From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation

A citation of source for the remarks I added will be provided soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klauth ( talkcontribs) 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC). reply

F-117A

Isn't this also a stealth bomber replacement? (Yeah, the F-117A, so called stealth fighter, which only bombs) 70.51.10.109 08:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The 2018 interim bomber will compliment the B-2 and other current bombers. The FB-22's range is only like 1/4 of the B-2 and other current heavy bombers. The interim bomber will replace the F-117, I guess. The F-35 will cover some of that too. The F-117 has missiles as well. - Fnlayson 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The bomb part is largely right. The F-117 mainly carried laser guided bombs. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
And it's also retired now. Spartan198 ( talk) 07:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Rename article

This article should be renamed to "Lockheed Martin FB-22" to follow WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines. In other words

FB-22Lockheed Martin FB-22

Any reasonable arguments not to rename it? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the reason it hasn't been renamed that before is that Boeing is the primary proponent of the variant, and would probably be the lead contractor/manufacturer if it were to be produced. - BilCat ( talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that's a good one. I have not yet run across anything on Boeing involvement with the FB-22. Other than with the F-22, I've only seen mention of a Boeing-LM partnership for the subsonic New Generation Bomber. - Fnlayson ( talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Has the consensus changed here? Cause the article's been moved. - BilCat ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
...this would be an oops on my part, I didn't see this before moving it. >.< - The Bushranger ( talk) 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No problem, BR. I looked in the article,and there's no mention of Boeing in it that I could find anyway. I'll see what I can dig up this week, and we'll go from there. - BilCat ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

FB-22 Strike Raptor

I think it should be called “Lockheed Martin FB-22 Strike Raptor. 50.75.39.166 ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation

A citation of source for the remarks I added will be provided soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klauth ( talkcontribs) 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC). reply

F-117A

Isn't this also a stealth bomber replacement? (Yeah, the F-117A, so called stealth fighter, which only bombs) 70.51.10.109 08:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The 2018 interim bomber will compliment the B-2 and other current bombers. The FB-22's range is only like 1/4 of the B-2 and other current heavy bombers. The interim bomber will replace the F-117, I guess. The F-35 will cover some of that too. The F-117 has missiles as well. - Fnlayson 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The bomb part is largely right. The F-117 mainly carried laser guided bombs. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
And it's also retired now. Spartan198 ( talk) 07:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Rename article

This article should be renamed to "Lockheed Martin FB-22" to follow WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines. In other words

FB-22Lockheed Martin FB-22

Any reasonable arguments not to rename it? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the reason it hasn't been renamed that before is that Boeing is the primary proponent of the variant, and would probably be the lead contractor/manufacturer if it were to be produced. - BilCat ( talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that's a good one. I have not yet run across anything on Boeing involvement with the FB-22. Other than with the F-22, I've only seen mention of a Boeing-LM partnership for the subsonic New Generation Bomber. - Fnlayson ( talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Has the consensus changed here? Cause the article's been moved. - BilCat ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
...this would be an oops on my part, I didn't see this before moving it. >.< - The Bushranger ( talk) 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No problem, BR. I looked in the article,and there's no mention of Boeing in it that I could find anyway. I'll see what I can dig up this week, and we'll go from there. - BilCat ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

FB-22 Strike Raptor

I think it should be called “Lockheed Martin FB-22 Strike Raptor. 50.75.39.166 ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook