Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor: Difference between revisions

	Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: Aviation / North America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft B‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Template:FAOL

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

Just wanted to quote that, too. But it is already done. At least a note should be placed. --84.153.88.14 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Unsubstantiated?? All that is properly referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we got another one-edit-wonder posting on a topic that's been under dispute since July 2007 by everybody and his brother's socks. Just be careful here. - BillCJ (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

that they've said it IS factual. If what they said is true is open to debate I suppose. That they're biased in favor the aircraft is undoubtedly true, but keep in mind that *EVERYONE* is biased, including any possible source that can be used, and in fact each and every contributor to the article and any debate about it, including yourself. In your case you sound more than a little hostile and defensive right off the bat, a stance which is likely to attract all sorts of enmity from some of the very people you're trying to convince if it escalates. Keep in mind WP:MASTODONS and we can avoid the kinds of stress, strife, and most importantly punishments that come with such Bad Things as flame wars, edit wars, and personal attacks.

Keep in mind that quotes from people involving the aircraft can be and in this case are indeed relevant to the article. The key is to always, always, always keep in mind wikipedia's very strict Neutral Point of View rules. Any praise, or criticism, should be presented always in a neutral and balanced way. Simply including it does NOT make it non-neutral, unless it's included in a way that presents it as the 'correct' or 'better' point of view. In this case both quotes are qualified as being 'claims'. They are not in fact presented as facts, but as claims by the primary user and a potential user. It is very explicitly stated that they are in fact opinions and not necessarily true simply by the way they are included.

Rather than trying to get them removed(especially by confrontation! That's just bad things waiting to happen), a better response might be to find some illustrations of opposing viewpoints and include them as well, in order to improve the balance of it.

Also Rigdon, a few quick wikipedia tips. If you place a Colon(:) at the beginning of a line, it will indent that line, allowing a 'threading' structure. Each colon added does one indentation. Each level of a thread can be indicated simply by adding one more colon was on the last thread. None for the initial post, one for the reply, two for the reply to the reply, etc, making following the flow of the discussion far easier. You can also automatically sign and datestamp your posts by including four tildes(~) in a row at the end, which can be automatically inserted by clicking the 'sign your username' link just under the bold warning about not using non GFDL compatible text. These two things make attributing specific comments and understanding the discussion far easier on talk pages, and will contribute greatly to getting your point of view heard. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

The pop culture section only says "... military's support of director Michael Bay." in regards to letting him film actual aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

It was removed by another user because it stated General Zelin's opinion of the F-22 compared to the Su-35 as a fact when it's not. Some rewording should fix that. I thought the reference was incomplete. No article title was provided. I could only find that quote on Aviation Week's Area blog page and blogs are not generally considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• Flyaway costs are listed for military aircraft in the unit cost field per project policy (and is labeled as such). F-22 unit and flyaway costs have already been discussed plenty here. See Talk:F-22_Raptor/Archive3 -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you have further detail, Kızılsungur, to add about this "property" and any suitable reliable references in support, please add to F-22 cockpit. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Yea, the YF-22 had vectored thrust. The YF-23 did not. They both had the exhaust heat shielding. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

