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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
> The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." <
That is impossble to do owing to human overload. The ex-WARPAC countries tried to play Mini-AWACS with the MiG-23MF shortly after the commie block fell. The MiG-23 has a really big radar dish, with a lot of rotation horizontally (plus an extra 60 degrees left and right available with manual steer override) and good ground clutter canceller. Sorrowfully, playing AWACS proved too much workload for a single pilot and that's not a issue a glass cockpit could fix. It is also very costly to use a supersonic fighterplane for mini-AWACS and USA has its economic problems nowadays. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the F22 HAS been used as a mini AWACS, during simulated combat against f15's, after expending all their missiles and cannon rounds, planes stayed on station, presumably an F22 can track an enemy and use the wireless link to tell another where it is.
The datalinking ability of the F22 does not require the pilot to run tactical mission allocation. Ground teams and a real AWACs would do that. While the pilot could be a FAC, the aircraft is essentially an extension of the sensor reach of the combined air assets that are data linking. Ditto with the canceled Comanche, but for the JSTARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to kinda rain on IP 82.131's parade here...the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War used under-maintained F-14s as "mini-AWACs" because of it's radar. So the F-22 being used as one is hardly a stretch here. SoulBrotherKab ( talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing a critics section in the article, similar to the german wiki page. Especially the corrosion problems, budget problems and operational readiness (2008: 62%) seems to be worth writing. Check german page for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to put in another place for people to say biased, unreferenced opinions, we get a lot of that in this talk page. Maybe a section talking about issues with the F-22, but not criticism. Williamrmck ( talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
F-35 noted better than F-22, 6 cases. F-22 Too expensive noted, 6 times. F-22 not used in wars, 2 times. F-22 lacks capability or limited, 5 times. F-22 Maint problems, 5 times. F-22 structure problem, 1 time F-22 computer crash or bugs, 3 times. So my count is 28, not zero, but I'd love to add a source about the aircraft's IR blindness. (Compare to combat configuration of B-52, F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-35, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the technical criticisms should be separated from the criticisms of the program or the controversy over the reduction/funding-cuts as they are different issues. The discussions over technical problems/flaws (not sure what the right word would be) could go into its own section under the technical aspects of the article (But as Hcobb says, there is plenty in the various sections already). The criticisms of the program and the funding controversy should go into separate sections in order to keep the engineering merits of the plane separate from the political struggles that these programs usually get caught up in. -- DClearwater ( talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This page will never have a critics section. After all, Raptor is just perfect, right? (sarcarsm). I do not use Wikipedia as source for any military or historical info because this "north-americans as the best of the best" view. Use this as construtive critic, after all one of most important goals of Wikipedia is the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.3.166 ( talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An F-22 operating out of Edwards AFB, CA, on a test mission crashed around 10:00 am local time today. No details yet on a possible cause or the status of the pilot. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There were plans to squeeze a pair of AIM-9X into each of the side bays, but this has been dropped.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/HonedtoaRazor’sEdge.aspx Lewis and Miller said, when specifically asked, that there are no plans on the books today to install items like side-staring radar arrays in the aircraft. (There is internal space for them.) Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs. Hcobb ( talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I would like to alert that the main image is not a real one. It's from some kind of game. If you see it closer, you can realise that it is not real. I suggest a change in that part of the article. Thank you all. -- Prtgl93 ( talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Prtgl93
I had what I thought was a lot of knowledge of the F-22, including first-hand experience, but I was blown away by a Washington Post article on the maintenance issues of the F-22. Yesterday I checked this wikie and found no mention of the maintenance issues, so I added it. Then another user deleted every *referenced* fact I added and called them "biased" (a fact can be biased?) and "redundant" (there is no other mention of any of the facts I added). The facts included the cost of maintenance according to the SecDef, the average time between critical failure, susceptibility to rain and abrasion, flight readiness, and the need to hand-fit pieces.
I agree that one sentence I added does sound biased "The F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, so actual battle data is not available." but I added that as an explanation as to why the data is from exercises. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me, or I will attempt to.-- Skintigh ( talk) 14:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There *is* controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. EricLeFevre ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had the same user repeatedly delete my facts for being "biased" and "covered other places" when they are mentioned no where else. I started this discussion to talk about it but he would rather continue his vandalism. How do I report abusing users such as this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.78.227 ( talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Should such a page exist I'd list out the various factors from all the sources every which way.
For example on SEAD we have supercruise against time sensitive targets as an advantage for the F-22 vs the F-35's ability to track launchers as they fire (much better IR) and instantly strike back. (DEAD SAMs).
Both platforms lack the ability to stealthily carry the AARGM so there is a capability gap until we get some sort of super AMRAAM upgrade. Hcobb ( talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) --
All that's needed is more on the Air Dominance role of the F-22. The F-35A/C does not have any special advantage in BVR combat over 4 and 4.5 gen fighters except for its stealth characteristics, which are compramised when carrying external stores. Sensor fusion is helpful when there are other workloads, but on the offensive a conventional fighter pilot will not be any slower launching on targets in a MIG-29 assuming his systems have already detected targets. When it is all the pilot is focused on and he/she is well-trained, sensor fusion is a luxury, allowing less concentration, even laziness. Nice, but doesn't necessarily win the fight. Most of the research on JSF's air combat effectiveness is based on dogfighting, but the fact is even a Harrier will beat most aircraft in a dogfight. Removing the VTOL, the F-35 is only as effective as the pilot and the weapons he's got in a close-in fight. And if both sides have off-boresight, they might as well eject after launching in the merge. Because they'll both be dead otherwise. The F-22 cruises at high altitude, very fast, has more range, and thus the kenematics of its medium range missiles are greatly enhanced. U.S. AAM technologies have ALWAYS trailed the Russians. The whole point of the F-22 was to allow us to use (in some ways inferior) AMRAAMs and still beat top-line MIG and SU fighters of the future. The fact that the F-35 is an attack aircraft that can fill an air superiority role with a small loadout does not nullify that it is NOT air dominance capable against any potential future air threat. Now, 187 aircraft is no small potatoes, but this article and the F-35's when taken together are making biased and unsubstantiated cases that F-22's are not a prudent thing to have around at all.
