, we have a little contradiction there :-) McSly ( talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why repeat exactly the same words from the same source twice in one article? Hcobb ( talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hcobb, I removed the following text because it needs further clarification and a couple of corrections before going back in:
First, the clarification: Since the F-22 itself reputedly has jamming capabilities, it’s unclear why “additional jammer aircraft” are needed (or why they couldn’t be more F-22s). I think you meant to say something along the line of “when combined with standoff [or offboard] electronic jamming”.
Second, the correction. The F-22 line is not being terminated in favor of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. This statement does not accurately capture what the source says; what Gen. Cartwright said was “it was one reason for halting the Air Force’s F-22 fighter program and potentially redirecting that money toward electronic attack.” [emphasis added]. Note that he says nothing about the F/A-18 or any other aircraft – and in any case, it’s the EA-18G Growler that is the jammer. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/07%20July/09-58%20-%207-9-09.pdf Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried onboard the F–18. And so, looking at the lines that we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production line producing F– 18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare fight. So those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my part, that it was time to terminate the F–22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the Services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability, and that was in the F–18. In the F– 18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.
It's taken me a month to let the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have his say about the Raptor, so let's see how long that stays in there. Hcobb ( talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the reasons given for the cancellation lasted one day until a sockpuppet smashed it. Is there anybody here who is the least bit surprised? Hcobb ( talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the historical relevance of the day by work in Congress before they even close to a bill? Giving undue notice to these low level events in a POV violation. Nothing has changed since the 187 number was decided on. Hcobb ( talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The last readd of the Prowler comment shows how it fails to actually tie the F-18 hot line to the F-22 production line ending. Hcobb ( talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be clarified that a) the plane has never flown a combat mission as the congress has voted to halt production (I think this is notable for a plane with these far reaching goals) [2], and b) that is has had issues with rain. Yes, there is a rebuttal regarding rain included, but I see no link to the counterclaim. [3] — Northgrove 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Riddle me this Batman, how's that Raptor spotting that SAM without IRST and what weapon will it use against it? The next-gen SAM hunter is the F-35, which is constantly slammed for having decent air to ground capabilities. The truth is that it's insurgencies all the way down. We're gladly lacking in peer competitors and anybody foolish enough to take the open field against the Americans deserves their afterlife. So the mission for the F-22 is the same as the mission of the most advanced Russian fighters, attending airshows. Hcobb ( talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Certain units of the Air National Guard are slated to get Raptors. What's the status of this and does it count as a pure USAF-only aircraft after this point? Hcobb ( talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)