True dat. --Jaewonnie (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any claims are clearly stated as such. These type concerns have been well discussed before. Such as "Lead paragraphs" section above and older discussions in the archive pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is some Russian bird listed as comparable in the article? -134.50.14.44 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another IP editor added that without giving any reason. Comparable does not equal by the way. It means similar and more specifically per WP:Air/PC guidelines that means aircraft "of similar role, era, and capability". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Loaded weight is often the normal takeoff weight. In other words a typical weapons load and not a full fuel load. Not sure where the value listed in the specs came from. It looked reasonable before the recent empty weight change/update. Still have doubts on that... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I just checked the history and realised that the empty weight changed from ~15t to ~19t. With the old ~15t figure the "25t loaded" makes sense: ~15tplane+~8tfuel+~1tweaponary. But with the new 19t figure its all messed up. Wouldn't that mean we have to change the "loaded weight" and also the t/w ratio?--HTG2000 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Thanks, those estimated/calculated numbers look reasonable but that seems like original research. I'd say to just delete the loaded weight values from those fields if they weren't used for the thrust to weight ratio. Wait until the data is provided by a valid source. Any other ideas, anybody? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really, that's OR, we really need a proper reference, but at least you've specified how you calculated it, so we can reasonably leave it in until the official figure appears.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to weigh into this and ask, is it normal for a loaded weight to include the maximum internal fuel? I'm not trying to suggest lowering the figure but if you're going to do independent research perhaps it should be established first what the 'standard' fuel load for an F-22A is. There are ranges with different kinds of aircraft ... some light fighters have very limited internal fuel so carry a full load every time ... other heavy fighters are designed to take more internal fuel then is typically required just in case. The fact that the F-22A is a stealth aircraft might add to that. It is often equipped with external tanks BUT theres a good chance they would increase its RCS ... in other words perhaps it was designed so that in the interception role it could carry a 70-80% load of internal fuel, no tanks and still be considered 'loaded'. I suspect this is the case with the Su-27 ... although I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.140.247 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It should probably be put up for Good article nomination first, which is a lower standard. If it passes that, then on to featured article review later on. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because Starscream is a Transformers character, one that changes into an F-22 in the move, as covered in the Pop culture section. Without your above explanation, it looked as if that was what you were referring to, and that was why I warned you. ALot of aircraft have nicknames,a nd some have several, but most are not notable. On Wikipedia, "Notable" means that it has sources which show that it is notable or important. Warthog for the A-10 is definitely notable, and so universally known that no sources are really needed, tho it probably appears in every book written on or covering the A-10. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear: It looked like vandalism, that's why I warned you. Nevertheless, it's a non-productive edit, and would have been removed by someone anyway. You've already removed the warning, so that's a moot point now. So far, you've shown no reliable sources that the nickname is even used for the F-22, much less that it is notable. Futher, the only references I have seen for the name are for the Transformer, not the F-22 itself. By the way,"Lightning II" "Raptor" is the official name assigned to the F-22 by the USAF, not "nickname" per se. - BillCJ (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Bill? I'm sure you meant "Raptor". The Lightning II is the F-35... — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! Thanks BZip! I do know the difference, just accessed the wrong brain file when I typed that. Of course, "Lightning II" was Lockheed's preference for the F-22! - BillCJ (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Maybe you ought to expand and add references to that F-22 ADF article first. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Concur. Please remember that the appearance has to be important/notable to the F-22, not the other way around. The archtypical example is the F-14 and Top Gun. Mention Top GUn, and most people think of Tom Cruise "flying" an F-14. A few "might" even think of Tom Skerrit and an A-4, but not "too" many. :) - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• This article clearly states that Transformers was the first major Hollywood debut. Hulk was a brief minor appearance for the F-22. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I wouldn't call Hulk anything other than major. In fact, it has probably as much screen time as the Transformers version, or very close. Monty2 (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read all the wording again and see the Popular Culture References section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had missed that section. Still though, what constitutes major? It isn't like Starscream was a focal point of the TF movie. Maybe my memory is off, but as far as Raptor action goes I recall him shooting a missile at the ground forces in the city and having a brief skirmish with the human Raptor squadron. He takes off when injured, the F-22's pursue, and next time we see Starscream he's running away. Hardly comparable to Top Gun and the F-14. It just seems that the F-22's appearances thus far in films have been relatively brief sequences of the military running afoul of some super-character or another, a scuffle ensuing, and then the film moves on. Onikage725 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

THe entry didn't even claim that the F-22 was in the show, just that the show was flimed at the same base as the movie. Still would be a minor non-notable appearance if the F-22 were in the episode, but totally irrelevant if it were not. PS. I don't think it's a good idea to move whole threads out of order for a similar topic 3 months after the last post. FWIW. - BillCJ (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I offered the editor a chance to comment on his edit submissions and I wanted there to be a place where he would find the forum easily. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Those older sections cover different pop culture appearances. I had to refer back to an older section before, so moving them together should be of help. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its terribly notable. The F-22 appeared briefly in the final scene with the show's hero standing in front of the aircraft stopping the pilot from escaping. I certainly wouldn't stand anywhere near the intake of an aircraft with running jet engines. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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.[1] 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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

• Well first off, you completely failed to even understand the whole point of that section, let alone read all of it. Second, what the hell does our economic situation have to do with the validity of a single pilot fighter being operated as a "mini-AWACS" have to do with anything? Need I remind you that Europe is feeling the pinch too. RaptorR3d (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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[reply]

The price of gold also fluctuates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.110.169 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

• The tag was requesting a reference saying the F-22 had a notable appearance in Iron Man. This is covered in the hidden notes in the Pop culture section or read text at {{NoMoreCruft}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's in reference to the very long disclaimer in the Pop culture section asking for new additions to be discussed first. You obviously had no trouble finding the discusion after the fact. BTW, it's still a minor, non-notable appearance. - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Being a non-member myself, I not only fail to see the connection between non-members and 'kiddies', but fail to see appropriate amounts of vandalism as it is.

It's just as easy for a 12 year old with a copy of Ace Combat 6 to make a Wikipedia account as it is anyone else. Locking wont do any true good, especially seeing as this article is so close to being featured, all it would contribute to is the slowing of progress by locking out a lot of our editors (which, again, few of which are [from my observations] 'kiddies'). 99.173.63.38 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For any article without dry power thrust listed, then the thrust listed is max thrust. That's one of the most common spec provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2]Transformasian (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article already has plenty of coverage on the high costs of the F-22 program. It has just entered service in the last couple of years, so any statements about the fighter being unsuccessful are premature. That article does not really say that much anyway. Criticism/Controversy sections are just magnets for unsourced and often biased additions. No need for a dedicated section for that anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With high-performance jet aircraft, "at altitude" usually means anything above 35,000 feet or so, where the speed of sound is constant to well above 100,000 feet, aproximately 660 mph. - BillCJ (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. -E.R.UT (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can put in some numbers into Mach calculator on Nasa site to see numerically what BillCJ described. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or no? — ¾-10 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A criticism section is not needed to point out negatives. They just become magnets for biased and/or unsourced content. High costs are already well covered int he article. The corrosion issue looks to be minor. The op readiness should be mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.