And do any of you have a clue how the Nazis started out, with anti-western indoctrination youth camps? Putin's been pulling the same stuff. A whole generation of brown shirts for the 21st century. And he created a new position just so he'd stay in the top leadership of his country. Scary stuff. Now the Russian navy has proved it can still deploy its subs all the way to the U.S. Rumsfeld said, "you don't fight with the military you want, you fight with the military you have." Well, what you're going to have in the future is decided first in the past and present. And there's something of a conflict of interest, you have to admit, in having a former DCI put in charge of the military and saying technology is less important than HUMINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The case was not being made that another 500 F-22s were required to prevent WWIII, only that it was rational to spend $2 billion (chump change in the Pentagon budget) to slowly build a few more to keep the production line open, in case it was decided that more were needed. The opponents of the Raptor created an imaginary counter-argument that obviously they'd win against. A real discussion over the facts did not occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
-Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because the F-35 in the future will be a great plane, does not mean the F-22 does not have an useful mission now. This is a article about the F-22. Why are Editors bringing in information about a future F-35 plane and future modifications to the F-22 to prove that the F-22 is currently useless currently now? There are numerous articles that speak about that the **CURRENT** capabilities of the F-22 are useful in Air-Ground combat. Surely, the Air-Ground capabilities will be improved in the future but they are sufficient **NOW** for the Israeli's to want them given **THEIR** knowledge of when they will take deliver of the **F-35**. Why do editors attempt to make some convoluted argument that the future deliver of the F-35 somehow makes the current model of the F-22 useless when this is not supported by the facts. It's very frustrating that editors are trying to show that the F-22 has no useful mission in todays current Political climate even when this is not supported logically by the facts. I can only image they have some dog in this hunt. Doug rosenberg ( talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, anybody got a primary ref for Dunn on F-22 vs S-300? All I've gotten is a video link so far. Hcobb ( talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it common practice to list theoretical (un-designed, un-built) aircraft in the "developed into" field? I think the FB-22 and the MANTA have spots to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be a strech to say that the F-22 was "developed into" either of those proposed aircraft. - SidewinderX ( talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When we say that an aircraft has been "developed" doesn't that mean that it flies or at least exists? Hcobb ( talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone clean up that section in the article? There's no reason to copy and past part of a defense approps bill into the body of the article. - SidewinderX ( talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
totally ruine every thing on the page, I was just trying to replace that gay first image, didn't work out to well, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 ( talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay I successfuly changed the lead image to a ACTUAL image but it got deleted!! WHY!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 ( talk)
Its not from the real world its computer animated - Brainiack16 ( talk)
Dude just look at it, the cockpit is orange, a purple stream is coming out the back!! You can just tell it isn't real!! - Brainiack16 ( talk)
I give up no matter what I do you'll just undo it, no matter what I say you'll just deny it. Even though the lead image is clearly computer animated, and you guys are to stubborn to say so. So I quit. - Brainiack16 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
I respect your opinion Nick, but I did look at it in full and it looked fake still, and I couldn't find any proof of your statement "the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar". I would like to know what source you got that from.-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
-Nice try but these "shock diamonds" do not come out in such a tint of purple as the one in the picture. The only "shock diamond" I found that was close to that tint was from a nitrogen plasma jet (which the f-22 doesn't have). And this "indium-tin oxide" that was said to give the raptor a gold tint is also wrong. Indium-tin oxide can appear pale-yellow, yellow-green or even gray, the picture showed it as a strong goldish/yellow orange color. Plus no other picture has the cockpit in that color, all other pics of the f-22 have it as see-through glass (with a glare of yellow when shined in the sun, but not competelty gold as in the main image).-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW: The Raptor is a strange case as it is a supersonic aircraft with rectangular exhausts. So it shows shock diamonds under conditions that other aircraft would not. Hcobb ( talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-Personaly I still think the picture is fake, but so many people say its real. And I can't change their minds, so I have no choice but to drop it. Cheers!-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It would seem everyone thinks that after production ended it is no longer used. Many things need to be updated, for instance, Service Histroy, the F-22 was in Red Flag on February 2, 2010. This is not mentioned, just a reminder, thanks-- Pilotstockle ( talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That was a very significant thing to be left out, the first time the F-22 participated in Red Flag against foreign Air Forces.-- Pilotstockle ( talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody explain, supercruise is a flight at most fuel efficient or not? Der russische Patriot ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that the F-22A is the only aircraft to evade the S-300 , B-2A being the primary stealth bomber of USAF must be able to evade it because it was built orginally to penetrate the soviet union and the S-300 was already present , also I don't think Israel needs the F-22A , considering in mind that Israel bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear facility and according to the S-300 page Syria had the S-300 , the whole Syrian air defence system shut downed during that bombing ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For fun ask sometime why the T-50's IR is top forwards while the F-35 has IR sensors pointing in all directions with the prim ary sensor being bottom forwards. Hcobb ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Where on earth are you self-appointed analysts getting any of this nonsense from? The F-22 hasn't set foot in a warzone or for that matter flown much outside of the United States.
I sincerely doubt it has completed CAP's near Russian territory or purposely tried to evaluate it's stealth characteristics by flying near enemy S2A sites. The USAF are still ironing out the wrinkles in the F-22's stealth suite, and trying to overcome it's very limited flight duration in poor weather or at high speed (which deforms/erodes the RCS-reducing contours and the radar-absorbing coating; requiring significantly costly maintenance to restore).
I don't think they'd throw the Raptor into harm's way without being sincerely sure it would be able to evade detection.
Please, stop the speculation, there's enough of that crap as it is.
Also for your information, the specific knowledge of which countries possess the S-300 or any of its variants (SA-10, SA-12, SA-20) is extremely sketchy at best and there is no confirmation Syria are fielding the system. Only that they announced their intention to purchase it at sometime.
And finally the S-300's/400's/500's target acquisition and early warning radars (NATO reporting names: FLAP LID & TIN SHIELD) are some of the most potent & advanced S2A radars in the world. They do have extensive capability to detect low-observable and reduced-RCS aircraft at range. Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
STOP debating and argumentation. full of systemic bias. I've not seen yet any fact. There are many sources I'll leave one. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId659890 anyway this is not a forum neither is the s-300 article. 92N2E grave stone est SA-21 is capable of detecting a 0.1RCS target at about 75 nautic miles. this is a FACT. but there are more radars capable of operating in the X band and therefore being capable of better detection of a stealth object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.217.195 ( talk) 09:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states "Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" This would be better stated as "Design g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" The difference is that the aircraft is designed to withstand those g-loads without reducing the life of the airframe or requiring additional, unplanned inspections and maintenance. They are by no means the absolute limits of what the plane can survive. Righteous9000 ( talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If the term F-22E pops up in a reliable source then you can discount it as Goon's latest delusion.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300310-1.html Following the example of a very successful and cost-effective development of the F-15E from the F-15A&C, the F-22A needs to be developed along the lines of the Strike Eagle – a two-place, much enhanced “F-22E” fighter with the rear seat Weapons System Officer monitoring sensor feeds, advising the pilot and managing the passive and active terminal countermeasures – and, yes, it must have the agility and persistence to overmatch both the PAK-FA and the Su-35S.
What Goon doesn't get is that this busy work for the back seater is handled by the computer in a true fifth generation jet fighter. (Which the F-22A will be some day.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
On 16 June an editor, "Doomsday212," gotta love the name,! in this edit [ [2]] suggested the F-22's operating system has a cross application or dual purpose for use in spacecraft. However fringe, "far out" or inaccurate this might be, should this theory, even if a conspiracy theory, be censored and suppressed? Shouldn't we at least give this editor a chance to provide a source for the edit, if he is putting his credibility at risk? The reversion and suppression of his edits to the talk page here...not the article itself....but the talk page! flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BITE. CriticalChris 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination? Doomsday212 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK] | ” |
The F-22 is a computer running Integrity in the same sense as a gamer PC with a really massive graphics card is still a computer running Windows. The vast majority of the mflops may be running some special purpose assembly code with a micro boot loader, but it all answers to the same overall operating system. If I had my way I would erase the mention of Integrity from the text of the article and put it in the category of "Aerospace Craft using Integrity". Hcobb ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The following quote (3rd para. of
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Service_history) seems to be largely unsupported by the cite given
[3]
141. Johnson, Maj. Dani. "Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Gets Zapped by International Date Line: Raptors arrive at Kadena." Air Force, 19 February 2007. Retrieved: 9 May 2010.
“ | While attempting its first overseas deployment to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, on 11 February 2007, a group of six Raptors flying from Hickam AFB, Hawaii experienced multiple computer crashes coincident with their crossing of the 180th meridian of longitude (the International Date Line). The computer failures included at least navigation (completely lost) and communication. The fighters were able to return to Hawaii by following their tankers in good weather. The error was fixed within 48 hours and the F-22s continued their journey to Kadena.[141] | ” |
All the source says about the issue is:
“ | While en route, a software issue affecting the aircraft's navigation system was discovered Feb. 11 causing the aircraft to return to Hickam. The issue was corrected and the aircraft continued on to Kadena. | ” |
No mention of:
The article also mentions "Ten" (source says 6) F-22 Raptors. From past experience it is possible the source article has been changed; a reference has been lost in editing; or an editor has in good faith added true information, but not added a reference to support it. Less AGF some synthesis has occured.
The interesting thing is I have heard of such a bug in a USAF aircraft, but as I recall (unverifiable!), it was discovered in testing before practical application of the software. In this case the aircraft would have flipped upside down as it crossed the meridian! In any case the para. I have quoted in unverifiable in it's present form. Comments please? -- 220.101 ( talk) \Contribs 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the article is says the F-22 (150 million unit cost) is controversial due to it added cost over the F-35 (191 million unit cost)? Come on wikipedia ....the numbers you are providing are calling your Encyclopedia credability in question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.165.203 ( talk) 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The article states "... and the development of the cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production." In the description of the F-35 it is stated that the production cost of the F-35 is in fact higher than the one of the F-22. Either the price of the F-22 has changed significantly in the past year or this should be corrected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.138.230 ( talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fiber mat to the rescue! I wish the term man-hour would be used more often. So it takes 60 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight? Does that mean if you fly a 24 hour mission you won't be able to use it again for another two months? :-( Hcobb ( talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, you reverted my F-22 edit which clarified the problem with the ADA operating system as per the cited reference at sldinfo.com. You said Ada is a DoD programming language. That's true, but that's not what Michael Wynne said in his article about the problems with the F-22 development program. He said:
Because of a nagging fear of being hostage to an industrial solution, the Defense Department specified in detail its own operating system, called ADA...
I acknowledge your expertise in the industry, but can you please explain how you go from "ADA operating system" to "Ada programming language"? Or are you asserting that Wynne was incorrect in his article? Because unless I'm missing some exotic nuance, they're completely different things. Jogar2 ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination? Doomsday212 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNSaKBjtoNA
It clearly does have one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is F-15, And Eurofighter really comparable with the raptor? If so, then what about their counterparts? Rafale, Flankers? I know this is picking, but seriously though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 ( talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
eurofighter is a 4++th generation fighter. anyway, "generations" is just pure marketing. but eurofigher was on the comparable list of the pak-fa so it would make it comparable to the f-22. anyway, they are very different aircrafts with very distinct roles. like the pilot who as flight both said, f-22 is like a nascar car and eurofigther is like a Formula 1. it's not the same category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.69.229 ( talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Of all humanity, only Wikifreaks get to vote on which aircraft are comparable to which other ones. No mere reporter or book writer has any say on the issue. Doesn't that make us all really special? Hcobb ( talk) 05:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All F-15s? Or just the F-15SE Silent Eagle? The F-22 is not comparable to the F-15C, nor is it comparable to the F/A-XX. In each case the replacement aircraft is a major step forwards. Hcobb ( talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree strongly with BilCat. The comparable list should be there to illustrate what might be in the air at the same time, doing a broadly similar job, on the same side, on the opposing side, or neutral. The facts (hopefully) in those articles should make it clear how comparable planes are, and importantly make it clear to what degree one can really know and to what degree of generality. Incidentally this article just suggests that the F-22 is invincible, which I suspect was the intention. Almost makes me WANT some afghan to shoot one down with a catapulted rock in the fanblades ;). In reality however, it might get sand in the gearbox like those helicopters did in the desert.
We could always relabel the section "Contemporary Aircraft" or "Projected Allied & Hostile Combatants"... Princeofdelft ( talk) 20:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It come to my attention, by someone that responded to a bloggpost, that the F-22 is short legged (especially considered the substantial fuel load). The subjects to compare with would be the Flankers, the Pak-FA and F-35. Wikinegern ( talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The F-22 carries 18,000 lb fuel internally while the F-35A has 480 more lb fuel and its one engine burns less fuel than the two engines on the F-22 (and the F-35A has a much lower empty weight to drag around). Hcobb ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the variants section, simply because this aircraft has no variants. There have been proposed variants, but none of these materialized in anything more than vaporware. Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the section isn't being used as intended. Generally the Variants section is an annotated list of actual, planned, and proposed variants; the details are usually covered in the main text. This presents all the main designations used or proposed for the aircraft. Also, derivitives are often covered here, usually as part of the list, with links to any articles on the derivitives.
The Variant section should look like this:
The derivitaves are listed (without annotations) in the See also section, so they aren't necessarilt needed. - BilCat ( talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
F22: Which one is "Martin article," and can you put citation for it next to disputed sentence? Hi Bzuk, I had thought the sentence and in particular the phrase about the versatility of F35 was unsupported, because when I looked up the next footnote number, I saw no mention of F#% in it. Which article is the "Martin article" that supports it? There are a number of citations from Lockheed Martin. Is it one of those? Best wishes, Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Rich ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to the latest Koppian edit I just undid: A short list of things the F-35 can do, that the F-22 can not.
And so on. The F-35 is more versatile, but the F-22 does have a few "silver bullet" capabilities that make it a better interceptor, if not multirole fighter. Hcobb ( talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A note was placed on my page about my last edit about the policy of spreading F-22 production too thinly over the country and how this killed the Raptor. I stand by my refs and can provide many more if needed. Hcobb ( talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
One of your refs is from a few years before the F-22 was cancelled and after reading both other sources I see very little connection to how the plane being built all over the nation was a killing point. The F-22 had always been excessively expensive and the USAF (along with congress for that matter) had no problem with that. The pressure to terminate production came almost exclusively from the executive branch. Most jets have parts that are built in several different locations (how many people are supposed to be building the new 787?) Honestly it seems like you formed an opinion based on what you read, and your addition was more of a mixed creation. - Nem1yan ( talk) 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Add or not? Hcobb ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's back.... Hcobb ( talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/stealth-crash-in-alaska-pushes-f-22-raptor-accident-rate-higher/19724448 This article was used to show the F-22's high crash rate in comparison to other fighters in the USAF inventory, but there is one flaw in the article that makes it rather questionable.
Since no less than two aircraft have been completely destroyed in crashes so far how does the total result in "more than $1 million"? The aircraft are over $150 million a pop and considering the overall cost of the F-22 program $1 million isn't even something worth writing about. It makes it seem like the author might not really understand the issue. - Nem1yan ( talk) 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Add or not?
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/263.pdf Normal Load Factor -1.0 to 7.7 Angle of attack (degree) -5 to 62 Angle of slideslip (degree) 1.25 left/right Roll Rate (degree/second) 200 left/right
Hcobb ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This Guardian article says the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has "a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force's F-22." Do we have a reliable source that indicates military-industrial espionage has occurred? Heroeswithmetaphors ( talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
lol wut pure heresay by hcobb. chinese would not need to do espionage and even if they did doubt they would have gotten far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.101 ( talk) 17:29, 6 Jaynuary 2011 (UTC)
there is a high possibility that the chinese did hack in to the DoD
Can anyone explain why lockheed martin and the us air force didn't go for plasma stealth wouldn't it make the planes maintenance easier and cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 ( talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum. Please visit other sources to understand the power constraint and other challenges that have to be faced to create and continuously maintain plasma. Parijatgaur —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC).
Although I must congratulate the author on an excellent and concise description of the F-22 I must disagree with the figure for empty weight. The figure in the article (19,100 kg) is from the USAF but it is simply quoted as weight not empty weight. The real empty weight according to Jane's "all the world's aircraft" is 14,365kg (31,670lb). -- 95.148.180.30 ( talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)David Pugh 30/1/2011
...and pray tell, why? Bzuk ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/07/fly-f-22s-over-libya-advocates-say/
Apparently this article needs a rewrite to show very plainly just how unready this airplane is. At least the pundits acknowledge that it's the F-35 that will have the air to ground capabilities needed to deal with Soviet-era SAMs. Hcobb ( talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6041977&c=AIR&s=AMEurl
Time to update the stat block. Hcobb ( talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Notable enough to put in? (And yank out that multirole tag of course.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, when the F-22 has SAR and multiple SDB delivery options then it will be a multirole aircraft. But at the moment it is a pure stealth Interceptor aircraft and we should reflect this. (Calling the T-50 or J-20 "fighters" when they are currently both unarmed and without sensors also seems a bit odd to me.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/30/stateside-basing-kept-the-f-22-out-of-the-libya-fight Air Force Secretary Michael Donley added that the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air combat while the vast majority of operations in Libya have been focused on air-to-ground strikes better handled by jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and other “bombers.” He added that the mission in Libya has shown the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s bomber forces.
Note that they do not ref this paragraph because it has no connection to reality. The F-35 has a greater range than the F-22 when both aircraft are subsonic and engaging in supercruise reduces the range of the F-22. Hcobb ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone like to discuss this here before altering the page? I don't find it all that odd that the Air Force is refusing to send its trump card in to do the job of its' less capable aircraft. - Nem1yan ( talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Get them to correct it there first please. Hcobb ( talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-prototype-stealth-fighter-rival-uss-best-report/story?id=13561596&page=2 "Such emerging threats illustrate the need to continue enhancing the F-22's capabilities so that it stays ahead of evolving threats," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said.
The US Military needs at least 750 F-22 for it to destroy the Chinese Airforce. The F-35 should only be ground attack, IT ONLY HAS 2 MISSILES FOR GOD'S SAKE. There should be about 500 hundred F-35 and 1000 improved Raptors, or the US will suffer a crushing defeat by the Chinese like Japan during WW2. The F-22 should have a HMD, better radar, more and better weapons and more combat range and speed.
I saw this added today so I ask, what exactly would you include in the incremental cost for one fifth generation fighter?
How exactly can we break down batch costs to per unit costs when there's so much overhead to have a place there for the workers to stand as they insert the bolts? Hcobb ( talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/13886238/article-As-the-F-35-program-revs-up---the-F-22-ramps-down?instance=special _coverage_right_column “We’ve usually delivered two per month for the past 15 years,” said F-22 Program Manager Jeff Babione.
I've heard people saying that an F-22 was shot down by the Chinese. I'm sure its not true but what does the Wiki community say about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.134.55 ( talk) 19:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the use of this image for this article. It is by artist Lee Bivens and from what the original author of the article claimed, as I have no found a source for it, is that it was created while the F-22 was still classified and in development. It is supposedly the first painting for the F-22.--v/r - T P 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Lockheed's proposed design concept for the NATF program.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi everybody, I'm a bit concerned with the number of images on the article. To extract my dialogue with Fnlayson, "Some are perfectly legitimate, while others serve no objective at all. I understand that there is ample space for these images, but they don't serve any real purpose, as well as distracting the reader from the information itself. Furthermore, they make the article look like a photo collection from enthusiastic photographers." Comment? Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 09:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason I removed the alt text is that it is much less descriptive of the image than the non-alt text, but it is now showing up as the caption instead of the non-alt text. I don't know how this happened, but apparently this edit did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor&diff=next&oldid=450254449 Jeff Song ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok I think I found it - an extra space. Fixed Jeff Song ( talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
> The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." <
That is impossble to do owing to human overload. The ex-WARPAC countries tried to play Mini-AWACS with the MiG-23MF shortly after the commie block fell. The MiG-23 has a really big radar dish, with a lot of rotation horizontally (plus an extra 60 degrees left and right available with manual steer override) and good ground clutter canceller. Sorrowfully, playing AWACS proved too much workload for a single pilot and that's not a issue a glass cockpit could fix. It is also very costly to use a supersonic fighterplane for mini-AWACS and USA has its economic problems nowadays. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the F22 HAS been used as a mini AWACS, during simulated combat against f15's, after expending all their missiles and cannon rounds, planes stayed on station, presumably an F22 can track an enemy and use the wireless link to tell another where it is.
The datalinking ability of the F22 does not require the pilot to run tactical mission allocation. Ground teams and a real AWACs would do that. While the pilot could be a FAC, the aircraft is essentially an extension of the sensor reach of the combined air assets that are data linking. Ditto with the canceled Comanche, but for the JSTARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to kinda rain on IP 82.131's parade here...the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War used under-maintained F-14s as "mini-AWACs" because of it's radar. So the F-22 being used as one is hardly a stretch here. SoulBrotherKab ( talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing a critics section in the article, similar to the german wiki page. Especially the corrosion problems, budget problems and operational readiness (2008: 62%) seems to be worth writing. Check german page for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to put in another place for people to say biased, unreferenced opinions, we get a lot of that in this talk page. Maybe a section talking about issues with the F-22, but not criticism. Williamrmck ( talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
F-35 noted better than F-22, 6 cases. F-22 Too expensive noted, 6 times. F-22 not used in wars, 2 times. F-22 lacks capability or limited, 5 times. F-22 Maint problems, 5 times. F-22 structure problem, 1 time F-22 computer crash or bugs, 3 times. So my count is 28, not zero, but I'd love to add a source about the aircraft's IR blindness. (Compare to combat configuration of B-52, F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-35, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the technical criticisms should be separated from the criticisms of the program or the controversy over the reduction/funding-cuts as they are different issues. The discussions over technical problems/flaws (not sure what the right word would be) could go into its own section under the technical aspects of the article (But as Hcobb says, there is plenty in the various sections already). The criticisms of the program and the funding controversy should go into separate sections in order to keep the engineering merits of the plane separate from the political struggles that these programs usually get caught up in. -- DClearwater ( talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This page will never have a critics section. After all, Raptor is just perfect, right? (sarcarsm). I do not use Wikipedia as source for any military or historical info because this "north-americans as the best of the best" view. Use this as construtive critic, after all one of most important goals of Wikipedia is the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.3.166 ( talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An F-22 operating out of Edwards AFB, CA, on a test mission crashed around 10:00 am local time today. No details yet on a possible cause or the status of the pilot. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There were plans to squeeze a pair of AIM-9X into each of the side bays, but this has been dropped.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/HonedtoaRazor’sEdge.aspx Lewis and Miller said, when specifically asked, that there are no plans on the books today to install items like side-staring radar arrays in the aircraft. (There is internal space for them.) Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs. Hcobb ( talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I would like to alert that the main image is not a real one. It's from some kind of game. If you see it closer, you can realise that it is not real. I suggest a change in that part of the article. Thank you all. -- Prtgl93 ( talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Prtgl93
I had what I thought was a lot of knowledge of the F-22, including first-hand experience, but I was blown away by a Washington Post article on the maintenance issues of the F-22. Yesterday I checked this wikie and found no mention of the maintenance issues, so I added it. Then another user deleted every *referenced* fact I added and called them "biased" (a fact can be biased?) and "redundant" (there is no other mention of any of the facts I added). The facts included the cost of maintenance according to the SecDef, the average time between critical failure, susceptibility to rain and abrasion, flight readiness, and the need to hand-fit pieces.
I agree that one sentence I added does sound biased "The F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, so actual battle data is not available." but I added that as an explanation as to why the data is from exercises. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me, or I will attempt to.-- Skintigh ( talk) 14:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There *is* controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. EricLeFevre ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had the same user repeatedly delete my facts for being "biased" and "covered other places" when they are mentioned no where else. I started this discussion to talk about it but he would rather continue his vandalism. How do I report abusing users such as this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.78.227 ( talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Should such a page exist I'd list out the various factors from all the sources every which way.
For example on SEAD we have supercruise against time sensitive targets as an advantage for the F-22 vs the F-35's ability to track launchers as they fire (much better IR) and instantly strike back. (DEAD SAMs).
Both platforms lack the ability to stealthily carry the AARGM so there is a capability gap until we get some sort of super AMRAAM upgrade. Hcobb ( talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) --
All that's needed is more on the Air Dominance role of the F-22. The F-35A/C does not have any special advantage in BVR combat over 4 and 4.5 gen fighters except for its stealth characteristics, which are compramised when carrying external stores. Sensor fusion is helpful when there are other workloads, but on the offensive a conventional fighter pilot will not be any slower launching on targets in a MIG-29 assuming his systems have already detected targets. When it is all the pilot is focused on and he/she is well-trained, sensor fusion is a luxury, allowing less concentration, even laziness. Nice, but doesn't necessarily win the fight. Most of the research on JSF's air combat effectiveness is based on dogfighting, but the fact is even a Harrier will beat most aircraft in a dogfight. Removing the VTOL, the F-35 is only as effective as the pilot and the weapons he's got in a close-in fight. And if both sides have off-boresight, they might as well eject after launching in the merge. Because they'll both be dead otherwise. The F-22 cruises at high altitude, very fast, has more range, and thus the kenematics of its medium range missiles are greatly enhanced. U.S. AAM technologies have ALWAYS trailed the Russians. The whole point of the F-22 was to allow us to use (in some ways inferior) AMRAAMs and still beat top-line MIG and SU fighters of the future. The fact that the F-35 is an attack aircraft that can fill an air superiority role with a small loadout does not nullify that it is NOT air dominance capable against any potential future air threat. Now, 187 aircraft is no small potatoes, but this article and the F-35's when taken together are making biased and unsubstantiated cases that F-22's are not a prudent thing to have around at all.
And do any of you have a clue how the Nazis started out, with anti-western indoctrination youth camps? Putin's been pulling the same stuff. A whole generation of brown shirts for the 21st century. And he created a new position just so he'd stay in the top leadership of his country. Scary stuff. Now the Russian navy has proved it can still deploy its subs all the way to the U.S. Rumsfeld said, "you don't fight with the military you want, you fight with the military you have." Well, what you're going to have in the future is decided first in the past and present. And there's something of a conflict of interest, you have to admit, in having a former DCI put in charge of the military and saying technology is less important than HUMINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The case was not being made that another 500 F-22s were required to prevent WWIII, only that it was rational to spend $2 billion (chump change in the Pentagon budget) to slowly build a few more to keep the production line open, in case it was decided that more were needed. The opponents of the Raptor created an imaginary counter-argument that obviously they'd win against. A real discussion over the facts did not occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
-Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 ( talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because the F-35 in the future will be a great plane, does not mean the F-22 does not have an useful mission now. This is a article about the F-22. Why are Editors bringing in information about a future F-35 plane and future modifications to the F-22 to prove that the F-22 is currently useless currently now? There are numerous articles that speak about that the **CURRENT** capabilities of the F-22 are useful in Air-Ground combat. Surely, the Air-Ground capabilities will be improved in the future but they are sufficient **NOW** for the Israeli's to want them given **THEIR** knowledge of when they will take deliver of the **F-35**. Why do editors attempt to make some convoluted argument that the future deliver of the F-35 somehow makes the current model of the F-22 useless when this is not supported by the facts. It's very frustrating that editors are trying to show that the F-22 has no useful mission in todays current Political climate even when this is not supported logically by the facts. I can only image they have some dog in this hunt. Doug rosenberg ( talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, anybody got a primary ref for Dunn on F-22 vs S-300? All I've gotten is a video link so far. Hcobb ( talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it common practice to list theoretical (un-designed, un-built) aircraft in the "developed into" field? I think the FB-22 and the MANTA have spots to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be a strech to say that the F-22 was "developed into" either of those proposed aircraft. - SidewinderX ( talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When we say that an aircraft has been "developed" doesn't that mean that it flies or at least exists? Hcobb ( talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone clean up that section in the article? There's no reason to copy and past part of a defense approps bill into the body of the article. - SidewinderX ( talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
totally ruine every thing on the page, I was just trying to replace that gay first image, didn't work out to well, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 ( talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay I successfuly changed the lead image to a ACTUAL image but it got deleted!! WHY!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 ( talk)
Its not from the real world its computer animated - Brainiack16 ( talk)
Dude just look at it, the cockpit is orange, a purple stream is coming out the back!! You can just tell it isn't real!! - Brainiack16 ( talk)
I give up no matter what I do you'll just undo it, no matter what I say you'll just deny it. Even though the lead image is clearly computer animated, and you guys are to stubborn to say so. So I quit. - Brainiack16 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
I respect your opinion Nick, but I did look at it in full and it looked fake still, and I couldn't find any proof of your statement "the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar". I would like to know what source you got that from.-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
-Nice try but these "shock diamonds" do not come out in such a tint of purple as the one in the picture. The only "shock diamond" I found that was close to that tint was from a nitrogen plasma jet (which the f-22 doesn't have). And this "indium-tin oxide" that was said to give the raptor a gold tint is also wrong. Indium-tin oxide can appear pale-yellow, yellow-green or even gray, the picture showed it as a strong goldish/yellow orange color. Plus no other picture has the cockpit in that color, all other pics of the f-22 have it as see-through glass (with a glare of yellow when shined in the sun, but not competelty gold as in the main image).-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW: The Raptor is a strange case as it is a supersonic aircraft with rectangular exhausts. So it shows shock diamonds under conditions that other aircraft would not. Hcobb ( talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-Personaly I still think the picture is fake, but so many people say its real. And I can't change their minds, so I have no choice but to drop it. Cheers!-- Brainiack16 ( talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It would seem everyone thinks that after production ended it is no longer used. Many things need to be updated, for instance, Service Histroy, the F-22 was in Red Flag on February 2, 2010. This is not mentioned, just a reminder, thanks-- Pilotstockle ( talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That was a very significant thing to be left out, the first time the F-22 participated in Red Flag against foreign Air Forces.-- Pilotstockle ( talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody explain, supercruise is a flight at most fuel efficient or not? Der russische Patriot ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that the F-22A is the only aircraft to evade the S-300 , B-2A being the primary stealth bomber of USAF must be able to evade it because it was built orginally to penetrate the soviet union and the S-300 was already present , also I don't think Israel needs the F-22A , considering in mind that Israel bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear facility and according to the S-300 page Syria had the S-300 , the whole Syrian air defence system shut downed during that bombing ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For fun ask sometime why the T-50's IR is top forwards while the F-35 has IR sensors pointing in all directions with the prim ary sensor being bottom forwards. Hcobb ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Where on earth are you self-appointed analysts getting any of this nonsense from? The F-22 hasn't set foot in a warzone or for that matter flown much outside of the United States.
I sincerely doubt it has completed CAP's near Russian territory or purposely tried to evaluate it's stealth characteristics by flying near enemy S2A sites. The USAF are still ironing out the wrinkles in the F-22's stealth suite, and trying to overcome it's very limited flight duration in poor weather or at high speed (which deforms/erodes the RCS-reducing contours and the radar-absorbing coating; requiring significantly costly maintenance to restore).
I don't think they'd throw the Raptor into harm's way without being sincerely sure it would be able to evade detection.
Please, stop the speculation, there's enough of that crap as it is.
Also for your information, the specific knowledge of which countries possess the S-300 or any of its variants (SA-10, SA-12, SA-20) is extremely sketchy at best and there is no confirmation Syria are fielding the system. Only that they announced their intention to purchase it at sometime.
And finally the S-300's/400's/500's target acquisition and early warning radars (NATO reporting names: FLAP LID & TIN SHIELD) are some of the most potent & advanced S2A radars in the world. They do have extensive capability to detect low-observable and reduced-RCS aircraft at range. Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
STOP debating and argumentation. full of systemic bias. I've not seen yet any fact. There are many sources I'll leave one. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId659890 anyway this is not a forum neither is the s-300 article. 92N2E grave stone est SA-21 is capable of detecting a 0.1RCS target at about 75 nautic miles. this is a FACT. but there are more radars capable of operating in the X band and therefore being capable of better detection of a stealth object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.217.195 ( talk) 09:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states "Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" This would be better stated as "Design g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g" The difference is that the aircraft is designed to withstand those g-loads without reducing the life of the airframe or requiring additional, unplanned inspections and maintenance. They are by no means the absolute limits of what the plane can survive. Righteous9000 ( talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If the term F-22E pops up in a reliable source then you can discount it as Goon's latest delusion.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300310-1.html Following the example of a very successful and cost-effective development of the F-15E from the F-15A&C, the F-22A needs to be developed along the lines of the Strike Eagle – a two-place, much enhanced “F-22E” fighter with the rear seat Weapons System Officer monitoring sensor feeds, advising the pilot and managing the passive and active terminal countermeasures – and, yes, it must have the agility and persistence to overmatch both the PAK-FA and the Su-35S.
What Goon doesn't get is that this busy work for the back seater is handled by the computer in a true fifth generation jet fighter. (Which the F-22A will be some day.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
On 16 June an editor, "Doomsday212," gotta love the name,! in this edit [ [2]] suggested the F-22's operating system has a cross application or dual purpose for use in spacecraft. However fringe, "far out" or inaccurate this might be, should this theory, even if a conspiracy theory, be censored and suppressed? Shouldn't we at least give this editor a chance to provide a source for the edit, if he is putting his credibility at risk? The reversion and suppression of his edits to the talk page here...not the article itself....but the talk page! flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BITE. CriticalChris 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination? Doomsday212 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK] | ” |
The F-22 is a computer running Integrity in the same sense as a gamer PC with a really massive graphics card is still a computer running Windows. The vast majority of the mflops may be running some special purpose assembly code with a micro boot loader, but it all answers to the same overall operating system. If I had my way I would erase the mention of Integrity from the text of the article and put it in the category of "Aerospace Craft using Integrity". Hcobb ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The following quote (3rd para. of
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Service_history) seems to be largely unsupported by the cite given
[3]
141. Johnson, Maj. Dani. "Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Gets Zapped by International Date Line: Raptors arrive at Kadena." Air Force, 19 February 2007. Retrieved: 9 May 2010.
“ | While attempting its first overseas deployment to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, on 11 February 2007, a group of six Raptors flying from Hickam AFB, Hawaii experienced multiple computer crashes coincident with their crossing of the 180th meridian of longitude (the International Date Line). The computer failures included at least navigation (completely lost) and communication. The fighters were able to return to Hawaii by following their tankers in good weather. The error was fixed within 48 hours and the F-22s continued their journey to Kadena.[141] | ” |
All the source says about the issue is:
“ | While en route, a software issue affecting the aircraft's navigation system was discovered Feb. 11 causing the aircraft to return to Hickam. The issue was corrected and the aircraft continued on to Kadena. | ” |
No mention of:
The article also mentions "Ten" (source says 6) F-22 Raptors. From past experience it is possible the source article has been changed; a reference has been lost in editing; or an editor has in good faith added true information, but not added a reference to support it. Less AGF some synthesis has occured.
The interesting thing is I have heard of such a bug in a USAF aircraft, but as I recall (unverifiable!), it was discovered in testing before practical application of the software. In this case the aircraft would have flipped upside down as it crossed the meridian! In any case the para. I have quoted in unverifiable in it's present form. Comments please? -- 220.101 ( talk) \Contribs 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the article is says the F-22 (150 million unit cost) is controversial due to it added cost over the F-35 (191 million unit cost)? Come on wikipedia ....the numbers you are providing are calling your Encyclopedia credability in question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.165.203 ( talk) 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The article states "... and the development of the cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production." In the description of the F-35 it is stated that the production cost of the F-35 is in fact higher than the one of the F-22. Either the price of the F-22 has changed significantly in the past year or this should be corrected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.138.230 ( talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fiber mat to the rescue! I wish the term man-hour would be used more often. So it takes 60 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight? Does that mean if you fly a 24 hour mission you won't be able to use it again for another two months? :-( Hcobb ( talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, you reverted my F-22 edit which clarified the problem with the ADA operating system as per the cited reference at sldinfo.com. You said Ada is a DoD programming language. That's true, but that's not what Michael Wynne said in his article about the problems with the F-22 development program. He said:
Because of a nagging fear of being hostage to an industrial solution, the Defense Department specified in detail its own operating system, called ADA...
I acknowledge your expertise in the industry, but can you please explain how you go from "ADA operating system" to "Ada programming language"? Or are you asserting that Wynne was incorrect in his article? Because unless I'm missing some exotic nuance, they're completely different things. Jogar2 ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Will Lockheed Martin with the help of NASA make the new generation fighter's ADA operating system designed for outer space exploration and domination? Doomsday212 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)MK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNSaKBjtoNA
It clearly does have one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is F-15, And Eurofighter really comparable with the raptor? If so, then what about their counterparts? Rafale, Flankers? I know this is picking, but seriously though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 ( talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
eurofighter is a 4++th generation fighter. anyway, "generations" is just pure marketing. but eurofigher was on the comparable list of the pak-fa so it would make it comparable to the f-22. anyway, they are very different aircrafts with very distinct roles. like the pilot who as flight both said, f-22 is like a nascar car and eurofigther is like a Formula 1. it's not the same category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.69.229 ( talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Of all humanity, only Wikifreaks get to vote on which aircraft are comparable to which other ones. No mere reporter or book writer has any say on the issue. Doesn't that make us all really special? Hcobb ( talk) 05:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All F-15s? Or just the F-15SE Silent Eagle? The F-22 is not comparable to the F-15C, nor is it comparable to the F/A-XX. In each case the replacement aircraft is a major step forwards. Hcobb ( talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree strongly with BilCat. The comparable list should be there to illustrate what might be in the air at the same time, doing a broadly similar job, on the same side, on the opposing side, or neutral. The facts (hopefully) in those articles should make it clear how comparable planes are, and importantly make it clear to what degree one can really know and to what degree of generality. Incidentally this article just suggests that the F-22 is invincible, which I suspect was the intention. Almost makes me WANT some afghan to shoot one down with a catapulted rock in the fanblades ;). In reality however, it might get sand in the gearbox like those helicopters did in the desert.
We could always relabel the section "Contemporary Aircraft" or "Projected Allied & Hostile Combatants"... Princeofdelft ( talk) 20:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It come to my attention, by someone that responded to a bloggpost, that the F-22 is short legged (especially considered the substantial fuel load). The subjects to compare with would be the Flankers, the Pak-FA and F-35. Wikinegern ( talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The F-22 carries 18,000 lb fuel internally while the F-35A has 480 more lb fuel and its one engine burns less fuel than the two engines on the F-22 (and the F-35A has a much lower empty weight to drag around). Hcobb ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the variants section, simply because this aircraft has no variants. There have been proposed variants, but none of these materialized in anything more than vaporware. Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the section isn't being used as intended. Generally the Variants section is an annotated list of actual, planned, and proposed variants; the details are usually covered in the main text. This presents all the main designations used or proposed for the aircraft. Also, derivitives are often covered here, usually as part of the list, with links to any articles on the derivitives.
The Variant section should look like this:
The derivitaves are listed (without annotations) in the See also section, so they aren't necessarilt needed. - BilCat ( talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
F22: Which one is "Martin article," and can you put citation for it next to disputed sentence? Hi Bzuk, I had thought the sentence and in particular the phrase about the versatility of F35 was unsupported, because when I looked up the next footnote number, I saw no mention of F#% in it. Which article is the "Martin article" that supports it? There are a number of citations from Lockheed Martin. Is it one of those? Best wishes, Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Rich ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to the latest Koppian edit I just undid: A short list of things the F-35 can do, that the F-22 can not.
And so on. The F-35 is more versatile, but the F-22 does have a few "silver bullet" capabilities that make it a better interceptor, if not multirole fighter. Hcobb ( talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A note was placed on my page about my last edit about the policy of spreading F-22 production too thinly over the country and how this killed the Raptor. I stand by my refs and can provide many more if needed. Hcobb ( talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
One of your refs is from a few years before the F-22 was cancelled and after reading both other sources I see very little connection to how the plane being built all over the nation was a killing point. The F-22 had always been excessively expensive and the USAF (along with congress for that matter) had no problem with that. The pressure to terminate production came almost exclusively from the executive branch. Most jets have parts that are built in several different locations (how many people are supposed to be building the new 787?) Honestly it seems like you formed an opinion based on what you read, and your addition was more of a mixed creation. - Nem1yan ( talk) 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Add or not? Hcobb ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's back.... Hcobb ( talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/stealth-crash-in-alaska-pushes-f-22-raptor-accident-rate-higher/19724448 This article was used to show the F-22's high crash rate in comparison to other fighters in the USAF inventory, but there is one flaw in the article that makes it rather questionable.
Since no less than two aircraft have been completely destroyed in crashes so far how does the total result in "more than $1 million"? The aircraft are over $150 million a pop and considering the overall cost of the F-22 program $1 million isn't even something worth writing about. It makes it seem like the author might not really understand the issue. - Nem1yan ( talk) 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Add or not?
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/263.pdf Normal Load Factor -1.0 to 7.7 Angle of attack (degree) -5 to 62 Angle of slideslip (degree) 1.25 left/right Roll Rate (degree/second) 200 left/right
Hcobb ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This Guardian article says the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has "a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force's F-22." Do we have a reliable source that indicates military-industrial espionage has occurred? Heroeswithmetaphors ( talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
lol wut pure heresay by hcobb. chinese would not need to do espionage and even if they did doubt they would have gotten far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.101 ( talk) 17:29, 6 Jaynuary 2011 (UTC)
there is a high possibility that the chinese did hack in to the DoD
Can anyone explain why lockheed martin and the us air force didn't go for plasma stealth wouldn't it make the planes maintenance easier and cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 ( talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum. Please visit other sources to understand the power constraint and other challenges that have to be faced to create and continuously maintain plasma. Parijatgaur —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC).
Although I must congratulate the author on an excellent and concise description of the F-22 I must disagree with the figure for empty weight. The figure in the article (19,100 kg) is from the USAF but it is simply quoted as weight not empty weight. The real empty weight according to Jane's "all the world's aircraft" is 14,365kg (31,670lb). -- 95.148.180.30 ( talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)David Pugh 30/1/2011
...and pray tell, why? Bzuk ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/07/fly-f-22s-over-libya-advocates-say/
Apparently this article needs a rewrite to show very plainly just how unready this airplane is. At least the pundits acknowledge that it's the F-35 that will have the air to ground capabilities needed to deal with Soviet-era SAMs. Hcobb ( talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6041977&c=AIR&s=AMEurl
Time to update the stat block. Hcobb ( talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Notable enough to put in? (And yank out that multirole tag of course.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, when the F-22 has SAR and multiple SDB delivery options then it will be a multirole aircraft. But at the moment it is a pure stealth Interceptor aircraft and we should reflect this. (Calling the T-50 or J-20 "fighters" when they are currently both unarmed and without sensors also seems a bit odd to me.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/30/stateside-basing-kept-the-f-22-out-of-the-libya-fight Air Force Secretary Michael Donley added that the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air combat while the vast majority of operations in Libya have been focused on air-to-ground strikes better handled by jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and other “bombers.” He added that the mission in Libya has shown the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s bomber forces.
Note that they do not ref this paragraph because it has no connection to reality. The F-35 has a greater range than the F-22 when both aircraft are subsonic and engaging in supercruise reduces the range of the F-22. Hcobb ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone like to discuss this here before altering the page? I don't find it all that odd that the Air Force is refusing to send its trump card in to do the job of its' less capable aircraft. - Nem1yan ( talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Get them to correct it there first please. Hcobb ( talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-prototype-stealth-fighter-rival-uss-best-report/story?id=13561596&page=2 "Such emerging threats illustrate the need to continue enhancing the F-22's capabilities so that it stays ahead of evolving threats," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said.
The US Military needs at least 750 F-22 for it to destroy the Chinese Airforce. The F-35 should only be ground attack, IT ONLY HAS 2 MISSILES FOR GOD'S SAKE. There should be about 500 hundred F-35 and 1000 improved Raptors, or the US will suffer a crushing defeat by the Chinese like Japan during WW2. The F-22 should have a HMD, better radar, more and better weapons and more combat range and speed.
I saw this added today so I ask, what exactly would you include in the incremental cost for one fifth generation fighter?
How exactly can we break down batch costs to per unit costs when there's so much overhead to have a place there for the workers to stand as they insert the bolts? Hcobb ( talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/13886238/article-As-the-F-35-program-revs-up---the-F-22-ramps-down?instance=special _coverage_right_column “We’ve usually delivered two per month for the past 15 years,” said F-22 Program Manager Jeff Babione.
I've heard people saying that an F-22 was shot down by the Chinese. I'm sure its not true but what does the Wiki community say about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.134.55 ( talk) 19:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the use of this image for this article. It is by artist Lee Bivens and from what the original author of the article claimed, as I have no found a source for it, is that it was created while the F-22 was still classified and in development. It is supposedly the first painting for the F-22.--v/r - T P 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Lockheed's proposed design concept for the NATF program.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi everybody, I'm a bit concerned with the number of images on the article. To extract my dialogue with Fnlayson, "Some are perfectly legitimate, while others serve no objective at all. I understand that there is ample space for these images, but they don't serve any real purpose, as well as distracting the reader from the information itself. Furthermore, they make the article look like a photo collection from enthusiastic photographers." Comment? Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 09:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason I removed the alt text is that it is much less descriptive of the image than the non-alt text, but it is now showing up as the caption instead of the non-alt text. I don't know how this happened, but apparently this edit did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor&diff=next&oldid=450254449 Jeff Song ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok I think I found it - an extra space. Fixed Jeff Song ( talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)